Residents in these Michigan cities said yes to pot. Their leaders said no.

Coloma, Michigan

Coloma currently bans recreational pot businesses even though most of its residents favor legal pot and it’s in an area disproportionately impacted by marijuana criminal enforcement. (Bridge photo by Alexandra Schmidt)

COLOMA—Last November, residents in dozens of Michigan communities punished harshly for marijuana crimes voted in favor of legalizing pot. The state even launched a program that makes it easier for these towns to open a pot business. 

Despite that, officials in several of these communities have said no to pot shops, at least for now. It’s a stance that’s bewildered some residents.  

“What was the point in voting?” asked Jasmine Miller, owner of the Downtown Digits nail salon in Coloma, a city of about 1,400 residents in the state’s southwest corner. “The city had made up their mind.”

As Michigan begins taking applications Friday for licensing of recreational marijuana businesses, Coloma is among 14 of 41 cities selected to participate in Michigan’s Marijuana Social Equity Program that currently bans pot businesses ‒ despite most of its residents approving a ballot measure legalizing adult-use pot.  

That’s what happened in Coloma. A local official told Bridge Magazine the city’s action was not necessarily permanent. She and officials in other towns said the bans were less about thwarting popular will than about waiting for the state to develop clear regulations to guide such businesses.   

“The city has opted out until the state gets its ducks in a row,” said Maureen Saltzman, Coloma’s deputy clerk and treasurer.

This gap between voter enthusiasm and officials’ hesitation isn’t unique to Coloma. 

Only 21 percent of local officials statewide supported legalizing recreational marijuana in 2018, compared to the 56 percent of residents who voted “yes” last November. The reluctance among local leaders held across age and party affiliation. 

Coloma, population approximately 1,500, is among 14 of 41 cities selected to participate in Michigan’s Marijuana Social Equity Program that currently bans pot businesses ‒ despite most of its residents approving a ballot measure legalizing adult-use pot. (Bridge photo by Alexandra Schmidt)

Since the recreational marijuana initiative passed, roughly 4 in 10 communities whose residents voted for the ballot measure opted out of allowing pot stores, according to an August analysis by

That dichotomy has special resonance in places that qualify for the social equity program, which is intended to give a boost to communities that bore the brunt of criminal enforcement of marijuana laws.   

“All we can do is make sure we are giving the resources to the communities that were disproportionately impacted,” said David Harns, spokesman for the state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. “If the local municipalities decide that they don't want to participate in this, that's their choice.” 

The social equity program offers licensing discounts to people who have lived in a qualifying city at least five years, along with other wraparound services to make it easier to start a legal marijuana business. To qualify, a city must have a poverty rate of 30 percent or higher and be in a county that had a higher than average marijuana conviction rate.

Beside Coloma, the cities whose residents voted for recreational marijuana last year but are not allowed to have pot businesses are: Albion, Coldwater, Ecorse, Hartford, Mount Morris, Roscommon, Kalamazoo, Mount Pleasant, Saginaw, South Haven, Sterling, Watervliet and West Branch.

In Coldwater, a city of nearly 11,000 residents southeast of Battle Creek, City Manager Keith Baker told Bridge the city “council has been on record” that it eventually intends to open Coldwater to pot. But like Coloma, Coldwater officials say they are reluctant to license businesses before the state “institutes its rules and they had a better idea of what” recreational marijuana will look like. 

Michigan’s current marijuana regulations are temporary. 

The state issued emergency rules in July, which will last six months, to give some clarity to local governments about what the future holds. These rules spell out different licenses that Michigan will offer and made it legal for medical and recreational marijuana to be sold in the same store, among other regulations.

This was enough for some communities. Niles, which also qualified for the state’s equity program, initially opted out of recreational marijuana to give the city time to craft local regulations, such as how many shops it will allow. But officials decided to opt back into recreational pot industry in October.  

The state’s emergency rules “will most likely be extended one more time, from January 3 to July 3 of 2020,” Harns told Bridge.  

He said the extension will give the state time to craft one set of administrative rules for both medical marijuana, which has been legal in Michigan since 2008, and recreational marijuana, “rather than having to mimic the language on both sides.” The aim is to release a single set of industry standards. 

When that time comes, Coldwater will “definitely” welcome state assistance to local residents to build a recreational marijuana market in town, Baker said. 

