Report from New York Health Officials Calls for Pot Legalization

By | July 16, 2018

  • July 16, 2018 at 11:12 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 14

    Dems are appeasing their base. Does nothing else matter more to the citizens of NY State than pot legalization? Really? Crime rates? Budget imbalances? Potholes? Income tax rates? Property tax rates in all NY municipalities?

    • July 16, 2018 at 2:58 pm
      helpingout says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      I do not know why you are saying that dems don’t care about anything. They do, what they care about is different than what conservatives care about on a few subjects. Do some dem news coverage diverge from important matters? Yes. Do some conservative news coverage diverge from important matters? Yes. Both sides are doing it, not just one. I just wanted to point that out.

    • July 17, 2018 at 10:13 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 1

      I’m not saying recreational marijuana is the answer, and I’m certainly not saying it is safe for everyone to use. That said, a few of your “why won’t they think of other issues” COULD be mitigated due to legalization of marijuana. To wit:

      Crime rates = would likely decrease if policemen weren’t arresting people for simple possession
      Budget imbalances = would decrease by increased tax revenue
      Potholes = more funding for repairs would be available due to increased tax revenue

      Tax rates are a whole different beast, but if people REALLY thought taxes were too high, they wouldn’t be living in NY/NYC right now anyway.

      • July 17, 2018 at 12:07 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 8

        What are employers to do when the stoners don’t show up for work or when they do, they mess up and are unproductive, cause accidents and are disruptive to other employees?

        • July 17, 2018 at 12:30 pm
          CCC says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 13
          Thumb down 0

          Fire them, of course.

        • July 17, 2018 at 12:59 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 0

          It doesn’t matter WHY someone doesn’t show up for work or has poor performance etc. … they should be fired.

      • July 18, 2018 at 3:08 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        As pot became legal and more accessible, drug cartels moved to opioids and harder drugs.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/losing-marijuana-business-mexican-cartels-push-heroin-and-meth/2015/01/11/91fe44ce-8532-11e4-abcf-5a3d7b3b20b8_story.html?utm_term=.123f453142e6

        This article is a few years old, and it’s WAPO intentionally. This has become worse. Good border control by the way would fix a great deal of this. Ergo: Build the wall.

        However, back on point: Focusing on legalizing marijuana on it’s own for any of the points you just made doesn’t hold up. Possibly if you legalize it and build the wall, it might, assuming that drug sellers here don’t do the same thing as cartels.

        Crime rates are unlikely to go down in any event, or spending issues, and the tax revenues are unlikely to exceed the new problems we have with the harder drugs in the last 5 years.

        How much spending do you suppose we spend against heroin addiction vs marijuana?

        • July 18, 2018 at 3:53 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Bob – you may have noticed when I indicated crime rates would decrease I focused SPECIFICALLY on those who have been ARRESTED for simple possession of marijuana.

          Your comment of “drug cartels moved to opioids and harder drugs” isn’t speaking to my point — a decrease in arrests due to officers no longer arresting people for simple possession of marijuana — which accounts for nearly 90% of all arrests for a marijuana law violation in 2016 (653,249 vs 574,641 — http ://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-war-statistics)

          You can’t sincerely believe 574,000 cartel members will get arrested for other crimes, thereby replacing all those folks who now won’t be arrested for simple marijuana possession, right?

          • July 18, 2018 at 4:10 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “Bob – you may have noticed when I indicated crime rates would decrease I focused SPECIFICALLY on those who have been ARRESTED for simple possession of marijuana. ”

            You may have noticed that I didn’t. However, you did assume that costs would come down, and if opioids come into play, it won’t help budgets as you implied. I didn’t fail to read what you said. You failed to see that I addressed concerns and expanded on them. And right now, I need to see you admit that, because to me, this looks like the attempt of someone to call me out as having gone off topic or not addressing their concerns, in order to gain traction. That’s not acceptable.

            “Your comment of “drug cartels moved to opioids and harder drugs” isn’t speaking to my point — a decrease in arrests due to officers no longer arresting people for simple possession of marijuana — which accounts for nearly 90% of all arrests for a marijuana law violation in 2016 (653,249 vs 574,641 — http ://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-war-statistics) ”

            “Crime rates = would likely decrease if policemen weren’t arresting people for simple possession”

            You’re either ignorant or you’re willfully trying to mislead on this. You said “Crime rates”. While you said one aspect afterwards, it is fair for me to then go over all crime rates. To then call me unreasonable is absurd. I am now convinced you are taking the unethical tactic of debating.

