There is a constant ping-pong conversation revolving around state rights in comparison to federal powers. What are the hot button issues?  Illegal immigration, with sanctuary cities. The Second Amendment, with jurisdictions all over the country passing resolutions and states passing laws on protecting the civil right.  Then there is good ole Mary Jane, perhaps the OG when it comes to states deciding to ignore federal law.

To many of us, this is a freedom related issue. Yes, there are strict prohibitionists out there, which is abundantly clear.  But, even some of the most ardent teetotalers when it comes to weed do adopt a “live and let live” mentality. For some reason the progressive agenda is okay with sanctuary cities and states ignoring drug law, but find Second Amendment sanctuaries to be abhorrent. Needless to say, the contradictions are rampant with those that take on an emotional response to everything, rather than stepping back to see the forest through the trees, or weeds in this case.

A new study has ranked three Massachusetts cities as being the best to get stoned.  From a News 7 Boston article:

In celebration of a number of states legalizing recreational marijuana and as 4/20 approaches, LawnStarter says it compared 94 cities in an effort to pinpoint the best place to have a “smoking good time.”

The yard care company compared the cities based on 12 indicators, including volume of Google searches for “marijuana” and “weed,” access to dispensaries and head shops, and availability of pot-friendly lodging and smoking lounges.

Boston checked in as the 8th best city to get stoned in, while Worcester was ranked 20th. Springfield cracked the top 80 cities, earning a ranking of 77.

Denver topped the ranking, followed by Los Angeles and San Francisco to round out the top three cities.

Depending on how one views this information, perhaps this is something for cause of celebration. Looking at the three cities from the Bay State, how do they rank in other ways? According to one source that extracted their data from the 2018 Uniform Crime Reporting [UCR] Program, all three cities are listed in the top 25 violent ones in Massachusetts. One of which was listed on America’s most dangerous cities list, Springfield, “where the chance of being a victim of a violent crime is one in 109.” Looking at other cities on LawnStarter’s best places to get stoned, we have Los Angeles and San Francisco, both of which I don’t think need to have their crime statistics reported here.

This does bring up some compelling questions though, does it not? Wouldn’t one think that the cities that are singing kumbaya in smoked filled rooms would be a little more chill? Firearm instructor Charlie Cook, from Massachusetts had this to say about the interesting dynamic:

With the legalization of marijuana, either everyone should be chilled out, or the drugs really do mess with your mind, because they want to cancel Mr. Potato Head, Dr. Seuss, and Pepé Le Pew.

The irony of Cook’s tongue in cheek comment should not be lost here, as Dr. Seuss was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, the current home of the Dr. Seuss Museum (as well as the Smith & Wesson Gallery of Firearms History).  Cancel culture and snarky comments about plastic potatos all set aside, what gives? If we’re to be lead to believe that marijuana is just another plant that has less adverse health effects than say drinking, as many people have said for years, then why are the best places in the country to get high also some of the most violent?

The cancel culture though cannot really be ignored (tolerated), as illustrated in a recent piece by Editor in Chief Cam Edwards: Anti-Gun Bigots Go Full NIMBY Over Planned Gun Shop.  The article covers a rather hoplophobic response to the proposed opening of a gun shop in Newton, Massachusetts.  From the piece:

One of the great things about this country is that we’re free to disagree with each other. Well, at least we were until disagreement started becoming cause for cancellation. You don’t have to like something to tolerate it, but tolerance is a one-way street for many on the Left, and they view intolerance of our right to keep and bear arms as a virtue, not a character flaw of their own.

The intolerance of anti-gunners is on full display in the small town of Newton, Massachusetts, where a proposed gun shop is drawing the opposition of thousands of residents who are incensed at the thought of legal, licensed firearm sales taking place in the community.

One would think the council and mayor would stand up for a legal business to be opened up, brining both revenue and aid people in exercising a constitutional right. No, that is not how things played out. Rather, along side some of the citizens of Newton, the leadership opted to adopt a rather Salem-esque witch hunt mentality, as was commonplace in Massachusetts years ago (hang those who are different):

The City Council and Mayor Ruthanne Fuller have started the process on changing zoning rules to limit where gun shops can operate in the city, and requiring their approval by the City Council.

The Mayor said in a press release that the City cannot stop potential gun shops from opening until a notice of a public hearing about the proposed zoning rules goes up. Zoning rules, she pointed out, are prospective — meaning that if a gun shop opens before the publication of that notice, the City can’t make it move.

The Mayor expects publication of the notice between April 26 and May 3.

Councilor Norton, Mayor Fuller, and other city officials have come out against the proposed shop. “I do not support a gun shop on Washington Street in Newtonville – or anywhere in Newton, period,” Norton said.

Edwards points out the ultimate irony of the situation:

What a pathetic display of spinelessness on the part of the mayor and city officials, who’ve made it clear that their problem isn’t with the gun shop’s proposed location, but its very existence. I can’t help but wonder if the mayor would target bookstores that might sell material that doesn’t align with her ideology, or try to ban certain books from the Newton library because they might give readers the impression that they live in a nation where the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Ironically, the proposed gun store is set to open not far from a marijuana dispensary, and while Councilor Norton is okay with cannabis sales, the thought of residents being able to buy a gun in the same town outrages her.

Perhaps the pitch fork wielding villagers of Newton aught to visit the dispensary and chill out a little. It is okay to have a marijuana dispensary, but not a gun shop? Keeping in mind that one of those two establishments is federally illegal at this time.

On a personal level, I do fall into the “live and let live” category. I do not like having the government telling me what I may and may not do. As long as whatever you’ve got going on over there does not infringe on someone elses’ rights, I really see no harm, no foul. Circling back, what are the gun laws like in Massachusetts and California? Maybe it’s “high” time these locations that have decided to ignore federal drug laws in the name of freedom do the same for an actual civil right, you know man, the thing, the Second Amendment.