That link will take you to it if you like reading proposed laws.
Doesn't everyone? Otherwise, well... We'd sort of deserve everything that we get (or failed to get), wouldn't we?
"new penalties for people or businesses that are convicted of illegally selling or distributing cannabis
I suppose that makes sense. You're sort of looking at tossing out all the existing laws/penalties about cannabis, right? And "legal" does not necessarily equate with "completely unregulated free-for-all," lol - so it seems logical to expect a new set of laws (and penalties for breaking same).
Look, we all know that in the "harm rankings," the drugs contained within - and collectively known as - cannabis are far closer to a glass of water than, for example, morphine. But, regardless, cannabis
isn't water. And, for that matter, I'd guess that even those whose business is selling water (be it that which is sold in expensive little bottles or that which you can have by the gallon by simply opening a faucet valve) have to operate under a set of regulations, and that there are penalties for failing to do so.
IMHO - in other words, if it was ME - instead of getting angry about the fact that there are going to be
any regulations, I'd concede the fact that there ought to be at least a minimal set of common-sense ones - just like there should be with any substance that is intended to be consumed by homo sapiens. And then I'd start trying to
actively participate in the process of determining what form said regulations will take, the substance of them, et cetera.
I figure there are some politicians who are in favor of the thing (who may or may not actually have their facts straight), some who are opposed to it (ditto), and a third group - who might even constitute a majority :rolleyes3 - who don't really give two shiny sh!ts one way or the other and who will treat this entire process as just another job that they have to do, but probably not have to do
well.
Yeah... They really DO need your constructive input. And politicians are (in some ways
) just like everyone else. Their eyes probably glaze over by the time the 142nd person confronts them in order to
helpfully educate them on the subject of cannabis, lol. By that point, it's undoubtedly much more difficult to change a person's belief. Shouting, "You're wrong - and I'm going to tell you why!" probably won't do it
. And that's assuming that the politician in question isn't being unduly (IOW, at all) influenced by some kind of lobbyist or other entity. You can sometimes get one of them to do the right thing by publicly calling them out and shaming them. However, this strategy tends to make an enemy for life. Voters seem to have very short memories - but politicians have infinite (albeit rather selective) ones.
So... In my rambling way, the above are my thoughts on why
some level of regulation is a good thing, and why it is (again, IMHO) important to become part of that process RIGHT NOW instead of waiting until after the smoke clears and trying to fix things.
I actually hadn't planned on typing any of it, lol. What caused me to click on the reply button was this:
including fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and/or jail of up to two years less a day. Corporations would face fines of up to $1 million for the same offence.
This seems... wrong. Unless someone has made a determination that the average corporation can only be reasonably expected to generate four times the income that the average individual could. Me, I don't honestly have a clue - but I
suspect that the corporations' potential for profit is
well above 4x the individuals'. I expect that they're like corporations in any other industry. A buddy of mine worked in the fracking industry until his hands got useless. I visited him (he had a camper in the woods near his job site, as it was far from his home), so he let me wait in their office trailer for his replacement to decide to wake up and come to work :icon_roll. While there, he mentioned that he'd gotten a look at some memo or other about the company's operating expenses. What stood out to him was a line in the memo something like "expected fines.......$1M to $3M
per day." Yep, just another operating expense for Big Money. So the concept of hitting a corporation with a fine that's four times what you or I would get? That's messed up.
Another thing: Individuals can go to jail for two years for violations. What about the principals of the corporations? It's been my experience that, if you own a business and one of your employees screws up... He/she may have been the one that stepped on the old crank - but it's YOUR fault, and YOU are responsible. The same should apply to corporations (FFS!). Saying, "But you can't put a corporation in jail!" is just a bullsh!t cop-out, IMHO, because you cannot put Fred's Grocery and Gas in jail, either - but you sure can lock up ol' Fred. So what if a corporation is "owned" by tens, hundreds, or thousands of people (via the stock they hold)? Lock 'em all up, lol. I've heard all kinds of reasons why this would be a disaster. But the
ONE real reason is one that I never hear in discussions about corporate responsibility - because it'd tend to have the effect of forcing people to have some thought about something over and above simple greed when deciding which corporations to buy into / fund. Would you buy DowDuPont stock if it meant you could end up being prosecuted for any runaway genetic disasters the company causes? Or responsible for the result of another Bhopal, India type disaster that might see you get prosecuted for 550,000+ injuries and 3,800 to 16,000 deaths? I'm
guessing... That you'd think twice about it. And if you did still invest in the stock, I'd also guess that you'd demand some sort of... safety in the workplace and all that. Buy Apple stock, get prosecuted for child abuse, lol. Et cetera. IDK how many problems this would solve - but it'd be several.
The law would also allow police to immediately close premises they suspect are being used for the illegal sale or distribution of marijuana.
That's pretty much boilerplate standard, isn't it? Any business can be closed if it is involved in criminal activity? I'd want language in place to define "suspected" as no less than "we just arrested someone." Otherwise, someone complains - and we all know that a person facing prosecution for their own issue would
never consider giving a false statement in return for leniency, right?[/SARCASM] - and that would be enough to get the business shut down because, hey, LEO is now officially
suspicious. That's obviously not the same thing as having enough evidence to arrest a suspect for something or other, and it's definitely not the same thing as having enough evidence to get an indictment by a grand jury (if you have those up there). And, since more than one prosecutor has been of the opinion that grand juries would indict a ham sandwich if they were asked to, lofl...
It's not... Y'all have a golden opportunity in your laps right now. Please, please, PLEASE don't screw it up. Try real hard to go at it objectively, to pull 100% of the emotions out of it. I know, lol, easier said than done. Especially when the other side won't be bothering. Don't insult the intelligence of the politicians - even when that intelligence is, itself, an insult to our species. Smile, even (it'll only hurt for a little while
). Find a way to make them see the benefit -
to them - in doing the right thing. I'd never suggest lying, of course, but if there isn't the benefit that the politician is looking for - but he/she thinks there is - do not be overly concerned with correcting their incorrect thoughts, lmao. Reality will do that, eventually. Find a way to convince them to do the right thing - and to end up thinking that it was their idea in the first place. <SHRUGS> F*ck "credit," let whoever wishes take the credit for it. It won't tarnish the thing.
I'm just rambling. Possibly even ranting....