            “You can’t sincerely believe 574,000 cartel members will get arrested for other crimes, thereby replacing all those folks who now won’t be arrested for simple marijuana possession, right?”

            This comment doesn’t even make sense.

            Let’s say I legalize marijuana. First of all: There is discretion with marijuana, while there are many arrests, there will be MORE arrests for cartels pulled over with opioids. This is not a bad assumption to make. While arrests are high now, on a lesser drug, I think it’s safe to say more arrests will be made with a harder drug.

            Second of all: Simple possession is generally a small crime. I noticed that you broke out how much of all marijuana crimes are possession, but not how often that is seriously charged, not that it really matters. You hyper focused on one small subset of a subset, and not the big picture. I expanded the picture. If you’re going to talk about “Crime rates” it has to include big picture, and if you’re going to talk about revenues and budgets, affected by crime rates, you’re going to have to talk about all crime, not a subset that you clearly are now walking back to because you cannot argue that general crime will go down, and I am certain this was your original statement. That crime as a whole would go down, and now you’re back tracking since I clearly smashed that argument.

            Third:

            I believe if legalized 547,000 cartel members will instead saturate a market for harder drugs. The folks getting arrested for marijuana possession will to some degree transfer to worse drugs, and they will surely be able to market it well enough so that we will have more addicts, and more hard possession drugs. None of these are good things. We’ve already seen the explosion. They can do it. I would rather than sell marijuana than other things.

            This is why I said it’s a difficult issue. You definitely claimed you could lower crime and budgets and increase revenues by legalizing pot. I question that you could, specifically due to larger amounts of other types of crime. You can’t just back pedal and say “I never talked about that part of crime I talked about possession” well, I’m talking the whole enchilada, so either you didn’t and therefore can’t make the statement at all about revenues budgets and crime because you therefore didn’t weigh the whole enchilada, and haven’t argued it, and therefore my expansion was reasonable so you need to stop trying to defend your use of a highly restricted narrow minded weight, or, you talked the whole enchilada and I added to it, correctly, and you were very erred in your original though of a whole enchilada, in which case, again, my comment makes sense and you falling back saying you weren’t talking about what I added is unreasonable, and I was reasonable. It was very dishonest what you just tried to pull in this debate. It’s why you lose debates by the way, and you do. You just don’t realize it yet. If we were at a college, you would have lost off the bat on this one. You defined your terms, and then redefined and tried to say I was off topic when I wasn’t. It’s not acceptable. You would have lost as I would have pointed out it absolutely was on topic, and at that point you were definitely trying to dislodge what I said.

          • July 18, 2018 at 4:28 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Reading comprehension buddy.

            I said: Bob – you ****may have noticed*** when I indicated crime rates….

            Note how I didn’t say: you ***DID NOT NOTICE***

            Big difference, ya?

            Your subsequent rant about needing me to admit that I agree you actually read what I wrote is absurd — I already did that regardless of you incorrectly reading it as me implying you didn’t read my post.

            Again – please focus on the words I use and the sentences I generate and take them at face value. Don’t add words or look for a hidden meaning.

          • July 18, 2018 at 4:46 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “Reading comprehension buddy.
            I said: Bob – you ****may have noticed*** when I indicated crime rates….
            Note how I didn’t say: you ***DID NOT NOTICE***
            Big difference, ya?”

            Shut the hell up. No. It’s not. At this point I cannot allow this type of a petty argument. Why did you say you may have noticed that I talked about yatta yatta? To try to say I swerved off. I did not swerve off. When I came back saying you may have noticed I didn’t talk about possession, and expanded the issue, it’s my way of saying what you’re saying means nothing. You’re using this issue yet a second time. My reading comprehension is not in issue. What did I misinterpret specifically? In your own words, when I made my reply to you? Or did I expand to the issue, and claim that your issue, you said you could solve, you couldn’t and had not thought it all through? I didn’t fail to see your points. What did I not comprehend? The issue here is either YOUR reading comprehension of those that disagree with you, thus having a narrow mind, or, dishonest willful methods. I really believe it’s the later, ergo why I told you to shut the hell up.

            “Your subsequent rant about needing me to admit that I agree you actually read what I wrote is absurd — I already did that regardless of you incorrectly reading it as me implying you didn’t read my post.”

