Glad you asked. Where I live, they have given out license's for 6 stores(2 are open). However, I lived in Missoula, Mt. when they legalized medical pot, but they didn't put any limit on stores. Within a few years, there were more pot stores than convenience stores, and they were literally on every corner. Of, course, they decided to amend the law to change this. Even though the people have spoken, that doesn't stop local politicians from resisting something they don't agree with. Democracy is great until the majority votes against you. Anyway, I agree with you, but I believe the social stigma will last for many years, even after legalization becomes the norm.
In the sixties I did a science report on Marijuana, addressing the issues of its effects on the user and society. I dunno, but I think a good study on the cognitive effects on long-term/heavy usage oughtta make some people think twice. . . . . uhhhhmmmmmm. . . . . . well, potheads can't do that I know.
I put "Legalizing Pot" in the same fermentation jar with "Legalizing Faith Healing Shams".
voters? bet they will vote differently after seeing what it does to their communities. . . . .
Which leads me to my actual point. . . . .
Government in the hands of the people is subject to all the stupidity people are subject to, both individually and collectively, but government in the hands of a brahmin class of any sort is the antithesis of human rights and liberties. Particularly if that "brahmin" class is of the fascist brand, whether calling themselves "progressives", "socialists", or "scientists".
I don't think we need to indulge in the fantasies of believing "government" is qualified to regulate humans except to prevent one person or group from regulating another, and to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
you morons who want the government to codify laws enabling "legalization" of marijuana just don't get it. It's not the government's business to regulate, or legalize, what it should never have the power to pass laws about. If people don't like marijuana's effects on society, they should get a soapbox on the town square and explain their reasons to interested folks, and take whatever personal precautions they like in dealing with potheads on the highways.
That's why I think the future of this discussion should be tort law. Potshops should be held just as liable as tobacco sellers or purveyors of other harmful substances. Even chocolate has some effects. . . . creates delusions of love. . . and causes marriages which often prove seriously harmful. Flower shops are culpable too.
So in my world, people selling pot should be sued for selling pot to drivers as a collective mass action lawsuit. As soon as we get them out in the open, legally, we can hold them financially responsible.
The flip side of liberty is responsibility.
