Typical Elrich nonsense. We already have privately-run dispensaries in MoCo, including at least 2 in Bethesda.

Why should the county get into the retail business? They're already one of the only counties in the US with a monopoly on liquor sales and distribution.

It's a poor excuse -- to raise money. If that were the case, why doesn't the county get into the grocery store, gas station, and bookselling businesses? If they legislate a monopoly, they'll do well and make money... but that's not what government should be doing.

Anonymous wrote:This explains a lot. Elrich seems like he's been high since he started running the county.

What a strong point. Very intelligent.

Having seen all the homeless camps of drugged out addicts in California and the explosions of drugged out young beggars in the streets of major American cities, which seems to have escalated side by side with the decriminalization of marijuana, I'm not as confident as some of you are that legalizing drugs and especially marijuana is going to be the answer. If anything I suspect it will make the problem much worse. Some of you are definitely ignoring the scientific research showing marijuana to have substantial impacts on developing brains, and that may be why we're seeing all these young 20-something beggars. Nor is marijuana so innocent. A few days ago the local papers reported on a man stoned on marijuana who lost control of his car and crashed into three pedestrians, sending all of them into the hospital in critical condition.

The one upshot of decriminalizing drugs I can possibly see is ending the drug wars in urban ghettos.

All for it. What's your problem? We moved here from CO. i think you legalize drugs, you stop more crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't help themselves. Out of control spending forces them to find any revenue stream they can. Once they spend all the pot revenue, they'll be legalizing heroin next.

This comment is absurd. Marijuana is being legalized state by state and soon it will be legal everywhere and federally. It would be foolish to pretend like this wasnt the case and to not make efforts to maximize revenue.

The revenue is exactly WHY it’s legalized in all these places. You think the politicians care that much about treating your glaucoma? Follow the money, people. If you don’t realize that, you’re a rube.

The point is nobody's legalizing heroin.

It’s already legal.

“America’s largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012 as the nation’s deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control, according to previously undisclosed company data released as part of the largest civil action in U.S. history.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/76-billion-opioid-pills-newly-released-federal-data-unmasks-the-epidemic/2019/07/16/5f29fd62-a73e-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html

Sounds great OP. Colorado is taking in the tax dollars selling weed and I'm sure Maryland could too. It's no different than what MoCo already does with alcohol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds awesome. It would bring tons of revenue.

What's your issue with it, OP? You think everyone's gonna turn into potheads?

Pot is no more dangerous than alcohol -- and in many ways, it's LESS dangerous. So if the state can sell liquor, why shouldn't it sell weed?

This!

Or.. just maybe let's reduce the number of liquor stores?

Let's tax urine! Would bring more money then weed and less addiction problems!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about the democrat taxation fetish which will make sure the black markets continued

What part of "“They should not just legalize it. They should let Maryland farmers grow, and the state should process and sell. And take every dime of revenues.” involves taxation?

How exactly despearte we are to do that?... like there is not enough addiction problems as is?.. apparently money does not stink...

History


Pecunia non olet ("money does not stink") is a Latin saying. The phrase is ascribed to the Roman emperor Vespasian (ruled AD 69–79).


Vespasian imposed a Urine Tax (Latin: vectigal urinae) on the distribution of urine from public urinals in Rome's Cloaca Maxima (great sewer) system. (The Roman lower classes urinated into pots which were emptied into cesspools.) The urine collected from public urinals was sold as an ingredient for several chemical processes. It was used in tanning, and also by launderers as a source of ammonia to clean and whiten woollen togas. The buyers of the urine paid the tax.


For the first time, this tax was imposed by Emperor Nero under the name of “vectigal urinae” in the 1st century AD. However the tax was removed after a while, it was re-enacted by Vespasian around 70 AD in order to fill the treasury.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds awesome. It would bring tons of revenue.

What's your issue with it, OP? You think everyone's gonna turn into potheads?

Pot is no more dangerous than alcohol -- and in many ways, it's LESS dangerous. So if the state can sell liquor, why shouldn't it sell weed?

This!

Stoned people do not care about melting polar caps, overcrowded schools.. but they sure as hell think hard where to find the next fix..

Anonymous wrote:But... but... but… isn't it easier to govern people who are stonned?

Did you read that article how Communist governments used to build a liquor store on every street and make it so cheap?... hmmmm….

Anonymous wrote:This is about the democrat taxation fetish which will make sure the black markets continued

What part of "“They should not just legalize it. They should let Maryland farmers grow, and the state should process and sell. And take every dime of revenues.” involves taxation?

But... but... but… isn't it easier to govern people who are stonned?

This is about the democrat taxation fetish which will make sure the black markets continued