In mourning for Turtledude
- Mar 31, 2013
- Reaction score
- We had a bad fire in 1871
- Political Leaning
I'm all for the decriminalization, but I definitely don't want public consumption due to it being airborne. I must admit that is going to be problematic. I have and demand every right to freely breath drug-free, whilst in my public spaces.I don't know much about Illinois, but you think Chicago could get much worse?
In theory, this will help crime in a couple ways, as it decriminalizes, freeing up those police\court resources currently wasted on marijuana, generates new tax revenue, AND provides a new industry boom, and provide work for some people who might otherwise turn to crime. In fact ex-criminals would have a leg up at first, being that all production\distribution is presently illegal.
And yes, if it's anything like CA, you'll be lucky to go a day without smelling it out in public.
[/B]I'm all for the decriminalization, but I definitely don't want public consumption due to it being airborne. I must admit that is going to be problematic. I have and demand every right to freely breath drug-free, whilst in my public spaces.
Meh. The criminal act is the driving, not the drinking. Don't take away the rights of the legal drinker or toker, because of the scant minority that commits a criminal act.
Well - public drinking is illegal (where I live), and reasonably well enforced. No reason not to do the same with pot.I think we agree in general on this, but enforcing that sort of rule has the same problems as enforcing the drug laws to start with. It's not worth the resources it would demand, and it is impossible to actually control.
I suppose we could create an incentive by having reduced taxation for non-smelly marijuana options like edibles and vaping, but that's only going to nibble around the edges.
:lamoIsn’t there a Governor’s Suite @ the charm school called Joliet?
Ah, I miss Steve Goodman. I do not miss the Pirates ...
(NPR) Lincoln Towing, Bane Of Many Chicago Drivers, Loses License
Well - public drinking is illegal (where I live), and reasonably well enforced. No reason not to do the same with pot.
I really, really, don't want to breathe-in anyone's drugs while I'm in a public space. I'm dead adamant about it, to be honest!
Despite my sometimes relatively liberal political views, I lead a pretty conservative personal life. I don't drink or do drugs. I'm already getting teed-off when I'm occasionally breathing-in pot smoke when I'm in the city, and if it gets worse I'm really going to be teed. I see no reason not to treat this like public drinking. Hell, I'd make a complaint if it keeps my public-space air drug-free. I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable.I'm not opposed. It just won't work everywhere. I work across the street from LAX near a bunch of hotels and it's in the air every day here and on the drive home, but then we're only going 35 mph most of the time (if we're lucky.)
California seems to actively promote scofflaws, and they always point at funding as their excuse, but the tax levels and population are huge, so they could absolutely afford to do a good job of it, they just have other priorities (don't get me started.)