California Clears Way for Those with Cannabis Convictions to Get Insurance Licenses

January 24, 2020

  • January 24, 2020 at 2:05 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 4

    I know this wasn’t the main point of the article, but this had me wondering ‘why haven’t they’?

    “While the courts and counties have taken steps to provide relief under Prop 64 to numerous residents, many people have not yet pursued formal reduction or dismissal of eligible convictions.”

    • January 24, 2020 at 2:12 pm
      Common Sense says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 16

      Count me as one who would not buy from a doper.

      • January 24, 2020 at 2:27 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 5

        This had NOTHING do to with my comment.

        Why did you reply to me?

        Do you have anything to say regarding my post?

      • January 24, 2020 at 2:48 pm
        rob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 3

        Agent–just curious…how do you define a “doper”? Is it someone who currently uses marijuana, or someone who has partaken in the past? If the latter, you’re talking about a LOT more people than you can imagine, including most likely many of your conservative friends on this board and quite possibly some of your friends, family and relatives. In that case, you probably HAVE bought from a doper. I realize consistency and hypocrisy mean absolutely nothing to you, but you might want to think a little harder before you make such blanket statements.

        • January 25, 2020 at 6:29 pm
          Common Sense says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 9

          California gets what they deserve. Easily the most dysfunctional state in the union.

        • January 29, 2020 at 7:50 am
          Mission Impossible: 67 says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          Does the precise definition of doper matter? I assume the broadest scope definition, i.e. including ‘one time user’, is not appropriate. WHY did you include that possibility with your conjecture? Don’t answer that rhetorical question; it was a vain attempt to discredit someone who criticized your lifestyle.

          • January 29, 2020 at 8:13 am
            rob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            No, Yogi, it was actually yet another way of pointing out Agent’s (and your) hypocrisy in the matter. I was simply asking him to define “doper”: if it’s someone who has partaken in the past but not currently, that means he’s going to be excluding a LOT of people from his life, probably you included. For the record: I haven’t touched marijuana in well over 20 years. What’s your excuse?

  • January 25, 2020 at 6:33 am
    Jeff Spicoli says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 2

    Awesome!

    Now my friend can write auto insurance for me after no one without a mj conviction would!

    Road Trip!



Add a Comment

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

*