Big Pot vs. Big Government in Florida
Mom-and-pop marijuana operations do not exist in Florida. That's by design.

It might seem at odds with Florida's hard-partying reputation that uptight states like Virginia and Missouri legalized recreational pot before it did. After all, Florida is a place where sea turtles get entangled in floating bales of cocaine and the Legislature recently named a highway after Jimmy Buffett. Yet Florida Man still can't get high for fun—at least not legally.
The reason the Sunshine State is one of the last major holdouts for cannabis prohibition is because it is also one of the toughest states to pass a constitutional amendment. Amendments require a 60 percent supermajority vote to be ratified. It's the highest bar in the country among states with a ballot initiative process, and it has proven fatal to previous legalization campaigns. The first time marijuana legalization was on the Florida ballot, in 2014, it failed even though 57 percent voted for it.
Florida voters then legalized medical marijuana in 2016 with a resounding 71 percent, although the state Legislature didn't pass a law allowing medical card holders to smoke cannabis until 2019. From the consumer side, the current medical marjuana system is relatively painless, as long as you can afford the semiannual doctor consultations and state fees, have one of the qualifying conditions, and can jump through a few government hoops.
In other words, it's no problem for the state's many retirees. When Florida medical marijuana treatment centers, known as MMTCs, have big sales, you can see golf carts zipping into the parking lots and long queues of silver-haired patients waiting to pick up their orders.
The situation may soon change, thanks to Amendment 3, a ballot initiative that seeks to legalize recreational marijuana, allowing adults 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana and five grams of concentrated THC, which is commonly sold in the form of oil, wax, or resin. At least at first, only existing MMTCs would be allowed to sell recreational marijuana; the amendment would permit but not require the state Legislature to expand licensure outside of MMTCs. The measure has no provisions for home cultivation, for expungement of marijuana convictions, or for the "social equity" requirements that have popped up in other states.
The measure pits the most well-funded marijuana legalization campaign in U.S. history against the most powerful governor in modern Florida history. On one side is a group of multistate marijuana companies with a $60 million war chest. On the other is Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican dedicated to using the sheer force of government to make the state a bastion for culture-war conservatives. DeSantis also has one unusual ally: the state's hemp industry, which would rather take its chances with Florida Republicans than get locked out of the recreational market.
Polls show that a solid majority of Florida voters in both major parties favor legalization. Even Florida resident Donald Trump announced his support for Amendment 3 in September. But thanks to the high bar for constitutional amendments, that once again may not be enough.
Riding on how Floridians vote in November are thousands of marijuana arrests a year and millions upon millions of dollars in profits for the couple-dozen companies that would be grandfathered into an exclusive new recreational market.
The stakes and the players involved in Amendment 3 are quintessential Florida. It all could have been ripped straight from the state's history books: a campaign bankrolled by rent-seeking carpetbaggers who stand to get rich off the fact that even a system rigged in their favor is still preferable to the status quo. It's Big Pot versus Big Government in the nation's most famously zany state.
Longtime legalization advocates aren't thrilled about the protectionist aspect of the amendment, but they also see an opportunity to take one of their biggest remaining targets off the board. "I think in a lot of ways it's very clearly a money grab," says Morgan Fox, political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "But it's also a money-grab that is going to stop thousands of people from getting arrested every year."
'You Will Be Able To Bring 20 Joints to an Elementary School'
Amendment 3 has at least one clear advantage over the 2014 ballot measure: It arrives after legalization has already spread across the country and prohibitionists' most dire predictions have failed to materialize. Teenage drug use has flatlined or declined, so culture-war conservatives, including DeSantis, have turned to another argument: Weed stinks.
"I've gone to some of these cities that have had this everywhere, it smells, there's all these things," DeSantis said at a press conference earlier this year. "I don't want to be able to go walk in front of shops and have this. I don't want every hotel to really smell."
DeSantis' complaints have veered into the hysterical: "I think you're going to see people—you will be able to bring 20 joints to an elementary school," he complained. "Is that really going to be good for the state of Florida? I don't think so." He has also griped about the expansiveness of the measure. "It is the broadest language I've ever seen. It seems to supersede any other regulatory regime that we have," DeSantis said. "People in downtown areas and other communities, this is going to be part of your community."
That is not true. The amendment does not limit the state Legislature or local governments from creating licensing regimes or time, place, and manner restrictions on marijuana businesses and consumption. In fact, the Hialeah City Council passed a resolution earlier this year vowing "to maintain a social, smoke-free social environment within the city" if Amendment 3 passes.
The main reason Amendment 3 isn't more detailed is that ballot amendments in Florida are bound by a single-subject rule, which means they must present voters with only a single issue and not be confusing. Challenging marijuana ballot initiatives on pedantic single-subject grounds has become a go-to tactic for legalization opponents, says Matthew Schweich, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, an anti-prohibition group.
"We had a victory overturned in South Dakota in a single-subject lawsuit," Schweich says. "We also had our Nebraska medical campaign kicked off the ballot, having already qualified, in 2020, due to a single-subject challenge. So we're very sympathetic to those who are averse to taking risks in an initiative drafting process due to the threat of a single-subject rule, and that certainly applies in Florida."
In fact, two advocacy groups and Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody challenged Amendment 3 on single-issue and clarity grounds, respectively.
Moody's office argued it misled voters in several ways: It failed to inform voters of the continuing illegal status of marijuana under federal law, misled voters on state oversight by failing to grant health officials authority over recreational sales, and misled voters into believing there would be more competition in the recreational market. "This carefully curated ballot summary misleads in ways that, though sometimes subtle, are likely to influence voters—and to do so in a way that entrenches the Sponsor's monopolistic stranglehold on the marijuana market to the detriment of Floridians," Moody's office wrote in its brief to the Florida Supreme Court. "The initiative should be stricken."
Moody successfully blocked two proposed marijuana amendments using similar arguments in 2021. This time, the Florida Supreme Court, stacked with conservative DeSantis appointees, approved it for the ballot anyway.
The arguments against the measure mostly serve to demonstrate how weak the case against it is: If the worst fear opponents of Amendment 3 can conjure is a smelly hotel hallway, that pales in comparison to the injustice of throwing thousands of adults in jail and prison every year for smoking marijuana.
If Amendment 3 passes, it will be a decisive rejection by voters of the sort of quality-of-life arguments that DeSantis and other legalization opponents have turned to.
"That's the flip side of the coin of the 60 percent rule," Schweich says. "It sucks and it makes it hard to win and it's stressful, but you do walk away with a pretty strong mandate from the people."
'They're Arresting People for Smoking Cannabis on the Beach?'
