Slashdot Mirror
Marijuana Legalized In Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC
Robotron23 writes: Coinciding with the midterm elections yesterday were state ballots proposing the legalization of cannabis. All three territories where full legalization was tabled approved the measure, joining Washington state and Colorado. The narrowest vote was that of Alaska at a roughly 52% to 48% margin. Washington D.C. meanwhile saw the vote strongly tipped in favor of legalization, at about 69% to 31% opposed. Oregon passed its measure by a vote of 55% to 45%. Buoyed by the news, advocates of legal cannabis are already contemplating the next round of state ballots in 2016.
I believe that even though it passed in DC...that congress can put the kibosh on this pretty quick?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Seeing as how Du Pont was the reason marijuana (and hemp) was criminalized in the first place via bribery, turnabout would be fair play.
because i've no weed to smoke
I never in my lifetime expected to see this. It's about time
Yesterday's election was a message to Washington that America wants conservatives to represent them! Also, they want legalized pot, increased minimum wage, the right to have an abortion, insurance-provided contraception, and required paid time off at work!
Wait, what?
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
July 1st 2015, the highest percentage of people calling in sick to work in Oregon will be at an all time high.
See what I did there?
I would imagine Oregon and Alaska are recreational, but DC, too?
Let's hope the pace quickens over the next few years -- at 3 states every two years it'l take too long to legalize it everywhere.l
Let me guess: did the very same voters in these states also send people from the prohibition parties, to represent them in the federal government yet again? Right hand, you need to meet left hand some day.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The legalization of marijuana is an example of evil Big Government at work. How could we let this happen!? We need some sort of Small Government Superhero to comment on this article and set us all straight...
I always just assumed that most of the government there was already made up of stoners.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
California is MORE conservative than *ALASKA*? What has the world come to?!?!?!
As a life-long resident of Vermont, I'm embarrassed that these other states have passed these referendums ahead of us.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
I assume a large part of the increasing "tolerance"(pun intended) towards recreational Cannabis use is that people, business and governments are FINALLY understanding it is revenue generating.
People use it anyway, whether it is legal or not. They have for thousands of years. Why not make some legal money out of it instead of letting the cartels have all the fun!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Is there anything more to say about DC?
Now that cannabis is legal in Washington, I think we can look forward to -
1. Much mellower politics
2. A massive increase in sales of snacks in the area around the Conress
This is one of those topics where, if you go far enough left and far enough right, the two sides happen to meet on the same issue.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
must.. keep.. the sheep... docile.
This mysterious spam seems to still be around. Almost every article seems to have a comment like that where there is some random words with BSD there somewhere.
And I am aroused by the fantasy that all those republican victories were a negative response to the NSA and is going to revive the civil rights movement.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
.... but in all honesty, I really can't stand the smell of marijuana, and the smell of it seems to travel considerably further and persist for considerably longer than regular cigarettes (which I also can't stand, but .cigarette smoke smell doesn't seem to hang around for as long). It's not yet legal where I live, but I'm not looking forward to when it becomes so, because I already know that some of my neighbors in my building smoke this stuff occasionally because I smell it every once in a while as it is. If it becomes legal, I fear the stench will just start to pervade the whole freaking building.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Kochs got what they wanted
Its getting hard for the whole "its a few malcontents" justification for the feds instance on maintaining federal restrictions in the face of more and more states legalizing it. If the trend continues and the feds don't back down it could reignite the debate on the extent of federal powers which in my mind would be a good thing. The few constitutional powers which grant the federal government ANY power inside the states have been "reinterpreted" to a laughable extent, what is the point of calling yourself a republic if the feds claim the ability to regulate absolutely anything that takes place solely within the states borders.
republicans are just as incompetent and equally to blame for our shitpot as liberals, cry some more
The US legal process is so unreasonably complicated.
No more so than any other major industrialized country.
Every region not only has it's own laws, but its own constitution defining how laws are passed and structured.
