Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Besides presidential voting in November...Follow

#1 Oct 31 2012 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,975 posts
What else is on your ballot that you'll be voting on? Here in Florida we have 12 amendments to the state constitution on the ballot (well, technically 11, as amendment 7 was changed in wording and became amendment 8). Found a pretty good site which talks about the buzz words, gives the text, discusses the history of the topic, and presents the arguments given by both the pro and anti sides. http://collinscenter.org/2012flamendments/home-2/

Main ones that stick in my mind:

-Amendment 1 is pretty much "Say no to the healthcare mandate" amendment. Pretty worthless, as the Supreme Court already ruled the mandate is constitutional at a federal level, so this would likely just lead to a long slog through the Supreme Court again, where the eventual verdict is "We already ruled on this, tough luck." Voting no on that one.

-Amendment 5 gives the legislature more influence on the judicial process, especially the selection of state supreme court justices. I like my powers separated. That said, it sucks that the governor has the power of appointing justices right now, as I don't like the governor of FL's policies. Still, I'd stick with the current situation, so I'm against it.

-Amendment 6 is one of those controversial ones. There were a bunch of signs on the way into work today saying things like "Keep the government out of my ******!" and "Say NO to amendment 6: support a woman's right to privacy!" Supporters of the amendment are arguing it's to keep tax-payer funding away from providing abortions... but that's already the case. What the supporters are NOT saying is that this strips out a provision that allows a woman's right to an abortion to fall under their right to privacy. This means that a woman would no longer be able to argue she has a constitutional right to privacy if, say, an ultrasound bill came around; or that a woman with a legal guardian doesn't have the right to privacy in not informing the guardian of her abortion. Gets a big **** NO from me.

-Amendment 8 is another controversial one. It removes the language that prevents religious institutions from receiving tax payer money. The main topic is about providing tax-payer funds to religious schools; voucher programs could now be used to send students to religious institutions instead of public or secular private ones, which in turn funnels funding away from public schools. The issue is that the constitution does give aid to organizations that promote secular activities, but not to those who promote religious ones. For example, Catholic Charities current receives aid besides the "no aid" provision, because they don't promote Catholicism through their work; they just happen to be Catholic. If removed, funding could go to organizations and schools who proselytize rather than just support. Again, another **** NO from me.


The others are more mixed; generally support housing tax breaks for disabled veterans, their spouses, and the elderly. What do you guys have coming up in your states?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#2 Oct 31 2012 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We just have one state proposition on the ballot:
Quote:
Upon approval by the voters, the proposed amendment, which takes effect on January 9, 2013, adds a new section to the General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. The new section would require a three-fifths majority vote of each chamber of the General Assembly or the governing body of a unit of local government, school district, or pension or retirement system, in order to increase a benefit under any public pension or retirement system.

I plan to vote against it because I feel it's a simple legislative matter that should be handled by a simple majority like any other budgetary matter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Oct 31 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,920 posts
There are only 2 questions for NJ.

One's to release $750 million to higher education organizations for new research facilities, with 700 of it going to public ones. I'm irritated that this isn't an initiative to lower tuition, but I care enough that I'm still voting yes.

Question 2 is a constitutional amendment to make NJ judges pay for their pensions and benefits. I'm voting no, because while I agree in theory that they should, I DO NOT like how they're amending the constitution. Right now, it's against the NJ constitution forbids lowering the wages of judges during their terms. If the question wasn't an amendment, but was a vote on judges' salaries beginning with the next term, I'd say yes. But I'm not willing to strip that protection and weaken the judiciary in the future. I think it's a decently important check on our government, atm.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#4 Oct 31 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,900 posts
There were about a dozen or so of them on my ballot, some local, some state wide, etc etc. I honestly don't even remember them all, thank goodness for the voters pamphlet and trusty google. In no particular order:

There were two that dealt with legalizing privately owned casinos, which I voted against. I'm fine with the Indian ones here, and don't really want Portland to be the next Las Vegas. I voted for our local library levee. With the two little ones we frequent the library, and the extra cost wasn't terrible. Legalized Marijuana got voted against. I'm not opposed to it in theory, but have reservations about what happens when the states around us have it illegal, and we don't. Seems like a magnet for problems, IMO.