If you thought "Free Florida," as DeSantis likes to call it, was the sort of place where a cop might turn a blind eye to a little ol' joint, you're wrong. But you're not alone.
Last December, I sat in Miami-Dade County misdemeanor court watching the daily parade of defendants appearing for the usual stuff, like open container violations and boating offenses—this is, after all, Florida—when one case caused the judge to raise his eyebrows.
The defendant had been cited for smoking marijuana on the famous sands of Miami Beach. "They're arresting people for smoking cannabis on the beach over there?" the judge asked the line prosecutor, seeming to be honestly surprised that this case was appearing on his already-crowded docket.
The state assured the judge that Miami Beach still takes marijuana enforcement quite seriously. And so do many cities across the state.
Data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement show there have been roughly 3,300 marijuana charges filed in county courts so far in 2024, and nearly 6,500 last year. WWE wrestler Liv Morgan was among those arrested for marijuana possession early in 2024. If a professional wrestler can't get a break for possessing pot in Florida, what hope is there for the rest of us?
These arrests are what Amendment 3 seeks to end. Smart & Safe Florida, the campaign to pass the amendment, has started hammering on overcriminalization in its appeals to voters. Over July 4 weekend, the campaign dropped two television ads across the state about the injustice of marijuana arrests. It featured John Morgan, managing partner of the massive private injury law firm Morgan & Morgan. Morgan is known as Florida's "pot daddy," and his firm spent $15 million on the successful campaign to legalize medical marijuana in the state.
"Nearly 250 years ago, our nation declared our independence," Morgan said in one of the ads. "Now it's time for us to declare our independence from laws that demand jail time for simply having or consuming marijuana."
"Amendment 3 will put a stop to this and let the cops fight real crime, not fake crime," he says in the second ad. "I'm tired of people being thrown in jail for something that is less harmful than alcohol or opioids."
'You Are Not Getting Into the Florida Cannabis Industry'
The reason Smart & Safe Florida is able to blanket the state in TV ads on July 4 weekend is that it has raised $61 million since 2022, making it the most well-funded marijuana legalization campaign in U.S. history.
Most of that eye-popping figure has come from Trulieve, one of the biggest publicly traded marijuana companies in the world by market capitalization. Trulieve operates more than 140 medical marijuana dispensaries throughout Florida, dominating the space. It sold roughly half of all legal flower in the state in 2020, according to MJBizDaily. Trulieve has donated $55 million to Smart & Safe Florida.
Trulieve is the biggest license holder. There are no small ones.
Mom-and-pop operations do not exist in Florida's medical marijuana market. That's by design. All MMTCs are required to be vertically integrated, meaning they must be able to cultivate, process, and retail their own product. The state also slow-walked the implementation of medical marijuana and delayed awarding licenses. It has also steadily increased the fee for licenses more than 20 times since voters first approved medical marijuana in 2016, so that a license now costs $1.3 million. There are currently only 25 licensed MMTCs in Florida, and only one of them is minority-owned.
"Basically, unless you have a huge amount of capital access, you are not getting into the Florida cannabis industry," Fox says. "Even the few carve-outs that the medical program had to help enfranchise marginalized communities and in particular black farmers have been either very, very slow to roll out, have rolled out poorly, or have been challenged through litigation."
All of this, although explicitly demanded by the state of Florida, has created the unavoidable reality that Amendment 3 will lock in the small number of existing license-holders and lock out everyone else, unless and until the Legislature creates additional regulations or ramps up issuing new medical licenses.
Even the DeSantis administration has keyed in on this line of attack, although it's little more than concern-trolling.
"Amendment 3 would create a monopoly on recreational," DeSantis aide Christina Pushaw posted on X in August. "It also doesn't allow home growing. Why is it that other states that have passed recreational marijuana also allow individuals to home grow, but Florida's Amendment 3 specifically does NOT? It's not about 'freedom,' it's corporate greed." (The Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and governor's office remain free to pass and sign a bill legalizing home-grown marijuana anytime they wish.)
In fairness to the Amendment 3 drafters, they had to say something about who was going to be able to sell recreational marijuana, but they also had to avoid the scenario where a judge rejects the initiative on single-subject grounds. Grandfathering in existing medical dispensaries was a simple solution.
"They have about as good of a defense for a relatively closed licensing system that any initiative could have," Schweich says. "And I'll be somebody who's going to be advocating for more licenses, more competition, and lower barriers to entry."
Schweich also notes that there's no way the Amendment 3 campaign could afford to run competitively in a large state like Florida without industry support.
"Now the cannabis reform movement, the nonprofit side, is very small," Schweich says. "We could never fund a Florida campaign given the costs. So if there wasn't an incentive for the existing medical operators, would they have donated to this campaign? And would we really all be better off with another four years of prohibition in Florida?"
Pot Protectionism
Pot legalization advocates pushed for a ballot measure because the chance of the Florida Legislature passing anything close to Amendment 3 was about the same as the chance of a snowstorm in Miami. But if Amendment 3 passes, the state's Legislature might open up the pot industry to more competition. Fox thinks "that it's much more realistic that they might be able to push through something that will create a more fair licensure structure." But if that doesn't happen, Florida's legalization regime would be among the more closed and protectionist systems in the country.
Since Colorado became the first state to legalize in 2012, states have enacted a fairly wide spectrum of regulatory schemes. Colorado's was largely an unfettered market, but that sort of free-for-all bothered both social conservatives and many pro-legalization liberals. The District of Columbia's legalization efforts have been stuck in limbo because of congressional interference since 2015, resulting in an awkward gray market, but it also allows home cultivation of up to three marijuana plants per adult.
Other states have added "social equity" provisions to their legalization measures. Massachusetts and New York, for example, both have programs to prioritize minority applicants and reinvest in communities that were targeted by the war on drugs.
Equity provisions may be well-intentioned, but in practice they amount to another way for the government to pick winners and losers, with the usual results. The rollout of New York's legal marijuana market has been disastrously delayed and dogged by accusations of favoritism and retaliation. Entrepreneurs who tried to get in on the ground floor of the industry are on the verge of bankruptcy, while thousands of illegal storefronts are selling gray and black market weed—tests of which have revealed high levels of fungus and pesticides.
Likewise, overregulation and overtaxation in California has kneecapped what was supposed to be the biggest legal marijuana market in the country. Michigan, despite having roughly 20 million fewer people than California, recently overtook California as the largest state marijuana market in terms of grams of cannabis legally sold. California is still bringing in more dollars than Michigan—$5 billion versus $3 billion in 2023—but that is because California heavily taxes cannabis. Crain's Detroit Business reported that some California consumers can face up to a 38 percent tax on marijuana when all the state and local beak-wetting is added up, whereas Michigan only applies a 10 percent excise tax and 6 percent sales tax, with no local taxes allowed.
