Bernie Sanders files marijuana bill in Senate

The whole state of Washington(from experience) hasn't "turned into potheads" and is doing pretty well revenue wise as well in other areas. Surely the same for in other states who have went the path of legalization.

Being legal now hasn't given leeway for people to act out any differently or cause more "lazy people"- BTW a bad stereotype that went from comedy to what people fully believe. Plus that's not everyone if it happened to you, then it's how it affects you differently from others. Perhaps it's the wrong drug to use and/or has something to do with other issues in conjunction. Pretty sad to group, especially medical patients, all into that.

Since the main topic is decriminalization, very positive and it should be already given option for help out states who are interested.

I was going to join the argument over whether pot makes one less motivated... but meh...

edit to add: and instead of "meh" was going to say above: "but the tri-exyltriptomines (fake drug sounding name) have the keyboard singing too loud.. .or, alternatively, "I'm too drunk" ...

but I'll instead remind those certain people who are lagging behind that laws about morality are doomed to failure and people's actions are circumstantial and relative... and infinitely complex and blanket generalizations are never absolute and can hurt those who can be wise, or "adult" about intoxicants... and there are valuable things that can be learned by educated use of such...

and those paternalistic attitudes about how one "should BE" are the real root of evil... if it harms nobody but the person doing something, why harm them by punishing them for it?

In what frame of mind does that make ANY sense?

So there's that, too.

a reply to: Baddogma

I see what you did there....

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

LOL! To be fair, how are people supposed to know if you're a Desert patriot who's high, or a Patriot who lives in the high desert? (I live in the high desert, too).

There is a third option. They could be a high patriot who lives in the high desert. Ultimate trifecta.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Partially, but at the same time there was an anti monopoly bill on the ballot (which passed, although barely), which would have struck down that part of the marijuana law.

Really? I didn't know that... Just to be clear, are you saying that if both had passed, the monopoly wouldn't have had control of the state's marijuana? I wonder how many residents knew this...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Aazadan
Partially, but at the same time there was an anti monopoly bill on the ballot (which passed, although barely), which would have struck down that part of the marijuana law.

Really? I didn't know that... Just to be clear, are you saying that if both had passed, the monopoly wouldn't have had control of the state's marijuana? I wonder how many residents knew this...

First I heard of it as well.

Even if it is true, the voters would still be facing a bit of a dilemma.

What if they voted for legalization but the anti-monopoly bill failed?

That question had to enter their minds and more than likely, would affect their decision.

Not sure how I'd vote if those were my choices.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You and your pothead friends should learn some geography.

I'd rather not. It makes my joke more funny to me. Especially since you are talking down to me with this post like I'm lesser of a person for my hobby that you disapprove of, Mr. HighDesertPatriot.

Clearly you were in High School while I was attending class.

Funny, right?

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You and your pothead friends should learn some geography.

I'd rather not. It makes my joke more funny to me. Especially since you are talking down to me with this post like I'm lesser of a person for my hobby that you disapprove of, Mr. HighDesertPatriot.

Clearly you were in High School while I was attending class.

Funny, right?

HILARIOUS! I feel like I'm right back in high school where a bunch of kids would call me a pothead while not knowing what my real activities outside of school were.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: darkbake

He just gave the MSM a nuclear pr weapon. Bernie Sanders and his followers will be dismissed and painted as young pot smokers. Can you feel the burn will be hijacked.

Assuming he is not the chosen one by tptb.

The media has pretty much embraced marijuana legalization.

The media, doctors, but most importantly the voting Americans.

The only holdback anymore are the old stalwart politicians that think that only retired fuddy duddys vote.

This is revolutionary and politicians that dont speak from their constituents hearts are fast becoming footnotes in history books.

So I've noticed during my perusal of this lovely thread, anyone who voices support for the topic at hand or indicates being pro ganj is being labeled a retarded stoner. (Many of whom citing the medicinal benefits, not concerned with the "High")

The medicinal benefits should be reiterated over and over.......

Many respected and intelligent members providing strong valid arguments. Yet apparently ATS is getting dumb?

