E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSVoters in Colorado and Washington on Tuesday approved measures allowing adults to use marijuana for any purpose, NBC News projected, marking an historic turning point in the slow-growing acceptance of marijuana usage.
In Massachusetts, voters also approved an initiative allowing people to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, NBC News projected. In Arkansas, a similar initiative failed, according to NBC News projections.
In all, voters in six states were being asked to decide on a wide array of laws around legalizing marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes.
In three of those states – Colorado, Oregon and Washington – voters were deciding whether to allow people over 21 to use marijuana for any purpose. In Oregon, NBC News projected that the initiative to legalize marijuana had failed.
In Montana, NBC News projected that voters had approved a plan to to revamp an existing medicinal marijuana law to make it more restrictive.
NBC's Lester Holt takes a look at states where voters approved recreational use of marijuana.
The laws legalizing marijuana for recreational or other purposes could face federal challenges, because marijuana possession is still a federal crime. But so far, the Justice Department has declined to discuss how it might react if the laws pass. Late Tuesday, a spokesman said in an e-mail that they were reviewing the Colorado initiative and had no immediate comment.
Proponents say it’s about time pot was made legal and that it would create new avenues of tax revenue. But opponents say legalization would lead to more drug abuse and concerns about things like driving while impaired.
Opponent Kevin Sabet, a former senior advisor to the Obama administration and an assistant professor at the University of Florida’s college of medicine, said he was expecting legal challenges at the state and federal level.
“This is just the beginning of the legalization conversation, so my advice to people who want to toke up legally or think that they can buy marijuana at a store tomorrow is that we’re a very long way from (that),” Sabet said.
Proponents of the legislation also said they expected some legal wrangling.
“It sets up a clear and obvious challenge with the federal government,” said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which has fought for years to legalize cannabis.
But proponents also were celebrating what they saw as a turning point in a long-running battle to make marijuana more available to the general public.
“We are reaching a real tipping point with cannabis law reform,” said Steve DeAngelo, a longtime advocate for legalizing marijuana and the director of the nation’s largest medical cannbabis dispensary, Harborside Health Center in Oakland, Calif.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper acknowledged legal challenges but said the state would work to resolve the conflict between federal and state laws.
"It's probably going to pass, but it's still illegal on a federal basis. If we can't make it legal here because of federal laws, we certainly want to decriminialize it,” he told NBC’s Brian Williams.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia already have laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana, according to the National Council of Legislatures.
The initiatives in Washington, Oregon and Colorado would take things one step further, explicitly allowing people to smoke pot for more than just medicinal purposes.
The idea of legalizing marijuana has gained acceptance in recent years. A Gallup poll released in October of 2011 found that 50 percent of Americans now favor legalizing pot. A decade ago, only around 34 percent were in favor. Liberals and adults under 29 are the most likely to approve of legalizing use of the drug.
Here’s a look at the states considering marijuana laws Tuesday.
Arkansas: Voters in Arkansas will consider whether to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
Colorado: Voters in Colorado are being asked to approve a bill that would allow people 21 and over to possess and use a small amount of marijuana for recreational purposes. A similar measure was defeated in 2006.
Massachusetts: Voters in Massachusetts are being asked to vote on whether it’s OK to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
Montana: In 2004, voters in Montana approved a law allowing marijuana for medical purposes. Then, in 2011, the legislature approved replacing it with a new, more restrictive one. Voters on Tuesday will decide whether to allow those restrictions to be upheld.
Oregon: Voters in Oregon are being asked to decide whether to legalize marijuana use for people who are 21 years or older, and to tax and regulate it in the same way as alcohol.
Washington: The Washington bill would allow people over age 21 to possess a small amount of pot for personal use.
More election coverage from NBCNews.com:
- Obama wins re-election; Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin prove pivotal
- Democrats gain in Senate with wins in four states
- Rape remarks sink two Republican Senate hopefuls
- In costliest-ever Senate race, Warren beats Brown for Mass. seat
- Republicans to maintain control of House, NBC News projects
- Colorado, Washington approve recreational marijuana use
- In 11 governor races, it's about jobs and taxes
- Majority of voters see American on wrong track
Leave a Comment:
And in other news...vacations to Washington and Oregon increase 1100% for the 2013 season while trips to Disneyland plummet - lol
Who'd want to go to worn out and boring Disneyland or Disneyworld anyway? Acid went out o' style decades ago lol
So the pot heads re-elected Obama. Just shows that all sense of reality is lost in a drug filled haze.
