Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database

[HuntMaine]

Reading the opinions here of people that have never smoked weed is like listening to guys talk about what it’s like to give birth.

How do you know who has or has not smoked pot? Is that a special power or what?

 

[BigTimber]

How do you know who has or has not smoked pot? Is that a special power or what?

No special power the ignorance is a sure tell. Kinda like listening to non gun folks talk about guns. You know the thousand round per min clip fed fully semi auto bump burst ak15s....type comments.

 

[10thSFFD]

Reading the opinions here of people that have never smoked weed is like listening to guys talk about what it’s like to give birth.

I am not addressing "weed". I am addressing the next step which is the legalization of all drugs in MA. But, once again, this is a wrong thread, wrong time, and the absolute waste of time.

 

[HuntMaine]

No special power the ignorance is a sure tell. Kinda like listening to non gun folks talk about guns. You know the thousand round per min clip fed fully semi auto bump burst ak15s....type comments.

Then you can’t mean me. Plus I don’t tend to publish my personal activities on line, seems silly to do so. That being said if you register for weed you are doing yourself more harm than good right now.

 

[10thSFFD]

No special power the ignorance is a sure tell. Kinda like listening to non gun folks talk about guns. You know the thousand round per min clip fed fully semi auto bump burst ak15s....type comments.

Is he allowed to post now?

 

[rwl1955]

Wow, straight from the mouth of Cotton Mather (although growing hemp was probably no big deal back in his day) Your perspective may be a bit skewed as that is a load of nonsense. Want to tell me how many people are smoking cannabis and then beating the sh*t out of their spouse and children as a result? Because the list of people doing that under the influence of alcohol are too numerous to list, I can almost guarantee that it’s probably going on right now in numerous locations. But tell me more of this special evil bestowed to the demon weed....

Correct. Weed does not make you violent nor drive like a maniac. I know many people who have had their lives destroyed by alcohol and not one who's life was destroyed by weed and we grew up smoking. I know quite a few people who would benefit by going home and taking a few hits off of a bong to relax.

 

[Prepper]

I actually think it should be mandatory that all in congress must smoke pot daily. My hope is that it would make them less eager to screw us with more laws that violate our rights while they give free stuff to their buddies. I don't normally see pot heads have much ambition to do much of anything, so this could help.

 

[GeorgeMason]

A lot of reefer madness in this thread.

 

[10thSFFD]

I actually think it should be mandatory that all in congress must smoke pot daily. My hope is that it would make them less eager to screw us with more laws that violate our rights while they give free stuff to their buddies. I don't normally see pot heads have much ambition to do much of anything, so this could help.

Marty Walsh Hopes Marijuana Tax Revenue Is "Worth the Human Toll"

“I hope the taxation’s worth the human toll,” he said, according to the Herald. “It’s the law now. We’re heading towards there. Boston will be opening up its very first marijuana facility probably early next year.”

Marijuana sales are subject to a 10.75 percent state excise tax, 6.25 percent state sales tax, and up to a 3 percent local tax.

Business has been booming at the state’s two recreational marijuana retailers in Leicester and Northampton since they opened last Tuesday. Combined, the shops pulled in a total of $440,000 on their first day. Lines have remained significantly long, as consumers turn out in surprisingly large numbers—so much so that Leicester officials plan to meet to discuss the unexpected enduring traffic problems the Cultivate pot shop is causing in the town.

Joe Kennedy III Is on Board with Marijuana Legalization Now

 

[M1911]

Well, probably no, no, and no. (Wow: I think this is one of those sentences that is entirely false.)

First, I doubt you are sorry.

Second, the reasoning isn't my reasoning, it was articulated easily 1500 years ago (by Augustine), and arguably goes back earlier: I have a recollection about something like this in Plato's Symposium. It was brushed up by Anselm (I want to say) in scholastic moral theology, and given it's current form with Aquinas and, vaguely, Suarez. I just agree with it.

I mean - are you somehow under the impression that people getting f'd up is a new thing under the sun?

Third, there are no assumptions, there are definitions and statements, and, read as stated, they seem to be accurate (that is, proportional to the reality of the situation).

That you don't find it persuasive is okay, or you consider other things more important is also okay: you are free to offer other opinions and other considerations, if you want, but what I said is entirely reasonable (it 'follows that...'), and contains no inaccurate assumptions (there are no assumptions). If you desire to rebut what I said, please present an actual argument against what I said - you're not arguing with a liberal, for whom it doesn't matter what you say - instead of bringing up other things (e.g. in no place did I say 'harm to society' was an important consideration for this chain of reasoning): for instance do you disagree that "evil is best defined as the defect of a due good"? Do you disagree that "the use of right reason is a due good"? Et cetera. You can be your own Socrates in this exercise.

