Jump to content
Cannonballer

NH is the hole the NE pot doughnut

Recommended Posts

Mass, Maine, Vermont, and now Canada have all legalized recreational pot.  NH remains a glaring hole in the middle.  With the 'Live Free or Die' ethos this makes no sense to me.  Maybe they just haven't figured out how to operate NH state run pot stores yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cannonballer said:

Mass, Maine, Vermont, and now Canada have all legalized recreational pot.  NH remains a glaring hole in the middle.  With the 'Live Free or Die' ethos this makes no sense to me.  Maybe they just haven't figured out how to operate NH state run pot stores yet.

NH already has medical dispensaries. Goodness knows they have distribution of substances handled pretty well on the liqueur front. The state is much more conservative than its neighbors and for some reason, Live Free or Die doesn't include pot but unintentionally encouraging boozing on the highway is A-O-K. 

The state likes freedom in some aspects but is dead set against freedom in others. Most people don't understand that freedom isn't something you take for yourself but rather something you give to others and in turn others give to you. Most people want freedoms for their needs but refuse to give it to others for theirs. 

Just a matter of time, I guess. Maybe next time there is a budget crisis the state will see it as a good tax revenue without instituting the dreaded sales or income taxes. No one is going to care of weed is taxed when it is legalized. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Yes.   @thesnowway perfectly articulated the point I was hinting at but didn't flesh out.  I assume it will come soon. The forces of "we want pot" and the forces of "we want tax revenue" will combine to dominate the legislature. That's how it's playing out almost everywhere else.  Except VT of course because they are getting the pot without the revenue (doh!).  

A side thought about pot revenue....  I always read the Lincoln, NH police weekly police logs (hey, it's guilty pleasure!).   Every week there are 6-10 entries that read like this,  While on patrol, Officers stopped a vehicle for a speed of 43-mph in a 30-mph zone. During the stop The Officer  could detect a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The driver willingly admitted to having marijuana in the car and proceeded to hand it and some paraphernalia over to Officers. The driver was issued a citation, a violation level offense, for possession of less than ¾ of an oz. of marijuana. The driver has the choice to pay the $124 fine or plead not guilty and be seen in court.    I assume that citation $$ goes to the local PD.  Whereas pot sales tax $$ would mostly go to the General Fund of which the local PD has to fight for the scraps of state funding.   So, is it possible that locals towns and PDs see more financial benefit from illegal vs legal pot?  Personally, I'd rather pay the tax than the fine.

 

Edited by Cannonballer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 7:11 PM, Cannonballer said:

^Yes.   @thesnowway perfectly articulated the point I was hinting at but didn't flesh out.  I assume it will come soon. The forces of "we want pot" and the forces of "we want tax revenue" will combine to dominate the legislature. That's how it's playing out almost everywhere else.  Except VT of course because they are getting the pot without the revenue (doh!).  

A side thought about pot revenue....  I always read the Lincoln, NH police weekly police logs (hey, it's guilty pleasure!).   Every week there are 6-10 entries that read like this,  While on patrol, Officers stopped a vehicle for a speed of 43-mph in a 30-mph zone. During the stop The Officer  could detect a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The driver willingly admitted to having marijuana in the car and proceeded to hand it and some paraphernalia over to Officers. The driver was issued a citation, a violation level offense, for possession of less than ¾ of an oz. of marijuana. The driver has the choice to pay the $124 fine or plead not guilty and be seen in court.    I assume that citation $$ goes to the local PD.  Whereas pot sales tax $$ would mostly go to the General Fund of which the local PD has to fight for the scraps of state funding.   So, is it possible that locals towns and PDs see more financial benefit from illegal vs legal pot?  Personally, I'd rather pay the tax than the fine.

 

Did the person get a moving violation along with the marijuana violation? This seems a like an easy fine to avoid, just don't smoke your weed in the car, and if you do, open the window to get fresh air in. It is possible they are negotiating a speeding ticket fewer points for a marijuana fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^Yes.   [mention=215]thesnowway[/mention] perfectly articulated the point I was hinting at but didn't flesh out.  I assume it will come soon. The forces of "we want pot" and the forces of "we want tax revenue" will combine to dominate the legislature. That's how it's playing out almost everywhere else.  Except VT of course because they are getting the pot without the revenue (doh!).  
A side thought about pot revenue....  I always read the Lincoln, NH police weekly police logs (hey, it's guilty pleasure!).   Every week there are 6-10 entries that read like this,  While on patrol, Officers stopped a vehicle for a speed of 43-mph in a 30-mph zone. During the stop The Officer  could detect a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The driver willingly admitted to having marijuana in the car and proceeded to hand it and some paraphernalia over to Officers. The driver was issued a citation, a violation level offense, for possession of less than ¾ of an oz. of marijuana. The driver has the choice to pay the $124 fine or plead not guilty and be seen in court.    I assume that citation $$ goes to the local PD.  Whereas pot sales tax $$ would mostly go to the General Fund of which the local PD has to fight for the scraps of state funding.   So, is it possible that locals towns and PDs see more financial benefit from illegal vs legal pot?  Personally, I'd rather pay the tax than the fine.
 
