Pot opponents regroup following Wash....

Pot opponents regroup following Wash., Colo. votes

There are 16 comments on the WBOY-TV story from Jan 9, 2013, titled Pot opponents regroup following Wash., Colo. votes. In it, WBOY-TV reports that:

Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser and an outspoken opponent of legalizing marijuana, watched with dismay last fall as voters in Washington and Colorado did just that.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WBOY-TV.

Sheik Yerbouti

Pennington, NJ

#1 Jan 10, 2013
I see they are still using discredited information and reefer madness style hysteria. Educating people about the truth will defeat these self righteous twits every time. What people do in their own homes is nobody's business!
smokeybandit

Bryn Mawr, PA

#2 Jan 11, 2013
Just for health & air pollution reasons alone they shouldn't allow pot smoking. Plus who wants to smell like a stoner. This is how they need to fight legalized pot: just like legal cigarette smoking there should be restrictions on public smoking ie smoke in YOUR home, not hotel rooms, bars, parks etc, smoke it in YOUR home and stink up your stuff.
smokeybandit

Bryn Mawr, PA

#3 Jan 11, 2013
Tigthen up pot laws by treating them like cigarettes etc. They need to treat smoked pot as a pollutant and associated health hazard. I don't even want to smell cigarettes or cigar smoke. Why should I tolerate pot smoke.

And when they treat pot as a pollutant they also have to do something about the stinky butted colognes, soaps and shampoos. Keep your stink at home.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#4 Jan 11, 2013
Time to get back to Constitutional freedom..END WAR ON DRUGS DISBAND EVIL UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEA AND MAKE DRUGS LEGAL AND TAX LIKE ALCOHOL......
less equals more

West Mifflin, PA

#5 Jan 11, 2013
will i have to buy a MARY JANE auto insurance rider,??? LIKE I DID WITH uninsured motorist,or will an auto accident,OR ANY ACCIDENT by mary jane be considered ACT OF GOD,? im already paying UNINSURED HEALTH CARE rider on my health insurance plan, its hidden as a premium increase...but who am i to COMPLAIN."no new taxes".. is now more fees,premiums, and co pays or limits
brownies cookies candies

Oklahoma City, OK

#6 Jan 11, 2013
smokeybandit wrote:
Just for health & air pollution reasons alone they shouldn't allow pot smoking. Plus who wants to smell like a stoner. This is how they need to fight legalized pot: just like legal cigarette smoking there should be restrictions on public smoking ie smoke in YOUR home, not hotel rooms, bars, parks etc, smoke it in YOUR home and stink up your stuff.
...who ever said that you had to smoke marijuana?
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#7 Jan 14, 2013
Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
I see they are still using discredited information and reefer madness style hysteria. Educating people about the truth will defeat these self righteous twits every time. What people do in their own homes is nobody's business!
The votes did nothing to stop an employer from firing you for having it in your system during a random pee test on company premises or getting a DUI if decide to drive impared.
Sneek Blee

Conway, AR

#8 Jan 14, 2013
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>The votes did nothing to stop an employer from firing you for having it in your system during a random pee test on company premises or getting a DUI if decide to drive impared.
The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#9 Jan 15, 2013
Sneek Blee wrote:
<quoted text>The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
Police that find a single joint or amounts under an ounce around here usually just scatter it out in the road,give a good warning about "next time" and send the people on their way unless the driver is blitzed. It's way too much paper work to fool with and the judge will turn them out with a small fine. Now if they find large amounts or any hard stuff, everyone goes downtown. It still boils down to the common sense element of knowing when and where.
Sneek Blee

Oklahoma City, OK

#10 Jan 15, 2013
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>Police that find a single joint or amounts under an ounce around here usually just scatter it out in the road,give a good warning about "next time" and send the people on their way unless the driver is blitzed. It's way too much paper work to fool with and the judge will turn them out with a small fine. Now if they find large amounts or any hard stuff, everyone goes downtown. It still boils down to the common sense element of knowing when and where.
The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#11 Jan 15, 2013
Sneek Blee wrote:
<quoted text> The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
One ounce,one pound,one ton, you still have a problem if you get caught driving or in a pee test. The vote changed nothing with those two items.
Sneek Blee

Oklahoma City, OK

#12 Jan 15, 2013
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>One ounce,one pound,one ton, you still have a problem if you get caught driving or in a pee test. The vote changed nothing with those two items.
The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#13 Jan 15, 2013
Sneek Blee wrote:
<quoted text> The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
You're not labeled a criminal,just labeled unemployed. Get a DUI and you get labeled as HIGH RISK or uninsurable.
Sneek Blee

Oklahoma City, OK

#14 Jan 15, 2013
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>You're not labeled a criminal,just labeled unemployed. Get a DUI and you get labeled as HIGH RISK or uninsurable.
The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

#15 Jan 15, 2013
Sneek Blee wrote:
<quoted text> The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.
What does that banter have to do with your job,.........NOTHING.
Sneek Blee

Bentonville, AR

#16 Jan 15, 2013
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>What does that banter have to do with your job,.........NOTHING.
The votes say that you won't be labeled a criminal for possession of under an once of cannabis. This is exactly what you prohibitionist did not want to happen........you lose.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Patrick Kennedy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Making Information Power: Psychiatrists Unveil ... May '15 HumanSpirit 1
News Ex-US Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. released from fede... Mar '15 novus ordo seclorum 7
News apa 2014 (Jul '14) Jul '14 humanSpirit 1
News Mentally ill get lost in health system 'wasteland' (Jun '14) Jul '14 Edward J Cejka 6
News apa 2014 (Jun '14) Jun '14 humanSpirit 1
News Kennedy to Obama: Pot has changed (Jan '14) Jan '14 Cordwainer Trout 5
News FDA Says Pills Can Cause 'Sleep-Driving' (Mar '07) Oct '13 Harley 15
More from around the web