Submitted by Final_Act6703 t3_y9dr5s in newhampshire
Comments
exploremore617 t1_it88kvv wrote
Should be driving to Maine lol
sktchld t1_it8jr6i wrote
Why? I've been to some shops there and I didn't like them but if there's a good reason I could adapt.
exploremore617 t1_it8kahk wrote
Mass is a giant pay to play state. The bud isn’t great, even can be moldy or have pesticides majority of dispensaries are owned by multi state operations that cut corners on providing staff safe working environments. They have more “testing” however a lot of them are made up numbers that they pay the lab so they can sell their product. Maine is more craft focused as it’s easier entry and smaller operations. If you think of it like beer Mass is just a bunch of Budweisers breweries were as Maine is generally craft and the growers have actually been growing for some time. Not that Budweiser is bad however they price it at a ridiculous price for said quality (Mass dispos). Even the bostontrees subreddit sells sales subscriptions too get their product recognized by a bunch of fake accounts they use.
Fuzzy-Scar3055 t1_ita7a7e wrote
You should google Elevation 207. However, you’ll have to go to Portland to get it. While my brother attended college in Portland I had some context to be there and use the online weed service. Great bud, better than anything I’ve had in MA.
sktchld t1_ita8pts wrote
I really only go for edibles. How are those from there?
Fuzzy-Scar3055 t1_itafwnu wrote
I don’t know but I doubt it would be any better than a random dispensary in MA. I don’t really do edibles.
Jeedeej t1_it5n2l2 wrote
The Natures Remedy dispensary in Tyngsborough is almost always filled with NH plates. It's insane we don't legalize. PS: Their house edible gummies are fantastic for insomnia. Or so I have heard. From a friend.
warren_stupidity t1_it6tjq8 wrote
I prefer the inedible gummies. Or so I’ve heard. From a friend. Also the no left turn out of their parking lot just annoys my friend.
chubbyrainn t1_it78bru wrote
I also heard from a friend that he ate too many inedible gummies last night because the first time he tried there was no effect. My friend said he had a bit of an existential crisis but is excited to keep experimenting
warren_stupidity t1_it7ny6t wrote
My friend also made that rookie mistake in a hotel room in Seattle after they went legal. Eating all the inedibles turns out to be a Real Bad Idea.
MsTomHardy t1_it5soae wrote
I have never been to this place and have no agreement with your edible review.
Final_Act6703 OP t1_it50ut6 wrote
Sununu does not believe it is the right time for legalization.
Hutwe t1_it55p99 wrote
Well that’s lame of him. Didn’t know he was so out of touch.
Waythorwa t1_it55w0y wrote
$$$
BowTiedAgorist t1_it5h0d3 wrote
All of its linked to federal funding for leo's and a bunch of other bullshit interests.
SheeEttin t1_it5s75d wrote
You new?
ShortUSA t1_it8a0qs wrote
Very out of touch. Nice guy, smart, but not very in tune to his constituents. Definitely aspires for some Washington appointment, and in order to procure it a little too often he does stuff not good for his constituents, like no pot.
spyboy70 t1_it73ohb wrote
"not the right time" means they're waiting for Federal approval of cannabis, so they can add it to their state liquor store monopoly. Right now the state can't sell pot, so they can't make all the money.
SheenPSU t1_it7wnes wrote
It’s incredibly obvious that the reason it’s illegal is because the state can’t sell it. Once they can you bet you ass they’ll ram that bill thru
Fuzzy-Scar3055 t1_ita7fgi wrote
He’s been saying that since 2017 at least.
SheenPSU t1_it7w8si wrote
Treat it like alcohol, this isn’t complicated people!
indigo0086 t1_it8do40 wrote
Treat it like a plant, which it is.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_it8gd3z wrote
Lol well yeah and beer is grain and sugar. Still needs regulation😂
indigo0086 t1_it8jr15 wrote
It's also ethanol. While I think that shouldn't even be a factor in enforcing regulation I at least understand why they do. Currently growing weed's biggest harm is police using violence to prevent you from doing so and throwing you in jail, or ripoff gangs looking to steal your weed and money.
SheenPSU t1_it8j35s wrote
Alcohol is a good comparison on how it will be treated by the govt
It’s just the reality we face
indigo0086 t1_it8ljdk wrote
Depend which government, we could be among the ones that treat it like a plant.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7xj93 wrote
Except don't - especially in state with state run liquor stores - which are the worst.
ShortUSA t1_it87jmx wrote
Why are they the worst? The free market in MA and elsewhere has not resulted in better results. At least not as far as I know. Enlighten me.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it88eon wrote
You just answered your own question.
Free Markets
Private citizens managing and profiting off of the sale and distribution vs a state thats going to keep it as restricted as humanely possible. I come from a liqour board county in MD. There was ONE fucking liqour store in the entire county and all they stocked was trash - and you had to buy your booze from a fuckin cop who was probably makeing six figures ROAD to poorly run a liqour store.
1/5 times you'd buy booze then get traffic stopped within three blocks because he didn't like the looks of you.
ShortUSA t1_it8dbls wrote
Too bad for Maryland, but that is not how it is working in NH.
One way or another, government has to be funded, and the State Stores in NH are well run, efficient, generate much revenue for the state and offer a good service at a great price. So, I'm okay with it.
That said, I am definitely a free market guy. But, there are things in which all evidence points to the fact that free markets do not serve the need well.
For example, I would not want free market military, even the current level contracting is corrupting and weakening the military.
There is zero evidence in the world that free market healthcare works. There is plenty of evidence otherwise. Maybe on some other planet they have figured it out, but not here on Earth.
Free market roadways suck, but maybe one day that will work.
In general, free markets will not work where society finds a need, but the needy do not have the funds.
By the way, capitalism requires some form of wealth distribution. In EVERY case of capitalism without sufficient wealth redistribution, the best capitalists come to have all the money. That maybe fine, but not if you want a great country and society.
That said, there are plenty of things free markets should handle, but do not. One pervasive example is trash pickup. Completely pointless for a city or town to do it themselves. There plenty of competition, let them do it.
Okay, go to town...
BowTiedAgorist t1_it8ghrl wrote
>One way or another, government has to be funded, and the State Stores in NH are well run, efficient, generate much revenue for the state and offer a good service at a great price. So, I'm okay with it.
Not only do I not believe government -has to be funded- I don't even believe it should be funded in 90% of what it does.
I have no intentions of going to town - I just think we have a difference of perspectives. which is why we we won't find common ground.
I will agree, many things are seemingly made easier by government organization and safety nets that catch people are genuinely good. I think overtime though the inherent corruption of government+money makes this trend downward over time.
I will never concede that a free market system isn't better for the 90% of things. and just because you don't see an operating free market healthcare system - in a world dominated by authoritarian centralized governments - doesn't prove its not possible.
I'm not insistent on a free market system for healthcare - that industry is entirely captured and until the Gordian knot of government interference is untangled, you'll never see a remotely free market.
As far as tycoon capitalists - most instances of that throughout history can be almost directly linked to government interference. From railroad tycoons to insulin shortages - government puts its thumb on the scale.Bezos\Amazon and Musk\Tesla is the best example of that. the left screams bloody murder about how wealthy he is... then passes billions of dollars that subsidize his products on the market... wacky.