Every state has a constitution because they are by definition sovereign over that region. It's in the name: United STATES of America. The constitutions of each state are required to be compatible with the federal constitution and if there is a conflict the federal constitution wins. Local governments do not have constitutions typically though there are some exceptions. It's actually pretty straightforward in concept though law making everywhere is a bit messy in practice.
have an answer when someone says "I dunno what Congress is smoking..."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
They are botnet communications. I thought everyone knew this.
I had no problems with legalizing marijuana, until I met some advocates for it. I don't know which way causality goes, but I'd rather err on the sober side until I can get some conclusive proof that they were total idiots before smoking.
Now, I'm 100% in favor of legal marijuana (The slashdice corporate position is that the federal government lacks the authority to regulate it) but I wonder what subsidy advocates are smoking when their argument for a subsidy is that most medical marijuana users are poor and don't have a job.
PS: plant some herb for arbor day. Even if you don't smoke, it's a beautiful plant, easy to grow (like a weed, you might say) and helps the environment and shit.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
The Democratic governor Mark Dayton is a dry drunk, so he has major cognitive dissonance and guilt when it comes to anything involving intoxicants and was in debt to police labor votes.
So instead of a groovy, California style medical marijuana we got some lame experimental thing involving cannabis oils or something.
But then again,. we can't buy booze in grocery stores or on Sundays, so maybe its a byproduct of our stern, Scandahoovian upbringing.
You mean you don't want to walk around all day smelling like Bob Marley?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
There are more ways to imbibe THC containing flora product than just smoking. Vaping and baked goods come to mind.
My only issue is that pot imbibers tend to play fast and loose when it comes to the work environment. The "I don't give a fuck" attitude really doesn't go over well in production.
And you thought that nothing got done in the Government...just wait and see now. New take on that old song "I was going to pass a bill, but then I got high. I was going to do work, but then I got high"... They should have legalized crack instead. At least it might motivate some people in Government.
There's also this thing called "moderation" that you could try.
I think it's like the old numbers stations on short wave radio. They're sending coded messages to someone.
Or they want us to think so so that we'll waste money trying to trace them and decode them.
If you measure "respect" by "how little do they affect me in my little narcissistic bubble" then potheads don't need or want your respect, and heroin users certainly don't. They don't need enabling by the law, either, that much should be obvious by now. But they're gonna celebrate in public, mark my words, so get over it.
No, actually, possession and manufacture (growing) of marijuana has been legal in Alaska since 1975. I've grown myself, and even had the attention of the authorities called to the matter, which worked out favorably. I've also had friends have growing equipment confiscated by the police, and subsequently returned with an apology. Nota bene: the legal protections applied (almost) exclusively in one's house or primary residence.
There are some cultural differences at work here; Alaskan marijuana was (semi-)legalized under a privacy clause, which mostly stems (ironically) from a far-right desire to be left the hell alone by everyone but especially the Government. Except in the form of pork barrel projects, which everyone knows are necessary in order to compensate for the state's underdeveloped "frontier" status.
Generally speaking, while it was legalized in the sense that cops were not going to bother one for private use, public consumption was strongly discouraged. This was not the first time full legalization has been on the ballot in Alaska, there were similar ballot measures in 2000 and 2004. It's a complicated situation; Alaska is almost ludicrously conservative compared to the other states which have legalized.
One must give credit where credit is due, I think it's significant that after years of effort and a long history of consumption in Alaska, this measure did not succeed until after Colorado and Washington. However, ultimately, I think that the most influential state in marijuana politics would be California: their medical marijuana dispensary system has paved the way for the de-demonization of cannabis. Now, the onus is on all of us to reverse the damage that the War on Drugs has caused, particularly in America's having pushed its drug laws on the entire rest of the world through the UN.
A side note on that: I suspect that this last part will involve the US pushing its drug laws on the rest of the world once more, but it would be nice if there were some process by which the international community could come to sane decisions about these drugs.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
As if anyone in Oregon, Alaska or DC has ever been given a ticket let alone arrested for blazing up. Unless you're moving shoeboxes of weed I doubt anyone's been bothered by the cops.
So a few people poisoned the idea itself? I heard Hitler liked puppies.
He was a user. He got one of the deadliest forms of cancer. it killed him. It's a story we've heard over and over. It's not medicinal. It's not recreational. It's poison.