            Stop labeling my longer conversations as rants. It would be more accurate to state my retort. It was on point, though long to fully go over the scenario. You did not agree I read what you said. You said I failed at reading comprehension. I didn’t. I was not inaccurate that you tried to state I didn’t understand what you said. You tried to pull the argument to make my comment off topic. It wasn’t. You can’t bust in and say: I’ve figured it out! I can reduce crime, save budget issues, and increase revenues, if I focus only on possession! While I say, here is what is going to happen if you do that, and expand the picture, and then say “Notice, I only said possession”. Notice, you also said BUDGETS AND REVENUES. Which necessitates further comment. You are bluntly lying. You did think you would lower crime, and I shut down your argument. That’s about the end of it.

            “Again – please focus on the words I use and the sentences I generate and take them at face value. Don’t add words or look for a hidden meaning.”

            I did. And I then said my solution. And then you defended yourself saying “I was only talking possession”. So then you disregarded my whole post? That’s what I’m to believe? Your comment meant nothing but: Yeah, note I didn’t say that.

            Of course, two year old. Of course.

          • July 18, 2018 at 4:51 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            I’m renaming you to Rosenbrat.

            I cannot even believe what you just tried to pull.

            In your own words, why was my retort to you not on point? Why did you need to say back notice I said I was just talking about possession?

            That later one you need to answer specifically because it’s a crucial point. It requires an answer. Before that point, I was just proving you wrong, then I went off on you. Why?

            Think critically. You caused this spat, and you’re a dishonest brat.

            I said your solution is not a solution, and is poorly thought out. So you said notice I said just possession?

            So then…Your whole comment doesn’t have merit? You’re walking back the comment? Because your comment talked revenues and budgets which you are smart enough to know, by default, needs my comment and further break down. Were you defending your comment? I imagine so. It makes sense for a person to do so. I smashed your comment, you tried to dislodge my comment by saying I didn’t understand what you said, and that’s why I’m calling you rosenbrat. The argument doesn’t need to go there.

            You could have said, “Oh, I didn’t think of that I only thought of possession”. You could have said “You left out this”. Your comment, wrapping back around had a purpose. I am not foolish. I cannot believe how unethical you are. Rosenbrat.

          • July 18, 2018 at 4:55 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            ““Bob – you may have noticed when I indicated crime rates would decrease I focused SPECIFICALLY on those who have been ARRESTED for simple possession of marijuana. ””

            So I’m to believe that you don’t care about the other aspects caused by the legalization. So crime rates for harder drugs will go up? Is that what you’re agreeing with?

            So I’m to believe that you thought about all crime for the budget and revenues, but only arrests for crime? Bull. Complete bull.

            I know you’re lying. You lost the debate and now you’re throwing a hissy fit that I made you look bad, and you want to throw it back at me, to say I misinterpreted. You and Ron do this all the time. It’s cowardly, it’s absurd, it does not save face, it makes you look arrogant as all hell. It’s this simple: You didn’t think. You didn’t.

          • July 18, 2018 at 4:56 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “but only arrests for crime?”

            Should be but only *possession* arrests

            I don’t have time for you.

          • July 18, 2018 at 5:27 pm
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Hey Bob,
            You have complained on here about the exact thing you are doing by calling Rosen, Rosenbrat. You are also needlessly dragging out the argument. Follow your own advice and stop and also read what the other person wrote. It is annoying to see this petty argument from both of you. Bob you are not for legalization and I am for it. The studies can be enhanced if Cannabis was decriminalized federally and medical cannabis legal at the federal level in order to conduct better studies that do not have bias. Almost every one either has bias within them that hinders the study or it is statically insignificant. Many studies leave out many factors that could greatly impact the results or it cherry picks the data. Once those studies become valid and have a better consensus on the overall affects then I believe if the positives out weigh the negatives it should be federally legal for adults. I believe it should be anyways because I am for a grown adult to choose this as I am also for grown adults for choosing to drink since drinking has way less benefits. Again just my take on this. The black market has not also decreased because few states have recreational cannabis creating a new market.

          • July 19, 2018 at 9:01 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Ignoring your insults, ignoring you putting words in my mouth, ignoring the rest of your shotgun rant … I really have no idea how you expect to have an honest discussion when you just said you think “may have noticed” and “did not notice” express the same thing. That’s just crazy talk, plain and simple.