ShortUSA t1_it8ymhj wrote
I think you and I have some common ground. The government regularly errors on the side of putting too much money in areas it often should put some. As you point out, railroads, thus far relatively small amounts towards electric vehicles and the required infrastructure. But notice I said too much money, railroads were great and imperative to the US's very successful industrial revolutions. But yes, too generous. Nonetheless, extreme wealth is mostly not due to government largesse, but great innovation without redistribution. If you look at emerging billionaires, rather than inherited wealth, they are generally either tech or private equity. Yes, there is some government involvement in both, and of the last couple of decades too much to bail out financial institutions and therefor indirectly private eq and hedge funds. But all in all the vast majority of wealth was what I think you and I would call legitimately earned, but that wealth generally pays less than half of the tax rate you pay, as you said 40%. To me, that is unjust and un-American. In the time of railroads, the oil industry made even more wealth, but not government subsidized as RRs were.
The federal government is doing much too much to provide corporate welfare, often in the name of helping Americans. It is the new era or corporate exploitation. One great example is heathcare, another Rx drugs, another broadband access, etc. In all of these industries, rather than being competitive and therefore economical, the industries choose to exploit Americans with the highest prices in the world, then lobby government to subsidize Americans, which is really just lining the global corporations' owners pockets. The government should be fostering competition. Unfortunately, political leaders are beholden to global corporations for the large donations that they are allowed to make.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it91pg8 wrote
I think you and I are talking past each other - so let me kind of boil this down. I think we fundamentally disagree on what "corporate welfare" and "fraud" looks like.
Most if not all of the big tech billionaires have had their products subsidized - if not directly, then indirectly by the fact that we publicly paid for most of the internet backbone the y run off. This is a derivative "you didn't build that" argument that is ignorant in my opinion and just a way of justifying theft from profitable companies. A trucking company that uses roads isn't subsidized, just like a tech billionaire using the internet isn't subsidized.
Bezos almost got 10 Billion dollars in Blue Origin money because he literally has senators and congressional reps in his back pocket - fraud.
Banks and Hedgefunds who have the SEC re-write rules for them while they lock out commercial investors. Banks that got bailouts because their former VP's are all members of the potus cabinet or vice versa - fraud
Nestle electing california senators to secure water rights to steal water from aquafers for profit during a draught - fraud.
Tesla and SpaceX wouldn't exist without massive subsidies from the federal government for EV's\Space Exploration - hell the entire EV vehicle market wouldn't exist without billions being pumped into it. Same goes for big oil\LNG, Healthcare, College, the MIC. All of it propping up industry profits so that politicians can go buy up shares of and make themselves wealthy - all corporate welfare all fraud.
What you are saying - is that you are okay with government stealing money from profitable industries and people so long as they steal more from them and less from you. "redistribution" is a joke. They don't redistribute anything to individuals, the scraps you get in social spending or new infrastructure pales in comparison.
The reality of it is corporations are paying governments for access to public coffers and backing - and the exchange rate is hella profitable for them. You're looking for government to be Robin Hood when what you're getting is people robbing the hood.
"Helping Americans" is just the cloth they drape their crime in. Bailouts didn't help a single american, they got thrown into the streets while the bank got to keep the bailout and their house.
Best case ... Billionaires and Government is just one hand washing the other. Worst case its velvet glove covering an iron fist (Pfizer\Vaccine Mandates)
As far as wealth and redistribution... that used to be the salaries and wages people made, there was no better job in this country fifty years ago than a manufacturing gig. You'd walk right out of public high school with entry level competency in how to use tools and a tape measure from your shop or autoclass - into a career that would support you the rest of your life.
All those good jobs that supported the middle class were exported to China, South East Asia, and Mexico... by people like clinton, obama, and bush - all backed by IMEX loans that made it easier to secure capital to ship jobs west and south...
Whats left of the American labor market is now involved in a race to the bottom of the wage floor because we'll import laborers to do hard jobs for pennies to live 8 head to a bedroom. Wages stopped growing in this country in 1971... right when the immigration caps got lifted and we started normalizing trade with Japan and China.
this isnt' late stage capitalism... its just early stage globalism.
Edits (for clarity and piss poor grammar)
ShortUSA t1_it9i9cq wrote
Wow. How we are talking past each other is beyond me. It seems we agree on the major problem. Government subsidizing industry: tech, banking, ..., railroads, oil, etc, etc.
Almost everything you write I agree with: government channeling huge sums to global industry and little to most Americans, crumbs as you say. I completely agree. If tech was greatly subsidized by the public, either directly or indirectly, then how is it inaccurate for people to take down the billionaires' boldness in saying they built it all? They took advantage of the public money, no?
There are details we disagree about: the vast majority of the internet was built out by private companies such as AT&T, L3, etc. You say it was to a large extent, fine, I'll give you that.
Paragraph by paragraph
You paragraph 3: agree,
4: absolutely, but SEC only puts in place what they write! (a nuance)
5: absolutely, and I would add almond growers - much more water than Nestle, the most water intense crop in a water baron area. That is government subsidies for over 100 years.
6: You say the industries would not exist, I think they would, but be less profitable and not grow as fast. But YES.
7: Yes, the scraps do pale in comparison. What we see differently is that I see redistribution as roads, schools, water & sewer generally infrastructure that benefits all, being funded by tax dollars coming from a flat or progressive tax type system, which is not at all what we have today, it starts progressive, but then gets regressive as high-income folks get income from gains rather than wages, which are THE highest taxed thing in the country. I would argue for no corporate taxes, but a very different personal income tax system that is truly progressive or flat. You say these folks make huge money from subsidies, but they should not be taxed too heavily "stolen from". What am I missing here?
8: I do not want government to be Robin Hood. I do not want to regressive tax system, like we have today. I want government out of a lot of stuff they are in today, and work to foster free markets, competition, etc. As it used it. Government is in as much as they are due to industries pulling them in to extract $, which you also said.
I think you are stereo typing me as liberal, but I far from that. Do not read into what I write, just read what I write.
9: completely agree with your "Helping Americas" paragraph, but remember, it does help a handful of rich Americans who are execs of the financial institutions and also helps the largest owners (some American - all rich), and of course keeps the global banks solvent, when they should have been bankrupt, or at least taken huge haircuts.
10: Your best case is exactly as I see it.
11: I agree with you about the good jobs, but know that started in the mid to late 70s and supported by both parties, if you don't remember Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot, check them out. They warned the country about this, and ridiculed primarily by their own party. They were wrong on much, but right on the exporting of jobs. We agree. Back then the jobs were not smart manufacturing jobs, no, just high school was good enough and often not required. But those jobs were lost primarily to automation, and also to exporting.
12: I agree about the race to the bottom, which is foolish of the US.
We are seeing almost exactly the same thing, but yes, from a different view. We both do not like it, and think it should change.
I do not understand some of what I see as contradictory. You think they build it, but say a lot got built with public money. I don't get that. I do not want Robin Hood or handouts, but do want a progressive tax, rather than the regressive we have today. I want gov out of subsidizing, but working to foster competition in order to make things as affordable as they are in most other developed nations.
Ok, here is something I am guessing we very much disagree about, but I look forward to hearing from you on it...
