Jump to content
carl_g

March 25 - NJ finally up in smoke?

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Handyman said:

I'm hoping it stays cool, because I have forced hot air and I'm going to pack reefer around the burner to celebrate. It's gonna be like I was back touring with the Dead.

 

Image result for pot smoke gif

Did you really tour with the Dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 8:34 PM, Handyman said:

I'm hoping it stays cool, because I have forced hot air and I'm going to pack reefer around the burner to celebrate. It's gonna be like I was back touring with the Dead.

i have forced hot air with a humidifier. hmm......
pool resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 1:03 PM, falcone said:

Get ready for your car insurance premiums to go up, more accidents on the road, and sadly more DUI deaths. 

Studies were done covering other states. 

3% rise in collisions, no change in fatalities. 

So basically, no the sky isn't falling if they legalize it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raz-0 said:

Studies were done covering other states. 

3% rise in collisions, no change in fatalities. 

So basically, no the sky isn't falling if they legalize it. 

Hey would you mind giving the citation(s), if you still have that? What I've been reading is that it hasn't really been accurately tracked, so I'm curious to see what you're referring to... but if you can' find it, no biggie. 

Of course, our roads are more congested than any other state in the country... so I'm not sure how stats from Colorado, for instance, would be terribly applicable anyway. I tend to think it's quite likely there WILL be some impact from this on traffic accidents and fatalities. Most of these other states that legalized it apparently saw no downturn in illegal sales, sooo… maybe I'm interpreting that wrong, but if illegal sales were ongoing, and legal sales were added in, that sounds like NEW users, right...? Logically, what follows from that is more high people in general means more high people driving under the influence, thus more collisions, more injuries, more deaths. I guess the question is - how many? If that 3 percent is accurate, is that acceptable? Would 5 percent be acceptable? For many people, I guess that depends on who exactly lands in the hospital bed or the morgue. Still acceptable if it's your spouse? Your parent? Your kid? I guess we'll see! After all, we seem to be the guinea pigs in this great social experiment. :facepalm:

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, carl_g said:

According to nj.com this may happen today or it may not LOL.. Looks like Assembly has the votes to pass it but the Senate was 3 votes shy as of the report.

Ha. The vote was called off. They didn't have the votes that they needed to pass it in the senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, raz-0 said:

Studies were done covering other states. 

3% rise in collisions, no change in fatalities. 

So basically, no the sky isn't falling if they legalize it. 

But they’ll still have us unarmed and high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Hey would you mind giving the citation(s), if you still have that? What I've been reading is that it hasn't really been accurately tracked, so I'm curious to see what you're referring to... but if you can' find it, no biggie. 

Of course, our roads are more congested than any other state in the country... so I'm not sure how stats from Colorado, for instance, would be terribly applicable anyway. I tend to think it's quite likely there WILL be some impact from this on traffic accidents and fatalities. Most of these other states that legalized it apparently saw no downturn in illegal sales, sooo… maybe I'm interpreting that wrong, but if illegal sales were ongoing, and legal sales were added in, that sounds like NEW users, right...? Logically, what follows from that is more high people in general means more high people driving under the influence, thus more collisions, more injuries, more deaths. I guess the question is - how many? If that 3 percent is accurate, is that acceptable? Would 5 percent be acceptable? For many people, I guess that depends on who exactly lands in the hospital bed or the morgue. Still acceptable if it's your spouse? Your parent? Your kid? I guess we'll see! After all, we seem to be the guinea pigs in this great social experiment. :facepalm:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/what-marijuana-legalization-did-to-car-accident-rates/?noredirect=on

Contains links out to the iihs and ajph articles. Iihs says the weed is evil because we pay for bumpers and the cost of them has gone up so much they created a special new collision rating based solely on the cost to replace front bumper and headlights. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BobA said:

Sweeney said no. 

Fact he said NO MORE gun laws... We have more important issues to deal with .

 

@Mrs. Peel

“The reality is it [legalization] will devastate the African American community.”

 

Why?

 

I heard that NJ did not pass legalized weed, It was killed yesterday.... is that true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remixer said:

“The reality is it [legalization] will devastate the African American community.”

Why?

That quote was from a black man representing a religious organization, but I think he was right. Think about it... 60 municipalities already voted "not in our neighborhood" - the 'burbs don't want it. So if this ever does pass, a disproportionate # of shops will be located in poor urban neighborhoods that ALREADY struggle with higher than average substance abuse rates (for all kinds of understandable reasons). This would certainly not HELP those communities IMO. The more I research this topic, the more I hope it doesn't pass, quite frankly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

That quote was from a black man representing a religious organization, but I think he was right. Think about it... 60 municipalities already voted "not in our neighborhood" - the 'burbs don't want it. So if this ever does pass, a disproportionate # of shops will be located in poor urban neighborhoods that ALREADY struggle with higher than average substance abuse rates (for all kinds of understandable reasons). This would certainly not HELP those communities IMO. The more I research this topic, the more I hope it doesn't pass, quite frankly

I agree with that statement...  I certainly do not want a dispensary in my area.