The result: Michigan's legal marijuana is actually competitive with black market prices, whereas high prices are driving a significant share of California's consumers to the black market.
It may be that, as with democracy in general, voters get the legalization schemes they deserve. But Floridians don't seem to mind too much. A July Fox News poll found that 66 percent of respondents supported Amendment 3, including 57 percent of Republicans.
'We Have To Pay $5 Million To Keep Our End of the Veto'
DeSantis has often used his power and his bully pulpit to get his way in Florida, but this time he is facing extremely well-funded opposition from out-of-state companies that he has little leverage over, on an issue that is more popular than him.
Perhaps sensing the disadvantage, he's been trying to find any way he can to undercut Amendment 3. DeSantis announced the creation earlier this year of the Florida Freedom Fund, a political committee to steer donations toward fighting Florida's abortion and marijuana ballot amendments in ways that he can't through his official office. So far, the Florida Freedom Fund is being dwarfed by its opposition. In its first five weeks of fundraising, it raised only $10,000. A Republican billionaire also committed $12 million to his own anti–Amendment 3 political action committee.
But DeSantis has his own industry allies. Earlier this year, he vetoed a Republican-led bill that would have harshly regulated Florida's hemp industry. He cited the number of jobs and small businesses that the state's burgeoning hemp industry supported. The Miami Herald, however, has reported that the governor was aiming to enlist the industry as a wedge against Amendment 3.
Ideologically, the veto made little sense, since there is no functional difference between a pot dispensary and a head shop selling intoxicating delta-9 THC derived from hemp—except that the former would be more tightly regulated than the latter if Amendment 3 passed. Intoxicating hemp-derived THC is only legal because Congress didn't know it was possible to extract psychoactive THC from hemp when it legalized the crop in 2018. But DeSantis wants some heavy-hitters in his corner in the fight against Amendment 3, and the hemp industry, which has close ties to the Florida Republican establishment, is hoping that it can avoid a Big Pot monopoly and maintain a favorable regulatory environment in the state.
In July, CBS Miami reported on a WhatsApp group of Florida hemp industry insiders. The purpose of the chat group, which had more than 1,000 members, was to drive money to the Republican Party of Florida, and it included a bank routing number for donations. "We have to pay $5 million to keep our end of the veto," one hemp executive wrote to the group.
DeSantis confidently predicted that voters will reject Amendment 3, but it's a prediction that carries no small amount of political risk.
If he's wrong on election night, he'll be on the wrong side of a 60-plus percent landslide, and the only smell on legalization opponents' minds will be the stink of failure.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Big Pot vs. Big Government."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"If a professional wrestler can't get a break for possessing pot in Florida, what hope is there for the rest of us?"
Exactly! How dare those damn Floridians treat everyone the same under the law!
The stone cold truth is that mankind is stuck between the rock and a hard place. If you are going to take a hitman, and you can’t weasel out of it, the law may treat you like a savage. Oh yeah.
I am amazed that pot will be legalized in my lifetime!
What will the state Board of Medicine say about doctors who partake?
Since THC stays in your system for a month, smoking on weekends means you will always test positive even if not actively intoxicated.
We could let their patients decide.
What? Man, no - this is *America*. We don't do that sort of thing here.
Does any employer drug test doctors? Other than maybe the military?
Some do. But as far as doctors go, I worked in healthcare for over 20 years and while I wasn't in a patient care position, I'm not aware that any physicians go through any 'regular' drug testing. It's possible some orgs may test doctors on initial hire, but there's no regimen or random/regular piss testing. I promise you that. If there was, I strongly suspect it would be very difficult to keep a lot of doctors, and don't get me started on nurses.
Reality, Peanuts.
Dip your head into it. Try to let it soak in.
America’s economy is bigger and better than ever
....
Over the past three decades America has left the rest of the rich world in the dust. In 1990 it accounted for about two-fifths of the gdp of the g7. Today it makes up half. Output per person is now about 30% higher than in western Europe and Canada, and 60% higher than in Japan—gaps that have roughly doubled since 1990. Mississippi may be America’s poorest state, but its hard-working residents earn, on average, more than Brits, Canadians or Germans. Lately, China too has gone backwards. Having closed in rapidly on America in the years before the pandemic, its nominal gdp has slipped from about three-quarters of America’s in 2021 to two-thirds today.
...
This combination of factors has fuelled a powerful virtuous cycle. America’s dynamic private sector draws in immigrants, ideas and investment, begetting more dynamism. It is home not just to the world’s biggest rocket-launch industry, but also its internet giants and best artificial-intelligence startups. Its seven big tech firms are together worth more than the stockmarkets of Britain, Canada, Germany and Japan combined; Amazon alone spends more on research and development than all of British business. Because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, meanwhile, investors have a keen appetite for American debt. They flock to Treasuries in times of crisis, letting the government dole out vast stimulus packages.
...
So far, America’s worsening politics have had little visible effect on the economy... Yet the economy is not immune from politics. And as the country grows more divided, Ms Harris and Mr Trump are promising ever more damaging policies—Mr Trump especially.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/17/americas-economy-is-bigger-and-better-than-ever
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/17/americas-economy-is-bigger-and-better-than-ever
Survey: Nearly 2 in 5 cardholders have maxed out a credit card or come close since the Fed started raising interest rates
Of those who have maxed out their credit card or come close, 88% say it negatively impacted their personal finances in some way. This includes 41% who said their credit score declined and 31% who say they could not afford a necessary expense.
https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/news/credit-utilization-survey/?tpt=b
And over the summer, credit card usage in the U.S. reached a new milestone—with balances totaling over $1 trillion.
https://www.gao.gov/blog/american-credit-card-debt-hits-new-record-whats-changed-post-pandemic
https://www.autoblog.com/2022/07/11/car-repossessions-on-the-rise/
But HoMe EqUiTy based on inporting and paying for millions of immigrants.
But HoMe EqUiTy based on inporting and paying for millions of immigrants.
Oh, here comes Jesse. Time to scapegoat immigrants for everything. Evidently they are now responsible for citizens maxing out credit cards and having their cars repossessed.
What an amazingly intelligent counter. We should all just accept liberal narratives despite nobody agreeing.
You're as ignorant as shrike and sarc.
Why don't you use your general appeal to emotion with regards to citizens jeff?
Could you explain to us how immigrants are responsible for citizens maxing out their credit cards? How exactly does that work? Do immigrants force citizens to make endless purchases on Amazon?
Because they lost their jobs?
Job losses, you stupid fuck.
