3 ms·

I've been amazed by this too. South Dakota and Idaho especially. South Dakota is coming around but Idaho is steadfast in all marijuana is bad, no matter what th

I've been amazed by this too. South Dakota and Idaho especially. South Dakota is coming around but Idaho is steadfast in all marijuana is bad, no matter what the THC level, even industrial hemp and cbd oils are fully banned. I'd love to hear from someone who is from the state and in-line with the conservative small government platform explain their position on keeping marijuana illegal.

vmception 6y ago
It comes down to incumbent representatives ruining so many peoples lives that they have to be right. Reconciling that is impossible and admitting to that they need to free incarcerated people and absolve ex-felons isnt just a pride issue for them, it might be perceived as dangerous to them. Its a flaw in the system for the state apparatus to be hamstrung by its need to be respected.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I believe marijuana laws are intentionally used as a tool for government/police to harass and commit injustices against certain people. There is no metric for which marijuana does more harm than alcohol, yet alcohol is perfectly fine.
  - seg_lol 6y ago
    Being a car passenger on weed: - Watch out there is a person half a block away texting while crossing the street - Are you sure you can't go 5mph slower? - There is a ball rolling down that driveway, a child may follow - AAAhhhhhhh! Wooooooooooooaaaahhh! - For every 50% increase in velocity we double our kinetic energy
    - newen 6y ago
      No. Marijuana can definitely cause distracted driving and lead to accidents. What’s with the internet and talking about marijuana like it’s super safe and glossing over its downsides?
      - vmception 6y ago
        Because everyone agrees that the law against driving under influence should stay?
      - seg_lol 6y ago
        > car passenger Driving on weed sounds like pure hell. I think you read past my statement and went directly to the outrage. And to vmception: No! Operating any form of dangerous equipment while less-capable than some threshold should be illegal.
williadc 6y ago
I was born and raised in Boise, but don't care if people want to smoke marijuana. My guess is that the majority of people in Idaho who object to legalizing it do so for religious reasons. Mormons are a large voting bloc in the state, and there are many other conservative Christian groups there as well.
- xnyan 6y ago
  As a former mormon, this is my take is well. Mormonism needs to be somewhat insular and us vs them to survive. After we were forced to give up polygamy, the word of wisdom (it has changed but today no coffee, tea, beer or weed) all of a sudden went from a “nice to do but not required” to “if you drink coffee, you will not live with your children as an eternal family after you die.” Mormons would ban coffee if they could.
  - bigwavedave 6y ago
    Nothing confrontational intended by this observation, but I genuinely think it's interesting that you said "when _we_ were forced..." at first and then say "Mormons would ban coffee if _they_ could" [emphasis mine in both quotes]. You identify as a former Mormon, group yourself in with them when you bring up polygamy, then separate yourself again. Again, there's nothing malicious being implied here, it's just an interesting observation that I wanted to make sure you were aware of!
    - xnyan 6y ago
      Oh for sure, and I thought about it too as I was writing it. On the one hand, I have explicitly resigned from the LDS church. I think they engage in immoral practices and I can't in good conscience say I'm a member. On the other had, I was raised Mormon and my family goes back with the Mormons to the 1830s when the LDS church was founded (technically The Church of Jesus Christ, the original name) so to some degree it's a inseparable part of my identity. I try to split the difference in my life, but it gets messy sometimes.
      - 6y ago
viggity 6y ago
I'm from a typically red state. I'm fairly conservatarian, I wouldn't mind if pot was legal. But pro-legalization groups often talk about it as if legalized pot was completely void of negative externalities. And that is wrong. It is fair to argue that the negative effects of criminalization take a larger toll on the public than legalization. But chronic marijuana use makes you stupid. Like, really, really fucking stupid. And that isn't good either. I think the legalization movement would serve itself best in convincing red states to legalize pot as well if it was open about the fact that there are bad things about pot, and making an argument of societal harm reduction. Not harm elimination.
- millzlane 6y ago
  Some argue it makes you stupid. But there are plenty of chronic users who prove otherwise. Alcohol kills more gray and white matter than Cannabis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13923 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13923 I think abuse of any substance will have negative effects. But the casual use of one substance is clearly far more safer on the body and society than the other.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  The “chronic use makes you stupid” take is um... pretty wrong. But the “convincing red states” take is off the charts wrong. There is no regard for harm reduction logic in conservative politics that isn’t already part of the conservative platform. Guns? Sure, “if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns”. Drugs? Only the ones that are already legal. Safe injection sites? Enabling addicts. Abortion? Baby murder. Sex work? Sin and depravity. Acknowledging racism? Racist itself! Holding police accountable in any way? Riots and looting! Masks? I will literally make up fake science because real science is tyranny! My goodness. Edit: of course there’s room for all of these in big-L Libertarian politics, but... the party has less significant sway in any red state I’m aware of (they’ve had more success in blue NM?), and at the membership level the party seems to be more successful in funneling angry white dudes into the alt right than convincing conservatives to actually care about personal liberties when those liberties might be shared by everyone and help reduce power disparities.

