There are going to be numerous political goings on with our favorite plant and I thought there should be a thread dedicated to it.
Here's an interesting article to start things off:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/9-signs-that-pot-legalization-is-coming-soon-20120928#ixzz283avxhAP
Quote from: Undermind on October 01, 2012, 10:45:45 AM
There are going to be numerous political goings on with our favorite plant and I thought there should be a thread dedicated to it.
Here's an interesting article to start things off:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/9-signs-that-pot-legalization-is-coming-soon-20120928#ixzz283avxhAP
:clap: :smoke:
Awesome!
Yet another reason to continue trying to convince the wife that we need to move to Colorado.
Looks like Rolling Stone was rolling a few while writing this as Christine Gregoire is current governor of WA not OR, either way she has our back tho.
Sorry, whatapiper, but it's not polling well in Oregon (http://blog.norml.org/2012/09/18/many-oregonians-still-undecided-on-measure-80-to-legalize-marijuana/) (you're in Oregon, right?). As RS points out the prospects look much better in CO and WA. Of course, it's too bad that Obama will have no choice but to continue enforcing the federal law. But hey, that's not his fault, his hands are tied.
Also, LOL at the Rolling Stone for citing Barney Frank and Ron Paul's efforts. They must not have gotten the memo that the strongest legalization advocates (along with Dennis Kucinich) will all be out of Congress by 2013. And I'm not sure how Ray Kelly ordering his officers to, you know, actually follow the law is a sign that we're any closer to legalization. That said, I agree with RS that it is inevitable, I just think most of their reasons are pretty stupid.
It's looking pretty good for us up here in WA... :smoke:
Quote from: whatapiper on October 02, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
It's looking pretty good for us up here in WA... :smoke:
Maybe I need to start trying to get the wife to move there instead of CO, she lived in Oregon for a few years and she loves the pacific northwest.
Quote from: mistercharlie on October 03, 2012, 07:28:38 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 02, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
It's looking pretty good for us up here in WA... :smoke:
Maybe I need to start trying to get the wife to move there instead of CO, she lived in Oregon for a few years and she loves the pacific northwest.
Yeah, but unfortunately until the federal law is changed, these exercises in state self-governance are completely futile. Or so I've been told.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2012, 10:38:10 AM
Quote from: mistercharlie on October 03, 2012, 07:28:38 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 02, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
It's looking pretty good for us up here in WA... :smoke:
Maybe I need to start trying to get the wife to move there instead of CO, she lived in Oregon for a few years and she loves the pacific northwest.
Yeah, but unfortunately until the federal law is changed, these exercises in state self-governance are completely futile. Or so I've been told.
Judging from his track record, Uncle Sam hates state self-governance. Only a matter of time before the federals invade the weed states.
This is the first time I've volunteered to call anybody for a political reason. I must be a stoner. :)
http://www.talkitupcolorado.org/call
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK0fGbn2dT0
Connecticut decriminalized and medical use went into effect on 10/1.
Prescription time
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Connecticut decriminalized and medical use went into effect on 10/1.
Prescription time
Decriminalized is really all I could hope for. A $50 fine and no criminal record for amounts up to 4oz? That works for me. Seriously.
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Connecticut decriminalized and medical use went into effect on 10/1.
Prescription time
Decriminalized is really all I could hope for. A $50 fine and no criminal record for amounts up to 4oz? That works for me. Seriously.
Yeah, just a ticket so it doesn't appear on job apps even if caught. I suddenly have a bunch of professional friends who are no longer hiding the fact that smoke and everyone seems to now have it on hand. Sudden change
I live in Austin where the official policy on pot is "catch and release." They arrest and book you at the station but they never put you in a cell. You pay the fine or set a court date to enter mine the fine or whatever and then you walk out of there. Cross our northern border into Williamson county and everything changes. You could go to jail for six months for a joint.
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Connecticut decriminalized and medical use went into effect on 10/1.
Prescription time
Decriminalized is really all I could hope for. A $50 fine and no criminal record for amounts up to 4oz? That works for me. Seriously.
Yeah, just a ticket so it doesn't appear on job apps even if caught. I suddenly have a bunch of professional friends who are no longer hiding the fact that smoke and everyone seems to now have it on hand. Sudden change
Hedge funds, LOL
Of course, you guys realize you are still criminals in the eyes of the Feds and there's really nothing that can ever be done about that. Ever.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 04:49:59 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Connecticut decriminalized and medical use went into effect on 10/1.
Prescription time
Decriminalized is really all I could hope for. A $50 fine and no criminal record for amounts up to 4oz? That works for me. Seriously.
Yeah, just a ticket so it doesn't appear on job apps even if caught. I suddenly have a bunch of professional friends who are no longer hiding the fact that smoke and everyone seems to now have it on hand. Sudden change
Hedge funds, LOL
Of course, you guys realize you are still criminals in the eyes of the Feds and there's really nothing that can ever be done about that. Ever.
People that hide their weed habits from you because it's illegal aren't your "friends" in my book.
Quote from: Hicks on October 05, 2012, 05:16:28 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 05, 2012, 04:49:59 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Connecticut decriminalized and medical use went into effect on 10/1.
Prescription time
Decriminalized is really all I could hope for. A $50 fine and no criminal record for amounts up to 4oz? That works for me. Seriously.
Yeah, just a ticket so it doesn't appear on job apps even if caught. I suddenly have a bunch of professional friends who are no longer hiding the fact that smoke and everyone seems to now have it on hand. Sudden change
Hedge funds, LOL
Of course, you guys realize you are still criminals in the eyes of the Feds and there's really nothing that can ever be done about that. Ever.
People that hide their weed habits from you because it's illegal aren't your "friends" in my book.
Well he did say "professional" friends. That's like "people I get along with at work but who I'd rather never see in an actual social setting" anyway. Kinda like our relationship, Hicks. :wink:
Also, the GOP Senate candidate in WA supports the state's legalization efforts; the Democratic Senator opposes it. Uh oh. What do you do, whatapiper?!??!?!
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019335269_apwalegalizingmarijuana3rdldwritethru.html
Quote
GOP Senate hopeful latest to endorse legal pot
The campaign to legalize and tax marijuana for adults in Washington state is rolling as next month's vote approaches, with more than $1 million in new contributions reported since last week and a surprising endorsement Wednesday from Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Baumgartner.
SEATTLE —
The campaign to legalize and tax marijuana for adults in Washington state is rolling as next month's vote approaches, with more than $1 million in new contributions reported since last week and a surprising endorsement Wednesday from Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Baumgartner.
The money, most of it from retired Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis, means Initiative 502's backers have raised nearly $4.1 million over the course of the campaign, with $1.2 million left to spend. Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for New Approach Washington, says her group is planning a broader television campaign than the three-week advertising blitz it ran in Western Washington in August.
Meanwhile, Baumgartner's decision to endorse the initiative in an interview with The Associated Press gave the campaign one of its highest-profile Republican supporters yet. Baumgartner, a state senator from Spokane, is running a longshot bid to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, who came out against I-502 Wednesday afternoon.
Baumgartner said drug law reform isn't typically supported by his party, but he believes I-502 is a good step toward changing what he described as a wasteful policy of marijuana prohibition.
"It's taking a different approach to a very expensive drug war, and potentially a better approach," Baumgartner said. "They've checked all the boxes as far as what you would want to see happen in terms of provisions to keep it away from children and limiting access in the public space. I've just been impressed with the initiative and the people running it."
Asked for her position, Cantwell issued a written statement.
"While I remain a strong supporter of our state's medicinal marijuana laws, I don't believe it should be legalized for recreational purposes based on concerns expressed by law enforcement and the current drafting of the initiative," she said. "Whatever the result, I will honor the will of the voters' decision in November."
I-502 would legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana under state law for those over 21. The state would license growers, processors and retail stores, and impose 25 percent taxes at each stage. State analysts have suggested it could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The measure, which polls show leading, would also set a blood-test limit for driving under the influence and prohibit public use of the drug.
Marijuana would remain illegal under federal law, and the burning question remains whether the Justice Department would sue to try to block I-502 from taking effect if it passes, on the grounds that it conflicts with federal law. The DOJ could also simply seize any tax revenue as proceeds of illicit drug transactions.
Washington is one of three states, along with Oregon and Colorado, considering legalization measures this year.
I-502 has received high-profile endorsements from former Seattle FBI head Charles Mandigo, former U.S. Attorneys John McKay and Kate Pflaumer (FLAU'-mer), both candidates for sheriff in King County, and the nonprofit Children's Alliance, which argues that drug laws disproportionately hurt minority children.
The initiative's only formal opposition comes from a group representing medical marijuana patients who say the DUI limit is so strict it could prevent them from driving at all, but some other organizations, including the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, are also opposed.
Steve Freng, of the federally funded Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, said he worries about the effect on children, especially on the modeling behavior of parents who might start smoking weed openly in the home if it's legalized.
Baumgartner responded: "That's a concern, but we have to be realistic about what's going on in people's homes today. Usage stays constant regardless of drug policy."
Baumgartner served as a civilian State Department contractor in Afghanistan, where he advised an Afghan counternarcotics team in Helmand Province. He said one of his primary motives in supporting I-502 is to bring the U.S. marijuana trade out of the shadows and regulate it. If elected, he said, he'd support allowing states to draft their own drug laws "in a responsible manner."
He said he hoped voters who care about the issue would appreciate his taking a stand.
"I really don't know the direct political ramifications," Baumgartner said. "I always think if you get the policy right, the politics will follow."
My "professional" friend is my weed dealer.
That's just how I roll.
Sucks about Texas PG. In Maine it is decriminalized and has been for a long time now. Up to 2 Ounces. The quality is amazing these days up here too, with all of the medicinal growing and the associated knowledge.
My boss knows I smoke and has for years. No worries there for me anyway.
Oakland is suing the Feds to keep the countries largest dispensary open. Pretty cool imo and I hope they succeed.
Quote from: Undermind on October 10, 2012, 07:24:17 PM
Oakland is suing the Feds to keep the countries largest dispensary open. Pretty cool imo and I hope they succeed.
I don't. Federal law is the supreme law if the land and we can't have states just going out all willy nilly and making their own laws that contradict that. I mean, how would we know which laws to enforce?!
I'm just glad that the current administration knows they have to stand up to punks like Harborside and the junkies who call themselves "patients".
Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 10, 2012, 11:48:20 PM
Quote from: Undermind on October 10, 2012, 07:24:17 PM
Oakland is suing the Feds to keep the countries largest dispensary open. Pretty cool imo and I hope they succeed.
I don't. Federal law is the supreme law if the land and we can't have states just going out all willy nilly and making their own laws that contradict that. I mean, how would we know which laws to enforce?!
I'm just glad that the current administration knows they have to stand up to punks like Harborside and the junkies who call themselves "patients".
I lol'ed and face palmed. Or, did I face palm and lol? Not sure.
This could get interesting!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/16/maine-police-return-stolen-marijuana-plants-worth-nearly-13000/#.UH2OS5OgqGI.facebook
QuotePolice in Ellsworth, Maine did something very unusual on Monday: they returned stolen marijuana plants.
The plants were allegedly swiped from licensed medical marijuana caregiver Thomas Davis, according to reporter Mario Moretto at Bangor Daily News. Maine resident Aaron Pert, 32, was arrested for the theft last week.
After witnessing a Jeep roll through a stop sign, an officer reportedly claimed to smell marijuana in the vehicle, which was being driven by one of Pert's friends. A search revealed that Pert was carrying a loaded firearm and a small amount of marijuana, allegedly plucked from one of the stolen plants.
He posted bond that Thursday night and was released, but it wasn't long before the law was on Pert's tail yet again. Davis discovered the burglary at his grow house on Friday, October 12, and immediately called police.
It didn't take long to put the two incidents together. Acting on an alleged confession, police said they discovered 17 marijuana plants worth approximately $12,800 hidden in a nearby wooded area.
It is illegal under federal law to distribute marijuana to anyone for any reason, and Ellsworth police were fully aware of that fact, but remained unclear on whether state law would give them leeway to return the stolen property.
It's a touchy subject, too: there was a time when even so much as passing a joint could get a first time offender locked up for dealing drugs, and the potential for exposing state employees to federal prosecution has been a concern for governors in states that have legalized medical marijuana.
Despite the uncertainty between state and federal law, police said Monday that they'd returned the stolen marijuana to Davis, who told Bangor that he'd only be able to salvage about 15 percent of the grow.
Since the government prohibited doctors from recommending marijuana in 1943, just 17 states and Washington D.C. have legalized the drug for medical uses, although an additional seven states are voting on similar laws later this year. Polls show the vast majority of likely voters believe that the government should not prohibit doctors from recommending marijuana to people with certain medical conditions.
While the Obama administration says it does not consider medical marijuana patients to be a high priority for law enforcement officials, critics say the Democratic president has been tougher about medical marijuana crackdowns than any of his predecessors. Whether or not the feds will go after police in Ellsworth remains to be seen, but chances are they've got bigger, wealthier targets in mind.
——
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133577n
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 05, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 05, 2012, 03:47:44 PM
Connecticut decriminalized and medical use went into effect on 10/1.
Prescription time
Decriminalized is really all I could hope for. A $50 fine and no criminal record for amounts up to 4oz? That works for me. Seriously.
x2
USA Today thinks you stoners should STFU about your legalization efforts. That's right, all your favorite Reefer Madness scare tactics are here including: "Pot Is Soooooo Much Stronger These Days", "Pilots & Train Engineers Will Obviously Get Stoned Before Work", and what compilation of dooshbag cliches would be complete without "Think of the Children!!!"
Then again, who the fuck reads USA Today anymore anyway?
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1666755
Quote
Editorial: Don't legalize pot just for the high of it
by The Editorial Board, USA TODAY
Published: 10/29/2012 04:33pm
Legalize pot? The nation has flirted with the idea before: Jimmy Carter supported decriminalization in his 1976 campaign, but the idea died after his chief drug adviser was reported to have used cocaine at a Washington, D.C., party.
Almost four decades later, though, a pot renaissance is sweeping parts of the USA: Seventeen states and the nation's capital now allow the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's order, which in some places is ludicrously easy to get. Thirteen states have decriminalized pot, which generally means that the punishment for first-time possession of small amounts is a fine with no jail time.
National opinion is shifting, as well. Gallup reported this month that, for the first time, 50% of Americans think marijuana should be legal; in 1970, just 12% were for legalization. While fewer than one-third of voters 65 and older favor legal pot, the number rises to almost two-thirds among voters 18 to 29.
Now three Western states could be taking the next step.
On Nov. 6, Colorado, Oregon and Washington will vote on whether to make pot legal for anyone 21 or older. Approval could mark a historic change — and the emergence of a huge new industry to rival those for cigarettes and alcohol.
But the fact that legal pot has growing momentum doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it's inevitable:
Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Those who can grow or sell pot legally under state law can be, and have been, busted by the feds. Although the Obama administration ordered a hands-off policy in 2009 for medical marijuana operations in compliance with state laws, there's no sign that federal drug enforcers would wink at full-blown legalization.
The Obama administration remains strongly opposed. Supporters of state legalization want this confrontation on the grounds that it will change federal law. Maybe, but a more likely scenario is that states will end up in costly litigation while pot users are left in legal limbo.
Modern marijuana can be very powerful, potent enough to make it dangerous to drive or operate other machinery under the influence. Backers of legal pot wisely advocate tough penalties for driving while stoned, but do we really want to add another widely available drug to roads where alcohol already causes mayhem? And do we want to worry (more than we already do) that pilots or train engineers or others are high when they come to work? That would be more likely if pot were legal.
"Reefer madness" scare stories killed the credibility of anti-marijuana crusaders decades ago, but that doesn't mean marijuana is a benign drug, especially for children. A study by Duke University and King's College London found that kids who start smoking as teenagers and become "persistent users" — at least four times a week — typically lose 8 IQ points and never get them back. Beyond IQ points, many lose motivation to succeed in school.
Doctors have split over whether marijuana causes lung cancer the way smoking cigarettes does, though evidence seems to be accumulating that it could. A recent study at the University of Southern California found a link between recreational pot use and testicular cancer in men from their teens to the mid-30s.
Advocates of legalization make some good points, particularly about the waste of law enforcement resources in enforcing marijuana laws, and the way the illegal market enriches criminal gangs and drug cartels.
Their arguments demonstrate how imperfect the current legal regime is, but they downplay the risks of legalization. Making marijuana available for medical use is a humane and sensible policy, despite the likelihood of wider use and abuse. Doing the same thing simply to allow adults to get high legally isn't worth the inevitable cost.
Did anyone with half a brain ever read USA Today?
How the hell is such a piece of shit paper even still around?
Quote from: Hicks on October 30, 2012, 10:19:52 PM
Did anyone with half a brain ever read USA Today?
How the hell is such a piece of shit paper even still around?
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
McNewspaper.
With little or no real opposition it appears eminent that I 502 will pass here in WA. I've been reading through the initiative and it's definitely written in a way that all signs point to the bottom line. Where the user benefits is with the dizzying array of boutiques that will no doubt be popping up. Use in public and growing for personal use are all still illegal. Growing for sale however is going to be relatively easy to do and will appear inexpensive with an annual license fee of only $1000. This is all written to maximize tax revenue so producers, processors and retailers are going to have a field day when this starts. I wonder how many man caves around the state are going to be replaced with grow op start ups.
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
interesting.
But they are still going to have dispensaries operating like they normally would, for those with medical cards?
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
interesting.
But they are still going to have dispensaries operating like they normally would, for those with medical cards?
Dispensaries will go on as normal, the shops selling weed for recreation can only sell products relating to or containing marijuana, basically a head shop that now sells weed.
There is also a clause preventing single operations from being producers, processors and retailers. Apparently each entity needs to be separate from one another.
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
interesting.
But they are still going to have dispensaries operating like they normally would, for those with medical cards?
Dispensaries will go on as normal, the shops selling weed for recreation can only sell products relating to or containing marijuana, basically a head shop that now sells weed.
There is also a clause preventing single operations from being producers, processors and retailers. Apparently each entity needs to be separate from one another.
That means widespread availability of quality edibles. That makes me happy!
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 31, 2012, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
interesting.
But they are still going to have dispensaries operating like they normally would, for those with medical cards?
Dispensaries will go on as normal, the shops selling weed for recreation can only sell products relating to or containing marijuana, basically a head shop that now sells weed.
There is also a clause preventing single operations from being producers, processors and retailers. Apparently each entity needs to be separate from one another.
That means widespread availability of quality edibles. That makes me happy!
Nice, sounds like a solid plan they got for the legalization of recreational use.
So do you think the quality of the recreational herb will be worse than that of the Medical, or pretty much the same? And, do you think it will be harder to get a medical card now that there is these outlet stores that just sell strictly for recreational?
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 31, 2012, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
interesting.
But they are still going to have dispensaries operating like they normally would, for those with medical cards?
Dispensaries will go on as normal, the shops selling weed for recreation can only sell products relating to or containing marijuana, basically a head shop that now sells weed.
There is also a clause preventing single operations from being producers, processors and retailers. Apparently each entity needs to be separate from one another.
That means widespread availability of quality edibles. That makes me happy!
Nice, sounds like a solid plan they got for the legalization of recreational use.
So do you think the quality of the recreational herb will be worse than that of the Medical, or pretty much the same? And, do you think it will be harder to get a medical card now that there is these outlet stores that just sell strictly for recreational?
I've been curious about the quality issues and most likely stores will cater to their demographic. Hopefully there will be more competition with the potential for skilled growers to come out of hiding or relocate to our great state to get in on the action. I bet quality is the same if not better at certain locations than what is offered now at dispensaries. I imagine they would make it easier to get a card since anyone could walk to their neighborhood store without getting other help they may need.
Reading a little deeper the initiative states producers would be taxed at 25% for every wholesale transaction, couple that with a $1000 annual fee and $250 application fee and that may discourage amateurs from flooding the market with shitty product.
Quote from: whatapiper on November 01, 2012, 02:27:01 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 31, 2012, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
interesting.
But they are still going to have dispensaries operating like they normally would, for those with medical cards?
Dispensaries will go on as normal, the shops selling weed for recreation can only sell products relating to or containing marijuana, basically a head shop that now sells weed.
There is also a clause preventing single operations from being producers, processors and retailers. Apparently each entity needs to be separate from one another.
That means widespread availability of quality edibles. That makes me happy!
Nice, sounds like a solid plan they got for the legalization of recreational use.
So do you think the quality of the recreational herb will be worse than that of the Medical, or pretty much the same? And, do you think it will be harder to get a medical card now that there is these outlet stores that just sell strictly for recreational?
I've been curious about the quality issues and most likely stores will cater to their demographic. Hopefully there will be more competition with the potential for skilled growers to come out of hiding or relocate to our great state to get in on the action. I bet quality is the same if not better at certain locations than what is offered now at dispensaries. I imagine they would make it easier to get a card since anyone could walk to their neighborhood store without getting other help they may need.
Reading a little deeper the initiative states producers would be taxed at 25% for every wholesale transaction, couple that with a $1000 annual fee and $250 application fee and that may discourage amateurs from flooding the market with shitty product.
For fuck's sake. :shakehead:
I know the revenue aspect is part of what makes this palatable to some people, but I hate the dichotomous play of a) recognizing that marijuana is not that harmful and responsible, autonomous adults should have the liberty of using it if they want, while b) saying that marijuana is evil and dangerous and should be taxed and regulated more severely than just about any other consumer good.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 01, 2012, 08:49:52 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on November 01, 2012, 02:27:01 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 31, 2012, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 31, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: whatapiper on October 31, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Undermind on October 31, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I'm going to be traveling through Amsterdam next year. Pretty pumped!
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/weed-pass-tourist-ban-on-marijuana-cafes-ditched-20121031-28inh.html#ixzz2AqGVjJCK
Cafe would be nice but the regulations would be pretty strict here, supposedly you will not even be able to smell or touch anything outside of it's packaging when in an outlet.
interesting.
But they are still going to have dispensaries operating like they normally would, for those with medical cards?
Dispensaries will go on as normal, the shops selling weed for recreation can only sell products relating to or containing marijuana, basically a head shop that now sells weed.
There is also a clause preventing single operations from being producers, processors and retailers. Apparently each entity needs to be separate from one another.
That means widespread availability of quality edibles. That makes me happy!
Nice, sounds like a solid plan they got for the legalization of recreational use.
So do you think the quality of the recreational herb will be worse than that of the Medical, or pretty much the same? And, do you think it will be harder to get a medical card now that there is these outlet stores that just sell strictly for recreational?
I've been curious about the quality issues and most likely stores will cater to their demographic. Hopefully there will be more competition with the potential for skilled growers to come out of hiding or relocate to our great state to get in on the action. I bet quality is the same if not better at certain locations than what is offered now at dispensaries. I imagine they would make it easier to get a card since anyone could walk to their neighborhood store without getting other help they may need.
Reading a little deeper the initiative states producers would be taxed at 25% for every wholesale transaction, couple that with a $1000 annual fee and $250 application fee and that may discourage amateurs from flooding the market with shitty product.
For fuck's sake. :shakehead:
I know the revenue aspect is part of what makes this palatable to some people, but I hate the dichotomous play of a) recognizing that marijuana is not that harmful and responsible, autonomous adults should have the liberty of using it if they want, while b) saying that marijuana is evil and dangerous and should be taxed and regulated more severely than just about any other consumer good.
Thanks for the insight whatapiper!
That does seem pretty steep for taxing. 1/4 of your sale goes to taxes, damn! the other 1/4 prob goes to electricity to run the op and on top of that the fertilizer, soil, etc. to keep them top notch can be pricey. I gotta get over there and start sellin some solar to these grow opts! Even though I am sure a good bit prob do run their greenhouses on solar. Seems like a good market, easier to grow and run lights/fans/humidifiers when theres no bill!
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 01, 2012, 08:49:52 AM
I know the revenue aspect is part of what makes this palatable to some people, but I hate the dichotomous play of a) recognizing that marijuana is not that harmful and responsible, autonomous adults should have the liberty of using it if they want, while b) saying that marijuana is evil and dangerous and should be taxed and regulated more severely than just about any other consumer good.
I don't know, is that really any better or worse than other "immoral" goods. The excise tax on cigarettes in NY is like $5/pack or about 50% of the cost of a pack and something like half of NH's revenue comes from cigarette taxes. WA privatized their liquor stores last summer and imposed something like a 25% increase in taxes and fees iirc. And here in PA they charge casinos 55% of all slot proceeds which led to more gambling revenue here than even NV (for fuck's sake). So while I agree with you incredulity, I don't know that this is much different than the way any other state would handle it (especially during budget crises).
And of course, this tax will be directly passed on to the consumer (as all producer taxes are). But here's the key: eliminating prohibition and the risk premium paid on a black market product would still make the legalized and taxed version cheaper than it is now. Production costs decline will decline due to a legitimate market, economies of scale, specialization, etc. All of that leads to a more affordable good (who knew? oh wait...)
A little thought experiment: let's use whatapiper's figures - 25% wholesale tax and a $1000 annual fee (I'll ignore the $250 one time application fee). I'm gonna pull the rest of the numbers out of my ass to make the point (aren't you in marketing though? you should know this shit). Now, I have no idea what the whole cost per pound or the distribution costs or what a reasonable markup would be, but below is a back of the envelope sketch that shows all in the cost per ounce is still about $100 discount from what I would pay for an ounce now (allegedly :wink: ). I mean, the production costs per pound would have to be $1750 to what an ounce of nug costs in Philly now, and that's assuming my completely made up assumptions are in the ballpark (again, I'd argue that they'd be lower as the technology gets better). And to whatapiper's comment about quality, I think it's much more likely that quality would be as good if not even improve as new techniques and innovation lead to better strains and even wider selection (think microbrews once they eased craft brewery restrictions).
The point of all this is (obviously) taxes are stupid, but not nearly as dumb as prohibition which has far more wide reaching economical (not to mention unjust societal) consequences.
It's just too damn bad that none of this really matters because the federal gov'ts hands are tied, regardless of who wins on Tuesday amiright?
Cost per pound | | | | $1,000 |
Wholesale tax | | 25% | | 250 |
Annual fee | | | | 1,000 |
Distribution (per lb) | | | | 50 |
Producer markup | | 25% | | 575 |
Retail markup | | 35% | | 1,006 |
Sales tax | | 6% | | 233 |
Total per pound | | | | 4,114 |
Total per ounce | | | | 257 |
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 01, 2012, 10:38:31 PM
I don't know, is that really any better or worse than other "immoral" goods. The excise tax [...]
As a general rule, I'm not a fan "sin taxes" or excise taxes either, for that matter.
It's one thing when such tax revenues are explicitly earmarked for public programs that are necessary strictly due to the existence of the thing being taxed -- for example, government-funded healthcare for indigent people for illnesses directly caused by their own cigarette use, or alcoholism. (Even then, not everyone paying into the tax is guaranteed to require the use of those public services down the road.)
But often, these revenues simply go into general funds and are used to plug budget holes or for other programs. What really gets in my craw is when a sin tax is floated as a revenue source for some completely unrelated effort -- usually involving children so that anyone who opposes it looks like a heartless dick. Well, I say, if the program you're trying to fund is good for the welfare of the general public, let the general public share in funding it. Don't just load those taxes on the backs of drinkers or pot smokers because, shit, who wants to stick up for them anyway.
Of course I agree that taxation and regulation here is better than prohibition, but I don't like the message that's sent in the process. Marijuana should be legal because it's not nearly as evil and dangerous as some make it out to be, and free people should be able to smoke a plant if they want to. That goes for pot or catnip or oregano or turnip greens, for all I care, and if everyone suddenly realized that smoking catnip is really fucking fun, that would be no excuse for the government to rush in and slap a bunch of restrictions and taxes on that activity just in exchange for them not locking your ass up for doing it.
Agreed. Not to mention, sin taxes generally do not deter the "harmful" behavior which is another justification for their existence: in NY, poor smokers end up paying 25% of their income to buy cigarettes (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57516879-10391704/25-of-poor-new-yorkers-spend-income-on-cigarettes-are-tobacco-taxes-ineffective/). So now not only are they less healthy, but they are poorer too.
Also,
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 02, 2012, 12:03:31 AM
As a general rule, I'm not a fan "sin taxes" or excise taxes either, for that matter.
FYP
there is some data that the price of cigarrettes is in fact a deterrence to kids starting to smoke.
of course, once your addicted...
A pretty detailed look at the various legalization/decriminalization efforts and the implications of them if they pass.
http://blog.mpp.org/medical-marijuana/2012-marijuana-on-the-ballot/11012012/
My last look on polltracker has the initiative in WA winning by nearly 20 points...
Quote from: whatapiper on November 05, 2012, 11:41:55 PM
My last look on polltracker has the initiative in WA winning by nearly 20 points...
I salute you all.
(http://files.sharenator.com/BennyHillSalute-s296x296-173190.jpg)
Medical marijuana looking good in MA
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/MA/ballot/01
coverage of all of the weed initiatives
http://radicalruss.com/
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:34:19 PM
Medical marijuana looking good in MA
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/MA/ballot/01
Won easily
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 06, 2012, 10:43:47 PM
Looks like recreational use in CO is gonna pass. :clap:
:clap: :smoke:
Now let's hope Obama backs the fuck off!
looking real good for Colorado.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/colorado
Quote from: slslbs on November 06, 2012, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 08:34:19 PM
Medical marijuana looking good in MA
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/MA/ballot/01
Won easily
yes it did, plenty of guinea pig states to show how well it can work.
CO is a surprise to me for whatever reason but a win in OR would be quite the come from behind.
25 of 64 counties in CO and Amendment 64 is up by 52-47. Probably still early with conservative counties still to come.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 06, 2012, 10:43:47 PM
Looks like recreational use in CO is gonna pass. :clap:
:clap: :smoke:
Now let's hope Obama backs the fuck off!
Good luck with that.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:48:09 PM
25 of 64 counties in CO and Amendment 64 is up by 52-47. Probably still early with conservative counties still to come.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 06, 2012, 10:43:47 PM
Looks like recreational use in CO is gonna pass. :clap:
:clap: :smoke:
Now let's hope Obama backs the fuck off!
