Prop 205 to Legalize Recreational Marijuana in Arizona (NOV 2016) (houses, inspectors)

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Old Town FFX

The 13min hit piece, that talked to 4 people, all but 1 anti cannabis? Yeah, it wasn't biased at all. Shame on 60min.

Yep 4 people who are DIRECTLY involved TODAY unlike the pro ads from people who are NOT involved or have a pro pot $$$$$$$ fueled axe to grind.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by jimj

Yep 4 people who are DIRECTLY involved TODAY unlike the pro ads from people who are NOT involved or have a pro pot $$$$$$$ fueled axe to grind.

Or the anti ads featuring misc. people and retired politicians from pre-legalization days pretending like they administered it?

You on the payroll? You're railing pretty hard against this all by yourself in two threads?

[WestGuest]

Fewer teens use after legalization.

Feds: Fewer Teens Using Marijuana In Era Of Marijuana Legalization

[WestGuest]

I’ve served as an elected District Attorney in Conservative Texas. Every DA is on a limited budget. We have to make choices. I believe in strict punishment for violent offenders and burglars. I rarely gave probation. Unfortunately we had to deal with all these annoying pot cases. Even when pot users got probation the understaffed probation officers had to make sure they were in by 10PM – I’d rather they checked on sex offenders.
In addition the Washington Post reports for 2015 Colorado gained 18,000 pot-related jobs and $2.4 billion in revenue. 2016 will be much better.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

Or the anti ads featuring misc. people and retired politicians from pre-legalization days pretending like they administered it?

You on the payroll? You're railing pretty hard against this all by yourself in two threads?

I agree, both sides have honesty issues and that is sad given the importance of the issue. No, LOL, I'm not on anyone's payroll, well in all honesty I guess my wife's as I rarely see my checks...

I am just concerned about the place I live rushing into something headlong JUST because of $$$$$ because that's what it boils down to. $$$ to pay prosecutors and jails or $$$$$ for the state and to hell with the consequences as those that are for rushing into this probably don't have to deal with the downside unless someone you know or care about is smacked by a stoned driver.

I'm NOT saying no,never. I am agreeing with the current governor of CO about getting baseline data etc before selling it on every corner. I don't think that's an unfair compromise.

If it does go into effect I will in all honesty probably leave the state as they have problems dealing with the issues they already have without adding this to the mix. I DON'T think they can deal with the issues Pueblo is dealing with on top of everything else.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by WestGuest

I’ve served as an elected District Attorney in Conservative Texas. Every DA is on a limited budget. We have to make choices. I believe in strict punishment for violent offenders and burglars. I rarely gave probation. Unfortunately we had to deal with all these annoying pot cases. Even when pot users got probation the understaffed probation officers had to make sure they were in by 10PM – I’d rather they checked on sex offenders.
In addition the Washington Post reports for 2015 Colorado gained 18,000 pot-related jobs and $2.4 billion in revenue. 2016 will be much better.

As I said before, it all comes down to $$$$$ and to hell with everything else... Wouldn't some sort of decriminalization have the same effect on your budget?

[Old Town FFX]

Originally Posted by jimj

I agree, both sides have honesty issues and that is sad given the importance of the issue. No, LOL, I'm not on anyone's payroll, well in all honesty I guess my wife's as I rarely see my checks...

I am just concerned about the place I live rushing into something headlong JUST because of $$$$$ because that's what it boils down to. $$$ to pay prosecutors and jails or $$$$$ for the state and to hell with the consequences as those that are for rushing into this probably don't have to deal with the downside unless someone you know or care about is smacked by a stoned driver.

I'm NOT saying no,never. I am agreeing with the current governor of CO about getting baseline data etc before selling it on every corner. I don't think that's an unfair compromise.

If it does go into effect I will in all honesty probably leave the state as they have problems dealing with the issues they already have without adding this to the mix. I DON'T think they can deal with the issues Pueblo is dealing with on top of everything else.

Good lord, you really drank the kool-aid from that 60min hit piece.

[adriver]

Originally Posted by jimj

Comments in blue

So, I've shown you what was said VERBATIM and in context. Feel free to read the whole transcript at the link below.
As I've said before, I would prefer we follow the Governor's advice and spend some time making sure we don't make the mistakes CO has/is just to satisfy some wanna be/old Hippies.
The Pot Vote - CBS News

Yes its on the ballot. I don't know the ballots for the other counties, the history of voting there, or any idea what that outcome will actually be. I know some counties opted out right away, not sure how many have switched either way since. I WOULD LIKE to reexamine that one after the vote, to get an HONEST idea about what the locals truly feel, (especially considering they have the largest single operation in the state).


