discogeek t1_j2tdv8r wrote

And they're still Democrats? C'mon, quit being a troll making up arguments that don't hold water. You and I and everyone in the world all know your argument is fake, referencing one year ignores the political movement of southern realignment completely.

I'd expect better intellectual discourse from someone who wants to discuss politics, but I guess it's pretty clear you're not here to discuss, just to own the libs.

You be you.


discogeek t1_j2tc8wr wrote

Yup, all those southern Democrats abandoned the party and swapped to GOP because of these bills, as seen by the plummeting number of Democrats that hated these bills and the constant rise of Republican opposition.

Not sure what your point is here, you're highlighting that the evolution of partisan racism in America was fueled with a mass exodus of anti-rights politicians from D to R.

But you be you and keep living in one snapshot of the past.


discogeek t1_j2rmdjq wrote

That's not really how it works in Harrisburg. Literally thousands of bills are written every session, and only a fraction of them ever come up for a vote. Just because a Senator or Representative authors a bill, that's not a guarantee it'll be considered at all.

That being said, you're starting on the right path to do what we (the public) need to do to get our government to work for us, instead of Pennsylvania's long-standing requirement that we work for Harrisburg.

Contact your state representative and state senator. Be agreeable yet persistent. If they tell you they support the bill, ask if they're working to advance it in committee and toward a vote on the floor.

Legislators don't obsess over how they love writing legislation as a means to get re-elected, they focus on doing the bare minimum for as many people as possible to make them content enough to vote for them again. Make sure they understand when you're talking to them that "pro-marijuana" stance isn't enough, for you you're also requiring active participation.

Get your friends to do the same. One person can start the ball rolling but an army of activists are going to see better results quicker.


discogeek t1_j1s73ok wrote

Just a quick warning... usually *everyone* gets rejected the first time around. This is mostly by design, just follow up with the appeal. Seems some in Harrisburg would rather see who has the need to apply and appeal instead of apply and give up.

If you get turned down the first time don't fret, just do the next step. If you need help, contact your state or local rep, both can help (it's a state program administered by the counties).


discogeek t1_j18fg1f wrote

>The study group held its first meeting last week, during which chairman Rep. Larry Frieman, R-Abita Springs, said its goals are to understand what ESG is and “hopefully eliminate its use in our state of Louisiana in all of our sectors and industries.”

Already decided to cancel-culture eliminate it, even though he admits he doesn't understand it. Sounds like solid conservative policy there.


discogeek t1_j0cl97b wrote

You mean the swearing-in? It's open to the public (there'll be information sometime soon). If you want one of the special seats on the stage, they're hard to come by but you could start by asking your local elected officials like state rep or senator if they have access to tickets.

If you go, you wouldn't be the only one with a 1-year old. That shouldn't be an issue. It's often cold there though and you're outside for hours at a time. I think it was during a blizzard during Ridge's inauguration in 1995 even; it was damn cold.

Lots of members (especially GOP) will probably skip going, so their tickets wouldn't be used. At least that's how it has been for the last 30-some years.

If you mean the ball, tickets should be for sale already or soon. I'm guessing that's not what you mean, having a 1-year old in tow for a black tie affair. It's going to be at Rock Lititz.

(To be perfectly honest, I've gone to a couple of the balls, and they weren't anything memorable, not even sure if I'd say they were fun.)


discogeek t1_izkda9q wrote

Which law are you referencing? The Marijuana Pardon Project referenced in the OP's article is not a law, it's an executive branch program.


Pennsylvania's drug laws were passed by the legislature and signed by the governor at that time (not Wolf), if that's what you're meaning.


discogeek t1_izjwgbp wrote

Let's be clear about this whole program, which I take as very well-intentioned but the forces-that-be aren't letting this work.

There's nothing (N-O-T-H-I-N-G) preventing Gov. Wolf from issuing a pardon during these final days of his administration to every single individual convicted under Pennsylvania law for marijuana possession and/or consumption without forcing people to go through this process that exposes them to embarrassment, bureaucracy and inefficiency.

We can see how effective this program is from the Inquirer article posted above, and one a few days ago. 90% of applications have been tossed. Legitimately, some are likely situations where "I was charged with 835 counts of murder, terrorism, looking snidely at a nun and marijuana possession, so I should have everything expunged." That's not what Wolf or anyone intended, and it just gives FOX News another point to bitch about how the libs are ruining their pearly-white two-child straight-white-middle class picturesque utopia.

I'm happy Wolf thought of doing this. I'm pissed he chose a mechanism that's putting the burden on Pennsylvanians to beg our own fucking government for mercy when none should have been needed. He should have done better.

That being said, I'm hoping he realizes how fucked up this program turned into and takes action into his own hands. I've never found Wolf to be anything less than a decent, rational person and chalk this up to good intentions and government not living up to serving its citizens.


discogeek t1_iz0ogc1 wrote

First, not sure why we need an application process for this. State government knows who exactly is convicted of marijuana possession, yet they're making people be proactive in a situation where there's no solid reason to do so. I mean, unless there's someone out there who would rather *not* have this removed from their record.

Second, the article is click-bait. the headline states 90% are rejected precisely to piss you off, but if you read the article they state "Although the reasons for so many being denied remain largely unknown..." As in (and I'd suspect) a ton of applications "I murdered my neighbor while smoking pot so I should be pardoned" which doesn't fly.