        • July 18, 2018 at 5:34 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          My whole comment can be summed up by a few sentences within it:

          “Crime rates are unlikely to go down in any event, or spending issues, and the tax revenues are unlikely to exceed the new problems we have with the harder drugs in the last 5 years.”

          In reply to this phrase:

          “Crime rates = would likely decrease if policemen weren’t arresting people for simple possession
          Budget imbalances = would decrease by increased tax revenue
          Potholes = more funding for repairs would be available due to increased tax revenue”

          It really doesn’t matter if you limited it to possession. That actually makes your case worse. It means you were basically heavy handily smacking out points specifically to say he doesn’t follow his own beliefs. I think we can both agree that arrests for possession for him are not the same as crime rates, and I think you knew this when you said it. In no scenario does it actually make sense to say you only wanted that section of crime to go down. Zero scenarios, unless you’re inept as all heck.

          How was my reply not completely on point? I’m really tired of your smack talking to reasonable replies. It’s out of line.

          • July 19, 2018 at 3:02 pm
            Anger management for Bob! says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Bob,

            Two words: Anger Management

            Please seek it, you are an extremely angry little fella. Your post are too long, you don’t know when to just let it go. I seriously doubt ANYONE reads them all the way through, it just sounds like the rants of a mad man….it’s jumbled and just doesn’t end….BLAH

            You really come off as a bigger ass than Agent, and that is one HARD accomplishment! Congratulations!

            And you have the nerve to call Rosenblatt a brat….”And right now, I need to see you admit that, because to me, this looks like the attempt of someone to call me out…” bahahahahaha…….
            So you think you can demand what others say eh?! Foolish, foolish, angry little fella. Seek help…or better yet, go smoke some pot…trust me your anger will have more adverse effects mentally and physically than the weed would!

      • July 18, 2018 at 3:20 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        As a side note this isn’t all back talk, some of it is self realization.

        This is one issue I have flip flopped on. If you look at my history here, I at one point said pot should be legal.

        There are far too many variables here. I’m actually conflicted on this one.

  • July 16, 2018 at 1:07 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 2

    The great state of NY is perfectly capable of multi-tasking all of those issues. Further, with the revenue gained in taxing recreational users, they are able to improve all of those items you noted. Finally, how do you conclude nothing else matters more? I didn’t see where they have identified legalization as their number 1 concern. Do you have a source?

    • July 17, 2018 at 8:57 am
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Reading comprehension, so I will repeat:
      Finally, how do you conclude nothing else matters more? I didn’t see where they have identified legalization as their number 1 concern. Do you have a source?

    • July 18, 2018 at 7:44 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 2

      No, …. NY State govt cannot multi-task to cover the pot issue with other more pressing issues at hand:
      1. Water pipes to NYC are decaying and need multiple replacements over many miles outside the isle of Manhattan, back to the midstate source of water. Billions of dollars of cost in replacing the sections that are breaking or leaking now.
      2. Tappan Zee bridge replacemet cost over runs, from original contract price of $3.14B to OVER $4B. Lawsuits are being launched by the state and the contractors, increasing the cost to taxpayers by the lawyers fees.
      3. Broken subway lines in NYC.
      4. Many labor related issues arising from unions influence driving up costs to taxpayers.
      etc.
      Yes, contrary to your fake claim, NY has more pressing issues than pot legalization.

      • July 18, 2018 at 5:09 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Actually, no they are good. They can multi-task just fine. They aren’t beholden by whataboutism like some of those on the right who are incapable of more than one issue at a time.

        • July 19, 2018 at 8:13 am
          For The Polar Bears says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          FTR, NY State is FAILING at just about everything it is doing and has done recently. THAT is a sign of incompetence. It also points to taking on too many TASKS. It requires a re-focus on IMPORTANT matters, not recre-pot bills.

      • July 23, 2018 at 6:20 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        NY is failing, just like California. Both have been failing for 60 years and everybody are about to leave for Alabama, as they have been for 60 years. Clown.

  • July 16, 2018 at 1:32 pm
    CCC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 2

    First line of the article: “Proposals to permit recreational marijuana use in New York state took a big step forward Friday when state health officials issued a long-awaited report CONCLUDING THAT THE BENEFITS OF LEGALIZATION OUTWEIGH THE RISKS” (emphasis mine).