Well, probably no, no, and no. (Wow: I think this is one of those sentences that is entirely false.)

First, I doubt you are sorry.

Second, the reasoning isn't my reasoning, it was articulated easily 1500 years ago (by Augustine), and arguably goes back earlier: I have a recollection about something like this in Plato's Symposium. It was brushed up by Anselm (I want to say) in scholastic moral theology, and given it's current form with Aquinas and, vaguely, Suarez. I just agree with it.

I mean - are you somehow under the impression that people getting f'd up is a new thing under the sun?

Third, there are no assumptions, there are definitions and statements, and, read as stated, they seem to be accurate (that is, proportional to the reality of the situation).

That you don't find it persuasive is okay, or you consider other things more important is also okay: you are free to offer other opinions and other considerations, if you want, but what I said is entirely reasonable (it 'follows that...'), and contains no inaccurate assumptions (there are no assumptions). If you desire to rebut what I said, please present an actual argument against what I said - you're not arguing with a liberal, for whom it doesn't matter what you say - instead of bringing up other things (e.g. in no place did I say 'harm to society' was an important consideration for this chain of reasoning): for instance do you disagree that "evil is best defined as the defect of a due good"? Do you disagree that "the use of right reason is a due good"? Et cetera. You can be your own Socrates in this exercise.

I disagree. You base your argument on your assumption that the use of marijuana is somehow different than the use of alcohol. It isn’t. Many people who use alcohol do so in moderation. Many who use marijuana do so in moderation.

You assert that alcohol is good because it makes other things “good”. In other words, alcohol is good because you like it. There are people who feel the same way about marijuana, which knocks down the foundation of your argument.

 

[M1911]

Marty Walsh Hopes Marijuana Tax Revenue Is "Worth the Human Toll?

Is the tax revenue from alcohol sales worth the human toll? As a recovering alcoholic, Mayor Walsh is well aware of the damage alcohol can cause.

 

[BigTimber]

Then you can’t mean me. Plus I don’t tend to publish my personal activities on line, seems silly to do so. That being said if you register for weed you are doing yourself more harm than good right now.

Wasn’t going to.

 

[BigTimber]

Correct. Weed does not make you violent nor drive like a maniac. I know many people who have had their lives destroyed by alcohol and not one who's life was destroyed by weed and we grew up smoking. I know quite a few people who would benefit by going home and taking a few hits off of a bong to relax.

Yup can’t count the number of lives I’ve seen wrecked by booze there’s so many. The Potheads I know do just fine. In fact the 3 or 4 highest earners I know personally smoke. 2 brokers, 1interwebs Designer and Real estate developer. I know zero high earners that are alcoholics.

 

[Choctaw]

I know zero high earners that are alcoholics.

I guess you don't know many professional politicians. The Clintons come to mind. Oh, my apologies. You did specify 'earners' (which they are not).

 

[drgrant]

MJ is one topic when righties start to show their statist side. "It should be banned because I don't think it's good and I don't like it." Sounds like every leftie argument ever.

Half of it is identity politics bullshit. They oppose it "because some liberals are for it, so therefore I must be against it on principle, lest I agree with someone I don't like, I can't have anyone find out about that". As if they're going to catch aids from having common ground on something....

-Mike

 

[parallax222]

"guns illegal for everyone cause some people use it for bad ends" <--- from my cold dead hands!!

"drugs illegal for everyone cause some people use them for bad ends" <----- sure no problem.

You honestly think the state has the right to tell you what things you can and can't put into your body in the privacy of your own home granted you infringe on no one else's rights???

 

[HuntMaine]

Yup can’t count the number of lives I’ve seen wrecked by booze there’s so many. The Potheads I know do just fine. In fact the 3 or 4 highest earners I know personally smoke. 2 brokers, 1interwebs Designer and Real estate developer. I know zero high earners that are alcoholics.

Kennedys.

 

[HuntMaine]

"guns illegal for everyone cause some people use it for bad ends" <--- from my cold dead hands!!

"drugs illegal for everyone cause some people use them for bad ends" <----- sure no problem.

You honestly think the state has the right to tell you what things you can and can't put into your body in the privacy of your own home granted you infringe on no one else's rights???