Finally the big one, amending the constitution to update some of the 150 year old language in it. Things like having masculine title for female representatives and the like. Not a lot of money being sunk into that campaign... Smiley: rolleyes

The others I probably couldn't tell you. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5 Oct 31 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
In Mass we get:

1- Right to Repair: It gives independent shops access to the same info as the dealers so people can get their cars fixed anywhere. Or a power grab by parts manufacturers if you oppose it. I'll vote yes.

2- Doctor Assisted Suicide. Plan to vote yes.

3- Medical Marijuana. Can I get a "****, yes?"
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#6 Oct 31 2012 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Question 1 reads "Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-*** couples?" Maine legalized SSM back a few years ago, but the ruling was appealed by a peoples petition.

We have 4 bond questions - money for public water/sewers, roads, university systems, technology.

We have a US Senate race - Angus King (I) will win. The RNC quit dumping money into anti-King adds a couple weeks ago as they realized it was being wasted.

We have a democratic incumbent running in our congressional district. I don't think his seat is threatened at all.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#7 Oct 31 2012 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,470 posts
Georgia has two.

1: Should the state be allowed to set up charter schools even if the local school boards say they don't want them? Anyone in the education industry says @#%^ no, but it has strong backing from the religious right. Opponents are framing this as an attack on the rights of local communities to self-govern, because the state appointed committee also has the right to outsource these newly created charter schools to private companies and siphon that money away from the local school boards against their wishes. Proponents are framing it as forcing reluctant communities to offer more choices.

2: Should the state be allowed to enter multi-year rental contracts? Currently any real estate transaction pursued by the state is required to have leases renewed on a yearly basis. The state wants the right to enter 100 year rental contracts with sweetheart deals, while local communities want the state to re-negotiate on a regular basis to reflect current property values. This one is not as widely despised by informed citizens as #1, but I voted no on it anyway because it came from the same committee as the first one did, and the driving force behind it is grabbing cheap real estate for those state-created charter schools.

Edit: Also, we are represented by Paul Broun, and there is a write-in campaign for Charles Darwin as a tongue-in-cheek protest against his comments regarding evolution and biology.

Edited, Oct 31st 2012 6:11pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#8 Oct 31 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wouldn't voting for his actual opponent make for a better protest?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Oct 31 2012 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,064 posts
In addition to the state initiative Joph mentioned above, us City of Chicago residents also have the chance to approve city-wide electricity aggregation, which would allow the city to go directly to the open market to select the lowest-cost electricity provider. The local utility will still own transmission, delivery and billing (and make their state-approved vig), but the supply of electricity would go to the lowest bidder, lowering rates marginally for all customers who don't opt out.

I plan to vote in favor since it would result in lower rates for me, with almost no impact on the revenue of the utility (which is a subsidiary of the company that I work for).
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#10 Oct 31 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Wouldn't voting for his actual opponent make for a better protest?
I think there is no opponent from Democratic side at all if the few bits and pieces I've heard of it are correct/I remember right.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#11 Oct 31 2012 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,470 posts
Correct. He is running unopposed.

I also wrote in Marie Curie instead of Regina Quick.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#12 Oct 31 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
For once, there was absolutely nothing else on my ballot. I think that even the elections where I've voted for a clerk or school district rep, there has always been some question for additional school funding or some other question. 2008 had us voting for whether a corporation was a person. Madison, WI can get to San Fran/Portland levels of liberal crazy at times (and this is from a guy that leans pretty GD far to the left).
#13 Oct 31 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,582 posts
In Texas we elect judges, so that makes up over half the ballot. The only proposition was for my city to change from a council-manager government to a direct election of a mayor, with all powers remaining the same. I voted against.
#14 Oct 31 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,981 posts
Michigan has 6 proposals.

