đź”· Open Thread

I'd rather limit the dispensaries to major medical centers. Reason being that California allowed dispensaries everywhere and it lead to heavy abuse of the system.
 
kz1000ps said:
"I don't know what I'm talking about, but if I assume things then such and such might happen..."

KentXie, you should probably sit this one out.
Click to expand...

"I'm a dick and instead of having a discussion and explaining things, I'll just be a dick."

Maybe you should just have said that marijuana do not cause a significant uptick in diseases that needed to be treated and then brought the facts with it instead of being a dick.

And I didn't make an assumption. I just brought out the possibility that if marijuana can cause diseases like other smoked products, then those that rely on government insurance who contract the disease would end up increasing the amount of money the government has to spend to treat them.

Now do I know this? No, that's why I said, I am not familiar with the side effects of marijuana which sets up a perfect opportunity for someone who does know to just say
"no, marijuana would not make a significant impact."
 
Limiting the dispensaries to 35 statewide is intended to avoid the proliferation that happened in California.
 
^ Smart move.

KentXie said:
"I'm a dick and instead of having a discussion and explaining things, I'll just be a dick."

Maybe you should just have said that marijuana do not cause a significant uptick in diseases that needed to be treated and then brought the facts with it instead of being a dick.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm a dick. No I'm not here to Google stuff for you.
 
Anyone (dicks included) want to guess which wards/precincts/neighborhoods were the ones that voted yes in the highest percentages?
 
KentXie said:
Then why post on the conversation if you're not going to add to it?
Click to expand...

I was adding to it before you waddled in...if you feel like continuing this then we should move to PMs; otherwise I'm done addressing this.
 
datadyne007 said:
My whole take on pot is legalize it and tax the fuck out of it. No more deficit anymore, thats for sure.
Click to expand...

This worked well enough for cigarettes. But while I'd say the stoner lobby probably wouldn't organize very well against it, they did manage to overturn a number of state possession laws. Not sure I want to create the new generation of pothead Tea Party activists.
 
kz1000ps said:
I was adding to it before you waddled in...if you feel like continuing this then we should move to PMs; otherwise I'm done addressing this.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, and I know I am correct because I only need to go back a page, I was responding directly to datadyne, not you. A little bit too anxious to start a fight aren't you?
 
^ I bet if you two smoked a little weed, this argument wouldn't have happened ;)
 
^^ Right on, choo. I've been thinking that for a couple of days...
 
Ron Newman said:
Limiting the dispensaries to 35 statewide is intended to avoid the proliferation that happened in California.
Click to expand...

No, this is just limiting the ability to open up shop to those with the most cash/best connections. This is like taxi medallions: the people lose.
 
Does anybody know of any large infrastructure projects scheduled for Sudbury St? Over the past few days hundreds of surveyor dots have sprouted up like acne all over the sidewalks from Cambridge St to Congress. Any ideas on what they might be for?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top