Pot Watch

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

30 Jul 2017, 13:31 #301

Fortune Cookie wrote:
People tend to overestimate tiny risks and underestimate large ones. Perhaps there is a sliding scale between the two extremes.

So, Dun: you should have a few beers while tanning on the beach today to celebrate your wisdom in not smoking weed.
The trouble with that is over exposure of sun light is bad for you!
Reply

NightStalker
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 05:02

30 Jul 2017, 20:40 #302

in all fairness to the clueless (when it comes to pot) Dun, it is good to let people know pot on a boat is still illegal under federal law.
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

04 Aug 2017, 11:42 #303

Image
Reply

NightStalker
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 05:02

04 Aug 2017, 12:07 #304

I think that any rules/regulations on rec pot sales should be close to or the same as any restrictions on alcohol sales in liquor stores. limited number of sellers, hours etc.
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

04 Aug 2017, 18:40 #305

NightStalker wrote:
I think that any rules/regulations on rec pot sales should be close to or the same as any restrictions on alcohol sales in liquor stores. limited number of sellers, hours etc.
Indeed. It should really be that simple.  Anything else is reactionary fiddling. While Rome Burns (aka 'The War On Drugs').
Reply

gator
Joined: 27 Apr 2011, 20:12

04 Aug 2017, 22:31 #306

Where would be a good place for a Marijuana Dispensary? I'm thinking Gloucester crossing, but would also like to see one in the downtown area.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

04 Aug 2017, 23:08 #307

Anyone who cares about the result of the November vote not being overturned in Gloucester should attend their Ward meeting (or any Ward meeting if you can not make your own.) After seeing this flyer in combination with the recent GDT article which expressed that unfortunately Gloucester can only not carry out the voters' wishes if the voters override that via a ballot question (and that there is almost certainly going to be one) I see the plan.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

04 Aug 2017, 23:10 #308

And I hope by now people realize that the most important issue here has nothing to do with marijuana.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

05 Aug 2017, 03:13 #309

I think our leaders are doing an amazing job of wiggling out of that Karly.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

gator
Joined: 27 Apr 2011, 20:12

05 Aug 2017, 03:50 #310

Damon wrote:
I think our leaders are doing an amazing job of wiggling out of that Karly.
Wiggle is way too nice of a term. I'd go with squirming since it's a better description of our leaders actions.

Damon, I know your not a fan of weed, but I respect and appreciate the fact that your always willing to speak up and decry this injustice!
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

05 Aug 2017, 06:42 #311

I can almost guarantee that every damn city councilor is wiggling (nay...slithering) their way towards trying to ban it completely.

Reactionary, ignorant old tools. Instead, they should be spending all their time protecting goldfish. Who are already protected. Whoops!

Clown Car.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

05 Aug 2017, 17:19 #312

The actions that were taken against the clear decision of the
voters by our elected state officials, Tarr and Ferrante, were
not about marijuana. They were about the concept of
democracy itself and demonstrated either total disagreement with
the concept or a fantastic belief in their superiority to us mere
citizens. I am totally flabbergasted and can never support them
again.
The actions at the city level are in another context entirely. If they
take action in conflict with the law voted last fall, I will react. However
I do not think we can complain about their asking the community
what is desired. If indeed they are slithering, well we are all watching.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

05 Aug 2017, 17:25 #313

It is the ballot question that I have heard and read is intended here in November that I wonder about.  In the meantime I'm seeing lots of scare tactics online focusing mostly on gummy bears.  We will see.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

05 Aug 2017, 17:32 #314

For the provisions of the original ballot questions see:

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_M ... Question_4_(2016)

For example the law we voted for allows local referenda on shops etc.
For some reason that link only works from my search bar.
Last edited by Damon on 05 Aug 2017, 17:39, edited 2 times in total.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

05 Aug 2017, 17:45 #315

Yes...in terms of how many and where they are, etc.  I don't think a local ballot question is needed to work that out...should be able to do it with the Ward meetings and public hearings.  I think there is also something in there about voting locally on whether places can sell for consumption on the premises.  That seems pretty far off.
Reply

Fortune Cookie
Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

05 Aug 2017, 17:47 #316

Roger a couple of doors down from me has been running a dispensary for about 20 years now.

Will any of this affect his operation?
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪

Fortune Cookie

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

05 Aug 2017, 17:57 #317

Well, here is what the ballot question said about local control:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""
Local control

The law allowed localities to submit initiative measures questioning the sale of marijuana on certain premises and adopt the following types of ordinances or by-laws:[9]

Ordinances governing the time, place, and manner of a marijuana establishment
Ordinances limiting the number of marijuana establishments in a city or town. Certain ordinances in this category would require a vote by citizens of the city or town in order to be adopted.
Ordinances restricting the licensed cultivation, processing, and manufacturing of marijuana that could be considered a "public nuisance"
Ordinances addressing standards for public signs related to marijuana establishments
Ordinances detailing consequences for violating marijuana related ordinances
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'
We voted to allow such issues on local ballots. The state legislature later turned that power over to local politicians only in places that voted against the ballot initiative. Gloucester, Rockport, Essex, Manchester voted for. If we lived in Hamilton it would be different.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

05 Aug 2017, 17:59 #318

As I understand it Fortune Cookie, none of this is related to medical pot.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

05 Aug 2017, 18:07 #319

That will be a lot of ballot questions to get at that level of detail, but if those are the questions (though I'm not sure what that third one includes) that is fine.  

The  GDT article I think was talking more about a vote to delay stores here or not allow them.


"[font='HELVETICA NEUE', HELVETICA, ARIAL, SANS-SERIF]When Gloucester voters head to the polls in November, they may be asked whether the city should ban retail sale of recreational marijuana, or delay the start of sales until December 2018.[/font]
[font='HELVETICA NEUE', HELVETICA, ARIAL, SANS-SERIF]
[/font]
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... df65d.html
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

05 Aug 2017, 18:20 #320

Karly wrote:
It is the ballot question that I have heard and read is intended here in November that I wonder about.  In the meantime I'm seeing lots of scare tactics online focusing mostly on gummy bears.  We will see.
I saw the Powerpoint presentation for the School Dept. meeting.

It was very poorly put together (worth a D grade in a freshman college class, at best) - it was highly partisan, replete with bad information, and poorly cited.

Yes - gummy bears. The rallying cry of the reactionaries!
Reply