Will the extra income then lead to lower state taxes? At least it should lead to getting rid of the tolls on the parkway and turnpike.
Almost typed that without laughing.
Almost typed that without laughing.
OT: Cannabis sales opening up in NJ
- Thread starter newell138
- Start date
"addictive" ? Hilarious.
And I'll bet you're part of the "my body, my choice" crowd.
agree and disagree. my understanding is that marijuana is not physically addicting like other drugs (including alcohol). however, you cant convince me that marijuana is completely non-addictive. people who smoke everyday, "potheads", people who "wake and bake" are addicted to pot. I dont care what you tell me.
but again, I understand and agree that other drugs (including alcohol) are far more addictive.
mental addiction falls in line with things like gambling, shopping, porn, etc. need mental health help vs dealing with physical symptoms of withdrawal and dependency
Trust me it's addictive just like alcohol. Be in physical or mental there are many in help groups trying to break the habit.
It's addicting much like coffee/caffeine drinks and sugary foods. Not so much physically addicting (in the same was as narcotics), but still psychologically addicting. There can be health benefits (maybe not so much with the sugary stuff) and health concerns with all of it.
We like what's bad for us. But I generally don't think it government's role should be to dictate to individuals how we live our lives. As long as we're not hurting others, at least. Better to redirect funding spent on marijuana use prevention to combating other more serious concerns (e.g. heroin use, medical narcotic addiction).
It's psychologically addictive. Like sugary foods. Or sex.
Not really that odd.
They could be legitimately and unhypocritically opposed to it and still, if they fail in their opposition to it, accept revenue from it. Because there's a valid argument to make that the outcome of both things benefits their citizens.
Whereas turning away the revenue would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
I would say yes it has. Even on a small scale at the most. In fact one person on this very thread indicated he would be more apt to try weed if it were regulated. He can't be the only person in NJ thinking that. Either way, legalizing is approving the use of said foreign substance, which can be addicting AND/OR damaging to the body. Disclaimer to all: please note the bolded AND/OR.
If you read what the CDC says about marijuana addiction, they cite studies 10-30% can develop dependence. So there's that. Plus the potential escalation of weed users to addictive and more powerful substances, should they choose to or be persuaded by their pot smoking peers.
See above. And I will add you and Rhouse failed to to comprehend the "addictive AND/OR damaging" part. You are kinda correct about "my body, my choice". But you are incorrect on the assumption how I treat my body. My choice yesterday was 65 minutes of moderate cardio. Today my choice will be spinning for 30 minutes on my road bike followed by a resistance training circuit. My choice tomorrow will be intense, trail, hill workouts. The day after that will be another recovery workout, but I will take the Mrs. out for dinner and a couple drinks afterwards. If you think I'm BSing you, feel free to join my during any of "my body, my choice" decisions...except the dinner thing with the Mrs.
I will be setting up a girl scout cookie stand at the nearest dispensary...
I will sell by the cookie!
I imagine there will be a lot of cheech and chong moments the first few days in the parking lot.
I will sell by the cookie!
I imagine there will be a lot of cheech and chong moments the first few days in the parking lot.
It won't lead to lower state taxes. Nor should it, IMO. The revenue should probably be (but probably won't be) directed towards combating other more serious drug-related problems. Perhaps the revenue saved from not policing and prosecuting pot-related crimes, and from not imprisoning people for those crimes, could be (should've been) spent lowering taxes, though.
And we're so far behind on infrastructure that it would be criminal to get rid of tolls on our roads. What would be valid is to look at how that infrastructure revenue is spent and figure out how to be more efficient with it.
tolling NJT and GSP are the most fair ways of funding that road to begin with. you pay if you use it, you don't pay if you don't. self-funded roadway vs the rest of the state's highways.
We spend an excessive amount of resources on drug possession
After being on a grand jury and seeing that 90% of the cases are for possession I say decriminalize all possession charges.
All you do is turn some kids into criminals and allocate police in the wrong area of need.
Drug charges are a lucrative pot of money for law enforcement and court staff. We can use the funds in other places
After being on a grand jury and seeing that 90% of the cases are for possession I say decriminalize all possession charges.
All you do is turn some kids into criminals and allocate police in the wrong area of need.
Drug charges are a lucrative pot of money for law enforcement and court staff. We can use the funds in other places
There is an argument that says making it legal removes the novelty of it being illegal and less kids will use. At the end of the day it will probably be a wash since being illegal has absolutely not stopped one kid ever. Most research and data shows this as well.
Ah, so you’re a dreamer. Just like the dream of all the lottery money, legalized gambling revenue, past toll collection revenue went to the causes they were intended for.
Agreed.
Like anybody else, I would love to not have to pay tolls. But I hate all the potholes and broken up roads and sure wouldn't want to be driving across one of the bridges, that are overdue for replacement, when it collapses.
Of course, the folks who whine about having to pay tolls are the exact same folks who will be first to point fingers when a bridge collapses or whine about the poor condition of roadways.
