Federal weed reform is dead for now and will be for awhile

by **tGreenWay** 2022-12-20, 03:20

You can guess who objected to every part of the bill, as well as its modest, modified, plan B version.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marijuana-cannabis-reform-congress_n_63a0fb93e4b03e2cc50313a8

by **GRR Spartan** 2022-12-20, 10:15

GOP needs new bogey men

by **Turtleneck** 2022-12-20, 10:56

GRR Spartan wrote:GOP needs new bogey men

This. They have no policy ideas. They manufacture new issues to fight a "culture war." For all their complaints about inflation, gas prices, etc., their agenda is Hunter Biden's laptop and canceling transgendered people. CRT is losing steam, and mask mandates are long gone, so it's time to find new bogeymen to get people worked up.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-12-20, 11:00

When you said “you can guess” my first thought was Diane Feinstein tbh

by TravelinMan 2022-12-20, 17:03

So dumb. At least do the banking reforms.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2022-12-20, 17:24

Is weed even feasible to be the new scare tactic though? The GOP base is dumb, but not that dumb.

by AvgMSUJoe 2022-12-20, 17:31

No, dumbass goober Gop base smoke pot. The 50% that label themselves "christians" might jump on board.

by TravelinMan 2022-12-20, 18:56

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Is weed even feasible to be the new scare tactic though? The GOP base is dumb, but not that dumb.

Shoring up that Christians over 70 base.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 08:58

TravelinMan wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Is weed even feasible to be the new scare tactic though? The GOP base is dumb, but not that dumb.

Shoring up that Christians over 70 base.

Relaxing drug laws must be for the liberals...

except when it isn't.

by TravelinMan 2022-12-21, 09:01

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Shoring up that Christians over 70 base.

Relaxing drug laws must be for the liberals...

except when it isn't.

Relaxing drug laws is for everyone. Even if you're not a user of drugs, you would likely benefit in some way from increased tax revenue, reduced violence, smaller government, and better redirected police activity.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 09:06

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Relaxing drug laws must be for the liberals...

except when it isn't.

Relaxing drug laws is for everyone. Even if you're not a user of drugs, you would likely benefit in some way from increased tax revenue, reduced violence, smaller government, and better redirected police activity.

Just like abortion rights are for everyone's benefit, so is getting rid of the stupid "war on drugs". "Drugs" should be regulated like the one legal drug of booze is.

by TravelinMan 2022-12-21, 09:14

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Relaxing drug laws is for everyone. Even if you're not a user of drugs, you would likely benefit in some way from increased tax revenue, reduced violence, smaller government, and better redirected police activity.

Just like abortion rights are for everyone's benefit, so is getting rid of the stupid "war on drugs". "Drugs" should be regulated like the one legal drug of booze is.

Totally agree.

I grew up in a "religious" family. I understand the "concerns" of the right regarding both abortion and drugs. I find them to be ridiculous, but I understand the view point. What I don't understand is what makes these people feel that they're so morally superior to the rest of us that they think they should be able to dictate what we can and can't do with our bodies. If you're against drugs, that's fine. Don't take them. If you think abortion is murder, then fine. Don't get one. But stop imposing your morals on me. If you think I'm going to hell, I'll take that chance, I guess.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 09:22

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Just like abortion rights are for everyone's benefit, so is getting rid of the stupid "war on drugs". "Drugs" should be regulated like the one legal drug of booze is.

Totally agree.

I grew up in a "religious" family. I understand the "concerns" of the right regarding both abortion and drugs. I find them to be ridiculous, but I understand the viewpoint. What I don't understand is what makes these people feel that they're so morally superior to the rest of us that they think they should be able to dictate what we can and can't do with our bodies. If you're against drugs, that's fine. Don't take them. If you think abortion is murder, then fine. Don't get one. But stop imposing your morals on me. If you think I'm going to hell, I'll take that chance, I guess.

