6 ms·
I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politici
by cogman10 7mo ago
I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician.
That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal.
My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the wacky tabacy out of the state. Including trying to amend the state constitution for it. He does this because he's mormon and the mormons are scared of the devil's lettuce.
- sir0010010 7mo agoI personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.
- pattilupone 7mo agoCan smoking tobacco be banned in multifamily complexes currently? I'd think the policy would be the same.
- ryoshoe 7mo agoHOAs tend to manage this kind of thing
- hedgedoops2 7mo agoLol, yes, subsidiarity. HOAs, the lowest level of US government.
- dfdsjsdklfjs 7mo ago[flagged]
- refulgentis 7mo agoYou've made about a dozen comments in this thread and they've escalated from "HOAs are unconstitutional" to "I'd rather shoot my fellow citizens than be drafted if weed isn't legal" to "driving high is fine, I've done it for decades." Each one a little more unhinged than the last, which is an accomplishment given where it started. It reads less like a coherent political philosophy and more like someone who's been hitting the sacrament a little too hard this morning. I smoke your "sacrament" daily, and cigarettes, and I'm terrified that people will think you're representative of either of those classes, or even a minority of them. Most people in this thread broadly agree with you that marijuana should be legal. You're somehow picking fights with your own allies because they had the audacity to say they don't like the smell, or that driving impaired is bad. You're not defending freedom, you're being contrarian and hostile to anyone who doesn't arrive at your exact position with your exact intensity. And the driving thing isn't a matter of opinion. "I've done it for decades and never caused an accident" is the exact argument every drunk driver makes right up until they do. Your anecdotal survival is not evidence of safety.
- dfdsjsdklfjs 7mo ago[flagged]
- jhbadger 7mo agoEvery apartment that I've lived in in the US has as part of the lease that you can't smoke (tobacco or anything else) in it. Same for hotel rooms.
- dfdsjsdklfjs 7mo ago[flagged]
- toast0 7mo agoI don't think it's unreasonable to desire to be free from the noxious odors of others. > The right to waft my smells in any direction ends where your nose begins. - Abraham Lincoln or Ben Franklin or Mark Twain or someone
- dfdsjsdklfjs 7mo ago[flagged]
- stale2002 7mo agoIt doesn't have to be criminally illegal. Instead it could simply be civil. The apartment complex, which you do not own, would be the ones setting the rules here. And you, of your own free choice, would have the choice to either follow the rules or go live somewhere else. The person you are responding to doesn't have an issue with you smoking in your own purchased home. Instead this was about apartment complexes. And it wouldn't even have to be a law applied to you. It could be applied to the apartment complex. Apartment complexes already have to follow lots of laws. So they could simply be required to have this as a rule. And then you, could make your libertarian choice to live there or not. Its not your apartment complex after all. And since its someone else property, they would absolutely have the free to make you not do this in their own property.
- dfdsjsdklfjs 7mo ago[flagged]
- stale2002 7mo ago> When it's forced by government decree You aren't being forced to do anything that you didn't agree to. You aren't the apartment owner, you instead just signed the contract and have to follow the apartment rules. I don't see why you get to complain about what someone else is doing with their own property. Its their property. What laws apply to them are none of your business as you simply signed the contract.
- asadotzler 7mo agoUntil we start throwing cigar, pipe, and cigarette smokers in prison for smoking where I can smell it, I'm totally okay smelling some pot. The playing field needs to be leveled.
- throwaway173738 7mo agoI don’t want my toddler exposed to secondhand pot smoke. Unfortunately it’s more common than secondhand cigarette smoke in my experience. I wouldn’t get upset on my own behalf but he’s too young to choose and it’s my responsibility to act in his behalf as much as I can.
- dfdsjsdklfjs 7mo ago[flagged]
- DangitBobby 7mo agoYep it's more distinctive, more intrusive, spreads further, smells worse.
- IAmBroom 7mo agoBut is it more unhealthy? The rest are simply adult "preferences".
- throwaway173738 7mo agoAre you arguing that my toddler should be okay with it? The point is that it’s not about what I am okay with it’s about my being responsible for my son and what his adult self might want. We had opinions about the positive health effects of cigarettes in the 1940’s and 1950’s that turned out to be wrong. There’s a possibility you’re wrong about pot smoking too.
- dragonwriter 7mo agoGovernment tobacco smoking bans in indoor spaces accessible to the public (or outdoor spaces near the entrances to such spaces) are not uncommon in the US, nor are private contractual (via leases for rental properties and sometimes CC&Rs that bind property owners) bans for non-public spaces.
