Skip to comments.On Arizona marijuana tour, Nevada legislators see value of quality control at dispensary level
Posted on 03/23/2013 1:41:42 PM PDT by redreno
GLENDALE, Ariz. There may be very few times that six elected officials surround themselves with pounds of marijuana and invite in photographers, television stations and newspaper reporters.
But the cameras were rolling as six Nevada state legislators huddled Friday around a lit display case at Arizona Organix. They peered at an array of green cannabis buds with names like Gucci, Blue Elephant, Purple Kush and Platinum Dream.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
--I was especially amused by his prescription drug "control" bill--only unacceptable to doctors, patients, and the general public---at least he did admit it would need to be "reworked"--
Sometimes, I *think* it would be okay to decriminalize pot/ legalize it for industrial use (textiles, animal feed, lubricants, etc). Then, I read something like this that jogs my memory of the absolute morons whose whole world revolves around “getting stoned, man” & I want to puke.
It would be just like gays. They won’t keep it at home. It’ll be alllll over everywhere. I don’t want to live with those people. They’re obnoxious.
Thank you. I agree one hundred percent. Picture entire areas of Woodstock hippies running around- I wouldn’t want it.
When the state regulates the amount to 2.5 oz every two weeks, they drive the price high by suppressing the supply. I’m sure that’s driving the price to the $390 level. Essentially, the drug cartels can still stay in business at that price, but at least they will see some competition finally.
That’s freedom for you... In order to enjoy YOUR liberty, you have to grant the same to those with whom you disagree. Too bad, so sad. As long as your neighbor is non-aggressive, what he ingests is completely HIS business.
Hey, duuuuude - this is some great sh*t, dude!
“Non-aggressive” sounds like moral relativism to me. Unintended consequences happen when a person’s judgement & reflexes (& perception) are impaired. Doesn’t make it “less dangerous”. It’s just in a different way.
You are quite correct that what another person does is none of my business. Until it affects me or someone I care about. Would you say this about a drunk driver or if your neighbor was cooking meth? I guess you’d be okay with 2 women or 2 men playing touchy-feely in front of your grandkids, too? Because I don’t see a difference. If only people would keep their shady lifestyles to themselves.
But they don’t do that. They want to think they’re “normal” & “okay”, so
they want it “government approved”... then, they can let it all hang out & nobody can stop them or say anything. Sorry. I don’t see this as “social progress” or “civil rights”. I see it as social decay.
I’m not saying that I think smoking pot should be *criminal*, but I don’t really think it should be “socially acceptable”, either.
(Two people have confronted me on this & interestingly, both were Marines. This is very different from the Marines I know, personally. I gotta say that I’m a little surprised. I think one of of them is going to be *real* surprised.)
Non-aggression simply means you do not INITIATE any act of force, PERIOD. It has zero to do with moral relativity. It only has to do with WHO STARTS SOMETHING. For example, once you display your intent to rob me, then (under the principle of non-aggression), I am free to use whatever degree of force I, in my sole discretion, deem needful to stop your threat. It has nothing to do with smoking pot ar anything else, though you control freaks won’t ever admit that, nor stop committing violent aggression against folks who only want to be left alone,
What someone does in the privacy of their own home, when acting alone or with someone capable of giving informed consent, is NOT YOUR BUSINESS, EVER.
What happens in public places or with the FORCED participation of others is totally another matter.
As for being confronted by Marines on matters like this, I suspect it’s because most of us are far more in tune with the Founding Dads on such matters as this and are NOT INCLINED TO WANT TO CONTROL THE PEACEABLE, PRIVATE BEHAVIORS OF OTHERS. I believe these matters are best left to the individual, his or her family and God, just as did Washington, Jefferson and company,
Hmm. I agreed, & agree, re the privacy of our own homes. Strongly. I, too, want to be left alone & in peace.
“What happens in public places or with the FORCED participation of others is totally another matter.”
And that’s what I addressed. Both in my initial reply & my reply to you.
You’re not addressing what I said. You’re just attacking me (again) because I don’t want to reap the consequences of *what should be private* behavior by someone else.
Case in point: A person, in their own home (apartment), minding their own business, finds their apartment on fire because their neighbor, who just so happened to be “relaxing after work”, forgot a pan on the stove- which caught fire. When it finally occurred to the person- who started the fire, that their apartment was filling up with smoke, they managed to put the (burning) pan on their wooden balcony. The building caught fire- now in 2 places (interior & exterior). It actually trashed 3 units & damaged several others. It gets better. The person minding their own business? Called the fire dept. The person who started the fire, never even called. They left. It took an arson investigation or an engineer (I forget which- arson, I think, because that’s what they originally thought) to find out how it happened & the person finally admitted it.
This actually happened.
I know of at least 2 accidents- 1 involving an 18 wheeler & 1 involving a school bus, in which other drivers were under the influence of drugs. I did the transcripts on them.
Now, it’s true that there was no *intention* to commit harm (”non-aggression”, which is where the relativism comes in) in any of these situations, but the fact is that people were injured & lost property (& it could have been worse) because someone else was irresponsible & stupid. They cost the victims. They cost the insurance companies & they cost the taxpayers. It was completely avoidable.
I am not the only person on this thread who disapproves of handing drug users the hammer & clock. Why are you coming after me, specifically?
Your comments in post three.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.