Of course, the folks who whine about having to pay tolls are the exact same folks who will be first to point fingers when a bridge collapses or whine about the poor condition of roadways.
Do you know this for a fact? What research have you done?
dammit, when will some of you ever learn.
Pot is bad > booze good, support your local bartender not the pot shop.
let this film ( trailer) be a lesson to you potential pot heads:
Pot is bad > booze good, support your local bartender not the pot shop.
let this film ( trailer) be a lesson to you potential pot heads:
It looks like there are three pot stores opening up in my neck of the woods......Maplewood, Rochelle Park, and Bloomfield. For now I'm gonna stick with my current source, who I've been using forever, who delivers, and is competitively priced. For sure I'm looking forward to the whole shopping experience, but I'll wait until the crowd dies down before I check out their varieties and their edibles.
I honestly never thought that legal ganja would come to New Jersey.
I honestly never thought that legal ganja would come to New Jersey.
Yes, I do know it for a fact. Because whiners whine.
Or are you gonna try and claim that's not a fact?
You failed to note where I wrote "revenue should probably be (but probably won't be)...". I'm fully aware that tax and toll revenue doesn't often wind up being used as intended and that it's rarely used efficiently.
That doesn't mean we can stop collecting revenue for infrastructure improvements. It means R's and D's in the electorate need to stop worshiping those for whom they voted while demonizing those for whom they didn't.
Because nobody, from either party, has actually been making government more efficient. All the politicians do is pander to their respective ideological bases and proclaim victory - while the debt continues to mount and the roads continue crumble. Talk about insanity.
It's part of their plan to make more people dependent on and/or prone to government control.
You do realize, right, that the government is being manipulated by the folks who are truly in charge.It's part of their plan to make more people dependent on and/or prone to government control.
Dolphins.
Agreed.
My reaction is the same as @Jm0513 . The CDC has zero credibility after the last 2 years, and they are way out of their lane on thi.
Fat is addictive? While not as intense as your regimen, I'm not far behind you on workouts. Drink mostly water, no junk food, eat high protein diet, no crap foods like chips/pizza/etc, and exercise regularly.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
My reaction to any with those three letters! Laugh, mock and then ignore…I like you, I really do…. but the CDC?
The best part of my post was that GIF is Mila Kunis on That 70s Show.. high..
Lol
Interesting that some of you distrust and are mocking the CDC. Out of curiosity, where (specifically) are you getting better information?
I agree and I didn’t not realize what you stated. But it has to end sometime because the more revenue they collect never seems to make one bit of difference. I worked in the transportation sector for over 28 years and know all too well of the infrastructure problems faced in this state. Those problems existed way before my time and still exist 32+ years later. All the time politicians live well above their salaries.
I figure there will always be infrastructure issues. And there will always be ways to improve efficiency in government spending. Because for every issue we solve satisfactorily, two more issues pop up. Just the nature of governance of anything complex.
That's a normal state of affairs. Governing calls for continual improvement. But the electorate doesn't want to hear about that. That's too complex, too nuanced. Much easier for people to just complain about taxes or complain about spending, or whatever.
I think the problem, nowadays, is that far too many people are involved in the process whose only interest is electing someone of a chosen party. That's as true of people in politics as it is of the electorate. It's the game that interests them all; not the details and nuances of any particular issue.
So the solve rate seems like it's slowing while the new issue rate seems to be speeding up. But maybe the relative rates aren't all that different than they were a hundred years ago. Hard to say.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Nicely done!The best part of my post was that GIF is Mila Kunis on That 70s Show.. high..
Lol
LOL..good point! I was pressed for time and that's the first thing that came up. I can research the article if they cited them, if that makes you feel better. Oh, and just remember, I don't think it was Fauci who cited the article, so there's a chance of my reference being legit.I like you, I really do…. but the CDC?
He was replying to my post. I agree with and fully understand what he said. I said pot was addictive - he slightly clarified the point saying it was a mental addiction (like gambling, etc) vs a physical dependency (like heroin etc). Nothing to argue with there. So perhaps you’re the confused one
Some of you are showing your age thinking people Are just sitting around watching MTV and eating Doritos while high. I would bet most of the time no one would even know I smoked. Micro dosing is key
It is physically addictive too, because long-term users still experience withdrawal. Not life threatening withdrawal like with benzos and other substances, but there are no doubt withdrawal symptoms. What I’ve never understood about folks wanting to make this type of distinction to minimize one addiction over the other, is, one, the brain and body are intricately linked. Two, the psychological components of addiction are far and away harder to conquer than the physical component. It’s a lot easier to go through withdrawal for a week or two than get the psychosocial divers of addiction squared away and dealt with.
Last edited:
Really ?
I've been smoking for over 50 years....but there have been long periods where I didn't partake for years.
I struggled more trying to stop with the Ben and Jerry's.
Withdrawal symptoms ? Like what ?