Legalized Recreational Marijuana In NY

[Chris 2,158]

Well I guess now we’ll see all the people going mad from the devils weed, cars piled into utility poles every other block and whatever other chaos opponents of this warned us of.

Or, people will just continue as they have for decades, except now they will live their lives ( pot free or toking up in the weekends, whichever ) while police can now focus on drugs and related crimes that are actually destroying lives and our community.

Sorry, the old saw of “marijuana is a gateway drug” is bunk.

[MsKreed 1,176]

13 hours ago, Chris said:

Well I guess now we’ll see all the people going mad from the devils weed, cars piled into utility poles every other block and whatever other chaos opponents of this warned us of.

<iframe width="962" height="541" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yXtumnTN6zg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,158]

LOL It's amazing the propaganda they churned out back then. The only stoners I've ever met were too busy giggling at "Beavis and Butthead" or destroying a second row of Oreos to jump out of windows. 

[TTL News 308]

Since New York State legalized marijuana, it seems like everywhere you go the smell of someone toking is wafting on the air. And apparently it was an issue at this year's New York State Fair.

Some believe that the legalization was too hastily rolled out without thought to the ramifications of allowing smoking marijuana as common as a Marlboro, including how to determine if someone is under the influence while driving, work related issues and more. 

What do you think? Could it be problematic or is it already an issue?

[Ann 263]

It’s already an issue, the consequences are yet to appear.

[Chris 2,158]

I don't know that any reliable testing has come forth that differentiates between, "Yes, this person is under the influence NOW" and "It's in their system, but they're not technically under the influence now." This is troublesome, as it's far too often I've had cars pass me and the smell of marijuana coming from the car is strong. Additionally, I've been at a stop light and seen and smell a guy smoking a joint while driving. 

Drink a bottle of beer at a stoplight and see what happens to you. 

Even though I can't, nor would partake, I'm all for legalization. But I don't think they thought this through very well. 

[KarenK 383]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

I don't know that any reliable testing has come forth that differentiates between, "Yes, this person is under the influence NOW" and "It's in their system, but they're not technically under the influence now." This is troublesome, as it's far too often I've had cars pass me and the smell of marijuana coming from the car is strong. Additionally, I've been at a stop light and seen and smell a guy smoking a joint while driving. 

Drink a bottle of beer at a stoplight and see what happens to you. 

Even though I can't, nor would partake, I'm all for legalization. But I don't think they thought this through very well. 

Well, it's not legal to be smoking it while you are driving so no sympathy if they get caught.  Determining if you are under the influence is definitely an issue although back in my fun days the slitty eyes and and pinpoint pupils were usually a good indication that something was up.

[Zapp Brannigan 137]

I would like to think if someone is drinking a beer or smoking weed in the car and a cop rolls up they are both getting stopped.

As far as testing to determine if someone is under the influence would normal field sobriety tests cover that?  Then if they fail those no matter when they smoked they are still under the influence.

Work place situation is a different scenario. If your company has an anti drug policy and you fail a drug test thats on you. Generally most places frown on you showing up drunk or even drinking at work. So the same rules would apply to weed. You show up under the influence of either you face consequences.

As far as smoking it where other smoking is allowed. Whats the big deal cigars and cigarettes reak to high heaven. Also it's ok to walk around with a beer or wine. Who have you generally seen can cause more trouble the guy/gal whose been drinking or the guy/gal that smoked some doobies? Also i bet the food vendors were not complaining.

Yes it needed to be legalized and no it wasnt very hasty they have been trying for a few years now but Cuomo finally had to cave to try and save himself. 

My question is once the committee is put in place and  allow stores to open and sell it and charge all the extra taxes what are the gonna do about the stores that gift it with a purchase of an item from the store. You are still paying sales tax on the item but they are losing the extra tax. Or then you have the guy i heard about it today who for a donation will give you a gift of weed. So no taxes being collected. As far as i can tell from the address its a house and thats just sketchy.

I would also like to add that while smoking weed is on the rise in colleges drinking is down. So not as many kids drinking themselves to death just smoking themselves stupid.

 

 

 

 

[MsKreed 1,176]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:43 AM, Chris said:

I don't know that any reliable testing has come forth that differentiates between, "Yes, this person is under the influence NOW" and "It's in their system, but they're not technically under the influence now."

 

I do believe this is needed. And wonder if the DEA's arbitrary authority to classify it a schedule 1 narcotic is a hindrance to private industry creating a test that is more accurate.

Aside from driving, there is also the question of work... I know employers can unilaterally prohibit employees from "illegal drug" use, so complete abstinence should theoretically be expected because  - Schedule 1. 

On the other hand.....presence of lower scheduled drugs like morphine or fentanyl can be exempt by a prescription. Opioids can linger in the system for a few days (but less than cannabis), so it's not "proof" that one is impaired if a test is positive for opioids.  But a positive pot test is an immediate "fail"...