Social equity eligible cities Kalamazoo and Saginaw pushed back their licensing start dates with bans that expire in summer 2020, around the same time the state aims to have permanent regulations in place. Officials in West Branch and Albion also indicated they plan to opt in at some point, but their opt out ordinances do not have set expiration dates. 

In Coloma, Miller, the nail salon owner, said she doubts the city will opt in to the recreational pot market. “A lot of older people are against” marijuana legalization, she said. 

Harns, of the state licensing office, noted that a ban in social equity towns does not necessarily preclude residents there from opening a pot business elsewhere. 

“If a community opts out of the adult use licensing, the people who live in that community can still take advantage of the social equity program because they are allowed to open businesses in other communities,” Harns said. 

The hitch? To get the state discount and services the business must be located in another social equity community. That could prove tricky given the large distance between some communities that qualify for the program.

Harns said that, despite the initial delays, the program isn’t going anywhere. 

“The social equity program isn't just a short term thing, this is something that we're going to have around for a long time” to help “these businesses not only get up and running, but that they stay successful in the long term."

Some industry players are not so sanguine. 

Robin Schneider, executive director of the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association, said “it would be wise for [cities] to regulate and opt in” on their own terms, or industry members may start doing launching local initiatives to legalize pot sales in these communities. 

He said there are already “several” local referendums to legalize businesses “in the works,” saying local initiatives are not very expensive and predicting they will be “easy to win.

“So that would be plan B.”

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Thu, 10/31/2019 - 3:58pm

Local elected officials are a scared lot. They pretend to run to make things better, but it's really a popularity contest and the most popular get elected. Then they discover it's harder than it looks to be an effective elected official, so they go to ribbon cuttings, make emotional statements, vote their "gut", and pray that the public gets mad at someone else on their board. Marijuana? Forget it - too controversial, hard to understand, they have to explain to their adult children that yes, they too smoked the devil's lettuce....

If people REALLY knew how little their local elected officials worked or thought about the community they serve, they would be livid. They would also be at fault for electing their leaders in the first place.

Fri, 11/01/2019 - 11:55am

Your statement is pretty local officials do a great job and are responsive to the citizens. Most of these comments show a basic lack of understanding about the difference between marijuana being legal and the shops being allowed. The former is a function of criminal law; the latter is a function of zoning. The communities referenced in this article aren't trying to make possession/use illegal, they're just slow-walking allowing the businesses. This makes perfect sense, given the uncertainty of state law. If the communities say "no" now, they can easily change that to "yes" when the state law is clarified. But, if they don't say "no" now, the presumption is that any of the businesses can set up shop anywhere in the community that it's not specifically banned, and they will be grandfathered in when the state laws are finalized. Zoning ordinances regulate property use within a community; without them someone could put up a big box store, high rise, or gas station in the middle of a residential neighborhood (this is an extreme; existing ordinances in the state would prevent this, though they wouldn't necessarily prevent marijuana businesses). It's impossible to create a good zoning ordinance without knowing the guiding state law, so I would say the elected officials are being prudent in waiting.

Barry Visel
Fri, 11/01/2019 - 1:07pm

By State law, zoning cannot exclude any particular use. All uses must be allowed somewhere within the jurisdiction, either as a permitted use or special use. I would assume selling marijuana would be considered a retail sales use, and zoning would have to allow it as a permitted or special use within that zone(s). So, voting to exclude a particular use is probably unconstitutional.

middle of the mit
Sun, 11/03/2019 - 8:15pm

It's funny, because my town when medical cannabis first passed, we had 4 or 5 dispensaries on the main strip. People complained even though they were required to be at least 1000 ft from a school or church or federal building. Now we can't find a building for a single one even in the boonies. And most of the ones that I visited, have been in the boonies, 4 or so miles out of sight. And in the last year they all had to close. It didn't seem to hurt zoning regulations then. What problems can our elected officials not resolve now?

They seem to be able open up all kinds of "family functions" to alcohol. How many functions do you go to that serve alcohol? So you are willing to allow your governmental officials to serve alcohol to anyone that has money and then send them home no matter how many drinks they had, yet someone who wants to smoke a joint can not do it?

That sounds responsible.