The illegals can afford to work for less because they have free housing, food stamps, free healthcare, and a monthly allowance bigger than a lot of low income people's salaries.
The employers who hire them don't have to worry about regulations, healthcare, collecting income tax, pensions or anything else.
But you know all this but don't give a shit because you're evil. You Democrats are like the kind of person who makes a big deal about publicly helping other families in need, and contributing to local charities, while they starve and beat their own children.
Oh, so we're back to "illegals" again? I thought we were talking about all immigrants. Legal immigrants have to follow the labor rules just like everyone else.
The illegals can afford to work for less because they have free housing, food stamps, free healthcare, and a monthly allowance bigger than a lot of low income people’s salaries.
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for such things. Please provide a citation (with a link) for this claim.
In the past he has said asylum seekers waiting for a court date are illegal immigrants, so that might be what he means.
They are on parole, not here legally. If you two want to be pedantic, learn the difference. The parole can be lifted at any time such as Biden is already beginning to do in response to polling.
They are not legal residents, true.
But until their case is heard they cannot be deported, which means they're not illegal either.
So it's a lie to equate asylum seekers with illegal immigrants. The former has permission to be in the country while the latter does not.
They are on parole, not here legally.
They are legally permitted to be here while on parole.
Are they legally permitted to skip their hearing?
You seem to not understand my response as usual sarc.
Again, if you want to be pedantic, understand the statuses.
"Oh, so we’re back to “illegals” again? I thought we were talking about all immigrants. Legal immigrants have to follow the labor rules just like everyone else."
You thought wrong, you fifty-centing, propaganda-spewing, DNC politruk.
"In the past he has said asylum seekers waiting for a court date are illegal immigrants, so that might be what he means."
Wow, you remembered something, Sarkles. And it was early Saturday afternoon too. Did you run out of mouthwash and hand sanitizer?
Yes. I think it's disgusting that the Democrats aren't blocking the phony asylum seekers at the border. They're abusing the fuck out of the whole asylum concept.
These people aren't Uighurs, Yemenis or Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. They're Mexicans and Central Americans who couldn't be assed to legally apply.
It's fucking disgusting.
Yes. I think it’s disgusting that the Democrats aren’t blocking the phony asylum seekers at the border. They’re abusing the fuck out of the whole asylum concept.
I agree. I've said that dozens of times. Biden fucked up and Trump was right when it came to where those people wait for their court date.
Regardless, asylum seekers neither legal or illegal. They're in legal limbo until they get their case decided or skip the hearing. I think it's shitty for them and for us and it would have been much better if Biden had left Trump's rules alone.
Jeff has been told this dozens of times. With links even. But he is just an obese lying sea lion.
But you know all this but don’t give a shit because you’re evil.
So, Jesse calls me a Marxist, you call me 'evil' and 'Nazi', and all sorts of other names. This is so emblematic of your team's whole electoral strategy this go around. Nothing positive, just name calling, scapegoating and fear.
Ultimately, this is why your team trashes libertarians and don't want them on the ballot - because the 'fear' strategy only works to generate votes for your team if the choice is binary, if the message of 'be afraid of the Democrats' turns into 'I must vote for Republicans to stop them'. But what if the message of 'be afraid of the Democrats' didn't necessarily mean voting for Republicans? What if it meant voting for one of many, many, many other parties that are not Democrats? That is what YOUR team is most afraid of. If you can't use the fearmongering strategy to actually generate votes for your team, then it means you would have to do actual work to come up with affirmative reasons to vote for your team. And you all have had a hard time doing that lately.
So, Jesse calls me a Marxist, you call me ‘evil’ and ‘Nazi’, and all sorts of other names.
Probably because you are an evil Nazi, who advocates demonic things.
As for Jesse calling you “Marxist” I think he’s a little off the mark as your beliefs are more in line with the social and economic policies of the NSDAP, than say, the Soviet Union’s.
However, the rejiggered version of Nazi Race Theory you espouse was initially resurrected by Marxist academics, as is the Foucauldian discourse analysis that provides the justification for your other horrible stances.
A Nazi by way of Marxism. The link in a chain of totalitarian thought.
TLDR, you’re garbage.
“So, Jesse calls me a Marxist, you call me ‘evil’ and ‘Nazi’, and all sorts of other names. This is so emblematic of your team’s whole electoral strategy this go around. Nothing positive, just name calling, scapegoating and fear.”
A few takeaways here:
1. We call you an evil Marxist Nazi because those terms accurately encapsulate the sum total of your statements, sentiments, sophistry, outright lies, and the horrific philosophy you puke out here in a daily basis.
2. It’s not an election strategy. You just happen to be an awful subhuman shitweasel. And you’re a shitpostimg liar. Did you expect to receive positive feedback? You’re an open borders neo Marxist who has advocated that even known rapists and child molesters be allowed to enter the US at will. You also advocate for sexualizing children as a part of government primary education of small children.
3. Fear? No one is afraid of you, in fact, I suspect most people here would love a chance to deal with you face to face.
You see Pedo Jeffy, the way you’re treated here isn’t a strategy. We just despise you and are disgusted by most of what you say here. You’re evil, and are treated accordingly.
Best you just get the Hell out of here. Nothing will change for you here, ever.
And EVEN IF illegal immigrants were getting all this welfare, how would them getting welfare CAUSE citizens to max out their credit cards?
Aren't individuals responsible for their own choices?
Because they can’t get jobs because they can’t compete if their remuneration is at mandated levels, or, they are working under-the-table for illegal’s wages without the financial benefits from the government that being an illegal affords.
Individual responsibility is meaningless when the government has priced citizens out of the market with minimum wages while at the same time subsidizing the illegals who undercut them. It’s an attack from two fronts.
About 10 other people have told you this already. How much longer are you going to keep playing retarded?
Most businesses don’t hire people under the table. Doing things "off the books" can be legally dangerous. Even if they do they don’t hire illegals exclusively. They hire people who work. Just so happens that desperate people work hard, and most unemployed Americans aren’t very desperate. They’re waiting for the perfect job. Meanwhile people who want the work do the work.
Like most things, democrats created a distortion here (introducing a massive numbers of illegals into the country). In addition to laying people money to stay home.
You don’t care either way. You’re just an open borders retard.
IM PULLING FOR NDP TONIGHT!!!
You fuckers in Prince George need to ACCEPT you are subservient to us.
Our life has more value than yours. You need to shut the fuck up and ACCEPT we are your betters.
Quit conflating immigrants and illegals, you morbidly obese pedophilic, neo Marxist shitweasel.
paying for millions of immigrants
Huh, I note the lack of the "illegal" adjective to describe the immigrants. Are you conflating legal and illegal immigration again?
