241–250 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still negatively affects your ability to drive. You shouldn’t be taking anything that negatively affects reaction time or attention and drive. I’m pro legalization but definitely not pro reckless behavior like that
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician. That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal. My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the…
I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.
This is circuit split engineering by the administration, meant to allow the Supreme Court to overrule its precedent on the Commerce Clause or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> VOCs and carcinogens are a health hazard. Asthma, kids development, allergies, and occasional migraine trigger. This is the foundational reasoning for making perfume, air fresheners, deodorant, and scented cleaning supplies illegal to possess or use.
Frankly, as an asthmatic I'd be 100% onboard with everything. There are plenty of scent free deodorants that work just fine, btw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, as an asthmatic I'd be 100% onboard with everything. There are plenty of scent free deodorants that work just fine, btw.
Fair enough. Banning VOCs and carcinogens would also make barbecues illegal, or really the Maillard reaction in general though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade. There is in fact an interstate market in many substances that are illegal to trade because laws against things do not make those things fail to exist.
No market that the federal government can recognize, tax or regulate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard , sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.
I call BS. Wickard is about, effectively, "police power" based on a broad interpretation of the scope of federal/interstate commerce. As noted by other commenters, the concept of federal control of interstate commerce was intended to prevent states from interfering with trade between themselves and other states, and to create some "higher" authority for aspects of commerce that truly transcended state borders and con…
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.
Missed in the previous discussion: methanol is irrelevant. Grain based ferments have essentially zero methanol.(And methanol risk is a function of its concentration relative to ethanol — the treatment for methanol poisoning is… ethanol!) even fruit based fermentations with significantly higher pectin concentrations only produce trace methanol, and it’s not all that well concentrated in a distillation due to azeotrope…