Good luck with that.
He can do what he wants to now without worrying about being reelected....
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:48:09 PM
25 of 64 counties in CO and Amendment 64 is up by 52-47. Probably still early with conservative counties still to come.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 06, 2012, 10:43:47 PM
Looks like recreational use in CO is gonna pass. :clap:
:clap: :smoke:
Now let's hope Obama backs the fuck off!
Good luck with that.
He can do what he wants to now without worrying about being reelected....
Now that's leadership. FORWARD!!!
:crazy: :rockout: :rockout: :crazy:
Quote9NEWS Denver @9NEWS
Amendment 64 passes: 53% (887,957 votes) 47% (769,194 votes)
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:10:30 PM
:crazy: :rockout: :rockout: :crazy:
Quote9NEWS Denver @9NEWS
Amendment 64 passes: 53% (887,957 votes) 47% (769,194 votes)
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/298251/139/Colorado-voters-pass-Amendment-64
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:54:07 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 10:48:09 PM
25 of 64 counties in CO and Amendment 64 is up by 52-47. Probably still early with conservative counties still to come.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote
Quote from: Undermind on November 06, 2012, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 06, 2012, 10:43:47 PM
Looks like recreational use in CO is gonna pass. :clap:
:clap: :smoke:
Now let's hope Obama backs the fuck off!
Good luck with that.
He can do what he wants to now without worrying about being reelected....
Now that's leadership. FORWARD!!!
Yeahhh kinda worried about it but also excited to see what happens.
Might bring too much heat from the federals on the states that legalized it. Could see a lot of stuff gettin shut down.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533482_10151501948073032_10623074_n.jpg)
2-for-2!!! C'mon, OR, don't fuck this up!!!
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalization-takes-commanding-lead/
Quote
Voters agree to legalize pot
UPDATE 8:43 p.m.
Washington voters have voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana.
Initiative 502 held a commanding lead in initial vote counts, with overwhelming support in King County, and the measure was passing in other urban Puget Sound counties Pierce, Spokane and other counties.
One ounce of marijuana will be legal as of Dec. 6, and the state will begin a year-long process of creating a closed, tightly regulated and heavily taxed market for recreational marijuana sales at state-licensed retail shops.
Marijuana legalization wasin Colorado, based on initial vote counts.
Neither state measure affects the federal ban on marijuana, creating a conflict that could potentially be resolved in court.
QuoteKevin Browning @Soundcaresser
Breaking News: Colorado tourism up by 26%. #grass #legalize
Quote
Aaron Blake @FixAaron
CO Gov. Hickenlooper on weed: "federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don't break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly."
fantastic for CO, MA and WA.
yes, Obama now has a lot more leeway now that he doesn't need to run for reelection again - he may let up, he may not, I see the Fed moving in to cockblock this somehow and it will end up in the Conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which will give in to States' rights here and finally abolish this ridiculous prohibition...
Quote from: tet on November 07, 2012, 12:03:49 AM
fantastic for CO, MA and WA.
yes, Obama now has a lot more leeway now that he doesn't need to run for reelection again - he may let up, he may not, I see the Fed moving in to cockblock this somehow and it will end up in the Conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which will give in to States' rights here and finally abolish this ridiculous prohibition...
Yeah, but the conservative justices aren't always as constructionist as they often let on (shocking!) when it comes to marijuana: Scalia, the supposed original Originalist, and Kennedy both voted for more expansive federal powers re marijuana enforcement in
Gonzales v. Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich). I'd hope they respect the 10th Amendment, but I wouldn't be surprised if Scalia, Alito, and Roberts all voted for federal supremacy.
Way to go Colorado! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na_88kQpXAE
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 06, 2012, 11:59:57 PM
Quote
Aaron Blake @FixAaron
CO Gov. Hickenlooper on weed: "federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don't break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly."
I just saw that quote. What a jackass.
You'd think someone who came from the brewing industry wouldn't be so uptight.
Sweet!! We approve by 10 points!!! And we approved same sex marriage!!!
Break out the cheetos and goldfish!!
::hangs head in shame as an Oregonian::
So uh, do I get to pop over the border to WA or what?
Quote from: Hicks on November 07, 2012, 10:19:02 AM
::hangs head in shame as an Oregonian::
So uh, do I get to pop over the border to WA or what?
I'll admit I know very little about the details of these props, but it looked like the Oregon prop was a no-limits free-for-all while WA and CO had "up to 1 oz" and seemed more reasonable to those on the fence.
So do you Washingtonians and Coloradians think these props/amends are going to bring a lot of heat from the feds to shutdown/intervene with these?
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 07, 2012, 10:35:47 AM
So do you Washingtonians and Coloradians think these props/amends are going to bring a lot of heat from the feds to shutdown/intervene with these?
Call me naive, but I welcome the showdown as I think it'll force a larger dialog and conclusion that I think is inevitable.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 07, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 07, 2012, 10:35:47 AM
So do you Washingtonians and Coloradians think these props/amends are going to bring a lot of heat from the feds to shutdown/intervene with these?
Call me naive, but I welcome the showdown as I think it'll force a larger dialog and conclusion that I think is inevitable.
I agree, but I think the presence of the medical marijuana trade is an indicator here. Yes, there has been interference from the Feds, but mostly directed at the organizations that were, frankly, blatantly overdoing it. There remains a booming new economy building.
Quote from: Pholy M. Pia on November 07, 2012, 11:28:30 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 07, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 07, 2012, 10:35:47 AM
So do you Washingtonians and Coloradians think these props/amends are going to bring a lot of heat from the feds to shutdown/intervene with these?
Call me naive, but I welcome the showdown as I think it'll force a larger dialog and conclusion that I think is inevitable.
I agree, but I think the presence of the medical marijuana trade is an indicator here. Yes, there has been interference from the Feds, but mostly directed at the organizations that were, frankly, blatantly overdoing it. There remains a booming new old underground economy building finally coming out from the shadows into the light.
fyp
Quote from: PIE-GUY on November 07, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
Quote from: Pholy M. Pia on November 07, 2012, 11:28:30 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 07, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 07, 2012, 10:35:47 AM
So do you Washingtonians and Coloradians think these props/amends are going to bring a lot of heat from the feds to shutdown/intervene with these?
Call me naive, but I welcome the showdown as I think it'll force a larger dialog and conclusion that I think is inevitable.
I agree, but I think the presence of the medical marijuana trade is an indicator here. Yes, there has been interference from the Feds, but mostly directed at the organizations that were, frankly, blatantly overdoing it. There remains a booming new old underground economy building finally coming out from the shadows into the light.
fyp
Accurate.
Quote from: Pholy M. Pia on November 07, 2012, 11:35:31 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on November 07, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
Quote from: Pholy M. Pia on November 07, 2012, 11:28:30 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 07, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 07, 2012, 10:35:47 AM
So do you Washingtonians and Coloradians think these props/amends are going to bring a lot of heat from the feds to shutdown/intervene with these?
Call me naive, but I welcome the showdown as I think it'll force a larger dialog and conclusion that I think is inevitable.
I agree, but I think the presence of the medical marijuana trade is an indicator here. Yes, there has been interference from the Feds, but mostly directed at the organizations that were, frankly, blatantly overdoing it. There remains a booming new old underground economy building finally coming out from the shadows into the light.
fyp
Accurate.
heres a good article on whats could happen next
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/colorado-and-washington-have-legalized-m
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Will-feds-let-new-marijuana-law-stand-without-a-fight-177666311.html
Check out some of the videos too at the top of this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/legalizing-marijuana-washington-colorado_n_2088375.html
ha!
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/46515_452430794803008_1481708680_n.jpg)
Quote from: PIE-GUY on November 07, 2012, 04:06:00 PM
ha!
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/46515_452430794803008_1481708680_n.jpg)
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard Perfect!!!! As a guy who is driving around Seattle right now I will tell you firsthand that picture is not photo shopped.
Quote@darrenrovell: A week before Colorado legalizes marijuana, Peyton Manning acquires 21 Papa John's franchises in the state. Guy can do no wrong.
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
:clap:
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 08, 2012, 06:41:45 AM
Quote@darrenrovell: A week before Colorado legalizes marijuana, Peyton Manning acquires 21 Papa John's franchises in the state. Guy can do no wrong.
hahaha! smart business guy!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/814560850/code-of-the-west-documentary-about-medical-marijua
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/opinion/osler-marijuana-federal-law/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3
http://kdvr.com/2012/11/14/amendment-64-leads-boulder-da-to-dismiss-marijuana-possession-charges/
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/267853-reps-to-obama-dont-interfere-with-states-on-marijuana
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-and-his-pot-smoking-choom-gang/
Obama was innovator of the "roof hits" and "Total Absorption"
From NPR:
http://m.npr.org/news/front/165776654
Here is the first few lines of the article, there is an interview with the source further on down the page.
Quote
On Election Day, voters in Colorado and Washington state legalized the use of marijuana for recreational use. What's next?
No, really, what happens now?
Residents in the Mile-High State are already looking to buy, says William Breathes, a professional pot critic for the Denver alternative weekly Westward. (By the way, that's a pen name for reasons that may be obvious.)
Obvious in a way that Prince Caspian or Character Zero as a pen name would not be?
It's funny because they used a bong.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8-eyJVCAAMh1cb.png)
Cue the makisupa background music cuz I woke up and weed is legal! :smoke:
Quote from: whatapiper on December 06, 2012, 02:10:08 PM
Cue the makisupa background music cuz I woke up and weed is legal! :smoke:
So damned jealous! Enjoy your legal buzz. :rockout:
Quote from: mistercharlie on December 06, 2012, 03:18:20 PM
Quote from: whatapiper on December 06, 2012, 02:10:08 PM
Cue the makisupa background music cuz I woke up and weed is legal! :smoke:
So damned jealous! Enjoy your legal buzz. :rockout:
I wonder how many $50 citations were given out on day one for use in public.
Quote from: whatapiper on December 06, 2012, 02:10:08 PM
Cue the makisupa background music cuz I woke up and weed is legal! :smoke:
we noticed
(http://blog.morganpalmer.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/6877146071.jpg)
Good news: Harborside wins big in federal gov't abusive attempt to force landlords to evict dispensaries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/03/harborside-health-center-_n_2234545.html
Bad news: the administration is preparing response to CO and WA legalization initiatives. And it ain't good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0
Quote
Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use
...
One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.
A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be "severed" from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.
Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.
ya know, one thing i really wish got more press concerning the whole legalization for recreation thing, is comparisons to alcohol being legal.
there really isnt ANY comparison of the damage recreational Alcohol use effects on society vs. Pot.
i think every person in America that thinks pot should be illegal should be forced to spend 24 hours in a locked room with 2 people:
a pot user with all the pot he can smoke and an alcoholic with all the booze he could drink.
/end nonsense.
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 01:56:21 PM
ya know, one thing i really wish got more press concerning the whole legalization for recreation thing, is comparisons to alcohol being legal.
there really isnt ANY comparison of the damage recreational Alcohol use effects on society vs. Pot.
i think every person in America that thinks pot should be illegal should be forced to spend 24 hours in a locked room with 2 people:
a pot user with all the pot he can smoke and an alcoholic with all the booze he could drink.
/end nonsense.
well said, was thinking the same thing a few nights ago. Its fucked up that a substance that is very dangerous in term of its effects on behavior is legal vs. a substance that promotes peace and tranquility to its users receives such scrutiny. What's left of the generations before Baby Boomers and Baby Boomers Puritanical belief systems are increasingly more eroded in a pluralistic America. I can see all but a few states eventually legalizing like WA. It could be very lucrative for states esp. in this fucked up economy.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on December 07, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
Good news: Harborside wins big in federal gov't abusive attempt to force landlords to evict dispensaries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/03/harborside-health-center-_n_2234545.html
Bad news: the administration is preparing response to CO and WA legalization initiatives. And it ain't good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0
Quote
Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use
...
One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.
A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be "severed" from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.
Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.
Similar to how the feds effectively implemented a national drinking age. (Which I think is a bullshit and seemingly limitless way of skirting the 10th Amendment, by the way.) Maybe the fact that legalization here resulted from popular initiatives will make the feds pause a little, or at least cast any action of theirs in a negative PR light. Either way, I think we should welcome the challenge, perhaps it will force the kind of national change that I think is inevitable here.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on December 07, 2012, 03:17:13 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on December 07, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
Good news: Harborside wins big in federal gov't abusive attempt to force landlords to evict dispensaries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/03/harborside-health-center-_n_2234545.html
Bad news: the administration is preparing response to CO and WA legalization initiatives. And it ain't good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0
Quote
Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use
...
One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.
A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be "severed" from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.
Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.
Similar to how the feds effectively implemented a national drinking age. (Which I think is a bullshit and seemingly limitless way of skirting the 10th Amendment, by the way.) Maybe the fact that legalization here resulted from popular initiatives will make the feds pause a little, or at least cast any action of theirs in a negative PR light. Either way, I think we should welcome the challenge, perhaps it will force the kind of national change that I think is inevitable here.
I'll welcome the challenge once Scalia retires and we get one more liberal on the court.
fight the battle but drinking in moderation is fine. don't go making it seem like drinking alcohol is an evil.if I sit down with dinner and drink a couple beers, there is nothing wrong with that.
it is when something is used to excess that issues arise.
sitting a smoking a bowl is one thing. but smoking excessively and then getting behind a wheel is not exactly a good thing either.
Quote from: DoW on December 07, 2012, 03:25:57 PM
fight the battle but drinking in moderation is fine. don't go making it seem like drinking alcohol is an evil.if I sit down with dinner and drink a couple beers, there is nothing wrong with that.
it is when something is used to excess that issues arise.
sitting a smoking a bowl is one thing. but smoking excessively and then getting behind a wheel is not exactly a good thing either.
i never said alcohol was 'evil'. if anything i was trying point out the relative banal effect 'normal' pot use has on society vs. 'normal' drinking.
obviously any substance can be abused...
however, the point i'm making is about the disparity of the 2 drugs once they
are abused.
how many people do you know that smoke pot for 2 hours then decide to beat their wife because they are stoned?
on the other hand the amount of physical violence as a result of alcohol abuse is astronomical.
regardless, really what i'm saying is if AMericans have figured out how to 'deal' with legalized alcohol then legalizing pot shouldnt be a social disaster as the conservatives would make you think. its all about money and we know it. so, 'nuff said.
to be completely honest i am personally for 100% legalization of ALL drugs. every last one of them. i feel that laws should be used solely to manage the actions people take once they use a drug, not on the actual consumption.
in my mind a person that runs over 10 children in the street stone cold sober should be in jail, not the crack head that sits at home and plays with himself.
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
to be completely honest i am personally for 100% legalization of ALL drugs. every last one of them. i feel that laws should be used solely to manage the actions people take once they use a drug, not on the actual consumption.
in my mind a person that runs over 10 children in the street stone cold sober should be in jail, not the crack head that sits at home and plays with himself.
you have an interesting way of making an argument but whatever works :beers: :smoke:
I cringe every time the alcohol issue is brought up when the legalization of pot is being discussed.
The argument for legalizing pot shouldn't rest on pointing out the dangerous of alcohol or tobacco, or skydiving for that matter, but on the merits of the drug itself and the futility of its prohibition.
Quote from: DoW on December 07, 2012, 04:44:06 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
to be completely honest i am personally for 100% legalization of ALL drugs. every last one of them. i feel that laws should be used solely to manage the actions people take once they use a drug, not on the actual consumption.
in my mind a person that runs over 10 children in the street stone cold sober should be in jail, not the crack head that sits at home and plays with himself.
you have an interesting way of making an argument but whatever works :beers: :smoke:
well, maybe you don't follow my terse internet analogy, but to be fair i don't really have the energy to make a well thought out post on my opinions , so blame me and i'll just go back to avoiding these hot topic threads, lol.
i could go on for hours talking about my feelings on the subject of legalization and the unenlightened and Byzantine laws of this country, but really who cares, lol.
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
I cringe every time the alcohol issue is brought up when the legalization of pot is being discussed.
The argument for legalizing pot shouldn't rest on pointing out the dangerous of alcohol or tobacco, or skydiving for that matter, but on the merits of the drug itself and the futility of its prohibition.
i didnt think i was actually trying to convince anyone here that pot should be legal, lol.
But at this point i'm getting my words twiste around and i'm confused on even what we are talking about.
enjoy your thread kids.
---peace.
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: DoW on December 07, 2012, 04:44:06 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
to be completely honest i am personally for 100% legalization of ALL drugs. every last one of them. i feel that laws should be used solely to manage the actions people take once they use a drug, not on the actual consumption.
in my mind a person that runs over 10 children in the street stone cold sober should be in jail, not the crack head that sits at home and plays with himself.
you have an interesting way of making an argument but whatever works :beers: :smoke:
well, maybe you don't follow my terse internet analogy, but to be fair i don't really have the energy to make a well thought out post on my opinions , so blame me and i'll just go back to avoiding these hot topic threads, lol.
i could go on for hours talking about my feelings on the subject of legalization and the unenlightened and Byzantine laws of this country, but really who cares, lol.
i was just kidding. I get your point and analogy
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
I cringe every time the alcohol issue is brought up when the legalization of pot is being discussed.
The argument for legalizing pot shouldn't rest on pointing out the dangerous of alcohol or tobacco, or skydiving for that matter, but on the merits of the drug itself and the futility of its prohibition.
i didnt think i was actually trying to convince anyone here that pot should be legal, lol.
But at this point i'm getting my words twiste around and i'm confused on even what we are talking about.
enjoy your thread kids.
---peace.
This is the thread where legalization of pot and recent events around that subject is discussed.
Alcohol was brought up.
I find it distracting when people compare and contrast alcohol and pot.
There is no arguing that alcohol abuse has a negative effect on society.
There is also no doubt that no matter how dangerous alcohol is, it doesn't make pot any safer or more dangerous.
i know i said i was gone... but my mind doesnt think to well these days and its hard for me to express myself .
i thought of one more point i should make b4 i leave .
to nab-- i was talking about recreational legalization which entails a completely different approach to discussion with the general public than i beleive what you were talking about was medical.
i mean, if your talking about using soley the arguements of " the merits of the drug" to propose legalizing for recreational use that is very contradictive imo.
by definition something taken recreationally is not 'meritous'. thats the point... recreational means-- 'i just like doing it for kicks' ,
as most pot 'promoters' will admit, at least the informed ones, the legalization of medical vs recreational is 2 completely different arguements.
i understand the point about alcohol not being a good touching point for either... and honestly i cant defend what i initially said because i feel its not coming out right now looking back, so, im just gonna have to let that go. thanks for listening.
EDIT:
i dunno, now after reading your last post i'm feeling alittle persecuted so i'm going to take this a bit further against my better judgement.
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 01:56:21 PM
ya know, one thing i really wish got more press concerning the whole legalization for recreation thing, is comparisons to alcohol being legal.
there really isnt ANY comparison of the damage recreational Alcohol use effects on society vs. Pot.
i think every person in America that thinks pot should be illegal should be forced to spend 24 hours in a locked room with 2 people:
a pot user with all the pot he can smoke and an alcoholic with all the booze he could drink.
/end nonsense.
ok, heres an offhand thought in the middle of the afternoon that seems to have ruffled your feathers.
the second half is ignorable and if anyone took that seriously then they need to see a shrink.
the first half is where i make a point i thought about for less than a millisecond while i wrote it.
looking back i 100% stand behind this statement as lame as it might sound to you.
thinking about it more than a milisecond i can see numerous sociological reasons it makes sense to approach NON POT supporters with this arguement.
telling my parents for example that " oh, pot is good for you" as compared to "would you rather have the stoned kid in your house or a drunk lunatic with a gun" -- just doenst work. maybe for some more liberal younger folks, and of course this goes back to my point about recreational vs medical... but anyway. im rambling now.
dont take it personal nab or whoever. not sure how i really offended anyone just speaking my mind. i never took a stab at anyones opinioins...in fact i think it was quite the opposite.
peace.
edited my last post.
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 05:29:32 PM
i know i said i was gone... but my mind doesnt think to well these days and its hard for me to express myself .
i thought of one more point i should make b4 i leave .
to nab-- i was talking about recreational legalization which entails a completely different approach to discussion with the general public than i beleive what you were talking about was medical.
i mean, if your talking about using soley the arguements of " the merits of the drug" to propose legalizing for recreational use that is very contradictive imo.
by definition something taken recreationally is not 'meritous'. thats the point... recreational means-- 'i just like doing it for kicks' ,
as most pot 'promoters' will admit, at least the informed ones, the legalization of medical vs recreational is 2 completely different arguements.
i understand the point about alcohol not being a good touching point for either... and honestly i cant defend what i initially said because i feel its not coming out right now looking back, so, im just gonna have to let that go. thanks for listening.
EDIT:
i dunno, now after reading your last post i'm feeling alittle persecuted so i'm going to take this a bit further against my better judgement.
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 01:56:21 PM
ya know, one thing i really wish got more press concerning the whole legalization for recreation thing, is comparisons to alcohol being legal.
there really isnt ANY comparison of the damage recreational Alcohol use effects on society vs. Pot.
i think every person in America that thinks pot should be illegal should be forced to spend 24 hours in a locked room with 2 people:
a pot user with all the pot he can smoke and an alcoholic with all the booze he could drink.
/end nonsense.
ok, heres an offhand thought in the middle of the afternoon that seems to have ruffled your feathers.
the second half is ignorable and if anyone took that seriously then they need to see a shrink.
the first half is where i make a point i thought about for less than a millisecond while i wrote it.
looking back i 100% stand behind this statement as lame as it might sound to you.
thinking about it more than a milisecond i can see numerous sociological reasons it makes sense to approach NON POT supporters with this arguement.
telling my parents for example that " oh, pot is good for you" as compared to "would you rather have the stoned kid in your house or a drunk lunatic with a gun" -- just doenst work. maybe for some more liberal younger folks, and of course this goes back to my point about recreational vs medical... but anyway. im rambling now.
dont take it personal nab or whoever. not sure how i really offended anyone just speaking my mind. i never took a stab at anyones opinioins...in fact i think it was quite the opposite.
peace.
Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities.
I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 05:51:57 PM
Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities.
I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).
i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.
anyway, besides the analogies and to your
point:
I never said comparisons to alcohol were the 'best' or only
argument for legalization.
though i do believe it should be at the center of the public discussion.
When
recreational legalization is more truthfully about repealing laws, not making them, then i feel that using the other most debated and legislated drug in our Country's history is indeed a place we should go with the discussion when attempting to repeal misappropriated laws concerning pot.
With Prohibition, the Country came to an understanding concerning morals regulating vice.
The entire fact that Pot is even illegal is based off of prejudices and manipulation of the government by economic forces.
so, in my mind the debate should be focused on revealing the invalidity of the initial criminalization,,, which is pretty much how prohibition was eventually repealed.
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 06:23:25 PM
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 05:51:57 PM
Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities.
I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).
i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.
Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things. X is legal, Y is illegal. X can be more dangerous than Y. Therefore, Y should be legal."
This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition. This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.
Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.
Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana.
Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:
Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 10:05:32 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 06:23:25 PM
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 05:51:57 PM
Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities.
I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).
i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.
Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things. X is legal, Y is illegal. X can be more dangerous than Y. Therefore, Y should be legal."
This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition. This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.
Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.
Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana.
Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:
Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).
Interesting. Per strict logic, it makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if the argument still has merit due to the fact that alcohol is in no actual danger of being made illegal by this or other arguments, and so if you can get people to acknowledge how pot and booze compare, you might be able to force them to acknowledge it's only fair and sensible that pot be legal too.
And Slim, give yourself some credit. Your points are compelling, well made, and not offending anyone here as far as I can tell.
Quote from: PIE-GUY on December 07, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on December 07, 2012, 03:17:13 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on December 07, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
Good news: Harborside wins big in federal gov't abusive attempt to force landlords to evict dispensaries.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/03/harborside-health-center-_n_2234545.html
Bad news: the administration is preparing response to CO and WA legalization initiatives. And it ain't good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-in-2-states-set-federal-officials-scrambling.html?_r=0
Quote
Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use
...
One option is for federal prosecutors to bring some cases against low-level marijuana users of the sort they until now have rarely bothered with, waiting for a defendant to make a motion to dismiss the case because the drug is now legal in that state. The department could then obtain a court ruling that federal law trumps the state one.
A more aggressive option is for the Justice Department to file lawsuits against the states to prevent them from setting up systems to regulate and tax marijuana, as the initiatives contemplated. If a court agrees that such regulations are pre-empted by federal ones, it will open the door to a broader ruling about whether the regulatory provisions can be "severed" from those eliminating state prohibitions — or whether the entire initiatives must be struck down.
Another potential avenue would be to cut off federal grants to the states unless their legislatures restored antimarijuana laws, said Gregory Katsas, who led the civil division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.
Similar to how the feds effectively implemented a national drinking age. (Which I think is a bullshit and seemingly limitless way of skirting the 10th Amendment, by the way.) Maybe the fact that legalization here resulted from popular initiatives will make the feds pause a little, or at least cast any action of theirs in a negative PR light. Either way, I think we should welcome the challenge, perhaps it will force the kind of national change that I think is inevitable here.
I'll welcome the challenge once Scalia retires and we get one more liberal on the court.
I was thinking about that today. I was wondering if he'd retire within the next 4 years, or if he'd hold out in hopes of a Republican victory in 2016.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on December 08, 2012, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 10:05:32 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 06:23:25 PM
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 05:51:57 PM
Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities.
I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).
i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.
Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things. X is legal, Y is illegal. X can be more dangerous than Y. Therefore, Y should be legal."
This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition. This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.
Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.
Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana.
Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:
Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).
Interesting. Per strict logic, it makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if the argument still has merit due to the fact that alcohol is in no actual danger of being made illegal by this or other arguments, and so if you can get people to acknowledge how pot and booze compare, you might be able to force them to acknowledge it's only fair and sensible that pot be legal too.
And Slim, give yourself some credit. Your points are compelling, well made, and not offending anyone here as far as I can tell.
I think one of the main things about arguing that alcohol is legal, why shouldnt pot be, isnt because of the effects on a person, both can be seen as negative esp when abused. Pot maybe not so much, more just lack of motivation after a while.
But because of where pot is right now in time, it is like the prohibition was with alchohol in the 1920's. A lot of it is run by cartels or some people that are in hiding growing mass quantities of pot to strictly make money off it and to not really care where its going or whats happening with it. Its all black market and all very impersonal/cutthroat business, esp to many of the pot smokers that are simply just smoking recreationally and are not buying weed to make money off of. If it was legalized and people were able to grow/buy/sell/smoke
local quality herb, there would be a lot less people gettin arrested, and a lot less shadiness behind all the pot being sold around the US. Also, I see a lot of money and people that make a lot of money off pot use it to buy other harder drugs that are strictly imported by cartels, funding another, sketchier kind of black market.
.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on December 08, 2012, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 10:05:32 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on December 07, 2012, 06:23:25 PM
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 05:51:57 PM
Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Hope you weren't; we're just discussing ideas, not personalities.
I just think that the "Alcohol and pot do something similar, therefore pot should be legal because alcohol is legal and alcohol is more dangerous than pot" isn't the best argument for legalizing pot, recreational or medically (since you could substitute opiates for alcohol in my analogy and arrive at the same result).
i'm not totally following your comment about opiate substitution in the analogy... if i plug opiates in the analogy falls apart b/c opiates arent legal persay.... its probably my poor reading comprehension though.
Then try it like this "X and Y do similar things. X is legal, Y is illegal. X can be more dangerous than Y. Therefore, Y should be legal."
This is how I perceive arguments that use alcohol use in arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition. This is not a proponent position for Y, but rather a opposition argument against X.
Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.
Arguments for legalizing marijuana should rest on the rational reasons to end prohibition against marijuana.
Or to put my line of thinking another way, and using a completely different subject:
Civil rights don't exist because of oppression in the past and present, civil rights exist because treating people equally under the law is rational (and good, imo).
Interesting. Per strict logic, it makes sense. But in practice, I wonder if the argument still has merit due to the fact that alcohol is in no actual danger of being made illegal by this or other arguments, and so if you can get people to acknowledge how pot and booze compare, you might be able to force them to acknowledge it's only fair and sensible that pot be legal too.
And Slim, give yourself some credit. Your points are compelling, well made, and not offending anyone here as far as I can tell.
The point still makes sense, logically, given that the safety of pot vs. alcohol isn't an argument for the prohibition of alcohol either. Alcohol and pot are still apples and oranges, legally. If you want to sell oranges, you have to invent a screwdriver, not a citrus appletini.
Quote from: nab on December 08, 2012, 02:09:35 AM
The point still makes sense, logically, given that the safety of pot vs. alcohol isn't an argument for the prohibition of alcohol either.
Wait, isn't that the opposite of what you said earlier?
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 10:05:32 PM
Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on December 08, 2012, 10:40:42 AM
Quote from: nab on December 08, 2012, 02:09:35 AM
The point still makes sense, logically, given that the safety of pot vs. alcohol isn't an argument for the prohibition of alcohol either.
Wait, isn't that the opposite of what you said earlier?
Quote from: nab on December 07, 2012, 10:05:32 PM
Or to put it back into what we were talking about, that alcohol is dangerous and legal is not an argument for legalizing pot (for any reason), it is an argument for making alcohol illegal.
Superficially, I guess.
But statements still support the argument I've been trying to make; That there are reasons to end marijuana prohibition that are independent of the danger of alcohol.
Quote from: nab on December 08, 2012, 11:34:30 AM
there are reasons to end marijuana prohibition that are independent of the danger of alcohol.
Absolutely agreed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtNF-Le2L0
gettin real jealous of you washingtonians
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/10/15820613-like-amsterdam-washington-bar-owner-lets-patrons-get-stoned?lite
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/patrick-leahy-marijuana_n_2293601.html
Quote from: Undermind on December 13, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/patrick-leahy-marijuana_n_2293601.html
Shit makes sense....dont see it happening anytime soon though. There is also a lot of political opposition to doing this, and a lot of lobbying against it.
