SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the isn't-smoking-indoors-illegal? dept.
A measure that would make Denver the first city in the United States to legalize the use of marijuana in such venues as clubs, bars and restaurants is expected to get enough votes to pass, backers and opponents of the initiative said on Tuesday.
The announcement comes amid a string of victories for proponents of medical and recreational marijuana use, with voters in California and Massachusetts approving ballot initiatives legalizing recreational use of the drug last week.
The Colorado measure will permit private businesses to allow marijuana use by adults in designated areas with certain exceptions. Backers of the initiative said it would make Denver the first city in the country where cannabis enthusiasts can enjoy the drug socially without fear of arrest.
"This is a victory for cannabis consumers who, like alcohol consumers, simply want the option to enjoy cannabis in social settings," Kayvan Khalatbari, a Denver businessman and lead proponent of the so-called I-300 measure, said in a statement on Tuesday.
More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-marijuana-idUSKBN13A2YP?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
https://web.archive.org/web/20161117081010/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-marijuana-idUSKBN13A2YP?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:15PM
> So we aren't getting the lecture about forcing the wait staff to endure second hand dope?
The initiative [denverpost.com] explicitly says, "must comply with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act,"
> You could almost be excused for concluding Progs don't actually believe a word of the shit that spews from their hate holes, but that couldn't possibly be true... right?
Right.
What is also true is that yet again one of the biggest dumbfucks on the site projects his own idiocy on people he disagrees with rather than spend the 2 minutes necessary to fact-check his own bullshit. What was that about "shit spewing hate holes" again?
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @07:23PM
Uh huh, however the practical reality is smoking is universally banned because compliance wasn't possible. And as the regs are written it isn't. There is no imaginable system that would protect wait staff standing a foot or two from somebody smoking dope from being exposed to it, same as they couldn't help but be exposed to smoke from tobacco. And just saying if you don't want to be exposed you can't work here was deemed unacceptable employment discrimination. But here we are. Now we will demand wait staff expose themselves to something that will render them unemployable anywhere that conducts drug tests. Good way to minimize turnover I suppose.
See the problem? Of course not, total closure of the mind at work. You want it, nothing else matters. And when the Narrative tells you that you want something else that is logically incompatible you will salute smartly and adjust your thinking again.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:26PM
> Uh huh, however the practical reality is smoking is universally banned because compliance wasn't possible.
Have you heard of hookah bars?
They are very popular.
Delete your account already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:18AM
Delete your account already.
No, you delete your account!</sarcasm>
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:30PM
Now we will demand wait staff expose themselves to something
You're jumping to conclusions again.
Here is a link to the "Clean Indoor Air Act" that the other AC mentioned:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Indoor%20air%20LE%20Key%20Points_0.pdf [colorado.gov]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 18 2016, @07:34PM
J-Mo, you know what you need right now? A biiiiig fat blunt. Smoke the entire thing and just sit and relax for a bit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by tangomargarine on Friday November 18 2016, @07:34PM
What is also true is that yet again one of the biggest dumbfucks on the site projects his own idiocy on people he disagrees with rather than spend the 2 minutes necessary to fact-check his own bullshit. What was that about "shit spewing hate holes" again?
Says the AC who can't even be bothered to log in for their rants about jmorris.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 18 2016, @07:55PM
What does that have to do with what he actually said?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Friday November 18 2016, @07:59PM
That's your defense? Someone posted something as an AC? My god, is there an epidemic of people posting as AC??? What can we dooooo?
The AC wasn't me, but I'll gladly say jmorris is a reactionary narrow minded conservative who spews hatred in almost every comment he makes. He has zero critical thinking skills and is a parrot of right-wing propaganda. The only "thinking" he does is connecting the dots based of his brainwashed beliefs, which really just means he views anything that conflicts with his personal beliefs as a "SJW" conspiracy. Sure there are angry liberals on here, sure some of them spew the same level of hate, but that doesn't make jmorris "ok".