Yeah...it was the pot head vote that pushed Obama over the top.
Yeah....that's the ticket.
I did a write-in candidate. I voted for Obama in 2008, but he didn't follow through some of his promises.
I hate to have to say this mhrjhn, but you're acting like an uneducated jackass!
Has ANY politician followed through with ALL of their promises?, especially with the screwed up mess Obama was left to inherit? Do you really honestly think, he could have done everything in just one term?? If you do, I'd have to put you in the same "uneducated jackass" column as you put mhrjhn, and in an effort to help save the economy, you'd have to share a room. Good luck!
Damn! What are you,chuck-29526 all pissed off about? You throw accusations at me, with why YOU think I did not vote for Obama for 2012. Are you kidd'in me dude? What gives with the attitude? Geezz..
Sorry.. my number 4 key. My above #30.4 was meant to address chuck-295246.
All apologies to, if there is such a "chuck with given numbers" to the reference given on #30.4.
Good call, and congrats to the people of Colorado and Washington. Now, next step is to control it through ABC stores, or whatever you call places where liquor is sold to 21 and up, and tax the $#!t out of it, release people from prisons and jails for havin' a lil bit on 'em at the time of their arrest, and then you've raised tax revenue, increased space in jails/prisons, for people who actually DESERVE to be there. It's been proven in this country's sorta recent past....prohibition doesn't work, and in this situation, just makes the Mexican cartels richer and more violent. Does it take a brain surgeon to figure that out? No. It took the good sense of the people of Colorado and Washington is all. I wonder how many of the good ol' boys in Congress, who make way too much $$ as it is for what they do(about nothing!), get a lil kickback from the cartels anyway to keep up with this "war on drugs"? That would make an interesting program Geraldo if you're reading lol Serious though, I'd watch, but if anybody says "DUCK", don't be stupid and ask "what kind"? LOL
Stoned off our asses is the only way we're going to get through the next 4 years of this corrupt administration. God help us now, we're screwed.
No, Frank....YOU'RE screwed. Because you THINK you are.
The local pot dealers will have to move to a state where it's illegal in order to stay in business selling weed. It stands to reason any violence associated with these dealers would go with them. That in and of itself makes it worth while because the end user is going to get his stash one way or another. If it somehow slows the use of other drugs, the gangs may have to move to another state to support themselves. I'd much rather encounter a stoner than a gang banger walking down the street.
The only reason that there is violence around pot dealers is because they are competing for the buyer.
Once legalized the pot dealer will no longer be able to use strong arm tactics to force their buyers to purchase their pot.
The pot user can simply say that they are being forced to buy pot from a dealer who is using threatening violence. The police can then pick up the dealer on numerous charges of menacing while the pot smoker goes free and makes the non-violent pot dealer rich.
See the benefits?
Legalizing pot for any purpose WILL in fact get rid of the violence associated with the number one plant smoked in America.
I don't know where you guys live, but the closest thing to a threat I've ever heard from a pot dealer is,"This @!$%# will kick your ass."
That's okay because all the pot smokers are going to be moving to where it is legal so they're still out! (I do realize that not everyone will move but it's still a funny thought) Hopefully the movement will spread east!
I've been out of the "scene" for a while, but back in my day (late 80s, early 90s), the "dealers" I dealt with only dealt so they could get cheap (or maybe free) stash for themselves. They weren't in it to make money.
The guys who really made money were another level up from the "street" dealer (although, I never purchased from someone off the street), and usually involved in more than one type of drug. I rarely met such people and really had no desire to interact with them.
The biggest winners are the people who like to burn a little herb and also have a bit of a green thumb, because they can grow their own stash for next to free now. The difference between buying from a dealer and growing their own will save them hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars per year. Instead of giving their money to a dealer and having it flow south of the border in many cases, now they'll be able to spend that money in the legal economy. Think of it as a "sativa stimulus".
Colorado and Washington are states to be watched on how the outcome of legalizing Marijuana for any type of personal use goes.
If such use shows a decrease in the crime rate while bolstering the states revenue then more states might see the benefit of approving marijuana for legal personal use.
Would you rather have a highway full of drunks or a highway full pot smokers?
Trust me I know both types and would rather ride with a pot smoker before a drunk.
