Who else voted against weed legalization for rec use in MD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marijuana isn't inherently dangerous like speeding. Forcing it underground like alcohol during prohibition has made it dangerous.

Marijuana is far less dangerous than speeding, get out of here. People die from getting struck by drivers driving too fast. Nobody dies from cannabis consumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:almost no one goes to jail solely because of pot possession unless they have so much that they're a drug dealer. i dont know why this myth refuses to die.

"almost no one" isn't very comforting to the people who do go to jail.

Don’t break the law and you won’t. Did you grow up in a world devoid of consequences?

It's so cute* how you ignore racist policing patterns and how "just follow the law" is applied unevenly. Like, every one of your January 6 buddies would have been shot.


*not cute

The solution isn't to decriminalize the activity. Again, speeding tickets are enforced unequally. Are you suggesting we should legalize speeding? How well do you think that would work? Would society receive a net benefit from removing speed limits?

Marijuana isn't inherently dangerous like speeding. Forcing it underground like alcohol during prohibition has made it dangerous.

Speeding isn't dangerous either.

Speeding is dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than just the smell:

"There was a positive association between the number of cannabis dispensaries and rates of psychosis ED visits across all counties in Colorado. Although it is unclear whether it is access to products, or the types of products that may be driving this association, our findings suggest there is a potential impact on the mental health of the local population that is observed after cannabis legalization."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395922001049

and lots more like this...

Although it is unclear whether it is access to products, or the types of products that may be driving this association

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Don’t break the law and you won’t. Did you grow up in a world devoid of consequences?

Lol, another MD liberal in name only that is really a conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It’s called intent to distribute. If you have pounds of weed, it’s obviously not for personal use and you should be locked up for dealing. Why you think dealers deserve sympathy I have no idea.

It's...a...plant. Who cares how much of it someone has?

We don't care if someone has 100 kegs of beer at home. Why should we marijuana?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:almost no one goes to jail solely because of pot possession unless they have so much that they're a drug dealer. i dont know why this myth refuses to die.

"almost no one" isn't very comforting to the people who do go to jail.

Don’t break the law and you won’t. Did you grow up in a world devoid of consequences?

It's so cute* how you ignore racist policing patterns and how "just follow the law" is applied unevenly. Like, every one of your January 6 buddies would have been shot.


*not cute

Actually, I'm a crime analyst. And very liberal. I've posted here before. Cops aren't going after marijuana because it's marijuana. Cops go after the violence associated with marijuana. Just like they went after the violence associated with crack rather than powder cocaine, which had nowhere near the amount of associated street violence.

Unfortunately, the nation does not experience safety equally. The victims of community violence are overwhelmingly young Black men. Different jurisdictions have had varying experience with the illicit cannabis trade after legalization. California in particular has seen illicit sales and the associated violence grow. Here in Montgomery County, historically, all drug-related homicides are related to marijuana. That homicide rate has increased since we decriminalized marijuana. When you reduce the transactional cost for law breakers and increase the transactional cost of law enforcement, you get more violent crime. And that's what has happened here.

If the drug-related murder rate falls in Montgomery County, I will come back and eat my words. (And gladly, honestly) But I don't think it will. I think shootings and homicides will only increase. And while that likely won't impact UMC white cannabis fans, it absolutely will hurt young Black men.

Data analyst, great! Please explain poverty level as a contributing factor and how you distinguish causation from correlation when analyzing crack vs powder cocaine. Same question for "marijuana-related violence".

What if the problem isn't the marijuana, it's the poverty? Criminalizing marijuana won't solve the problems, just push them around.

Poverty itself? No. Concentrated poverty? Yes. And those areas are historically Black and brown. And overwhelmingly, most lower income people are law-abiding residents. It's a very few who cause the real harm, but that harm impacts the whole community. So since it's a small area geographically, and involves a small number of offenders, the homicide rate is not significantly influenced by fluctuations in poverty rates.

