841–850 of 918 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next we'll have studies seeking to prove drivers who drink enough to reach the Ballmer Peak will have a mind in the utmost condition for driving.
I'm not surprised to see decades of propaganda and clichés have done their work on many of us.
In fact, I'd say the same of anyone even people on traditional drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the President exerts significant control over executive agency policy, and is elected by many more people than that.
The President is elected by the 538 electors of the electoral college. The ballot is a lie. You're actually voting for an elector, not the President. In practice, the general voters typically see the electors vote the way the populace in their area voted, but that's not always the case.
When is that not the case?
I believe it would be a violation of current electoral law for electors to fail to cast votes as apportioned by the results of their state's general election.
In my view, being detached from the outcome of the general election in a state isn't the problem with the electoral college currently (though maybe it was in the past).
Rather, the problem is that the all-or-nothing apportionment of electoral college votes within most states often creates outcomes that wildly diverge from the national popular vote. But I think the idea of splitting up the general election vote tallying by state is a good one, because I think running one giant national vote would be more of a contentious logistical nightmare than it already is.
But if it were up to me, all states would apportion their electoral votes proportionally, and each state would get a lot more votes. That is, say California is allotted 10,000 "electors" and 57.25% of their votes go to one candiate, 39.67% goes to another, and 3.08% to a third, then the electoral college votes would be 5,725, 3,967, and 308, respectively. This would reach outcomes extremely close to a national popular vote, while still using the electoral college in a way that is no less ceremonial than it is today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The President is elected by the 538 electors of the electoral college. The ballot is a lie. You're actually voting for an elector, not the President. In practice, the general voters typically see the electors vote the way the populace in their area voted, but that's not always the case.
> but that's not always the case. When is that not the case? I believe it would be a violation of current electoral law for electors to fail to cast votes as apportioned by the results of their state's general election. In my view, being detached from the outcome of the general election in a state isn't the problem with the electoral college currently (though maybe it was in the past). Rather, the problem is that the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
THEREFORE they will be able to move CASH money out of their stores TO BANKS, resulting in fewer "smash and grab" incidents ... aka, "Hyundai meet storefront of weed shop." Looking forward to this, silly to see so many Kia "boys" being used for gross violence crimes when regulation changes could lessen it. > https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/seattle-pot-shop-cr... for example
The poor San Bernardino Sheriff's department is going to need a new funding source, too. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-28/marijuan...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The President is elected by the 538 electors of the electoral college. The ballot is a lie. You're actually voting for an elector, not the President. In practice, the general voters typically see the electors vote the way the populace in their area voted, but that's not always the case.
> but that's not always the case. When is that not the case? I believe it would be a violation of current electoral law for electors to fail to cast votes as apportioned by the results of their state's general election. In my view, being detached from the outcome of the general election in a state isn't the problem with the electoral college currently (though maybe it was in the past). Rather, the problem is that the…
Also, Maine and Nebraska don't always give all the electoral votes to the same candidate. I'm not sure the process in those states, though.
I don't really have much of an opinion on how the election could be better, but there are some interesting ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what he's describing. In this case there actually is no cash or traditional ATM involved on-site. It's connected to the dispensary POS, not a physical ATM. (They often have a regular ATM like you describe also, though.) So you do an ATM transaction, but the money goes to the dispensary somehow. I do not know how it works on the back end, but I've used it as a customer. It's lovely and can even be done over…
Isn't that how a traditional ATM transaction works? You use the ATM and the money goes to the ATM owner (plus a fee). The only difference here is you get weed instead of cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Often enough, it isn’t an actual ATM. You pay at the counter like you usually would using a card or an NFC payment method (e.g., Apple Pay), but the payment reader processes it as an ATM withdrawal transaction (hence an extra transaction fee of a few dollars). There is no physical cash involved at any point in this (at least not on the dispensary premises).
Maybe this is a state by state thing? I have never observed this in WA.
Weed being illegal on a federal level has had some interesting effects. Because of these laws, all legal weed has to be grown, processed, and retailed within a single state. So much industry and local employment has been created by the legal barriers in place. It’s probably still a net positive to release the federal restriction, but I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or ot…
this is the main cinsern for me
Great news. A very sound move. Indeed, marijuana is much less dangerous of a drug yet considerably harmful in cases of chronic use in unreasonably high doses therefore should be controlled some way. What seems problematic nowadays is teenagers smoking too much. Also the idea of stoned people driving cars sounds scary. To me it seems it should be as available and legal as alcohol and cigarettes are, no less, no more.…
There are so many different points of view on that topic... I think that debate will go on and on
Great news. A very sound move. Indeed, marijuana is much less dangerous of a drug yet considerably harmful in cases of chronic use in unreasonably high doses therefore should be controlled some way. What seems problematic nowadays is teenagers smoking too much. Also the idea of stoned people driving cars sounds scary. To me it seems it should be as available and legal as alcohol and cigarettes are, no less, no more.…
"Also the idea of stoned people driving cars sounds scary. " Depends how stoned, but people routinely drive while using medication that affects them far more than being a bit stoned.