I always thought it was lobbyist pole.
Time to offend someone
I mean, look on a ballot.
Republican candidates, Democratic candidates.
Who wouldn't vote to stay stoned till 2016 under such circumstances? It's basically medication. Painkillers.
Where does that idea come from that just 'cause something becomes legal, suddenly everyone and their dog starts doing it? Or, as in this case, starts dropping any and all moderation.
For example, I like sushi. I really do. It's hellish expensive where I am, but it's something that I enjoy. If it suddenly got cheap, of course I'd go on a binge right away. But then? Would I really start eating sushi every single day? Rather not. I'd even doubt that my consumption would increase. Maybe during the first month, but after that... rather unlikely.
So I have a hard time understanding the argument "if it's legal, people will go crazy over it". Why? Would you? If, for argument's sake, Heroin got legal tomorrow, would you start shooting it into your veins?
Then why do you think anyone else would?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Winston Churchill said that America can be relied on to do the right thing, after exhausting all alternatives.
Is this an example of that? Perhaps once every state legallises it, it will end up being legal federally. Then hopefully my own country will stop ignoring all the evidence and legalise it too.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ok, so, then they get fired, what's the problem? If pot smokers (or ingesters, etc.) can't keep their hobby to themselves and it affects their work, they won't last long, no different from people who come to work drunk, or for that matter, people who can't resist gambling or watching porn at work, etc.
Fun fact: not every person who enjoys using pot is a pothead, just like not every person who enjoys drinking is a drunkard.
As for public smoking, well, we already have laws against public smoking, thank god. Personally I actually don't mind pot smoke smell nearly as much as tobacco smoke smell, but I still agree, both are noxious. You can certainly ban things in public for smelling terrible and being health hazards without banning them in private for being drugs. Though in this case, you mostly wouldn't even have to, because a smoking ban is a smoking ban regardless of what substance is being smoked, and we already have plenty of smoking bans.
It is just a test to see if you have enough self-discipline to stay clean for a few weeks before taking the drug test.
Most places don't have a random drug testing policy, so you can do all the drugs you want after your test comes back clean.
I doubt it. Rand Paul is an anomaly and not very popular in his party.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I'm all in favour of legalizing marijuana, but I also believe that it needs to be properly regulated while doing so. Smoking weed needs to be controlled in the same way that smoking tobacco currently is. Legal limits for driving under the influence of marijuana needs to be clearly established, and part of the tax revenue from marijuana sales put into safety campaigns against driving while stoned.
This would be of benefit to the marijuana industry as well - establishing proper controls in its use will ensure that it is used in a responsible manner, and avoid a backlash from prohibitionists. All it will take is the image of a toddler killed by a stoned driver to incite the prohibitionists and undo legalization efforts - it would be better for the marijuana industry to seize the initiative now, and establish an image of responsible and controlled adult use.
It's not that everyone will start doing it.... it's that those who already do it may do it more frequently, or certainly much more openly, since they would not have to pursue illegitimate channels to engage in the practice.
Honestly, if legalizing marijuana wouldn't affect how often other people might notice the smell of it because those that practice it would no longer have any need to at least try and keep their practices as hidden as possible, I'd have absolutely no problem with it at all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So where's that evidence you mentioned?
put people responsible for imprisoning people over a plant in prison, retroactively. If it works for war crimes why not for other human rights violations.
My states' 2012 elections were more than enough evidence of that. 51% of voters voted for democratic candidates, 9 out of 13 seats went to republicans, with another really close. Nothing has changed since then.
I'm a high school history teacher, so posting as anonymously, I lean independent/libertarian, but end up voting democrat most of the time. You can read into that what you will.
It's really tough when people say something sorta true, then give evidence supporting it that is pretty weird (you should wash your hands, because otherwise you'll overheat). Your evidence isn't support for your claim, but rather it's support of the fact that you live in a republic instead of a true democracy. It's the same reason why each state has real representation as opposed to just a few controlling all votes.