The bottom line is there are really two different Americas. People who live in concentrated poverty and everyone else. Looking at a recent County crime report, with 16 homicides through September, 13 of which were committed in equity focus areas, and just doing a back of the envelope break-down, the homicide rate is almost zero (0.4 per 100,000) in most of the county. But it's almost 5 per 100,000 people in the equity focus areas. That means people in lower income communities of color are experiencing a homicide rate almost 13 times higher than the rest of the County. That's just homicides. There are non fatal shootings, again all concentrated in the equity focus areas of the County.

Now, how to eliminate, or at least reduce, areas of concentrated poverty? That is way above my pay grade. But failure to fix systemic issues before adding more stress to challenged neighborhoods is exactly why I voted no.

On this we agree. Data can be useful, but discussing the ethics of a decision like that means understanding the tradeoffs. You're picking up on some of it, but missing big pieces that people here are trying to explain. So put down your "but I'm an expert" card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why are you commenting on DC? The city smells like weed. No, most people do not use gummies or vape pens in DC.

DC doesn't smell like weed. Pockets of the city does.

Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:psychotropic molecules

poison smoke

Keep up the hysterics. Today is going to be great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Eat gummies, moron. And stay off the road no matter what.

Eat 5hit, how does that sound

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

WTF is wrong with you?

I don't appreciate people calling for my prosecution because of a safe activity I partake in my own home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:almost no one goes to jail solely because of pot possession unless they have so much that they're a drug dealer. i dont know why this myth refuses to die.

"almost no one" isn't very comforting to the people who do go to jail.

Don’t break the law and you won’t. Did you grow up in a world devoid of consequences?

It's so cute* how you ignore racist policing patterns and how "just follow the law" is applied unevenly. Like, every one of your January 6 buddies would have been shot.


*not cute

Actually, I'm a crime analyst. And very liberal. I've posted here before. Cops aren't going after marijuana because it's marijuana. Cops go after the violence associated with marijuana. Just like they went after the violence associated with crack rather than powder cocaine, which had nowhere near the amount of associated street violence.

Unfortunately, the nation does not experience safety equally. The victims of community violence are overwhelmingly young Black men. Different jurisdictions have had varying experience with the illicit cannabis trade after legalization. California in particular has seen illicit sales and the associated violence grow. Here in Montgomery County, historically, all drug-related homicides are related to marijuana. That homicide rate has increased since we decriminalized marijuana. When you reduce the transactional cost for law breakers and increase the transactional cost of law enforcement, you get more violent crime. And that's what has happened here.

If the drug-related murder rate falls in Montgomery County, I will come back and eat my words. (And gladly, honestly) But I don't think it will. I think shootings and homicides will only increase. And while that likely won't impact UMC white cannabis fans, it absolutely will hurt young Black men.

Data analyst, great! Please explain poverty level as a contributing factor and how you distinguish causation from correlation when analyzing crack vs powder cocaine. Same question for "marijuana-related violence".

What if the problem isn't the marijuana, it's the poverty? Criminalizing marijuana won't solve the problems, just push them around.

Poverty itself? No. Concentrated poverty? Yes. And those areas are historically Black and brown. And overwhelmingly, most lower income people are law-abiding residents. It's a very few who cause the real harm, but that harm impacts the whole community. So since it's a small area geographically, and involves a small number of offenders, the homicide rate is not significantly influenced by fluctuations in poverty rates.

The bottom line is there are really two different Americas. People who live in concentrated poverty and everyone else. Looking at a recent County crime report, with 16 homicides through September, 13 of which were committed in equity focus areas, and just doing a back of the envelope break-down, the homicide rate is almost zero (0.4 per 100,000) in most of the county. But it's almost 5 per 100,000 people in the equity focus areas. That means people in lower income communities of color are experiencing a homicide rate almost 13 times higher than the rest of the County. That's just homicides. There are non fatal shootings, again all concentrated in the equity focus areas of the County.

Now, how to eliminate, or at least reduce, areas of concentrated poverty? That is way above my pay grade. But failure to fix systemic issues before adding more stress to challenged neighborhoods is exactly why I voted no.

On this we agree. Data can be useful, but discussing the ethics of a decision like that means understanding the tradeoffs. You're picking up on some of it, but missing big pieces that people here are trying to explain. So put down your "but I'm an expert" card.