And your argument about zoning? Read above and then know that is a local thing. They were zoning these businesses and were able to and have been able to all along.

Facetious argument. A waste of time because they were already doing it. Just like that sentence.

The real problem is The longer you say it , the louder you say it, the more often you say it, people will believe it.

So prove that cannabis users are a threat! I need statistics, I need arrests, I want you to read your local paper!

Brian Kelly
Thu, 10/31/2019 - 4:15pm

Marijuana consumers deserve and demand equal rights and protections under our laws that are currently afforded to the drinkers of far more dangerous and deadly, yet perfectly legal, widely accepted, endlessly advertised and even glorified as an All-American pastime, alcohol.

Plain and simple!

Legalize Nationwide!

It's time for us, the majority of The People to take back control of our national marijuana policy. By voting OUT of office any and all politicians who very publicly and vocally admit to having an anti-marijuana, prohibitionist agenda! Time to vote'em all OUT of office. Period. Plain and simple.

Politicians who continue to demonize Marijuana, Corrupt Law Enforcement Officials who prefer to ruin peoples lives over Marijuana possession rather than solve real crimes who fund their departments toys and salaries with monies acquired through Marijuana home raids, seizures and forfeitures, and so-called "Addiction Specialists" who make their income off of the judicial misfortunes of our citizens who choose marijuana, - Your actions go against The Will of The People and Your Days In Office Are Numbered! Find new careers before you don't have one.

The People have spoken! Get on-board with Marijuana Legalization Nationwide, or be left behind and find new careers. Your choice.

Barry Visel
Thu, 10/31/2019 - 7:06pm

What the heck is a social equity program related to pot?...good grief. I voted against prop 1 for two reasons...1. The tax rate on the product will be more than our 6% sales tax rate, and, 2. It would be regulated similar to alcohol, which is a joke. If it’s legal, it’s legal. If it’s not, it’s not. Why is that so hard to figure out? And if your community voted to support prop 1, why would any local council people go against their constituents (ya, I know the law said they could...dumb)? Boggles my mind. A microcosm of what’s wrong with our Country.

John Q. Public
Mon, 11/04/2019 - 11:16pm

Re: your last question. Remember who runs for local office in small towns, their ridiculous asertions of "public service" aside. A huge majority of them share two traits: they think they're intellectually and/or morally (usually both) superior to most others in town, and they enjoy the power of telling others what to do.

Fri, 11/01/2019 - 8:57am

Not related, but since it's pictured here: that McDonald's in Coloma (directly off I-94) is the busiest McDonald's location in the Great Lakes region, I am sure of it.

Fri, 11/01/2019 - 9:21am

Ms. Schmidt used statewide statistics to bolster a point about the city of Coloma. Wouldn't it have been better to cite the 57% to 43% Coloma vote? Just wondering about using a statewide statistic when local ballot returns are available.

Fri, 11/01/2019 - 8:03pm

It is amazing to me that no one is concerned about the effect wide-spread marijuana will have on our younger generation and society in general. In Michigan already, substance abuse, mainly marijuana, is related to more than half of the child abuse cases. In Colorado, the negative effects of marijuana hits low income and minority populations more than others. We worry about the low performance of our students vs others around the World. Does anyone believe that marijuana availability will have a positive effect on this issue? Does anyone really believe auto accidents, work place accidents and the productivity of our workers will be improved? I think the city officials that are taking a go slow approach are really the smart ones when it comes to this issue.

middle of the mit
Sun, 11/03/2019 - 7:21pm

Could you define abuse?

Because usually it is a parent using the fact that the other parent has a medical card, and now it will be just because one parent wants to grow or use cannabis. That is not abuse. Nor neglect.

[[We look to marijuana’s reputation since the 1980s, during Reagan-era War on Drugs and conjure images of the ‘Pot-Head’ in our minds. It is interesting that if parents are using other prescription-based pills or may be having alcohol related issues that the governmental troops aren’t rallied with agencies closing in on them to take away their children.]]

You would be hard pressed to find a person who only uses cannabis that beats their kids. I am not going to say it doesn't happen, but it is rare. Not so with alcohol, and we allow that.

As for the effect of cannabis on kids in school? How are they getting it? NOT from a legal dispensary. The more legal dispensaries in a town the less illegal ways of getting cannabis exist. How many illegal distilleries are in your town?