Not everyone agrees with a republic system (generally those in the current majority), but there are real reasons for it based on history and it's designed to protect the minority. e.g., as a way of picturing this you could imagine the top 6-10 states alone could decide to use the other territories as waste dumps eventually, causing them to be more desirable places to live, leading to them having more power. It's why individual states/territotires were willing to enter into a union as opposed to going it alone.
For those who are confused about the term gerrymandering, people vote in districts to elect a representative, and now and again those districts get redrawn. In many cases those who happen to be in power try to redraw the lines to make it more likely they'll stay in power. There are pushes in places like CA lately for this to be randomized via different ways, but for the most part this gets hashed out by the winners like europe being carved up after WW1. If you are a republican in a 50/50 democrat/republican district, if you can have things redrawn so you are in a 80/20 district you're almost guaranteed to keep your seat. For the most part this becomes about protecting the incumbant (until the tea party), as those redistricted don't go away and have their own reprentatives, though when being really tricky with it you can give your party as a whole a boost.
Yes, republicans engaged/engage in gerrmandering, but as you yourself note this has been a tit-for-tat thing with either party doing their damndest when they get a chance. The real brutal issue of gerrymandering , it's that you end up with very, very polarized representatives because they are representing very polarized districts with little desire to work together. So you end up with very liberal democrats, very conservative republicans, and a few moderates sitting in the corner.
In terms of a solution, having a fairer process for redistricting would help, though over the past while there has been a real trend of self-segregation along party/demographics (democrats, we can't look down on the republicans for the research shows we are the biggest commiter of this) and it might mute the effect. The problem is that it's like a reverse filibuster -- the minority claims how awful it is, then when they are in a position of power to change it with the current minority, they choose to use the hell out of it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815084/Portugal-decriminalised-drugs-Results-Use-teens-doubled-decade-nearly-fifth-15-16-year-olds-using-drugs.html
58 YES but needed 60% to pass. Is it not 60% everywhere else?
Oh good, now the percentage of stay at home parasites who are too lazy to get a job can spend their free government money on marijuana instead of food for their kids and use getting high as escapism to "solve" all their problems all while giving themselves lung cancer. That'll be great for jobs and the economy and healthcare costs.
Gawd I love my state. /sarcasm
Tell that to Joe Biden's son. While I understand your point, you grossly overstate the impact.
So where's that EVIDENCE you mentioned?
A tabloid article full of unsourced claims about usage statistics that don't even support your narrative of "mentally unstable idiots" with "fried brains" who "can't hold jobs" don't cut it. Posting it a second time doesn't change that.
At least now politicians can answer honestly
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Hemp hasn't beaten out either wood pulp or cotton for a very simple reason: It's a much coarser fiber.
IE if you want to make a papyrus-like paper that will last exceedingly well (barring humidity, for the same reason as hemp rope), but not of the same fine quality as wood pulp, it is excellent. Similiarly if you are happy with coaser clothing, more robust yields, etc, hemp as a clothing material may be right for you.
Critically: During the point where hemp could've won out as a mainstream fiber it's industry was crippled by legal regulations. The money in said industries has mostly been tied up in western europe and the US, and the R&D elsewhere has preferred 'higher margin' materials, which in turn helped drive down prices for them.
So what happens when my neighbor and his "friends" all start smoking weed and stinkin' up my home?
Legalization sure... I don't really care what people do in their own homes, but when the stinky effects start impacting me and my neighbors respond to friendly, "hey would you do something about ..." with a FU reply... what recourse do I have?
I'm still undecided whether now I'll have to contend with stoned people on the road
California hasn't carte blanche legalized it, and given the fact that at minimum 1/4 to 1/3 of the dispensaries in California are ex-dealers turned 'legitimate' businessmen, I don't forsee us getting the same level of statewide recognition that other states have unless it somehow reaches a general ballot, and at this point it could be 2 to 8 years away.
Rather disappointing for a state formerly considered progressive on a whole slew of issues, but not really surprising given both the sloth in enhancing our vehicular smog testing regulations, gay marriage, and dozens of other issues of the past 20ish years.
Democrats still won the major positions in California, although thankfully not by a landslide. This despite some of the shenanigans they've pulled the past term, notably including some of the policies Brown has been pushing that appear pro-real estate and/or pro-corporation to the detriment of the general populace. Funny that's generally pushed as the Republican position, but I guess after Schwartzeneggar the parties in California are bi-partisan curious :)
News for nerds..