As for the second hand smoke concern, that would be a valid topic of conversation but of course he ropes in politics, probably because he is one of those people that believe marijuana is the devil's weed and only godless heathens support recreational marijuana use. Jmorris, please tell me that you are at least a teetotaler and have equal scorn for alcohol.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @09:01PM
I disagree with most of what jmorris writes, but he's not incomprehensible. He makes good points; sometimes you have to sift through verbiage to get to them, but they're there. He stakes out a corner of the philosophical spectrum that I have no interest in championing, and I don't know that that corner of the philosophical spectrum adds a whole lot of light to my world. But as long as jmorris and aristarchus still wage war here I know Soylent is not an echo chamber.
It's a tough old piece of gristle to chew and try to swallow, but it is what it is.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday November 18 2016, @09:47PM
Yes, I've seen some good points float through his stream of consciousness which is why I specifically added:
As for the second hand smoke concern, that would be a valid topic of conversation but of course he ropes in politics
I'm just doing my part to let the lurkers know that his position is not authoritative, we are all impressionable and he might resonate just enough with someone to sway them into some of his more outlandish viewpoints. I give people a lot of slack, but the polarized commentary on here makes that very difficult sometimes.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @11:40PM
I disagree with most of what jmorris writes, but he's not incomprehensible. He makes good points; sometimes you have to sift through verbiage to get to them, but they're there.
If jmorris insists on delivering his "thoughts" via a douche nozzle he's going to be viewed as a douche.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by tangomargarine on Friday November 18 2016, @09:20PM
We have a lot of posting lately by ACs contributing nothing except calling signed-in posters/the community at large names.
Yes, it's not an on-topic contribution to this argument, but calling out ACs is never going to be on-topic anyway.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @11:24PM
jmorris is a reactionary narrow minded conservative
You need to make up your mind which of those is accurate.
(They're not the same.)
A Conservative wants to conserve the status quo.
William F. Buckley Jr. described that lot this way:
A Conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling "Stop"... [google.com]
A Reactionary is someone who wants to REVERSE progress that has been made. [google.com]
Those guys want to UNDO things like women's suffrage and Black people's voting rights, returning to redlining real estate and Whites-only signs.
They like the era when you had to be a White male property owner to vote.
They like the era when White people could own Black people.
"Make America great again"?? Try "Make America White again".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday November 19 2016, @12:37AM
Bullshit. "Reactionary" is no more than an epithet to use as an ad hominem against someone with whom you disagree. "React" has nothing to do with rejecting anything; progress or anything else. A reaction is nothing but a response. If you lay your hand on a hotplate, you "react" by snatching it away. OK, that one is a reflex. Let's say you're on a beach and see a tidal wave approaching. You "react" by running up the sand dune. That one is driven by conscious thought. If your homeland is being overrun by invading unassimilable persons bent on changing it unrecognizably, you "react" by throwing them the hell out.
On the other hand, "socialist" or "progressive" is an actual descriptive term. That does not mean that everyone agrees on what constitutes progress, or at least positive progress, but at least almost all will agree fairly well on the kind of views and actions it describes.
"Conservative"? No one knows what the hell that actually means - least of all those who call themselves or think of themselves as conservative. It's a pretty meaningless thing to be, and it's a pretty meaningless thing to WANT to be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @02:06AM
I linked to the source material.
Clearly, you couldn't be bothered to click that.
What you're doing is attempting to be literal with a term that was simply made up.
It's the same deal with the word "Neoliberal", which has NOTHING to do with Liberalism.
Thanks for playing.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @12:37AM
> You need to make up your mind which of those is accurate.
> (They're not the same.)
No doi!
If they were the same, that would be redundant.
They are interconnected, he is all of them to various degrees.
Jesus...
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:04AM
Reactionary refers to the fact that he reacts strongly to every piece of news that doesn't fit in his leave it to beaver fantasy world. Conservative because that is the common term to describe people who subscribe to a certain set of ideologies. They come in all flavors, and some conservatives are pro marijuana. I stand by my description of him.
What drives me nuts is that such ideologues are often stuck in the good vs. evil mindset, so people who disagree with them are treated as heathens, heretics, the mild version of old testament type crap. He has the gall to make sweeping proclamations and no humility to step back when his obvious hypocrisy displays itself. Such attitudes are currently very dangerous for the Earth as a whole, from potential civil war, world war, genocide, mass starvation due to climate change, or explosions of crime and poverty when social safety nets are ripped away.