Exactly where I am at too. People have a choice whether to exercise their rights.

If those rights create other issues for society, then regulations are needed.

(Guns are one place where we have "rights" gone crazy and badly need the regulations some places once had, such as towns in the "wild west" where people entering the towns had to leave their guns with the sheriff)

As for drugs, employers will fire people for constantly coming to work drunk, and have the same authority over people coming to work "high"

by RQA 2022-12-21, 09:27

Trapper Gus wrote:

Just like abortion rights are for everyone's benefit.

Well, except for the baby ...

by TravelinMan 2022-12-21, 09:31

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Just like abortion rights are for everyone's benefit.

Well, except for the baby ...

Sadly there aren't a lot of benefits for the babies in either case. Being forced into a life of poverty, neglect, and/or health issues isn't exactly a best case scenario for a child.

by RQA 2022-12-21, 09:31

TravelinMan wrote: If you think abortion is murder, then fine. Don't get one.

Twisted logic here TM. You arguing that if you are against murder, than don't murder but don't mess with my right to murder.

Abortion and drug policy are different things.

I have always been against the drug war. I am a bit concerned that the liberalization of pot is a contributor to increased traffic deaths which are now up to 1000/year in Michigan.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 09:38

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Just like abortion rights are for everyone's benefit.

Well, except for the baby ...

There is no baby if there is an abortion.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 09:39

RQA wrote:
TravelinMan wrote: If you think abortion is murder, then fine. Don't get one.

Twisted logic here TM. You arguing that if you are against murder, than don't murder but don't mess with my right to murder.

Abortion and drug policy are different things.

I have always been against the drug war. I am a bit concerned that the liberalization of pot is a contributor to increased traffic deaths which are now up to 1000/year in Michigan.

Increasing the speed limits has much more to do with traffic deaths.

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-12-21, 09:45

RQA wrote:
TravelinMan wrote: If you think abortion is murder, then fine. Don't get one.

Twisted logic here TM. You arguing that if you are against murder, than don't murder but don't mess with my right to murder.

Abortion and drug policy are different things.

I have always been against the drug war. I am a bit concerned that the liberalization of pot is a contributor to increased traffic deaths which are now up to 1000/year in Michigan.

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions? As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job? Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

by TravelinMan 2022-12-21, 09:55

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
RQA wrote:

Twisted logic here TM. You arguing that if you are against murder, than don't murder but don't mess with my right to murder.

Abortion and drug policy are different things.

I have always been against the drug war. I am a bit concerned that the liberalization of pot is a contributor to increased traffic deaths which are now up to 1000/year in Michigan.

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions? As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job? Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

The religious right are stuck in the 14th century. Saying that you need to be open to the possibility of children anytime you have sex was great in a time when you sold your daughter off to be married at the age of 13 in exchange for a few head of cattle. But being against abortion and birth control is just silly in today's society.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 09:56

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
RQA wrote:

Twisted logic here TM. You arguing that if you are against murder, than don't murder but don't mess with my right to murder.

Abortion and drug policy are different things.

I have always been against the drug war. I am a bit concerned that the liberalization of pot is a contributor to increased traffic deaths which are now up to 1000/year in Michigan.

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions? As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job? Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

Pregnancy is a life threating situation for a female also, so mandating that a pregnant woman, who doesn't want to, carry to birth will kill some number of "adult" woman. How does that fit into the "moral" calculation?

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 10:03

TravelinMan wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions? As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job? Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

The religious right are stuck in the 14th century. Saying that you need to be open to the possibility of children anytime you have sex was great in a time when you sold your daughter off to be married at the age of 13 in exchange for a few head of cattle. But being against abortion and birth control is just silly in today's society.

Sort of agree, but the history of anti-abortion is more complex.

Until 1869 the Catholic Church (and most others) considered abortion prior to "quickening", which occurs around 24 weeks, to be okay.