Pro Pot people can tell me all they want its not a bad.. Does not lead to other drugs and is from the earth and cures all..  

Ill call bullshit without getting into a debate about it...

Reminds me of this.

All part of the liberal plans to control populations.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jersey-Legal recreational weed is officially dead here in the Garbage State, it was announced yesterday.

Sweeney will put it to a voter referendum on the Nov 2020 ballot, when he expects more younger voters to turn out for the Presidential election, rather than put the measure on the Nov 2018 ballot, where Assembly elections head the races and he expects a lighter turnout, with more older voters than young ones.

In the meantime, Gov Gopher is allowing the unelected beaurocracy to expand the Medical marijuana program already in effect, raising the monthly buy limit to 3 oz instead of 2 and only requiring "legal" users to see their doctors once per year instead of every 90 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 2:36 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

That quote was from a black man representing a religious organization, but I think he was right. Think about it... 60 municipalities already voted "not in our neighborhood" - the 'burbs don't want it. So if this ever does pass, a disproportionate # of shops will be located in poor urban neighborhoods that ALREADY struggle with higher than average substance abuse rates (for all kinds of understandable reasons). This would certainly not HELP those communities IMO. The more I research this topic, the more I hope it doesn't pass, quite frankly

 

Due to my siblings, I grew up around white suburban drug culture.  Working in construction and home improvement while in college, I got to see even more of it. 

For a while due to school I lived in a not so hot area with a large minority population. I also got to experience their drug culture. 

I could care less about drugs, but they are everywhere and I've seen them  bought, sold, traded, and used. I'm sure I'm not alone with that. 

So first up, how suburbia and urban areas are exactly the same regardless of race, income, etc. The consumer ALWAYS wins. Someone always shows up to sell them the things they want. This is why prohibition ALWAYS turns into a shitshow of failure. 

The primary differences are at either end of the supply chain. 

In white suburbia vs. urban or semi-urban minority areas, the bulk of the supply chain is removed from organized crime. It is what I would call sole proprietor small business and enthusiast hobbyists. in the urban-semi urban areas, while you do have people that fit that description, the organized crime org chart reaches down to retail sales interactively. This means the distance between you the consumer and big violent disagreements about distribution access is very small. Legalization that provides distribution methods that aren't that close to organized crime can do nothing but reduce end user violence for this population. 

At the other end of (i.e. the consumption end), there is a huge obvious delta that is readily apparent. In suburbia, or frankly any area with more money, drug consumption is primarily indoors and private. The poorer the neighborhood, the more likely it is to see public consumption. Riding the bus through Irvington, you would see drugs being consumed EVERYWHERE. The front porch was popular for weed and booze, even underage.  But public restrooms, the bus, sitting on the curb randomly it was everywhere in the public space. IN suburbia everyplace I saw consumption needed a warrant for the police to access unless you created exigent circumstances. Keep the stink down and keep it relatively quiet and you weren't getting a supply.  Also in suburbia I was never actively solicited for the sale of drugs. In urban environments I was. This, IMO, is why you see a lot more poor minority arrests. They are making it easy to bust them. 

Anything that reduces the ability for the police to say "saw them smoking what appeared to be a joint and smelled marijuana smoke" as probable cause will likely be an improvement for that population as it would mean less arrests and less jail time, especially for low end drug charges where your ability ot afford a decent lawyer makes a HUGE difference. The line will be sorted out when the rich kids go slumming to the urban shops and get busted. If it moves that line to make it harder for police, less poor minorities will wind up in jail.  If the business provide a social location outside the home, perhaps that will move use off the stoop and behind closed doors. That will help them too. 

The fact some dude thinks the average urban youth is choosing between Jesus and Drugs when they wake up each day is not relevant. Education and a job might help, but Jesus doesn't come with free education and a job. The drug trade has provided more jobs in that community than going to church has. 

If you eliminated every cop who smoked weed, drank to the point of breaking the law (DUI etc), or did roids (also an illegal drug as procured by a heck of a lot of cops), you would cut a huge swath through the current population of cops. 

Your teachers? THey definitely smoke weed. They drink like no tomorrow, smoke a lot of weed, and there's a lot more coke, ketamine, heroine, etc being consumed than you would like to imagine. If they get drug tested at all, it's pre-hire screening. 

Your investment banker and their bosses.. holy fuck the stuff going on there. they usually have designated hitters on staff to procure their drug of choice. If you are lucky, they are not using company funds to buy it. skewed towards weed, coke, stimulants, and ritalin last I was anywhere near this type of shit. 

Doctors? riiiiight. They get so much sleep and have so little stress. None of them are self medicating at all..... not a one. 

The list goes on and on. You deal with functioning drug consumers every day.  Very often they aren't even the blindingly incompetent ones. 

It's time to stop pissing away money pretending shit works differently than it does. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...