Prop 1 has to do with the Governor being able to setup Emergency Managers to replace local governments of bankrupt and failing cities.

Prop 2 has to do with Collective Bargaining rights of public employees.

Prop 3 has to do with putting in a 25% renewable energy mandate into the State Constitution by 2025.

Prop 4 has to do with establishing a home healthcare committee, licensing, etc. And collective bargaining.

Prop 5 has to do with requiring a 2/3 majority vote for any tax increases or modifications from legislation.

Prop 6 has to do with requiring a vote on using funds to build international bridges or tunnels.

I'm ok with Prop 1.
I'm ok with Prop 2.
I'm ok with Prop 3.
I'm ok with Prop 4
I'm not ok with Prop 5.
I'm not ok with Prop 6.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#15 Oct 31 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,920 posts
Quote:
Prop 5 has to do with requiring a 2/3 majority vote for any tax increases or modifications from legislation.

Prop 6 has to do with requiring a vote on using funds to build international bridges or tunnels.


How do you do tax legislation now?

And why the **** would there be a problem with international tunnels?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#16 Oct 31 2012 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,981 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Prop 5 has to do with requiring a 2/3 majority vote for any tax increases or modifications from legislation.

Prop 6 has to do with requiring a vote on using funds to build international bridges or tunnels.


How do you do tax legislation now?


Pretty sure it just has to pass with a majority vote in the house/senate, not 2/3rds. The proposal is the Tea Party thing to make increases in taxes harder.

Quote:

And why the **** would there be a problem with international tunnels?


The governor wants to build another bridge to Canada. Group of people see it as needless spending. Owners of existing bridge/tunnel don't want the competition. Together they bring this forward to make it harder to use funds to build international bridge/tunnel projects.

Edited, Oct 31st 2012 9:22pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#17 Oct 31 2012 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,436 posts
And why the **** would there be a problem with international tunnels?

Pretty interesting story actually. The primary bridge between Detroit and Canadia is apparently privately owned by some dude. It's worth reading about.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Oct 31 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,920 posts
Right, needless legislation to make future endeavors more difficult. You know, instead of just challenging this bridge itself. Smiley: lol

People.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#19Almalieque, Posted: Oct 31 2012 at 8:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That explains everything....
#20 Oct 31 2012 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
catwho wrote:
Georgia has two.

1: Should the state be allowed to set up charter schools even if the local school boards say they don't want them? Anyone in the education industry says @#%^ no, but it has strong backing from the religious right. Opponents are framing this as an attack on the rights of local communities to self-govern, because the state appointed committee also has the right to outsource these newly created charter schools to private companies and siphon that money away from the local school boards against their wishes. Proponents are framing it as forcing reluctant communities to offer more choices.

2: Should the state be allowed to enter multi-year rental contracts? Currently any real estate transaction pursued by the state is required to have leases renewed on a yearly basis. The state wants the right to enter 100 year rental contracts with sweetheart deals, while local communities want the state to re-negotiate on a regular basis to reflect current property values. This one is not as widely despised by informed citizens as #1, but I voted no on it anyway because it came from the same committee as the first one did, and the driving force behind it is grabbing cheap real estate for those state-created charter schools.

Edit: Also, we are represented by Paul Broun, and there is a write-in campaign for Charles Darwin as a tongue-in-cheek protest against his comments regarding evolution and biology.

Edited, Oct 31st 2012 6:11pm by catwho
You'd think they could of come up with a number somewhat less than 100 but still more than 1 for years to hold a contract.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#21 Oct 31 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
Elinda wrote:
You'd think they could of come up with a number somewhat less than 100 but still more than 1 for years to hold a contract.

Chicago leased one of its tollways to a Spanish/Australian firm for $2 billion for 99 years. And its parking meters to another private partnership for $1 billion for 75 years. 75 and 99 are between 1 and 100. And it's working out great, trust me!