The reason guys putting a nut on a lug and tightening it, and the many other low skill jobs of old school manufacturing paid a good middle class wage was that corporations agreed to pay that good wage, and society expected it, it was normal. There was nothing inherently valuable about the job, they just paid middle class wages. They paid the CEOs about 20 times that wage. Today unskilled people are paid poor wages and the CEOs get 500+ times that compensation. Why not do the same thing today with service jobs? Maybe profits would not be at record highs, maybe the US would not have as many billionaires and multimillionaires, but wouldn't we have a better country of people who would need fewer handouts, etc?
BowTiedAgorist t1_it9lzpv wrote
Like I said, we are talking past each other. We agree, but you see government as the solution to those problems - I see them as the cause. So we are both just making those points endlessly.
Your last paragraph is the only thing I need to answer to reflect that (my opinion if you'd like me to expand I'm happy to). Companies can't pay dirt poor labor wages in third world countries without government backing their capital needs. All of the shipping, importing, exporting costs are ASTRONOMICAL... if not for IMEX loans at next to zero percent backing it. Full stop
That labor has an intrinsic value - that value is only undercut because globalism makes it cheaper to have children in sweatshops doing the work vs an adult who expects a wage. A US built refrigerator put food on the table and provided a market for repair, service, and upkeep that kept it running for decades. Now you just buy a new one made in mexico by 50c an hour labor. Those CEO profit margins are even worse than you think and only possible because of global labor markets.
I'm not a big fan of trump - but if he slapped a 10% tariff on all manufactured goods imported to the US and made IMEX charge 2% on their import loans. Maytag would have new facilities across the US because it would instantly make foreign labor a losing proposition. Biden could get my vote tomorrow if that infrastructure bill was designed to end global labor exploitation and put billions toward divesting from the chinese.
The internet wasn't built by private companies - most of the backbone infrastructure it runs on was paid for by government using AT&T\Bell\Comcast to do the work. Telecomms didn't suddenly decide to connect the planet. Not to mention all the research. The internet and race to the moon in my opinion are the only and best arguments for government organization and spending. Free Markets would have never accomplished the task as quickly - and the tech gains we made were ... immeasurable.
All that domestic government spending driving up inflation, cost of living, cost of housing - while wages stayed flat.
I've had fun discussing this and I think you've been very fair minded.
ShortUSA t1_ita1grb wrote
How is me agreeing the government is much too large and involved it much too much leads you to think I think it's the solution?
You contradict yourself and don't explain, probably can't, your positions.
You're hell bent on wanting to believe we don't agree on much. You prefer to believe not what I wrote, but your notion of what I believe.
Too bad. There are many Americans like you, hell bent on disagreeing. Too bad for America.
BowTiedAgorist t1_itadfck wrote
I'll draw this out as simply as I can.
You view taxes as justified - I view them as the theft, because when you take money from people without their permission under threat of government violence... its theft..
You want a "progressive tax" that funds a government by taxing (robbing) wealthy people more than it taxes (robs) poor people - I don't want people robbed.
I want the government to do FAR FAR less - and suggest funding those few services with more voluntary market based taxes or by simple agency of cooperation - agency that doesn't require force.
You have this notion that government should do less, but advocate for its collection of more revenue (which progressive tax codes are always aimed at) - further that it should do more things with more of the things you think are "redistributive" and less of the things you don't like. This is where we fundamentally disagree. Because:
1 - You are describing the system we already have, you are just disappointed it doesn't do more of what you want. - I know it doesn't do what you want, because its not designed to do what you want.
2 - You think if the tax code was just a bit more progressive - they'd be able to finally do all that stuff you want - I know that the feds pull in about 3 Trillion dollars a year and could do all the wonderful things you want ... if they actually wanted to. Further, when they don't have money to do the things they want to, they just print more of it. They don't provide those redistributive services you want... not because of revenue, but simply because they don't actually care to do them.
3- You have faith in a system that has done nothing to prove itself. - I understand its working exactly as designed to exfiltrate money from you for its own growth and profit.
We may agree on whats fundamentally broken - but our fixes are polar opposites. I don't need to insinuate you're liberal to make that determination.
ShortUSA t1_it9ivzl wrote
By the way, I do think government should be funded for the 10% of the stuff it should be doing. And not do the other 90%. So taxes.
What do you mean when you write you don't think it should be funded, but that it should do 10% of what it does. How does it do that 10% without funding?
BowTiedAgorist t1_it9jsyy wrote
90% of what government does... it shouldn't be doing; the other 10% can probably be done without government - just because we haven't seen a model for it doesn't mean its not possible.
The very very very few things I think government organization is beneficial for (military and domestic peacekeeping) could easily be funded through voluntary line item tax funding people vote for or against. Or get funded by voluntary market\excise taxes that don't constitute a death sentence if you refuse to participate in. VS a system that threatens you with death for not surrendering a portion of your labor value to it (income taxes and some sales taxes)
So, we'd vote locally for our fire department spending - as a consumer model for emergency services is something I can't really picture. but we wouldn't charge sales tax on things like - heating and lighting your home like MA does.
Edit - By Vote - I don't necessarily mean on a polling day for representatives. Think more like ben franklin funding the first libraries. Some dude who wants to run a fire department going around saying "hey, I need 1000 dollars a year from 100 house holds in the area to provide fire services - will you be one of them and give me 83 dollars a month "
Renters and sharecropers probably wouldn't give a fuck, but a landlord or major property owner would.
End Edit
Different_Praline_52 t1_it91n6j wrote
Total Wine, Wegmans, Kappys have competitive prices to NH.
Gordons and other high end liquor, beer, or wine stores have a curated selection.
Your local packie is open late and always has stale beer.
Plus it's two faced to have the state peddling liquor from the highway or at events then have the state cops issuing duis at the parking lot exit.
ShortUSA t1_it9jl22 wrote
Since Total Wine came in, everyone has had to compete. Prior to that even Kappys didn't compete with the NH state stores.
DUI and buying liquor are two different things. The State stores do not require people drink the liquor before they leave the property. That would be two faced. Asking people to buy their liquor at State Stores, but not drink is drive seems just fine.
Different_Praline_52 t1_itl9tcq wrote
It works, just a bit ironic.
SheenPSU t1_it874dl wrote
I moreso meant things like
- allow people to freely purchase/produce their own
- don’t get burnt and drive
You get the idea
BowTiedAgorist t1_it8j5ia wrote
Ah, got ya.
I was thinking more like specific states that have draconian liqour boards.
My biggest thing is don't tax it into oblivion like California and Oregon did. When your legal market is so heavily taxed its worth buying mexican dirt weed instead...
Leave it to the left coast to fuckup legal pot. I like MA's system of distributors, I just wish it wasn't as tightly limited like liqour licenses, until very recently I had to go damn near into boston proper to find a distributor.
SheenPSU t1_it8jl5q wrote
I agree 100% with ya there. Hoping that, like with every other vice, our state would try to undercut our neighbors with price to attract purchase here
Or at the very least allow people to grow it themselves if they wanna. Who gives a shit about personal consumption, ya know what I mean
MiggySmalls6767 t1_it8gl1e wrote
Our State run liquor stores are fantastic. They also keep the price of bourbon at a market rate and not the absurdity that you see in other states. You go ahead and pay for marked up booze my man. I’ll take my $60 blantons lol
BowTiedAgorist t1_it8ipvb wrote
You're paying for marked up booze to... except the profits from that booze and the taxes levied are miniscule and going to state coffers. State run vice-markets are wacky to me. Like state lotto's, when gambling is illegal...
