1st article as seen on Reddit today front page.

http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaRaid-HG-100116-5074664

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/201...no-warrant_state_police_raid_o.html


if the 1st article isn't ridiculous enough, check out the second, as the people in that article are medical marijuana patients.

Remind me again how much it costs to run a state police helicopter per hour in fuel and wages? great job, massachusetts. A+

I thought it was legal in the Commiewealth. So in reality, no weed, no guns, no fun.

legalization vote is next month.

though once legalized, will do nothing to combat the wasting of money by municipal and state agencies.

Yeah you'd think they'd spend that tax money on finding jobs and homes for metalheads...

It's not legalized here, it's "decriminalized" on the state level, i.e. no longer an arrestable offense (but still a ticketable offense) to have a small amount, I believe less than an ounce. However, it is still entirely illegal on the Federal level in any amount.
I'd be fine with people smoking weed in their private, free-standing homes (no apartments or condos where it leeches into neighbors' airspace), on the condition that positive test results make one ineligible for financial aid of any sort, no food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.
This is reasonable, and therefore will never happen.

if it becomes legal, your proposed concept would be claimed unconstitutional/unfair by someone on the left and get overturned before it even takes effect i would guess. personally, i wouldn't have a problem with people smoking weed and collecting aid. much like i don't care if people are collecting aid and have a beer. however, if your concern is about people milking the system by spending what they're given on things like lottery, drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol instead of shit they're supposed to use it on, yeah that's a concern. but if they decide to grow a couple of their own plants for personal consumption instead of spending money on it, it won't affect the fiscal side of things any more than it already does.

I AM in favor of having recipients tested for "real drugs" that are a detriment to our society at large such as crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and un-prescribed opiates (heroin and all that shit obviously falls into this category as well) - i simply put marijuana in its raw state well below alcohol in terms of danger/ability to change someone/ability to abuse.

as far as where it should be smoked, people now have the option of using vaporizers which burn clean, look like e-cigs, but don't produce huge clouds like e-cigarettes. you can barely see the vapor. and the smell of the vapor is barely detectable upon a persons exhale. it dissipates within about 10 seconds and if you're more than 6 feet away, you'll never smell it. my source on that is having many friends who are constantly using weed that i spend time around. that's the solution for places like apartments or condos that you're concerned about.

i'm voting yes because i've looked into the issue pretty heavily. i'm also voting no on question 2 because it's bullshit for city/town public school education budgets.

didn't realize how tl;dr that was gonna be. nevermind.

Read it, agreed.
No on 2 because it "gives more money to schools" = higher taxes.

higher taxes and the towns are responsible for subsidizing transportation for kids that choice out to charter schools. financial nightmare.

also- saw this today. thought it relevant.

Center for Disease Control numbers of deaths per year in the USA


* Prescription Drugs: 237,485 + 5000 traffic fatalities

* Tobacco: 390,323

* Alcohol: 88,013 + 16,000 traffic fatalities

* Cocaine: 4,906

* Heroin: 7,200

* Aspirin: 466

* Acetaminophen (Tylenol): 179

* Marijuana: 0, none, not a single fatal overdose in all medical history and almost no traffic problems.


So, which is safer???? Legalize, regulate and TAX!

Susurrate, I sent you an email , hope it finds you well. I have not heard from Gertrude in a long while, hope she is well

If you make under $30,000 a year and are a single parent who makes less money then the goverment guidelines for having a certiain amount of kids, then you can apply for goverment housing. Also seniors and people with certian types of specials needs can apply for housing. Most of the people in the projects work hard for there money. All the people who say that the projects are full of low life scums bags are proably rich white people who have never been to the ghetto in there whole life. I lived in the projects, and I do programs for inner city kids, in the projects. I spend 4 or 5 days a week in the ghetto and know how stuff works there. No doubt, there is drug dealers and gangsters and whores and gangbangers, but its not like there walking around shooting everyone who comes into there area. Most of the people there are welcoming of anyone who is there to help make a diffrence. Ive spent hours talking to drug dealers and gangbangers and all that. These people dont wanna be in the projects, no matter how much someone says they love the hood, if they have the oppuirtinty to get out they will take it. Dont get it twisted though, if you mess with someone in the projects odds are your gonna get your head bust, but if you just go about and do your own thing, then you will live. If your good to the hood then the hood will be good to you.