Basically let the states decide what to do with it.
tangentially related
they just instituted a zero tolerance, random drug screening policy where I work. the disaster in Exeter, NH probably triggered it
doesn't affect me directly, but interesting if the laws continue to progress.
eta- a 94 year old lady just asked for some medical mj
Quote from: slslbs on December 20, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
eta- a 94 year old lady just asked for some medical mj
Awesome. Good thing she doesn't live in MA.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2012/12/dea_warns_no_free_pass_medical_pot
Quote
DEA warns: No free pass for medical pot
Prospective pot shop owners be warned: New England's top narcotics cop says federal agents won't hesitate to come down on dispensaries that pop up next year under the Bay State's medical marijuana law.
John J. Arvanitis, special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's New England Division, told the Herald in an exclusive interview that the feds will probe pot pharmacies as they see fit.
"Marijuana is still a controlled substance," Arvanitis said. "DEA is committed to investigating individuals who are involved in the distribution of marijuana. DEA goes to where the information and evidence take it. If we become aware that individuals are involved in marijuana distribution, we'll investigate it."
Arvanitis' comments during a wide-ranging interview about his new position reflect the official position of the DEA, which has long opposed medical marijuana and has worked to shut down hundreds of dispensaries out West.
His tough talk comes as Massachusetts rolls out a new law allowing doctors to prescribe pot for patients with cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses. Up to 35 pot shops, regulated by state health officials, will open in 2013.
But making the law work won't be easy.
California's 1996 law is criticized as vague even by pro-pot activists, who say federal prosecution has been "chaotic, unpredictable and capricious."
"We need clear direction from the Department of Justice, and the Obama administration has utterly failed to give that," said Dale Gieringer, director of California's division of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Federal authorities have been on a prescription pot crackdown for the better part of a year, shutting down large dispensaries and threatening to shutter others, saying they were raking in big bucks and serving as fronts for drug runners. In September, for example, prosecutors in Los Angeles sued to seize the assets of three shops and sent warning letters to 68 others, essentially ordering them to close by giving them two weeks to comply with federal law.
In Colorado, authorities in 2010 raided a Denver-area medical marijuana provider who showed off his grow operation on a local TV newscast. He is serving a five-year sentence in federal prison in Leavenworth, Kan.
In Maine, the feds have so far stayed away from the eight state-licensed dispensaries allowed under a 2009 prescription pot law.
"It's certainly always something we're aware of," said Becky DeKeuster, executive director of the Wellness Connection of Maine, which runs four dispensaries. Arvanitis' comment, she said, "puts us all in an interesting position."
Arvanitis' warning didn't seem to worry John Napoli, who is hoping to open a dispensary at his downtown hydroponics shop, Boston Gardener.
"Before it was banned in the 1930s, cannabis was available at every pharmacy in Massachusetts," he said. "I think we're headed back in that direction. The DEA will eventually follow the people's lead."
Can we put the NRA in charge of legalizing marijuana?
Quote from: kellerb on December 21, 2012, 06:44:30 PM
Can we put the NRA in charge of legalizing marijuana?
From my warm, tingly hands!(http://i.imgur.com/UJdJs.jpg)
CO task force finalizes recommendations for the state's new marijuana regulatory regime . Notably, pot added to state smoking ban (effectively outlawing coffee shops) and high wholesale and retail taxes that could push price close to black market levels. Coupled with the 70-30 law recommended last week (stores must grow 70% of what they sell), it seems fairly onerous, which could have a serious impact on consumer welfare. On the plus side, out if state residents would be allowed to purchase legal pot.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22689447/tax-legal-issues-tap-at-last-colorado-marijuana
Quote
Colorado pot task force recommends special sales and excise taxes
What Colorado will look like with legal marijuana became significantly clearer Thursday when the state task force proposing rules for that new world finished its work.
Under proposals endorsed by the Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force, recreational marijuana in Colorado would be heavily taxed. It would be grown only indoors. It would not be allowed to be smoked at bars, restaurants or even social clubs.
It could be sold to people visiting from out of state, though. It could be given away to adults an ounce at a time but not in pot-for-donation swaps. Its sale would be watched over by a small army of state regulators.
During 80 days of poking and pulling at roughly 100 issues affected by marijuana legalization, the task force endorsed dozens of new policies on such topics as criminal enforcement, taxes, child protection and product labeling. Taken together, the recommendations represent a comprehensive set of ideas to regulate a recreational-marijuana regime unlike any in history.
The recommendations will now be put to state lawmakers, who will fashion them into a bill and then debate the issues anew.
"The first thing I have to say is, 'Thank you,' " Gov. John Hickenlooper told task-force members Thursday during a visit to their meeting.
Hardly a benedictory session, Thursday's meeting was more of a last-second cram for the task force to get through its work. During a five-hour hearing, the task force considered proposals on funding, changes to criminal laws and labeling of serving sizes in marijuana-infused goodies.
Tax discussions, particularly, stood out.
The task force recommended that Colorado lawmakers refer to voters two ballot measures on marijuana taxes. One would impose a 15 percent excise tax on recreational marijuana — a rate that could increase over time — that stores would have to pay at the wholesale level. The other would create a special marijuana sales tax that customers would pay. Though the task force did not endorse a specific amount for the sales tax, it gave a 25 percent rate as an example.
Recreational marijuana would also be subject to standard state and local sales taxes.
The taxes — if the legislature puts them before voters and they are approved — could add several dollars to the average pot purchase of one-eighth of an ounce.
Supporters of the taxing proposals, including Department of Revenue Executive Director Barbara Brohl, said the money is needed to regulate marijuana stores. Brohl, whose department oversees medical-marijuana businesses, said a lack of money has hindered regulation of that industry.
"The funding model just didn't work," Brohl said. "And as a result, the division wasn't able to perform the regulatory and oversight functions it was created to do."
Opponents of the taxing proposals said that imposing too high of a rate will keep marijuana sellers in the black market.
The task force's work rubbed some marijuana advocates the wrong way.
"I feel like so much time has been spent on flat-earth concerns that we've missed the boat to the new world," said medical-marijuana business owner Jessica LeRoux, who said overregulation of recreational marijuana will allow the black market to continue to flourish.
Meanwhile, Hickenlooper — while complimentary of the task force's effort — was hardly upbeat about the future of Colorado with legal marijuana. During his brief remarks to the task force, for instance, he predicted that the state would see more homeless teenagers because of marijuana.
"I think that world is going to have consequences that, no matter how thoughtful we are, we will not be able to anticipate," he said. "But I'm not saying the sky is falling. ... Obviously, we have to be pragmatic."
Task force proposals for recreational marijuana in Colorado
-- Create an excise tax of 15 percent paid by marijuana stores at wholesale level
-- Create a special marijuana sales tax paid by consumers
-- Allow employers to fire employees for off-the-job marijuana use
-- Allow marijuana sales to out-of-state residents visiting Colorado
-- Restrict where and how marijuana stores can advertise
-- Require marijuana to be sold in child-proof packaging
-- Clarify that marijuana given away in exchange for a donation is illegal
-- Include marijuana in smoking ban at bar and restaurants, effectively barring cannabis clubs
-- Require marijuana grown at home to be in a room with walls and a ceiling. No outdoor marijuana growing.
-- Require state and local approval for marijuana stores
-- Create a seed-to-sale regulatory system for recreational marijuana businesses similar to medical-marijuana dispensaries.
--Require marijuana products to have labels of potency
This one is bothersome.
Quote-- Allow employers to fire employees for off-the-job marijuana use
Why should it be treated any differently than alcohol or tobacco? I kind of feel like you're either in or your out. This still makes it pretty much "illegal."
And this is kind of ridiculous
Quote-- Require marijuana to be sold in child-proof packaging
Quote-- Create an excise tax of 15 percent paid by marijuana stores at wholesale level
-- Create a special marijuana sales tax paid by consumers
I really hate excise taxes. And "sin taxes" in general. Are revenues from pot taxes going to be used exclusively for pot-related activities, such as enforcement or (joke alert) marijuana-abuse treatment programs?
Quote-- Allow employers to fire employees for off-the-job marijuana use
Seems they could already do this under the concept of at-will employment.
Quote-- Allow marijuana sales to out-of-state residents visiting Colorado
I imagine there's some kind of equal protection clause in the Colorado constitution, which does not exclusively apply to residents, that one could argue already makes this a fact.
Quote-- Require marijuana grown at home to be in a room with walls and a ceiling. No outdoor marijuana growing.
I wonder if there are any other examples of a plant being legal to own and grow, but banning you from actually growing it outside in nature where, you know, it's supposed to grow.
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on March 01, 2013, 09:04:09 AM
This one is bothersome.
Quote-- Allow employers to fire employees for off-the-job marijuana use
Why should it be treated any differently than alcohol or tobacco? I kind of feel like you're either in or your out. This still makes it pretty much "illegal."
And this is kind of ridiculous
Quote-- Require marijuana to be sold in child-proof packaging
fwiw, some companies do not hire tobacco smokers and do fire people who smoke tobacco.
theoretically, they can do the same with alcohol.
tobacco smokers, marijuana smokers and alcohol drinkers are not protected classes. you can't use the defense of discrimination without being in a protected class.
if your argument is to make marijuana smokers a protected class, good luck with that movement.
Are these taxes going to apply to medical marijuana patients as well? How will they tell the difference if you go to a dispensary that sells to medical and recreational patients? maybe bud will be cheaper for the medical patients?
So you cant even toke in a bar? People always light up in bars when I was in CO. I didnt think it was allowed, but no one stopped them, or cared. I wonder if this "official ban" on blazing in bars n stuff will stop that. So at shows, are they gonna be cracking down on people blazing like they do if someone lights up a cig?
personally, I don't care what people do, as long as it doesn't affect me.
If I'm at a show (or a bar) and a person near me is smoking anything, it bothers me.
no smoking is no smoking, imo.
(ducks)
Quote from: slslbs on March 01, 2013, 01:20:34 PM
personally, I don't care what people do, as long as it doesn't affect me.
If I'm at a show (or a bar) and a person near me is smoking anything, it bothers me.
no smoking is no smoking, imo.
(ducks)
the only thing that bothers me is people next to me drinking cheap beer. they should be ousted.
people smoking pot near me at a show doesn;t bother me at all.
I do hate the smell of cigarette smoke, but I deal with it if it happens.
i feel like such an old man.... but there is some kid who lives a few doors down who constantly smokes weed and it smells up the entire floor and seeps into my apartment. i used to love the smell back when i was an asshole just like him, but now when i am trying to watch my stories in peace it really bugs me. think i am going to write him a stern letter soon. sorry duder, this ain't your college dorm.
/get off my lawn
Quote from: DoW on March 01, 2013, 09:24:03 AM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on March 01, 2013, 09:04:09 AM
This one is bothersome.
Quote-- Allow employers to fire employees for off-the-job marijuana use
Why should it be treated any differently than alcohol or tobacco? I kind of feel like you're either in or your out. This still makes it pretty much "illegal."
And this is kind of ridiculous
Quote-- Require marijuana to be sold in child-proof packaging
fwiw, some companies do not hire tobacco smokers and do fire people who smoke tobacco.
theoretically, they can do the same with alcohol.
tobacco smokers, marijuana smokers and alcohol drinkers are not protected classes. you can't use the defense of discrimination without being in a protected class.
if your argument is to make marijuana smokers a protected class, good luck with that movement.
I wasn't really taking it as a discrimination thing, just a flaw in logic (imo).
Quote from: mbw on March 01, 2013, 01:38:20 PM
i feel like such an old man.... but there is some kid who lives a few doors down who constantly smokes weed and it smells up the entire floor and seeps into my apartment. i used to love the smell back when i was an asshole just like him, but now when i am trying to watch my stories in peace it really bugs me. think i am going to write him a stern letter soon. sorry duder, this ain't your college dorm.
/get off my lawn
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab30/16bitninja/ClintEastwood_MyLawn.jpg)
Quote from: mbw on March 01, 2013, 01:38:20 PM
i feel like such an old man.... but there is some kid who lives a few doors down who constantly smokes weed and it smells up the entire floor and seeps into my apartment. i used to love the smell back when i was an asshole just like him, but now when i am trying to watch my stories in peace it really bugs me. think i am going to write him a stern letter soon. sorry duder, this ain't your college dorm.
/get off my lawn
My buddy changed the name of his wifi network at his house to "FBI Surveillance Van 19" and watched and laughed as the kids next door moved all the plants indoors.... some variation of that may work for you.
Quote from: PG on March 01, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: mbw on March 01, 2013, 01:38:20 PM
i feel like such an old man.... but there is some kid who lives a few doors down who constantly smokes weed and it smells up the entire floor and seeps into my apartment. i used to love the smell back when i was an asshole just like him, but now when i am trying to watch my stories in peace it really bugs me. think i am going to write him a stern letter soon. sorry duder, this ain't your college dorm.
/get off my lawn
My buddy changed the name of his wifi network at his house to "FBI Surveillance Van 19" and watched and laughed as the kids next door moved all the plants indoors.... some variation of that may work for you.
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on March 01, 2013, 05:36:17 PM
Quote from: PG on March 01, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: mbw on March 01, 2013, 01:38:20 PM
i feel like such an old man.... but there is some kid who lives a few doors down who constantly smokes weed and it smells up the entire floor and seeps into my apartment. i used to love the smell back when i was an asshole just like him, but now when i am trying to watch my stories in peace it really bugs me. think i am going to write him a stern letter soon. sorry duder, this ain't your college dorm.
/get off my lawn
My buddy changed the name of his wifi network at his house to "FBI Surveillance Van 19" and watched and laughed as the kids next door moved all the plants indoors.... some variation of that may work for you.
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
i like it. a letter taped multiple places in the hall will work too.
all i'm asking is don't be a fucking idiot. open a damn window.
Quote from: mbw on March 01, 2013, 06:48:39 PM
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on March 01, 2013, 05:36:17 PM
Quote from: PG on March 01, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: mbw on March 01, 2013, 01:38:20 PM
i feel like such an old man.... but there is some kid who lives a few doors down who constantly smokes weed and it smells up the entire floor and seeps into my apartment. i used to love the smell back when i was an asshole just like him, but now when i am trying to watch my stories in peace it really bugs me. think i am going to write him a stern letter soon. sorry duder, this ain't your college dorm.
/get off my lawn
My buddy changed the name of his wifi network at his house to "FBI Surveillance Van 19" and watched and laughed as the kids next door moved all the plants indoors.... some variation of that may work for you.
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
i like it. a letter taped multiple places in the hall will work too.
all i'm asking is don't be a fucking idiot. open a damn window.
but but but but its windy, and cold!
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on March 01, 2013, 09:04:09 AM
This one is bothersome.
Quote-- Allow employers to fire employees for off-the-job marijuana use
I thought so at first too, but as bvaz and VDB have pointed out, (a) it's really just establishing that pot smokers are not a protected class that deserves special protection and (b) that's pretty much already the case. Employment is a voluntary contract; your employer can set any restrictions on the conditions of your employment as they see fit just as you are free to either ignore those restrictions (and accept the consequences if caught) or take your labor elsewhere.
Quote from: UncleEbinezer on March 01, 2013, 09:04:09 AM
And this is kind of ridiculous
Quote-- Require marijuana to be sold in child-proof packaging
I believe that is only to make sure that edibles are clearly labeled that they are special cupcakes (don't you watch Wilfred?!?).
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on March 01, 2013, 09:18:42 AM
Quote-- Create an excise tax of 15 percent paid by marijuana stores at wholesale level
-- Create a special marijuana sales tax paid by consumers
I really hate excise taxes. And "sin taxes" in general. Are revenues from pot taxes going to be used exclusively for pot-related activities, such as enforcement or (joke alert) marijuana-abuse treatment programs?
Iirc, some/most of the revenues is required to go to local schools (after funding regulatory costs). And I hate taxes too.
Quote from: mbw on March 01, 2013, 01:38:20 PM
when i am trying to watch my stories in peace
+k'd
I have seen articles on how CO is going to handle the recreational marijuana use, but haven't seen much come from WA in a while.
QuoteMD Senate passes bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana
http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/government/senate-passes-bill-to-decriminalize-small-amounts-of-marijuana/article_721ffbfa-aa49-5cef-865b-82eb5348b757.html
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on March 05, 2013, 09:13:10 PM
I have seen articles on how CO is going to handle the recreational marijuana use, but haven't seen much come from WA in a while.
they ran out of rolling paper, so they had to use the only copy of the bill....
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on March 19, 2013, 12:29:09 PM
QuoteMD Senate passes bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana
http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/government/senate-passes-bill-to-decriminalize-small-amounts-of-marijuana/article_721ffbfa-aa49-5cef-865b-82eb5348b757.html
Still has a long way to go, but this is a big step in the right direction!
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on March 05, 2013, 09:13:10 PM
I have seen articles on how CO is going to handle the recreational marijuana use, but haven't seen much come from WA in a while.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/19/3295045/wash-touts-credentials-of-new.html
Elizabeth Warren *LUVS* the Drug War.
And who's this Dan Warren think he is? I mean, a Senator for full scale legalization? Go back to Portugal, you goddamn stoner.
http://blog.norml.org/2013/03/19/sen-elizabeth-warren-takes-dig-at-pro-legalization-senate-candidate-dan-winslow/
Quote
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Takes Dig at Pro-Legalization Senate Candidate Dan Winslow
At a St. Patrick's Day breakfast in South Boston this past weekend, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) took a jab at pro-legalization Republican State Representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk), who is currently vying for the Republican nomination for Senate in Massachusetts's upcoming special election.
Addressing the crowd, Senator Warren said, "I advise everyone to pay very close attention to Dan Winslow's platform. He has a 100 percent ranking from the gun lobby and he's for the legalization of marijuana. He wants us armed and stoned."
According to statements received by VoteSmart, Rep. Dan Winslow's stance on marijuana policy is as follows:
Quote
I disfavor decriminalization of marijuana because it increases demand from illicit sources. Instead, I think we need to legalize marijuana (likely starting with medicinal marijuana in view of the current federal prohibition) and then regulate it and tax it. Only by lawful production of marijuana will the cartels, crooks and drug dealers be put out of business in the US. – State Representative Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk)
Representative Winslow is currently engaged in a primary for the GOP nomination, if he were to receive it he would face either Democratic Congressmen Stephen Lynch or Edward Markey in the June 25 special election.
Our congresswoman rocks! No chance this bill passes but baby steps are important
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Pingree-Legalize-marijuana-nationwide.html?pageType=mobile&id=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHzbGZuKJAs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHzbGZuKJAs)
I've been wondering how the Liquor Control Board (Washington) is going to decide what 'legal' looks like, compared with what the Department of Revenue (Colorado) envisions. DudeSittingOnTheRight (David Beibenstock, West Coast editor of High Times) talks about creating 2nd-class citizens - who don't have the rights to adopt, work, get business loans from banks, etc. that non-marijuana users would have.
It seems to me like Washington had taken on DUI-responsibility with the whole 5-nannograms thing; and Colorado has (currently) ceded the employer's "right to terminate." DudeSittingOnTheLeft (Harris Kenny, policy analyst from the Colorado Task Force) points out that no police department wants to get into administering roadside blood-tests.
Quote from: Undermind on March 21, 2013, 06:51:35 PM
Our congresswoman rocks! No chance this bill passes but baby steps are important
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Pingree-Legalize-marijuana-nationwide.html?pageType=mobile&id=1
I think just having so many state-size pieces of legislation at the same time (Oregon is taking another stab at it, too, early next month - http://www.kptv.com/story/21674993/lawmakers-consider-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-in-oregon (ftp://www.kptv.com/story/21674993/lawmakers-consider-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-in-oregon)) is good reason for optimism. More people are talking sensibly. :clap:
http://blog.norml.org/2013/03/28/marijuana-legalization-measure-formally-introduced-in-maine-with-35-co-sponsors/
Massachusetts released a bunch of med regulations today, including this:
"Patients will be allowed to carry a 2-month supply of up to 10 ounces of marijuana. More can be prescribed in limited circumstances."
That ought to do it.
Just have to get my card now.
Quote from: birdman on March 29, 2013, 07:41:29 PM
Massachusetts released a bunch of med regulations today, including this:
"Patients will be allowed to carry a 2-month supply of up to 10 ounces of marijuana. More can be prescribed in limited circumstances."
That ought to do it.
Just have to get my card now.
10 zips!?!
wow, that sounds awesome.
:Considers moving to Mass, remembers how much snow they get up there, forgets ever thinking of moving to Mass:
Quote from: antelope19 on March 30, 2013, 03:16:25 PM
:Considers moving to Mass, remembers how much snow they get up there, forgets ever thinking of moving to Mass:
Pussy
Quote from: birdman on March 30, 2013, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on March 30, 2013, 03:16:25 PM
:Considers moving to Mass, remembers how much snow they get up there, forgets ever thinking of moving to Mass:
Pussy
QFT
That shit's miserable.
Quote from: antelope19 on March 30, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: birdman on March 30, 2013, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on March 30, 2013, 03:16:25 PM
:Considers moving to Mass, remembers how much snow they get up there, forgets ever thinking of moving to Mass:
Pussy
QFT
That shit's miserable.
Yeah, but that first warm day, with the girls unleashing six months of pent-up desire to show skin...almost makes it worth it.
Wow, who came up with the five zips a month calculation?
Quote from: antelope19 on March 30, 2013, 03:16:25 PM
:Considers moving to Mass, remembers how much snow they get up there, forgets ever thinking of moving to Mass:
Did you just smoke? :mrgreen:
and...
Quote from: birdman on March 30, 2013, 03:29:08 PM
Pussy
Quote from: birdman on March 29, 2013, 07:41:29 PM
Massachusetts released a bunch of med regulations today, including this:
"Patients will be allowed to carry a 2-month supply of up to 10 ounces of marijuana. More can be prescribed in limited circumstances."
That ought to do it.
Just have to get my card now.
I read that as 10 grams in my head at first and then realized in was ounces. :-o
I think that would do.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on March 30, 2013, 05:56:10 PM
Quote from: birdman on March 29, 2013, 07:41:29 PM
Massachusetts released a bunch of med regulations today, including this:
"Patients will be allowed to carry a 2-month supply of up to 10 ounces of marijuana. More can be prescribed in limited circumstances."
That ought to do it.
Just have to get my card now.
I read that as 10 grams in my head at first and then realized in was ounces. :-o
I think that would do.
You're not the only one.
Guess I'll hand in my street cred now.
For the first time since Pew first asked the question, more Americans favor full legalization of marijuana than do not. Thankfully, someday people will view marijuana prohibition the same way we now view alcohol prohibition. And if the recent tide of politicians who suddenly support gay marriage once polls favored it is any indication, that day is coming soon.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/
Quote
Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana
For the first time in more than four decades of polling on the issue, a majority of Americans favor legalizing the use of marijuana. A national survey finds that 52% say that the use of marijuana should be made legal while 45% say it should not.
Support for legalizing marijuana has risen 11 points since 2010. The change is even more dramatic since the late 1960s. A 1969 Gallup survey found that just 12% favored legalizing marijuana use, while 84% were opposed.
...
(http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/04/4-4-13-1.png)
"A national survey finds that 52% say that the use of marijuana should be made legal while 45% say it should not."
the other 3% can't remember the question.
sorry.....couldn't resist.
good read
http://www.businessinsider.com/war-on-drugs-marijuana-legalization-2013-4
From Norml:
QuoteMAINE ACTION ALERT!!!
LD 1229 is now awaiting action before the Joint Standing Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. The bill currently has the support of an unprecedented 35 co-sponsors, in no small part thanks to your efforts reaching out to your elected officials. Keep it up!
Click, Send, Share, Legalize.
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/51046//p/dia/action3/common/public/index.sjs?action_KEY=9840
This
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/the-war-on-drugs-is-far-more-immoral-than-most-drug-use/274651/
Quote
The War on Drugs Is Far More Immoral Than Most Drug Use
In the Washington Post, Peter Wehner advises the Republican Party to reassert itself as the anti-drug-legalization party. "One of the main deterrents to drug use is because it is illegal. If drugs become legal, their price will go down and use will go up," he writes. "And marijuana is far more potent than in the past. Studies have shown that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana suffer from disrupted brain development and cognitive processing problems." Of course, no one is advocating that adolescent marijuana be made legal. And does Wehner understand that prohibition creates a powerful incentive for upping drug potency?
But rather than focus on mistaken arguments common to drug prohibitionists, I want to address a relatively novel claim: "Many people cite the 'costs' of and 'socioeconomic factors' behind drug use; rarely do people say that drug use is wrong because it is morally problematic, because of what it can do to mind and soul," Wehner writes. "In some liberal and libertarian circles, the 'language of morality' is ridiculed. It is considered unenlightened, benighted and simplistic. The role of the state is to maximize individual liberty and be indifferent to human character."
What he doesn't seem to understand is that many advocates of individual liberty, myself included, regard liberty itself as a moral imperative. I don't want to ridicule the "language of morality." I want to state, as forcefully as possible, that the War on Drugs is deeply, irredeemably immoral; that it corrodes the minds and souls of those who prosecute it, and creates incentives for bad behavior that those living under its contours have always and will always find too powerful to resist. Drug warriors may disagree, but they should not pretend that they are the only ones making moral claims, and that their opponents are indifferent to morality. Reformers are often morally outraged by prohibitionist policies and worry that nannying degrades the character of citizens.
Perhaps I should be more specific.
See the man in the photo at the top of this article? It isn't immoral for him to light a plant on fire, inhale the smoke, and enjoy a mild high for a short time, presuming he doesn't drive while high. But it would be immoral to react to his plant-smoking by sending men with guns to forcibly arrest him, convict him in a court, and lock him up for months or even years for a victimless crime. That's the choice, dear reader. So take a look at the guy in the photo and make your choice: Is it more moral to let him smoke, or to forcibly cage him with thieves, rapists, and murderers?
My own moral judgments don't stop there.
Denying marijuana to sick people whose suffering it would ease is immoral.
When a paramilitary police squad raids a family home, battering down doors without knocking, exploding flash grenades, shooting family pets, and handcuffing children, all to recover a small number of marijuana plants, the officers or the people who ordered them there are acting immorally.
When the United States reacts to the insatiable demand for drugs by American citizens by pursuing prohibitionist policies abroad that destabilize multiple foreign countries, it acts immorally.
When prosecutors coerce nonviolent drug offenders to risk their lives as police informants under threat of draconian prison sentences, they act immorally.
The dearth of empathy for nonviolent drug offenders serving years or even decades in prison is a moral failure.
Because we have shifted the costs of drug abuse away from the Americans who freely chose or would choose to use drugs and toward society as a whole, imposing more costs on people who never chose to use drugs but suffer from many harms of the black market, we have achieved a morally dubious redistribution.
What about character? When leaders like Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama support policies that incarcerate young people for behavior that they themselves engaged in without any apparent harm to themselves, their futures, or anyone else, it is they who exhibit character failures.
Of course, there are drug abusers who exhibit character failures too. And when those failures affect other people, when they steal or behave violently or recklessly, they ought to be punished. Law enforcement could focus on catching them, and society could do far more to rehabilitate addicts, if so much wealth wasn't squandered on an obviously hopeless War on Drugs. Like a lot of people who favor ending it, I believe a reformed policy would be a lot more moral.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2013/04/07/senate-hold-hearing-medical-marijuana/zzTNrEMoyWoG8HLAFZmXYL/story.html
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 07, 2013, 12:18:59 AM
This
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/the-war-on-drugs-is-far-more-immoral-than-most-drug-use/274651/
...
Very well stated.
http://weedfinder.com/dash/news/california-lt-gov-calls-on-state-to-lead-nation-in-ending-marijuana-prohibition/
and
http://weedfinder.com/dash/news/police-return-60-lbs-of-medical-marijuana-to-two-vallejo-dispensaries/
Quote from: Undermind on April 28, 2013, 08:19:19 PM
http://weedfinder.com/dash/news/police-return-60-lbs-of-medical-marijuana-to-two-vallejo-dispensaries/
"Instead, the [Vallejo] City Council has enacted a moratorium this April on new dispensaries, and reportedly called the feds to enforce federal law, instead of state law in Vallejo. A similar situation is playing out in San Diego."
Individual counties going rogue and inviting the feds to come on in?
This is gonna get messy.
Quote from: Undermind on April 28, 2013, 08:19:19 PM
http://weedfinder.com/dash/news/california-lt-gov-calls-on-state-to-lead-nation-in-ending-marijuana-prohibition/
I don't always agree with his politics, but Gavin Newsome seems like the real deal. Anytime I've heard him speak I've been impressed. I hope Californians respond.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/21/meet-mark-kleiman-the-man-who-will-be-washington-state-s-pot-czar.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/21/meet-mark-kleiman-the-man-who-will-be-washington-state-s-pot-czar.html)
DoJ pushes in with CA crackdown, threatening LANDLORDS with 40 yrs if they don't evict state law abiding, rent paying dispensaries. Meanwhile, Holder has still not responded to CO and WA legalization, saying only they are "still considering" 2 laws that are now 6 months old.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/feds_threaten_medical_pot_dispensaries_with_40_year_sentences/
Quote
Feds threaten medical pot dispensaries with 40-year sentences
A lawful San Jose, Calif., dispensary has been ordered to vacate in latest federal crackdown to challenge state law
In the latest act in the ongoing drama pitting federal drug laws against state legislation permitting the sale of marijuana, a U.S. attorney is threatening the landlords housing medical marijuana dispensaries with 40 years in federal prison. After ballot measures legalizing the sale and possession of recreational pot use passed in Colorado and Washington state, we wondered whether Obama's second term would see the beginning of the end of the federal war on drugs.
But as the San Jose crackdown, among others, suggests, the Justice Department will not be backing down. In January, Southern California medical marijuana dispensary operator Aaron Sandusky was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for running a business deemed legal in his state since California legalized marijuana for qualified patients, caregivers and collectives in 1996 and 2003. Now, as the East Bay Express reported, "a new round of actions against lawful medical cannabis dispensaries in the South Bay" has begun following crackdowns in 2011:
Quote
Landlords are receiving threatening letters from US Attorney Melinda Haag, warning of forty-year-prison sentences if landlords do not evict their dispensary tenants...