In the 14th century the Catholic Church believed that the soul entered the baby at "first breath".

Abortion prior to quickening was common in 1776 in the United States & elsewhere.

The whole anti-abortion "thing" started with the US medical community trying to regulate doctors in the 1840's, mandating that abortions were only legal if performed by a licensed doctor, and then the "church" changing its position (one bishop) in 1869.

by RQA 2022-12-21, 10:13

Trapper Gus wrote:
RQA wrote:

Twisted logic here TM. You arguing that if you are against murder, than don't murder but don't mess with my right to murder.

Abortion and drug policy are different things.

I have always been against the drug war. I am a bit concerned that the liberalization of pot is a contributor to increased traffic deaths which are now up to 1000/year in Michigan.

Increasing the speed limits has much more to do with traffic deaths.

Speed limits haven't been increased in years.

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-21, 10:24

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Increasing the speed limits has much more to do with traffic deaths.

Speed limits haven't been increased in years.

Data of traffic deaths is a lagging indicator. With the limits on freeways now at 75 mph the data is showing more traffic deaths.

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-12-22, 10:17

Trapper Gus wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions? As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job? Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

Pregnancy is a life threating situation for a female also, so mandating that a pregnant woman, who doesn't want to, carry to birth will kill some number of "adult" woman. How does that fit into the "moral" calculation?

It's pretty clear that her life doesn't matter to the anti-abortion crowd, even if she's a child herself - or even if she was raped. As one of their favorite justices pointed out, the supply of domestic babies is low.

by RQA 2022-12-22, 16:14

Trapper Gus wrote:

Data of traffic deaths is a lagging indicator. With the limits on freeways now at 75 mph the data is showing more traffic deaths.

May 2017 (speed limit increased to 75 on some MI freeways) TG: "there will be more traffic deaths but not until 2022"

Federal weed reform is dead for now and will be for awhile 420617953

Federal weed reform is dead for now and will be for awhile 420617953

by RQA 2022-12-22, 16:24

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions? As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job? Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

The morality of abortion is separate from societal policies about child-rearing.

I am all for doing things to reduce poverty. I am sure you do as well. Printing up money to give to people doesn't seem to have helped.

Limiting the number of pregnancies? Contraception is cheap and widely available.

Adoption? There would be a home for every unwanted newborn.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-12-22, 16:26

Everything in that post is absurd. There’s no need to go point by point. It’s simply all incorrect on one level or another.

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-12-22, 23:21

RQA wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

What are you willing to do in order to minimize the number of abortions? As TM pointed out, poverty is one factor. Would you support government paychecks sufficient for a mother to raise a child in comfort without ever having to get a job? Is there anything you'd support to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? If you consider abortion a problem, do you have any solutions other than making it illegal and telling women to give the kid up for adoption if they don't want him?

The morality of abortion is separate from societal policies about child-rearing.

I am all for doing things to reduce poverty. I am sure you do as well. Printing up money to give to people doesn't seem to have helped.

Limiting the number of pregnancies? Contraception is cheap and widely available.

Adoption? There would be a home for every unwanted newborn.

Morality aside, anti-abortion laws are inextricably linked to child-rearing - and it appears that you have no plans for that part of the equation other than adoption.

If you really love babies, you should understand that a woman who's brought one to term and given birth might not actually want to give the kid away. But she may not have the resources to care for a child, which is why money is a major factor in abortion decisions.

Do we need to "print money" in order to fund a comfortable motherhood? Why not just reverse the Trump corporate tax cut and give all of that money to pregnant women who decide not to have abortions? Would you support that?

Other possible ways to minimize abortion numbers:

Make sex outside of marriage illegal, with a five-year prison term.

Mandate vasectomies for unmarried males past puberty, including newly divorced men and new widowers. They're 90-95% reversible, and that surgery would be free after the wedding.

Install free condom dispensers in all middle schools, high schools and colleges, and make birth control pills free for all women.

