201–210 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somebody has to bring a new case that presents a novel legal theory/presentation that isn't clearly addressed by the ruling that forms the precedent.
Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.
Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)
I think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... ) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It got through via a ballot initiative. It wouldn't have been passed by the legislators in UT without that. That's why the guy in my state, C. Scott Grow, has also been fighting to make ballot initiatives harder. He's terrified that an MJ initiative would make it's way in that way.
> C. Scott Grow Reverse nominal determinism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somebody has to bring a new case that presents a novel legal theory/presentation that isn't clearly addressed by the ruling that forms the precedent.
Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Methanol poisoning stories in the news almost exclusively result from people trying to sell denatured or industrial alcohol Pretty sure this was a relic of prohibition right? The feds would contaminate ethanol with methanol to keep people from drinking it, but then they hurt a bunch of people and never faced any consequences...
> Pretty sure this was a relic of prohibition right? The feds would contaminate ethanol with methanol to keep people from drinking it We still do this now. We don't do it because alcohol is illegal, we do it because we levy higher taxes on non-poisonous alcohol, and if someone decides to drink the poisoned alcohol, they deserve what they get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re probably right, though I dread the possibility. I cannot stand the smell, and one of the best things about moving from California to Texas was avoiding that pervasive smell being everywhere. Negative externalities of personal behavior really need to be handled better in our society. If you want pot to be legal, fine, but only inside your own personal enclosed house.
Some people say the same about the smell or noise of babies. It's not a very strong argument for getting ones way in controlling others.
weed -> possibly negative effect on civilization ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2424288/) , certainly not a requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you ok with ciggarete smoke then if you are ok with marijuana smoke?
[flagged]
> Yep. Why wouldn't I be? I'm not a brainwashed Karen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
VOCs and carcinogens are a health hazard. Asthma, kids development, allergies, and occasional migraine trigger. It’s not random we call it ‘dank’ or ‘skunk’ and if it’s good it should piss off your neighbours. It’s 2026. Dry flower vapes get you higher, with less product, and sparing the lungs. They have a smell more in line with popcorn than a cigarette. They come in everything from one-hitter to portable-volcano. F…
This may be subjective as I have tried just about every dry vape out there and each time the high is underwhelming. For me, the traditional bong hit is king.