In October 2011, Haag and three other US Attorneys declared war on California's estimated $1.3 billion medical marijuana industry, threatening hundreds of landlords with forfeiture. Hundreds of dispensaries across the state moved or closed. Haag is attempting to seize Harborside Health Center in Oakland, as well as its sister club in San Jose.
Last year, California Gov. Jerry Brown asked the feds to call off their crackdown, saying California didn't need "federal gendarmes" kicking in the doors of lawful businesses. In January, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano told a San Francisco crowd that Haag had "gone rogue," adding, "I'm sorry a house fell on her sister," alluding to the wicked witch in The Wizard of Oz. Last week, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom called for decriminalizing, regulating, and taxing California's multi-billion dollar marijuana industry.
The second-term Obama administration was presented an aperture to push back against the ruinous war on drugs. The Department of Justice is choosing to continue to act against good reason and the general will.
Some anti-marijuana group is submitting a proposal to repeal Amendment 64 in CO.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/04/amendment_64_repeal_unconstitutional_draft.php
QuoteUpdate: Yesterday, we shared a draft proposal that would repeal Amendment 64, which allows adults 21 and over in Colorado to use and possess small amounts of marijuana, if voters don't approve a 15 percent sales tax during a November election. Also included was an opinion by attorney Ed Ramey that such a measure would be unconstitutional; see our previous coverage below. We've now heard back from a rep with a group that sees value in such an approach even as a modified tax proposal is moving forward. Details below.
As we've reported, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, shorthanded as TABOR, requires a vote to approve tax increases. Hence, House Bill 13-1318, the original version of which can be seen below, was designed to set rates to be considered in this November's election. An excise tax of 15 percent was envisioned in A64's language, but a sales tax of up to 15 percent not sketched out in the amendment has also been pushed.
Thumbnail image for Mason Tvert, Denver Press Club 1.JPG
Photo by Sam Levin
Mason Tvert at a press event earlier this year.
Amendment 64 proponent Mason Tvert sees the 15 percent sales tax as too high. He supports a 10 percent tax, which he believes would cover enforcement costs with plenty of room to spare. Moreover, in an interview last week, he pointed to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted on April 15 and 16, which "found that 77 percent of voters would support a 10 percent special sales tax and only 18 percent would oppose one."
Given that, Tvert said that "If legislators are concerned about whether a 15 percent tax would pass, they should consider reducing it to 10 percent instead of embracing the nuclear option."
That's what wound up happening yesterday. As reported by the Denver Post, the version of the bill that will face a final vote in the House before continuing to the Senate sports a 15 percent excise tax and a 10 percent sales tax. The latter number was supported by Republicans, who feared that if rates were too high, voters might reject the tax in November, putting the state on the hook for enforcement without new revenues to pay for it.
Still up in the air is the prospect of A64 repeal language should the taxes be voted down. Attorney Ed Ramey believes such a tactic is unconstitutional, as outlined below, but Smart Colorado spokesman Eric Anderson says his organization sees value in the concept. He also insists that Smart Colorado supports a 15 percent tax, despite Tvert's claim to the contrary. Here's how Anderson put it in a statement supplied to Westword just prior to the final vote yesterday:
As we've stressed before, we're not taking the lead on the accountability amendment proposed last week but understand that its legislative proponents are confident in its constitutionality.
We've stated our support of House Bill 1318's tax structure and the inclusion of the same numbers in the potential two-part accountability amendment, which we support. We applaud the bipartisan leadership of legislators who are proposing this accountability amendment to ensure that Coloradans don't subsidize the cost of regulating recreational marijuana.
These measures would be consistent with the recommendations of the legislature's Joint Select Committee on the Implementation of Amendment 64: a 15 percent excise tax on the wholesale value of commercial marijuana, a 15 percent retail sales tax, and an extension of the state's existing 2.9 percent general sales tax to sales of marijuana. Those levels come closest to creating the necessary tax structure although, as the new report from Colorado State University's Colorado Futures Center notes, even then "marijuana tax revenues may not cover the incremental state expenditures related to legalization." We're focused on the legislative debate right now and we're not looking beyond the legislative session at this time.
Amendment 64 proponents told voters that passage of the measure "would result in immediate savings, and it will quickly grow into a major new revenue stream for our state and localities." Citizens must now demand that the industry be held accountable and deliver on promises made. So, let's see if the marijuana industry will back up its campaign promises by supporting this proposed accountability amendment instead of fighting it.
It's important to note that while the legislative session ends Friday, changes can still be made between now and then -- so it's entirely possible that the 10 percent sales tax currently envisioned could be increased to 15 percent, and repeal language could be inserted.
Here's the original version of 13-1318, as well as the Colorado Futures Center report mentioned by Anderson. That's followed by our previous coverage.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 02, 2013, 09:39:35 AM
Some anti-marijuana group is submitting a proposal to repeal Amendment 64 in CO.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/04/amendment_64_repeal_unconstitutional_draft.php
Thankfully, this seems to have been beaten back (for now).
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23149615/colorado-marijuana-legalization-repeal-talks-lose-momentum-at
Quote
Colorado marijuana legalization repeal talks lose momentum at Capitol
Plans for a measure that could repeal marijuana legalization in Colorado have lost momentum at the state Capitol, according to lawmakers and advocates involved in the debate.
Last week, several legislators confirmed they were working on a proposal that could overturn marijuana legalization if voters do not approve new taxes on legal pot this November. Supporters of the idea said, without the tax money, the state can't adequately pay for enforcement of forthcoming recreational marijuana stores.
But talks on the plan have proved difficult, throwing into question whether it will even be officially introduced.
"I think people are counting their votes," said House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat who didn't endorse the repeal proposal but previously said he was open to the discussion. "I think there are people on both sides who have concerns about it."
Ferrandino said proponents have now scaled back the plan. Under the latest draft proposal, commercial marijuana sales in Colorado would be put on hold until voters approve extra taxes on the sales, Ferrandino said.
Rep. Frank McNulty, a Highlands Ranch Republican who supports the repeal idea, said lawmakers may not have the time to pass the possible measure.
Opponents of the idea, he said, "could drag the (proposal) out to the point where they make it difficult to pass."
This year's legislative session ends next Wednesday, and any measure would have to be introduced by Monday morning to have even a glimmer of hope of passage.
In November, Colorado voters approved a constitutional measure that legalizes use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older. The measure also allows for marijuana to be sold in specially licensed stores.
At the Capitol, lawmakers have proposed a bill that places a 15 percent excise tax and an initial 10 percent extra sales tax on marijuana. The bill, House Bill 1318, is on-track for passage, but voters in November would ultimately have to OK the new taxes.
The marijuana legalization repeal — or suspension — proposal would also have to be approved by voters. But, before it could reach the ballot, it would need two-thirds support in the Capitol because it would change a provision of Colorado's constitution.
Rep. Dan Pabon, a Denver Democrat opposed to the plan, said many lawmakers have lost interest in the repeal idea.
"There was a pretty strong grassroots response that I think every member received that said, 'Don't threaten us,'" Pabon said.
A legal analysis released this week by proponents of marijuana legalization also raises more possible problems for the repeal plan. The analysis, by attorney Edward Ramey, says the Colorado constitution allows only fiscal measures to go before voters statewide in odd-year elections.
Ferrandino, though, said the legislature's attorneys concluded it would be constitutional to put the idea before voters this year.
http://www.theweedblog.com/doj-files-forfeiture-lawsuit-against-one-of-californias-oldest-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/
DUID law is going to pass in CO any day. They were trying to get it as a 5 ng limit of THC means your intoxicated, but after research they found out a lot of everyday smokers watch up with 2-3 times that amount, before they even smoke for the first time in a day. So, seems like this law has a lot of grey areas that the police will use against a lot of people that blaze and drive. Wonder how it will turn out.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/05/thc_driving_limit_passes_william_breathes.php
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 08, 2013, 05:24:39 PM
DUID law is going to pass in CO any day. They were trying to get it as a 5 ng limit of THC means your intoxicated, but after research they found out a lot of everyday smokers watch up with 2-3 times that amount, before they even smoke for the first time in a day. So, seems like this law has a lot of grey areas that the police will use against a lot of people that blaze and drive. Wonder how it will turn out.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/05/thc_driving_limit_passes_william_breathes.php
That's what really scares me about legalization. The current laws in Maine work well for me and the price/quality is amazing here. I do however think prohibition is ridiculous and a giant waste of money.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 08, 2013, 05:24:39 PM
DUID law is going to pass in CO any day. They were trying to get it as a 5 ng limit of THC means your intoxicated, but after research they found out a lot of everyday smokers watch up with 2-3 times that amount, before they even smoke for the first time in a day. So, seems like this law has a lot of grey areas that the police will use against a lot of people that blaze and drive. Wonder how it will turn out.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/05/thc_driving_limit_passes_william_breathes.php
Blood tests which distinguish between 'active' and 'inactive' THC in blood? :?
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 05:10:43 PM
http://www.theweedblog.com/doj-files-forfeiture-lawsuit-against-one-of-californias-oldest-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/
I despise Melinda Haag. It would be nice if her boss told her to back the fuck off, but his silence tells me all I need to know about the administration's priorities.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 08, 2013, 05:24:39 PM
DUID law is going to pass in CO any day. They were trying to get it as a 5 ng limit of THC means your intoxicated, but after research they found out a lot of everyday smokers watch up with 2-3 times that amount, before they even smoke for the first time in a day. So, seems like this law has a lot of grey areas that the police will use against a lot of people that blaze and drive. Wonder how it will turn out.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/05/thc_driving_limit_passes_william_breathes.php
It's definitely a tricky situation. On one hand, I understand (support, even) the desire to prevent impaired drivers from getting behind the wheel in the name of public safety. How you define impairment given the longer detection lifetime of THC vs. alcohol is where it falls apart. I also have a huge problem with forced blood draws, which are obviously far more invasive than a breathalyzer. And to your point, to the extent that regular users driving unimpaired get prosecuted, that's a big fucking deal. This issue will definitely be one of the more difficult ones to address in the ongoing and inevitable march toward legalization. Also, developing a more accurate, less invasive detection method seems like a pretty goddamn good thing to be looking into. So get on that, science.
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 06:39:27 PM
That's what really scares me about legalization. The current laws in Maine work well for me and the price/quality is amazing here.
What are the ME laws?
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 06:39:27 PM
I do however think prohibition is ridiculous and a giant waste of money.
Not to mention locking nonviolent criminals in cages and destroying families is morally reprehensible.
/obvious
Maine is super decriminalized for possession. It is a citation (same as a speeding ticket) for 2 oz or under. For medical it is a little more strict for conditions than California, but I know a ton of people with cards. There are care givers who can grow for up to 10 patients I believe and also 1 dispensary in every county. If you have a card your can grow up to 6 plants too I think.
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 09:04:12 PM
Maine is super decriminalized for possession. It is a citation (same as a speeding ticket) for 2 oz or under. For medical it is a little more strict for conditions than California, but I know a ton of people with cards. There are care givers who can grow for up to 10 patients I believe and also 1 dispensary in every county. If you have a card your can grow up to 6 plants too I think.
Any penalty for driving while stoned?
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 08, 2013, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 09:04:12 PM
Maine is super decriminalized for possession. It is a citation (same as a speeding ticket) for 2 oz or under. For medical it is a little more strict for conditions than California, but I know a ton of people with cards. There are care givers who can grow for up to 10 patients I believe and also 1 dispensary in every county. If you have a card your can grow up to 6 plants too I think.
Any penalty for driving while stoned?
not sure, DUI?
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 09:33:40 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 08, 2013, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 09:04:12 PM
Maine is super decriminalized for possession. It is a citation (same as a speeding ticket) for 2 oz or under. For medical it is a little more strict for conditions than California, but I know a ton of people with cards. There are care givers who can grow for up to 10 patients I believe and also 1 dispensary in every county. If you have a card your can grow up to 6 plants too I think.
Any penalty for driving while stoned?
not sure, DUI?
But no formal limit/blood or other detection test?
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 08, 2013, 09:42:01 PM
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 09:33:40 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 08, 2013, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 09:04:12 PM
Maine is super decriminalized for possession. It is a citation (same as a speeding ticket) for 2 oz or under. For medical it is a little more strict for conditions than California, but I know a ton of people with cards. There are care givers who can grow for up to 10 patients I believe and also 1 dispensary in every county. If you have a card your can grow up to 6 plants too I think.
Any penalty for driving while stoned?
not sure, DUI?
But no formal limit/blood or other detection test?
no
Quote from: Undermind on May 08, 2013, 06:39:27 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 08, 2013, 05:24:39 PM
DUID law is going to pass in CO any day. They were trying to get it as a 5 ng limit of THC means your intoxicated, but after research they found out a lot of everyday smokers watch up with 2-3 times that amount, before they even smoke for the first time in a day. So, seems like this law has a lot of grey areas that the police will use against a lot of people that blaze and drive. Wonder how it will turn out.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/05/thc_driving_limit_passes_william_breathes.php
That's what really scares me about legalization. The current laws in Maine work well for me and the price/quality is amazing here. I do however think prohibition is ridiculous and a giant waste of money.
agreed. Since the state/police cant make money busting people for possession anymore, they need to make money off this legalization somehow.
I agree they need some sort of laws against driving stoned, even though its not as bad as driving drunk, but still makes sense to have a law with some sort of limits to driving stoned. But I feel like they just threw this random law together with no studies/research and expect it to not really affect people but the cops in CO I bet are going to have a field day with this. If the average stoner wakes up and has twice the "legal" limit of thc in his blood without even puffing, then obviously this arbitrary number they chose for ng/ml is not right and they need to reconsider this law but instead they just let it go through.
The only thing that ever happened to me (admittedly, very fortunate) while driving stoned was a friend looked over at me and realized " Dude, you're going 15 mph" :hereitisyousentimentalbastard Speed limit was 40.
We were on a small, 4 lane road with little to no traffic, so it wasn't that big of a deal. Just really funny at the time.
Let me take up to contrary position here, just for shits n grins.
There have been plenty of times when I've gotten wasted at night and could tell when I woke up the next day I was not sober. Easily could have been over the legal driving limit then, even though I'd not even "had my first drink of the day."
So, could it not be possible that the heavy stoner who wakes up above the legal limit is still above a reasonable threshold as in my example above?
Or is the story here not that it's just unfair to hold stoners to this standard, but that it's plain impossible for even a heavy smoker to still be too high to drive in the morning (if he hadn't smoked since the night before), and that's why the limit is too low?
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on May 09, 2013, 12:07:10 PM
Let me take up to contrary position here, just for shits n grins.
There have been plenty of times when I've gotten wasted at night and could tell when I woke up the next day I was not sober. Easily could have been over the legal driving limit then, even though I'd not even "had my first drink of the day."
So, could it not be possible that the heavy stoner who wakes up above the legal limit is still above a reasonable threshold as in my example above?
Or is the story here not that it's just unfair to hold stoners to this standard, but that it's plain impossible for even a heavy smoker to still be too high to drive in the morning (if he hadn't smoked since the night before), and that's why the limit is too low?
Yeah I guess thats a good way to put it, if an alcoholic that drinks everday wakes up and already is blowing a .05 or something without even having a first drink of the day, would technically get a DUI or whatever. I just think the way alcohol impairs your ability to drive is a lot different than being impaired by smoking herb.
Also, the way THC lingers in your blood, is also why this threshold is hard to establish. I seriously believe that you can wake up and feel completely sober, after blazing a bunch the night before, and get in a car and if you get pulled and they make you do the blood test the results would come back saying you were "impaired". When you feel and are acting sober.
Waking up after a long night of lots of drinking, you can feel it and sense that your not completely sober and that your still a little drunk.
Here's the problem with reading threads like this. You are taking the drinking examples to the extreme and using moderate smoking examples to make your point that smoking is better than drinking.
Imo, either activity is fine in moderation. Yes, pot should be legal and I'd support that action. But the use of all the analogies to drinking is what upsets me about the whole movement.
There are plenty of people who can go out and drink moderately daily or weekly or whenever and be fine to drive home that night and be fine to drive the next morning. Yes, people can smoke at night and operate fine the next day too. I get that. But there is no need to use the extreme examples of people drinking in excess and still being drunk the next morning.
Sorry for the rant but the comparisons have always upset me and feel irrelevant to me why marijuana should be legal. From my perspective (which means nothing in the scheme of things), tell me why marijuana use is ok, not why alcohol use is bad.
/end rant (and don't pick on me this time blat :wink: )
The real problem is that the liver processes alcohol at a predictable rate and the BAC used to calculate impairment is actually a good predictor of your ability to drive in a safe manner. THC is stored in your fat cells and appears in your blood well past it's affect on your brain. Therefore, THC levels in blood are NOT a good predictor of your ability to drive in a safe manner. The affect of a law that does not account for this discrepancy is to make smoking regularly illegal... Driving while under the influence should be illegal... THC remains in your blood well after you are under it's influence. It's that simple.
honestly, you guys are doing this wrong. You drop acid so that fear tingling down your spine sobers you up enough to drive home before the real shit storm hits.
yeah I agree smoking and drinking are two completely different things. But they are trying to mimic a DUI law, for weed, thats where the two get compared in this case. Which is also why its hard to come up with a solid law/limit to smoke.
Quote from: PG on May 09, 2013, 12:54:50 PM
The real problem is that the liver processes alcohol at a predictable rate and the BAC used to calculate impairment is actually a good predictor of your ability to drive in a safe manner. THC is stored in your fat cells and appears in your blood well past it's affect on your brain. Therefore, THC levels in blood are NOT a good predictor of your ability to drive in a safe manner. The affect of a law that does not account for this discrepancy is to make smoking regularly illegal... Driving while under the influence should be illegal... THC remains in your blood well after you are under it's influence. It's that simple.
Thank you PG, the existence of such a distinction is what I was fishing for. And juxtaposing that with the possibility of whether someone could smoke so much the night before that he's legitimately too high to drive the next morning, and not just by some ill-conceived DUI-ish standard. (I'm not offering a position on that, just posing a question.) Remember, this all began by someone pointing out that the standard being proposed could conceivably restrict someone from driving who hadn't smoked yet that day. So, DoW, I do think it's a relevant part of this discussion if only to dispense with it definitively as a real concern, if in fact that's the case.
I still don't entirely agree but I concede so as not to argue. :angel:
IL gettin that medical!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-illinois-senate-votes-medical-marijuana-20130517,0,5344892.story
I love Colorado!! :smoke:
Walked in to a head shop to grab my mom a t-shirt and the chick behind the counter gives a doobie of AK-47 to both my wife and I when she hears were from out of town.
We went and puffed one down while walking around in Red Rocks Park. Gonna go sit in the Civic Center Park and smoke the other after dinner.
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-waste-helps-turn-pot-eating-pigs-tasty-184633031.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-waste-helps-turn-pot-eating-pigs-tasty-184633031.html)
QuoteMarijuana waste helps turn pot-eating pigs into tasty pork roast
Four pigs whose feed was supplemented with potent plant leavings during the last four months of their lives ended up 20 to 30 pounds heavier than the half-dozen other pigs from the same litter when they were all sent to slaughter in March.
"They were eating more, as you can imagine," Gross said.
Quote from: whatthecello42 on May 21, 2013, 01:09:10 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-waste-helps-turn-pot-eating-pigs-tasty-184633031.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-waste-helps-turn-pot-eating-pigs-tasty-184633031.html)
QuoteMarijuana waste helps turn pot-eating pigs into tasty pork roast
Four pigs whose feed was supplemented with potent plant leavings during the last four months of their lives ended up 20 to 30 pounds heavier than the half-dozen other pigs from the same litter when they were all sent to slaughter in March.
"They were eating more, as you can imagine," Gross said.
Bringing new meaning to the term "pot bellied pig"...
"Washington Liquor Control Board releases draft I-502 rules: what you need to know"
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94f6835e-6691-48fd-b108-5d2b90a4b9d6 (ftp://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94f6835e-6691-48fd-b108-5d2b90a4b9d6)
Similar article in the Washington Post - http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-16/national/39291435_1_marijuana-sales-state-licensed-stores-marijuana-product (ftp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-16/national/39291435_1_marijuana-sales-state-licensed-stores-marijuana-product)
Some news reports are claiming there will be no hash :cry: or extractions allowed, but the initial draft (http://www.stoel.com/files/Initial-Draft-Rules-05-16-13.pdf (ftp://www.stoel.com/files/Initial-Draft-Rules-05-16-13.pdf)) has a section (WAC 314-55-104) on "Marijuana Processor License extraction requirements," which is all about solvents, gasses, and maximum allowable potency.
Also, they've decided on their official logo which will be on all products -
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/Wires/Online/2013-05-16/AP/Images/Legalizing%20Marijuana.JPEG-04781.jpg)
Very interesting read on the image of marijuana in the media.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/06/02/viewpoint-from-aggressive-trayvon-to-laid-back-dzhokhar-marijuanas-changing-image/
Local news coverage from Seattle:
Fingerprinting cannabis-business owners requires federal cooperation -
http://www.king5.com/video?id=208742211&sec=1375891 (http://www.king5.com/video?id=208742211&sec=1375891)
The latest on zoning laws for usage, production and retail -
http://www.king5.com/video?id=208587251&sec=1375891 (http://www.king5.com/video?id=208587251&sec=1375891)
Novel ideas on tourism -
http://www.king5.com/video?id=198878771&sec=1375891 (http://www.king5.com/video?id=198878771&sec=1375891)
Forecast for industrial hemp -
http://www.king5.com/video?id=199961461&sec=1375891 (http://www.king5.com/video?id=199961461&sec=1375891)
Things seem to be chugging along cautiously, but making an unbelievable amount of progress. :clap:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/24/19664590-feds-raid-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-in-washington-state-where-possession-is-legal?lite
probably going to be seeing a lot of this in the coming year.
QuoteFeds raid medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington state — where possession is legal
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on July 25, 2013, 12:47:25 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/24/19664590-feds-raid-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-in-washington-state-where-possession-is-legal?lite
probably going to be seeing a lot of this in the coming year.
QuoteFeds raid medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington state — where possession is legal
:shakehead:
Quote from: mistercharlie on May 17, 2013, 08:04:10 PM
I love Colorado!! :smoke:
Walked in to a head shop to grab my mom a t-shirt and the chick behind the counter gives a doobie of AK-47 to both my wife and I when she hears were from out of town.
We went and puffed one down while walking around in Red Rocks Park. Gonna go sit in the Civic Center Park and smoke the other after dinner.
it amazes me that i currently live in the state right next door to this.
completely different worlds.
pretty sure im on the wrong side of the state lines. :|
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on July 25, 2013, 12:47:25 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/24/19664590-feds-raid-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-in-washington-state-where-possession-is-legal?lite
probably going to be seeing a lot of this in the coming year.
QuoteFeds raid medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington state — where possession is legal
I don't think the DoJ had issued a statement on how they would handle WA and CO. I guess this is it.
From what I'm reading, they were targeting a specific group of dispensaries that seem to be trafficking it out of state. Details are a bit slim at the moment, though.
Quote from: khalpin on July 26, 2013, 07:19:22 AM
From what I'm reading, they were targeting a specific group of dispensaries that seem to be trafficking it out of state. Details are a bit slim at the moment, though.
That's what I gathered as well, the owners it sounds like failed to make their previous court appearance, and the retaliation seems to be a raid to get their attention. As shitty as it is, if they didn't get their ducks in a row in 2011, they're the ones holding up the movement and fucking it up for everyone else, not the DEA, and it pains me to say that.
Quote from: sophist on July 26, 2013, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: khalpin on July 26, 2013, 07:19:22 AM
From what I'm reading, they were targeting a specific group of dispensaries that seem to be trafficking it out of state. Details are a bit slim at the moment, though.
That's what I gathered as well, the owners it sounds like failed to make their previous court appearance, and the retaliation seems to be a raid to get their attention. As shitty as it is, if they didn't get their ducks in a row in 2011, they're the ones holding up the movement and fucking it up for everyone else, not the DEA, and it pains me to say that.
I came in here to post this same thing exactly. :frustrated: :shakehead:
http://thejointblog.com/legal-cannabis-in-uruguay-to-be-2-5-per-gram/
:-o
Looks like I'm moving to Uruguay!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Sanjay Gupta's public cannabis apology (in the form of his new hour-long CNN special "Weed") is on right now. Damn Xfinity doesn't carry it. :x
Quote from: mbw on August 11, 2013, 10:27:52 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Quite a read, thanks.
Toronto mayor: I've smoked "a lot of" pot. (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20236600-toronto-mayor-says-he-has-smoked-a-lot-of-marijuana?lite)
I hope you voted for this guy, mattstick.
Quote from: whatapiper on August 12, 2013, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: mbw on August 11, 2013, 10:27:52 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Quite a read, thanks.
Indeed.
Holder says feds won't interfere with legalization in WA, CO (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2).
Good news for good sense.
:clap:
sweet
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 29, 2013, 02:46:54 PM
Holder says feds won't interfere with legalization in WA, CO (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2).
Good news for good sense.
I'm confused: I thought the DoJ had no choice but to enforce federal law? :wink:
Seems more like a caution flag than a slam dunk for legalization proponents. There's a good deal still at the discretion of the DoJ (how do you define whether or not "state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust"). But I guess it's better than could have been expected given the administration's previous hardline stance on the issue.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 29, 2013, 02:46:54 PM
Holder says feds won't interfere with legalization in WA, CO (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2).
Good news for good sense.
One part hopeful, one part relieved, one part I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it.
I'm glad we're getting in gear and moving forward, but I remember hearing the same thing about medical marijuana, which definitely continued getting fucked over by feds (i.e. prohibition from banks and armored-car services).
Stating a federal position on record is still pretty awesome.
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 29, 2013, 07:15:40 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 29, 2013, 02:46:54 PM
Holder says feds won't interfere with legalization in WA, CO (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2).
Good news for good sense.
One part hopeful, one part relieved, one part I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it.
I'm glad we're getting in gear and moving forward, but I remember hearing the same thing about medical marijuana, which definitely continued getting fucked over by feds (i.e. prohibition from banks and armored-car services).
Stating a federal position on record is still pretty awesome.
yeah true, this is good evidence to bring up if any of the feds try to bust up a legal dispensary center.
but that still wont stop DEA and the feds from busting a lot of illegal dispensaries that grow a ton to also sell out of state. A lot of times I feel like when dispensaries get busted they put on this oh were legal innocent operating under state law when if that was all true, they wouldnt have DEA bustin down their door. They must have had an investigation and seen either more herb being produced that they were sellin in the store or more money coming in than what they were making.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 30, 2013, 01:09:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 29, 2013, 07:15:40 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 29, 2013, 02:46:54 PM
Holder says feds won't interfere with legalization in WA, CO (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2).
Good news for good sense.
One part hopeful, one part relieved, one part I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it.
I'm glad we're getting in gear and moving forward, but I remember hearing the same thing about medical marijuana, which definitely continued getting fucked over by feds (i.e. prohibition from banks and armored-car services).
Stating a federal position on record is still pretty awesome.
yeah true, this is good evidence to bring up if any of the feds try to bust up a legal dispensary center.
but that still wont stop DEA and the feds from busting a lot of illegal dispensaries that grow a ton to also sell out of state. A lot of times I feel like when dispensaries get busted they put on this oh were legal innocent operating under state law when if that was all true, they wouldnt have DEA bustin down their door. They must have had an investigation and seen either more herb being produced that they were sellin in the store or more money coming in than what they were making.
Also, when the Feds come in gun charges are frequently involved, making said dispensary even less innocent.
Also, also looks like Jimbo just lost one of his anti-Obama talking points, which is the real win here. :wink:
Quote from: Hicks on August 30, 2013, 01:34:37 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 30, 2013, 01:09:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 29, 2013, 07:15:40 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 29, 2013, 02:46:54 PM
Holder says feds won't interfere with legalization in WA, CO (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2).
Good news for good sense.
One part hopeful, one part relieved, one part I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it.
I'm glad we're getting in gear and moving forward, but I remember hearing the same thing about medical marijuana, which definitely continued getting fucked over by feds (i.e. prohibition from banks and armored-car services).
Stating a federal position on record is still pretty awesome.
yeah true, this is good evidence to bring up if any of the feds try to bust up a legal dispensary center.
but that still wont stop DEA and the feds from busting a lot of illegal dispensaries that grow a ton to also sell out of state. A lot of times I feel like when dispensaries get busted they put on this oh were legal innocent operating under state law when if that was all true, they wouldnt have DEA bustin down their door. They must have had an investigation and seen either more herb being produced that they were sellin in the store or more money coming in than what they were making.
Also, when the Feds come in gun charges are frequently involved, making said dispensary even less innocent.
Also, also looks like Jimbo just lost one of his anti-Obama talking points, which is the real win here. :wink:
You're not even gonna wait to see how this shakes out? Just going to take this proclamation at face value and chalk it up as a win (completely ignoring 4.5 yrs of draconian drug enforcement policy and a maddeningly pathetic clemency record (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/08/15/barack-the-unmerciful-drug-warrior-why-doesnt-obama-pardon-more-drug-offenders/))?
Like I said, this is a step in the right direction, but I think I'll wait to see how this is implemented before I absolve Obama of his past sins. YMMV
Interesting point about the gun charges. Since it is illegal for dispensaries & patients to own/possess firearms & ammunition; and they are denied banking, credit card, and armored car service, they are forced to handle & transport large amounts of cash without any protection.
This puts them in a very dangerous position. :shakehead:
Wait - are you saying medical marijuana patients are not allowed to own firearms or ammunition?
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 30, 2013, 04:39:12 PM
Wait - are you saying medical marijuana patients are not allowed to own firearms or ammunition?
Si.
Bureau of ATF memo - http://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf (ftp://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf)
Although, while looking for a link, I found this article in GUNS & AMMO - http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/01/20/medical-marijuana-patients-retain-2nd-amendment-rights/ (ftp://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/01/20/medical-marijuana-patients-retain-2nd-amendment-rights/)
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 30, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
Interesting point about the gun charges. Since it is illegal for dispensaries & patients to own/possess firearms & ammunition; and they are denied banking, credit card, and armored car service, they are forced to handle & transport large amounts of cash without any protection.