Except for a few minor positions which probably didn't have off-ballot options to begin win (many positions require the write-in to have already filed paperwork as a candidate and if they haven't then the writein is just a waste of a vote since it wouldn't be counted anyway.)
While I am all for writein voting options wherever possible the system is designed to throw them away. None of the computerized systems can tally them which means hand tallying has to be done. Short of a landslide vote for a writein candidate (greater than 30-40 percent with people willing to push to verify the tallies) the odds of your write-in vote being tallied, nevermind being attributed to the right person are astronomically low. Additionally write-ins leave blatant proof of your identity on your ballot. Combining your signature on the voter registry when you enter with the small number of writeins at any particular voting station would be enough to identify you. Combined with the national database of check/credit card signatures and I'll bet they can identify you to a very small margin.
Food for thought.
The Florida measure failed at 58% yes vs 45% no.
In 2006 a constitutional amendment was passed requiring 60% to pass a constitutional amendment...It passed with 57%.
60% was chosen because nothing EVER reaches that number, never once.
So Florida, even though the majority wants this passed, we don't get it. Yay democracy!
On another note, the congressional districts were re-drawn such that with an exit poll with 60% participation indicated a heavy loss for Rick Scott (like 30%), but because of the re-draw, he won by ~1%.
But no, tell me how this is legitimate and for our safety again.
Who doesn't like spoked rims?
>:->
Actually, a picture is evidence. And statistics provided by research groups (not tabloids), fully identified in the article, are also evidence. But I'm still listening. Why don't you tell me your "narrative" for the emaciated young man in the photograph.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815084/Portugal-decriminalised-drugs-Results-Use-teens-doubled-decade-nearly-fifth-15-16-year-olds-using-drugs.html
As much as old people want the country controlled by republicans they also want to be as high as a kite during the erosion of their rights....
Floridians overwhelmingly voted for passage of Amendment 2, 58% yes to 42% no, but for some reason it required a 60% majority to actually "pass" the voting. So even though the supporters outnumbered the doubters by almost 50% of the voters, there will be no smokers in the Sunshine State any time soon. The other states with similar amendments passed theirs, all with a closer voting margins.
The Daily Mail is a tabloid. It claims statistics from other agencies, but does not cite any sources. And it has been known to outright fabricate stories.
As for your pictures, what are you claiming that they "prove" in regards to marijuana? One of them is of someone allegedly using heroin and tobacco (if it's even real, a generous assumption given the Mail), the other is clearly a stock photo with no relevance at all.
You talk about "carnage" and "collateral damage" while showing no such thing. You have made specific claims about marijuana users being unable to hold jobs, and nothing you have said or linked to supports that claim.
You have no evidence, you have no credibility, and you know it.
It's coke.
Ooh! I love Tea and Kittens. Thanks for giving me my fix of Daily Fail.
Got any evidence this time?
That's not the way I have ever seen it work. Usually as part of the hiring/on-boarding process they will instruct you to go (usually immediately) and get a test. I have never heard of them waiting 30 days from any point to test you. The whole point is the element of surprise from what I have seen.
I actually know someone who had a job offer rescinded because they misunderstood and waited a couple days before going to take the test.
Drug testing is another one of those things that has been perverted by lawyers and insurance companies. Most employers could care less what you do in your off time.
And I am aroused by the fantasy that all those republican victories were a negative response to the NSA and is going to revive the civil rights movement.
except that democratic senator Mark Udall of Colorado just lost his seat, and he was one of a grand total of 2 people in the senate who have been trying to excercise their duty to oversee what the NSA is doing since before the snowden leaks (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/nsa-critic-udall-is-sent-packing-as-republicans-grab-senate/)
And I am aroused by the fantasy that all those republican victories were a negative response to the NSA and is going to revive the civil rights movement.
except that democratic senator Mark Udall of Colorado just lost his seat, and he was one of a grand total of 2 people in the senate who have been trying to excercise their duty to oversee what the NSA is doing since before the snowden leaks (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/nsa-critic-udall-is-sent-packing-as-republicans-grab-senate/)
did slashdot ever hear of making URLs I type in into those magical clicky-clicky link things that I teleport me to other websites?