This is one of my issues with legalization. Most people can't drive to save their asses to begin with, now go and add pot to it, it's gonna get scary. Add in the brain suck phones that people can't put down and...

There is no good way to detect if someone is driving high other than actually catching them smoking and driving unlike drinking and driving. And I really don't want to hear the argument that I'm more focused when I'm high that some like to argue, cuz that's just crap. Altered is altered.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Infinite Dreams said:

This is one of my issues with legalization. Most people can't drive to save their asses to begin with, now go and add pot to it, it's gonna get scary. Add in the brain suck phones that people can't put down and...

There is no good way to detect if someone is driving high other than actually catching them smoking and driving unlike drinking and driving. And I really don't want to hear the argument that I'm more focused when I'm high that some like to argue, cuz that's just crap. Altered is altered.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

DUI for pot is a big question mark. And federal law is a major roadblock to developing field sobriety tests. It's a real pain point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DUI for pot is a big question mark. And federal law is a major roadblock to developing field sobriety tests. It's a real pain point.
Agree. And I agree with everything @infinitedreams said about it. But that doesn't actually have a ton to do with the legalization issue. Pot DUI has all of the exact some problems and challenges whether it's legal, illegal, or decriminalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree. And I agree with everything @infinitedreams said about it. But that doesn't actually have a ton to do with the legalization issue. Pot DUI has all of the exact some problems and challenges whether it's legal, illegal, or decriminalized.
Actually the issue becomes availability to the masses. Not to say that x amount of the populus will all of a sudden be getting stoned, but the ability to get stoned will be more readily available, thus increasing the amount of people who would get stoned but wouldn't because they were afraid of getting busted buying it.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually the issue becomes availability to the masses. Not to say that x amount of the populus will all of a sudden be getting stoned, but the ability to get stoned will be more readily available, thus increasing the amount of people who would get stoned but wouldn't because they were afraid of getting busted buying it.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Hopefully the people who were law abiding enough not to smoke pot when was illegal, will also be law abiding enough not to break the law by DUI since that is still illegal. If they were afraid of getting busted buying illegal pot I would expect they'd be even more afraid of getting busted for DUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cannonballer said:

Hopefully the people who were law abiding enough not to smoke pot when was illegal, will also be law abiding enough not to break the law by DUI since that is still illegal. If they were afraid of getting busted buying illegal pot I would expect they'd be even more afraid of getting busted for DUI.

Yea, spot on. Changing the legality or decriminalization is not going to change people's use significantly, prohibition on alcohol showed us that much. Accidents from drunk driving have gone way down over time due to public education. If public education to reduce drunk driving is good enough for alcohol, the same should be good enough for pot. Hopefully, the people working with legalization campaigns will switch over to promoting safe use education once legalization happens. I think a lot of folks in that community will help to self police safety, much the way that having a DD when visiting a bar is such a standard no brainer nowadays.

The other question is how much of an increase in pot use are we really going to see? Are we really expecting non-pot users to suddenly switch over just because it is legal and getting high and then driving? Maybe a few, who knows. I don't see it happening much more than what might be already happening. The drug is already readily available and cheap and people have already set their own use or non-use patterns. I've never smoked personally, that isn't going to change just because is legal. I don't think people abstain from pot because of legality. And education is a far more useful tool than a law to reduce intoxicated driving.

I'm far more nervous about someone that is texting causing an accident...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thesnowway said:

Yea, spot on. Changing the legality or decriminalization is not going to change people's use significantly, prohibition on alcohol showed us that much. Accidents from drunk driving have gone way down over time due to public education. If public education to reduce drunk driving is good enough for alcohol, the same should be good enough for pot. Hopefully, the people working with legalization campaigns will switch over to promoting safe use education once legalization happens. I think a lot of folks in that community will help to self police safety, much the way that having a DD when visiting a bar is such a standard no brainer nowadays..