This puts them in a very dangerous position. :shakehead:
Uh, just like any other retail store?
You think they have guns down at the Apple Store?
And as for how it plays out, here in Oregon legalization proponents are already mobilizing to move forward with their efforts based on this announcement.
Barring some drastic reverse of course, legalization is here to stay and will be spreading across the West within the next few years.
Quote from: Hicks on September 01, 2013, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 30, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
Interesting point about the gun charges. Since it is illegal for dispensaries & patients to own/possess firearms & ammunition; and they are denied banking, credit card, and armored car service, they are forced to handle & transport large amounts of cash without any protection.
This puts them in a very dangerous position. :shakehead:
Uh, just like any other retail store?
You think they have guns down at the Apple Store?
And as for how it plays out, here in Oregon legalization proponents are already mobilizing to move forward with their efforts based on this announcement.
Barring some drastic reverse of course, legalization is here to stay and will be spreading across the West within the next few years.
The argument I'm making is that Apple doesn't have to rely solely on cash transactions since their customers can (and most often do) use credit/debit cards. Apple is allowed bank and credit union accounts, which dispensaries are not, to manage property leases, payroll, utilities, etc. Hence, dispensaries wind up handling a shit-ton of ca$hmoney. Add to that, they can't transport any of that cash (like Apple can) via armored vehicles. Hence they are forced to regularly have large amounts of cash on their persons and in their business locations, which makes them ripe for robbery. Firearm possession, I was postulating, seemed to be their last line of defense. As of now, they're sitting ducks.
This just in - "The Department of Justice will permit banks to work with marijuana dealers" http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/doj-weed-pot-cory-booker-wild-fire/521528eb78c90a0ea7000356 (http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/doj-weed-pot-cory-booker-wild-fire/521528eb78c90a0ea7000356)
Quote from: Mr. Natural on September 01, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on September 01, 2013, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 30, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
Interesting point about the gun charges. Since it is illegal for dispensaries & patients to own/possess firearms & ammunition; and they are denied banking, credit card, and armored car service, they are forced to handle & transport large amounts of cash without any protection.
This puts them in a very dangerous position. :shakehead:
Uh, just like any other retail store?
You think they have guns down at the Apple Store?
And as for how it plays out, here in Oregon legalization proponents are already mobilizing to move forward with their efforts based on this announcement.
Barring some drastic reverse of course, legalization is here to stay and will be spreading across the West within the next few years.
The argument I'm making is that Apple doesn't have to rely solely on cash transactions since their customers can (and most often do) use credit/debit cards. Apple is allowed bank and credit union accounts, which dispensaries are not, to manage property leases, payroll, utilities, etc. Hence, dispensaries wind up handling a shit-ton of ca$hmoney. Add to that, they can't transport any of that cash (like Apple can) via armored vehicles. Hence they are forced to regularly have large amounts of cash on their persons and in their business locations, which makes them ripe for robbery. Firearm possession, I was postulating, seemed to be their last line of defense. As of now, they're sitting ducks.
Wow you can't buy your weed with a credit or debit card at a dispensary?
That's just un-American.
Quote from: Hicks on September 01, 2013, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on September 01, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on September 01, 2013, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 30, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
Interesting point about the gun charges. Since it is illegal for dispensaries & patients to own/possess firearms & ammunition; and they are denied banking, credit card, and armored car service, they are forced to handle & transport large amounts of cash without any protection.
This puts them in a very dangerous position. :shakehead:
Uh, just like any other retail store?
You think they have guns down at the Apple Store?
And as for how it plays out, here in Oregon legalization proponents are already mobilizing to move forward with their efforts based on this announcement.
Barring some drastic reverse of course, legalization is here to stay and will be spreading across the West within the next few years.
The argument I'm making is that Apple doesn't have to rely solely on cash transactions since their customers can (and most often do) use credit/debit cards. Apple is allowed bank and credit union accounts, which dispensaries are not, to manage property leases, payroll, utilities, etc. Hence, dispensaries wind up handling a shit-ton of ca$hmoney. Add to that, they can't transport any of that cash (like Apple can) via armored vehicles. Hence they are forced to regularly have large amounts of cash on their persons and in their business locations, which makes them ripe for robbery. Firearm possession, I was postulating, seemed to be their last line of defense. As of now, they're sitting ducks.
Wow you can't buy your weed with a credit or debit card at a dispensary?
That's just un-American.
I Stand Corrected - Talking to a friend from California last night, he said that some dispensaries can do debit. With all these laws in flux, what I read is often different from how it's playing out 'on the ground.'
Quote from: Mr. Natural on September 02, 2013, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: Hicks on September 01, 2013, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on September 01, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
Quote from: Hicks on September 01, 2013, 11:22:19 AM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 30, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
Interesting point about the gun charges. Since it is illegal for dispensaries & patients to own/possess firearms & ammunition; and they are denied banking, credit card, and armored car service, they are forced to handle & transport large amounts of cash without any protection.
This puts them in a very dangerous position. :shakehead:
Uh, just like any other retail store?
You think they have guns down at the Apple Store?
And as for how it plays out, here in Oregon legalization proponents are already mobilizing to move forward with their efforts based on this announcement.
Barring some drastic reverse of course, legalization is here to stay and will be spreading across the West within the next few years.
The argument I'm making is that Apple doesn't have to rely solely on cash transactions since their customers can (and most often do) use credit/debit cards. Apple is allowed bank and credit union accounts, which dispensaries are not, to manage property leases, payroll, utilities, etc. Hence, dispensaries wind up handling a shit-ton of ca$hmoney. Add to that, they can't transport any of that cash (like Apple can) via armored vehicles. Hence they are forced to regularly have large amounts of cash on their persons and in their business locations, which makes them ripe for robbery. Firearm possession, I was postulating, seemed to be their last line of defense. As of now, they're sitting ducks.
Wow you can't buy your weed with a credit or debit card at a dispensary?
That's just un-American.
I Stand Corrected - Talking to a friend from California last night, he said that some dispensaries can do debit. With all these laws in flux, what I read is often different from how it's playing out 'on the ground.'
It's probably like the titty-bars where the ATM receipt says "Gary's Autoshop"
Webcasted some of the Senate meeting on the views of federal legalization yesterday and I guess they came to this conclusion.
http://www.marijuana.com/news/2013/09/landmark-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing-yes-to-industry-banking-no-to-overzealous-federal-prosecution/
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on September 11, 2013, 10:37:50 AM
Webcasted some of the Senate meeting on the views of federal legalization yesterday and I guess they came to this conclusion.
http://www.marijuana.com/news/2013/09/landmark-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing-yes-to-industry-banking-no-to-overzealous-federal-prosecution/
I haven't made it through all of the hearing yet, but my gut reaction to "What is the feds' role?" is to let them patrol the state borders for pot on it's way out to states/jurisdictions that still think prohibition is a viable stance.
Quote from: Mr. Natural on September 11, 2013, 06:42:49 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on September 11, 2013, 10:37:50 AM
Webcasted some of the Senate meeting on the views of federal legalization yesterday and I guess they came to this conclusion.
http://www.marijuana.com/news/2013/09/landmark-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing-yes-to-industry-banking-no-to-overzealous-federal-prosecution/
I haven't made it through all of the hearing yet, but my gut reaction to "What is the feds' role?" is to let them patrol the state borders for pot on it's way out to states/jurisdictions that still think prohibition is a viable stance.
pretty much they are gonna let the states that legalized it to try this out, and if they see any of it slip out of the states or go underground again in the states that its legalized, they will step in.
1.) Switzerland "decriminalizes" mj - although you can still be fined (?)
2.) Canada's commercial medical mj industry will be privatized, as of Tuesday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftwIZ4PpNMc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftwIZ4PpNMc)
When legalization starts getting mentioned in mainstream arenas like Bloomberg, you know this movement has legs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/marijuana-push-in-d-c-spurs-congress-to-weigh-legalizing.html
Quote
Marijuana Push in D.C. Spurs Congress to Weigh Legalizing
A proposal backed by most District of Columbia council members to decriminalize small amounts of pot may spur federal lawmakers to consider marijuana regulation for the first time since two states legalized recreational sales.
Congress has the power to block legislation approved by the Washington council. U.S. lawmakers can also stop local initiatives in the nation's capital through the federal budget, which authorizes the city's spending, as they did to stall the use of medical marijuana there for a decade.
The push to loosen local pot penalties, which few expect Congress to block, would set up what supporters say is the next step: legalizing recreational use. Growing support for legal pot and the billions in tax revenue and prison savings the change may bring has convinced some that Congress will ease laws.
"This is where you're going to see federal movement coming in the next year or two," said Erik Altieri, a spokesman for the Washington-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which was founded in 1970.
Groups such as Norml and the DC Cannabis Campaign are considering a ballot initiative next year to legalize pot sales in the district. If approved, it would force Congress to consider an issue the federal government has mostly left to states. The hands-off approach has created a patchwork of laws ranging from Missouri, where possession of 35 grams, about 1.25 ounces, can mean seven years in prison, to Colorado and Washington state, which legalized recreational sales last year.
Gaining Support
For the first time, a majority of Americans now favor legalization, according to a Gallup Poll last week showing that support has increased 10 percentage points in one year.
Seventy-six percent of doctors worldwide favor using pot for medicinal purposes, according to a May poll published by the New England Journal of Medicine. Forty-eight percent of U.S. adults reported using it, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
While advocates, including the Washington-based Drug Policy Alliance, say the effects of pot are less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, the U.S. government maintains that marijuana can lead to serious mental-health issues.
"Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety," said an April report from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. "It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior and drugged drivers."
Drug Arrests
Sale or possession of marijuana accounted for 48 percent of the 1.55 million drug arrests in the U.S. in 2012, Federal Bureau of Investigation data show. While drug busts have dropped, those for marijuana have risen by 18 percent since 2001, according a June report from the American Civil Liberties Union.
At the same time, racial disparities have increased, according to the report. In the U.S., pot use among whites and blacks is about the same, yet blacks are arrested for possession almost four times as often. In Washington, blacks accounted for 91 percent of marijuana arrests in 2010, even though they account for about half of the population of 632,000.
"We're saving thousands of black boys and a few girls from having a criminal record for small amounts of marijuana, and that's important because most employers won't consider you if they see an arrest record," said council member Marion Barry, referring to the proposal.
Prison Sentence
Barry is no stranger to drug laws. He was sentenced to six months in prison in 1990 for possession of crack cocaine while he was mayor. He said that experience hasn't informed his support for the pot proposal.
Barry wouldn't say whether he supported legalization. Asked whether that was the next step in D.C., he said, "Yes."
Estimates on a potential national marijuana market vary from $10 billion to $120 billion a year, with $35 billion to $45 billion being likely, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Tax collections from such sales could reach as much as $20 billion, according to a March report by Brad Barker, a Bloomberg Industries analyst, who cited projections by the Cato Institute, a nonprofit research group, and the Congressional Research Service.
When voters in Washington and Colorado legalized pot a year ago, they forced the federal government's hand. In an Aug. 29 memo, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the Justice Department wouldn't intervene in the states' pot regulations, so long as they prevented out-of-state distribution, access to minors, impaired driving and kept revenue from going to gangs and cartels.
Tea Party
In Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said in an Aug. 26 statement that "these state laws should be respected."
The Tea Party movement that helped restore Republican control in the House in 2010 included a wave of libertarian lawmakers who are more receptive to loosening marijuana regulation.
A House bill from California Republican Dana Rohrabacher to give state marijuana laws priority over the U.S. Controlled Substances Act has 20 co-sponsors, ranging from Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, among the most liberal members of Congress, to Justin Amash of Michigan and Steve Stockman of Texas, both Republicans aligned with the Tea Party movement.
Kentucky Grass
A triumvirate of Kentucky Republicans is backing proposals to allow farming of hemp, which U.S. law classifies the same as marijuana even though it has a non-intoxicating amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in the cannabis plant.
In the Senate, the measure has support from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand Paul, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016. A third Kentucky lawmaker, Representative Thomas Massie, has 48 co-sponsors for the same bill in the House.
"We're seeing Congress move this way," Norml's Altieri said. "It's hard to see them really rolling back."
Rohrabacher said he doesn't expect his bill to pass until the Republican Party nominates a presidential candidate who supports marijuana legislation. The limited-government Tea Party movement increases the chances, he said.
"It all depends on whether or not, with this Tea Party group, we end up with a Republican that has courage enough to be more libertarian on the marijuana issue," Rohrabacher said.
Parking Ticket
The District of Columbia proposal to decriminalize possession of less than one ounce of marijuana has support from 10 of 12 local lawmakers and may get final approval in January, said council member Tommy Wells, who is sponsoring the measure.
Wells's plan would mean fines of $100 for small amounts of pot, instead of a maximum six months in prison. Wells said in an interview that he'll probably change his bill at a December hearing to reduce the fine to $25 -- the same as the punishment for parking at an expired meter.
Sixteen states have decriminalized first-time possession of small amounts of marijuana, according to Norml.
Once it passes the council and gets a signature from Mayor Vincent Gray, who supports it, Congress has 60 days to object with a disapproval resolution. Congress hasn't used that method since 1991, when lawmakers overturned a proposal to exceed a 110-foot height limit for downtown buildings.
When voters in the nation's capital were among the first in the U.S. to legalize medicinal marijuana in 1998, Congress prevented the district from spending money on the program for a decade with a budget rider.
There are now three dispensaries and three cultivation centers in the district, said Najma Roberts, a D.C. health department spokeswoman.
Both Wells and council member David Grosso said they'd back legalization in Washington, a question that two-thirds of district votes said they'd support, according to an April poll by Public Policy Polling. Neither Wells nor Grosso would venture a guess as to how Congress might respond.
"That fight would have national repercussions," Rohrabacher said.
yes!
sounds like the right direction
The private prison industry isn't going to go down without a fight. I hope that the Tea Party members mentioned stick to their more libertarian ideals in this case, but they're going to get some blowback from the party establishment.
with the legalization of weed, they will find someway to still make the arrests/money from the american public....either weed DUIs or some other way
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 01, 2013, 11:56:47 AM
with the legalization of weed, they will find someway to still make the arrests/money from the american public....either weed DUIs or some other way
I'm sure they will, but finding a new way to make a profit will require the establishment of new laws, including said bribes and public advertising that lead to the establishment of those laws. This is expensive, much more expensive than lining the pockets you've already paid for.
Quote from: nab on November 01, 2013, 12:08:01 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 01, 2013, 11:56:47 AM
with the legalization of weed, they will find someway to still make the arrests/money from the american public....either weed DUIs or some other way
I'm sure they will, but finding a new way to make a profit will require the establishment of new laws, including said bribes and public advertising that lead to the establishment of those laws. This is expensive, much more expensive than lining the pockets you've already paid for.
yeah def.
I think the issue of legalization is reaching its tipping point.
Those companies know that too. So they are preparing for the storm, so to speak.
I feel like they are probably already researching new laws to make to allow legalization, but penalize americans still for smoking outside/driving and smoking/maybe smoking around kids? who knows what laws they are gonna make up but with legalization on the horizon, you know they got a team of lawyers/lawmakers ready to draft up some laws to be able to bust people still for weed. Who knows maybe they will just focus on harder drugs now :roll:
Quote"Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety," said an April report from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. "It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior and drugged drivers."
this is one section in the article that makes me kinda mad. its the ol gateway drug argument. maybe it will do that, but will it really create that many more dependency issues than the amount prescription painkillers and benzos have created? I doubt it. And DEA doesnt seem to be going after them.
Quote from: nab on November 01, 2013, 11:50:12 AM
The private prison industry isn't going to go down without a fight. I hope that the Tea Party members mentioned stick to their more libertarian ideals in this case, but they're going to get some blowback from the party establishment.
Justin Amash and Thomas Massie are the real deal; they definitely won't back away (Amash is already rumored to be getting primaried by a "moderate" backed by "business"). Rand too (in fact, Cory Booker has already said he looks forward to working with Rand on drug policy reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/cory-booker-rand-paul_n_4157354.html)). But there are definitely some of those "tea party" dudes that will turn their backs on the first whiff of cash from the prison industry, and Steve Stockman is one of them.
Still, with public opinion changing so strongly, it's only a matter of time. Hopefully sooner.
Will we eventually have the Tea Party to thank for legalization ?!
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9vlm9eLjr1qaqs9zo1_500.gif)
Will over-taxation derail nascent legalization efforts?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/15/pot-s-black-market-backlash.html
Quote
Pot's Black Market Backlash
How prohibitionists and nanny staters are trying to keep marijuana illegal—or at least inconvenient.
In 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington passed full-on, no-hemming-or-hawing pot legalization by large majorities. Lawmakers in each state have spent the better part of the past year figuring out how to tax and regulate their nascent commercial pot industries, which will open for business in 2014 (until then, recreational pot is only supposed to be cultivated for personal use). The spirit behind the legalization efforts in both states was that marijuana should be treated in a "manner similar to alcohol."
Unfortunately, it's starting to look like both states are going to treat pot in a manner similar to alcohol during Prohibition. Not only are pot taxes likely to be sky high, various sorts of restrictions on pot shops may well make it easier to buy, sell, and use black-market marijuana rather than the legal variety. That's a bummer all around: States and municipalities will collect less revenue than expected, law-abiding residents will effectively be denied access to pot, and the crime, corruption, and violence that inevitably surrounds black markets will continue apace.
Washington's legalization initiative, I-502, mandated a 25 percent excise tax at each of three levels of transactions: sales between producers and processors; sales between processors and retailers; and sales between retailers and customers. That's all on top of a state sales tax of 8.75 percent. As Jacob Sullum argued at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/17/high-marijuana-taxes-could-derail-legalization-legislation/), the upshot of such a system is that weed could end up costing end users somewhere between $482 an ounce and $723 an ounce. The average price of high-quality pot at Seattle's medical marijuana dispensaries is currently about $250 an ounce (under I-502, medicinal pot won't be subject to taxes).
"The legal market is going to have a hard time competing with the illegal market, but a particularly hard time competing with untaxed, unregulated sort-of-legal market," Mark Kleiman, a UCLA professor and one of the main policy consultants for the Washington's government, told Sullum.
A similar situation is shaping up in Colorado, where voters just passed Proposition AA, which creates a 15 percent excise tax and a sales tax as high as 15 percent on pot sold in stores licensed by the state. On top of that, local municipalities can slap still more taxes on weed sales. Cities such as Boulder and Denver will start out with levies in the 3.5 percent range but can jack the rates as high as 10 percent and 15 percent.
While Colorado's legalization initiative made personal use and possession of pot legal statewide, it also let counties and municipalities to opt out of allowing pot sales. Over 100 towns and cities across Colorado have voted to ban outright or delay the opening of retail shops selling recreational pot. And it turns out that some of the counties that have banned the sale of recreational marijuana nonetheless want their share of sales taxes collected by the state. When asked whether such a position is hypocritical, a commissioner from Douglas County, which opted out of allowing pot sales, told the Denver CBS affiliate, "The answer is going to be then, why was my county not able to opt out of allowing the smoking of it at all?"
The upshot of such actions is predictable and depressing. Colorado lawmakers are banking on about $70 million a year (PDF) in taxes from pot and their Washington counterparts have projected new revenues of $1.9 billion over the first five years of legalization. There's just no way that's going to happen if a legal ounce of pot is double the price or more of back-alley weed. Even the most stoned pothead isn't that easy to scam.
If the experience of state cigarette taxes teaches us anything, it's that draconian levies allow black markets to flourish. After raising its per-pack tax by a dollar this year, Massachusetts is now grappling with somewhere between $74 million and $295 million in lost revenue. Most people are happy to pay taxes that they think are fair—and most people will avoid taxes they think are extortionary. Combine that with the widespread NIMBYism at work in Colorado and it's a recipe for clutching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The past several decades haven't been kind to the nation's drug warriors, especially when it comes to marijuana, the only illegal drug that is used on a monthly basis by more than 1 percent of Americans. In 1996, California passed a medical marijuana law and was soon followed by 19 other states and the District of Columbia. Crime—whether drug-related or not—didn't go up, kids didn't start toking up in droves, the heavens didn't fall.
Instead, a record number of people—58 percent, according to Gallup—have come to embrace pot legalization as a smart and proper idea and The Marijuana Policy Project identifies no fewer than 10 states it expects to legalize weed in the next couple of years.
It'll be an ironic buzzkill if it ends up that folks in places such as Maine, California, and Hawaii have an easier time firing up a state-sanctioned joint and enjoying the economic and social benefits of legalization long before the trailblazing residents of Colorado and Washington.
If and when marijuana prohibition is repealed at the federal level, you can bet Congress will want to jump on the excise-tax bandwagon.
Taxes man, gotta love em. :roll:
So how much would the Oz be before taxes? Just wondering.
My buddy in CO has been saying even medical prices have been creeping up in the past 6 months. 8ths at one dispensary went from 35 > 40 now they are at 45
gs of hash from 25 > 30 now at 35 and some at 40.
Not sure why the medical prices are going up since the taxes have nothing to do about medical.
Kind of a weird angle for Kleiman to take, since he's elsewhere calculated the costs of producing post-Prohibition herb as way, way lower than they are now. Previously, he's taken the stance that wholesale prices in a legal market would leave plenty of room for taxation.
Uruguay becomes most pot-friendly country in the world, legalizing the entire chain of cultivation, distribution, and use. It will be interesting to see if other Latin American countries follow suit if Uruguay can do it effectively and reduce/eliminate the cartels' influence. Although I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around the implications for black market prices going forward: higher due to less supply or lower because of less demand? Either way, let's hope it helps the US come to its senses and reform the unconscionable and endless "war."
Also, I first read Uruguay's president as Joe Murica.
http://reut.rs/JcAfbY
Quote
Uruguay becomes first country to legalize marijuana trade
MONTEVIDEO (Reuters) - Uruguay became the first country to legalize the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana on Tuesday, a pioneering social experiment that will be closely watched by other nations debating drug liberalization.
A government-sponsored bill approved by 16-13 votes in the Senate provides for regulation of the cultivation, distribution and consumption of marijuana and is aimed at wresting the business from criminals in the small South American nation.
Backers of the law, some smoking joints, gathered near Congress holding green balloons, Jamaican flags in homage to Bob Marley and a sign saying: "Cultivating freedom, Uruguay grows."
Cannabis consumers will be able to buy a maximum of 40 grams (1.4 ounces) each month from licensed pharmacies as long as they are Uruguayan residents over the age of 18 and registered on a government database that will monitor their monthly purchases.
When the law is implemented in 120 days, Uruguayans will be able to grow six marijuana plants in their homes a year, or as much as 480 grams (about 17 ounces), and form smoking clubs of 15 to 45 members that can grow up to 99 plants per year.
Registered drug users should be able to start buying marijuana over the counter from licensed pharmacies in April.
"We begin a new experience in April. It involves a big cultural change that focuses on public health and the fight against drug trafficking," Uruguay's first lady, Senator Lucía Topolansky, told Reuters.
Uruguay's attempt to quell drug trafficking is being followed closely in Latin America where the legalization of some narcotics is being increasingly seen by regional leaders as a possible way to end the violence spawned by the cocaine trade.
Rich countries debating legalization of pot are also watching the bill, which philanthropist George Soros has supported as an "experiment" that could provide an alternative to the failed U.S.-led policies of the long "war on drugs."
The bill gives authorities 120 days to set up a drug control board that will regulate cultivation standards, fix the price and monitor consumption.
The use of marijuana is legal in Uruguay, a country of 3.3 million that is one of the most liberal in Latin America, but cultivation and sale of the drug are not.
Other countries have decriminalized marijuana possession and the Netherlands allows its sale in coffee shops, but Uruguay will be the first nation to legalize the whole chain from growing the plant to buying and selling its leaves.
Several countries such as Canada, the Netherlands and Israel have legal programs for growing medical cannabis but do not allow cultivation of marijuana for recreational use.
Last year, the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington passed ballot initiatives that legalize and regulate the recreational use of marijuana.
Uruguay's leftist president, Jose Mujica, defends his initiative as a bid to regulate and tax a market that already exists but is run by criminals.
"We've given this market as a gift to the drug traffickers and that is more destructive socially than the drug itself, because it rots the whole of society," the 78-year-old former guerrilla fighter told Argentine news agency Telam.
NOT ALL CONVINCED
Uruguay is one of the safest Latin American countries with little of the drug violence or other violence seen in countries such as Colombia and Mexico.
Yet one-third of Uruguay's prison inmates are serving time on charges related to narcotics trafficking that has turned Uruguay into a transit route for Paraguayan marijuana and Bolivian cocaine.
Even though it is set to clear the Senate, the legislation faces fierce opposition from conservatives and Mujica has yet to convince a majority of Uruguayans that it is a good idea.
According to a recent opinion poll by Equipos Consultores, 58 percent of Uruguayans oppose legalizing pot, although that is down from 68 percent in a previous survey in June.
Critics say legalization will not only increase consumption but open the door to the use of harder drugs than marijuana, which according to government statistics is used by 8 percent of Uruguayans on a regular basis.
"Competing with drug traffickers by offering marijuana at a lower price will just increase the market for a drug that has negative effects on public health," said Senator Alfredo Solari of the conservative Colorado Party.
If it works, the legislation is expected to fuel momentum for wider legalization of marijuana elsewhere, including the United States and in Europe. Decriminalization of all drug possession by Portugal in 2001 is held up as a success for reducing drug violence while not increasing drug use.
"This development in Uruguay is of historic significance," said Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, a leading sponsor of drug policy reform partially funded by Soros through his Open Society Foundation.
"Uruguay is presenting an innovative model for cannabis that will better protect public health and public safety than does the prohibitionist approach," Nadelmann said.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/marijuana-breathalyzer-close-reality
QuoteMarijuana Breathalyzer Close to Reality
BY MIKE ADAMS · THU OCT 24, 2013
RSS
"If You Are Going to Get High, You Better Not Drive," or some other public service slogan will surely be plastered on billboards all across America as soon as science figures out a way to stick it to the average citizen with the marijuana breathalyzer.
Ever since legalized recreational marijuana was made a reality last year by voters in Colorado and Washington, the powers that be have been brainstorming new ways in which to prosecute the legal marijuana user. Obviously, driving stoned is high on the list of no-nos.
In fact, a team of researchers recently published a document in the medical journal Clinical Chemistry that suggests a breath test -- similar to the testing procedures for alcohol intoxication -- may be the best way for law enforcement to analyze a motorist's THC level. Researchers believe that the breath method of testing could eventually phase out the controversial THC-blood test currently being used to prosecute people in courtrooms all over the country.
Researchers say that in a study group consisting of everyday stoners and weekend warrior-style occasional smokers, they were able to detect levels of THC, the principle psychoactive cannabinoid in marijuana that would be most likely to affect the way a person drives, by collecting breath samples.
What they found was that while every breath sample collected tested positive for THC almost immediately following the participant getting high, the only group to maintain a positive test after four hours were the everyday stoners. Interestingly, while 90% of the part-time smokers tested positive for THC within an hour of smoking, none of them tested positive after about 90 minutes.
This means that a marijuana breathalyzer manufactured under these principles would only be effective for somewhere between 30 minutes to two hours immediately following a person's participation in an old-fashioned toke and choke ritual.
So far, the outcome of the study holds some good news for the occasional smoker, but how would a law enforcement device that measures THC levels affect the die-hard smoker chiefing it up on the regular?
In its current form, the advent of the marijuana breathalyzer could prove extremely bad for the regular cannabis connoisseur because those people have the potential to test positive for THC after a week of abstinence -- sometimes longer depending on the body fat of the individual.
Technically, the user could be more to stone-sober than stoned and still be arrested for driving under the influence. Without a doubt, more research is needed in order to properly determine marijuana intoxication levels in this manner.
"Breath may offer an alternative matrix for testing for recent driving under the influence of cannabis, but is limited to a short detection window," researchers concluded in their study titled "Cannabinoids in Exhaled Breath following Controlled Administration of Smoked Cannabis."
Following in WA and CO's footsteps, NY state senator introduces bill to legalize and tax marijuana. It's unlikely to pass since the both the senate and Gov. Cuomo oppose full scale legalization, but the fact that the conversation is moving in this direction bodes well for the future.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/new-york-legalize-marijuana_n_4426553.html
Quote
New York Could Be Third State To Legalize Pot
First Washington and Colorado, and now -- maybe -- New York.
On Wednesday morning, New York state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, unveiled a proposal to fully legalize and tax marijuana in the state.
At a press conference at City Hall in downtown Manhattan, Krueger denounced the prohibition of marijuana as a "policy that just hasn't worked."
"The illegal marijuana economy is alive and well," she said, "and our unjust laws are branding nonviolent New Yorkers, especially young adults, as criminals, creating a vicious cycle that ruins lives and needlessly wastes taxpayer dollars."
The bill represents the third effort in 2013 to topple legal barriers to pot use in New York state. Proposals to legalize marijuana for seriously ill patients and to fix a loophole in New York's decades-old marijuana decriminalization law both passed the state Assembly earlier this year, but the state Senate adjourned in June without taking action on either measure.
Advocates for pot legalization hope the new bill will fare better, but even they concede that the state's failure to adopt far more modest reforms doesn't bode well for the sweeping new proposal.
"It's unlikely that this bill is passing this year," said Gabriel Sayegh, the New York director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates for the legalization of all drugs.
Still, he added, "it is an important contribution to the discussion that we should be having about our broken marijuana policies in New York."
About 600,000 people have been arrested for marijuana possession in the state since 1997, according to the Drug Policy Alliance. In New York City, more people are arrested for marijuana possession than for any other offense. As Krueger stressed at the press conference, the vast majority are black and Latino, despite evidence showing that marijuana use is more common among whites.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has expressed ambivalence about legalizing marijuana even for medical use. But he led an effort last year to make possession of marijuana in public view a violation instead of a misdemeanor. Under a state law that has been on the books since 1977, possession of a small amount of marijuana is a minor offense on par with jaywalking. But if you you are caught holding or smoking pot in public view, you can be charged with a much more serious offense -- a misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine.
Civil-liberties advocates say that many of the young black and Latino men who are charged with this offense bring the drug out into the open only after police tell them to empty their pockets. The outgoing New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly directed his department to put an end to the practice last year, but critics of pot prohibition say that broader reforms are needed.
