Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Does this mean it will be legal for teachers and daycare workers to smoke marijuana like on their lunch breaks?

I really have a hard time believing that this is a “genuine question” since it is obviously illegal to cate for children while inebriated. Why do think that is not still the law?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is in prison solely because of pot possession unless they're a drug dealer. I don't know why this myth refuses to die.

Why should anyone be incarcerated or prosecuted for large scale possession of a harmless plant? If I have 10 lbs of marijuana in my home, I should face zero consequences for it.

Woah. Are there really people who think pot is harmless? Have you ever *met* anyone who's smoked pot for a long time?

Everything can be harmful of done to excess. We shouldn't be criminalizing things that way. Unless you want to start telling gym bros they can't lift too much because it can impact their joints.

This is DC. No one is prosecuted for *anything.* You can commit violent crimes and nothing is going to happen to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Does this mean it will be legal for teachers and daycare workers to smoke marijuana like on their lunch breaks?

So, you know how alcohol is legal? Do you think that teachers and daycare workers are allowed to drink on their lunch breaks? Genuine question.

I suppose they technically can since it is their unpaid lunch break.

I hope that’s sarcasm, and you’re not really this stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Does this mean it will be legal for teachers and daycare workers to smoke marijuana like on their lunch breaks?

So, you know how alcohol is legal? Do you think that teachers and daycare workers are allowed to drink on their lunch breaks? Genuine question.

I suppose they technically can since it is their unpaid lunch break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you hysterical prohibitionist biddies can suck it. Commence crying.

"This is young white man 5hlt. No one else spends two seconds thinking about this"

Maryland votes to legalize marijuana, reflecting the nation’s shift

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/08/maryland-marijuana-legalization-results-question-4/

Yup. It's very sad. Progressives better never again claim to care about marginalized communities. They are as self serving as the MAGA crowd.

What a weird take on this. I don't understand why some people were so adamant against this.

People want to smoke weed but don't care how legalization will affect more vulnerable communities. No leader has discussed it. No leader has planned for it. The person who hit and killed an elderly couple yesterday at the polls was tested for driving under the influence. Absent a more robust safety framework, we will have more of that. We will have more people with substance misuse disorder with no increase in treatment options. We will have an increase in Emergency Department admissions, even though they are at capacity and have been for years. We are supposed to be a smart state. Why is it so bad to plan harm mitigation strategies before legalizing it?

I don't see it this way at all. People are going to do what people are going to do. Clearly no one should drive while intoxicated or while under the influence of any drugs but it still happens. People shouldn't drive erratically while sober or engage in road rage but it still happens. What you're basically saying here is that no one should be allowed to do X because some person somewhere is going to get hurt. Well I can make X anything, including swimming in a pool because people will drown every year. That doesn't mean X should be banned from the majority of the population because some people do X in a way that is not appropriate.

That is not what I said. I said legislators should have proactively worked to mitigate the known harms before legalizing it. Instead all they care about is tax revenue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Does this mean it will be legal for teachers and daycare workers to smoke marijuana like on their lunch breaks?

So, you know how alcohol is legal? Do you think that teachers and daycare workers are allowed to drink on their lunch breaks? Genuine question.

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Does this mean it will be legal for teachers and daycare workers to smoke marijuana like on their lunch breaks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you hysterical prohibitionist biddies can suck it. Commence crying.

"This is young white man 5hlt. No one else spends two seconds thinking about this"

Maryland votes to legalize marijuana, reflecting the nation’s shift

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/08/maryland-marijuana-legalization-results-question-4/

Yup. It's very sad. Progressives better never again claim to care about marginalized communities. They are as self serving as the MAGA crowd.

What a weird take on this. I don't understand why some people were so adamant against this.

People want to smoke weed but don't care how legalization will affect more vulnerable communities. No leader has discussed it. No leader has planned for it. The person who hit and killed an elderly couple yesterday at the polls was tested for driving under the influence. Absent a more robust safety framework, we will have more of that. We will have more people with substance misuse disorder with no increase in treatment options. We will have an increase in Emergency Department admissions, even though they are at capacity and have been for years. We are supposed to be a smart state. Why is it so bad to plan harm mitigation strategies before legalizing it?