I'd actually be interested in a side by side comparison of price\volume.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_it8pfhj wrote
It would make you cry to see bourbon prices in other states lol. NH’s system is infinitely better for the consumer. We are paying significantly less for quality wine and liquor than our neighboring “free market” states”
Hence why the state generates a massive amount of revenue from the State operated liqor stores. Which then is money into the State Coffers which is good. Instead of an income tax.
It’s really a great system for both the state and the consumer .
BowTiedAgorist t1_it9ahij wrote
>It would make you cry to see bourbon prices in other states lol.
I've bought booze in probably five different stats over the last few years... shed not tear one. Beyond a few collectors bottles or rarer whiskey' (Pappy) I've never noticed a difference between any region - I might just be a less experienced drunk.
I'm glad the state is using that "massive income" to support its children, build a nest egg, and establish generational success as a small business... oh wait? Sounds like its just denying other people an economic opportunity while it enjoys the benefits of a captive cottage market.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_it9f8ga wrote
For reference:
https://www.lighthousewines.com/spirits/Blanton-s-Single-Barrel-Bourbon-w8941787u6
I paid $69.99(no tax) for my Blanton’s here in state.
Price gouging private stores can eat all the dicks and I’m glad they develop zero generational wealth off that practice 😂
BowTiedAgorist t1_it9glog wrote
Lol, yeah those greedy liquor stores... jacking up prices to cover the endless DOR taxes, thousands in licensing fees, and hundreds more in municipal fees.
great example of a free market ...
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/different-types-of-alcoholic-beverage-state-licenses-abcc
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/dor-alcoholic-beverage-excise-tax
https://www.boston.gov/departments/licensing-board/fees-licenses
MiggySmalls6767 t1_it9enw8 wrote
Ah man. They have to go schlep over priced booze in another state guess. All couple hundred of those folks will have to suffer the tyranny of supplementing the need for a state income tax and qualify affordable booze for the 1.3 million other citizens of the state plus the surrounding states.
The horror… the horror…😂
BowTiedAgorist t1_it9f05j wrote
Yeah, I forgot the only choices are state income taxes or cottage booze industry. universal truths are hard to escape...
If it works out so great for booze, why not have the state do it for everything. State run roofing companies, state run lawn care, state run prostitution - we can all just work for the state and prices\controls will be dictated by the few to serve the many...
MiggySmalls6767 t1_ita58gt wrote
Or we could just keep it to booze and keep the system that works in place 😂. Y’all libertarians can go back to Candyland with your bullshit😂
HairyTwo474 t1_itm49bl wrote
here in MA, I can get Blantons 750ml delivered to my door for $55.....
​
in general, the NH liquor store isn't any cheaper than Total Wines down in MA.
Open-Industry-8396 t1_it7uvcy wrote
I don't use pot, i dont like it. But I know many folks who love it. So yeah we should legalize it. Maybe bring property tax down a bit? I actually would vote to legalize all drugs, some countries have done this with remarkable results. Less chance of a kid getting over dosed if the stuff is regulated. Plus it will put some dealers out of business.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7zx2u wrote
Legalization of the good stuff (Marijuana, Psilocybin, Hash, Ayahuasca)
Decriminalization of the bad stuff (Coke, Crack, Meth, Heroin, Manufactured Narcotics)
Our entire cultural and human experience has been influenced by natural plants that cause entheogenic experience or intoxicating effects. Most of the earliest religions, including Judaism and Christianity were likely influenced by mind altering substances - keeping those plants illegal is tantamount to a violation of the 1st amendment in my book.
Decriminalization of possession and distribution of the rest will let us actually redirect cash resources from police\prisons into treatment while we actually target the real fucking villians - cartels.
I don't want to live in a society that is happy to take tax money from junkies - many of whom will end up committing crimes against me and other law-abiding citizens to get their fix.
I have this other funny idea where all the gear we confiscate at the border is centralized, tested, and made chemically safe with regulated dosages - so we can used confiscated gear to provide safe injection sites with safe drugs for free and entirely undercut dealers.
dat_information t1_it59l29 wrote
Just what the doctor ordered
BowTiedAgorist t1_it5gwdr wrote
So long as its legalized as bumper crop specifically for farming in the US and pharma\tobacco\bigcorpo interests are specifically kept out of the fucking industry I'm all for it.
Otherwise just decriminalize use, possession and distribution. I don't want phillip morris brand marijuana grown as toxically as possible being the only pot option in 10 years
Also Obligatory: https://youtu.be/D4ZrscN8Rs8?t=44
warren_stupidity t1_it6trlh wrote
I’ve said before that this is an opportunity to revitalize local agriculture, but I’ll assume Big Cannabis will make sure it doesn’t happen.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7pf6n wrote
One can hope, but I don't have faith in our kleptocracy to create a new multi-billion dollar industry without trying to turn it into another regulatory-captured market (like healthcare, education, agriculture, etc)
Even the MORE act which everyone is swalling Rashid Talibs shit over is literally just designed to capture the market behind federal licensed growers\distributors which will be the gateway for pharma\big ag takeover.
Darwins_Dog t1_it6ykkm wrote
I expect it will end up like beer. There will be a few companies making national brands with lots of craft growers dotted all over doing their thing.
pahnzoh t1_it5mzlx wrote
If you trust a democrat to do anything you're either young, a fool, or both.
nhmo t1_it5ycq7 wrote
Yeah I'm getting pwned by my belief in college loan debt cancellation and desire for infrastructure revamping right now
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7mhyc wrote
Infrastructure bill that is literally just a giant payday for some of the biggest corporations in the US? Offering 40k dollar rebates to companies like walmart to buy electric shipping vehicles from automakers like ford\gm who's manufacturing isn't even in the US anymore? Or offering billions to telecoms to run copper\fiber to rural areas when we already paid them to do that in the 90s and better technology already exists? Or the billions that will end up in the hands of Chinese solar\EV manufacturers using child labor in africa to make giant holes in the earth looking for cobalt?
A debt cancellation that's going to end up slapping borrowers with giant tax bills in most states and already disqualified 700k applicants?
Student loan bill that offers means tested relief and doesn't' bother to fix the actual problem within the fed-loans? Which falls well short of the average accumulated debt these borrowers struggle with.
The student loan bill which benefits upper middle class whites more than it does any minority borrower, who have historically been forced into less fruitful degrees by racist university admins, and have had to rely on private loans which aren't even touched?
A student loan bill that puts the greed of the entire academic class on the backs of the 70% of the US workforce that don't hold degrees - I'm sure that will go over real well with the blue collar dem base.... I guess you can always just call them racist for another 10 years.
All of which is another few trillion dollars printed to add to our ever increasing inflation?
Enjoy your scraps after getting honey dicked, again.
KrissaKray t1_it6ubqr wrote
Yeah, neither of which are actually happening soooo
nhmo t1_it6uk5a wrote
You mean the infrastructure bill that was already passed and the debt cancellation order that was signed and the challenge was just thrown out yesterday?
