Legalizing Marijuana

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

This Tuesday, Ohio has a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana in the state. Never used pot, I don't have a strong feeling for or against the measure.

 

That said, I was surprised to see a commercial with Nick Lachey encouraging us to vote for the measure. While his message didn't influence my thoughts for Tuesday, I wondered: is there a celebrity whose endorsement of this issue (for or against) that would sway your vote?

[seaboy4hire]

Nope. I don't allow myself to be swayed by celeb endorsements.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[BabyBoomer]

+1

 

~ Boomer ~

[Guy Fawkes]

I don't need a celebrity endorsement to influence my vote.

[Lookin]

. . . is there a celebrity whose endorsement of this issue (for or against) that would sway your vote?

 

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2014/article/5-amazing-and-possibly-apocryphal-willie-nelson-stories-20140813/164214/large_rect/1401x788-53303190.jpg

[+ quoththeraven]

The easy answer here would be "I think for myself."

 

What's relevant is what can be gained and lost from the proposal. Reliable information on what might be expected based on other state's experience is important for that purpose.

[AdamSmith]

When a celebrity is for something, my first instinct is to want to believe the opposite.

[+ SundayZip]

I will not adopt a position just because it aligns with a celebrity's position, but there have been times when an outspoken celebrity has made me pay attention to an issue or to dig deeper. So in that way, I have been influenced. And to be perfectly honest, if I was completely undecided about an issue, there are some celebrities who could influence my thinking. Matt Damon comes to mind (in spite of his recent, very stupid statement about diversity in Hollywood). I would have said the same about Meryl Streep until she joined the group of Hollywood dough-heads asking Amnesty International to retract their proposal to decriminalize the sex trade. Now I think she's full of sh*t and only trying to be politically correct.

[wisconsinguy]

Anybody got a quick take on how much Colorado has made on taxes thus far on pot? Too lazy right now to do a search. WG2

[wklucas]

This Tuesday, Ohio has a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana in the state. Never used pot, I don't have a strong feeling for or against the measure.

 

That said, I was surprised to see a commercial with Nick Lachey encouraging us to vote for the measure. While his message didn't influence my thoughts for Tuesday, I wondered: is there a celebrity whose endorsement of this issue (for or against) that would sway your vote?

 

I am all for legal weed anywhere & everywhere.....regarding Nick Lachey's involvement in Ohio advertising.....apparently he's maybe a member of a business group who would / will benefit financially from legal in Ohio.....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/10/30/nick-lachey-could-get-rich-growing-pot-in-ohio/

[Epigonos]

As far as I can tell the “War on Drugs” has been an outrageously expensive abysmal failure. I have always been upfront here that I’m a reactionary fiscal conservative Republican BUT a social Libertarian. With that out of the way I firmly believe we should STOP playing around, get real and legalize ALL drugs and that goes for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, etc., etc. People could registrar and then buy their drugs at government shops. This would put the American crime syndicates/gangs and the Mexican drug cartels out of the drug business and the profit could go to various social programs. My one huge CAVEAT is that registrared drug users should be denied certain occupations and drug testing should be mandatory and random for those occupations. Anybody in the transportation area comes immediately to mind thus airline pilots, train engineers, bus drivers, or semi-truck, for example, should be fired if traces of drugs are found in their systems. I would also probably add to that group doctors, nurses, teacher, and police officers.

[seaboy4hire]

As far as I can tell the “War on Drugs” has been an outrageously expensive abysmal failure. I have always been upfront here that I’m a reactionary fiscal conservative Republican BUT a social Libertarian. With that out of the way I firmly believe we should STOP playing around, get real and legalize ALL drugs and that goes for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, etc., etc. People could registrar and then buy their drugs at government shops. This would put the American crime syndicates/gangs and the Mexican drug cartels out of the drug business and the profit could go to various social programs. My one huge CAVEAT is that registrared drug users should be denied certain occupations and drug testing should be mandatory and random for those occupations. Anybody in the transportation area comes immediately to mind thus airline pilots, train engineers, bus drivers, or semi-truck, for example, should be fired if traces of drugs are found in their systems. I would also probably add to that group doctors, nurses, teacher, and police officers.

 

Semi truck drivers have random piss tests already and it's already illegal for them to use drugs along with a few medications cause it could impact their driving abilities. I would imagine that the same holds true for some of the other professions you mentioned as well.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ quoththeraven]

I will not adopt a position just because it aligns with a celebrity's position, but there have been times when an outspoken celebrity has made me pay attention to an issue or to dig deeper. So in that way, I have been influenced. And to be perfectly honest, if I was completely undecided about an issue, there are some celebrities who could influence my thinking. Matt Damon comes to mind (in spite of his recent, very stupid statement about diversity in Hollywood). I would have said the same about Meryl Streep until she joined the group of Hollywood dough-heads asking Amnesty International to retract their proposal to decriminalize the sex trade. Now I think she's full of sh*t and only trying to be politically correct.