So please explain what pieces I am missing? There are two groups. The most honest one is the one where people just want to smoke weed. The least honest group is the one who thinks they are helping lower income people of color by making it legal. And that's not true. It's the exact opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:almost no one goes to jail solely because of pot possession unless they have so much that they're a drug dealer. i dont know why this myth refuses to die.

"almost no one" isn't very comforting to the people who do go to jail.

Don’t break the law and you won’t. Did you grow up in a world devoid of consequences?

It's so cute* how you ignore racist policing patterns and how "just follow the law" is applied unevenly. Like, every one of your January 6 buddies would have been shot.


*not cute

Actually, I'm a crime analyst. And very liberal. I've posted here before. Cops aren't going after marijuana because it's marijuana. Cops go after the violence associated with marijuana. Just like they went after the violence associated with crack rather than powder cocaine, which had nowhere near the amount of associated street violence.

Unfortunately, the nation does not experience safety equally. The victims of community violence are overwhelmingly young Black men. Different jurisdictions have had varying experience with the illicit cannabis trade after legalization. California in particular has seen illicit sales and the associated violence grow. Here in Montgomery County, historically, all drug-related homicides are related to marijuana. That homicide rate has increased since we decriminalized marijuana. When you reduce the transactional cost for law breakers and increase the transactional cost of law enforcement, you get more violent crime. And that's what has happened here.

If the drug-related murder rate falls in Montgomery County, I will come back and eat my words. (And gladly, honestly) But I don't think it will. I think shootings and homicides will only increase. And while that likely won't impact UMC white cannabis fans, it absolutely will hurt young Black men.

Data analyst, great! Please explain poverty level as a contributing factor and how you distinguish causation from correlation when analyzing crack vs powder cocaine. Same question for "marijuana-related violence".

What if the problem isn't the marijuana, it's the poverty? Criminalizing marijuana won't solve the problems, just push them around.

Poverty itself? No. Concentrated poverty? Yes. And those areas are historically Black and brown. And overwhelmingly, most lower income people are law-abiding residents. It's a very few who cause the real harm, but that harm impacts the whole community. So since it's a small area geographically, and involves a small number of offenders, the homicide rate is not significantly influenced by fluctuations in poverty rates.

The bottom line is there are really two different Americas. People who live in concentrated poverty and everyone else. Looking at a recent County crime report, with 16 homicides through September, 13 of which were committed in equity focus areas, and just doing a back of the envelope break-down, the homicide rate is almost zero (0.4 per 100,000) in most of the county. But it's almost 5 per 100,000 people in the equity focus areas. That means people in lower income communities of color are experiencing a homicide rate almost 13 times higher than the rest of the County. That's just homicides. There are non fatal shootings, again all concentrated in the equity focus areas of the County.

Now, how to eliminate, or at least reduce, areas of concentrated poverty? That is way above my pay grade. But failure to fix systemic issues before adding more stress to challenged neighborhoods is exactly why I voted no.

On this we agree. Data can be useful, but discussing the ethics of a decision like that means understanding the tradeoffs. You're picking up on some of it, but missing big pieces that people here are trying to explain. So put down your "but I'm an expert" card.

So please explain what pieces I am missing? There are two groups. The most honest one is the one where people just want to smoke weed. The least honest group is the one who thinks they are helping lower income people of color by making it legal. And that's not true. It's the exact opposite.

It's more complicated than good vs. bad and trying to reduce it to that is oversimplifying it. There are people that I consider bad, who just don't care about or actively want to disadvantage lower income people of color. But them aside, I think we can agree on goals but weigh the pros and cons differently.

Do you understand the cons of making it illegal?
I understand the cons of make it legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

WTF is wrong with you?

I don't appreciate people calling for my prosecution because of a safe activity I partake in my own home.

Then you shouldn't worry about the guns that are properly stored in mine.

[Anonymous]

I would vote to make cigarettes illegal because they kill people. By contrast pot is harmless. What a world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would vote to make cigarettes illegal because they kill people. By contrast pot is harmless. What a world.

really? you don't think the smoke in your lungs doesn't harm people? ingesting, causes liver damage?