Has medical cannabis use effected the accident rate in the last 10 years? Has recreational cannabis use caused more accidents in the last year? What about productivity of workers?

Trust me. If those things did have an affect, We would all know about it and would be all over the news. The fact that it isn't?

We must keep up "perception". Did you know that Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong have really good careers in real life? Did you design and build not only an electric car, but the very same rocket that launched said car into space on a rocket that the fuselage lands itself on a floating platform in the ocean? And smoke cannabis on your free time?

Watch out for those texters!

Abuse Evidence
Mon, 11/04/2019 - 4:22am

Dealers are marketing flavors to little kids, like vaping and little kids are bringing food laced with marijuana to school, see for yourself:
God knows what family members will be bringing to Thanksgiving and "pot" luck meals! It's scary. You can usually taste it when alcohol is added to products. I don't know about marijuana products. I don't care to use those products and I don't want kids using them. I don't care what adults do. That's their business.

middle of the mit
Tue, 11/05/2019 - 7:36pm

Are you going to blame nicotine vapes for doing the same thing, or you using the same argument they are using. You can NOT go into a licensed medical cannabis store and purchase without a license to purchase. FACT.

What people do with their own time and their own money is not something either one of us can control. And if you think that making cannabis legal is what is what is making it worse you belong in the 1920's and you should start prohibition against alcohol first. I was able to get alcohol when I wasn't of age.

And like I've said, cannabis users are more responsible. Are you worrying about what your crazy uncle/aunt is pouring into your teenagers drink? Not like you are cannabis. Where are the accident reports compared to text reports? Where are they when it comes to out of control teens? Most of them are drinking just like you did, just like I did, just like every other teen.

How do you plan on getting this super sober society without squashing other peoples freedoms?

Even when you imbibe?

Thu, 11/07/2019 - 8:59am

Why do people need to sell cannabis in the form of sweet colorful gummy bears? We saw a huge drop in smoking when the camel ads were banned. I do worry about crazy adults supplying alcohol to minors and people that don't secure their meds. Your case would be much stronger if you cared too! It's just like people that don't secure their guns when they end up in the hands of children. I have nothing against adults enjoying whatever they want to enjoy, but every freedom comes with responsibilities.

middle of the mit
Sat, 11/09/2019 - 1:17am

I don't know why they do that. Seriously. But if the only place to purchase said gummy bears was a legal. authorized place to do business in that particular arena, kids wouldn't be able to get their hands on it. Unless they had a willing adult that did it for them.

Can you understand that?

And me, being worried about people keeping their guns under control? You do realize that the conservatives on this board would call me a gun grabber, yet I could outshoot them any day of the week, right? And I don't need 30 rounds in a clip to do it.

It was Paul Ryan and the rest of the conservatives that said they were willing to let everyone on the TERRORIST NO FLY LIST to CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE GUNS because they were worried that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS "could be put inadvertently" on the no fly list. And that would take away their "DUE PROCESS" Which tells me two things. One, You don't care if possible terrorists are able to purchase guns. And two, Your politicians don't know what DUE PROCESS means, or they are hoping you don't. And apparently you don't! Let refresh your memory.

[[ due process

An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.
A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a given reason.
The limits of laws and legal proceedings, so as to ensure a person fairness, justice and liberty.

More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ]]

See, if your name does inadvertently end up on the no fly list, you can take your case to a government official. That official should be able to rectify your problem. That IS DUE PROCESS.

Get it?

I am the one that want legal places for legal people to purchase legal products.

Why are you encouraging black markets by not wanting legal places to purchase legal products?
I told you I would use your talking points against you.

Sun, 11/10/2019 - 2:21pm

Why don’t you ask California about the legal dispensaries vs black market. The black markets are thriving due to the state taxes involved with legal marijuana. Last I heard Michigan is adding a 10% excise tax on top of the 6% sales tax. When you price people out they look other places. As for growing yourself those of us that work a lot, well let’s just say we don’t have a green thumb, and landlords can say you can’t grow if you rent. So the black market will always be around due to the taxes number 1 :(

