Those who don't should, as we here do strive to emulate your, dare I say it? ... fair and balanced ministrations here.

Damn you FAUXNEWS forever for poisoning that phrase.

Like your stuff on Harm Reduction it's spot on ...

Re: what you'd vote for?

You didn't vote, though, did you?

To be fair, I'm guessing registering was low on your priority list when you moved, and even Jack couldn't move the election board to give you an exception when you got around to it ...

I won't participate in that.

I understand some people will be hurt no matter what we do. I realize that we cannot avoid harm altogether. But my job, my function, the purpose of my existence so far as I am here and doing anything on this planet, is harm reduction.

Harm reduction means different things to different people, so I want to make clear what it means to me. It means that you don't intentionally cause someone harm, as one of its first fundamental precepts.

And this is the same ethic that pervades every moral code. An ye harm none. Do unto others.

People in our society are going to ingest substances to change the way they feel, be it alcohol or cannabis or cocaine or whatever. That is unavoidable, history clearly shows that. I argue that it is very counterproductive to pass DUI and DUID laws without addressing the needs for public transportation. The lawmakers' hearts are in the right place, but in the end it's just another form of legislating morality with little tangible effect on overall public safety. People are going to go out and get drunk or stoned...period. I propose a new point of view: If the government was even remotely concerned about protecting the innocent, they would find a way to get those drunkards and stoners home without having to climb behind a wheel, as opposed to just cramming people in jail left and right.

I have driven under the influence of alcohol and/or marijuana before. Hundreds of times, dare I say maybe even thousands. I don't do it even nearly as much as I used to, hardly at all anymore for that matter. I don't like doing it, I never did. I always hated having to take that risk. But frankly, in every place I've lived, there just isn't any other way to get around. My friends always lived on the other side of town, the bar was never "right down the street". I would love to take a taxi every time I go out, but frankly cabs just aren't cost effective. (Where I live, to take a cab from my house to the airport 2 MILES AWAY can cost upwards of $20). Some places I've lived don't even have taxi service. Riding a bike drunk is just as dangerous as driving a car. And we won't even go into taking buses. We don't have subways or elevated trains like in New York and Chicago.

I'm certainly not advocating driving under the influence. But I'm looking at it as a realist, and it is a very real predicament for anyone who doesn't live in a big city (probably a majority of us). People are going to go out and get drunk or stoned. And there just is no real alternative for most of us to transport ourselves home other than driving. You could argue in favor of designated drivers, but really how many people want to get stuck babysitting their drunk friends all night and not being able to partake in the fun?

I don't think people should drive under the influence of any thing...but normal, reasonable punishment for a wrong doing is adequate. If they had a punishment already for killing someone while driving under the influence...I'm sure it was plenty harsh enough.

Last time the harshness had something to do with selling to a minor, or something like that.

I'm not an alcoholic, Whig, neither is my husband...but we might like to enjoy a beer or margarita with our Tex-Mex every now and then without worrying about the possibility of being hit by another car and because of a little alcohol in the system...blamed for the accident...even if it was the other guy's fault.

As it is, my husband, who always designates himself driver...because he gets carsick riding, never allows himself even one drink when we go out.

It's not that I care about drinking much, either...it's the "Punishers" and accusers among us that are getting so on my nerves.

I'm glad to know they didn't involve alcohol in the initiative.

They had unnecessarily harsh punishments in the last one, too. It's like, "Vote for this right thing...and look, we've added something so you can flog the hell out of anyone who messes up."

I don't think that doubling punishment is right. I want the persecution for cannabis use to stop. Driving under the influence should be avoided...but making a harsh punishment harsher to try and convince people to vote for legality doesn't seem like a good way to go.

I'm not cool about "any means to an end".

I want legality and the persecutions to end...but I don't want to offer up any future offenders as a "sacrifice" to get it done.

The area in brackets is what changed. The only change in law is if you kill someone under the influence. That is not the same thing as a DUI.

But the bummer side of that law, is when someone drinks one or two beers and goes to the store for cigs, and gets a DWI, it's the same punishment, though the level of intoxication is vastly lower than my deserved DWI. Then you have the Rich and Famous filming themselves drunk driving and running into things, and no one even gets a ticket. Go figure.

The people will have to lead on this one because the politicians are so terrified of being soft on an issue for which they could be politically attacked. Most politicians see touching marijuana laws as akin to touching the third rail.

Until the message is clear from the people that it is not instant political death, politicians will be too fearful to make the change on their own.

The Feds won't listen until states tell them they want change. A good example is if you look at states that have medical marijuana laws how many more Congressmen and Congresswomen support change relative to those that do not have a medical marijuana law.

99% of marijuana related arrests are made on the state and local level. If you changed state law, state and local police would not be making any marijuana related arrests. The Feds make up the other 1% of arrests throughout the country, but they generally focus on large distribution rings. They simply do not have the resources to arrest people with a small amount of marijuana on them.

As for the shops themselves, I will point you to California. It is illegal for the pot shops to be opened there, but there are literally dozens of them operating. The Feds can only shut down so many with their limited resources. Afterall they have meth and other dangerous substances to go after.

Xciting times...

What I'm learning to do right now is communicate, between the cannabis and the people to whom I am speaking and the cannabis which they are experiencing. We are a symbiote.

Do you copy? This is a way of speaking to God. This is a way of God speaking to you. This is a way of God speaking through you. This is a way of knowing God.

We are not sleeping and we are waking one another up because there is a need for all of us. You don't like my metaphors sometimes, and that's cool. I'm writing to the largest number of people that I can at one time when I write in Christian phrase. I use Music to communicate to others.

But it's not My Personal music, it's God's music. All Music is God's music. So I put my personal words in front, and I say what I want, and what I believe, and then the music comes to me and I play it for you.

This is something YOU CAN DO TOO.

This is something WE ALL CAN DO.

We are all God. We are just trying to communicate.

You are UNIQUE but you are CONNECTED.

777777777777777

44 out of a 100 do not agree with the Walters dude.

That's a significant bunch of Americans that think they do not have a problem with cannabis.

44

And in these elections, imagine the group hurt the most by loss of votes due to people being complacent is this issue with young voters for their combination of reasons... When I spoke to people in Summit County (which passed 44 -62% to 38 %) I ran accross plenty of young people that supported it but were not even registered.

Imagine, if the states / country would require people to vote, this issue in Nevada and Colorado would have a better chance to pass.

420

In Colorado for example, only 40 percent of the population that can vote, voted...

And the staunch don't miss it, they do vote...

420 + 7 + 44

In Colorado, 14 couties passed 44.

'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said.

'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me.

'That doesn't settle with me,' he said.

Rush Tells His Audience 'I'm Full of Crap'...Seriously!

Happy days are here again!

WOW!

Light up, everybody!

(Keith O just announced it, AP reported it, and now Joe Scarborough announced the the Dems now control both houses!

Everyone here is just AWESOME!

'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said.

'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me.

'That doesn't settle with me,' he said.

'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said.

'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me.

'That doesn't settle with me,' he said.

No kidding? What a surprise. The less "rights" people have, the more work for uniformed brutes like you.

Actually, the vast majority of Nevadan's aren't interested in gambling and prostitution either, but they're liberal enough in their thinking to understand they're not going to stop those activities, and smart enough to have realized, at least on those two issues, that regulation and oversight by the State is better than unfettered control by organized crime.

That's why it makes total sense for the same State's rights over federal law priviledge that Nevada has enjoyed to apply to cannabis.