I don't see it this way at all. People are going to do what people are going to do. Clearly no one should drive while intoxicated or while under the influence of any drugs but it still happens. People shouldn't drive erratically while sober or engage in road rage but it still happens. What you're basically saying here is that no one should be allowed to do X because some person somewhere is going to get hurt. Well I can make X anything, including swimming in a pool because people will drown every year. That doesn't mean X should be banned from the majority of the population because some people do X in a way that is not appropriate.

That is not what I said. I said legislators should have proactively worked to mitigate the known harms before legalizing it. Instead all they care about is tax revenue.

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question:

Does this mean it will be legal for teachers and daycare workers to smoke marijuana like on their lunch breaks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People want to smoke weed but don't care how legalization will affect more vulnerable communities. No leader has discussed it. No leader has planned for it. The person who hit and killed an elderly couple yesterday at the polls was tested for driving under the influence. Absent a more robust safety framework, we will have more of that. We will have more people with substance misuse disorder with no increase in treatment options. We will have an increase in Emergency Department admissions, even though they are at capacity and have been for years. We are supposed to be a smart state. Why is it so bad to plan harm mitigation strategies before legalizing it?

You've been in this thread 24/7 the last four weeks screaming chicken little about how MJ legalization is going to ruin MD. People who drive under the influence in MD already face serious consequences and people who drive under the influence of MJ will face those same serious consequences.

MD voters rejected your hysterical nonsense like "We will have an increase in Emergency Department admissions." Memo to you: Now is the time to STFU. You lost. Deal with it.

Come back in July 2024. We will both see what application looks like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you hysterical prohibitionist biddies can suck it. Commence crying.

"This is young white man 5hlt. No one else spends two seconds thinking about this"

Maryland votes to legalize marijuana, reflecting the nation’s shift

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/08/maryland-marijuana-legalization-results-question-4/

Yup. It's very sad. Progressives better never again claim to care about marginalized communities. They are as self serving as the MAGA crowd.

What a weird take on this. I don't understand why some people were so adamant against this.

People want to smoke weed but don't care how legalization will affect more vulnerable communities. No leader has discussed it. No leader has planned for it. The person who hit and killed an elderly couple yesterday at the polls was tested for driving under the influence. Absent a more robust safety framework, we will have more of that. We will have more people with substance misuse disorder with no increase in treatment options. We will have an increase in Emergency Department admissions, even though they are at capacity and have been for years. We are supposed to be a smart state. Why is it so bad to plan harm mitigation strategies before legalizing it?

I don't see it this way at all. People are going to do what people are going to do. Clearly no one should drive while intoxicated or while under the influence of any drugs but it still happens. People shouldn't drive erratically while sober or engage in road rage but it still happens. What you're basically saying here is that no one should be allowed to do X because some person somewhere is going to get hurt. Well I can make X anything, including swimming in a pool because people will drown every year. That doesn't mean X should be banned from the majority of the population because some people do X in a way that is not appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What a weird take on this. I don't understand why some people were so adamant against this.

Because they're liberals in name only who want police resources and taxpayer money wasted on prosecuting and incarcerating cannabis users and possessors simply because they don't like the product and they look negatively upon those who use it. They're much more politically aligned with conservatives and drug warrioring GQPers.

These people aren't liberals. They're authoritarians, Donnie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People want to smoke weed but don't care how legalization will affect more vulnerable communities. No leader has discussed it. No leader has planned for it. The person who hit and killed an elderly couple yesterday at the polls was tested for driving under the influence. Absent a more robust safety framework, we will have more of that. We will have more people with substance misuse disorder with no increase in treatment options. We will have an increase in Emergency Department admissions, even though they are at capacity and have been for years. We are supposed to be a smart state. Why is it so bad to plan harm mitigation strategies before legalizing it?

You've been in this thread 24/7 the last four weeks screaming chicken little about how MJ legalization is going to ruin MD. People who drive under the influence in MD already face serious consequences and people who drive under the influence of MJ will face those same serious consequences.

MD voters rejected your hysterical nonsense like "We will have an increase in Emergency Department admissions." Memo to you: Now is the time to STFU. You lost. Deal with it.