Keep shoving your head up your own ass if you want to ignore the factual world around you.
KrissaKray t1_it6upwx wrote
I sure do mean those things. The student debt loan forgiveness was unconstitutional so it’s being challenged. And the infrastructure bill has so many things wrong with it, we probably wont see anything positive about it happening near us any time soon.
I prefer basing my beliefs in reality 💁🏼♀️
nhmo t1_it6uyor wrote
THE CHALLENGE WAS THROWN OUT YESTERDAY.
[deleted] t1_it9xtny wrote
[removed]
negsteri t1_it72ody wrote
Both challenges were thrown out yesterday. Infra Bill already passed.
doofthemighty t1_it7g76r wrote
Don't confuse them with facts, they know what they believe.
RickyDaytonaJr t1_it6xo93 wrote
The infrastructure bill is actually having significant benefits. Dozens of local bridge projects around the state have been advanced. Also, large projects that were underfunded and languishing are now fully funded and have advanced to the engineering phase. Some communities are even receiving direct federal grants. For instance, Manchester just got awarded a $25 million grant from the infrastructure bill to make improvements throughout the City, including reconstructing the Queen City Ave/Cilley/Willow Street interchange.
llambo17 t1_it7hn53 wrote
Our I89 bridge over the CT river into Vermont still has not been finished and it has been 5 years, and the repaving they did 2 years ago has already degraded and gone to shit.
otiswrath t1_it789ri wrote
Please explain how it is unconstitutional.
KrissaKray t1_it7dfi2 wrote
Congress has the power of the purse, not the president.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7ljc1 wrote
That only matters if congress does its actual job though.
Which, given the last twenty years of unabated undeclared wars is a slim hope
KrissaKray t1_it7uc61 wrote
No. It always matters. Congress controls the purse and that’s how it works. You can’t just go around them because you want to.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7vff9 wrote
You can absolutely go around them when congress and the courts don't bother to enforce it.
I understand the fundamentals of your argument and the checks and balances between branches - but congresses whole mo for the last thirty years is being derelict in their duties.
We just fought a 20 year long war in Afghanistan without a declaration of war.
[deleted] t1_it9w8ca wrote
[removed]
farts_in_the_breeze t1_it6vk1s wrote
It isn't? There is construction all over New Hampshire expanding and updating the highways. What world you living in?
otiswrath t1_it784a5 wrote
Please give me one Republican policy from the past 30 years that has benefited the average American.
I may be a fool but I certainly am not young and all I have seen them do over my lifetime is get us into unnecessary wars, blow the only budget surplus in my lifetime, and support a wannabe dictator who tried to overthrow the government.
Do I think Democrats are perfect? Not by a long shot but I would prefer misguided with good intentions over war mongering and tax breaks for the wealthy.
llambo17 t1_it7h705 wrote
>war mongering
Like the current democrats actively supporting and funding a war against Russia leading to a stalemate and nuclear tensions?
otiswrath t1_it7uvro wrote
As per usual the only leg Republicans can stand on is "Whataboutisms".
I think much of this is debatable but regardless my original question remains unanswered.
Can you give one policy initiative from the Republicans that helps the average American?
You could make the argument for the First Step Act as it was introduced by a Republican and signed by a Republican president but it is widely considered a bipartisan act and was only opposed by Republicans so that's a pretty soft argument.
Again, not a huge fan of Democrats but at least they are actually trying to make things better for people.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7okur wrote
- Wars
Barack Obama literally started funding a genocide in Yemen. Bidens withdraw from Afghanistan was a humanitarian disaster. Clintons state department basically turned Libya into a failed state and Syria into a warzone. We have been funding bothsides of the GWOT for twenty years and continued under Biden. The entire middle east conflict goes back to US foreign policy dicking around for oil.
Energy independence has always been and will always be our best way to reduce warmongering...
- Surplus
Has more to do with Dole\Gingritch and the deal with America that married spending cuts with Clintons tax increases. Also the idea of a budgetary surplus when the nation was four trillion dollars in debt is hilarious. Imagine I had 40k dollars in credit card debt, but say I have a surplus because of the 20 in my pocket.
- Supporting Wanna Be Dictators
I'm not sure if you mean 1/6 or supporting the color revolution we threw in ukraine in 2014 to support neo-nazis in their government now?
- Tax breaks
otiswrath t1_it7uq25 wrote
As per usual the only leg Republicans can stand on is "Whataboutisms".
I think much of this is debatable but regardless my original question remains unanswered.
Can you give one policy initiative from the Republicans that helps the average American?
You could make the argument for the First Step Act as it was introduced by a Republican and signed by a Republican president but it is widely considered a bipartisan act and was only opposed by Republicans so that's a pretty soft argument.
Again, not a huge fan of Democrats but at least they are actually trying to make things better for people.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it84utk wrote
>Again, not a huge fan of Democrats but at least they are actually trying to make things better for people
Yet you give them a pass on literally everything you accuse Republicans of? I'm of the opinion that its all one big uniparty for and by the kleptocracy - they just have different ways of attracting naïve voters. Republicans with nostalgia\Christian morality, Dems with hedonism\post-modern morality.
I'd be happy to give you a list of everything I think Republicans have done in the last 30 years that was beneficial, but being as you proved yourself disingenuous with your original comment - I figured it would be better to show you your own hypocrisy. IE Supporting some of the worst warcrimes in the last 20 years because a Dem did it.
Hey remember that time Joe Biden drone struck an innocent family of 10! For literally no reason...
Here is my short list though:
- Dole\Gingrich Deal with America - an example provided above you promptly ignored
- Bush funding Africa - reduced the spread of aids, increased malaria drugs, and access to water
- Trumps border policy - actively combatted sex trafficker's, took money from cartels coffers, and a whole host of human misery reduced - despite rhetoric about kids in cages
- Trump again - Historic levels of funding to black colleges, lowest black unemployment rate in fucking generations, only president in the last 50 years to not get us involved in a brand new shooting war. (your entire idea that dems are anit-MIC is sooo far off base)
- Energy Independence - Trump focusing on domestic\north american energy production has been something we've needed to do... since Eisenhower. better yet if we actually started working with south America to create energy independence for the entire western hemisphere so we can stop playing around in sandboxes with inbred saudi royals. We really needed to scale up our domestic refinement oil refinement to minimize the exportation of crude.
Progress that was promptly aborted by Pedo Peter in the name of climate change, despite the fact that we reduced emissions further than the kyoto\paris agreements would have required.
- Tax cuts - link already provided (you chose to ignore) that actually benefited the poor\middle class more than the rich - as proven by IRS data in the link provided. Less theft by government is inherently a good thing, I don't care if its from millionaires or people on food stamps.
In a sane world - less taxes would be less bombs dropped on children - but here we are.
pahnzoh t1_it7d5v7 wrote
Where did I say I support Republicans?
Fuck them and Democrats. Democrats are pieces of shit this lesser of two evils game doesn't work.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7lcqx wrote
best not to engange with binary thinkers.
otiswrath t1_it7uz7s wrote
As per usual the only leg Republicans can stand on is "Whataboutisms".
