Chronicle AM: NY, WI Pot Polls Look Good, MI Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill Advances, More... (1/25/19)
New polls show strong support for marijuana legalization in New York and Wisconsin, Michael Bloomberg opines against legalization, and more.
[image:1 align:left caption:true]Marijuana Policy
Possible Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg Calls Legalization Nonsensical. Former New York City mayor and potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has set himself apart from most of the field by suggesting he would oppose marijuana legalization. He said that "to make it easier for people to engage in a behavior that has a significant possibility of damaging peoples health" is just nonsensical.
New York Poll Has Strong Support for Legalization. A new Quinnipiac poll has two out of every three New Yorkers supporting marijuana legalization. The poll comes as Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and the legislature are pushing for legalization in Albany. Every racial, age, sex, political and regional demographic favored legalization, with 65% in favor statewide and 31% opposed.
Wisconsin Poll Has Strong Support for Legalization. A new Marquette Law School poll has nearly three out of five residents in favor of marijuana legalization. The poll found support at 59% statewide, with 35% opposed. That's up dramatically from September 2014, when Marquette last polled the question. Back then, support was at only 46%, with 51% opposed.
Asset Forfeiture
Michigan Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill Advances. A bill that would require a criminal conviction before police can permanently seize property or cash valued at less than $50,000 is now headed for a Senate floor vote. Senate Bill 2 passed out of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on Thursday.
(This article was prepared by StoptheDrugWar.org's 501(c)(4) lobbying nonprofit, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also pays the cost of maintaining this website. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
Comments
Bloomberg still playing his alcohol supremacist bigot games
What's nonsensical is to think alcohol supremacism over cannabis is enforceable, doesn't cause catastrophic black market related damage, is wise public policy, is fair public policy, is affordable public policy, or that it grows the legitimate economy, or promotes good police-community relations. And it ties drug education up in the most hypocritical knots.
Go drown in a lake of your goddammned killer alcohol, Bloomberg. It's called 'liberty and justice for all', and I want my share, thief. Thief and cheater.
In reply to Bloomberg still playing his alcohol supremacist bigot games by saynotohypocrisy (not verified)
Agreed
Saynotohypocrisy,
I agree with you.
As far as Democratic Presidential candidates is concerned, we must not nominate Bloomberg. That would be a big WHOPPING mistake. Same goes for Joe Biden, despite his remorseful overtures to the left flank of his party. They are old school Democratic drug warriors, and their time has passed. (And, personally, I am SICK TO DEATH of old rich white guys running things!!)
Alcohol...
We live in an alcoholic society.
Exhibit A: Bars. The kind you drink in. For us pot smokers, it is the other kind of bars our society has in mind for us --- jail cell bars!
Exhibit B: Consider the word "drink." You knew what I meant, I suspect... It means drinking alcohol specifically, and it is an accepted cultural norm.
Likewise, consider the phrase "drugs and alcohol." This implies a distinction which does not exist; to wit, alcohol is a drug.
...And in this alcoholic society, we have the nerve to jail peaceful, non-violent, non-raping (see: Kavanaugh) non-carcinogenic cannabis consumers? What hypocrisy.
And so like you, I just say "No!" to hypocrisy.
In reply to Agreed by Dain Bramage (not verified)
Is "drink" a less scary word than "smoke?"
For stoner musings...
A friend recently pointed out to me that the very act of drinking something -- the primal activity of drinking a liquid --- has a subtle way of rendering innocuous alcoholic drug use and abuse, does it not? By reframing drug use as "refreshment" or "thirst-quenching", drugs went from "behind the counter" to right next to the milk and dairy aisle! As if the difference between hard and soft drinks was merely a flavor preference!
Whereas, and yet, the primal act of smoking subconsciously elicits a much more negative reaction. Artistic renderings of demons or devils commonly show them breathing smoke or fire, true? And the fact that cigarettes kill doesn't help anyone.
And it is true that fire itself is extremely dangerous. That's no joke. The most dangerous thing about a teenager sitting on the couch smoking a joint is the goddamn LIGHTER in his pocket! (Don't burn down the house --- switch to gummies!)
But when our enemies say "smoke is smoke" they are lying, because they are not stating a tautology; they are really saying "all smoke is dangerous and equally so" which is factually wrong. Common sense tells you that smoking shredded automobile tires, for example, will do you in right quick! It matters what you put in the pipe. Let's test it: I'll smoke weed while they smoke shredded automobile tires, and let's see who dies first!
And now, of course, the science is in on cannabis -- it is safe. It does not lead to cancer, or emphysema, or madness, or male titties (like I was taught in ninth grade! I am an old man now, and still waiting on my titties! They were going to comfort me in my old age! What a rip-off!!)
Add new comment