Like, these cars are "economy" sized and are rarely more than 4' tall anyway. If you're capable of driving, you can reach that roof to clear it off.

The law exists because of a tragedy where ice flew off the top of a vehicle and went through the windshield of the car behind and killed someone.

So it's related to windshields, but it's about the snow on the roof far more than the snow on the windshield.

This one makes me far more mad than usual because to leave this much crap on there you have to be INTENTIONALLY lazy.

I was gonna say, outside of reddit, most people don't consider legalizing weed to be the single biggest issue facing the state.

I love runnings, though. And that store isn't super busy normally, but I did often see (and do know) people who will drive several hours to get there, just to stock up for their homestead once a month or once every few months, and drop several hundred dollars, or even more. They fit in a VERY nice niche.

I think the Runnings in Claremont is actually in an old Lowe's

Also, Tractor supply and Runnings carry a lot of stuff you can't get on Amazon. The Home Depot is the only big box hardware store between Lebanon and... Probably almost to Keene, honestly, and then I have no idea how far east.

I was gonna say, last I heard, it was closed to the public inside, only stores with exterior access stayed open.

Yeah, and then add in Daylight savings and the regular seasonal shit...

Damn good place to live if you like to be left the fuck alone, that's for sure.

Yeah, that's fair. I don't use myself but I see no reason why people can't grow their own if they can just drive to ME, VT, or MA and get it.

Ahh, yeah, the lack of passport and the DWI makes it a bit tricky.

As far as bringing weed in from another country... I know a guy who's got a camp way the fuck up in Vermont and pre-COVID he'd bring it back over, because the New England states didn't have a lot of dispensaries that were close. Granted, that was going from somewhere where it's legal to somewhere where it's legal. I also don't know if he just didn't declare.

I do know that when I was 19, I went up to Quebec and brought back a bottle of wine into the states, and the border guards had no problem with it, so I'm assuming that weed is the same way.

Well, you live in an area that has it's own law enforcement show on discovery channel so...

Jokes aside, you could just go up to Canada.

> or laying his 80yo cards on the table and taking punitive action

I mean, not unique to Biden, but this is exactly what the feds would do. They'd punish first, and then let it go to SCOTUS, even though this sort of thing should be solidly within a states' rights issue. Whether the short term punishments would be worth it or not... That's the tougher question.

The feds don't like being forced to do anything.

So, in the text of almost every recreational legalization bill before, it gives control over the sale and distribution to the state in some form (including the one you mention).

This is the first bill where sale and distribution is explicitly privatized and the state is left out entirely.

Yeah, drive down Route 3 and the instant you hit the MA border there's like, a dozen billboards for weed stores. At this point they could at least legalize possession, use, and personal growing... It's not like it's hard for us to get legally.

> We could legalize possession and consumption without allowing a market for it like Maine used to have and that would probably be the closest we could get until the federal prohibition is lifted.

Yeah, if this effort fails, that's what I'd like to see next. Legalize home growing for personal use, legalize possession and consumption, because for fuck's sake we can drive an hour in just about any direction and find it for sale, legally.

Every effort before this has involved state-run distribution and sale, which is why it's failed - It's unknown what the federal government would do to, say, highway funding, if the state was selling a substance that's federally illegal.

I really like the way this legislation is drafted, and it's probably the best shot we've had to pass it in a while.

Hell, just make it legal to grow and use your own, but not sell it, kind of like Maine did at first.

The biggest thing that this has that previous efforts haven't is that it doesn't include state-run distribution.

Now, granted, the state WANTS the profits, like alcohol. But I like how this bill looks in terms of legalization. Treat it like beer and wine, rather than liquor.

Y'all got the Bridgewater cop tho.

> You're exactly right that as long as Trumpism remains a thing democrats don't have to run on policy. They just have to run on "not affiliated with or endorsed by Trump" to win elections in the majority of the country.

And the Democrats have shown that they don't WANT to run on policy by their actions.

> If you don't like the fact that these candidates appeal to the lowest common denominator then what are you doing supporting a party that allowed them to gain credit in the first place?

I'd like to ask the Democrats that question, along with, "If these candidates are such a danger to democracy, why did you elevate them?"

Reducing the election to "vote for us or democracy is in danger because we ensured that it would be if you didn't" really doesn't sit well with me. I mean, I know that 99.999% of Democrats have zero problem with that as long as their party maintains power, so it's the strategy I assume we'll see in almost every election going forward.

Nothing more democratic than making people vote for you out of fear.

"If the GOP primary base had informed voters"

If the Democrats hadn't spend millions of dollars in an effort to deliberately misinform voters, you mean?

I'm sick of this gaslighting. The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. And they knew that they could always shift the blame onto the "dumb republican voters". And they knew that their voters would eat it up and cheer it on, because LUL DUMB REPUBLICANS AMIRITE.

It's bullshit. It's legal, but it's bullshit. If you can't convince people to win on policy, then change your policy. Don't try to influence the elections so you can "win" purely by having a less shitty candidate.

> It’s our own fault for nominating a candidate that enjoys controversy

It's also exactly what the Democrats tried to ensure happened.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/12/democrats-spend-53m-to-boost-far-right-gop-candidates/

They got what they wanted alright. As long as Trumpism remains a thing, they don't need to convince anyone on policy. So they're going to do everything they can to make sure that Trumpism doesn't die out, because if people had to vote on policy and governance rather than fear, the Democrats would have gotten slaughtered this cycle.

Start with having your party stop propping them up during the primaries just so they have an easier path in the general elections.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/12/democrats-spend-53m-to-boost-far-right-gop-candidates/

A lot of these degenerates wouldn't have made it out of the primaries if it weren't for that Democrat money pushing them there. But they're too convenient for Democrats (for the very reason that this post highlights) so they're going to keep trying to make Trumpism happen.