I think much of this is debatable but regardless my original question remains unanswered.
Can you give one policy initiative from the Republicans that helps the average American?
You could make the argument for the First Step Act as it was introduced by a Republican and signed by a Republican president but it is widely considered a bipartisan act and was only opposed by Republicans so that's a pretty soft argument.
Again, not a huge fan of Democrats but at least they are actually trying to make things better for people.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it5n9gc wrote
I agree - but at the heart of every cynic is an optimist hoping to be proven wrong.
chubbuck3 t1_it5gddk wrote
Go Dr Tom.
ReferenceAny4836 t1_it7mpn5 wrote
It sucks how this guy is kinda the perfect gubernatorial Democratic candidate for NH, and he's getting no support because everyone just assumes Sununu has it in the bag. He took the pledge for no broad based taxes. He's a pro-choice doctor running in 2022, against an incumbent that signed abortion restrictions into law which would force women to go to Massachusetts or Vermont if they have a nonviable fetus in their womb. He's been in the Senate for many years and has actual accomplishments. He has an actual platform. He's downright moderate on guns too. I'm sure both the anti-gun and pro-gun extremists hate him, but the policies he supports have broad bipartisan support in polls. As someone that really doesn't give a shit about the gun issue one way or another, it's kinda refreshing.
The last guy was a joke. I barely even remember his name.
I dunno about anyone else, but I like going to the candidates' websites and seeing their platform in their own words. They're putting their best foot forward there. Of course it's a biased source, but then so is everything in politics. Compare https://drtomsherman.com/priorities to https://donbolduc.com/american-strength/ and tell me you can't learn anything from a candidate's website... Of course, Bolduc is a Senate candidate and Sherman is running against Sununu. Sununu has a good campaign site too. But I notice the lack of a platform. He only outlines legislation he has signed. That tells me something about a candidate. I personally dislike candidates that don't stand for anything. Others might say, well, talk is cheap, and actions are the only thing that matters, and they're not wrong. Just my personal preference to have a concrete set of positions for representatives, that can be diffed over time. It's also telling to me, when a candidate has deep pockets and their website still looks like shit. Websites are very affordable compared to the barrage of TV ads they're unleashing. It shows who they think they're representing when they can't bother paying for a functional, modern website (hint: not my generation).
Solid_Information_66 t1_it866uw wrote
He had mu vote the second I found out he was a doctor. If this country wants to make medical issues into political issues, then we need to be electing politicians that understand medicine.
ReferenceAny4836 t1_it8ml39 wrote
Yeah, but then there's Ben Carson (R-VA?) and Mehmet Oz (R-NJ). Sometimes doctors are good at one thing and one thing only, and when they venture outside of it, everything they touch turns to snake oil. Sherman has a track record outside of medicine, so it doesn't apply. But miss me with voting for a TV doctor peddling the same snake oil as Alex Jones.
Beautiful_Repeat_718 t1_itb9k9n wrote
In my mind, Dr Oz is a doctor the same way Dr Phil is a doctor.
Darwinbc t1_itgcrtq wrote
They both went to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?
Smirkly t1_it9jo24 wrote
I don't care about the state trying to run pot shops. Let's see them compete or what is the draw? Maine, Massachusetts and now Vermont are way ahead of the game. Many dollars are currently going out of state to where it is legal. plus, they also have to compete with the Grey market of overflow from those states. I just want them to make it legal for me to grow my own fucking weed and leave me alone.
KrissaKray t1_it7jz48 wrote
What’s the point of legalizing it in state if federally, companies cannot legally put their funds in banks
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7swv8 wrote
Yeah, feds actually just raided a big ass private vault company that alot of the local cannabis companies used in California and seized millions.
The reason you legalize it is to gain tax revenue from the sale - how you manage profits is entirely a vendor problem. I suspect a lot of them are using secure vaults, giant safes, and crypto.
adam5isalive t1_it7vw8s wrote
Keeping it tax free would be far better for the state than taxing it. The ancillary benefits would far outweigh any taxation on the sale.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7wgxn wrote
and if you tax it... you get the ancillary benefits and a legitimate and significant source of revenue that isn't derived from theft.
You just can't be retarded like California and tax it so much it becomes more reasonable to buy it from grey markets.
ShortUSA t1_it889w4 wrote
BowTied, So help me understand, some taxes are theft, but taxes on pot are not? Sales taxes are not? What is the breakdown?
BowTiedAgorist t1_it8f2cv wrote
>BowTied, So help me understand, some taxes are theft, but taxes on pot are not?
Are you required to buy pot? Do you trade your labor to an employer or to customers (services rendered) for pot, only to have 40% of it taken directly out of your check or back side?
Or is buying marijuana an entirely voluntary action you can easily avoid?
>Sales taxes are not? What is the breakdown?
Never said sales taxes weren't also theft - especially on necessary goods like food and healthcare products\services - but excellent attempt to frame my speech into words you wanted to hear.
ShortUSA t1_it8vgun wrote
I'm not trying to frame any argument. I have heard and read people say taxation is theft. You are the first person I read use that phrase but make a distinction between some taxes and others.
On the face of it, taxation being theft seems stupid to me. But I am willing to learn why, I just have not heard anyone explain it. Clearly, we need government, many examples show we have no modicum of effective, civil society without some organization. Keeping that organization effective is a constant challenge, but even effective needs revenue, which it gets from taxes, of one sort or another.
I am not for government picking winners and losers. Which is why I hate the fact that people who make money with their money have a much lower tax rate than those working for a living. Sales versus income versus property is to some extent picking winners. Efficiency comes in having one, so why not, which is effectively what we have in NH. MA sales tax does something like what you seem to favor: essentials such as groceries and clothes, but not extravagant ones do not suffer from a sales tax. I haven't spent much time down there in years, so I am not sure how that might have changed.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it96sgx wrote
>I'm not trying to frame any argument. I have heard and read people say taxation is theft. You are the first person I read use that phrase but make a distinction between some taxes and others.
I'm absolutely not the first person to make that distinction. I may be the first to say it in a way you understand, but I'm not the first to say it. If you are paying a tax because there is a gun to your head, its no different than being robbed. Nobody is putting a gun to buy pot... hell even in most legal states you can grow your own and never even worry about it.
>On the face of it, taxation being theft seems stupid to me. But I am willing to learn why, I just have not heard anyone explain it. Clearly, we need government, many examples show we have no modicum of effective, civil society without some organization. Keeping that organization effective is a constant challenge, but even effective needs revenue, which it gets from taxes, of one sort or another.
I don't agree with your premise at all. I reject it entirely. We had roads, schools, libraries, universities all voluntarily funded long before an income or sales taxes.
The idea that government is required for basic cooperation is absurd to me. If anything technology has made it even more irrelevant. I'll agree that a limited government is useful in providing some aspects of that organization - but if fucking aliens landed tomorrow you wouldn't need to pass a bill to get rednecks with 12 guages protecting the homeland.
If ruskies landed at myrtle beach there is gonna be a whole shitload of empty shells, spent pbr cans, and dead russians to clean up before congress even gets to session.