- heavyset_go 7mo agoVoting to put people in prison because of smells is certainly a take.
- DangitBobby 7mo agoI get that fucking smell everywhere now even while it's still illegal.
- sir0010010 7mo agoIt's not about the smell. Secondhand marijuana smoke carries many of the same harmful compounds as cigarette smoke [1]. The issue is involuntary exposure in shared living spaces. And ballot measures are typically all-or-nothing: you can't vote yes on edibles but no on smoking in your apartment complex. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/secondhand-smoke.html https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/secondhand-smoke...
- LEDThereBeLight 7mo agoGive me a break.
- dragonwriter 7mo agoNot all bans are criminal, and tobacco smoke has problems beyond odor.
- dragonwriter 7mo agoSmoking (even of tobacco) can generally be banned in the CC&Rs of properties (multifamily complexes is the case where this makes the most sense) and by the landlord in any rented property, multifamily or subject to CC&Rs or not.
- socalgal2 7mo agoYou should argue with him he's acting like Satan. The mormons (I used to be one) say that Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, Jesus wanted each person to have free will and choose.
- redsocksfan45 7mo ago[dead]
- spiritplumber 7mo agothat's actually a pretty cool take! here's mine if you have a use for it. https://archiveofourown.org/works/65636176?view_full_work=true https://archiveofourown.org/works/65636176?view_full_work=tr...
- limagnolia 7mo agoMormons voted strongly to legalize MJ in Utah. Maybe your politician is just an odd man out? edit: Well, I should note the Utah vote was only for "medical" MJ.
- cogman10 7mo agoIt got through via a ballot initiative. It wouldn't have been passed by the legislators in UT without that. That's why the guy in my state, C. Scott Grow, has also been fighting to make ballot initiatives harder. He's terrified that an MJ initiative would make it's way in that way.
- rhcom2 7mo agoRepublicans in Utah are also trying to remove the power from ballot initiatives because they're upset the Utahans passed an anti-gerrymandering initiative.
- mothballed 7mo agoYaeh this is a thing states do. South Dakota went in cahoots with the courts to cancel the ballot initiative to legalize weed, and California went in cahoots with the courts to sabotage prop 8 (the banning of gay marriage).
- smcin 7mo agoCalifornia Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) was unconstitutional though, it was always likely to be struck down by the SC.
- mothballed 7mo agoThat's not why it was "struck down" by SCOTUS. It was struck down because California intentionally did not defend the case in SCOTUS, leaving the proponents (i.e., those representing the majority vote) to defend it in SCOTUS. Then SCOTUS determined the prop 8 voters didn't have standing to defend prop 8, essentially defaulting the decision through a perverse chickenshit technicality and remanding it back to the lower courts. SCOTUS did not find gay marriage bans unconstitutional in that case. Only the 9th circuit did, and California intentionally stopped defending it at the 9th circuit because the 9th circuit is and was pro gay marriage.
- lokar 7mo agoThis gets at something I think a lot of people don't really understand. They see polls that show strong support for policy X, and then complain that politicians don't enact it. What they fail to consider is that while a strong majority may be in favor of the policy, it's not the top (or top 3) priority, and they will support candidates that have the opposite position on X, if they support their top priority. This is situation where well thought out (and moderately constrained) referendum process can help achieve the majority desire for a policy that would not otherwise be considered important enough to drive the selection of representatives.
- jasonwatkinspdx 7mo agoYeah, that's essentially what happened here in Oregon. And the 2nd chapter of it is after the ballot measure passed, the state liquor commission drug its heels for a couple years, because most of their executives are far more conservative than the median voter here (a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow). Eventually the state legislature got fed up with the obstructionism and passed a "ok, we're just doing it how CO did, stop stalling" bill. And here we are. The sky didn't fall. There's a lotta ways ballot measures can go into stupidity, but this is an instance where it helped force the bureaucracy to align with the majority voter position.
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago>(a side effect of a lot of them being Salem locals vs Portland, but anyhow). Because their industry is in bed with government so their priority #1 is coordinating with the people of that industry. The actual "value producing" activity of buying, distributing, selling liquor and managing those relationships is a sideshow. You see this in every deeply regulated industry.
- throwaway173738 7mo agoAlso it doesn’t matter if there’s majority support for a lot of things because most people don’t vote. If you want to get a policy enacted make sure you and your friends vote in elections regularly.
- alphawhisky 7mo agoOr because mormons are fucking batshit crazy. Are they gonna ban coffee in the state next? Idiots.