As you've rightly pointed out we still pay for refugees and those on TPS. Or are you going to deny these facts as well dumdum?
Oh, so you finally admit that asylum applicants and those with TPS status are in fact LEGALLY here. That's good to know.
Of course, by your standard, if a person changes one's mind, it doesn't mean that the person has had a sincere re-examination of beliefs, it means that the person is a lying inconsistent hypocritical asshole. So tell us, Jesse, when you spent all those years calling asylum applicants "illegals", and when you called the Haitians in Springfield "illegals", why were you deliberately lying about their legal status?
It’s a temporary status.
"admit that asylum applicants and those with TPS status are in fact LEGALLY here."
Haha, you think that this kind of cheap sophistry is so clever, when it wouldn't trick a five year old.
Wait, so you think they are not legally here?
Are you calling Jesse a liar?
No. If true I disagree with Jesse. Sorry if that fucks up your rhetoric.
The odd part is I've never de ied they wee illegally here. Jeff is just mad his gotcha above did 't work.
I also dislike legal immigrants on other Visas collecting government benefits, at higher rates than citizens. In fact I hate all government benefits, but ones for immigrants is more pernicious.
Im surprised Jeff is going down this path as this is where he showed how shit at math he is trying to denormalize data to prove a population of 360M uses more in total than a population of around 35M. Trying to dismiss the higher rate usage.
Jeff is a Marxist though. They will lie of they need to.
The odd part is I’ve never de ied they wee illegally here.
I think you and ML need to talk it out.
Im surprised Jeff is going down this path as this is where he showed how shit at math he is...
Oh look, a transparent attempt at trying to bait me. Fuck off.
I think you and ML need to talk it out.
This just wrecks you, huh?
Like a health food store?
You’re just scared. Your math is, in fact, shit.
Signing on to an app isn’t the same as following legal processes as set forth by federal law. Harris and Biden just ignore the law.
So stop lying. Although we all know that will never happen.
Yeah, the economy really isn't doing too badly overall.
GDP Growth:
2019: +2.3%
2023: +2.5%
Unemployment Rate:
2019: 3.6%
2023: 3.4%
S&P 500 index:
2019: 28% annual return
2023: 26% annual return
Judging just by those statistics, it looks about the same, and no one here would deny that 2019 was overall a pretty good year.
However:
Inflation:
2019: 1.81%
2023: 4.1%
That last one really is a killer.
It is amazing how many times you can be given links that actually show effects of policy and you retreat blindly to government statistics. How is that FBI crime rate doing jeff?
GDP includes government spending. It is not individualized. China was building ghost cities to fluff up GDP numbers. It didn’t benefit the populace.
But your only care about is government narratives.
Unemployment rate stops counting those who have given up working. Even sarc is sometimes honest and recognizes this. What is the participation rate jeff? Did you even know there are multiple Unemployment metrics? You simply blindly repeat the one that makes government and democrats look the best. Because you’re not an honest person.
Hey, you can admit inflation. Now what is the cumulative rate? What’s the effective average income against inflation. Are adjusted wages up or down?
You’re just as intentionally dishonest as shrike because your sole motivation is to protect socialism and democrats.
Why you don’t mention how the populace observes the economy. Just government.
You’re a dishonest Marxist who will push any government lie to deny harm to the people.
If I go back to 2019, will I find comments from you touting GDP and unemployment rate statistics as proof that Trump’s economic agenda is wonderful? I bet I would.
Whatever the flaws are in these statistics, they are the same flaws in 2023 that they had in 2019. So it is an apples-to-apples comparison.
Why you don’t mention how the populace observes the economy. Just government.
These statistics reflect, albeit in a flawed way, what the population *actually do* when they participate in the economy, rather than simply how they “feel” about the economy.
Why should I put the feelings of people ahead of facts and data? I mean, your team completely invented the "fuck your feelings" narrative back in 2016 or so. Now it's so weird that your team is totally adopting "facts don't matter, listen to HOW I FEEL" as your primary argumentation strategy.
You simply blindly repeat the one that makes government and democrats look the best. Because you’re not an honest person.
This is confession via projection.
If he likes the numbers then they're unimpeachable, and if he doesn't he attacks the person who is using them as he is attacking you right now.
Heads he wins, tails you lose.
I actually stated why using GDP is retarded. It is the same as yo why the Peronistas maintained high inflation but applauded gdp growth.
I also stated the problems directly with the unemployment rate Jeff chooses. Odd. You've even criticized that number. Weird how your principles change based on speaker.
You two will attack the source instead and never provide other metrics. I supplied other metrics.
Amazing projection from you two though lol.
How embarrassing for you.
Nothing you said refutes anything I said.
You didn’t say anything factual. You made an assertion that is false. Are you fucking retarded?
Do you wonder why you’ve been wrong on almost every subject for 10 years? While those you hate have been right?
Covid, vaccines, masking, unemployment (Wonder why we all knew the gov numbers were a lie and gov revised it down by 1M lol), FBI stats, etc.
We look at data, come to our own beliefs, we dont blindly trust government.
Because you’re projecting when you accuse us of blindly accepting numbers. It is you who does so. Then screams facts change when you’ve been the one who had been wrong.
How are you not embarrassed by your actions?
You can't embarrass me by telling lies about me.
*shrug*
Is this your new thing, just scream lie? Does that really relieve the embarrassment you should feel? Want me to post the sullum FBI article and your comments? Blind acceptance, rejection of crime victim survey results?
You and Jeff live in a bubble of ignorance and being wrong. Then act as the principled ones here. It is pathetic.
We look at data, come to our own beliefs,
You read right-wing twitter and the Federalist and Just The News (which is run by a literal Trump spokesman) and think you are “well informed” because they tell you that you are. You don’t think for yourself. You are fed garbage and you happily swallow it because they pat you on the head when you do.
I mean, it's right there in the name - "Just The News". There's no bias at all! Right?
I mean, it’s right there in the name – “Just The News”. There’s no bias at all! Right?
I read an article to that site that he had linked to. Barely a page and a half and it used the word "lawfare" three times. No bias my ass.
As I said, John Solomon is a literal spokesman for Trump.
https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/trump-pra-representatives-designation-letter.06.19.2022-redacted.pdf
He is also the person who runs “Just the News”.
https://justthenews.com/about-us
And Jeff pushes an ad hominem as I accessed him and sarc of lol. 2 in fact. Never can actually counter the evidence used. And sarc follows along like a retarded puppy.
So we have sarcjeff above accusing others of rejecting sources, and here both rush to ad hominem, not countering any actual information, but source or word use.
Lol.
Fucking projecting retards.