We could converse on any of those topics, but someone like jmorris is only here to "spread the word", not to figure out solutions. In his mind there is only one solution, following the "right minded" folks.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:26AM
I won't argue with your description[1] of the dude.
I'm objecting to your use of vocabulary.
"Hyper-reactive" would be apt.
"Thin-skinned and loud-mouthed" would also be accurate.
"Opinionated and ill-informed but very vocal" would also hit the mark.
"Reactionary", however, already has a meaning.
This is one of those "begging the question" instances.
[1] ...and it's a shame since he can be useful on some topics, typically technology-related.
He's also on-target surprisingly often on human rights issues.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday November 18 2016, @08:00PM
Might be logged in and just posting AC.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:13PM
(1) Nope, I read this site as an AC
(2) So what if I had done that?
What's the point of digging up other shit-spewing posts from jmorris when he kindly provided plenty of spewed shit in the post I was responding to?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday November 18 2016, @08:50PM
We've derailed : ) Logging in to post the exact same message doesn't improve the message. Someone could also be logged in and post AC to avoid attention.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 18 2016, @09:34PM
Logging in to do your mudslinging at other usernames at least offers a slim chance of a two-way-street inasmuch as you can be called on your own shenanigans if you post under a username.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:49PM
So its not about facts and accuracy its about somebody's definition of a "fair fight."
Won't someone please think of what's best for jmorris? He didn't deserve any of this.
I use the site as an AC with all the downsides that come with it. Jmorris uses the site logged in with all the downsides that come with that.
By the rules of the site, that is fair.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 18 2016, @10:29PM
Offering facts is one thing. Plumbing the depths of hypocrisy by cursing someone out over their posting history while posting as AC is just stupid.
You speak as if you're a member of this community when you don't even sign your posts. You don't have a leg to stand on.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @11:16PM
You're a riot!
I don't see you trying to change the rules of the site. You don't have a leg to stand on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @12:33AM
Is it your contention that jmorris's choice to log in puts an obligation on people criticizing him?
That's seems incorrect.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @08:52PM
A better response would be a straight up citation to refute the point. Name-calling doesn't yield anything. We should all avoid it here. I lose my temper, too, and use profanity distressingly often, but it's not what we should strive for.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Friday November 18 2016, @09:30PM
Dunno. I do believe in keeping discussion civil, I do believe in your point in general. Might make if a signature, if I were into that...
But I also believe there are situations where "up yours" is a quite appropriate response. Do note that "shit spewing hate holes" was an only mildly paraphrased quote from the OP. Regarding the other (shall we call it substantial?) portion of jmorris' post, I do think AC refuted that in a pretty to-the-point manner.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:38PM
> A better response would be a straight up citation to refute the point.
You mean like a relevant quote from the initiative along with a link that included both the full text and some analysis?
Gee, you are right. I really should have done that.
> Name-calling doesn't yield anything.
Funny that you castigate some random AC for doing nothing more than returning in kind what a logged-in user with a +1 karma bonus served up. If there is no baseline expectation of decorum, then you can't legitimately complain when there is a race to the bottom.
Guys like jmorris chase off informed discussion and turn this place into an echo chamber of the least insight. Focus your criticism on the cause of the problem. Because if your answer is that smart people shouldn't take his bait, well the easiest way to accomplish that is to stop participating because nobody needs the stress for such little return.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday November 18 2016, @09:51PM
This times a lot! I seriously feel sometimes like the more extreme posters on this site are shills, here to derail conversations and keep the community divided. But on a more realistic note, there simply are lots of people with extremely different viewpoints and plenty of internet trolls to go around.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 18 2016, @10:48PM
Nope, this guy's no shill. I've dealt with people in meatspace like him. They have a horrible, burning, hair-frizzling gravity around them and they mean every last word. We are dealing with someone who is well and truly unhinged here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday November 18 2016, @11:53PM
Golf claps.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A