Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nwk_NJ t1_j0e68jb wrote

What a joke.

I bet you a large majority of current canibus operators are not minorities. I understand that initially, as current medical providers were well positioned to open quickly, and I've got no problem with that...but now you've got a group of African American women who cannot get any sort of approval or help in their own city. That is absolutely unacceptable.

This law was sold as socially progressive, but I'm seeing a bunch of nonsense. Newark is also so poorly run...I bet most the approved businesses had a connection to the Mayor or his family.

So tired of the BS.

Hope these ladies get up and running soon.

9

ahtasva t1_j0f2bhj wrote

The law is not socially progressive at all. It does not permit home grow.

As for the permitting process, this is a classic example of how excessive regulation creates a web of corruption. Layers upon layers of approvals, require “consultants” , lawyers and all manner of other hangers on to essentially get you a permit to sell in a store what a corner boy with practically no overhead can sell with very little risk of being arrested under the current law.

When you vote based on ideology, You get the government you deserve.

7

Nwk_NJ t1_j0f2v8l wrote

Solid points. The fact that those "corner kids", or at least some of them, are not learning to cultivate, license, etc. In any way, shape, or form, and are still thriving selling "illegally" is a failure of the law already...except for the basic decriminalization aspect I suppose.

3

ahtasva t1_j0fauu5 wrote

The idea that weed has to be taxed in order for society to thrive is in my opinion one of the biggest grifts perpetrated on the people of this country. Why tax and "regulate" a substance that is proven to be largely non-habit forming and has orders of magnitude lower negative health effects vs. tobacco or alcohol use?

If we really cared about the well being of our people, we should be giving weed away as a substitute to tobacco and or alcohol use. The only regulation we need is to prohibit minors from consumption.

The sole purpose of regulation and taxation is to enable the state to replace the drug cartels in the supply chain. Only problem is, the state is far more corrupt and incompetent than the worst of the cartels.

−1

Echos_myron123 t1_j0fzi3f wrote

This post is a great example of why libertarians should not be in charge of legalization or anything for that matter.

4

ahtasva t1_j0g3s1y wrote

Classic clown show, heavy on ideology; light on substantive arguments 🤣🤣.

As entertaining as these empty retorts are; they do get old after a while.

Here is a riddle for you ;

Soda is demonstrably bad for one’s health if consumed consistently, yet it is neither taxed nor regulated. It can be freely advertised and sold to children of any age. In fact it is subsidized through food stamps . The soda companies admit as much ( they lobby congress to not exclude soda from the list of items eligible to be purchased using SNAP). Not to mention the subsidies given out to farmers to produce corn yawns to make syrup.

There is an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in this country. Both are co-morbidities that increase the chances of bad outcomes from other conditions like Covid. These are known and undisputed facts.

Weed does not pose nearly as dire a public health threat.

Why aren’t liberals “protecting” their core voting base and children from the ravages of diabetes by taxing and regulating soda?

3

Echos_myron123 t1_j0hhixr wrote

People pay a sales tax on soda. Every consumable good is taxed. And soda is regulated by the FDA as is almost everything you eat and drink. You are arguing for zero taxes and zero regulations. That is idiotic.

3

LateNightNewYork OP t1_j0gukbw wrote

Bloomberg tried this in NYC, but people (and the soda lobby) cried government overreach.

2

DrixxYBoat t1_j0ex3ji wrote

>...I bet most the approved businesses had a connection to the Mayor or his family.

Less of a Mayor problem and more of a bureaucracy sucks problem.

You have people @ city hall who make decisions on behalf of the Mayor that he doesn't even agree with. He can't be in 1000 places at once, and he definitely can't do much policy work when he's constantly being asked to speak at a different event every single day because some type of commemoration or tradition is taking place.

2

Nwk_NJ t1_j0f02h7 wrote

Yeah, Bureaucratic stuff is always a problem. That being said, I know many who work in city hall and with city hall and for other reasons...its not a great administration as far as the inner workings and day to day functions of government, also who holds positions in city hall and the city and their connections to the Mayor....And there are shady things that go on...not saying it's unique to Ras, but it is what it is.

4