Bookmarked =)
The irony being Jeff uses far left sources and dark Brandon articles. Sarc refuses to site. Neither can actually argue against information, they rush to simply dismiss due to their cognitive bias.
Bookmarked =)
Good for you.
Recognizing that a source is biased isn't the same as rejecting what the source says.
You're deliberately missing the point.
Regardless of whatever flaws may or may not be present in these statistics, comparing the same statistic between 2019 and 2023 is an apples-to-apples comparison. You say GDP is a flawed metric of economic activity? I agree! But it was just as flawed in 2019 as it was in 2023. Tell us, was the Trump economy in 2019 horrible and terrible? Were you telling us in 2019 that we should ignore the statistics and instead look at "how people feel" about the economy? No and no. Your post-hoc complaints about the fact are offered in good faith because you refuse to acknowledge that the BIDEN ECONOMY is actually not that bad, *with the very large exception of inflation*.
Weird how your principles change based on speaker.
That's you. That's literally you.
No Fatfuck, that’s YOU. But you have to lie to advance your bullshit narratives.
Pedo Jeffy exists to puke up democrat talking points for the express purpose of advancing democrat narratives.
First, those numbers are juiced. Harris’ administration lies and has to regularly revise numbers downwards (except crime stats, right bitch?). Then you have to factor in the massive amount of government grants and subsidies to prop up the economy that weren’t necessary during the Trump administration.
SOS to
With your lies and distortions. We know everything you write is bullshit. Just like you.
Yup, things are looking great for those in the top 25%, which--news flash--now includes more progressive democrats than ever. And I am not surprised they fear Trump's "economics".
Hey. More government workers. More people with two jobs. Politically connected corporations doing amazing. I mean they deserve things like loan forgiveness. The plebes are plebes for a reason - jeffshrike
The US govt debt has increased by $500B in about three weeks.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny
When Joe Biden first took office in 1973, the entire US govt debt was only $458B.
Hey, "democracy" costs money. Especially (D)emocracy.
Saw your back and forth with sarc in the Texas thread this morning. He has such fucking issues. Projecting his own defense of Officer Byrd to you after he realized he was a hypocrite.
Was out running errands, would check back in, and saw him keep digging the hole deeper. Maybe he thought he was playing Hearts aiming to shoot the moon. That jump to “racist” was epic. Maybe it brought him joy.
Why I say he is a full blown Democrat at this point. Even above he is rushing for Jeff head pats despite him previously understanding out the unemployment metric Jeff chose doesn't count discouraged workers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You say I'm a Democrat because you know that it's not true and you get off on telling lies about people.
You just always trust government, call everyone racist, want more taxes, defend regulations, are for lawfare, celebrate murdering Babbit and locking ip J6, etc.
Other than that...
Like I said, you get off on telling lies about people.
Which one is a lie sarc?
Just because you have alcoholics amnesia doesn't mean your past statements don't exist.
No Sarc, Jesse has you dead to rights. And you love him for it. You’re the Joker to his Batman. You’re nothing without him.
You sick fucking degenerate democrat drunk.
The joker was at least interesting and had an actual consistent view.
Sarc is just a drunk retard.
But he does have an obsession with you. Based on an ersatz homosexual fascination. In fact, Sarc has no real existence without you. Other than being blackout drunk most of the time.
Wages haven't caught up with inflation, so the economy still feels like it sucks.
Uh oh. Jeff is going to put you in timeout.
'Amendments require a 60 percent supermajority vote to be ratified.'
All legislation should have the same requirement. Or maybe higher, like 2/3rds.
Yes, my choice too. Missed your comment first time around when I posted mine. Require all legislation pass by 2/3.
Except for repeals.
How about mandatory sunset dates for most laws?
Acceptable.
IIRC Jefferson said all legislation should sunset after 20 years to prevent future generations from being ruled by dead people, or something to that effect.
Correct. I would allow any chamber, by itself, to repeal laws by a simple majority, and not subject to veto. And all laws and regulations should expire in a year and a half, which allows time for a full set of seasonal data and analysis.
Heinlein, in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, argued for a separate repeal chamber or legislature, I think. I'd let any chamber do it. The point is that repeal should be easier than enacting.
I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?
The problem with a separate repeal chamber is you'd have one set of politicians running on what they want to do, another running on what they want to undo. Collusion is impossible to avoid, and but it won't be useful collusion. In order to implement any new program, they'd have to convince their anti-colleagues to repeal something first. And how would you synchronize them? "This law takes effect when that law is repealed"?
Allow any chamber to repeal.
His idea of 2/3 to pass and 1/3 to repeal has no hysteresis. 1/2 to repeal solves that. It's not that I want to make repeal harder, but if it's ineffective, then they will find ways around it. And sunsetting all laws and regulations puts backbone in the institution that politicians would never have.
Sunsetting also has to forbid omnibus renewal laws, otherwise they have one renewal vote a year and renew everything. I get around that by voiding any defective law in its entirety. No severability. The legislature passed a law as a unit, after (presumably) discussion and compromise. It is a violation of separation of the branches for any court to modify legislation once enacted. Thus any omnibus renewal combines all that legislation into a single piece, unseverable, and all it takes is finding a single defect to void it all.
"Defective" means not understandable. Pick 12 random adults, put them in separate rooms with a pad of paper, a pen, and the legislation at issue. Maybe an ordinary dictionary, but no technical manuals, no legal dictionaries. They each write down what they think the legislation does. If you can't get 10 of them to agree, then the legislation is defective for not being understandable.
And if an argument arises as to whether 9's and 10's summaries actually agree ... first, that's a hint your legislation is right on the edge of comprehensibility. Second, bring in 12 more jurors whose sole task is to decide if those two agree.
The problem with a separate repeal chamber is you’d have one set of politicians running on what they want to do, another running on what they want to undo.
Seems like a feature, not a bug. I'd actually have people to vote for, based upon what they would undo. Probably leave the rest of the ballot blank.
In order to implement any new program, they’d have to convince their anti-colleagues to repeal something first.
Why? It's not like there would be a fixed number of laws.
And how would you synchronize them? “This law takes effect when that law is repealed”?
Again, why?
Allow any chamber to repeal.
They can do that now. Problem is the lack of incentive. People running for office based upon what they would undo would have such an incentive, especially if it's the only power they've got.
His idea of 2/3 to pass and 1/3 to repeal has no hysteresis.
They're not the same people.
Sunsetting also has to forbid omnibus renewal laws, otherwise they have one renewal vote a year and renew everything.
Agreed.
If you can’t get 10 of them to agree, then the legislation is defective for not being understandable.
While I agree, that would mean putting lawyers out of business. And it's generally lawyers who make laws. So I think that's extremely unlikely.