I'd rather have a highway full of neither...but, with that said, I don't believe recreational use should be regulated within people's own homes......it is only their business.....
As one who supports bills like this, I also support the idea that if a cop pulls you over and your car reeks of pot smoke, the driver needs a penalty similar to driving under the influence of alcohol.
If it's legal, that won't mean it's OK to do anywhere. Sure, set aside some areas at concerts and sporting events for people to enjoy a toke along with the event, just as there are areas in such places for people to smoke tobacco, but using it behind the wheel isn't the kind of behavior that's going to encourage other states to follow along with similar legislation.
Freedom means responsibility, and it's up to the smokers to show they can be responsible with this freedom. The vast majority will be, but, knowing smokers as I do, there will be some who press the envelope.
Anti-pot smokers are scared the Ingin Man will show up looking for a scalp.
You do know that marijuana was used in many American Indian Tribe religious beliefs don't you?
You do realize that the Europeans trying to squash the Indian belief tried to eradicate the use of marijuana because the Europeans belief revolved around drinking alcohol.
Read up on your history of substance use.
The only people more upset about this than the teabirthers are the Mexican drug cartels.
The dam of prohibition has cracks now. It wont be long before it bursts. The insanity in our nation is slowly but steadily being corrected now. Obama can invoke the inter-state commerce clause and come out as a champion of state's rights. Basically he can say that if marijuana doesn't cross any state lines it's none of the Fed's business.
" Basically he can say that if marijuana doesn't cross any state lines it's none of the Fed's business."
And it shouldn't be. Good point.
You'll never see it. The criminal justice system is a business and legalization would eliminate a valued customer. I'll be happily proved wrong if it happens, but I'm not holding my breath and neither should you. :)
Jason, there are definitely some people holding their breath over this. They'll probably really cough when they exhale, too.
Thank God. I work hard. I support my family. I have for years. I kept my head down, obeyed all laws except one. I was labeled, albeit anonymously, an outlaw. A criminal. The worse of the worse. For over two decades I have worked hard and kept out of trouble as well as I could, but I also smoke it up and have for over two decades. I am no longer an outlaw. My children are no longer in danger. My family will survive. Thank God. Thank you, voters, for helping thousands of others like me and our families, otherwise law-abiding taxpaying free citizens of our great nation, from being destroyed for the simple recreational use of cannabis. This is the end of prohibition from now on. From here in Washington state and Colorado, the movement will ripple outwards nationwide and we will all finally know the true measure of peace, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as our founding fathers intended when they created our great nation.
As a Washington native and current resident, I still can't believe that this finally passed. It's going to be an incredible source of income for the state: 25% tax on growers, 25% tax on distributors and 25% tax on buyers. Not only is it the income that's important, but the ridiculous costs for policing and jailing will (for the most part) disappear. In Washington a mere possession charge is a mandatory minimum of 1 day in jail. I can't claim to be an expert on federal law, but I don't believe that they can really do anything about it on a state level. From what I understand is that the feds can only get involved when interstate commerce is taking place. Even if it were contested, it would not be popular by any means. Who is the federal government to overturn popular vote?
Tomorrow is going to be a FINE morning here in Washington State!!!
I'm for legalizing pot - Got kicked off a Grand Jury for my opinions this past year. At age 63 I'm pretty much fed up with all the B.S. over the private use of the stuff. Are we free or aren't we? To me that is the central question. It would appear that two states have voted to allow people to get "high" if they want to. Now comes the question of whether the federal government will accept the people's choice. Being the eternal skeptic - I'll be surprised if the states laws (approved by the people) are upheld at the national level. Will this go to the Supreme Court? I wouldn't bet against it! We have a long road ahead before we're going to be able to roll a joint and enjoy it without having to look over our shoulders - just saying ....
The Federal Government is going to have a hard case trying to fight against legalization when it has awarded itself the US Patent 6,630,507 showing that marijuana is actually beneficial. Having it still listed as Schedule I shows that Congress and the institutions it created to regulate drugs have no basis in science or reality. They can continue to shovel fear on the populace, but courts cannot deny the evidence and continue this injustice.
As much as I hate weed, I still think it should be legal. Not only legal but sold and taxed by the federal government. The Feds don't see the largest cash cow in history standing right before their eyes.
Marijuana is not beneficial unless the smoker is dying anyway. Show me that evidence proving it is. Like cigarettes it causes cancer and other respiratory diseases.
hsart astutely said:
"Marijuana is not beneficial unless the smoker is dying anyway."