 

It could also be that she aligns with your views on most issues but not that one. I have to say, though, between this and her participation in a publicity campaign for the movie Suffragettes in which she and the other lily white stars from the movie wear t-shirts with the quote (from one of the suffragettes depicted in the movie) "I'd rather be a rebel than a slave" when no white women in the history of ever was enslaved, I've lost a lot of respect for her.

[sincitymix]

Anybody got a quick take on how much Colorado has made on taxes thus far on pot? Too lazy right now to do a search. WG2

I don't know an exact number but I know it has eclipsed beer sales tax.

[notforme]

i have only one name Rapaul

[+ Axiom2001]

Nope. I don't allow myself to be swayed by celeb endorsements.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

I'm not easily swayed by others as to my voting on anything or for anyone. Thus, a celebrity's endorsement would have no influence on me. And, if I lived in Ohio, I would cast an affirmative vote on the measure!

[seaboy4hire]

i have only one name Rapaul

 

I'm confused

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Guy Fawkes]

Silly Rabbit; Your Greg not Rupaul.

I'm confused

 

Hugs,

Greg

[TruthBTold]

I think that I would look to Willy Nelson (as mentioned) on this issue. Not only has he always found criminalization to be a losing societal battle but he also wants to make sure that pot production is regulated so that chemicals and fertilizers typically used on food are not used for pot production. Moreover one of the two current Ohio ballot measures gives the ability to grow pot to a very limited number of huge corporations. That is why there is a curious alliance of anti-pot groups and anti-corporate growers attempting to get the ballot measure defeated.

[samhexum]

Pot smokers in the US can’t get off scot free, since many will now have to take it on the chin and pay a steep marijuana penalty — to sign up with life insurers, that is.

 

Marijuana indulgence, recreational or medicinal, is sharply raising the price of some premiums, with certain issuers making the same risk assumptions for pot smokers as cigarette smokers.

 

The cost of a 20-year, $1 million life insurance policy, for example, can be as much as five times higher for a pot smoker compared with a clean-living nonsmoker, according to one broker.

 

There are no consistent industry mandates, or best practices, as marijuana comes out of the shadows and is legal in eight US states and the District of Columbia. “We don’t get into that side of things, that is something for individual company operations,” Jack Dolan of the American Council of Life Insurance told The Post, referring to insurance companies’ marijuana rules.

 

But one broker has plenty to share about weed. And the numbers are mind-blowing.

 

Mark Maurer, president of LLIS, an independent insurance agency in Tampa, Fla., addressing a recent conference of the National Association of Professional Financial Advisors, recommended practitioners ask clients about pot habits when reviewing their life insurance. Although some issuers will overlook occasional usage, others will boost rates if you smoke dope at all, which puts marijuana users on the same spectrum as cigarette smokers. “Right now, I don’t know of any life insurance companies who will out and out decline an applicant because they smoke marijuana,” Maurer said.

 

Maurer told of a 36-year-old New Jersey woman who informed him she vapes marijuana once or twice a week, and then got sticker shock on her 10-year, $1 million policy quote. One of the issuers offered an annual premium of $3,772 — the same rate as on the 10-year plan for tobacco users. Another issuer asked only $677, the rate for which it would hit up a non-tobacco user.

 

Maurer says the New Jersey client’s transparency paid off because she could stay clear of a costly contract, and avoid trouble later if the insurer discovered her usage through medical or other records.

[Walker1]

NO, if I am undecided and the bored celeb crowd looking for a cause jump in-I usually flee the other way.

[Rudynate]

NO, if I am undecided and the bored celeb crowd looking for a cause jump in-I usually flee the other way.

 

 

But you've still allowed the celebrity's viewpoint to determine yours.

[Walker1]

But you've still allowed the celebrity's viewpoint to determine yours.

I didn't think of it that way. But yes, if they are smart enough to be counter to what they are pushing-then yes. if not, they are a bunch of actors-good for entertainment.

[Rudynate]

I didn't think of it that way. But yes, if they are smart enough to be counter to what they are pushing-then yes. if not, they are a bunch of actors-good for entertainment.

 

 

If, in the spirit of being an independent thinker, you reflexively choose the viewpoint opposite a celebrity's, you are being as much of an automaton as you would be if you thought, "Well, if X thinks it, it must be so." You are allowing yourself to be used by your view of yourself as an independent thinker.

[Walker1]

If, in the spirit of being an independent thinker, you reflexively choose the viewpoint opposite a celebrity's, you are being as much of an automaton as you would be if you thought, "Well, if X thinks it, it must be so." You are allowing yourself to be used by your view of yourself as an independent thinker.

I never claimed I was an independent thinker. I merely said if the horde of zombies -well celebrities- go one way in a topic where I haven't made up my mind/don't care much-then I go the opposite way. It save a lot of time and effort. Now on issues that I care about, I take the time and effort. if that makes me an automaton-so be it-who cares?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Walker1