>I am not for government picking winners and losers. Which is why I hate the fact that people who make money with their money have a much lower tax rate than those working for a living. Sales versus income versus property is to some extent picking winners. Efficiency comes in having one, so why not, which is effectively what we have in NH. MA sales tax does something like what you seem to favor: essentials such as groceries and clothes, but not extravagant ones do not suffer from a sales tax. I haven't spent much time down there in years, so I am not sure how that might have changed.
Those people making money with money wouldn't be able to without a government propping up a stock exchange and providing financial safety nets for speculative derivatives market. All of which are largely modern inventions. The regulations designed around that written by people with the most to gain from it.
Before financial markets got regulated into safe casinos; if the market had a bad day - you saw my favorite thing in the world... flying investment managers. then government rallied to protect them.
I can fix that shit in a jiffy. Transaction taxes on every individual stock trade and derivatives share. Congrats I fixed the stock market. Its also an entirely voluntary market, there is no life-blood need to own shares of twitter. Ergo, not theft. You can even make exceptions for Index and ETF markets if you want to protect private retirement accounts like 401ks.
The thing you say government is good at - efficiency, fairness, redistribution - don't exist in my book. Look at the homelessness industry in CA - you have managers making millions a year to manage homeless... so why would they actually improve the problem?
Same with education and unions - that spend more on administration than they do on teachers and salaries.
Cities pay billions in damages for cops who go overboard to enforce laws that only exist becuase otherwise it would cut into someones profit margins.
Hell Fauci has more blood on his hands than Dr. Mengele did with how he basically marched gay people to their deaths during the HIV\AIDS crisis - and literally did the same playbook for covid... He's going to retire with one of the biggest pensions in US History. Who did any of that benefit besides pharma?
Everything you say the government does more betterer... is in my opinion only a problem because government did it to begin with. Mostly to serve cronyism and fascism (as defined by Mussolini)
adam5isalive t1_it8j6op wrote
So something is only legitimate when it's taxed? That doesn't make any sense.
The ancillary benefits have nothing to do with government at all. You don't need to tax a thing to make it useful for everyone.
Tons of goods and services would be created in support of the industry. Lots and lots of investments into NH.
spyboy70 t1_it73ccc wrote
Once it becomes legal, watch how fast that Berlin greenhouse project that promises local food sustainability throws all their lettuce and tomatoes away and switches over to cannabis.
SheenPSU t1_it7wdyu wrote
Or hear me out…they build more greenhouses…
CheliceraeJones t1_it7bbs4 wrote
CHYNAH
KrissaKray t1_it7jjan wrote
Single-issue voters are why government sucks.
BowTiedAgorist t1_it7xs3g wrote
If it weren't for single issue voters, most people wouldn't vote - considering party politics means most politicians have dogshit views on most issues. I don't know anybody who actually likes the D\R's ... its just they like the other party less.
liber_tas t1_it83nlz wrote
It's not a voter problem, it is a problem inherent in government. How can one institution with one set of rules represent all the interests of all the people? No two persons hold the same position on all the issues, which means voters have to pick the top (for them) issue or two to vote on.
mmirate t1_it5ja2h wrote
Remember when Maggie Hassan vetoed legalization? Why should we believe Sherman will act differently?
nhmo t1_it5y6y7 wrote
Because it's nearly a decade later and a lot of advancements have been made in weed legislation since then?
Rolling_Beardo t1_it6ymmf wrote
They’re different people. Would you hold something against everyone you meet because 1 person did it?
warren_stupidity t1_it6tmw1 wrote
Because she ran on no pot. She made that clear. It’s why I didn’t vote for her in the primaries.
Trailwatch427 t1_it751fy wrote
It's a stupid one issue reason to not vote for someone. This is your whole life? Cannabis? How fucking pathetic.
Hoops867 t1_it7gpfp wrote
It's no different from any other single issue voter. Gun rights, abortion, etc
It's silly for it to be illegal.
alkatori t1_it7huz6 wrote
Basically they are just saying you shouldn't strongly care about things that will prevent you from voting for the candidate they like.
Trailwatch427 t1_it8zaow wrote
Vote for or against truly substantive issues supported or opposed by candidates. In NH, the booze lobby is so strong, and people are old and conservative, and most have never enjoyed cannabis. Whereas, people in Mass no matter their age, enjoy cannabis. At least more of them than in NH. Vote for candidates who are progressive overall. Maybe they aren't as progressive as Bernie, but geez, to support a shithead like Bolduc because his opponent doesn't support cannabis is ridiculous.
Trailwatch427 t1_it8yjcs wrote
So, will you DIE if you don't get legal cannabis? What if you had a miscarriage, and couldn't get medical treatment? Women in the middle of miscarrying are being denied medical care in states where abortion is illegal. Women are in danger of dying from infections. Ten year old rape victims are denied abortions--even if when their own father rapes them. Maybe that is cool, right? Maybe you think it is okay for a ten year old girl to have her dad's baby.
Equating abortion rights (and gun control) to legalizing cannabis is bizarre. It's silly to think legalizing cannabis is such a critical issue. Like, do really worry that you will be arrested for it? When women are being threatened with jail time, death penalty--for having an abortion?
Hoops867 t1_it8yzz9 wrote
Yeah, but that's not happening in new hampshire. Who we vote doesn't help the south. That's purely just virtue signaling and whataboutism.
Final_Act6703 OP t1_it9w3gp wrote
It is happening in New Hampshire. Our Republican legislature is passing the same laws that the Republicans in the south are, and women are being denied life saving procedures IN New Hampshire because of it.
warren_stupidity t1_its50ka wrote
it most certainly is happening here.
FreezingRobot t1_it7ix87 wrote
Well, let's be frank, 99% of people in primaries have the exact same positions on things, so it makes sense to vote differently based on positions he cares about, if there is some change there.
Trailwatch427 t1_it8wto1 wrote
Maybe you should try researching the party platforms of Dems and Republicans. They are totally different. Making a statement like that shows that you just let Fox News tell you what to think, and the rest of the time you are playing video games and watching YouTube. And doing a whole lot of cannabis, because you have no other interests in life.
FreezingRobot t1_it901yd wrote
So do you just repeat things you read on /u/politics without reading the post your responding to, or what. Who is talking about Republicans or Fox News here? Are you even old enough to vote? Do you know how primaries work?
It's a beautiful Friday afternoon, maybe go outside and touch some grass and think about what you're doing here.
warren_stupidity t1_its4w1o wrote
the policy differences between local republican and democratic candidates here are stark.
reproductive rights, lgbt rights, public education, public health, gun regulation - there is near zero agreement across parties.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_it8h3s7 wrote
When all the candidates are saying the same thing and one has an issue you believe in.. which legalization of cannabis effects a bevy of downwind issues from revenue stream to criminal justice reform… then why wouldn’t you vote for someone who is living in the 21st century on that issue?
Trailwatch427 t1_it8wjdu wrote
Maybe you ought to do more research into what they are saying and supporting. The Dems and the Republicans have completely different agendas. If you don't know this by now, you have a problem.
Republicans want to end public education, shut down environmental regulations and non-fossil fuels, and deny birth control and D&Cs to all women. They are lunatics. You haven't noticed?
Final_Act6703 OP t1_it9wbxp wrote
You do not notice the cult from inside.
a1234321 t1_it5e1ba wrote
And I vow to end world hunger.