"We're spending taxpayer money to ruin lives, disproportionately for those from communities of color, with no real public policy goal to be found in any of it," Krueger said.
Georgia - 2022. Calling it.
Each time a bill gets struck down, it just makes the next one more smartly written.
Quote from: sophist on December 12, 2013, 09:36:49 AM
Georgia - 2022. Calling it.
when Idaho and Mississippi legalize it, it's the beginning of revelations. Or the start of the 3rd Book of Mormon.
Quote from: Bobafett on December 12, 2013, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: sophist on December 12, 2013, 09:36:49 AM
Georgia - 2022. Calling it.
when Idaho and Mississippi legalize it, it's the beginning of revelations. Or the start of the 3rd Book of Mormon.
It always astounds me, given how close I live to Idaho, how much of a different world it is when I visit the state.
Quote from: Bobafett on December 12, 2013, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: sophist on December 12, 2013, 09:36:49 AM
Georgia - 2022. Calling it.
when Idaho and Mississippi legalize it, it's the beginning of revelations. Or the start of the 3rd Book of Mormon.
We all know how backwards the south is. It does surprise me to see non-southern states with horribly written drug laws. The real revolution begins when that Mushroom shop opens up across from the Hard Rock in Vegas. Then we know we've won.
andddd retail rec sales started today at many of the big dispensaries in town!
couple opened at 8 am and heard there was line at a couple before they opened.
Was lookin at prices 70$ / eighth for top shelf dispensary grown
60 $ / 8th for lower tier dispensary herb
50$ / 8th for 3rd party grown herb
thats all before taxes.
with a red card its about 25-50 for an eighth.
havent gone over to a rec shop yet but might walk over there and get an edible or gram pre roll or something.
What's the state tax? I heard it was about 25%?
think its somewhere between 20-25%
where medical is like 10-15
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/01/02/marijuana-overdoses-kill-37-in-colorado-on-first-day-of-legalization/
It's as bad as we feared.
Quote from: Undermind on January 02, 2014, 08:59:29 PM
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/01/02/marijuana-overdoses-kill-37-in-colorado-on-first-day-of-legalization/
Quote"We are seeing cardiac arrests, hypospadias, acquired trimethylaminuria and multiple organ failures
:-D
Quote from: Undermind on January 02, 2014, 08:59:29 PM
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/01/02/marijuana-overdoses-kill-37-in-colorado-on-first-day-of-legalization/
So that's what happened to Pinkman!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/06/cnn-poll-support-for-legal-marijuana-soaring/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/as_goes_colorado_so_goes_the_nation
Quote from: Undermind on January 07, 2014, 01:29:11 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/06/cnn-poll-support-for-legal-marijuana-soaring/
QuoteSixty-two percent of Democrats and 59% of Independents, but just 36% of Republicans, backed legalizing marijuana.
They only want you to
think they embrace libertarianism.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 07, 2014, 08:31:44 PM
Quote from: Undermind on January 07, 2014, 01:29:11 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/06/cnn-poll-support-for-legal-marijuana-soaring/
QuoteSixty-two percent of Democrats and 59% of Independents, but just 36% of Republicans, backed legalizing marijuana.
They only want you to think they embrace libertarianism.
I've been trying to tell you that for years now. :wink:
Here's a good article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-marijuana-experiment-a-tale-of-two-drug-wars-20140103) in the latest Rolling Stone about the current state of CO and WA's transition to legalization, and where they fit in with the country at large. One obvious takeaway: CO is doing it much better than WA.
Also, here are some of Taibbi's latest thoughts (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/yuppie-prohibition-league-denounces-pot-legalization-20140103) on legalizing pot.
most recreational shops here are sold out of rec herb here and closed for a couple days.
said they made about 5 million in 7 days.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on January 01, 2014, 09:35:37 PM
think its somewhere between 20-25%
where medical is like 10-15
i heard medical is 5% and rec is 25%
Quote from: VA $l!m on January 09, 2014, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on January 01, 2014, 09:35:37 PM
think its somewhere between 20-25%
where medical is like 10-15
i heard medical is 5% and rec is 25%
yeah maybe medical is little lower than 10. i dont remember exact numbers.
Colorado pot shops likely targets of cartels, say experts (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/10/colorado-pot-shops-likely-targets-cartels-say-experts/)
Eh, I could kinda see that, I doubt it really has much of an affect on CO as it would say maybe TX or LA or one of those states.
Where there is no medical or rec herb. And laws are not as lenient as to let you grow your own weed at home for whatever reason.
They are making it sound like its gonna be a huge war of pot store owners vs cartels in the concrete jungles of denver. lol. If anything the cartels found some other drug to push out or found a way to infiltrate other markets.
Fox News would reach that far to bash legal weed.
So can headshops in CO and WA sell "bongs" or do they still have to be coy with phrases like "functional handblown glass art?"
Quote from: Mr. Natural on January 10, 2014, 10:59:24 PM
So can headshops in CO and WA sell "bongs" or do they still have to be coy with phrases like "functional handblown glass art?"
And are scales still sold "only for postage"?
Quote from: mistercharlie on January 11, 2014, 05:28:02 AM
Quote from: Mr. Natural on January 10, 2014, 10:59:24 PM
So can headshops in CO and WA sell "bongs" or do they still have to be coy with phrases like "functional handblown glass art?"
And are scales still sold "only for postage"?
yes and no
you can talk all day long about smoking herb an oil in the pipes and what not they hve the craziest nails nd oil rigs now.
Tha fuck is a Mexican Competitiveness Institute? :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Former DEA agent joins marijuana industry. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/21/dea-agent-who-left-post-to-join-marijuana-investment-firm-not-representative/)
20 medical weed dispensary licenses given out in MA
3 to a former Congressman
Quote from: slslbs on January 31, 2014, 11:09:36 PM
20 medical weed dispensary licenses given out in MA
3 to a former Congressman
Tell me more, tell me more, did he have a pipe?
old school
a closet full of EZ Wider
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
I'm interested in this as well, let me know what you find.
Quote from: slslbs on January 31, 2014, 11:09:36 PM
20 medical weed dispensary licenses given out in MA
3 to a former Congressman
Bummed to find none were given to the Vineyard. The law calls for one in each county though, so hopefully that means more licenses will be given out.
http://www.leafscience.com/2014/02/02/legal-marijuana-uruguay-lets-scientists-finally-study/
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
I like this train of thought, don't know how that would fly with my job though.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/02/268381983/marijuana-laced-treats-leave-colorado-jonesing-for-food-safety-rules
good news DCers!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/04/d-c-takes-step-toward-legalizing-pot-for-private-use/
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on February 04, 2014, 04:16:50 PM
good news DCers!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/04/d-c-takes-step-toward-legalizing-pot-for-private-use/
And they were one of the worst racial discrepancies in the nation for mj possession.
Take
that, New Jim Crow.
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
Hey BM, this popped up on Yahoo. Some interesting points.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/cody/2014/02/13/you-have-to-be-a-dope-to-buy-marijuana-stock/
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/colorados-legal-pot-market-far-exceeds-tax-revenue-expectations (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/colorados-legal-pot-market-far-exceeds-tax-revenue-expectations)
QuoteColorado's Legal Pot Market Far Exceeds Tax Revenue Expectations!
Tax proceeds from pot sales of $98M have crushed the $70M initial estimation given to voters.
by Jodie Gummow
Colorado's legal marijuana market has led to higher tax-revenue than was previously expected, according to a budget proposal released by Gov. John Hickenlooper on Wednesday, AP reported.
With retail sales in Colorado remaining strong since beginning on the January 1, the governor has predicted sales and excise taxes next fiscal year would produce $98 million. This far exceeds the $70 million annual estimate given to and approved by voters last year.
The proposal which gives the first official estimate of just how much the state expects to make from taxes, outlines plans to spend the funds next fiscal year on substance abuse prevention, youth marijuana use prevention and other priorities.
"This package represents a strong yet cautious first step" for regulating pot, the governor said in his proposal.
The $98 million would include the sale of both recreational pot which is taxed statewide at 12.9 percent and medical marijuana taxed at 2.9 percent. Total pot sales in Colorado for next fiscal year were estimated at approximately $610 million.
Meanwhile, Washington has also released a predicted budget forecast even though sales don't begin in the state for a few more months.
No doubt other states considering the legalization of recreational marijuana will be watching the Colorado model closely to see just how much tax revenue can be generated, with the latest figures indicating a high prospect of significant monetary return.
PA is really pushing for it I hope these numbers really open some eyes.
Freedom and liberty sure start to look more attractive when there's CASH MONEY to be made off it!
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
do it.
i've been pushing everyone i know that is able to get in...like yesterday.
basically once i saw CEOs bailing on silicon valley giants to put everything they had into the biz.
if i had any means at all i would throw it all down right now, or possibly even just grab a job in the industry at any level right now to get your foot in the door.
good luck.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/colorados-pot-tax-revenue-much-higher-than-expected/#ixzz2u5MAJzop
Quote from: Undermind on February 22, 2014, 03:45:54 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/colorados-pot-tax-revenue-much-higher-than-expected/#ixzz2u5MAJzop
2 posts up, dude. 2 posts up.
anyone post that shit about the girl scout sellin cookies in front of the dispensary in Ca?
frikkin lead story on cnn today.
Quote from: PG on February 22, 2014, 05:26:59 PM
Quote from: Undermind on February 22, 2014, 03:45:54 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/colorados-pot-tax-revenue-much-higher-than-expected/#ixzz2u5MAJzop
2 posts up, dude. 2 posts up.
this is exactly what illinois needs! then maybe the state can start chipping away at the $41 billion it owes to the teacher's retirement. jerks.
if it wasnt posted already.
http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-girl-scout-sells-cookies-pot-clinic-20140221,0,174680.story#axzz2u6UwHuUd
Quote from: barnesy305 on February 15, 2014, 11:21:11 AM
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
Hey BM, this popped up on Yahoo. Some interesting points.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/cody/2014/02/13/you-have-to-be-a-dope-to-buy-marijuana-stock/
So if I had invested $10000 in these two companies on Feb 2 when i posted this It would now be worth $22600 (126% in a month).
Fuck!
Quote from: birdman on February 28, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
Quote from: barnesy305 on February 15, 2014, 11:21:11 AM
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
Hey BM, this popped up on Yahoo. Some interesting points.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/cody/2014/02/13/you-have-to-be-a-dope-to-buy-marijuana-stock/
So if I had invested $10000 in these two companies on Feb 2 when i posted this It would now be worth $22600 (126% in a month).
Fuck!
listen to the SLimstradomus.
seriously though i think the small point that article made is a good one about actually doing the ground research.
thats sorta the real win-advantage here with most of us knowing more than your average american what is what with the biz.
Quote from: VA $l!m on February 28, 2014, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: birdman on February 28, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
Quote from: barnesy305 on February 15, 2014, 11:21:11 AM
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
Hey BM, this popped up on Yahoo. Some interesting points.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/cody/2014/02/13/you-have-to-be-a-dope-to-buy-marijuana-stock/
So if I had invested $10000 in these two companies on Feb 2 when i posted this It would now be worth $22600 (126% in a month).
Fuck!
listen to the SLimstradomus.
seriously though i think the small point that article made is a good one about actually doing the ground research.
thats sorta the real win-advantage here with most of us knowing more than your average american what is what with the biz.
Actually I did listen. I bought a few MMJ stocks. Just not the ones I pointed out above.
Truth be told, penny stocks that don't list on a major market scare the shit out of me. Way to volatile.
So, I decided to go with a few "safer" bets on preexisting pharmy companies that are moving into the MMJ market. Slow and steady wins the race.
Quote from: birdman on February 28, 2014, 12:09:28 PM
Quote from: VA $l!m on February 28, 2014, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: birdman on February 28, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
Quote from: barnesy305 on February 15, 2014, 11:21:11 AM
Quote from: birdman on February 02, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
Hey BM, this popped up on Yahoo. Some interesting points.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/cody/2014/02/13/you-have-to-be-a-dope-to-buy-marijuana-stock/
So if I had invested $10000 in these two companies on Feb 2 when i posted this It would now be worth $22600 (126% in a month).
Fuck!
listen to the SLimstradomus.
seriously though i think the small point that article made is a good one about actually doing the ground research.
thats sorta the real win-advantage here with most of us knowing more than your average american what is what with the biz.
Actually I did listen. I bought a few MMJ stocks. Just not the ones I pointed out above.
Truth be told, penny stocks that don't list on a major market scare the shit out of me. Way to volatile.
So, I decided to go with a few "safer" bets on preexisting pharmy companies that are moving into the MMJ market. Slow and steady wins the race.
word. jah bless.
Dear uber l33t conservative Amurica:
If you are fed up with the 'moocher' class as much as you say, then legalize Cannabis for medical use and research.
The last 4 years that i have been unable to work... the only thing has allowed me to have bodily function over a bare minimum of getting through a day has been THC. If i had legal access to some sort of medical form of this chemical compound i am absolutely positive i could manage to get back to being a productive member of American society. It is the only treatment in four years of searching i have found has positive results.
Of course my choice to 'self-medicate' due to a lack of any other option subjugates me to criminal prosecution by the law.
I don't want to get 'high' at all. i want the right to treat my sickness.
(-give me a polygraph if you don't believe me)
now, Put that in your database and smoke it! :smoke:
If it makes ya feel any better. I had a 180'd moment last week(a moment of extreme triumph followed by the immense feeling of stupidity and failure also known as "living life like dirty"). I heard on the radio, a state republican senator, has proposed, and presented a medical marijuana bill for Georgia. My little heart lit up with joy, and I started envisioning being able to purchase medical grade weed. I get to work and research the bill.......
it's for a fucking hemp oil that contains less than 1% THC, and only for hardcore seizure patients. Talk about false advertising. Reasons why I hate the South, right there.
And bill is actually passing. Go figure.
Quote from: sophist on March 03, 2014, 09:52:06 AM
it's for a fucking hemp oil that contains less than 1% THC, and only for hardcore seizure patients. Talk about false advertising. Reasons why I hate the South, right there.
Are you upset because you think the bill is a sham or because it won't benefit the casual pot user who'd like to get a card? Marijuana has been shown to benefit seizure patients, including children (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/health/medical-marijuana-child/), so assuming this hemp oil product works it would be a good thing -- and the lack of THC content no doubt will calm concerns of those who think it's wrong to give 6-year-olds pot, seizures or no seizures.
I'm upset at the marketing of it. It's not a medical marijuana bill. It's taking an already legal substance and having patients in extreme medical conditions jump through extra hoops. That is what bothers me.
Quote from: sophist on March 03, 2014, 09:52:06 AM
If it makes ya feel any better. I had a 180'd moment last week(a moment of extreme triumph followed by the immense feeling of stupidity and failure also known as "living life like dirty"). I heard on the radio, a state republican senator, has proposed, and presented a medical marijuana bill for Georgia. My little heart lit up with joy, and I started envisioning being able to purchase medical grade weed. I get to work and research the bill.......
it's for a fucking hemp oil that contains less than 1% THC, and only for hardcore seizure patients. Talk about false advertising. Reasons why I hate the South, right there.
And bill is actually passing. Go figure.
at least it sets a good precedent i guess.
First official commercial. Pretty good too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyzxs33B6FA
maybe I'm just high
but I find that commercial fucking hilarious
Quote from: sophist on March 04, 2014, 11:41:45 AM
maybe I'm just high
but I find that commercial fucking hilarious
you might be, but you would still be correct.
I think the only thing it's missing is a scene where the dealer tries to pass off eel as tuna. And it goes horribly wrong.
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
The D.C. Council voted 10-1 Tuesday afternoon to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 04, 2014, 03:02:18 PM
The D.C. Council voted 10-1 Tuesday afternoon to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
:clap:
Quote from: VA $l!m on March 04, 2014, 03:25:05 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 04, 2014, 03:02:18 PM
The D.C. Council voted 10-1 Tuesday afternoon to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
:clap:
boom baby!
25$ fine it looks like if you get caught. great news.
I came in here to post an article from huffington post about this.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/dc-marijuana-decriminalization_n_4896779.html
^ That's good to hear. Though I await the day when we're willing to drop what's essentially a charade with decriminalization and acknowledge that if we support that we really just support full-blown legalization. A $25 fine? At that point it's basically hardly punishment, which means the law acknowledges the act should basically not go punished, which means it should not be illegal even in a nominal sense.
actually, if i am ever able to move i was already considering going back to NOVA/DC just for the medical.
of course i'd probably have to live in a real sketchy area with the way DC real estate has been going up the last few years.
Quote
The Maryland General Assembly has approved a bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana by reducing the penalty for possessing less than 10 grams from a criminal offense to a civil offense.
The Senate on Monday afternoon voted 34-8 without debate to approve changes made in the House of Delegates to Senate Bill 364. The House passed the bill on Saturday.
Under the bill, someone caught with less than 10 grams of marijuana would be charged with a civil offense, punishable by a fine ranging from $100 to $500.
Maryland would become the 18th state to reduce the penalty for possession of some amount of marijuana from a criminal offense.
My brother called me this weekend and asked me about investing in MJ penny stock.
He said he met a guy that has made a bundle a few times over by buying and selling penny stocks, last offload of stock banked him $300,000.
Anyone on the Paug have any experience with this?
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on April 07, 2014, 06:42:57 PM
My brother called me this weekend and asked me about investing in MJ penny stock.
He said he met a guy that has made a bundle a few times over by buying and selling penny stocks, last offload of stock banked him $300,000.
Anyone on the Paug have any experience with this?
Watch wolf on wall street.
You can make a bundle as well as end up holding worthless shares.
Don't buy unless you can afford to lose that money.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on April 07, 2014, 06:42:57 PM
My brother called me this weekend and asked me about investing in MJ penny stock.
He said he met a guy that has made a bundle a few times over by buying and selling penny stocks, last offload of stock banked him $300,000.
Anyone on the Paug have any experience with this?
I would stay away from penny stocks if you're an inexperienced investor
Quote from: GBL on April 08, 2014, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on April 07, 2014, 06:42:57 PM
My brother called me this weekend and asked me about investing in MJ penny stock.
He said he met a guy that has made a bundle a few times over by buying and selling penny stocks, last offload of stock banked him $300,000.
Anyone on the Paug have any experience with this?
I would stay away from penny stocks if you're an inexperienced investor
This
There's a reason they trade for pennies. Plus the volatility's a bitch so you could be up multiples of your initial investment one minute aaaaaand it's gone the next. For every one person who got rich trading penny stocks there's literally hundreds who lost it all.
Also, in my experience, people who brag about their latest haul from any trade are generally overstating their total return. It's like my mother-in-law who tells anyone who will listen how she won $4000 at the casino the other night while neglecting to mention the 43 other times she lost a couple hundred.
Thanks for the tips guys, sounds pretty similar to the stuff I've been reading on it.
Looks like Alaska will have a legalization measure on the ballot this year (http://reason.com/assets/db/139161893742.jpg). I won't go so far as to say accelerated nationwide legalization depends on it, but it will sure help the effort to have a conservative state or two get on board. The chances are best in one of your libertarian-conservative states like Alaska or, say, Wyoming -- and since it's kind of en vogue for GOPers to embrace libertarianism these days maybe having someplace like The Last Frontier demonstrate that it's OK to be Republican AND in favor of legalization might get the bible thumpers to put their anti-government freedom-love where their mouths are.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 09, 2014, 09:39:19 PM
Looks like Alaska will have a legalization measure on the ballot this year (http://reason.com/assets/db/139161893742.jpg). I won't go so far as to say accelerated nationwide legalization depends on it, but it will sure help the effort to have a conservative state or two get on board. The chances are best in one of your libertarian-conservative states like Alaska or, say, Wyoming -- and since it's kind of en vogue for GOPers to embrace libertarianism these days maybe having someplace like The Last Frontier demonstrate that it's OK to be Republican AND in favor of legalization might get the bible thumpers to put their anti-government freedom-love where their mouths are.
Pfft...fucking libertarian dreamers.
Also, looks like the pot stock bubble may be coming to an end, as the SEC and FINRA start cracking down on allegedly shady transaction and accounting practices. Hope your brother's buddy got out while the getting was good, Budd.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/04/10/sec-halts-trading-in-growlife-as-pot-stocks-get-crushed/?partner=yahootix
Quote
SEC Halts Trading in GrowLife As Pot Stocks Get Crushed
The Securities & Exchange Commission appears to be waging a limited crack down on the trading of so-called pot stocks that has caused some of the most popularly-traded stocks in the controversial sector to crash on Thursday.
Trading of shares of GrowLife, which trade under the symbol PHOT on the over-the-counter bulletin board, was temporarily halted on Thursday by the SEC "because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace and potentially manipulative transactions in PHOT's common stock." The temporary suspension lasts until April 25, but it's not a given that trading will resume until broker-dealers have sufficient information about the company to make a market in its shares. The SEC declined to comment and GrowLife did not quickly respond to requests for comment.
In late March, the SEC also temporarily suspended trading of another popular pot stock, Advanced Cannabis Solutions, citing questions "regarding whether certain undisclosed affiliates and shareholders of Advanced Cannabis common stock engaged in an unlawful public distribution of securities." Shares of Advanced Cannabis resumed trading on Thursday for the first time in weeks on the over the counter bulletin board, dropping nearly 40% in morning trading. Shares of CannaVest, another high-flying pot stock that had already seen its stock price tumble sharply in recent days, fell by another 17% on Thursday morning to $22.55. Its shares had changed hands for as much as $201 not so long ago and one of men who helped launch the company, a Florida physiotherapist named Stuart Titus, pocketed $7 million in recent stock sales, SEC filings show.
With Colorado and Washington now permitting the sale of marijuana for recreational use, and 20 states allowing it medically, some 60 publicly traded penny stock outfits have emerged through reverse mergers claiming to be in the medical marijuana or hemp business. The vast majority of these stocks are thinly traded on the over-the-counter bulletin board, or Pink Sheets, where promoters have helped push their stock prices high. The idea is to attract retail investors looking for a way to cash in on the legalization of marijuana, but financial markets regulators have expresses concerns about scams in the sector.
Like many of these companies, GrowLife doesn't actually touch marijuana, but claims to be involved in the business of providing infrastructure and services to marijuana and hemp businesses. Also like many other pot stocks, GrowLife has been involved in several offerings of notes that can convert into lots of stock at prices that are severely discounted to the price the shares have been trading for in the public markets. Forbes wrote about the pot stock bubble recently and exposed that it had technically produced the first pot stock billionaire. He is no longer a billionaire. In the aftermath of the halting of Advanced Cannabis' stock, there had been rumblings among market participants that trading of other pot stocks would be temporarily halted by the SEC.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2014, 12:36:24 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 09, 2014, 09:39:19 PM
Looks like Alaska will have a legalization measure on the ballot this year (http://reason.com/assets/db/139161893742.jpg). I won't go so far as to say accelerated nationwide legalization depends on it, but it will sure help the effort to have a conservative state or two get on board. The chances are best in one of your libertarian-conservative states like Alaska or, say, Wyoming -- and since it's kind of en vogue for GOPers to embrace libertarianism these days maybe having someplace like The Last Frontier demonstrate that it's OK to be Republican AND in favor of legalization might get the bible thumpers to put their anti-government freedom-love where their mouths are.
Pfft...fucking libertarian dreamers.
Care to elaborate?
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 10, 2014, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 10, 2014, 12:36:24 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 09, 2014, 09:39:19 PM
Looks like Alaska will have a legalization measure on the ballot this year (http://reason.com/assets/db/139161893742.jpg). I won't go so far as to say accelerated nationwide legalization depends on it, but it will sure help the effort to have a conservative state or two get on board. The chances are best in one of your libertarian-conservative states like Alaska or, say, Wyoming -- and since it's kind of en vogue for GOPers to embrace libertarianism these days maybe having someplace like The Last Frontier demonstrate that it's OK to be Republican AND in favor of legalization might get the bible thumpers to put their anti-government freedom-love where their mouths are.
Pfft...fucking libertarian dreamers.
Care to elaborate?
Nah.
Although I will agree that bible thumpers are, by definition, not really ant-gov't freedom-lovers.
I <3 the future
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/12/5608596/first-marijuana-vending-machine-for-consumers-unveiled-in-colorado
Quote
First marijuana vending machine for consumers unveiled in Colorado
Vending machines that serve up pot have existed for some time, but up until now have only lived behind counters at medical marijuana dispensaries. Now, the very first weed vending machine that customers can access has finally made its debut in Avon, Colorado. Herbal Elements, a local medical cannabis collective, today received a ZaZZZ vending machine manufactured by American Green. The dispensary made its excited announcement this afternoon:
Quote
Herbal Elements @HerbalColorado
Check out the official unveiling today @MontanasAvon! Thanks Liz for the pics ^_^ #zazzz
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlCZRIqCcAEFFsq.jpg)
The vending machine will be officially installed tomorrow (a full week before 4/20), but will only be accessible to patients with valid identification. (Sorry, recreational smokers.) Stephen Shearin, COO of American Green's parent company Tranzbyte, told The Cannabist that he envisions the machine being a boon for shyer folk. "First, think of automated checkouts at the market. Not for everyone, but for those who use it, they love it. Next consider a regular or perhaps a somewhat shy customer who is capable of self-service." Of course, even though the vending machine may well boost legitimate sales of cannabis, don't expect to see them out in the open.
Racial politics of legalization.
"After 40 years of impoverished black kids getting prison time for selling weed, and their families and futures destroyed. Now, white men are planning to get rich doing precisely the same thing?"
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/michelle-alexander-white-men-get-rich-legal-pot-black-men-stay-prison (ftp://www.alternet.org/drugs/michelle-alexander-white-men-get-rich-legal-pot-black-men-stay-prison)
Amnesty is the next civil rights battle.
Amnesty for non-violent pot-only offenders will not free quite as many as one would hope but it's a start.
Of course, it's not the law of the land YET but states such as CO need to continue to lead the way.
Washington Post
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/06/marijuana_use_rate_by_race_year.png)
and
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/06/marijuana_arrest_rates_by_race_year.png)
Sneaky white people...
not surprised at all.
Rawesome
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/05/14/311861890/edible-marijuana-treat-theres-now-a-food-truck-for-them
Quote
The Latest Food Truck Theme Is Marijuana For Lunch
Food trucks have been steadily multiplying in cities across the country for a few years now. So their collision with the brave new world of marijuana edibles — from brownies to gummy candy — was probably inevitable, at least in the states where the drug is now legal.
In late April, a company called MagicalButter unveiled the country's first food truck specializing in pot-infused eats at Denver's Cannabis Cup. MagicalButter, based in Seattle, already sells a machine of the same name that extracts nutrients and other chemicals from herbs for use in food.
The truck, called The Samich, rolls with a mascot: a flying, smiling stick of green butter. Yep.
On the Samich menu at the Cannabis Cup were peanut butter and jelly, pulled pork and grilled cheese sandwiches along with tomato soup. Each dish contained oil, butter or cheese infused with THC, the mind-altering chemical in marijuana.
"[The food truck] gives a good platform to educate people about how to eat with cannabis, finding out what works, what might not work," Garyn Angel, CEO of Magical Butter, tells The Salt. "It's a non-threatening way for people to discover if it helps them at all."
The truck's Colorado debut was more marketing ploy than true launch. After serving the festival goers in Denver, the truck headed back to Washington state, which is just starting to tax and regulate recreational weed sales. It's now parked near the company's headquarters, but there are plans to develop a fleet to spread the spiked lunch items to other cities.
The truck's timing is apt. While Colorado's experiment in recreational marijuana closes in on the six-month mark, lawmakers are tightening rules for the rapidly growing edibles market. New rules will limit the potency of foods infused with THC and require companies to explicitly label edible products.
Cooking with cannabis can be a tricky feat because it's easy to overdo it, Angel says. MagicalButter's chef controls for potency and dosage, making sure that grilled cheese doesn't deliver too much of a punch, he says.
"We have to work on [these things] to make sure no one has an experience they're uncomfortable with," Angel says.
Overindulging in THC-laced treats can lead to stomach aches, headaches, vomiting and day-long highs, according to Colorado Public Radio. Doctors in Colorado say more people are now being admitted to the emergency room after consuming large quantities of edible marijuana treats.
Angel of MagicalButter says the food truck is just one of his pot-infused culinary ventures. He is exploring a line of cookbooks and the company is planning to back a brick and mortar restaurant in Seattle that serves pot-infused fare with a tentative opening date in June or July.
More bullshit from the feds.
http://huff.to/1lEpBaA
Quote
Feds May Cut Off Water For Legal Marijuana Crops
Some cannabis growers may soon find themselves with a lot less irrigation water if the U.S. government decides to block the use of federal water for state-legal marijuana cultivation.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees management of federal water resources, "is evaluating how the Controlled Substances Act applies in the context of Reclamation project water being used to facilitate marijuana-related activities," said Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the bureau. He said the evaluation was begun "at the request of various water districts in the West."
Local water districts in Washington state and Colorado, where recreational marijuana is now legal, contract with federal water projects for supplies. Officials from some of those water districts said they assume the feds are going to turn off the spigots for marijuana growers.
"Certainly every indication we are hearing is that their policy will be that federal water supplies cannot be used to grow marijuana," said Brian Werner at Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which handles approximately one-third of all water for northeastern Colorado and is the Bureau of Reclamation's second-largest user in the number of irrigated acres.
Washington state's Roza Irrigation District, which supplies federal water to approximately 72,000 acres in Yakima and Benton counties, has already issued a "precautionary message" to water customers that may be involved in state-legal cannabis growing.
"Local irrigation districts operating federal irrigation projects have recently been advised that under Federal Reclamation Law, it is likely project water cannot be delivered and utilized for purposes that are illegal under federal law," wrote Roza district manager Scott Revell in letters to the Yakima and Benton county commissioners. "Presumably growing marijuana would fall into this category."
Both Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use more than a decade ago. Pot remains illegal under federal law. Reclamation's Soeth said that the issue of cutting off water supplies for marijuana has never come up before.
