Guns and Pot conundrum (2014, school, live)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

The link is more of a conundrum and questionable.

The issues of both guns and pot are up for debate. We had a chance to vote on pot and when approved I think it surprised our elected and now they are scrambling/ delaying to try and figure out how to handle it.

We did not have a chance to vote on the firearms issue but instead one person took it upon herself to disrupt and derail what was one day a legally bought and sold item and the next day it was not.

The so called "assault weapons" that she banned are used in very few crimes and murders but legalizing pot will lead to more distracted drivers and more accidents on already dangerous roads.

One person can rewrite a law overnight but when another is voted in they are dragging their feet to implement it.

In this case it's the cities and towns dragging their feet, not the state.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

In this case it's the cities and towns dragging their feet, not the state.

I thought it was stuck in the Senate.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I thought it was stuck in the Senate.

I guess they are still working on a compromise, but the OP's topic of discussion was in how local towns are looking to further regulate it (NIMBY forces coming into play). Just because the state approves something, doesn't mean local communities can't pass their own ordinances and zoning as well.

[robr2]

There is a bit of NIMBYism at play with the pot shops. IMO, if a city or town bans pot shops, they should not share in the additional revenue that will be generated. I'm the same way about lottery funds - it should be returned to the cities and towns based on sales not on population. Why should Weston get $300K in state aid from lottery sales when they have one of the lowest lottery sales in the state?

[mwbms28]

Not so much a direct answer to your questions, but a couple of notes...

1.) I can't imagine that the lawmakers were surprised marijuana legalization passed. Its poll numbers had been trending upward for years.

2.) Marijuana prices have fallen about 30% since the bill passed. The market was flooded in the immediate aftermath. Craigslist became like Ebay for weed, with multiple dealers posting deals every day. That trend has died down a little, but you can still find offers easily and my bet is that at any time of day, you could obtain marijuana through CL in less than three hours. That did not used to be the case (I speak from long experience). Which leads me to...

3.) Who's against this bill again? Politicians? Are we sure organized crime doesn't have a hand in this? A huge market has just opened up, and so long as the product is legal but there are no legal sources whereby to procure it, we all know who gets the money. Dealers and grower/dealers.

The proposed tax number for pot just came out at 20%. Would you rather pay $60 an 1/8th or $50? If you smoke a couple of times a month, you don't care. If you smoke daily, that adds up. If pot is anything like drinking, the top 10% of users consume between 80-90% of the product. Higher taxes mean other people get to stay in business.

Funny how the institution of the bill got postponed, and then suddenly the tax numbers went up.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by mwbms28

3.) Who's against this bill again? Politicians? Are we sure organized crime doesn't have a hand in this? A huge market has just opened up, and so long as the product is legal but there are no legal sources whereby to procure it, we all know who gets the money. Dealers and grower/dealers.

The beer and liquor distributors were fighting it. There is an expectation that sales of alcohol with drop once marijuana is sold.

The tobacco distributors were also lobbying the legislature to put them in charge of distribution since they already have expertise in the collection of excise taxes. Their plan of course was to be able to add a layer and cost to the product.

[Cape Cod Todd]

When you think about it it really is all about the money they plan on making with the taxes which will be set at 20% possibly more.

You have something that is one day illegal but people still want it so you make it legal it really opens up the market to many people that were nervous about trying it.

Look at prohibition when alcohol was outlawed the outlaws made a fortune selling it to the people who still demanded it. The States and Feds realized that people still wanted their booze so the amendment was repealed and the Gov. was able to regulate the industry once again and make huge revenues from it.


The purpose of this thread was to get readers viewpoint on the dilemma that one person the AG can regulate/outlaw a formerly legal product the AR15 sporting rifle with no public input or vote while the subject of legalized pot was put on the ballot and put up for a vote and now the Gov. is dragging its feet.
The gun ban happened overnight, the pot vote was years in the making.
Maybe we should have been allowed to vote on what type of firearms are allowed to be sold in Mass. but then again a vote like that in this state would no doubt have all guns banned and no doubt the ruling would go into effect over night.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Guns kill people (I know, I know, PEOPLE kill people) but it's guns in the hands of people. Guns are ok for hunting but if someone is that scared, then make sure your doors are locked and have an alarm system and motion lights on your house. One thing that I like about our state is that it has sensible gun laws and hopefully, dangerous guns can't easily get into the hands of crazy people.

Marijuana--medicinal, yes. For the fun of it? Maybe. But do we really need one more substance that can get a person high when they drive? We already have people causing accidents due to being high on drugs, why do we need more? Main thing is what I've heard from places where marijuana is legal--smoke-filled air for people to breathe and the places that sell it attract certain unsavoury types. I've smoked it so I'm not opposed to it but smoke it at home and then don't get into a car and drive. From what I've read, I don't blame people for not wanting a place that sells marijuana located near their house. Read some of the forums in the states where's it's been legalized.

Please define "dangerous" gun.

[grouse789]

Please define "dangerous" gun.

Lol, I chuckled at that statement. No one should be allowed to just change a law because they feel like it.

[Cape Cod Todd]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Please define "dangerous" gun.

All guns are dangerous just as many other things in the hands of someone who has evil intent or ignorance of their safe operation.
Many household items from tools to kitchen essentials to chemicals could be used to maim and kill.
We have seen an uptick in attacks where the rampaging terrorist has used a car or truck.
Who needs a gun to kill when you think about it but a gun sure comes in handy to stop a bad guy.

Speaking of dangerous items we could put the now legalized pot on that list. I'm sure that most people will consume it in a safe manner such as at home where they can chill out but I'm sure we are going to see some idiots that ingest or smoke a marijuana product then go out for an impaired drive.
We already have so many people that are driving under the influence of booze, drugs both legal and not plus the ones who are texting or other wise distracted and it is dangerous out there. Adding yet another product to the list of things that can impair a driver is asking for trouble.

The more I think about it the more I realize that the Government allowed the pot question on the ballot because it is going to be a money maker for them.