I don't care what he "vows." The state won't pass it until its federally legal.
It's all grandstanding.
Edit: y'all naive as shit lol
Rolling_Beardo t1_it6yy5o wrote
The legislator that already passed it before Sununu blocked it? Is that the same one that would never pass it?
a1234321 t1_it98z7p wrote
Downvote me all you want, watch and see.
I'd love it to pass but I won't believe it until I see it.
warren_stupidity t1_it6twy0 wrote
The legislature has passed it before. If both the legislature and the governor are supportive it will happen.
a1234321 t1_it991ct wrote
It passed the legislator because they knew the governor would vote it down.
warren_stupidity t1_it9d2ql wrote
It’s almost as if you are searching for any excuse to not admit that the democrats are better on marijuana policy than the republicans.
a1234321 t1_it9kfy8 wrote
Get off reddit and touch some fuckin grass lol. Not everything is political.
I just strongly believe the state is waiting to legalize weed so they can tax it like they do liquor.
Take your assumptions with you when you fuck off.
Relevant username tho. At least the second half.
akmjolnir t1_it73wxv wrote
Sad but true.
nicefacedjerk t1_it9g40j wrote
To live your life around a drug is sad as fuck.
[deleted] t1_it710yn wrote
[removed]
akmjolnir t1_it73u5m wrote
The money for Ukraine isn't coming from anywhere else other than the previously approved budget for military/aid type of stuff. You can't just reappropriate it to domestic issues.
Blame your state and local elected officials, and the people in D.C. who blow smoke up your ass when they say they care about you.
llambo17 t1_it7g6pz wrote
>The money for Ukraine isn't coming from anywhere else other than the previously approved budget for military
Yeah, that's wrong, have you forgot the other bills that have and have not been passed by congress that included funding for Ukraine? Like FEMA relief bill that included 12.3 billion in funding for Ukraine. Some of it was from the mil budget and some were not. Either or it is still money adding to or federal debt and has not shown to have really helped them that much.
[deleted] t1_it75tka wrote
[removed]
BowTiedAgorist t1_it812xi wrote
Not only will they gut domestic spending happily, they'll also print every single dollar they need to wage war, buy off foreign governments, or fund the surveillance\police state...
but hey, money to support addiction, basic healthcare, social security raises for retirees... nah sorry *slaps pockets* we just don't have it.
[deleted] t1_it8mmo1 wrote
[removed]
occasional_cynic t1_it74w3r wrote
> No money to help Americans in need
Yeah, the hundreds of billions the Feds spend on social programs every year is "no money."
AMC4x4 t1_it7jrzd wrote
Seriously. I'm so sick of this idiotic narrative. "No money for... x but plenty for Ukraine," as if the US has a finite pot of money and none of it is going anywhere but Ukraine. We just write a fucking check, dude. That's what we do. Put it on the credit card. You need money for homelessness? No problem. We just need a will to do something about it.
Also, the lack of distinction between federal dollars and state dollars here isn't important I guess?
Ridiculous.
smartest_kobold t1_it59zeo wrote
I remember when Sununu made the same promise...
NH-Boondocks t1_it5ffj8 wrote
When
Few-Afternoon-6276 t1_it6ou7s wrote
He may have said ….as soon as we figure out how to line our own pockets”
nudgetravel t1_it5m64a wrote
Don't support any politician that wants to tax legal weed or create a complex state monopoly and licensing apparatus. We have the opportunity to right past wrongs AND be competitive with neighboring states by not over-regulating.
SakuOtaku t1_it5qikt wrote
Oh no, using a lucrative industry to fund the state! The horror!
mmirate t1_it5xfl7 wrote
California has shown us quite well that allowing only a very crippled white market, such that white-market goods are likely to be even more expensive than current black-market prices, is a perfect recipe to fail to eliminate the black market, its many ills and the many ills of any police efforts to stop the black market despite the 4th Amendment.
The state-run liquor stores are theoretically a horrible practice and we should cut all of the state spending that necessitates them, but practically they operate well enough that even our neighbors flock to them.
woolsocksandsandals t1_it6u5fh wrote
Maine taxes their legal market and it is going very well for them. They have a robust marketplace of owner operated small businesses and most consumers seem very happy with what’s happening.
NuKlear_Vortex t1_it79eia wrote
Damn you mean as a non user I shouldn't want weed to be taxed? Despite the likelihood that it would lower my tax burden?
nudgetravel t1_it82can wrote
In practice it would just be used to justify more wasteful spending, not less. In a market where all surrounding states have an early bird advantage, the best thing we can do is to start legal New Hampshire weed off on the right foot. Create as few barriers as possible for cultivation, possession, sale, or consumption among adults. Also I would take it a step further and foster an industry of independently owned cannabis cafes like they have in Amsterdam. Much like bars or cigar lounges or even coffee shops, people could go there to enjoy their drug of choice in a safe, comfortable environment. The benefit comes from progressively improving and creating new industries with jobs and businesses, not regressively with taxes that steal money from Granite Staters that could otherwise be spent in other areas of our economy. Considering the price we're already paying for the foolishness of DC in reckless money printing caused inflation, the best way to counteract is to reduce the burden anywhere possible.
Glad_Vanilla_7121 t1_it67u3r wrote
They’re getting desperate. Weed, abortion and Trump instead of inflation, gas prices, utilities, food shortages and impending WWIII. I’m sure their strategy will move the independents and moderates though.
CannaQueen73 t1_it6adcm wrote
Lots of things are important to people and most of us can filter many different things at once.
farts_in_the_breeze t1_it6v8xm wrote
What a remark. I love this.
dj_narwhal t1_it6tm8p wrote
Gas prices are down, you need to watch more fox news, the new issue is groomers and fentanyl in the candy. Halloween themed right wing propaganda, isn't that a fun treat? Next month will be godless liberals say the pilgrims are racist, then everyone's favorite, THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS! How do you people even survive?
Berzerk_Unit_Alpha t1_it6xmn7 wrote
Don’t forget trans kids!
Darwins_Dog t1_it6zj3x wrote
Litter boxes in schools!
Berzerk_Unit_Alpha t1_it71fl8 wrote
Also Starbucks has a Christmas cup THAT I DONT LIKE!!!!
llambo17 t1_it7gci8 wrote
>Gas prices are down
In what reality are you living in?
BowTiedAgorist t1_it81ihy wrote
Its just like the "record job growth"
Yeah, when you eliminate millions of positions from the economy over covid and then suddenly let people go back to work - best time for a victory lap. So gas ticked down 10 cents after going up three dollars - *cheers*
Like fucking your wife's sister then paying for the abortion and expecting gratitude.
Glad_Vanilla_7121 t1_it98ywp wrote
They’ve been manipulated down by making us less able to deal with real crises. But they’ve been ticking up again because tapping the oil reserves to manipulate prices down is a Mickey Mouse solution from a Mickey Mouse administration. You prove your simplicity though. I disagree with certain policies and automatically branded a right wing nut, I couldn’t just be disgusted with the focus of the current administration. Simple is as simple does.
[deleted] t1_it7egp0 wrote
[removed]
sktchld t1_it6gqs5 wrote
We are surrounded by legal states. It's stupid that we aren't. I just drive to MA and they get my tax money.