If the federal government really wanted to stop the spread of or even regress the legalization of marijuana at the state level, all they have to do is cut federal funding for various things until the state in question made laws making it illegal again, similar to what they did with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act back in the '80s.
Hey douche bag. If you were familiar at all with any of these laws you'd know that public consumption is still illegal. This is opening up avenues for purchase and sale so that people can take it home and use it there.
I don't like the smell of fat people. Yes, they do have an accompanying odor, or at least there's a correlation between letting your gut go and failing to apply appropriate quantities of soap/deodorant. Rather than petition the government to outlaw obesity, my solution is to stay the hell away from them. I suggest this would apply just as well to your situation.
Your personal preference for certain aromas is really rather irrelevant to the question of whether or not something should be illegal (unless you are a VIP, then your whim is reason enough to get the law involved).
more openly, I could see that.
More often I would have thought comes down to economics rather than legality. If it gets a lot cheaper though, how will the "one dispensary per 13000 people" business model work in my town. I can't see there being enough "connoisseur" demand to keep the dispensaries open once every mini-mart starts selling it.
Nullius in verba
To be blunt, my answer to "mind if I smoke?" has always been "wouldn't care if you burned". As long as he's doing it where I don't have to suffer from it, it's all right. It's ok if done in public where I can easily move away and where it dissipates quickly, it's ok where there is explicitly a "smoking area", where I, as a non-smoker, simply don't WANT to go to, and of course it is ok in any place owned by the person (and not designated as an area where people without a personal connection to the person will congregate, e.g. in a restaurant belonging to the smoker), since I do insist that in the privacy of somebody's home anything he wants to do is a-ok as long as he does not force any other person to suffer it.
Anyone's liberty stops where it infringes on the liberty of someone else. And I do think that the same that applies to tobacco smoke should apply to marijuana smoke: Do it where nobody else is bothered by it, and especially do NOT do it where people eat, sleep or where kids are about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's plenty of evidence.
Wtf I live in Florida we had 58-42 and it didn't pass. Thats kind of insulting.
As I said, however... the smell of marijuana does not seem to dissipate very quickly indoors, and I know there are people in my building that smoke it, from the occasional odors that waft through the hallways every so often. If it becomes legal here, my concern is that those who smoke it may use less care in keeping the smell from getting outside of their own unit, since there would be no further reason for them to try and be discrete about their practice, and the odor will linger outside their unit for much longer, possibly even getting into nearby units, since the unit doors are just plain old fire-resistant doors, and certainly not hermetically sealed.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Shove said buds in your espresso grinder, set setting to finest. Pack your puck in your e61, and enjoy a cup of ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. For best results, reintroduce your fiber back into your drinking apparatus.
Government is like religion in that a person can be either (1) theist, (2) atheist, (3) agnostic, or (4) apathetic. As for the people who don't vote, they could be any of the latter three. Personally I'm atheist, and that's why I don't vote.
Am I the only one troubled by this. Let me get this straight, our country has a drug problem so let's make some drugs legal. What the heck???
Florida hit 58% approval for medical marijuana in a year with poor Democratic and young turnout. Florida requires 60% to pass. The Governor was re-elected with 42%.
There are already efforts to get full legalization on the ballot in 2016 when presumably there will be significant turnout.
Just DON'T DO DRUGS. Problem solved.
Why does anyone feel the need to do drugs at all? First, it's bad for your health. Secondly, while on drugs you're not totally in control of yourself. Why would you want to put yourself through that? I've never understood this, not when I was a kid, not when I was a teen and certainly not as an adult! And no, I'm not a bible thumping religious freak either.
Marijuana Legalized In Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC
United my ass :P
Have to wonder how this will play out. Will this be Cigarettes take two? Get people hooked and now it's harmful to our health. Then the lawsuits. Any big corporation would be nuts to take it on.
Then of course we'll have the dumbasses smoking and driving, and so on.