A Department of Justice official told HuffPost it has no comment on the water issue. The Bureau of Reclamation is likely to announce a decision this month. "We're going to work with our water districts once that decision is made," Soeth said.
Marijuana advocates condemned the possibility of a federal water ban for state-legal crops. Mason Tvert, communications director for Marijuana Policy Project and key backer of Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana for recreational use in Colorado, criticized the hypocrisy of a federal government that would prevent water access to some legal businesses and not others.
"If water is so precious and scarce that it can't be used for state-legal marijuana cultivation, it shouldn't be used for brewing and distilling more harmful intoxicating substances like beer and liquor," Tvert said.
The impact on Washington may be more severe, since the state's marijuana laws allow for outdoor growing and, according to McClatchy, the Bureau of Reclamation controls the water supply of about two-thirds of the state's irrigated land. In Colorado, marijuana businesses can only grow indoors.
Indoor growing in Denver, home to the majority of Colorado marijuana dispensaries, likely wouldn't notice a shortage if the Bureau of Reclamation cuts off federal water.
"Because we are not a federal contractor, we would not be affected," said Travis Thompson, spokesman for Denver Water, the main water authority for the state's capital and surrounding suburbs.
But many other regions of the state rely on federal water. In Pueblo, about two hours south of Denver, about 20 percent of regional water is Reclamation-controlled. Although the remaining 80 percent of the region's water is locally controlled, it passes through the Pueblo Dam, operated under Bureau of Reclamation authority.
"Yes, they come through a federal facility, but the federal facility is required to let those water right to pass," Pueblo Board of Water Works executive director Terry Book said to southern Colorado's NBC-affiliate KOAA.
The St. Charles Mesa Water District, another Pueblo-area water facility, has already imposed a moratorium on supplying water to marijuana businesses until the Bureau of Reclamation settles the issue.
The Bureau of Reclamation said its facilities deliver water to 1.25 million acres of land in Colorado and 1.2 million acres in Washington state. About 1.6 million acre-feet of water is delivered to Colorado's agricultural sector from Reclamation and about 5 million acre-feet is delivered to agriculture in Washington.
As McClatchy reported last month that there are several viable alternatives to using federal water. Small-scale marijuana-growing operations may be able to use city-controlled water sources, or drill a well. Greenhouse growers are allowed to use up to 5,000 gallons of well water per day under state law. Any use beyond that requires a permit from the state. While some marijuana plants can require an average of six gallons of water per day, growing operations in the state are likely to fall well within that limit.
However, in areas of the state where much of the water is controlled by Bureau of Reclamation contracts, these alternatives aren't as accessible.
The potential water ban has already set off local opposition. The Seattle Times' editorial board urged the Bureau of Reclamation to allow federal water contracts to be used by marijuana farmers.
"The bureau has never had -- nor should it have -- a stake in what crop is planted. That's a basic tenet of the 1902 National Reclamation Act, which created the bureau and transformed the arid American west," read the May 4 editorial. "Yet the federal government is now threatening to forget that history, because some regulators are queasy about Washington and Colorado's experimentation with marijuana legalization."
As the Times' board points out, there is some precedent for the Justice Department to stand down on the water issue. Last August, Attorney General Eric Holder told the governors of Washington and Colorado that the DOJ wouldn't intervene in the states' legal pot programs. And earlier this year, federal officials issued guidelines expanding access to financial services for legal marijuana businesses, so long as the business doesn't violate certain legal priorities outlinedby the Justice Department.
"While we appreciate how the Obama administration has made some administrative concessions to the majority of voters who support legalization by issuing banking guidelines and having the Justice Department largely stand out of the way of state implementation, this water issue highlights the urgent need to actually change federal law," Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, told The Huffington Post. "There are bills pending in Congress that would solve this and other state-federal marijuana policy discrepancies, but so far the support from elected officials doesn't even come close to matching the support from the public. I expect that gap will shrink with each passing election cycle as politicians start to see just how popular this issue is with voters."
I'm sure we can count on the states-rights set to be just as up in arms* over this as they were when the feds tried to enforce grazing rules against ole Racist McGee there in Nevada. Right? Right...? :|
*maybe literally!
Talk about messed up...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/jacob-lavoro_n_5353696.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&ir=Canada (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/jacob-lavoro_n_5353696.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&ir=Canada)
Good lord.
:shakehead:
Well here's a surprising bit of good news.
House votes to block feds from targeting medical marijuana in states where it's legal (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/30/house-votes-to-block-feds-from-targeting-medical-marijuana-in-states-where-it/?intcmp=latestnews)
QuoteThe GOP-controlled House voted early Friday in favor of blocking the federal government from interfering with states that permit the use of medical marijuana.
The somewhat surprising 219-189 vote came as the House debated a bill funding the Justice Department's budget.
The amendment by conservative GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California -- the first state to legalize medical marijuana -- came as almost half the states have legalized marijuana for medical uses, such as improving the appetites of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
"Public opinion is shifting," Rohrabacher said, noting a recent Pew Research Center that found 61 percent of Republicans support medical marijuana. The numbers are higher for independents and Democrats.
"Despite this overwhelming shift of public opinion, the federal government continues its hard line of oppression against medical marijuana," he said.
Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer told opponents that "this train has already left the station."
Opponents said that marijuana is regulated too loosely by the states and harms the brain.
Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., cited a recent Drug Enforcement Administration study that said that many in the medical marijuana movement are using it as "a means to an end," meaning legalization for recreational use.
"Congress is officially pulling out of the war on medical marijuana patients and providers," said Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project.
The measure now heads to the Democratic Senate.
Just on my way to post that. Great first step. Hopefully the Senate doesn't fuck up this no-brainer (spoiler alert: they probably will).
Check out the roll on that vote here (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll258.xml). See how your congress(wo)man voted. If aye, call his/her DC office to thank him/her and urge him/her to keep leading the effort to get the feds out of marijuana entirely. If nay, scold him/her for denying the will of the people.
Not surprised by the people who voted "noe" looks like its mostly TX, VA, GA, TN, FL, couple PA and OH reps.
I think the state is only specified if there is more than one person with the same last name. So that wouldn't indicate any other kind of patterns.
Yup. Also, the 172 GOP no votes, while completely unsurprising, is just another example of how "conservatives" could care less [for PG :wink:] about states' rights.
One such no-voting GOPer is SC's own Joe "You Lie!" Wilson.
So I called his DC office for an explanation. At first, his staffer claimed Joe voted no because it was the wrong venue to address the underlying matter, since marijuana would still be schedule I and illegal under federal law. Then he admitted that Joe isn't interested in overturning said law anyway. I challenged him on states' rights and libertarianism and how the Democrats are showing the GOP up on an issue that should be in their wheelhouse. We talked for a while about how pot prohibition is wrong in general and how popular sentiment is steadily and increasingly reflecting that; Joe and the GOP could do right by themselves and the public to get onto this issue and help be leaders in the march toward progress.
The staffer told me that he actually hadn't had too many in-depth conversations with Joe about pot but that he'd pass along my comments. He said that in three years of working for the congressman, he had never taken a call from a constituent urging for marijuana reform. (I'm actually in Clyburn's district but Joe's is next door.) So call your reps, people. Let em know it's safe to say YES to drugs!
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
damn voodoobrew has mad more important phone calls today than I have this whole week.
friday'd
(Just called my senators too.)
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 30, 2014, 02:57:52 PM
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
damn voodoobrew has mad more important phone calls today than I have this whole week.
He must be out of weed :wtu: :tte:
Quote from: kellerb on May 30, 2014, 03:19:02 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 30, 2014, 02:57:52 PM
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
damn voodoobrew has mad more important phone calls today than I have this whole week.
He must be out of weed :wtu: :tte:
HEYO!!!!!!
Quote from: antelope19 on May 30, 2014, 03:19:39 PM
Quote from: kellerb on May 30, 2014, 03:19:02 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 30, 2014, 02:57:52 PM
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
damn voodoobrew has mad more important phone calls today than I have this whole week.
He must be out of weed :wtu: :tte:
HEYO!!!!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/Cf1li3q.png)
DEA continues waging its backdoor war.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/dea_targeting_doctors_linked_t.html
Quote
DEA targeting doctors linked to medical marijuana groups in Massachusetts
While the Obama administration has sent some signals to states that it won't interfere with the implementation of medical marijuana laws, the Drug Enforcement Administration in recent weeks has visited doctors who hold administrative positions with companies seeking dispensary licenses in Massachusetts and told them to resign or risk losing their registration to prescribe controlled medications.
The DEA officials have gone so far as to show up at the homes of doctors involved with prospective medical marijuana dispensaries, and at least two, but possibly more, physicians have already resigned their positions with medical marijuana organizations as a result, according to multiple sources.
"They're going directly to the doctors, not setting up appointments, and giving them an ultimatum," said Valerio Romano, an attorney in Boston who represents several applicants for dispensary licenses in Massachusetts. Romano founded Massachusetts Marijuana Compliance, a part of the VGR Law Firm.
The full impact of the actions by the DEA on the fledgling medical marijuana industry in Massachusetts remains unclear, but those involved in the industry say they worry that it could not only delay the state Department of Public Health's licensing process even further, but also spook those in the medical community, many of whom are already wary of their role in the implementation of the voter-approved law legalizing medical marijuana.
"The main problem that I see with all this is the rollout for the program is already five-plus months behind and if the applicants are amending their applications to remove directors or members of the executive management team, this will just force the DPH to relook at the plans the applicants have," Romano said.
The state has approved two licenses for facilities in Western Massachusetts. They are for New England Treatment Access in Northampton and Debilitating Medical Condition Treatment Centers in Holyoke.
Officials at the Department of Public Health said they have met with the DEA on drug diversion prevention issues related to registered marijuana dispensaries, but have not received any formal notification from the federal agency on warnings being given to doctors.
"Registered Marijuana Dispensaries are not required to have medical personnel on their management teams, and any doctor leaving the leadership team of an RMD would not cause any delays in the program or have an impact on applications beyond the additional time required to conduct background checks on replacement personnel," the DPH spokesman David Kibbe said in a statement. "When Registered Marijuana Dispensaries experience changes in leadership, they are required to notify DPH. Any new RMD personnel must go through a comprehensive background check as part of the Department's standard process."
Paul Covell, the chief executive officer of the William Noyes Webster Foundation, said Dr. Carl Fulwiler, a Worcester psychiatrist and addiction specialist who was listed on the group's dispensary license application as its substance abuse specialist, resigned after he was visited by the DEA last week.
"They told him you have to give up one or the other," Covell told the News Service.
A spokesman for the New England division of the DEA did not returned several calls placed by the News Service over the past two days.
Covell said he did not think Fulwiler's resignation would have a detrimental impact on his group's application for a license, but said it does send a mixed message from the federal government about how the Justice Department will treat medical marijuana patients, doctors and business owners.
The William Noyes Webster Foundation received one of the 20 provisional licenses from the DPH in January to open a medical marijuana dispensary in Dennis. The DPH is currently in its verification phase of reviewing final applications.
"If he had been someone in an executive management position that might have caused us some concern, but he is in an advisory capacity and playing a minor role for us. I can't speak for the others," Covell said. "If this was the state doing it, that would be a different story. But if you look at other states that have legalized it, I think the barn door is wide open and my best guess is this thing will gather momentum."
The U.S. House voted last month to prevent the Justice Department from stopping the implementation of medical marijuana laws in Massachusetts and other states. Two members of the nine-member Massachusetts delegation voted against the measure, which was part of a $51.2 billion appropriations bill.
Reps. Joseph Kennedy and William Keating joined 172 Republicans and 15 fellow Democrats in voting against the amendment, which would prevent the department from using the funds to stop 32 states and the District of Columbia from implementing laws authorizing the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.
Medical marijuana advocates called the vote a "major victory" and said they expect the U.S. Senate to tackle a similar amendment this summer.
The DEA's decision to focus on the licenses of doctors to prescribed controlled substances is not necessarily a new front for the agency to discourage the spread of medical marijuana, which it opposes, but it's the first time Romano said he has heard of the department targeting those serving on boards or in administrative roles at medical marijuana companies.
In the late 1990s, following the legalization of medical marijuana in California, the DEA threatened to revoke the licenses of doctors who recommended medical marijuana to patients. The directive also authorized the U.S. Inspector General for Health and Human Services to exclude physicians from participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The federal judge in Northern California overruled the DEA and affirmed the right of doctors to recommend medical marijuana to patients, which was all that was required to purchase the drug. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision for the 10 states in its jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court declined to take the case, which would have set a national precedent.
geez using DEA agents time and resources to go intimidate doctors to not prescribe weed in a state that used its democratic system to allow medical marijuana to be prescribed :roll: what a fucking waste
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on June 06, 2014, 11:29:41 AM
geez using DEA agents time and resources to go intimidate doctors to not prescribe weed in a state that used its democratic system to allow medical marijuana to be prescribed :roll: what a fucking waste
Fer realz. I thought my vote would allow us to progress. Apparently not. At least my rep wasn't one of the dipshits who voted against the amendment. Joe Kennedy and Bill Keating can DIAF as far as I'm concerned.
All the more reason why that bill is important. I hope everyone here has called their senators.
May have to rethink my "why the fuck would anyone want to live in Boston" opinion.
http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Online-exclusives/2014/Spring/063-Group-plans-bid-for-Mass-marijuana-legalization.aspx#.U5h6AvldXTT
Quote
Group plans bid for Mass. marijuana legalization
Wants to put question on 2016 ballot
THE MARIJUANA POLICY Project, the Washington, DC,-based advocacy group that organized and bankrolled Colorado's recent marijuana legalization campaign, has opened a ballot committee with Massachusetts campaign finance regulators, setting the stage for a marijuana legalization campaign in 2016.
The Marijuana Policy Project's executive director, Rob Kampia, opened a ballot referendum committee with the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance on Tuesday. The committee, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Massachusetts, allows the Marijuana Policy Project to begin raising and spending money in the state. The organization is anticipating putting a marijuana legalization question on the statewide ballot in 2016. It also plans on waging 2016 legalization campaigns in Nevada, Arizona, California, Maine, and Montana. It has a marijuana legalization ballot initiative pending in Alaska this year; an Oregon campaign is pending, either for this year or 2016.
A 2012 Colorado ballot question made Colorado the first state to legalize the use and sale of marijuana to the public. The Marijuana Policy Project organized the Colorado campaign, and spent $2 million advancing it. Colorado's legalization question won by 10 points, running more than five points ahead of President Barack Obama in the state.
"We're going to be spending the next year working to build a coalition," said Mason Tvert, the Marijuana Policy Project's director of communications. "We really want to replicate the Colorado process, and not just the winning part. We spent six months drafting the best possible initiative, and the most effective system we felt was possible. That's our goal in Massachusetts: to get a large group of stakeholders, and write the best possible law."
Massachusetts voters approved a ballot question decriminalizing marijuana in 2008; that campaign, which the Marijuana Policy Project sponsored, and spent $917,000 advancing, enjoyed a 30-point margin of victory. In 2012, voters approved a question establishing the sale of medical marijuana by 25 points. The rollout of medical marijuana in the state has been marked by numerous reports of less-than-vigorous oversight by state regulators. The US Drug Enforcement Agency recently threatened to revoke the federal prescription licenses of Massachusetts physicians who prescribe medical marijuana under the new law.
A recent WBUR/MassINC Polling Group poll found 49 percent of Massachusetts voters favoring a marijuana legalization effort, with 42 percent opposed. Support for marijuana legalization cut broadly across demographic groups; the WBUR poll found Democrats and unenrolled voters backing legalization by strong margins, and found voters 60 and above the only age group that opposed legalization outright.
Tvert said the marijuana legalization framework has varied by state, in the same way that different states regulate alcohol sales in vastly different ways. In Colorado, where the Marijuana Policy Project anticipated a hostile legislative reaction, its initiative petition amended the state constitution to allow commercial marijuana sales, and then directed the state legislature and the state department of revenue to draft specific regulations. Washington, which also voted to legalize marijuana in 2012, had a supportive legislature that worked to shape the final legalization language.
"If the legislature wants to participate in drafting the law, they'll have the opportunity," Tvert said. "And if not, and if we believe it's something the voters want, we have no choice but to take it to the ballot."
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/19/phila-city-council-oks-decriminalization-of-small-amounts-of-pot/
Phila. City Council OKs Decriminalization of Small Amounts of Pot
up to 30 gs only 25$ fine
Republicans doing what they do best: being massive, hypocritical assholes.
http://wapo.st/UJOIBN
Quote
House Republicans block funding for D.C. marijuana decriminalization
House Republicans on Wednesday blocked funding for a new D.C. law that would have eliminated criminal penalties for possessing marijuana, leaving the fate of the measure up to budget negotiations between the House and Senate.
The move is a defeat to D.C. lawmakers who had argued that ending jail time was necessary to combat deep racial disparity in drug sentencing in the nation's capital.
The effort to halt the measure was led by Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland's only Republican in Congress.
Maryland recently joined 17 other states in passing a law to eliminate jail time for marijuana possession. But Harris argued that the D.C. law was "bad policy," assessing a fine of just $25 for pot possession and not requiring teens to attend drug treatment.
A doctor by training, Harris lectured House lawmakers on what he said were the medical dangers of marijuana, especially on fetal brain development.
Harris proposed an amendment to a multibillion-dollar spending bill that would preclude D.C. from spending any of its locally generated tax revenue to implement the new law.
It was one of several so-called "riders" on the spending bill that covers appropriations for the District. Other perennial riders that were introduced sought to block D.C. from spending money on abortions for low-income residents and even to cut funding for most D.C. police officers to drive their cruisers to and from their homes.
Harris's rider on the marijuana legislation was derided by House Democrats from New York to California as a misplaced effort by Republicans to appear tough on drugs.
Rep. José E. Serrano (D-N.Y.), whose family is from Puerto Rico, said Republicans' interference amounted to "colonialism," with representatives from red states imposing their will on the city's Democratic majority.
Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) said what Harris might think should be the law in his Eastern Shore district of Maryland shouldn't apply in D.C.
"It doesn't seem that the Eastern Shore can "reach over and make law for D.C.," Moran said.
The House hearing was the last expected hurdle for the District law, which was scheduled to take effect next month.
Under the new law, possession would draw a civil fine of just $25 — akin to a parking ticket. That would be the smallest penalty outside any state except Alaska, which has no fine, and Colorado and Washington, which have legalized marijuana for recreational use.
Damn, Alaska. :clap:
Paging DC/VA paugers
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2014/07/16/city-paper-will-pay-your-25-marijuana-fine/
Quote
City Paper Will Pay Your $25 Marijuana Fine
At midnight tonight, the District's law decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use takes effect. Get stopped with a small amount of weed in your pocket today, and you could be facing six months in prison and a $1,000 fine. Wait until tomorrow, and you'll pay just $25. (As the Metropolitan Police Department is taking pains to point out, smoking pot in public is still illegal, as is selling it. And don't carry drugs on federal land!)
At Washington City Paper, we think the new law is a big improvement: For one, the vast majority of people arrested for possession of marijuana in D.C. are black, and the racial disparity in pot arrests is getting worse. For another, why should the other Washington be more progressive than we are? But we're also curious to see how it'll be enforced. So we'll make an offer to the large, large numbers of people living here who have at some point possessed pot: If you get a citation under the new law, send us a picture of the citation and tell us your story, and if you're one of the first five people we hear from at potfine@washingtoncitypaper.com, we'll pay your $25 fine.
A couple of guidelines: We don't need to publish your name if you don't want us to, but we do need to know it. So send us a clear photo of the citation, and if you'd like to remain anonymous, we'll blur out identifying details before posting anything. Let us know exactly what happened—why did the police stop you, and where? How did they find the pot? Did they confiscate it? What did they say about it, and did they seem to be aware of the new law?
Do feel free to send us tips and suggestions about how the new rules are or aren't being enforced around the District even if you don't wind up getting cited. And for more background on how D.C.'s drug laws are changing, read our Pot Issue from last fall.
The New York Times editorial boad has come out officially pro-legalization at the federal level. They just started a series of articles addressing why. Great stuff!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html)
Quote from: PG on July 27, 2014, 12:08:20 PM
The New York Times editorial boad has come out officially pro-legalization at the federal level. They just started a series of articles addressing why. Great stuff!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html)
Saw this yesterday; it's about time.
Quote from: Superfreakie on July 27, 2014, 12:30:33 PM
Quote from: PG on July 27, 2014, 12:08:20 PM
The New York Times editorial boad has come out officially pro-legalization at the federal level. They just started a series of articles addressing why. Great stuff!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html)
Saw this yesterday; it's about time.
Good article.
Groovy graphics.
I found it pretty hilarious it took the Times this long to come out in favor of legalization and then they lament how long it is taking Congress under to address the issue.
Still, good news. The tide is rolling.
The NYT editorial page editor will be participating in a Facebook Q&A today at 4:20pm EST. Get it!?!?!
https://facebook.com/nytimes
Esteemed pot prohibitionist group Project SAM - headed by Patrick Kennedy (of The Kennedy's) - took out a full page ad in the Saturday edition of the NYT following the Times' endorsement of legalization (http://grassisnotgreener.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SAM_ad_full_page_NYT_11.55x21_31Jul14_FINAL1.pdf). Hilariously, the argument against legalization is so bad that they unwittingly make the case FOR legalization, showing that marijuana is no longer just for potheads and that respectable, productive members of society can engage in recreational use responsibly. Of course, the text on the ad tries to make the case that if we legalize marijuana, those EVIL CORPORATIONS will take over the industry, and we all know they can't be trusted. I guess Project SAM would rather leave billions of dollars in those far more trustworthy and altruistic organizations, the cartels.
What a bunch of stoners.
(http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/jsullum/2014_08/Project-SAM-ad-cropped.jpg)
QuoteTHE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA means ushering in an entirely new group of corporations whose primary source of revenue is a highly habit-forming product. Sounds a lot like another industry we just put in its place. Many facts are being ignored by this and other news organizations. Go to GrassIsNotGreener.com to see why so many major medical associations oppose marijuana legalization.
Quote from: birdman on February 28, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
They gave a company a permit to open a dispensary in my home town. :smoke:
Also Im thinking of investing some money is some of these public MM companies. Might as well jump in on the ground floor. Anyone have any insider info I could use? Don't make me do my own leg work.
These two companies are on my radar:Advanced Cannabis Solution (CANN) and Growlife(PHOT).
Birdman Horseshoe loves Anacott Steel. I'm glad you have more sense than to swing for the fences.
Friendly reminder: trading penny stocks can be hazardous to your financial security. Also, if you heard about a "can't miss" investment idea on the Internet, RUN!!!!
http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370542594818#.U-EzivldXTR
Quote
SEC Charges Four Promoters with Manipulating Marijuana-Related Stocks and Other Microcap Companies
Washington D.C., Aug. 5, 2014 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged four promoters with ties to the Pacific Northwest for manipulating the securities of several microcap companies, including marijuana-related stocks that the agency has warned investors about in recent weeks.
The SEC alleges that the four promoters bought inexpensive shares of thinly traded penny stock companies on the open market and conducted pre-arranged, manipulative matched orders and wash trades to create the illusion of an active market in these stocks. They then sold their shares in coordination with aggressive promotional campaigns that urged investors to buy the stocks because the prices were on the verge of rising substantially. However, these companies had little to no business operations at the time. The promoters reaped more than $2.5 million in illegal profits through their schemes.
Two of the companies manipulated in this case – GrowLife Inc. and Hemp Inc. – claim to be related to the medical marijuana industry. The SEC has issued an investor alert warning about possible scams involving marijuana-related investments, noting that fraudsters often exploit the latest growth industries to lure investors into stock manipulation schemes. Other schemes by these four promoters involved an oil-and-gas company – Riverdale Oil and Gas Corporation – and three other microcap stocks, ISM International, Allied Products Corp, and Aden Solutions.
...
According to the SEC's complaint, GrowLife Inc. was part of a broader online promotion of several marijuana-related stocks in early 2014. Mrowca specifically promoted GrowLife through his Money Runners Group website and predicted that the stock price would nearly double. Mrowca, Galas, and Hawatmeh meanwhile engaged in manipulative trading designed to increase the price and volume of GrowLife stock, and they later sold their shares for illicit profits.
Similarly, the SEC alleges that Hawatmeh, Galas, and Mrowca bought and sold approximately 41.7 million shares of Hemp Inc. in January and February 2014 while the stock was actively promoted on the Internet. For example, one Internet tout on February 6 claimed that Hemp could reach "a REAL Possible Gain of OVER 2900%." During the promotion, Hawatmeh, Mrowca, and Galas engaged in manipulative wash trades and matched orders to manipulate Hemp's common stock before selling their shares for illegal gains.
"This was a carefully planned operation by Galas, Hawatmeh, Mrowca, and Pustovit to distort the performance of specific penny stocks as they were simultaneously promoted through social media and the Internet. As the companies' stock prices increased, these four promoters opportunistically dumped their shares for illicit gains," said Amelia A. Cottrell, associate director in the SEC's New York Regional Office.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
I have a serious aversion to penny stocks so I'm glad I didn't get caught in the hype over those stocks.
I did however invest in the pharmy company that makes the marijuana based medicine they give to kids for seizures. It trades on the Nasdaq, GW pharmaceuticals. Got in at around 60 and sold most when it hit 100. Kept the rest as it seemed a decent long term company.
Research paid off on this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yny0VDxgNwQ
Office of National Drug Control Policy offers its official Federal response to the New York Times series calling for re-scheduling.
Warning - may lead to an acute case of :frustrated:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/28/response-new-york-times-editorial-marijuana-legalization (ftp://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/28/response-new-york-times-editorial-marijuana-legalization)
edited hotlink (not FTP): http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/28/response-new-york-times-editorial-marijuana-legalization
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 16, 2014, 12:14:46 PM
edited hotlink (not FTP): http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/28/response-new-york-times-editorial-marijuana-legalization
Whoopsie.
QuoteAny discussion on the issue should be guided by science and evidence, not ideology and wishful thinking.
Nary a mention by ONDCP of relying on "science and evidence" to, at minimum, move marijuana out of schedule I.
QuoteThe Obama Administration continues to oppose legalization of marijuana
Change we can believe in.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 16, 2014, 12:59:15 PM
QuoteAny discussion on the issue should be guided by science and evidence, not ideology and wishful thinking.
Nary a mention by ONDCP of relying on "science and evidence" to, at minimum, move marijuana out of schedule I.
I'm not sure there's much room for science & evidence when they're stuck placating the hysteria they've been actively propagating for decades.
I think the Obama administration may have shot their load, in respect to cannabis law reform.
However, we'll see what changes after more dominoes fall this November. http://www.mpp.org/about/mpps-2014-strategic-plan.html (http://www.mpp.org/about/mpps-2014-strategic-plan.html)
im putting this here but I think its bigger news that just policy on pot
http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2014/08/25/States-Medical-Marijuana-Painkiller-Deaths-Drop-25
QuoteIn States With Medical Marijuana, Painkiller Deaths Drop by 25%
That's pretty striking. Would love to hear the pot-is-dangerous crowd deal with that one.
^^^
not a surprise
http://time.com/?xid=newsletter-brief#3194786/marijuana-research-national-institutes-of-health-pot/
QuoteThe Government Wants to Buy 12 Acres of Marijuana — for Research
Jordan Stanley and others prune hemp plants growing on their family'’s farm outside Wray, Colo., on July 31, 2014 Matthew Staver—The New York Times/Redux
The NIH is looking for pot farmers
More
States With Medical Marijuana Laws Have Fewer Opioid Overdose Deaths
Calling all pot farmers: Uncle Sam is looking to buy.
An arm of the National Institutes of Health dedicated to researching drug abuse and addiction "intends" to solicit proposals from those who can "harvest, process, analyze, store and distribute" cannabis, according to a listing posted Tuesday night on a federal government website.
A successful bidder must possess a "secure and video monitored outdoor facility" capable of growing and processing 12 acres of marijuana, a 1,000-sq.-ft. (minimum) greenhouse to test the plants under controlled conditions, and "demonstrate the availability" of a vault approved by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration to maintain between 400 and 700 kg of pot stock, extract and cigarettes.
Back-up plans in case of emergency required.
The NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is looking for growers who have the capability to develop plants with altered versions of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive component of pot, and cannabidiol (CBD), which is known for its medicinal properties. NIDA "anticipates" awarding a one-year contract with four one-year options, according to the posting. The vendor would also have to register with the DEA to research, manufacture and distribute cannabis.
NIDA spokeswoman Shirley Simson said the agency was simply starting a new bidding competition since its existing marijuana-farm contract is set to expire next year. The original solicitation for that contract was issued in 2009.
There are 18 states that have decriminalized pot, 23 states with laws allowing access to medical marijuana, and two states — Colorado and Washington — that have legalized the drug for recreational purposes. Federal law still classifies marijuana as a drug on par with heroin, acid and ecstasy.
Remember when there were rumors of a Phish fest on the Fagot Farm in Williamson County, Texas? Yeah, that would have been a horrible idea! This 19 year old kid was almost sent to prison for life because WillCo police used the weight of the brownies and cookies he baked weed into to charge him with a first degree felony. The brownies were found to have a total of only 2.5 grams of actual THC in them, but the charges are made based on total weight including the fucking tupper-ware!!
Luckily, the grand jury refused to indict him on the first degree felony charge. He still faces charges that could put him away for up to 20 years for this first offense.
Williamson County borders Travis County (Austin) on our north side. I try not to go there for any reason.
http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/charges-reduced-teen-arrested-making-pot-brownies-20371.shtml (http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/charges-reduced-teen-arrested-making-pot-brownies-20371.shtml)
That's fucking disgraceful.
Just exactly what greater good do the authorities believe they are serving in attempting to "throw the book" at someone in such a patently absurd manner as that?
I would imagine they are motivated more by the fear of what would happen if they don't throw the book at him.
Quote from: Mr. Natural on August 31, 2014, 12:55:47 AM
I would imagine they are motivated more by the fear of what would happen if they don't throw the book at him.
They are following the law as it reads. That's the problem.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 30, 2014, 04:08:37 PM
Just exactly what greater good do the authorities believe they are serving in attempting to "throw the book" at someone in such a patently absurd manner as that?