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#22 Oct 31 2012 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
****
6,755 posts
The only local issue I'm aware of is we're voting yet again for making pot shops legal. We just made them illegal last year, which I'm convinced it was due to the questionable wording of the proposal. Regardless, this one is a little better organized than the first one that passed. It's to make these shops legal and regulate them similar to the way liquor stores are regulated... which is what I was saying all along. But I guess it remains to be seen as to whether it passes or not.

I haven't voted yet, I had signed up for a mail in ballot when I bought the new place and moved, but I haven't gotten it. I guess if I don't get it by election day I'll just have to muscle my way through the crowd with the rest of the heathens.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#23 Oct 31 2012 at 11:05 PM Rating: Excellent
TirithRR wrote:
The governor wants to build another bridge to Canada. Group of people see it as needless spending. Owners of existing bridge/tunnel don't want the competition. Together they bring this forward to make it harder to use funds to build international bridge/tunnel projects.
Actually Canada has already agreed to cover the full cost and any overages that might happen. there is literally zero cost to the state. From what I understand, it's pretty much all the owners of the current bridge.

My knowledge of this is passing, as I'm not from the area.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 12:06am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#24 Nov 01 2012 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
That explains everything....


You're really surprised a social liberal is ok with legalized medical marijuana. Really?

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#25 Nov 01 2012 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
Sir Xsarus wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
The governor wants to build another bridge to Canada. Group of people see it as needless spending. Owners of existing bridge/tunnel don't want the competition. Together they bring this forward to make it harder to use funds to build international bridge/tunnel projects.
Actually Canada has already agreed to cover the full cost and any overages that might happen. there is literally zero cost to the state. From what I understand, it's pretty much all the owners of the current bridge.

My knowledge of this is passing, as I'm not from the area.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 12:06am by Xsarus


Pretty much true, the owners of the current bridge are lobbying hard to keep the monopoly.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#26 Nov 01 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
That explains everything....


You're really surprised a social liberal is ok with legalized medical marijuana. Really?


Seems backwards.

A social liberal should be pushing for greater regulation of a substance that can cause degradation of perceived healthy societal norms where as the conservative republican would be pushing for less government oversight of this naturally grown consumer product.




Edited, Nov 1st 2012 4:05pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#27 Nov 01 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
The governor wants to build another bridge to Canada. Group of people see it as needless spending. Owners of existing bridge/tunnel don't want the competition. Together they bring this forward to make it harder to use funds to build international bridge/tunnel projects.
Actually Canada has already agreed to cover the full cost and any overages that might happen. there is literally zero cost to the state. From what I understand, it's pretty much all the owners of the current bridge.

My knowledge of this is passing, as I'm not from the area.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 12:06am by Xsarus


Pretty much true, the owners of the current bridge are lobbying hard to keep the monopoly.
Seems like a bit of a ****-eyed situation. I understand the bridge owner paid lots of money for his unique border-crossing but I don't see where he bought the right to maintain that sole provider status. If I were a Michiganite I think I'd be voting against this.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#28 Nov 01 2012 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
Seems backwards.

A social liberal should be pushing for greater regulation of a substance that can cause degradation of perceived healthy societal norms where as the conservative republican would be pushing for less government oversight of this naturally grown consumer product.


I think most social liberals feel that pot causes a negligible amount of degradation in society, what're you smoking?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#29 Nov 01 2012 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,470 posts
I think that the effects of pot by itself causes positive good for society. Every pot smoker I've known has been laid back, interesting, and surprisingly productive in their own ways. They abhor violence, get along famously with everyone they meet, and don't waste energy on pointless stuff. (There have been a few slack-asses I've met too, but there will always be slackers.)

Now, the illegality of the drug at present causes damage to society, and the negatives greatly outweigh the positives at this point. Were it to be legalized, the positive column would dwarf the negatives.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#30 Nov 01 2012 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,975 posts
catwho wrote:
Every pot smoker I've known has been laid back, interesting, and surprisingly productive in their own ways. They abhor violence, get along famously with everyone they meet, and don't waste energy on pointless stuff. (There have been a few slack-asses I've met too, but there will always be slackers.).

