It’s certainly harder to do on a state level. There is no inter-state border control. Doing single payer on a state level is likely to bring in the worst cases from at least neighboring states.

California might do it, but they have a few big advantages. First, their population is high enough that they can absorb a little cross state immigration without hitting the balance too hard. Second, the states near them tend to be more sparsely populated, unlike the east coast.

Basically you’re looking at only California and New York if you want to do it on a state level. And they’re both going to face huge lobbying against it.

If this is something you want to get done, it’s got to have a lot of public support. And if you’re able to gather that much public support, why not just do it federally? It works better that way anyway.

It might be. It’s hard to tell the difference anymore.

Looks more like guns than a missile, but what do I know.

You’re more likely to believe things that are true instead of making up your own facts. What’s more creative than an ice wall keeping the oceans in?

When they have enough oversight that the “thin blue line” is no longer a thing.

Everyone should know the Chris Dorner story.

So far they’ve gotten paid every time, just late.

So far…

A background check for working with kids makes sense. For walking dogs though? What do they think is gonna happen?

Nah, I’ll pass on that one.

Yeah, but if you’re gonna create it, you have to post to it like once a week or it’ll just sit there dead, forever.

And who wants to find something to post once a week? Can’t I just have Facebook feed it to me. Picture Zuck saying “here comes the plane!”

The background check is pretty easy. Costs less than $20 iirc.

“What the fuck, dude.”

https://lemmy.ca/post/34926056

The price of taco bell has very little to do with the cost of food.

Safer, sure. Less? Absolutely not. More people will use marijuana when it’s legal.

My dad works at Nintendo and is going to ban you from all games.

It can make sense if you flesh it out. The headline and two lines the musician said about it are shallow, but there’s a grain of truth in there.

I do believe that overuse of marijuana is going to be a negative. Kids under 24 using marijuana is going to be a negative. And both of those are going to increase with legalization.

Neither are as harmful as prohibition, but they’re still harmful.

Potheads don’t need to be on quite the same level as alcoholism, but it should be closer than it is. If you’re not acknowledging the harm of using the legal system to enforce this, his quote makes sense. He may not have stated it well.

I would still be very careful about when and where and how you say it. Quoting the state constitution at the right time should certainly give you more leeway than other states, but I wouldn’t risk saying it too early.

It’s best to just treat it as not allowed, at least until deliberation. Maybe even then.

You’ll need it if you’re planning to go to college or become a CEO.

Get on a jury, say exactly that, and see what happens.

You have to be very particular if you’re going to do that.

Jury nullification is not allowed. Voting not guilty because you have reasonable doubt is always allowed. You don’t have to explain why you have reasonable doubt.

The fact that those happen to be jury nullification is unfortunate for those who would like to disallow it.

If you say “nullification”, you can likely be removed from the jury. If you say you believe they did it, but you’re going to vote not guilty anyway, you might be removed. If you just insist you have reasonable doubt, and insist that decision is yours to make, you can’t be removed.

Huh, I hadn’t thought of that as a Crying Indian.