    For me, this is really the crux of the whole MJ argument. Are there risks? Sure, but there are at least as many or more benefits.

    Mainly, get it off the Feds’ plate, and leave it up to the states to legalize/prohibit as they see fit.

    • July 16, 2018 at 7:10 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 8

      Only stoners believe the benefits outweigh the risks. Current studies, including one in England about 1 year ago, conclude otherwise; i.e. pot is a dangerous drug if (ab)used over a long term. So, stoners’ judgement isn’t worth considering, seeing the long-term effect of pot on stoners’ mental capacity.

      • July 17, 2018 at 12:11 pm
        CCC says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 1

        I disagree that “only stoners” believe the benefits outweigh the risks. I guess you can look at:
        1.) a year-old study from England,
        2.) or you can read the 07/16/18 article and read about the just released 74-page analysis from the New York Department of Health concluding that the benefits of legalization outweigh the risks.

        Up to you…

        • July 18, 2018 at 7:46 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          There is a clear bias in a state-sponsored study to support their liberal agenda. I wouldn’t (not ‘would) waste my time reading the study you referenced. DID YOU READ THE INDEPENDENT STUDY BY THE ENGLISH FIRM? Goo-gul it.

          • July 23, 2018 at 6:23 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            So the study you had not heard about and won’t look into is biased, not you? Did you learn this in your fake statistics degree program? Nobody can take you seriously.

    • July 17, 2018 at 8:12 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 4

      Such laws ARE the jurisdiction of the Feds because the commodity can be easily transported across state lines. There is nothing pot lovers can do about it… other than vote for your favorite stoner supporter / Socialist/ Communist, Buhnie Sanduhs.

      • July 17, 2018 at 8:58 am
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 1

        Spoken like a true Big Government advocate, Yogi!

        • July 18, 2018 at 7:47 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 5

          Big govt has NOTHING to do with Federal laws against pot.

          • July 18, 2018 at 5:10 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            You’re right, it has EVERYTHING to do with federal laws against pot.

          • July 19, 2018 at 8:14 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Keep telling yourself that is so, if it gives you solace.

      • July 17, 2018 at 12:29 pm
        CCC says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        …or vote for people like
        1.) John Boehner, former Republican House Speaker
        2.) Donald Trump, Republican POTUS
        3.) Rand Paul, Republican US Senator
        4.) Cory Gardner, Republican US Senator
        5.) Orrin Hatch, Republican US Senator

        The list goes on. Those dang stoner supporter / Socialist/ Communist, pot lovers…

        • July 18, 2018 at 7:50 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          If the list ‘goes on’, then the legalization will occur. Tell us when you expect a majority of Republican will support pot legalization, to follow the agenda of the 5 you listed. Give us a date specific, in mm/dd/yy format.

          • July 18, 2018 at 11:36 am
            CCC says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 0

            I was simply pointing out that there are more current and past legislators than ‘Buhnie Sanduhs’ that support legalization. More Republicans all the time.

            Trying to speculate when Big Government will accomplish anything, especially when it involves relinquishing any sort of control, is probably futile, but here goes: 04/20/20. Ha.

          • July 19, 2018 at 8:16 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Wrong. You were merely wasting time on your ‘high’ hopes.

    • July 19, 2018 at 2:41 pm
      Lilly White says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Amen

  • July 17, 2018 at 3:10 pm
    Wayne2 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    They should ask Bloomberg how many ounces are safe to have. I mean I know it isn’t as dangerous as soda but still he should weigh in on the safest amount for people to have and/or ingest. Just kidding before anyone gets too up tight.

    • July 18, 2018 at 5:30 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Getting fat is bad in liberal-ville. Getting high is cool. Body = important. Brain = who cares.

  • July 17, 2018 at 5:33 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 4

    “Educate young people with the revenue . . .”

    Right. Let’s push legal pot in New York now, which every study shows is growing in use nationally by people under 21, as they come to see pot as “safe” due to the efforts of the left.

    How about education BEFORE legalization? You know, put kids first, especially minority kids.

    In the San Diego Union Tribune yesterday, on the front page, a long article talked about efforts by the medical community to inform people that marijuana does NOT cure cancer. Are you laughing or crying? Seems there are literally millions of people who think it cures cancer and all the medical experts were warning about the actual dangers to young people (where is the State of California in that effort, with all the tax dollars? AWOL).