My experience has been pretty much the opposite, but I'm talking about pot heads, not the occasional smoker. Yes, they've been pretty laid back, but the only thing they seem interested in is smoking pot, talking about pot, growing pot, and finding new ways to get high off THC. They're VERY productive when it comes to these activities (I've seen people make bongs out of materials that would stump MacGyver, wax poetic about the best ways to grow different strains, and inject or bake pot into all sorts of food), but absolutely nothing else. Most of them don't really care about violence one way or the other (although they are way too relaxed to get violent), they only tend to get along with other pot heads, and they don't have the energy to waste on anything else that's not related to pot.

As said, that's just people I would describe as pot heads; those who smoke several joints a day. And I only know a few. People who smoke every once in a while? They seem perfectly normal to me.

I still don't think it should be illegal, but I haven't had anything remotely near the experiences you've described. I put it as no worse than any other "vice" and less dangerous than many others. Not my thing, but I doubt legalizing it would hurt anyone.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 12:38pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#31 Nov 01 2012 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,019 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not my thing, but I doubt legalizing it would hurt anyone.
I figure, much like alcohol and smoking, it'll lose most of it's allure once it's legal.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Nov 01 2012 at 10:56 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Seems backwards.

A social liberal should be pushing for greater regulation of a substance that can cause degradation of perceived healthy societal norms where as the conservative republican would be pushing for less government oversight of this naturally grown consumer product.


I think most social liberals feel that pot causes a negligible amount of degradation in society, what're you smoking?
I think that is not a liberal thought but a pot-smokers thought.

I've no opinion about how good or bad it is to an individual a community or society at large. However, it's illegal. It's illegal because popular opinion way back when dictated it as such. In fact I think it was a democratic administration, under Roosevelt that made it a federal law to use or possess marijuana.

I suspect the reason that is a libs are pro-legalization is that the bulk of the baby-booming flower children of the 60/70's were or still are users.





____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#33 Nov 01 2012 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
catwho wrote:
I think that the effects of pot by itself causes positive good for society.
Smiley: lolSee now this makes it only one step shy of a liberal issue. When we get to where we're proposing mandating the use of pot for the good of society, it'll be liberal.

edit - or maybe that would fall under socialized medicine.


Edited, Nov 1st 2012 7:17pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#34 Nov 01 2012 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Or because we've wasted a mountain of dollars and incarcerated countless people simply for possession, while making no real progress when it comes to actually stifling distribution. Legalize it and regulate it like any other business and suddenly the harmful criminal component begins to dry up.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#35 Nov 01 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Or because we've wasted a mountain of dollars and incarcerated countless people simply for possession, while making no real progress when it comes to actually stifling distribution. Legalize it and regulate it like any other business and suddenly the harmful criminal component begins to dry up.

I'm ok with that.

I might try and grow it. My indoor/outdoor herb garden is doing quite well.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#36 Nov 01 2012 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,920 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Or because we've wasted a mountain of dollars and incarcerated countless people simply for possession, while making no real progress when it comes to actually stifling distribution. Legalize it and regulate it like any other business and suddenly the harmful criminal component begins to dry up.

This.

I don't think smoking has any hugely significant effect on the health of a society. I'd guess it's a minor degradation, but nowhere near what alcohol and cigarettes cause.

The prohibition of pot has doubtlessly ruined MANY more lives than its legalization ever would have. In my experience, the types of people who are going to end up potheads generally end up pot heads. I don't think fear of the law is actually stopping anyone who wants to try it from trying it.

All we've really done is increase the chances that this'll actually ruin their lives.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#37 Nov 01 2012 at 11:58 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Or because we've wasted a mountain of dollars and incarcerated countless people simply for possession, while making no real progress when it comes to actually stifling distribution. Legalize it and regulate it like any other business and suddenly the harmful criminal component begins to dry up.

This.