Uh, last time I checked we're ALL dying, some sooner, some later.
Let us enjoy the benifits before we die.
Marijuana does not need to be smoked. In addition, our own government's research shows that it can be used to prevent cancer. Cite one study where marijuana was the cause of lung cancer where tobacco was not also smoked. Your refusal to look at the evidence (namely: US Patent 6630507) regarding its benefits means you are willfully blind. The NIH has proven that using cannabis can help prevent brain damage in situations where there is low-oxygen to the brain (such as people with a history of seizures, or even premature babies with undeveloped lungs). Stop asking for evidence if you never intended to do the research or to acknowledge it exists. You are supporting the ideology of zealots who seek to impose further limits on liberty without any relation to reality or compassion.
Brotherly love does not involve threatening imprisonment to assert obedience when no one was in danger. That logic is absurd, especially in a nation that prides itself on liberty yet uses this drug as an excuse to harbor the largest prison population (and prison slave workers) in the world. You create criminals by law, knowing full well that law would be broken; otherwise, there would have been no need for it. The government is the one who created the problem.
One does not have to smoke pot in order to use it. Most people do smoke it but it's not the only method of ingestion.
Hey guys go to this site and vote for legalization in the rest of the world!! Go to www.vote4cannabis.com There you can only vote once, so the results of the poll will reflect the real public opinion on Cannabis Legalization and will be valid for the court of law!
thank you voters in Washington and Colorado for having the BALLS to stand up to a gross injustice.
Fine Legalize it, Slap the heaviest tax on it and also anyone who gets caught driving while under the influence of it also gets treated as a 3 count DUI. I abhor drug use. Still if people are this determined to take it. Tax it twice as heavy as cigarettes.
Dathias...you are part of the problem. I agree that nobody should drive drunk, OR stoned...but alcohol KILLS many many people. It destroys the liver. It hurts the mind. It causes social issues when abused. Family problems...ever see a stoned man beat his wife...no. Ever see a highly drunk man beat his wife? Oh yeah....
You need to stop being ignorant and educate yourself about the realities of alcohol vs. marijuana. Or maybe you are just stupid.
I think I'd go with the the "...you are just stupid".
stoners do not have any higher incidents of fatal car accidents than the non-using population. Just saying, it's just as dangerous to drive sober as it is to drive stoned...look at the facts...:
"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage."
REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. "Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes." Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.
"[In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group."
REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.
"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. ⦠Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."
REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.
"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
⦠Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk."
REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.
"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. ⦠Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.
With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."
REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.
CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES
“For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.
There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.”
REFERENCE: Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.
“Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] … were tested for alcohol and other drugs.
… Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients … alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.”
REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.
“Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.
… While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. … The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”
REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.
ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES
“Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.
… THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”
REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.
“This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. … This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”
REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O’Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.
TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)
DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES
“Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.
In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.”
REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.
Vote to Toke WINS!!!!! I have been pitching that slogan for a while and it has reached the masses!!! Time to might to the real mile HIGH state!!!
RFFN!!!
These states are going to make a bundle on dui's. Everyone that goes in for a blood test will flunk as it does not leave your system for a lot longer than 24hrs. What a great way to make money for the states tax the pot and nail them for dui and make them go to dui classes. They will have a lot of money to give all of the welfare rats in those states
won't happen. cops can only pull you over if you're obviously too impaired to drive, not just because they're suspicious if someone just smoked it up. saw it in an interview in a local paper here in Washington by an official. and the fact is, stoners aren't bad drivers, generally.
Awesome! 48 states to go! Congrats WA and Co!
Roll me up and smoke me when I die....
Allow anyone 21 and older to use marajuana.
Ok, and only those 21 and older drink.
What a joke.
I was in the navy for 6 years and use to love the looks on the faces of the under 21 sailors when we would return from a 6-8 month deployment. they we be so happy to get back to america, then i would remind them that even though they have been partying their ass off all over the world, now they were home. back in the good old usa --good job now no more beer for you
The only joke is that you think outlawing it some how prevent that. Do you really think drug dealers check ID's before selling or even care?
When I was in the Army, and under 21, it was my experience that many bartenders didn't look too closely at the age, when I showed them my military ID. Also, I never even had my ID checked when I went into a small, neighborhood bar, in uniform. You just have to skip the big clubs, with a bouncer at the door.