vmception 6y ago

It comes down to incumbent representatives ruining so many peoples lives that they have to be right. Reconciling that is impossible and admitting to that they need to free incarcerated people and absolve ex-felons isnt just a pride issue for them, it might be perceived as dangerous to them. Its a flaw in the system for the state apparatus to be hamstrung by its need to be respected.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
I believe marijuana laws are intentionally used as a tool for government/police to harass and commit injustices against certain people. There is no metric for which marijuana does more harm than alcohol, yet alcohol is perfectly fine.
- seg_lol 6y ago
  Being a car passenger on weed: - Watch out there is a person half a block away texting while crossing the street - Are you sure you can't go 5mph slower? - There is a ball rolling down that driveway, a child may follow - AAAhhhhhhh! Wooooooooooooaaaahhh! - For every 50% increase in velocity we double our kinetic energy
  - newen 6y ago
    No. Marijuana can definitely cause distracted driving and lead to accidents. What’s with the internet and talking about marijuana like it’s super safe and glossing over its downsides?
    - vmception 6y ago
      Because everyone agrees that the law against driving under influence should stay?
    - seg_lol 6y ago
      > car passenger Driving on weed sounds like pure hell. I think you read past my statement and went directly to the outrage. And to vmception: No! Operating any form of dangerous equipment while less-capable than some threshold should be illegal.

williadc 6y ago

I was born and raised in Boise, but don't care if people want to smoke marijuana. My guess is that the majority of people in Idaho who object to legalizing it do so for religious reasons. Mormons are a large voting bloc in the state, and there are many other conservative Christian groups there as well.

xnyan 6y ago
As a former mormon, this is my take is well. Mormonism needs to be somewhat insular and us vs them to survive. After we were forced to give up polygamy, the word of wisdom (it has changed but today no coffee, tea, beer or weed) all of a sudden went from a “nice to do but not required” to “if you drink coffee, you will not live with your children as an eternal family after you die.” Mormons would ban coffee if they could.
- bigwavedave 6y ago
  Nothing confrontational intended by this observation, but I genuinely think it's interesting that you said "when _we_ were forced..." at first and then say "Mormons would ban coffee if _they_ could" [emphasis mine in both quotes]. You identify as a former Mormon, group yourself in with them when you bring up polygamy, then separate yourself again. Again, there's nothing malicious being implied here, it's just an interesting observation that I wanted to make sure you were aware of!
  - xnyan 6y ago
    Oh for sure, and I thought about it too as I was writing it. On the one hand, I have explicitly resigned from the LDS church. I think they engage in immoral practices and I can't in good conscience say I'm a member. On the other had, I was raised Mormon and my family goes back with the Mormons to the 1830s when the LDS church was founded (technically The Church of Jesus Christ, the original name) so to some degree it's a inseparable part of my identity. I try to split the difference in my life, but it gets messy sometimes.
    - 6y ago

viggity 6y ago

I'm from a typically red state. I'm fairly conservatarian, I wouldn't mind if pot was legal. But pro-legalization groups often talk about it as if legalized pot was completely void of negative externalities. And that is wrong. It is fair to argue that the negative effects of criminalization take a larger toll on the public than legalization. But chronic marijuana use makes you stupid. Like, really, really fucking stupid. And that isn't good either. I think the legalization movement would serve itself best in convincing red states to legalize pot as well if it was open about the fact that there are bad things about pot, and making an argument of societal harm reduction. Not harm elimination.

millzlane 6y ago
Some argue it makes you stupid. But there are plenty of chronic users who prove otherwise. Alcohol kills more gray and white matter than Cannabis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13923 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.13923 I think abuse of any substance will have negative effects. But the casual use of one substance is clearly far more safer on the body and society than the other.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
The “chronic use makes you stupid” take is um... pretty wrong. But the “convincing red states” take is off the charts wrong. There is no regard for harm reduction logic in conservative politics that isn’t already part of the conservative platform. Guns? Sure, “if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns”. Drugs? Only the ones that are already legal. Safe injection sites? Enabling addicts. Abortion? Baby murder. Sex work? Sin and depravity. Acknowledging racism? Racist itself! Holding police accountable in any way? Riots and looting! Masks? I will literally make up fake science because real science is tyranny! My goodness. Edit: of course there’s room for all of these in big-L Libertarian politics, but... the party has less significant sway in any red state I’m aware of (they’ve had more success in blue NM?), and at the membership level the party seems to be more successful in funneling angry white dudes into the alt right than convincing conservatives to actually care about personal liberties when those liberties might be shared by everyone and help reduce power disparities.