I don't think smoking has any hugely significant effect on the health of a society. I'd guess it's a minor degradation, but nowhere near what alcohol and cigarettes cause.

The prohibition of pot has doubtlessly ruined MANY more lives than its legalization ever would have.
I'm not sure I agree with this. It's illegal. If someone is willing to try pot regardless, they're just as likely to try other things that are illegal.

I'm not sure I could be convinced that a pot heads life was ruined not because he/she smoked pot but because he/she was arrested for smoking pot.

Any individual can refrain from smoking pot. You choose to smoke pot and you're choosing to break the law.

My kid got arrested for dope. It was a misdemeanor, and he was a minor so it 'won't likely have any serious repercussions. However I think the whole episode reminded him that grown-ups have to take responsibility for their actions. Not a bad lesson all-in-all. Currently his anti-dope girlfriend is having much more success keeping him alert and dope-free than me or his father ever managed.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#38 Nov 01 2012 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,920 posts
Quote:
It's illegal. If someone is willing to try pot regardless, they're just as likely to try other things that are illegal.


So everyone who speeds on the highway is just as likely to try pot, to rob a store, to commit murder?

Every person who pirates a song is going to try meth?

You're vastly oversimplifying.

The reality is that "it's illegal" is rarely a serious motivator against doing something. The repercussions are. In the case of hard drugs, the repercussions you care about are very rarely the legal ones, they're the health risks. In the case of robbing a bank, it's the fear of life in prison. Fact of the matter is that the chance of getting caught smoking is so small that it won't stop you from trying it. And as you get used to the risk, you stop thinking about it.

Even worse, as something becomes socially acceptable, you're more likely to disregard the law. Sure, if you look at the culture at large, the party line will be that it's socially unacceptable. Reality is that most things aren't so stigmatized as you move down into smaller communities. I doubt there's a high school today where pot carries any serious social stigma. Sure, being a "pot head" might, but a casual user? Nope.

I've never once had someone tell me they refused to try pot because it was illegal. I've actually never tried it, because I'm just not interested. Everyone I know who hasn't tried it hasn't tried it because they weren't interested. Most of them drank while underage. Plenty of them pirate music or videos. I'm sure all the guys, at the very least, watched **** before they were 18. At least 90% probably commit several different violations every time they drive.

Reality is that the pirating is way more likely to totally f*** up their lives than pot is. But that's not stopping anyone.

Which is why, at the end of the day, anyone curious about getting high is going to try it, anyone who isn't won't (sans peer pressure), won't. The law has literally nothing to do with it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Nov 01 2012 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts

Jailing people for marijuana use disproportionately targets and harms minorities and the poor. If you want families to not get stuck in an endless cycle of poverty, it's probably a good idea not to put their father in jail for petty drug use. That's why it's a liberal issue.


Edited, Nov 1st 2012 1:24pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#40 Nov 01 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Or because we've wasted a mountain of dollars and incarcerated countless people simply for possession, while making no real progress when it comes to actually stifling distribution. Legalize it and regulate it like any other business and suddenly the harmful criminal component begins to dry up.


I'm not against legalization of pot myself, but this is a potentially misleading argument. Show me some numbers on the number of people imprisoned for marijuana possession and/or sale and related crimes on the records of those convicted.

I'd be willing to bet the number of people in prison with only a single marijauna bust on their record is relatively low, and that most repeat offenders that end up in prison are also charged with other crimes.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 1:35pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#41 Nov 01 2012 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
It's illegal. If someone is willing to try pot regardless, they're just as likely to try other things that are illegal.
So everyone who speeds on the highway is just as likely to try pot, to rob a store, to commit murder?

Every person who pirates a song is going to try meth?

You're vastly oversimplifying.

So are you. I'd suspect that someone willing to try pot is more likely to try some other drug just like someone who pirates music is more likely to pirate software or movies and someone who speeds is more likely to pass in the wrong lane or fail to come to complete stops at signals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Nov 01 2012 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
It's an interesting discussion. I've never heard anyone make the argument that Catwho did using pot is actually good for our society. Though maybe it would be a nice mellow, non-narcotic relaxant for prisoners, ADD kids or others.