I think not. More like pro cannabis info is based in truth, while the anti crowd is accepting ignorance and regurgitating ooooold "retarded" propaganda.

The majority of these awesome people are still very much denying ignorance the same as I have witnessed during my entire stay here

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Aazadan
Partially, but at the same time there was an anti monopoly bill on the ballot (which passed, although barely), which would have struck down that part of the marijuana law.

Really? I didn't know that... Just to be clear, are you saying that if both had passed, the monopoly wouldn't have had control of the state's marijuana? I wonder how many residents knew this...

They were saying on AM news radio that whichever issue had the most votes would cancel out the other, if they both passed. So if the anti-monopoly issue had less votes and the pro-marijuana monopoly issue had more, the anti-monopoly issue would be overridden by the pro-marijuana monopoly issue and vice versa.

I voted yes for anti-monopoly and no for pro-marijuana monopoly. When next year comes, I'll probably vote no for pro-marijuana.

My thinking on it... I've never smoked marijuana. I don't plan to smoke marijuana. I've been around it a few times, but never felt the effects of it. I will vote against any issue to legalize marijuana (in general) because I feel it will have a negative effect on society that will far outweigh anything positive. We already have alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, we don't need to add more to the pile.

As for the positive benefits of marijuana... I'm all for controlled medical uses, like prescription based distribution. It's the recreational aspect I don't agree with.

a reply to: GoShredAK

I dont disagree, but I refuse to take an adversarial stance to opponents.

But I state two things without hesitation...

1. I am fully pro medicinal at the federal level, with full insurance support, and pro legalization for recreation, with legal liabilities attached no different than alcohol.

2. I neither smoke, eat, nor vape cannabis. I am just proactive and intelligent enough on the subject to agree this time has come and the damage this war has done is way past repairable. Time to move forward.

originally posted by: Freth
They were saying on AM news radio that whichever issue had the most votes would cancel out the other, if they both passed. So if the anti-monopoly issue had less votes and the pro marijuana monopoly issue had more, the anti-monopoly issue would be overridden by the pro-marijuana monopoly issue and vice versa.

Thanks for the info.

I've never smoked marijuana. I don't plan to smoke marijuana. I've been around it a few times, but never felt the effects of it. I will vote against any issue to legalize marijuana because I feel it will have a negative effect on society that will far outweigh anything positive. We already have alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, we don't need to add more to the pile.

It's certainly your choice in how you vote. I understand your position. Mine, however, is about freedom. I don't believe the government should have the power to impose itself (or the opinion of others) on people's PERSONAL choices. This body is MINE, not the government's. I get to say what I eat, drink, smoke or DO to this body, because it belongs to me. It doesn't belong to the government or other people who think they have the right to restrict my personal behavior.

That's just my position. I do see many people trying to control my personal behavior, though. I just don't know why.

originally posted by: Freth
My thinking on it... I've never smoked marijuana. I don't plan to smoke marijuana. I've been around it a few times, but never felt the effects of it. I will vote against any issue to legalize marijuana (in general) because I feel it will have a negative effect on society that will far outweigh anything positive. We already have alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, we don't need to add more to the pile.

Translation: I have no personal experience with it, but it should be banned because I don't like it and to HELL with what anyone else thinks on the matter. ESPECIALLY data and facts that say otherwise.

PS: I'd really like to know what these "negative effects" to society are going to be that will outweigh the positives.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
That's just my position. I do see many people trying to control my personal behavior, though. I just don't know why.

I'm all for freedom. My concern is that if it's legalized it could drag things down even further than they already are. More people on welfare, more people on assistance, more people who don't want to work. That's money out of tax payer pockets. With legalization will come random drug tests by employers. People will lose their jobs and become a burden.

For the guy who pulls his weight and does his part, if he wants to smoke pot in his spare time, more power to him; he can do that now. If he can stay afloat and be an active member of society and contribute, that's great.

I've had several friends and at least two family members who became so addicted to pot, all they could think about was when they were going to smoke their next joint. It was sad to watch. Not saying all people become addicted, but I've seen what it can do to people.

a reply to: Freth

Except in EVERY state and country that has legalized marijuana, literally NONE of what you just said there has happened. NONE of it. To pretend like it will is just dishonest.