This is a distinction that I think can be a real safety/legal issues. Particularly when it comes to Workers Comp insurance, which increasingly require drug tests to assess whether the employee was under the influence, and deny claims.

For instance, if Jack is a forklift operator who has a script for oxycodone 'as needed', he should abide by the "do not drive or operate heavy machinery" warning. However, even if taking it on Saturday and Sunday makes him woozy over the weekend, it wouldn't prohibit him from working Monday.  If he miscalculates a tiny bit on Monday and is injured operating his rig.....He'd likely be considered "at fault" if he'd tested positive for pot, but not for a positive opioid test. Even though he "may" have still been popping pills Monday, it can't be proven and he was "legally" prescribed the drug.

However.....if he had Jill spotting for him and she was also injured when he tipped the forklift......is it fair for her claim to be denied if she had a brownie 10 days ago?

  

On 9/14/2021 at 12:52 PM, KarenK said:

Determining if you are under the influence is definitely an issue although back in my fun days the slitty eyes and and pinpoint pupils were usually a good indication that something was up.

 

There are some indicators for sure. But it needs to be distilled down to measurable empirical proof. Not subjective observations of an arresting LEO, because they said it is so.

It is disturbing to rely on some magically "infallible" aptitude for spotting drug impairment (in this link) that are claimed to identify drug use that can't be detected by blood or urine tests.

 

Quote

 

"When you brought up that you had a clean blood test when complaining to Internal Affairs, their answer was what?" Keefe asked.

"They said, 'Yeah, we see this happen all the time. Um, the test results come back wrong all the time,'" she said.

"So the test results were wrong?" Keefe asked.

"Yeah, that's what they said," Ebner replied. "The test results were wrong, and also, if I had a urine test, it would have come back positive for drugs."

But Ebner got her own urine test the same week as her arrest -- scanning for any metabolites that would still be in her system. The urine test was also negative for marijuana -- or other drugs.

"This training is so powerful, that they believe they can detect drugs that a blood test will not detect," Keefe said. "Is that surprising to you?"

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,158]

I'd have to check, but I think when it comes to some things like Xanax and Ambien, if I have them in my system and test positive but have a script, it's okay. Of course if I don't have a script, see ya.

I think if I'm on an opioid for pain, I have to be off work for a specific amount of time. 

When it comes to pain control, I'd much rather get a script for cannabis, but then you're right back in that quandary of when you're okay and when you're not. 

 

[Chris 2,158]

12 hours ago, Zapp Brannigan said:

As far as smoking it where other smoking is allowed. Whats the big deal cigars and cigarettes reak to high heaven.

I think the concern is the cannaboids in the second hand smoke. I thought that was more a myth, but maybe not.

Quote

 

A 2015 study titled “Non-Smoker Exposure to Secondhand Cannabis Smoke II,” got right to the point when studying the effects of contact highs. Researchers recruited 12 participants, half of whom were smokers, and half of whom were nonsmokers. In the first experiment, they had them enter a small, unventilated chamber and proceeded to give each smoker 10 joints, each with a THC content of 11.3%. Over the course of an hour, the smokers consumed the joints while sitting around a table with the nonsmokers. After the hour was up, all participants exited the chamber, discarded protective clothing, washed their hands and faces, and proceeded to a separate room to complete the study assessment.

In the second experiment, researchers repeated the conditions, with one exception: the chamber was now ventilated.

Researchers found notable differences between the two experiments. In the first, where subjects were essentially hotboxing with no ventilation, the nonsmokers did in fact have detectable levels of THC in blood and urine tests. In addition, researchers wrote, “Exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke in an unventilated chamber the size of a small room produced minor increases in heart rate, mild to moderate subjective drug effects, and minor, but detectable, levels of performance impairment on some behavioral/cognitive assessments.”

In other words? Under very extreme conditions, the nonsmokers did in fact seem to get high, and even had traces of THC in their system.

Interestingly, in the second study, ventilation made all the difference. Researchers reported, “Nonsmokers in the ventilated session did not have detectable levels of cannabinoids in blood beyond the initial 30 minutes following the exposure period, did not screen positive on urine tests, and did not report significant increases in subjective drug effects.”

 

That last paragraph, bolded by me, is pretty telling when it comes to concerns in an outdoor venue, but how many people know that?

[Zapp Brannigan 137]

1 minute ago, Chris said:

I'd have to check, but I think when it comes to some things like Xanax and Ambien, if I have them in my system and test positive but have a script, it's okay. Of course if I don't have a script, see ya.

I think if I'm on an opioid for pain, I have to be off work for a specific amount of time. 

