When i walk into a Mass Real Estate Office later this year, this is the 'one list' i want to see (Needham: school, zoning)

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by NS-GR

It is not clear-cut. Only "progressives" and the NYT are certain that MJ is NOT a gateway drug and apparently, they laugh at the term and the idea...

So, since we can "untether" drugs from the street dealers, why we do not legalize everything then?

It would certainly help avoid the ongoing opiod deaths and human trafficking, but of course, there would be other consequences.

As for legalization only being the motivation of 'progressives' and NYT, I think not not. Given the rising popularity of legalization, there are plenty institutions exploring issues of addiction as they relate to marijuana and results are suggesting that early use might be an indicator of addiction predisposition, but not the magic 'gateway'. Even the Cato Institute, a historically Conservative think-tank, has been pushing back on Jeff Sessions, advocating the U.S. congress remove marijuana a Sched I drug, and the DOJ return to letting legalized states operate without federal concern.

I'm not sure where you're acquire your 'facts', but they don't seem tethered to reality.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by redplum33

I'm glad it was legalized, and I welcome the stores. That said, I wouldn't want one in my neighborhood. I believe the stores will attract a criminal element. I'm not referring to the customers either. People will be walking out of these stores with $350 ounces, not $25 cases of beer. You don't think criminals are gonna be all over that? Criminals are aware that the overwhelming majority won't go to the police to report that their weed was stolen.

Why do you think that? And I bet many of these stores may have a police presence, or good security. Heck, if robbery is an issue, you better be against a jeweler opening up too!

[NS-GR]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

It would certainly help avoid the ongoing opiod deaths and human trafficking, but of course, there would be other consequences.

As for legalization only being the motivation of 'progressives' and NYT, I think not not. Given the rising popularity of legalization, there are plenty institutions exploring issues of addiction as they relate to marijuana and results are suggesting that early use might be an indicator of addiction predisposition, but not the magic 'gateway'. Even the Cato Institute, a historically Conservative think-tank, has been pushing back on Jeff Sessions, advocating the U.S. congress remove marijuana a Sched I drug, and the DOJ return to letting legalized states operate without federal concern.

I'm not sure where you're acquire your 'facts', but they don't seem tethered to reality.

Cato is a libertarian think tank. OK, then... Liberals, NYT and libertarians agree on the legalization of MJ. So what? Can you name another conservative group that agrees? In addition, even in MA, 54%-46% is not such a wide margin. Clearly, more than 54% vote for the democratic party in the elections. So, you guys should stop saying that almost everybody supports legalization... I suggest that you check your "facts"...

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by NS-GR

Cato is a libertarian think tank. OK, then... Liberals, NYT and libertarians agree on the legalization of MJ.

Fair enough, but prior to Trump muddying the waters, I'd argue the Republican/Koch centric Cato was very representative of the modern Republicanism. Certainly not representative of social conservatives/evangelicals.

Originally Posted by NS-GR

So what? Can you name another conservative group that agrees? In addition, even in MA, 54%-46% is not such a wide margin. Clearly, more than 54% vote for the democratic party in the elections. So, you guys should stop saying that almost everybody supports legalization... I suggest that you check your "facts"...

Alright, well Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, and as of an October 25 2017 poll, Republicans (51%) all believe marijuana should be legalized. This leaves social conservatives as the only sizeable group with a majority opposed. Obviously not "everybody" approves of legalization; however, such things are determined by a majority and not an absolute vote.

I've checked my facts quite thoroughly. Obviously it's still a divisive, but one which is becoming less divisive with incredible momentum (unlike gun-control and Roe v. Wade). Ongoing unbiased research is increasingly confirming what users have known for decades - the vast majority of adult users are not posing a risk to society nor are they on a path of personal destruction. In 2018, mobile phones, alcohol, opiates, and income disparity all pose a far greater threat to public health than marijuana ever has - legal or not. To continue to keep marijuana as a sched-I drug is not only short-sighted, it's also an insult to people of color who have been disproportionately penalized for possession.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

I've checked my facts quite thoroughly. Obviously it's still a divisive, but one which is becoming less divisive with incredible momentum (unlike gun-control and Roe v. Wade). Ongoing unbiased research is increasingly confirming what users have known for decades - the vast majority of adult users are not posing a risk to society nor are they on a path of personal destruction. In 2018, mobile phones, alcohol, opiates, and income disparity all pose a far greater threat to public health than marijuana ever has - legal or not. To continue to keep marijuana as a sched-I drug is not only short-sighted, it's also an insult to people of color who have been disproportionately penalized for possession.

It looks similar to majority opinion to gay marriage. Unthinkable 20 years ago that every state would legalize gay marriage. While marijuana does not have a civil rights component, so it won't be solved in the courts, I do think that we'll see the majority of states legalize the drug in the next 10 years.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I bet many of these stores may have a police presence, or good security. Heck, if robbery is an issue, you better be against a jeweler opening up too!

My point seems to have been missed. I welcome the stores.

Unlike jewelry purchasers, marijuana purchasers won't go to the police if they get jacked after leaving the store. Also, the stolen marijuana can be consumed or easily sold on the streets for full value. With stolen jewelry, they'd get a very tiny fraction of its value while risking getting turned in by a pawn shop.

Poor analogy.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by redplum33

My point seems to have been missed. I welcome the stores.

Unlike jewelry purchasers, marijuana purchasers won't go to the police if they get jacked after leaving the store. Also, the stolen marijuana can be consumed or easily sold on the streets for full value. With stolen jewelry, they'd get a very tiny fraction of its value while risking getting turned in by a pawn shop.

Poor analogy.

Why in the world do you think this? This makes no sense to me. If they're robbed and it's a legal product that was legally purchased, why wouldn't they?

[BostonMike7]

I kinda agree.


Getting robbed is getting robbed. If it's a legal purchase, why be nervous about it.

[tysmith95]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

I kinda agree.


Getting robbed is getting robbed. If it's a legal purchase, why be nervous about it.

Not any different then getting robbed outside of a packie

[redplum33]

I just don't think it will happen. Remember, it's still illegal on a federal level. And it's still considered taboo in many circles. I'm not sure how, but your employer and/or family members could possibly find out.

It's not worth the potential hassles. And what's to gain?

While fictional, Nancy's thriving black market business on the TV show Weeds was founded on the idea that people wouldn't want to show their ID at the medical marijuana shops.

Don't underestimate the desire for privacy.