It is ridiculous which is why they should remove the Federal Law. If someone wants to smoke drink or snort , your choice. As long as you are not operating a vehicle or plane etc. then all is well from my viewpoint. I just don’t see congress even if it’s Democrat controlled doing anything

 

[MagGus1820]

"guns illegal for everyone cause some people use it for bad ends" <--- from my cold dead hands!!

"drugs illegal for everyone cause some people use them for bad ends" <----- sure no problem.

You honestly think the state has the right to tell you what things you can and can't put into your body in the privacy of your own home granted you infringe on no one else's rights???

Yes many people on the right and left hold completely hypocritical viewpoints on their "favorite" topics and don't care how backwards the logic needs to be.

 

[Mr.E]

Meh, all in all pot is nothing. I’ll get excited if they legalize cocaine again.....er, initially? What day is it ?

 

[fishgutzy]

Grow your own
Less chemicals and preservatives
No tax to the overlords

Just make sure to hide the plants by surrounding them with Carolina Reaper Pepper plants.

 

[daveyburt]

I disagree. You base your argument on your assumption that the use of marijuana is somehow different than the use of alcohol. It isn’t. Many people who use alcohol do so in moderation. Many who use marijuana do so in moderation.

You assert that alcohol is good because it makes other things “good”. In other words, alcohol is good because you like it. There are people who feel the same way about marijuana, which knocks down the foundation of your argument.

I'll step into the fray here.

I think the point of jrpascucci's initial post was this (before it got lost in the weeds):

Tobacco can be enjoyed for the flavor, without the intent of getting 'high'.
Alcohol can be enjoyed for the flavor in the same manner. A scotch over the time of a full dinner isn't to get 'high'.
MJ however (except for medicinal purposes) is generally smoked with the sole intent of getting high.

Therein lies the difference. And, I agree with the reasoning.

This is not to say anyone's choice is right or wrong. Do what you want, just don't bother me with the antics.

 

[HuntMaine]

First cultivate customer with his purchase shown on news

 

[parallax222]

I'll step into the fray here.

I think the point of jrpascucci's initial post was this (before it got lost in the weeds):

Tobacco can be enjoyed for the flavor, without the intent of getting 'high'.
Alcohol can be enjoyed for the flavor in the same manner. A scotch over the time of a full dinner isn't to get 'high'.
MJ however (except for medicinal purposes) is generally smoked with the sole intent of getting high.

Therein lies the difference. And, I agree with the reasoning.

This is not to say anyone's choice is right or wrong. Do what you want, just don't bother me with the antics.

lefties use this same logic to ban ARs

'the wooden looking ones you can hunt with!'

'the scopey looking ones you can shoot targets with!'

'the ONLY purpose for an AR is to kill people'




both filled with presumptions and misinformation

 

[HuntMaine]

The original post was about if they were tracking you in a database. People turned it into a pot discussion. Fact is the way the law is you could very well lose your LTC and that would suck.

 

[daveyburt]

lefties use this same logic to ban ARs

'the wooden looking ones you can hunt with!'

'the scopey looking ones you can shoot targets with!'

'the ONLY purpose for an AR is to kill people'


both filled with presumptions and misinformation

We know that's NOT the only purpose for an AR but, list another intent for smoking MJ besides to catch a buzz. (again, medicinal is not part of his/this example).
Is it smoked for the taste with no desire to get high?

 

[smokey-seven]

So, s there any confirmation that they scan customers licenses into a database?

The scanner stores the scanned info, therefor it IS A DATABASE.

 

[MagGus1820]

Lol, "I'm not drinking this for a buzz, it's just for the flavor!"

 

[parallax222]

We know that's NOT the only purpose for an AR but, list another intent for smoking MJ besides to catch a buzz. (again, medicinal is not part of his/this example).
Is it smoked for the taste with no desire to get high?

plenty of people are trying to just barely experience the effects vs get super stoned. This isn't a point you wanna make unless you'd also say that you'd buy odoul's or spirits-flavored alcohol-free liquor for the rest of your life. Otherwise, can you list a purpose of having the alcohol in there other than to catch a buzz?

 

[SpaceCritter]

The original post was about if they were tracking you in a database. People turned it into a pot discussion. Fact is the way the law is you could very well lose your LTC and that would suck.

THIS.

And, if purchasing in Massachusetts, you're doing so in a state that is already demonstrably hostile towards gun owners. If they're not PotBuyers ⨝ (LTC ∪ FID) at the moment, what makes you think they won't in the future? In fact, if federal law changes, I wouldn't put it past them to pass a state disqualifier.