When it comes to pain control, I'd much rather get a script for cannabis, but then you're right back in that quandary of when you're okay and when you're not. 

 

I believe it was Kevin on here who said in one of the other conversations about the subject that when he is tested they omit the drugs he has a rx for so the same you would think would go for weed. I have not been in a situation to test the theory myself.

[Chris 2,158]

Until weed is federally legalized ( don't hold your breath, no pun intended ) it will remain illegal for people who have CDL licenses. Not that I'd partake anyhow.

[KarenK 383]

18 minutes ago, Chris said:

I think the concern is the cannaboids in the second hand smoke. I thought that was more a myth, but maybe not.

That last paragraph, bolded by me, is pretty telling when it comes to concerns in an outdoor venue, but how many people know that?

We went to a bike night a month ago out in Candor.  Someone close by was definitely enjoying a fatty.  Good stuff too.  When we finally got up to leave all 4 of us were like, wow.  I think I caught a buzz of that.  lol.  We then stopped at the Shoe Inn and had a cocktail on the patio and the same guy came in and lit up.   

[Zapp Brannigan 137]

I do believe this is needed. And wonder if the DEA's arbitrary authority to classify it a schedule 1 narcotic is a hindrance to private industry creating a test that is more accurate.

 

Yes they need to deregulate it so private sector can study 

[MsKreed 1,176]

 

Quote

A total of 600 villages, towns and cities chose to opt out, with nearly all of them deciding to forgo both licenses. Counties with a notably high number of municipalities that have opted out include Jefferson, Westchester, Suffolk, Steuben, Nassau, Orange and Dutchess.

 

source

In Chemung County:

[KarenK 383]

5 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

 

 

source

In Chemung County:

And I believe the city of Elmira opted IN for sales but OUT for consumption

[Chris 2,158]

I'm not so sure I understand the need for on-site consumption establishments, so I can understand opting out of those. But by opting out of retail sales, aren't these municipalities missing out on a potential for a lot of tax revenue?

[Zapp Brannigan 137]

We will be lucky to get a dispensary in this area they are not going to be popping up like Dollar Generals. I do know of 1 company who makes edibles has been looking into opening a brick and mortar store.  Not many of the local sticker stores will be able to even afford the licensing fees. 

[Zapp Brannigan 137]

32 minutes ago, Chris said:

I'm not so sure I understand the need for on-site consumption establishments, so I can understand opting out of those. But by opting out of retail sales, aren't these municipalities missing out on a potential for a lot of tax revenue?

As far as onsite consumption you have bars where you can go and drink why not have bars where you can go and smoke.  Guarantee a lot less trouble gets started in a weed bar than in a normal bar

[Kevin 334]

1 hour ago, Zapp Brannigan said:

As far as onsite consumption you have bars where you can go and drink why not have bars where you can go and smoke.  Guarantee a lot less trouble gets started in a weed bar than in a normal bar

Be no different than a cigar store where they have a smoking lounge or a hookah store.

[Chris 2,158]

1 hour ago, Zapp Brannigan said:

As far as onsite consumption you have bars where you can go and drink why not have bars where you can go and smoke.  Guarantee a lot less trouble gets started in a weed bar than in a normal bar

I have no problem with it personally, I just don't see it as a huge draw business wise. 

[MsKreed 1,176]

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

I just don't see it as a huge draw business wise.

I haven't seen the language of the various licenses.....would an individual business be limited "either/or" where consumption sites can't sell and sellers can't have consumption? 

Unless businesses would be restricted in that way from selling and onsite consumption ....then I would imagine, like wineries and breweries, the opportunity to "sample" before buying would indeed be a huge draw businesswise.

[Zapp Brannigan 137]

57 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Be no different than a cigar store where they have a smoking lounge or a hookah store.

Well just a bit different since weed gets you high and those dont.

16 minutes ago, Chris said:

I have no problem with it personally, I just don't see it as a huge draw business wise. 

Yeah I'm definitely not interested in onsite consumption or sharing equipment with strangers.  

8 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

I haven't seen the language of the various licenses.....would an individual business be limited "either/or" where consumption sites can't sell and sellers can't have consumption? 

Unless businesses would be restricted in that way from selling and onsite consumption ....then I would imagine, like wineries and breweries, the opportunity to "sample" before buying would indeed be a huge draw businesswise.

That's a good question. I wonder if there is anywhere in the bill that covers that.  Honestly I don't think I would sample anything on site especially if I didn't have a DD.

[MsKreed 1,176]

2 minutes ago, Zapp Brannigan said:

Honestly I don't think I would sample anything on site especially if I didn't have a DD.

That's a good point.

But I wonder if there could be very different preferences in urban population centers where mass transit is more common than driving? Especially since I recall hearing that they were giving a priority for licenses for "underserved and minority" applicants that sounds a lot like "inner city".