Mon, 11/04/2019 - 6:09am

The problem is that people who enjoy marijuana, just like people who enjoy alcohol and the people who enjoy guns, like to share their experience. They feel like guilty losers when they are using alone. They try to make it social. They try to indoctrinate their children who share with other children. When a child eats marijuana-laced gummy bears, the effect is not immediate so they eat a lot and then overdose. Manufacturers are putting marijuana in products that aren't clearly labeled and people are adding marijuana products to food they prepare and share with others, not always telling anyone, just like date rape drugs popular in frat houses. We are living in a culture where lying is now the norm and truth is called "fake news". You reap what you sow and things get out of control. We need strong regulations and taxation
with stiff consequences for those who do not comply. With freedom comes responsibility.

middle of the mit
Tue, 11/05/2019 - 7:49pm

People who enjoy cannabis don't tend to push it on others. They are still a little leery of acknowledging it. And even when they do let others know, they don't push it on them like a date rape drug. Talk about fake news. Are you really pushing 1984?

Do you think Elon Musk thinks of himself as loser? How about Snoop dog? Sure, you might think the average "stoner" (to use your terminolgy) is a loser, my bet, there is something that "loser' is better at than you. And you probably use what that "stoner/loser" built or builds or repairs on a daily basis. In fact, you may even find some of these people running major companies. You may find out that some of your local elected officials are "users and losers".

Yes! WE ARE living in a time where facts don't matter. That is why I come here to ask where people like you get your information from.

Because it isn't your local paper.

middle of the mit
Fri, 11/01/2019 - 10:55pm

First, I would like to thank Bridge for their continuing coverage of this subject.

Having said that, the excuses of the city or township councils are lacking in, shall we say, honesty?

Most of these communities still won't allow medical dispensaries for the very same reasons, even though it has been law for 10 years. Granted, Republicans have been have playing games with the law for the last 8 years.

[[The state’s emergency rules “will most likely be extended one more time, from January 3 to July 3 of 2020,” Harns told Bridge.

He said the extension will give the state time to craft one set of administrative rules for both medical marijuana, which has been legal in Michigan since 2008, and recreational marijuana, “rather than having to mimic the language on both sides.” The aim is to release a single set of industry standards. ]]

But these towns are never going to allow it because they are like Duane. They have "perceptions", and even though those "perceptions" have been proven wrong time and time and time again, they love cognitive dissonance, the mental discomfort when you believe what you want regardless of the facts you perceive.

{{He said there are already “several” local referendums to legalize businesses “in the works,” saying local initiatives are not very expensive and predicting they will be “easy to win.

“So that would be plan B.”]]

It's time for plan B!

Because unlike medical users, recreational users don't have protection under law to access. They can't go to any dispensary anywhere in the state. How do you think they will acquire cannabis? They are literally forced to do something illegal to gain a legal product.

When are the leaders of our communities, police and Republicans in general going to accept the facts? Not only are cannabis users more responsible than drinkers, they are more responsible than sober drivers with phones.

Mrs A
Fri, 11/01/2019 - 11:29pm

Residents of restricted areas will just drive up the road to a more herb-friendly community and drop their dollars there, also bringing their business to that town's restaurants, clubs, movie theaters, and taverns. The little opt-out communities' leaders can sit rockin' on their porches, watching as residents drive out of town, and eventually one of them might notice the tax revenue passing by as well...

middle of the mit
Sun, 11/03/2019 - 7:43pm

Mrs A, It goes way beyond just the tax revenue. It is the taxes from the building the business would be paying. And the employees they would be employing. Every county receives a disbursement from the licensing agency. You get half depending on how many medical registrants you have in your county. If you have a dispensary for those patients, you get access to the other half. They are literally denying themselves that other half.

They don't care. And most of those counties are getting more because they have high concentrations of medical patients. They would literally make them drive a looooooong way to get the medicine they need. Did I say would? I meant they are. Just to keep something out, that is already there. And has been for decades.

Abuse Evidence
Mon, 11/04/2019 - 4:29am

Here are more recent examples of abuse and warnings in Michigan:
Just Google it. Kids going to elementary school today are learning to lockdown for active shooters and told not to share homemade snacks brought to school. Sad times we live in. When they grow up, the older generations call them "snowflakes". Those would be the same adults that ruined their childhood with bad political decisions.

middle of the mit
Tue, 11/05/2019 - 8:11pm

More examples of abuse. I will say that it is stupid for parents not to keep these products from their children, just like it would for anyother drug or gun. They need to pay a price. They are not following the law.