As for the sherriff, frankly that was expected; and if its legal here, that will happen here too. That has to do with growing it here (while being able to hide it in plain sight), then transporting it to other states where its not recreationally legal. With our wide variety of climates and our 300+ days of sun and dry air here in the valley; I can guarantee you that people will be doing the same here. Its a problem, and I don't want to say its not really OUR (AZ) problem, but it will happen. The only way that's going to go away is if its taken off the drug list, so that growers could grow and profits could slow.


The governor is clearly trying to just be and urge caution. His main point (from the entire interview), was that he felt that CO didn't start comparing facts and recording numbers YEARS before they started this; that they don't have accurate figures to compare them too for pre/post legalization results.


As for the pediatrician; I didn't like how several questions appeared to be leading, and honestly I had no idea that a baby takes in 7 times the amount of thc compared to the mother. To think that half the newborns are coming in with marijuana in there system really is disturbing. Not sure how to look at that.... It seems like there has to be more information that would make that a little more clear... Devil's advocate on that one, are fewer mothers coming in with opiates?? Just seems like they plucked one fact when there is a lot more information that we didn't get there.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by adriver

Yes its on the ballot. I don't know the ballots for the other counties, the history of voting there, or any idea what that outcome will actually be. I know some counties opted out right away, not sure how many have switched either way since. I WOULD LIKE to reexamine that one after the vote, to get an HONEST idea about what the locals truly feel, (especially considering they have the largest single operation in the state).


As for the sherriff, frankly that was expected; and if its legal here, that will happen here too. That has to do with growing it here (while being able to hide it in plain sight), then transporting it to other states where its not recreationally legal. With our wide variety of climates and our 300+ days of sun and dry air here in the valley; I can guarantee you that people will be doing the same here. Its a problem, and I don't want to say its not really OUR (AZ) problem, but it will happen. The only way that's going to go away is if its taken off the drug list, so that growers could grow and profits could slow.


The governor is clearly trying to just be and urge caution. His main point (from the entire interview), was that he felt that CO didn't start comparing facts and recording numbers YEARS before they started this; that they don't have accurate figures to compare them too for pre/post legalization results.


As for the pediatrician; I didn't like how several questions appeared to be leading, and honestly I had no idea that a baby takes in 7 times the amount of thc compared to the mother. To think that half the newborns are coming in with marijuana in there system really is disturbing. Not sure how to look at that.... It seems like there has to be more information that would make that a little more clear... Devil's advocate on that one, are fewer mothers coming in with opiates?? Just seems like they plucked one fact when there is a lot more information that we didn't get there.

And there lies the big issue in my mind. <bold> We do know what we don't know and should at least attempt to find out before we let the genie out of the bottle. Once out it will be impossible to put it back in.

I think there are ways to if not prevent gangs from coming here and setting up operations to at least slow it to a trickle. Do we really need to add more crime/violence on top of what we already have? Are we ready to hire more cops to handle proven VIOLENT gangs?
Truly the only way to significantly remove the cartel/gang issue is to make it Federally legal which is not happing near term and so states like CO will remain a battle ground. Do we really need to bring that upon our state at this time all so people can get high?
I don't think we do. I know I certainly don't want cartel grow houses on my street. Do any of you?

As for mothers coming in with opiates? That's got nothing really to do with this, we all know that's bad so why would anyone want to add MORE drugs to the mix, especially one that'd be legal (non prescription).

Then we get to impaired drivers and the lack of the ability to pinpoint what is actually impaired and what is not. Let me start this out by saying the argument that pot doesn't effect the way people drive is a NON STARTER because it's a LIE. I know this from years of experience both personal and observations.

We can test that fairly accurately with Alcohol but not Pot. Do we arrest/jail drivers with ANY THC in their system? No, can't do that for obvious reasons so where do we draw the line and how to we find out if a person has hit the impaired line?

Again, from the CO experiment we KNOW some of what we don't know.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Old Town FFX

Good lord, you really drank the kool-aid from that 60min hit piece.

Is that the BEST you can do? Maybe backing off smoking for a couple of days would help to actually put a cogent argument together...