New Jersey lawmakers cancel legal pot vote | 1010 WINS https://1010wins.radio.com/articles...medium=email&utm_campaign=NJ+cancels+pot+vote
OT: NJ legal weed vote canceled
- Thread starter RU Golfer
- Start date
God our state sucks. They can't get anything right. majority of the citizens want it and they still cant figure it out
There were concerns raised by municipalities and Chiefs of police. The Asbury Park Press ran an editorial coming out against it.
Not sure if this is the type of issue that should be based on what a majority of the citizens want.
It will eventually happen, but when it does, all of the issues and costs should be considered in advance.
https://www.app.com/story/news/loca...a-legalization-bill-taxes-driving/3231333002/
https://www.app.com/story/opinion/c...-legalization-deal-murphy-sweeney/3138673002/
Concerns? Everyone I know that wants to smoke is already doing it. It would have just made it easier and brought in some revenue to a state that is on the verge of bankruptcy. Murphy and company failed again.
I am no fan of Murphy, and I am no fan of legalization, but resigned to the fact that it will happen.
Thought the concerns raised by the Chiefs of Police/municipalities was valid--which is that the cost of personnel/enforcement for driving will be foisted down to the local level. It would not surprise me if the State takes all of the revenue and leaves the municipalities holding the bag (and not a bag of weed).
Seems like it was being rushed through, and if they can dot all their i's, roll their j's and cross their t's, it will be best for all concerned. :pimp:
The idea that a surge in stoned driving is likely incorrect. I could pretty much express the sentiments newell138 made to a previous post. The US media has suggested there has been about a 5% increase in accidents after legalization while fatal accidents remained flat, but have not identified an increase in stoned driving. On the other hand, Canada has reported there has been no increase of stoned driving after their legalization effort. Taking liberty with newell138's statement, "Everyone who wants to drive while stoned are already doing it".
If Murphy can't salt it, he can't get anything done
But it’s ok to drink and gamble. In fact , marketed!
let's not let the facts get in the way of a good ol political game. Since when does legislation ever take into effect real facts vs. somebody's financially driven agenda?
If anything the towns are more likely upset over the loss of revenue from not being able to bust folks and throw em in jail or get court fees.
Which for the most part is only happening in low income neighborhoods. Usage among whites and blacks is about equal but blacks get arrested 5x more for it. You would think some of the legislators in those areas would be all for it just for that reason alone. I guess they were holding out their hands waiting for someone to pay them off though.
Huh ? You're in the wrong country for sure.
And what reasons do you ascribe to the 14 Republican senators from rural districts who didn’t support the measure? If only a handful of them supported it it would have passed.
Cops are totally against it because it might affect their jobs.
It will pass or NJ will need to increase taxes to offset $80 million pot revenue included in next year budget.
Drinking and gambling doesn't kill people.
I hope that part of the law is that any pot found in a car except for the trunk is considered the same as an open beverage container and the driver is subject to testing. There is no more need to smoke in a car if you can legally smoke it anywhere else. In fact legalizing it should help this.
Speaking of killing people- medically assisted suicide passed!
The proposed bill prohibits smoking/consuming marijuana or possessing an open container or open package in cars. This is similar to the open container alcohol laws. The bill also prohibits smoking/consumption in public places. And probably of interest to Rutgers students or tailgaters:
The bill would also prohibit consumption in any area of any building of, on the grounds of, or in any facility owned, leased, or controlled by, any public or private institution of higher education or a related entity thereof, regardless of whether the area or facility is an indoor place or outdoors
...I’m guessing you misspoke when you included drinking in that statement, unless
cirrhosis (and other ETOH-caused medical conditions), elevated BAL-DWI fatalities and acute ETOH intoxication deaths are all due to something else besides alcohol. I don’t know how in the world anyone can claim any type of moral grounds on this (not saying you are seels) while not also being against alcohol being legal. I’d almost guarantee that if we take a look at the numbers, alcohol has lead to exponentially more deaths and disease (and probably caused more harm to families)...and I’ve never used THC a day in my life.
Joe P.
Last edited:
The likelihood is simply that they were getting nothing in return. Murphy has shown a complete unwillingness to trade IOUs on this issue, which is the key reason why it didn't move forward today.
Exactly. If you allow booze there is no reason to not legalize
I agree. But you are a better man than to suggest that the leaders and politicians from urban areas are against it because they were holding out their hands looking for payoffs that didn’t materlialize but those from rural areas are opposed to it for their own reasons.
They likely are all holding their hands out. That’s how NJ works. I don’t care what area they are from. They suck at their job of representing the state and their constituents
Why do I suspect the real reason police are opposed to this is because it will cut the number of arrests they make in half and towns will realize maybe we don't need so many officers. Seriously. So many people are arrested every day for possessing pot. Which means so much money being wasted on the court system, law enforcement, etc. for a victim-less crime.
If you read the linked article:
Here’s the problem: With no Breathalyzer (now the Alcotest) to measure marijuana impairment, convictions for stoned driving rely on the observations of thoroughly trained drug recognition experts (DREs). Experts across the spectrum, from police chiefs to Triple-A officials to DUI attorneys, agree that there needs to be a substantial increase in DREs as marijuana becomes more prevalent across the state.
Somebody has to pay for these hires and their training. It ain’t cheap.
“Right now you have about 500 officers (in New Jersey) who are trained as a DREs,” Zebrowski said. “This is a very specialized area, and we don’t want to dilute that area by forcing other officers into that program. We need to be able to continue to keep it specialized, which makes it an expensive proposition for small towns, and even large towns will be stretching their resources.”
Some of you guys watched reefer madness too much as a kid.
I read an article that only about 20% will buy it legally because it’s much cheaper on the black market. The people buying it legal are more likely to obey the driving laws since they tend to follow the laws.
That's a big problem a few states are having. The taxes are so high and the black market is so established that people just keep buying it illegally so they aren't getting nearly the tax revenue they projected. (which is the case with every new tax but that's a different story).
Similar threads