Will never happen. Well, not never. I actually believe it's inevitable in due time. But that time has not yet come, sadly. But I still fully support the effort.

Peace.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Freth

Except in EVERY state and country that has legalized marijuana, literally NONE of what you just said there has happened. NONE of it. To pretend like it will is just dishonest.

A simple search yielded this:

The Unexpected Side Effects of Legalizing Weed

The wave of enthusiasm following the passage of Amendment 64 has given way to a drip, drip, drip of unintended consequences. Law-enforcement issues, such as marijuana-intoxicated driving and the illegal movement of vast amounts of cannabis product into other states, are the tip of the iceberg. Social and law-enforcement issues resulting from the Colorado interstate pot pipeline prompted Nebraska and Oklahoma to file lawsuits against the state, citing the fact that marijuana commerce violates federal law and increases the burdens of law enforcement in other states. Other symptoms of Colorado’s pot culture include increased use among teens, resulting in educational problems in middle schools and high schools, a spike in “edibles”-related emergency room visits, consumption by children and pets resulting in illness and death and regulatory confusion surrounding public consumption and enforcement. Colorado’s addiction to cannabis revenue may prove to be the most harmful implication of all. Towns such as De Beque, where cannabis is replacing coal and cattle as a means of income, imperil themselves by staking the future on a substance that is still illegal in most states and that half of Americans still regard as a social evil. In 2014 and 2015, nearly $6 million in pot revenues have been distributed to local governments. But the cost of increased law enforcement, drugged-driving incidents, fatal crashes, loss of productivity and a huge spike in gang-related crime bring into question the cost-benefit of those dollars. Teen drug-related school expulsions are also on the rise. And the notion that prisons filled with minor drug offenders would be relieved of overcrowding—a selling point of legalizing marijuana—has been blown to smithereens. Denver’s homeless population has exploded since Amendment 64 went into effect. And there are indications that finite tourist dollars are going more to pot and less to Colorado’s iconic natural wonders. Cannabis is an intoxicant, proven to be dangerous to adolescents who use regularly, as well as to adults who are addicted to its calming, high-producing chemical, THC. But building a tax empire on a narcotic substance may be a dangerous proposition for the Centennial State. Colorado’s Cannabis-Industrial Complex cannot sustain a complex economy traditionally built on natural resources, agriculture, innovation and family-friendly tourism. The eyes of other states eager to legalize pot should be firmly fixed on the unfolding saga of towns such as Denver, Boulder and De Beque, Colo.

a reply to: Freth

alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, we don't need to add more to the pile.

Cannabis should not be grouped with those substances. IM not so humble cause I know I'm right O, a more fitting family would be amongst various superfoods like kombucha, reishi, chaga, ect..........also psylocibin though very early to even attempt that convincing, minds may explode.

a reply to: Freth

Your response to this is a propaganda piece from Newsweek talking about an issue that Nebraska and Oklahoma created by themselves and has literally ZERO connection to marijuana actually being dangerous? Also this:

Fed study: Booze impact greater than pot on driving

Like literally EVERY "problem" that Newsweek is trying to point out here is caused either by the conflict between states' legalization status or state versus federal legalization status. Heck, some of their "problems", like the spike in gang activity, they literally made up on the spot. Nice try there buddy. Oh and about the kids smoking:
Most kids still say no to pot despite looser laws

The study, published online in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, found that marijuana use among American high school students is significantly lower today than it was 15 years ago. In 2013, 40.7 percent of high school students reported ever smoking marijuana, down from 47 percent in 1999. Because the rate had increased slightly since 2009, the researchers advise that “continued monitoring is necessary to observe how trends change over a longer period of time.”

SPH researchers Ziming Xuan, an assistant professor of community health sciences, and Emily Rothman, an associate professor of community health sciences, say the study shows that the legalization of medical marijuana, which began in 1996, has not led to a spike in use nationwide. They speculate that the lack of an increase could be the result of policy lag time, or might reflect the norms of youth culture in the places where marijuana has been legalized.