6

Pot should be easier since alcohol drives aggressive choices meanwhile marijuana tends to be more mellow. So the dumb choices are more likely to be safe ones like a wrong turn or watching SpongeBob, VS driving when you know its risky then drive 100 in a 55. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thesnowway said:

 

The other question is how much of an increase in pot use are we really going to see? Are we really expecting non-pot users to suddenly switch over just because it is legal and getting high and then driving? Maybe a few, who knows. I don't see it happening much more than what might be already happening. The drug is already readily available and cheap and people have already set their own use or non-use patterns. I've never smoked personally, that isn't going to change just because is legal. I don't think people abstain from pot because of legality. And education is a far more useful tool than a law to reduce intoxicated driving.

I'm far more nervous about someone that is texting causing an accident...

My wife never smoked any until we went to Colorado a few years ago. She smoked some when we were there but back here in NH she has never smoked again. Would she if it was legal? Maybe. I used to smoke but then my company started testing after I had been working there for 18 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Benski said:

Pot should be easier since alcohol drives aggressive choices meanwhile marijuana tends to be more mellow. So the dumb choices are more likely to be safe ones like a wrong turn or watching SpongeBob, VS driving when you know its risky then drive 100 in a 55. 

I disagree.  Impaired is impaired whether it's alcohol, pot, ambien, nyquil, heroin, fatigue, or whatever.   Which is why Diving Under the Influence (or distracted driving) always should be and always will be a crime.   And that's exactly why pot being legal vs illegal doesn't have a whole lot to do with the DUI issue.  It is explicitly a crime to drive under the influence of pot (and other impairments) regardless of their legality. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree.  Impaired is impaired whether it's alcohol, pot, ambien, nyquil, heroin, fatigue, or whatever.   Which is why Diving Under the Influence (or distracted driving) always should be and always will be a crime.   And that's exactly why pot being legal vs illegal doesn't have a whole lot to do with the DUI issue.  It is explicitly a crime to drive under the influence of pot (and other impairments) regardless of their legality. 

Agreed it’s never good to drive in an impaired state be it any mind altering drug or just very drowsy and it should be a crime. Just saying alcohol tends to encourage dangerous behavior. Just saying weed does not encourage the aggressive risk seeking behavior.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 1:29 PM, Benski said:

Just saying alcohol tends to encourage dangerous behavior. Just saying weed does not encourage the aggressive risk seeking behavior.

Weed may or may not drive "aggressive" behavior but it sure can drive dangerous and stupid behavior. I know people who have set animals on fire and nearly burned down buildings while high. I'm not totally sure I see your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2018 at 7:05 AM, Infinite Dreams said:

And I really don't want to hear the argument that I'm more focused when I'm high that some like to argue,

Has anyone over the age of 17 ever used that argument with you? I'm assuming yes, and if so that is truly horrifying. I only ever heard high schoolers use that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 11:45 AM, Cannonballer said:

I disagree.  Impaired is impaired whether it's alcohol, pot, ambien, nyquil, heroin, fatigue, or whatever.   Which is why Diving Under the Influence (or distracted driving) always should be and always will be a crime.   And that's exactly why pot being legal vs illegal doesn't have a whole lot to do with the DUI issue.  It is explicitly a crime to drive under the influence of pot (and other impairments) regardless of their legality. 

The issue with DUI for weed is how to measure it. It stays in your system for up to 45 days at least the way they test for it now. Unless there is another way that I don't know of (very possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue with DUI for weed is how to measure it. It stays in your system for up to 45 days at least the way they test for it now. Unless there is another way that I don't know of (very possible).
They definitely need to improve on that. Having it be legal should help by legitimizing research and funding. Legalized at the federal level would be even better in that sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cannonballer said:
1 hour ago, Smellytele said:
The issue with DUI for weed is how to measure it. It stays in your system for up to 45 days at least the way they test for it now. Unless there is another way that I don't know of (very possible).

They definitely need to improve on that. Having it be legal should help by legitimizing research and funding. Legalized at the federal level would be even better in that sense.

Or at least remove from the Schedule 1 list. That makes it exceptional difficult to do any research. And is a gross misclassification.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone over the age of 17 ever used that argument with you? I'm assuming yes, and if so that is truly horrifying. I only ever heard high schoolers use that argument.
Actually yes, quite often which scares the shit out of me. There are those that really believe it

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jully said:

I know people who have set animals on fire and nearly burned down buildings while high.

I suspect more people do these things sober than stoned...

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Mobile Apps available!

Please try our mobile apps for iOS and Android

×