I could buy the argument (with some supporting evidence) that arresting people for pot-use has an over-all negative effect on a community, but I can't buy the argument that pot being illegal only ruins individual lives. Maybe it's saved lives. Maybe the 17 year old kid that got arrested for dope was scared straight and so said 'no' to other more serious drugs or crimes. Either way breaking the law to use pot is a choice made with full knowledge of what the consequences might be.








Edited, Nov 1st 2012 9:35pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#43 Nov 01 2012 at 1:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,023 posts
The belief that marijuana would benefit society is absurd, because it isn't the substance but the effect that people seek. People find numerous ways to get their stupor and anyone willing to put themselves in that state are probably not the best decision makers. Not only that, just like alcohol, people behave differently.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#44 Nov 01 2012 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,590 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Not only that, just like alcohol, people behave differently.


How does alcohol behave? When does it behave differently?

ha ha you're dumb
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#45 Nov 01 2012 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trickybeck wrote:
Jailing people for marijuana use disproportionately targets and harms minorities and the poor.

The latent conservative in me says the real easy solution there is "Don't smoke weed".

The fact that people are willing to be incarcerated over it is probably part of what gives me cautious pause rather than just saying "***** it, weed for everyone!"
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I've never once had someone tell me they refused to try pot because it was illegal. I've actually never tried it, because I'm just not interested. Everyone I know who hasn't tried it hasn't tried it because they weren't interested. Most of them drank while underage. Plenty of them pirate music or videos. I'm sure all the guys, at the very least, watched **** before they were 18.

Wait... watching **** is illegal there?

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 2:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Nov 01 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,920 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
It's illegal. If someone is willing to try pot regardless, they're just as likely to try other things that are illegal.
So everyone who speeds on the highway is just as likely to try pot, to rob a store, to commit murder?

Every person who pirates a song is going to try meth?

You're vastly oversimplifying.

So are you. I'd suspect that someone willing to try pot is more likely to try some other drug just like someone who pirates music is more likely to pirate software or movies and someone who speeds is more likely to pass in the wrong lane or fail to come to complete stops at signals.


Yeah. I also be that you'll find almost all heavy drug users fall within the subset of drinkers (or even heavy drinkers). We don't ban alcohol because we worry that it makes someone "more likely" to use heroin.

All you've done is present a correlation. Yeah, I bet the vast majority of people hooked on heroin are open to smoking pot, have smoked it, do smoke it, etc. Doesn't mean smoking pot leads to it.

Is someone who smokes pot statistically more likely to do hard drugs? Sure. But that's not necessarily interesting in any particular way. It's as unsurprising as the fact that meat eaters are statistically more likely to eat dog than vegetarians are.

In my opinion, you're pointing at a symptom, not the cause. I don't think smoking pot leads to doing heroin. I do believe that something that could lead someone to smoke pot could lead them to do heroin. But I don't think making pot illegal would help there. Particularly because I seriously doubt fear of "the law" is going to be sufficient to ever stop someone on that path. Chances are (imo), someone who is on it already feels so alienated from society that the concept of law itself isn't something they're going to invest themselves in.

What I think making pot illegal does is force them to get used to hiding from society on the path to a worse addiction, making it even less likely that they'll seek help when they actually need it. The only thing I see the war on drugs doing is alienating people who desperately need help more and more, by ensuring they're as terrified as possible to seek treatment.

This is obviously a lot of conjecture, but I do believe it.

[EDIT]

Not that anyone would get in trouble for it, but technically accessing a **** site while under 18 is defrauding someone to commit a criminal act, because distributing to minors is illegal. But that was my point--it's against the law, but no one cares.

As for the poor issue, statistically white middle class+ people are vastly more likely to use and sell all drugs than the poor and minorities are. But statistically, nearly all the people in jail on drug charges are black and poor. According to a professor I had in college, who wrote some papers on the subject, it comes entirely down to two factors.

