u/JeffMo

buku

Be strong!!

I came looking for their comment and yours, both. Cheers.

You might be right that it won't happen, but it *sounds* like they are forming a commission to at least discuss it.

A legislative commission would be directed to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations. That provision was also included in the earlier legislation lawmakers passed but was suggested for deletion by the governor.

Yeah, I think you are spot-on. The 5.3% sales and use tax is mentioned/included for completeness, as cannabis wouldn't be exempt from it.

The Marijuana Moment article has a summary further down, that says this:

• There would be an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, and municipalities would be allowed to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. Starting on July 1, 2029, the state excise tax would increase to 8 percent, in line with the governor’s previously proposed amendments.

Yep, but not by 1 to 2 billion per month. Good job!

Why?

What a weird lie!

Yes, if Republicans keep trying to destroy America, there will be more "stunts" to try to stop them.

> I don't see how comparing weed to alcohol while driving is even relevant?

I'm not here to condone or defend any unsafe behavior, but I do want to point out that government agencies have often tried to determine a comparison between alcohol consumption and cannabis consumption, as they relate to driving. I recall studies of this type being funded by NHTSA, as far back as the 1990s, maybe before.

Our laws aren't based on zero tolerance (even for alcohol), so there are practical questions about how to tell whether someone is "too impaired." And as states and countries have tried to apply existing frameworks for DUI to new cannabis regulations, that raises questions about how thresholds or testing are justified, by correlation with relative driving impairment.

Thank you; I was confused about that part, because also:

> how do I even ask my partner for something like this

I wondered if they meant they've never been in a relationship BEFORE this one. But I appreciate you, and it looks like they've been removed for trolling anyway.

If you are in a monogamous relationship now (or assumed-monogamous, or even "never discussed it"), then the first thing you need to consider is discussing this with your partner. Even if you don't currently consider yourself exclusive, unilaterally deciding that you're going to date other people could be incompatible with your partner's boundaries.

Agreed. I call these two groups "MAGA predators" and "MAGA prey."

One of the biggest lessons I've learned in CNM and polyamory is that the list of "assumed" rules and guidelines for relationships is extremely short.

There's a huge potential for conflict when one partner assumes that something is "obviously" not allowed, while the other partner doesn't even think it's an issue.

This is why I'm a big fan of making explicit rules and agreements, instead of the lazy way of assuming you'll both agree.

Basic respect is expected and shouldn't have to be made explicit. But reasonable people can vary a lot when it comes to the details.

To answer your actual question directly: My partners expect a heads up if anything changes with respect to sexual health risks or if I am changing my schedule in a way that affects them, like not being home as expected. And both of those have been discussed explicitly.

Yeah, u/slayerB03 was really off-target in multiple ways. They seem to have forgotten the earlier accusations were about not arguing in good faith, being amoral cheaters, arguing to troll and upset, and being unserious.

The context in which I contributed was about the likelihood that Republicans might think the same of "the left," even if it's not true.

u/slayerB03 decided that was a good context in which to first agree with me and then bring out a laundry list of complaints.

Interestingly, complaining about Democrats and defending Trump on totally different bases has nothing to do with whether Republicans argue in good faith, or aren't amoral cheaters, or don't set out to be unserious trolls.

>Same could be said for you.

Meaning you agreed with the one claim I made. Then you went on to grouse about Democrats.

I'm not one. But thanks for confirming what I said!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Binding_of_Isaac_(video_game))

Yep, relocated to Centreville.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foamhenge

https://www.facebook.com/LynchburgVisualHistory/posts/pfbid0k9jzus86n7hyfLaHfnA8GFPnCVdx8GejCMJ9xxjxoyK9nHfDY8mVsUZZrXLz1RMYl

That's MAGA predator vs. MAGA prey. The predators are a slim minority, but they do control the easily-conned.

But just cause they think that doesn't mean it's true.

Bro, please.

Exactly. And MAGAts are really bad at understanding the difference between 'control' and 'influence a little bit, unless they do something really moronic.'