    Typical Liberals: ready, fire, aim.

    • July 18, 2018 at 1:36 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      And there are literally millions of Americans (over 16 million) who believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows. People believing something absurd does not invalidate everything else about said topic.

      • July 18, 2018 at 1:41 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 2

        Chocolate milk does not damage IQ in young people, damage the brains of unborn children, or dramatically increase the chances of serious mental illness.

        THC does ALL of that. And you Pot Fans have done such a good job of “educating young people” that young people now commonly believe the exact opposite of the truth.

        Congratulations. Have some more chocolate milk, Mr. Responsible.

        • July 18, 2018 at 3:04 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          I wasn’t equating the perils of marijuana to the perils of milk. I was simply stating millions of people are too dumb to learn irrespective of what you try and teach them.

          • July 18, 2018 at 5:29 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            I don’t know anyone who would risk brain damage if they knew that doing something might cause brain damage. I don’t know of anyone who would risk brain damage to their unborn child – exactly zero mothers would want that for their baby. I don’t know of anyone who would risk serious mental illness by smoking pot if they knew the risk.

            But maybe you do know these people . . . but I doubt it.

          • July 19, 2018 at 2:15 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            ” I was simply stating millions of people are too dumb to learn irrespective of what you try and teach them.”

            Isn’t this precisely why you regulate an industry, or do not allow the use of a product?

            Craig’s comment is the ultimate end of that scenario. Too much chocolate milk does what?

            Too much of marijuana does what?

            If too many people are too stupid to stop drinking chocolate milk they get fat or a stomach ache.

            If people are too stupid to taking marijuana what happens?

            Meh, it’s somewhat debatable actually, but at any risk of mass social harm, it should be regulated.

            Perhaps only kids who learned in school, or adults who pass a test like for driving.

            I’m still conflicted on it, but your commentary is definitely not a person conflicted debating merits and cons. I can see it instantly.

            Yours is two fold: Trying to call republicans hypocrites, and trying to defend possible pros.

            I have not seen you list specific cons or cede points in any way that shows inner conflict on the matter.

        • July 18, 2018 at 5:12 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Craig wrote, “Congratulations. Have some more chocolate milk, Mr. Responsible.”

          MARCH 28, 2018 AT 11:17 AM
          Craig Cornell says:
          LIKE OR DISLIKE:
          0
          2
          Sounds cool. Really condecending and lame.

          • July 18, 2018 at 7:59 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Ban Straws! Tax Soda! Ban Tobacco! Get Rid of Guns!
            Raise taxes on gasoline! Force people to buy the health insurance we tell them to buy, not the insurance they want to buy! Stop them from eating meat! Take away all of their freedoms! Except for one:

            Legalize Pot! (It will dull their brain so they won’t complain about everything else we take away . . .)

          • July 18, 2018 at 10:45 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            APRIL 4, 2018 AT 11:18 AM
            Craig Cornell says:
            LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            0
            0
            Clearly, you are smoking too much ganja.

          • July 19, 2018 at 2:19 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “Clearly, you are smoking too much ganja.”

            His comment was so absurdly on point I cannot believe you actually tried a one liner to dislodge it.

            Best quote ever Craig. I’ve experienced the banned straws and taxed soda in Seattle.

            Regulate, ban, ban, regulate…

            Oh wait now, hold on…

            Legalize pot, those other guys are so controlling. Seattle actually made the argument, politicians included, that soda was harmful and taxing it would reduce it’s consumption. That makes your comment even better. Stop soda consumption! It’s harmful!

            Increase marijuana use! It’s just a plant!

          • July 19, 2018 at 2:19 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            I actually gave one of my very few likes to this post by the way, Craig.

          • July 19, 2018 at 4:05 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            It gets better Craig.

            The case for health taxes. Maybe we actually should regulate chocolate milk according to liberals.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/opinion/soda-health-taxes.html

            But marijuana is totes safe.

          • July 24, 2018 at 2:00 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            So funny Bob is on here ranting about regulations with the knowledge of a 10th grader instead of looking at externalities or actual real world regulation theories but he has also pushed repeatedly and DEMANDED I and others read a guy, Jordan Peterson, who he said he agreed with on everything he’s seen him say, and Peterson has supported enforced monogamy and is an ardent racist. Pseudo-intellectual BS to mask abject stupid policy proposals.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*