I don't think there are any solutions. No matter the framework, power seekers will find a way around it.
What about raising the number of people in the House to, say, 4000? Shrink districts down to a small enough size such that people have real access to their representatives.
Oh, one more thing. NO DELEGATION OF POWER. Eliminate all executive rulemakers.
Let's make legislating really interesting, and limit the number of words in the federal code.
I agree with Jefferson and Sarc on 20 years… 1.5 yrs is too short a time horizon.
I would, however, compromise and go with both a mandatory 20 year sunset and eligible for majority repeal after 1.5 years so especially egregious laws with immediate negatives can be removed (line minimum wage laws).
The problem is determining what counts as a "repeal". Deleting any language, including words like "not" and "except"? What happens when you repeal a repealer?
How is that a problem? Pass a bill which says "Repeal law xyz-14", the law is gone, vanished, void, null, defunct. And the repeal bill itself is not a law, since it didn't pass the entire legislature and was not signed by the President.
What about repealers that existed before this arrangement? All the time, legislatures are enacting bills that at least in part strike pre-existing language.
'Massachusetts and New York, for example, both have programs to prioritize minority applicants and reinvest in communities that were targeted by the war on drugs.'
Does that allow menthol doobies?
'Michigan, despite having roughly 20 million fewer people than California, recently overtook California as the largest state marijuana market in terms of grams of cannabis legally sold.'
Detroit revival!
Not the only thing surging in Michigan.
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-voter-rolls-inflated-500k-state-says-its-no-issue-gop-disagrees
Michigan's voter rolls list 8.4 million registered voters, nearly 500,000 more than the eligible voting population
No widespread corruption.
Their biggest sportsball team cheated so why not a political entity. Go Blue!
In the 2016 Presidential election, when the 4th-place Green Party candidate bizarrely demanded a recount, it was soon found that 26% of the ballot boxes from Detroit could not be validated. Either the seals were missing, broken, or not properly signed, or the count of ballots written on the outside of the box did not match the number of ballots inside.
The recall was promptly stopped and nothing else happened. The same dishonest and/or incompetent officials that conducted the 2016 election conducted the 2020 election and will conduct the upcoming election.
When I was growing up in Ann Arbor in the 70s the city council passed what we called the 5 dollar pot law. City cops could only write a 5 dollar ticket for possession. We had a Hash Bash every year on the diag and the cops never showed up. I remember watching 2001 A Space Odyssey in the Michigan Theater and joints passed in every row. Smell didn't bother anybody as far as I could tell. Then came Nixon and the WOD and the state of Michigan shut down the local laws. So now we've come full circle and it only took half a century. I should be happy but the victory is bittersweet.
The author is math-challenged. CA has a population of 39 million, MI 10 million. MI is almost 30 million less - but it would be much clearer to say MI has one quarter the population of CA. Or that the average Michigander is buying over 4 times as much _legal_ pot as the average Californian.
Which doesn't necessarily mean we use any more, only that although recreational pot has been legal longer in CA, Californians are still getting most of their pot from illegal sources.
This whole article is confusing, but especially this tidbit:
"Even" a system rigged in their favor is "still" preferable to the status quo?
Bro, do you even adjective, still?
Looks like some major changes coming to the EU.
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/poland-takes-home-the-win-as-eu-changes-course-on-migration/
If they've caved on this, what else are they afraid of, and what else do the "far right" want now that they smell the fear?
Another “Donald T”? Is that some sort of obvious alias? I guess democracy really is in trouble.
Globalist Socialists are losing the war which is why you see the Jeffshrikes of the world flailing so badly and getting so desperate.
One can only hope the pendulum swings far enough to shut them up for a while before it swings back again.
A pity they haven’t decided to commit mass suicide yet.
Even more significant is that Tusk was the pro-EU candidate when his party ran.
Eurosceptism is truly a transpartisan issue.
Can you wake up from woke?
Only in a Sarco pod.
Sure, because woke was originally one of those reverse-meaning Orwellian words, like freedom and peace. And wakening from it is not.
Interesting. But what the author calls the Kremlin's "hybrid warfare" looks a lot like Greg Abbott busing illegals to NYC and it doesn't explain Germany, Spain and Sweden let alone the UK. And the "return hubs" remind me of "stay in Mexico". But yeah the proles have had it with the wokes and the rise of "far right populism" mirrors the US where something like 68% of the population favors mass deportation.
This is precisely why I would require all legislation to pass by 2/3 in every chamber. The filibuster was the only reason the US Senate called itself the world's greatest debating society.
It forces a much better consensus than a raw majority, and it makes it a lot harder for 180° degree policy swings every four years. I wish there was also some way to keep trivial stuff out of the legislature, but 2/3 won't do that; it doesn't increase trivial legislation (like naming freeways and post offices) in absolute numbers, but it does mean that trivial junk is more likely to pass.
Fewer marijuana stories, more Mexican anal intercourse offerings. The ratio is messed up.
Snuff out the butt then put it in the butt.
The Reason triumvirate: weed, open borders, and ass sex.
JD Vance is wrong about Mexican ass sex.
As long as ENB works for Reason there will be no shortage of articles about whores. She is the the literary equivalent of the Rosato brothers.
In other news, we now know that Jesse drives a silver Toyota Highlander.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4929899-arizona-democrats-office-closed-after-shooting/
In other news, "we" now know that jeffy speaks for all of us. Or at least he thinks he ought to.
Who is “we?”
Marxists.org.
The royal 'we' that reason wrote an article about recently...
"Our" Democracy.
"Our" children.
"Our" climate.
"Our" values.
We Minds, We Markets, Wee Wee-Wees
I assume he is talking about the trio. Which consists of Fatfuck, Sarc, and Shrike. In which they take turns getting spitroasted.
Pedo Jeffy, just stop. You’re not good at this. And you will end up getting slapped around like the fat bitch you are for making this pathetic, desperate attempt.
Now fuck off.
5 minute video on old age records, coming to the conclusion that most of it is pension fraud, ie, someone wanting to retire early who fibs at age 50, and finds fame at age 100 when the media thinks he's 115. It seems to hold true for several countries -- USA, Italy, UK, Japan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwXswyt-zg
But is there any widespread pension fraud?
Certainly not long-lasting.
. Amendments require a 60 percent supermajority vote to be ratified. It's the highest bar in the country among states with a ballot initiative process, and it has proven fatal to previous legalization campaigns. The first time marijuana legalization was on the Florida ballot, in 2014, it failed even though 57 percent voted for it.
Yeah, lower the bar to change your constitution. What could go wrong?
