General discussion

No pot coming to my state...

legally, that is

It was an ugly campaign with promoters focusing primarily on the medical portion while, I suspect, it was the street corner sale they were interested in. Though the later polls had the issue as a dead heat, it went down almost 2 to 1. I'm happy with that but the promoters have already promised to be back. I don't take issue with legitimate medical use. These folks should have put that proposal forth by itself. I love the one argument that people are already disobeying the law so why not just make it legal and tax it. If that argument is rational, we may as well remove all of the stop signs from the street corners. Most people around here don't seem to obey them anyway so why not save some money and not put them up?
Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: No pot coming to my state...
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: No pot coming to my state...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Was reading about this

The bill was to give the 10 donors to the election would have the only licenses to grow the pot. I read that was what the voters objected to.

- Collapse -
That was covered in a separate bill

The anti-monopoly bill was Issue 2 and the marijuana bill was issue 3. Those for marijuana fought also to keep the 10 grower monopoly. They thought that a "No" on that bill would ruin it altogether.

- Collapse -
If you want some fun reading

Check out the LGBT agenda in Houston with the gay Mayor going down in flames, or should I say they flushed the toilet on this Prop #1 ?

- Collapse -
I'm still pondering the differences between

what is equal treatment and what is special treatment. It does seem that the two terms are often used to mean the same thing. Frankly, I don't feel businesses should be required to fashion rest rooms to government standards. They will want their facility to accommodate the base of customers they seek to attract. Let the customers complain if they're not happy and the business owners react in the way they wish. If someone or some group wants special treatment, let them pay for it. Let them lobby for private pay toilets as a solution.

- Collapse -
three restrooms

Male Only = (this means you were born and remained as such)
Female Only = (this means you were born and remained as such)
Unisex = Anyone can use

- Collapse -
I've seen one called "family restroom"

which I think is legit. I believe these allow a parent traveling with children to take the child into the restroom with them regardless of gender. I've also seen these with "baby changing stations" so parents can change the diapers of their infants. I believe these were first in women's restrooms only but are now in men's rooms as well. It may be awkward to some but I think it's fine. Many roadside rest areas are also well known to be frequented by prostitutes offering "morale building and counseling services" to truckers. It's a shame we need to protect ourselves from creeps but public restrooms have long been noted for being "creep magnets" attracting all kinds. A unisex restroom might work as long as there are enough people comfortable with knowing their stall neighbor might not be of their biological gender.

CNET Forums