1. Space. Most minorities and poor live in small homes, possibly with extended family, and have no where they can go in the house to take drugs in secret. On average, a black kid isn't going to be able to light up a joint at home without his mom finding out. This leads to FAR more drug usage outside the home, in public areas, which drastically increases the chance of detection.

2. Increased police density. My town has a fair number of people (still fairly small--high school classes of 350 or so), but there's a lot of land. Kids here all smoked in the woods (and a lot of adults do too, to be fair). So besides the occasional cop who'd go in to check for kids, it was relatively safe to smoke. You light up in a city alley, and you have no clue how close you are to the nearest cop.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 4:05pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#47 Nov 01 2012 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yeah. I also be that you'll find almost all heavy drug users fall within the subset of drinkers (or even heavy drinkers). We don't ban alcohol because we worry that it makes someone "more likely" to use heroin.

All you've done is present a correlation. Yeah, I bet the vast majority of people hooked on heroin are open to smoking pot, have smoked it, do smoke it, etc. Doesn't mean smoking pot leads to it.

I wasn't trying to present much more of an argument beyond noting that your appeal of "Do speeders all become AXE MURDERER RAPISTS!?" was retarded and wildly misrepresenting what Elinda was saying.

Quote:
Not that anyone would get in trouble for it, but technically accessing a **** site while under 18 is defrauding someone to commit a criminal act, because distributing to minors is illegal.

The criminal burden there would fall on the distributor. Not that this matters for the pot debate, it's just one of those pedant things for me. Like people saying it's illegal for a 14 yr old to have *** with a 19 yr old when it's not (although the flip obviously is).

Quote:
As for the poor issue, statistically white middle class+ people are vastly more likely to use and sell all drugs than the poor and minorities are. But statistically, nearly all the people in jail on drug charges are black and poor.

Which may be a wonderful reason to revisit how we prosecute crimes but isn't really a good reason to start legalizing crimes.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 3:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Nov 01 2012 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The belief that marijuana would benefit society is absurd, because it isn't the substance but the effect that people seek.


Same with Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Ativan, et al. I guess those don't benefit the people who use them correctly either, do they?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#49 Nov 01 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Not that anyone would get in trouble for it, but technically accessing a **** site while under 18 is defrauding someone to commit a criminal act, because distributing to minors is illegal. But that was my point--it's against the law, but no one cares.

As for the poor issue, statistically white middle class+ people are vastly more likely to use and sell all drugs than the poor and minorities are. But statistically, nearly all the people in jail on drug charges are black and poor. According to a professor I had in college, who wrote some papers on the subject, it comes entirely down to two factors.

1. Space. Most minorities and poor live in small homes, possibly with extended family, and have no where they can go in the house to take drugs in secret. On average, a black kid isn't going to be able to light up a joint at home without his mom finding out. This leads to FAR more drug usage outside the home, in public areas, which drastically increases the chance of detection.

2. Increased police density. My town has a fair number of people (still fairly small--high school classes of 350 or so), but there's a lot of land. Kids here all smoked in the woods (and a lot of adults do too, to be fair). So besides the occasional cop who'd go in to check for kids, it was relatively safe to smoke. You light up in a city alley, and you have no clue how close you are to the nearest cop.

Edited, Nov 1st 2012 4:05pm by idiggory
These two factors aren't unique to smoking pot. The problem you present is a systemic one not one of pot use.

Do you think that if/when pot is legalized there will be a corresponding reduction in incarceration? Do you think that reduction will be measurably greater for the poor and/or minorities?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#50 Nov 01 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
This is such a strange concept to me. We never have any of this stuff.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#51 Nov 01 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Like I've said before whenever this debate comes up - I won't smoke it, but I think it should be legal. The war on drugs is a waste of money. People are never going to stop getting 'altered' in some form or fashion. Quick making such a big deal out of it.

Now, time to open my bottle of wine!
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT
cynyck, Debalic, Kuwoobie, Anonymous Guests (40)