The real problem is that they are voting on amending the constitution, not on simply repealing the law. Legislatures are often unresponsive to their voters (prime example: the federal marijuana laws). When the only citizen's initiative process is a constitutional amendment, the constitution becomes cluttered with matters that should have been handled by statute.
> or for the "social equity" requirements that have popped up in other states.
And that's a good thing.
>a Republican dedicated to using the sheer force of government to make the state a bastion for culture-war conservatives.
Of course, Newsome, Whitmer, Walz, etc - they're just normal politicians right in the center, definitely not Democrats dedicated to using the sheer force of government to make their states a bastion for culture-war progressives.
No sireee. Definitely not.
All of them donated to Act Blue making them conservatives. Stop lying.
Donating to Act Blue makes them John Birchers.
> a campaign bankrolled by rent-seeking carpetbaggers who stand to get rich off the fact that even a system rigged in their favor is still preferable to the status quo.
Did . . . did you even *read* this sentence after you wrote it?
He's obviously studied the masterful linguistic techniques of Kamala Harris.
>That is not true.
Except, you know, *it is true*.
Now, I’m not saying its *a bad thing*, but it is what you’re going to get. And the people of Florida need to decide if that’s acceptable to them.
Like, we had a moderately permissive abortion regime in this country - and then progressives kept pushing for it to become evermore permissive. Even to the point of demanding taxpayers pay for it, framing it as 'health care', and for the most extreme crazies to demand all removal of limits even unto 'post-birth'.
So that some small towns have passed resolutions *now* doesn't mean they're required to honor them, let alone can't revoke them. And then there's the tons of other cities that may set up control regimes now but fold in the face of activist pressure in the future.
These are things the people of Florida need to consider - the examples of those states that have gone down this path before them - when voting here.
And you can't just *lie* about what's happening in those other states because you wish to pretend there's never a downside.
>The arguments against the measure mostly serve to demonstrate how weak the case against it is:
No, the argument was that that particular set of ballot issues *actually had none of the oversight* you claim would, of course, exist.
Hilarious.
Tester, who polls show trailing GOP opponent Tim Sheehy in a race Democrats see as key to holding the Senate majority, accepted a pair of $50 donations in the third quarter from Bozeman resident Barbara McGowan — despite both contributions being designated after her death on July 17.
Two receipts on that date and Sept. 20 mark McGowan’s employer and occupation, eerily, as: “Deceased As Of July 17.”
https://nypost.com/2024/10/18/us-news/montana-democrat-senator-in-must-win-race-accepts-donation-from-dead-voter/
Wait, good ol' Barb is dead? Make sure to send a mail-in ballot to her local party chair person.
Just print up a few hundred ballots with her name on them. Prefilled for a straight up and down democrat ticket.
>DeSantis confidently predicted that voters will reject Amendment 3, but it's a prediction that carries no small amount of political risk
What political risk though?
That DeSantis might be seen to be 'wrong'? I don't see that as affecting him at all, really. So, no, I don't see any political risk to Desantis from this - and I don't think he does either, hence why he's not trying to shy away from public opposition to it.
On the other is Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican dedicated to using the sheer force of government to make the state a bastion for culture-war conservatives.
What the fuck are you talking about? Medical marijuana is legal in Florida. That puts Florida and *gasp* Literally Worse Than Donald Trump fully in line with Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, South Dakota and Utah.
And the following hyper blue, bastions of far left ideology: Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and New Hampshire (porcfest, bruh!) have medicinal weed and decriminalization-- no legalization. North Carolina and Nebraska have ONLY decriminalization, no medicinal. All the Blue States have it “fully legal”, which can be re-read as “heavily regulated and taxed” and illegal for unlicensed growers etc. etc.
Oh Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia are Medicinal CBD oil only states– whatever the hell that means.
But sure, Literally Worse than Donald Trump is the lone stalwart, standing against the tides of Protestant Morality!
Favorite headline I saw today:
Crime data revised up: Fact checkers hardest hit.
Hardest hit? I think I can do better with an tire iron. I propose we attempt that. Then compare and contrast the results.
Nah, that's just one of them "facts changed" things.
So, let's ask ourselves where compromise can be found.
Florida doesn't seem to have a problem with smoking weed itself. What they have a problem with is pot smokers in public. The mentality seemingly being, "I don't want to tell you what to do, but I do want to remind you that nobody likes a degenerate stoned loser."
I mean, I think the solution is obvious.
Smoke your legal weed, but do not emerge from your home. Find jobs working remotely, homeschool your kids, order your weed and groceries and consumer products online, doordash your meals out, and zoom your social relationships. It's all very do-able in 2024 America.
I think that's a fair tradeoff that everyone would find acceptable. The degenerate stoners can get high to their hearts content (since that's literally the only thing in life they care about), and nobody ever has to see or hear from them outside of their own volition. Heck, it even addresses Ron's "smell" issue.
I see no downside to this at all.
What percentage of pot smokers do you see falling into this category?
All of them, I suppose.
Leaked documents show US intelligence on Israel’s plans to attack Iran, sources say
(CNN) — The US is investigating a leak of highly classified US intelligence about Israel’s plans for retaliation against Iran, according to three people familiar with the matter. One of the people familiar confirmed the documents’ authenticity.
The leak is “deeply concerning,” a US official told CNN.
The documents, dated October 15 and 16, began circulating online Friday after being posted on Telegram by an account called “Middle East Spectator.”
Qvinta Aetas posted a press release by Middle East Spectator.
Yea, like Mossad would ever let us know what they’re doing. They’re sending false intel, knowing exactly what American Democrats will do with it.
I’m guessing it’s something like this:
Israel: “Dear America, we’re going to drone strike Iran at midnight. We know you’re our friend and definitely will not tell them.”
Democrats: “Hey Iran! The Israeli’s are planning to drone strike you! Also, here’s a bunch of money for your terrorism! Please tell us how tolerant and anti-racist we are!”
Iran: “Thanks. Death the great satan America.”
Democrats: “You’re so welcome, friends! I’m sure that last part was just lost in translation and we’re definitely not a bunch of total retards.”
And then while Iran points all their eyes at the sky, IDF and Mossad badasses slit a million Iranian throats from the shadows. Damn they’re so cool.
They don’t even need to do that much. A supermajority of the Iranian people hate over government and want them gone. All the Israelis need to do we work with the Iranian resistance to support Operation Overthrow: Iranian Style, and provide necessary support. In return, the new government leaves Israel the fuck alone.
Our government should be doing the same thing. Instead, democrats send the mullahs hundreds of billions of dollars.
CALLING IT! NDP has won in BC! If anyone tries to argue that, it’s Mother’s Lament trying to interfere.
We know where you live in Prince George ML! WE ARE COMING FOR YOU!!!
Fuck off.