But to beat down on an industry? You DON'T DO IT FOR ALCOHOL. And you DON'T DO IF FOR GUNS. At least with the cannabis they end up allright. Could you say that if your kids got into your heart medication? Or drank your cabinet full of liquor? Or if they got one of your guns?

You bringing guns into the subject, Why do want prohibition against cannabis but you are willing to purchase a bullet proof back pack for your kid to wear to school so they are possibly safe because you are unwilling to restrain someones 2nd amendment right to kill with more than 30 rounds?

You have stats for cannabis problems in schools, let us compare them with the dead kids that we all know have been shot in schools!

If this is the hill you are willing to go to war on with this debate.........I am more than willing to oblige! Oh! I am NOT a snowflake!

middle of the mit
Wed, 11/06/2019 - 8:55pm

Since the real snowflake doesn't want to respond, I will tell you why the real "snowflake" is wrong and literally allowing what they fear while denying law abiding citizens what they should have.

This "snowflake" doesn't want to respond because this "snowflake" knows that I will use every conservative talking point about taking rights from law abiding citizens against them.

Except that cannabis users don't kill people with their choice or their negligence. NOT that I condone negligence. Because I don't. I am also not preparing myself to defend against an army of Zombies that I would need more than 30 rounds to defend myself with.

Let me clarify what I am asking conservatives to do. I want you to read the court section of your local newspaper. It can't be much different than mine up here. Sure, you may have more people and more cases, but the only difference should be that we up here have more meth and prescription drug problems and you have more cocaine problems.

Short of that? Isn't domestic violence mostly associated with alcohol? It is up here.

And, if you would like me alleviate those problems, I can do so. Allow medical and recreational dispensaries. If you don't, you are literally encouraging black markets. The only way that people can legally obtain cannabis is through growing it themselves. In which case, it isn't only in your town, it is in your backyard! And using common sense, that means that anyone over 21 years of age is able to grow cannabis legally. If there were dispensaries in town, people wouldn't feel a need to grow their own. Yet because you are still trying to not have that in your town (even though it has been there for decades) you are literally fueling the one thing that you despise while trying to keep it out. Allow legal sales and your worries will go away, you will gain tax revenue and employment.

Seems like such a hard thing to do, doesn't it?

Dodge the drunks and texters the next time you leave a community function! You won't be dodging "stoners".

Thu, 11/07/2019 - 9:21am

This isn't a conservative/progressive argument. If anything, you are taking the side of an irrational libertarian that can't seem to see the sense of any age-related regulations. The fact is that children are bringing these proscribed things to school and sharing them with other children, as young as elementary school. This is not about prohibition, but sensible regulations so that children do not use these substances that are proscribed based their age, be it alcohol, cannabis, or guns. Even more importantly, it's about those children not giving those proscribed items to other children be it knowingly or unsuspectingly. No one is saying adults that imbibe are losers per se, but whether you admit it or not, most marijuana smokers offer their joints to others, if only because they want to be "polite". It's not usually aggressive, but it's usually without the other person asking. It's just like the drunk that doesn't like to drink alone. Don't be so aggressive. No one is trying to take away your pot. Just keep it away from children. Is that so difficult?

middle of the mit
Sat, 11/09/2019 - 1:37am

I never said it was a conservative/liberal argument , someone (was it you) called me a snowflake. That made it so. What's wrong? Unwilling to accept responsibility?

You have found a few circumstances that it has affected and effected kids. And I do NOT condone that. That is why I am calling for more licensed and regulated dispensaries. What is your solution? The same 'ole same 'ole. And then you are going to continue to complain day after day after day after day after day about the same problem that you REFUSE to ACCEPT THE SOLUTION TO. Just allow it. There is literally less than 15% of the country that even imbibes cannabis. Maybe 25% with it being now legal in most States. It will drop down again. It will never reach the amount alcohol has. That is why you NEVER SEE THE PROBLEMS that you do with alcohol or TEXTING!

And NO! Most cannabis smokers don't offer their joints to others, and even if they did, isn't that free will? It isn't pushed! If you say no, it's not like I am billionaire and they are just going to let me grab them wherever their cooooo chie is!

But hey! That is literally where your vote went...isn't it?