Would you support any of those options? Do you have any ideas at all, other than making abortion illegal?

by RQA 2022-12-23, 08:30

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Everything in that post is absurd. There’s no need to go point by point. It’s simply all incorrect on one level or another.

Absurd!
No need to rebut point by point!
It's all incorrect (at least at some level).

With strong debate skills like those it's no wonder you've been placed in a management position on a popular board like this.

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-12-23, 09:19

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Everything in that post is absurd. There’s no need to go point by point. It’s simply all incorrect on one level or another.

Absurd!
No need to rebut point by point!
It's all incorrect (at least at some level).

With strong debate skills like those it's no wonder you've been placed in a management position on a popular board like this.

You decided to attack that post rather than address my point-by-point post. Is that your idea of "debate skills"?

by RQA 2022-12-23, 09:35

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
RQA wrote:

Absurd!
No need to rebut point by point!
It's all incorrect (at least at some level).

With strong debate skills like those it's no wonder you've been placed in a management position on a popular board like this.

You decided to attack that post rather than address my point-by-point post. Is that your idea of "debate skills"?

Travis was ahead of you in the queue.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2022-12-23, 09:35

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Everything in that post is absurd. There’s no need to go point by point. It’s simply all incorrect on one level or another.

Absurd!
No need to rebut point by point!
It's all incorrect (at least at some level).

With strong debate skills like those it's no wonder you've been placed in a management position on a popular board like this.

This isn’t debate class, it’s a message board. No one needs to go toe to toe with you when you’re essentially claiming that the sky is green. You’re just wrong.

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-12-23, 09:39

RQA wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You decided to attack that post rather than address my point-by-point post. Is that your idea of "debate skills"?

Travis was ahead of you in the queue.

My earlier post was ahead of this one.

by **Turtleneck** 2022-12-23, 10:27

RQA wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Everything in that post is absurd. There’s no need to go point by point. It’s simply all incorrect on one level or another.

Absurd!
No need to rebut point by point!
It's all incorrect (at least at some level).

With strong debate skills like those it's no wonder you've been placed in a management position on a popular board like this.

Sometimes you have to cut your losses rather than continue to put in the effort.

by **Turtleneck** 2022-12-23, 11:47

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
RQA wrote:

Travis was ahead of you in the queue.

My earlier post was ahead of this one.

I can't wait to see you all arguing about who was ahead of who in the Biden bread lines.

by RQA 2022-12-23, 12:28

Turtleneck wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

My earlier post was ahead of this one.

I can't wait to see you all arguing about who was ahead of who in the Biden bread lines.

Pervis will argue about anything.

by Pervis Muldoon 2022-12-23, 12:31

It seems to me that there's no better place and time for an honest and reasonable abortion discussion than in a federal weed reform thread on a Michigan State message board during the holiday season. I hope my sincere attempt at a respectful conversation is met in kind.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2022-12-23, 12:42

Pervis Muldoon wrote:It seems to me that there's no better place and time for an honest and reasonable abortion discussion than in a federal weed reform thread on a Michigan State message board during the holiday season. I hope my sincere attempt at a respectful conversation is met in kind.

Federal weed reform is dead for now and will be for awhile 1966794946

by **Trapper Gus** 2022-12-23, 14:11

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Data of traffic deaths is a lagging indicator. With the limits on freeways now at 75 mph the data is showing more traffic deaths.

May 2017 (speed limit increased to 75 on some MI freeways) TG: "there will be more traffic deaths but not until 2022"

Recent study showed traffic deaths increased when the limit was raised, dude. It takes time to compile the data and have a statistically significant sample.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/study-michigans-75-mph-speed-limit-caused-more-crashes-deaths#:~:text=Study%3A%20Michigan%E2%80%99s%2075%20mph%20speed%20limit%20caused%20more,rose%20a%20modest%201%20mph%20to%202%20mph

by Sponsored content