Greater good? The DA is motivated by his/her future political aspirations and nothing more.
Reporter in Alaska with the greatest "I quit" since Scarface in Half Baked.
http://youtu.be/rYcSqIuqkz4
:clap:
More injustice resulting from the state vs. federal conflict: man denied federal bankruptcy protection because it would violate Controlled Substances Act.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26598241/federal-judge-denies-bankruptcy-protection-colorado-marijuana-business
Quote
Federal judge denies bankruptcy protection to marijuana business
Buzz kill?
A U.S. bankruptcy judge has dismissed the case of a marijuana business owner, saying that though his activities are legal under Colorado law, he is violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.
In dismissing the case filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Denver by Frank Anthony Arenas, Judge Howard Tallman said he realizes the "result is devastating for the debtor."
The Arenas' case is at least the second bankruptcy involving a marijuana business tossed out of bankruptcy court in Colorado. At least two others have been dismissed in California.
Tallman made a similar decision in a 2012 case involving Rent-Rite Super Kegs West Ltd, a company that operated a warehouse partially rented to a tenant engaged in cultivating marijuana.
"Violations of federal law create significant impediments to the debtors' ability to seek relief from their debts under federal bankruptcy laws in a federal bankruptcy court," Tallman wrote in the Arenas' decision last month.
Arenas, who couldn't be reached for comment, has appealed the decision to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
According to his bankruptcy petition, Arenas owes more than $556,000 to unsecured creditors.
He has assets of $595,925, personal property worth $47,191, and monthly income of $4,315.16.
He has testified that he owns about 25 marijuana plants valued at $250 each, according to Tallman's decision.
Arenas, a wholesale producer and distributer of weed, filed for Chapter 7 protection, in which a debtor turns over assets to a trustee to liquidate and give the proceeds to creditors.
In the decision, Tallman alludes to the contradictions that dueling marijuana laws pose to liquidating assets and distributing the proceeds among creditors.
The trustee can't take control of assets or liquidate the inventory without running afoul of federal law, he said. Nor can the debtors convert the case to Chapter 13, which would allow them to pay off debts over time because the plan would be funded "from profits of an ongoing criminal activity under federal law" and involve the trustee in distribution of funds derived from violation of the law.
Those who own and operate marijuana businesses are caught in a legal limbo with federal law restricting access to banking services and creating obstacles that other legitimate — at least by state law — businesses don't, said Sam Kamin, a professor at Denver University Sturm College of Law.
"As long as it is illegal under federal law we are going to have weird anomalies like that," Kamin said.
Mike Elliott, executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group, said the bankruptcy case is one more "unjust" penalty that pot businesses face.
"It is amazing how far down the rabbit hole we are when we get to an issue like this. Marijuana businesses are unjustly penalized because the federal law is no longer based in reality."
First 2 Medical Dispensaries opened in CT this week
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2014/09/connecticut_now_has_legal_medical_cannabis_for_sale.php#more
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on September 25, 2014, 02:18:31 PM
First 2 Medical Dispensaries opened in CT this week
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2014/09/connecticut_now_has_legal_medical_cannabis_for_sale.php#more
Story written by William Breathes. :-D
haha yeah he's the official med/rec pot shop reviewer/weed news guy for the westword (denver's hipster-esque paper)
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on September 25, 2014, 06:23:10 PM
haha yeah he's the official med/rec pot shop reviewer/weed news guy for the westword (denver's hipster-esque paper)
I thought I had read some of his stuff before.
He also has some strain review vids on YouTube with tweezer jam livephish 11 as the soundtrack
Has anyone had any success buying marijuana related stock? Seems like there is some money to be made there.
Quote from: danje on October 21, 2014, 05:06:01 PM
Has anyone had any success buying marijuana related stock? Seems like there is some money to be made there.
Quote from: birdman on August 06, 2014, 05:24:58 PM
I have a serious aversion to penny stocks so I'm glad I didn't get caught in the hype over those stocks.
I did however invest in the pharmy company that makes the marijuana based medicine they give to kids for seizures. It trades on the Nasdaq, GW pharmaceuticals. Got in at around 60 and sold most when it hit 100. Kept the rest as it seemed a decent long term company.
Research paid off on this one.
Quote from: danje on October 21, 2014, 05:06:01 PM
Has anyone had any success buying marijuana related stock? Seems like there is some money to be made there.
http://www.ganjapreneur.com/ (ftp://www.ganjapreneur.com/) has a 'business' section that regularly reports on mj stocks and mergers.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/marijuana-laws-all-50-states-oct-27?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HIGHTIMESMagazine+%28HIGH+TIMES+Magazine%29
Breakdown on all current and upcoming laws and medical programs by state
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 28, 2014, 11:21:47 AM
http://www.hightimes.com/read/marijuana-laws-all-50-states-oct-27?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HIGHTIMESMagazine+%28HIGH+TIMES+Magazine%29
Breakdown on all current and upcoming laws and medical programs by state
QuoteIndiana
There are currently no medical or recreational marijuana laws in place.
:frustrated:
Interesting to hear Representative Blumenauer on Jammin' 107.5 encouraging 18 - 21 year-olds to vote yes on Measure 91.
While I'm impressed he'd go to those lengths, if they'd read it they'd know that their age group wouldn't see any legal/criminal differences from the way things are now.
But hey, you don't have to vote solely based on self-interest, right? And by the time retail is in stores (no licenses issued until 2016), they'll probably be of age, anyway.
Good night for weed
Quote
@MarijuanaPolicy (https://twitter.com/MarijuanaPolicy/status/529825182534623232)
It looks like #marijuana possession is on its way to being legal for adults in the nation's capital! http://t.co/1UlEI2aVqF
Quote
@MarijuanaPolicy (https://twitter.com/MarijuanaPolicy/status/529827809251061760)
South Portland, Maine will make #marijuana legal for adults! http://bit.ly/1vG1Jas
Quote
@MarijuanaPolicy (https://twitter.com/MarijuanaPolicy/status/529828077854281728)
PA Gov. Tom Corbett — who said he would veto medical marijuana — has been defeated by Tom Wolf, who supports decriminalization and medical
YAY!
Quote
@MarijuanaPolicy (https://twitter.com/MarijuanaPolicy/status/529859888038834176)
Oregon is now the 3rd state to regulate #marijuana like alcohol for adults! http://bit.ly/10TNHu6 #regulationworks #YesOn91
This doesn't necessarily belong here but sentencing reform in CA (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/prop-47-could-take-the-state-a-step-further-in-reducing-overcrowding.html?_r=1) is pretty fucking cool too.
Congressional oversight will kill the DC rule.
It's rarely been done but I'm pretty sure the small government republitards will squash this quickly.
Wait so that stuff was illegal?
:smoke:
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 05, 2014, 06:43:25 AM
Congressional oversight will kill the DC rule.
It's rarely been done but I'm pretty sure the small government republitards will squash this quickly.
I can't wait to see Republicans explain themselves there.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 05, 2014, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 05, 2014, 06:43:25 AM
Congressional oversight will kill the DC rule.
It's rarely been done but I'm pretty sure the small government republitards will squash this quickly.
I can't wait to see Republicans explain themselves there.
They did it five months ago...
http://rt.com/usa/168472-congress-dc-home-rule-marijuana/
And they'll do it again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-republican-vows-to-upend-dc-ballot-measure-legalizing-marijuana/2014/11/05/10304f2c-6508-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html
Alaska legalized it as well
:smoke:
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 06, 2014, 09:09:26 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 05, 2014, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 05, 2014, 06:43:25 AM
Congressional oversight will kill the DC rule.
It's rarely been done but I'm pretty sure the small government republitards will squash this quickly.
I can't wait to see Republicans explain themselves there.
They did it five months ago...
http://rt.com/usa/168472-congress-dc-home-rule-marijuana/
And they'll do it again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-republican-vows-to-upend-dc-ballot-measure-legalizing-marijuana/2014/11/05/10304f2c-6508-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html
I guess you are pretty glad to have Rand Paul on your side, then?
It would be insane of the GOP to block this. You cannot possibly make the case that you are for small gov't and individual liberty while stepping in to overturn the will of the people on an issue like this. Any credibility the GOP has on this issue (HA!) would be instantly (and possibly permanently) destroyed.
I'm not saying they're not going to do it, but they'd be a lot dumber than I thought if they try. And I already think they're pretty goddamned dumb.
yes, they're dumb, but not nearly as inept as the Dems
and recent history has shown us that the GOP is against government interence - unless the interference furthers the conservative agenda (DOMA for example)
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 05, 2014, 06:43:25 AM
Congressional oversight will kill the DC rule.
It's rarely been done but I'm pretty sure the small government republitards will squash this quickly.
For the record, Ron Johnson is NOT a small gov't anything. He is, however, an opportunistic asshole. Still hoping these idiots come to their senses. Dumbass selfing emphasis added.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/johnson-open-to-hearing-on-marijuana-legalization/?dcz=
Quote
Ron Johnson Open to Hearing on Marijuana Legalization
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., likely the next chairman of the Senate committee with oversight over Washington, D.C., said Thursday that he would like to hold a hearing on marijuana legalization.
When asked about his view of marijuana legalization in D.C., Johnson told a group of reporters, "What we can do is we can hold hearings to find out how it's all working, to highlight the issues, highlight the problem, try and define the problems. So I think that's what we should really do."
Johnson, who will likely be the next chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said such a hearing would focus on how legalization in other states has unfolded.
In November, nearly two-thirds of D.C. voters elected to legalize up to 2 ounces of marijuana for recreational use in the District for adults over the age of 21. After the election results are certified on Dec. 3, the bill will be sent transmitted to Congress for a 30-day review process.
Johnson said, in general, he supports more local autonomy for D.C., but refrained from taking a position on whether the District should be allowed to legalize the drug.
"I have no comment on that right now. That's a relatively complex issue, dealing with state law and federal law and we've got these experiments — we're not enforcing federal law," said Johnson. "I guess right now I'm just sitting here watching the states' experiment and seeing how that happens. If anything I'd want to use the committee to hold a hearing, see how it's working."
Four states have legalized marijuana so far, which conflicts with federal law that criminalizes the drug. Since the D.C. marijuana referendum is subject to congressional review, lawmakers could be voting on whether to support a less stringent drug policy than the Drug Enforcement Administration.
On the House side, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chairman-elect for the Oversight and Government Reform panel, which has jurisdiction over the District, said he opposes marijuana legalization.
"The recreational consumption of marijuana is not something I've been in favor of," said Chaffetz. He suggested Congress could address the issue before he takes the gavel, saying, "There's not much I can do about it."
However, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson is expected to transmit the bill to Congress in January, meaning Chaffetz will have to confront the issue as chairman.
During the 60-day review process, Congress could opt to pass a resolution of disapproval against the referendum. But lawmakers are less likely to take that route, since it would have to be passed by both chambers and signed by the president, who has warned against intervening in District affairs in the past. Congress is more likely to block legalization through an appropriations rider.
Johnson said he is also personally against the recreational use of marijuana but believes it's an issue that should be determined by states. However, he did not indicate whether the same determination should be granted to the District.
"I can't support it myself because I think it sets a really bad example for young children," Johnson said. "But states are doing that. Let the voters decide ... Again, I like local control of those issues and then what we can do here in Congress is hold hearings, find out, how's it working? What kind of problems are there?"
When it was pointed out the voters in D.C. did decide to legalize marijuana, Johnson said, "Apparently," and walked away.
I love how mainstream these ideas are becoming. This is currently the top article on the nytimes most emailed list... It argues for rescheduling mushrooms...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)
Bipartisan compromise to block DC from regulating/distributing, but will allow for cultivation and increase the amount decriminalized. Pretty fucked up of the (allegedly small gov't loving) federal gov't to overrule the people here, but considering the alternative this probably isn't the worst outcome.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/congress-says-d-c-can-legalize-pot-but-can-t-tax-or-regulate-it-20141209
Quote
Congress Will Say D.C. Can Legalize Pot, But Can't Tax or Regulate It
D.C. mayor and council will be blocked by spending bill from taking additional steps on marijuana law.
Congress will prevent the District of Columbia from writing regulations to expand its recently passed ballot initiative legalizing marijuana, cramping the hopes of activists and city officials that Congress would allow the city to tax and regulate the sale of marijuana, according to congressional sources.
The ballot initiative itself, however, will be allowed to go into effect, meaning that District residents will be allowed to possess and cultivate personal amounts of marijuana starting in early 2015.
Negotiators will include language in a must-pass omnibus appropriations bill that will restrict the city from using any funds to enact regulations around the voter-approved legalization initiative through Sept. 30, 2015. The District will still, however, be able to maintain the legalization measure passed by voters in November. D.C. residents over the age of 21 will be able to possess and cultivate personal quantities of marijuana, as the ballot initiative stated.
The language will be included in sweeping spending legislation expected to be unveiled later Tuesday by House and Senate appropriators. The omnibus spending bill must be passed by Dec. 12 to avoid a government shutdown, so even those opposed to the measure are unlikely to scuttle the bill's passage because of the high stakes involved if the omnibus fails.
House Republicans, particularly Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers and junior appropriator Andy Harris of Maryland, had been vehemently pushing for language in the bill that would block both decriminalization and legalization. But Democrats objected, and the two sides reached a compromise that would block funding for any expansion of the ballot initiative, while still allowing the city to legalize marijuana.
Speaking at a press conference shortly after the passage of D.C.'s legalization measure, Mayor-elect Muriel Bowser announced her intent to craft a system for the legalized sale of marijuana in the District. "I see no reason why we wouldn't follow a regime similar to how we regulate and tax alcohol," she said at the time. Now such moves -- which many supporters view as necessary to making legalization work -- will be impossible, for the time being.
City advocates said Democrats did not do enough to protect the sovereign rights of District voters.
"The whole idea for Initiative 71 was that it was the first step to taking marijuana out of the illicit market," Malik Burnett, a former surgeon and policy manager at Drug Policy Alliance, told National Journal. "We ran the campaign under the auspices of racial justice and we felt we had a unique opportunity to restore the communities most harmed by the war on drugs through the tax and regulate system, and to set a model for what marijuana legalization in a racial justice context looks like. The actions by Congress have prevented us from doing that."
Burnett helped lead D.C. reformers' successful campaign to frame the issue as a matter of racial justice, highlighting a series of damning statistics analyzing police arrests. Among them: while whites' and blacks' pot use is roughly equal, 91 percent of pot-related arrests in the District were of black residents, according to a report by the ACLU's D.C. Chapter.
District residents voted resoundingly—the initiative garnered nearly 70 percent of the vote—last month to pass Initiative 71, which would allow residents to possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana, grow up to six marijuana plants, and transfer without sale up to 1 ounce to another person.
Harris, who authored the amendment to block funding, countered that legalizing marijuana would increase drug use and abuse, particularly among teenagers.
The decriminalization initiative, which first went into effect in July, reduces the penalty for residents carrying less than an ounce of marijuana to a $25 fine. Police are also prohibited from asking anyone in possession of less than an ounce to produce identification.
Since the D.C. Financial Control Board ended its activities in 2001, Congress has mostly left the District to govern its own affairs. But Congress still has the authority to tell the city how to spend its money and occasionally does so, with abortion being the most common battleground issue.
Quote from: PGLHAH on November 30, 2014, 12:20:15 AM
I love how mainstream these ideas are becoming. This is currently the top article on the nytimes most emailed list... It argues for rescheduling mushrooms...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)
I like it.
Quote from: gah on December 10, 2014, 05:00:33 PM
Quote from: PGLHAH on November 30, 2014, 12:20:15 AM
I love how mainstream these ideas are becoming. This is currently the top article on the nytimes most emailed list... It argues for rescheduling mushrooms...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)
I like it.
I definitely think LSD and mushrooms should be legal along with pot. But can you imagine what it would take to make that happen? It's hard enough getting politicians to come around on pot, and weed is widely popular. I can't quite imagine enough people sticking up for psychedelics for it to reach critical mass. No doubt part of the reply, assuming we legalize pot, will be "we gave you marijuana; don't push it."
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on December 10, 2014, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: gah on December 10, 2014, 05:00:33 PM
Quote from: PGLHAH on November 30, 2014, 12:20:15 AM
I love how mainstream these ideas are becoming. This is currently the top article on the nytimes most emailed list... It argues for rescheduling mushrooms...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/can-mushrooms-treat-depression.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)
I like it.
I definitely think LSD and mushrooms should be legal along with pot. But can you imagine what it would take to make that happen? It's hard enough getting politicians to come around on pot, and weed is widely popular. I can't quite imagine enough people sticking up for psychedelics for it to reach critical mass. No doubt part of the reply, assuming we legalize pot, will be "we gave you marijuana; don't push it."
I don't think legalization is even the right goal at this point... Simple reclassification would make it is easier for research projects to get off the ground so we can better understand what the benefits MAY be.
Yes, that would certainly be easier. But personally I would resent needing to have a doctor's permission to tap into the mental, emotional and spiritual benefits that psilocybin provides.
This also happened today:
Congressional spending deal blocks pot legalization in D.C. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/congressional-budget-deal-may-upend-marijuana-legalization-in-dc/2014/12/09/6dff94f6-7f2e-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html)
In response, I sent the following email to my senators. Harry Reid will also be getting a note from me. You all should do the same. Obviously adjust as needed for party affiliation (the good news being there is an argument to make to both Ds and Rs on this issue).
QuoteDear Senator [so-and-so],
I read that the senate plans to block Washington, D.C. from implementing the recent voter-approved initiative that would have eliminated penalties for cultivating, possessing and sharing limited amounts of marijuana.
This move by your fellow senators – who, I should remind you, are merely guests in the District – is shameful. To defy the will of a clear majority of voters – over 70 percent – on a matter of personal liberty and meddle in their affairs should be an embarrassment not only to all senators, but to Republicans especially. Republicans are supposed to believe in home rule, personal liberty and responsibility, limited government, and the will of the people. This move shows a narrow-minded devotion to the exact opposite.
Why is the senate only targeting D.C.? Why have you not moved against Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska? Is it simply a "not in my (borrowed) back yard" mentality? Do demographics have anything to do with it?
It's time the U.S. government stopped clinging to "Reefer Madness"-era misconceptions about marijuana. Its use is demonstrably less harmful – for users and for society – than alcohol, prescription narcotics and plenty of other substances. That it remains Schedule I is actually an insult to the notion of honest science. Results in Colorado and Washington have shown us that legalization did not usher in a wave of crime and misery. Grown adults should be allowed to grow and do with a plant what they please. A majority of Americans feel this way.
I would expect you, as a Republican, to be leading the charge for long overdue, common-sense reforms. With its latest move, I see the senate is instead more out of touch with the population than ever.
Disappointedly yours,
[your name]
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 05, 2014, 06:43:25 AM
Congressional oversight will kill the DC rule.
It's rarely been done but I'm pretty sure the small government republitards will squash this quickly.
Yep
I called Reid's and Graham's offices today to yell at them. Reid's phone guy wouldn't deny the recent report but just kept saying "it hasn't been voted on yet" as though I should wait until after they vote to get unhappy. Graham's guy said Lindsey hasn't staked out a position on it yet. Both tried to put the blame on House Republicans.
I didn't even know this was on the table.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/california_medical_association_votes_unanimously_against_denying_organ_transplants_for_medical_marijuana_patients (ftp://www.safeaccessnow.org/california_medical_association_votes_unanimously_against_denying_organ_transplants_for_medical_marijuana_patients)
budget bill, lol Amurica.
Medical marijuana bill pending in the SC statehouse. :-o
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on January 23, 2015, 01:20:24 PM
Medical marijuana bill pending in the SC statehouse. :-o
that's exactly what sc needs. :roll:
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11169883_896032423771641_750122586760679418_n.jpg?oh=9afbac0da192c4906d1b8c8dc7129568&oe=55E27FCC)
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/20/why-chris-christies-vow-to-suppress-mari
He's also sick of the will of the majority of Americans, I guess.
lol. he said self-control.
By all means, GOP, stake your future on a guy who thinks like that.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 22, 2015, 10:19:01 PM
By all means, GOP, stake your future on a guy who thinks like that.
Works for me.
Why is it guys like Rand Paul, who veers into crackpot territory uncomfortably often, sound sane on drug policy while "mainstream-friendly" pols like Gov. Tough Guy here so reliably spout such nonsense?
Aggravating.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 23, 2015, 12:02:52 PM
Why is it guys like Rand Paul, who veers into crackpot territory uncomfortably often, sound sane on drug policy while "mainstream-friendly" pols like Gov. Tough Guy here so reliably spout such nonsense?
Aggravating.
Paul is also closer to where I stand on defense, but he is so far off on other things that there is no way I would ever vote for him. Argg!!!
Quote from: Undermind on April 23, 2015, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 23, 2015, 12:02:52 PM
Why is it guys like Rand Paul, who veers into crackpot territory uncomfortably often, sound sane on drug policy while "mainstream-friendly" pols like Gov. Tough Guy here so reliably spout such nonsense?
Aggravating.
Paul is also closer to where I stand on defense, but he is so far off on other things that there is no way I would ever vote for him. Argg!!!
All of these guys are nuts.
saw a bumper sticker the other day
Republicans are red
Democrats are blue
Neither one of them
Gives a shit about you
Quote from: slslbs on April 24, 2015, 05:35:16 AM
saw a bumper sticker the other day
Republicans are red
Democrats are blue
Neither one of them
Gives a shit about you
^ that's pretty good
For pot. This kid was tortured for fucking smoking pot. And nobody goes down for it.
God damn it this drug war needs to end.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dea-chong-20150505-story.html
Quote
DEA agents jailed a student for 5 days without food, water — and just got a slap on the wrist
deral agents responsible for leaving a 23-year-old UC San Diego engineering student in a holding cell for five days without food or water received only reprimands or short suspensions from the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to the Justice Department.
Daniel Chong was swept up in a 2012 DEA raid on his friends' house, where he had gone to smoke marijuana. After an interrogation, he was told he would be released.
But the agents responsible forgot about him, according to a Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report last summer, leaving him to drink his own urine to stave off dehydration.
The Justice Department, in a letter to members of Congress obtained by the Los Angeles Times, said that "what happened to Mr. Chong is unacceptable" and that "the DEA's failure to impose significant discipline on these employees further demonstrates the need for a systemic review of DEA's disciplinary process."
Chong, who was never charged with a crime, was kept in total isolation with his hands handcuffed behind his back in a windowless cell with no bathroom, calling out periodically for help. Midway through the ordeal someone turned off the light in his cell, leaving him in darkness.
When he was finally discovered he was delirious, with serious respiratory and breathing problems. He was hospitalized for four days, and he and his lawyers said at a news conference last summer that he underwent intensive therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. The department paid Chong a $4.1-million settlement.
The Inspector General Report said that three DEA agents and a supervisor bore primary responsibility for Chong's mistreatment and that the DEA San Diego Field Division lacked procedures to keep track of detainees. They were not named in the report.
The Department of Justice letter said that DEA officials forwarded a report on the incident to a disciplinary board, the Board of Professional Conduct, without conducting its own investigation. The board issued four reprimands to DEA agents and a suspension without pay for five days to another. The supervisor in charge at the time was given a seven-day suspension.
This is not the first time that DEA disciplinary procedures have been called into question. Last month House Oversight Committee members expressed outrage that then-DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart had not seriously punished agents involved in sex parties with prostitutes in Colombia. They received suspensions of two to 10 days.
Leonhart, under pressure from the Obama administration, announced her retirement April 22. Former Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. ordered a review of DEA disciplinary procedures.
"The Department of Justice has serious concerns about the adequacy of the discipline that DEA imposed on its employees," in the Chong case, said Patrick Rodenbush, a Department of Justice spokesman, in a statement.
He said that Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility "will make recommendations on how to improve the investigative and disciplinary processes for all allegations of misconduct at DEA."
Holy shit.
this might be the most sensible thing I have seen congrass and the house do in my lifetime
"On Wednesday, House members voted in support of pulling $23 million from the DEA's marijuana crackdown budget and put the money towards common sense programs, like solving rape cases, financing body cameras for local police officers and assisting troubled youth"
http://www.hightimes.com/read/congress-votes-end-war-weed-lawmakers-predict-its-demise-within-5-years
Still can't believe it's legal here now.
We puffed mad js outside of JPs birthday shindig last night at midnight and nobody bothered us.
The future is here! :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :banana: :banana: :banana:
Quote from: Hicks on July 01, 2015, 04:09:07 PM
Still can't believe it's legal here now.
We puffed mad js outside of JPs birthday shindig last night at midnight and nobody bothered us.
The future is here! :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :banana: :banana: :banana:
hellz yeah, do it up! :smoke:
Quote from: susep on July 01, 2015, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: Hicks on July 01, 2015, 04:09:07 PM
Still can't believe it's legal here now.
We puffed mad js outside of JPs birthday shindig last night at midnight and nobody bothered us.
The future is here! :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :banana: :banana: :banana:
hellz yeah, do it up! :smoke:
gonna put some in the air for you OR folks tonight! congrats! welcome to the club! :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:
Wow, this is actually happening. :smoke:
What a fucking dick
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-28/smoke-that-pot-now-christie-tells-users-in-states-that-allow-it
Quote
Smoke That Pot Now, Chris Christie Tells Users in States That Allow It
The New Jersey governor says he would enforce federal laws that criminalize marijuana if elected president.
Residents in U.S. states that have legalized marijuana should toke up while they still can, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said.
"If you're getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it," Christie, a Republican campaigning for the 2016 presidential nomination, said Tuesday during a town-hall meeting at the Salt Hill Pub in Newport, New Hampshire. "As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws."
At a time when a majority of Americans say recreational pot use should be legal, and four states have already made it so, Christie remains opposed. The former federal prosecutor said Democratic President Barack Obama has selectively chosen which laws to enforce.
Christie is trying to pump up his candidacy ahead of the first Republican debate on Aug. 6 by talking to voters in New Hampshire, the state with the first primary. Fox News, the debate sponsor, plans to winnow the party's field of 16 candidates down to 10 using an average of five national polls. The RealClearPolitics polling average currently has Christie in ninth place.
The governor said he believes marijuana alters the brain and serves as a so-called gateway to the use of harder drugs. Pointing to his own administration of New Jersey's medical marijuana program that he opposes, he said elected officials can't unilaterally choose which statutes to enforce.
"That's lawlessness," he said. "If you want to change the marijuana laws, go ahead and change the national marijuana laws."
I feel like its a bad campaign move to attack legalized marijuana when polls show a strong favor from american citizens to legalize weed.
Isnt that what campaign advisors get paid for?
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on July 28, 2015, 06:59:35 PM
I feel like its a bad campaign move to attack legalized marijuana when polls show a strong favor from american citizens to legalize weed.
Isnt that what campaign advisors get paid for?
I'm not so sure about a GOP primary, but it's definitely bad politics for a general election.
It's also pretty damn hypocritical when you're a member of the supposed "small government" party, yet you're making one of the biggest issues of your campaign about how you'll use the power of the federal government to undermine the wishes of the states and their voters.
Quote from: ytowndan on July 28, 2015, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on July 28, 2015, 06:59:35 PM
I feel like its a bad campaign move to attack legalized marijuana when polls show a strong favor from american citizens to legalize weed.
Isnt that what campaign advisors get paid for?
I'm not so sure about a GOP primary, but it's definitely bad politics for a general election.
It's also pretty damn hypocritical when you're a member of the supposed "small government" party, yet you're making one of the biggest issues of your campaign about how you'll use the power of the federal government to undermine the wishes of the states and their voters.
Federalism is for pussies, Dan. Everybody knows that. :wink:
Agree with you both, as far as going against the grain on issues that are overwhelmingly becoming mainstream, this one's as dumb as they come. I wonder if he's eyeing all the nonsense over Trump and thinking "Huh, maybe I should say some asinine shit too?"
This does seem like an odd thing to get so whipped up over. If he's really so deeply upset about activities in the states not reflecting the legal situation at the federal level, then what he should be saying is "We need to clean up this mess by repealing marijuana prohibition nationwide and letting states decide. P.S. I personally think all states should ban it, but that's not my call." But he clearly eschews the personal-liberty aspect of (ostensible) big-R Republicanism and has no problem telling people what they can and can't do.
DEA chief: not sure if pot is less dangerous than heroin; "probably" is. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/28/new-dea-leader-pot-probably-not-as-bad-as-heroin)
What a disingenuous ass hat. "I'm not an expert," he added.
Fucking despicable
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-chutzpah-of-a-police-union-in-orange-county-california/400502/
Quote
The Chutzpah of a Police Union in Santa Ana, California
This is the video that three police officers wish you hadn't seen—and are suing to stop internal affairs from investigating.
Unions that represent American police officers are often complicit in keeping bad cops on the street. This is a story about one of those unions flagrantly allying itself with misbehaving cops who are trying to suppress hard evidence of indefensible behavior.
Even the backstory is jaw-dropping.
Earlier this year, Santa Ana, California, decided that it had too many pot dispensaries operating in the city without a permit. Officials decided to crack down. Police could have quietly served a search warrant or padlocked a front door.
Instead, they opted for a raid during business hours with guns drawn.
As a result, customers at Sky High Holistic marijuana dispensary had a terrifying experience: While browsing the pot shop's products, they suddenly heard someone busting in the door. Seconds later, men were rushing into the room with guns drawn. Some wore masks. Frightened patrons quickly lay face down on the ground.
All by itself, this potentially dangerous, totally unnecessary show of force was troubling. The pot business was accused of a mere misdemeanor. There was no need to surprise patrons—some of whom were ill—with guns in their faces. But needlessly endangering the public was just the beginning of the dubious conduct. A surveillance camera recorded officers disconnecting the shop's surveillance cameras. Under the impression that they'd got them all and were only accountable to fellow police officers, the cops discredited themselves in footage destined for YouTube:
On-duty police officers appear to be eating edible pot products—OC Weekly transcribes words they spoke while egging one another on. ("Those candy bars are pretty good," one said. "I kinda feel light-headed though.") Other dialogue offers a number of insights into the subculture of this narcotics unit. Take the woman with an amputated leg that police encountered on entering the dispensary. "Did you punch that one-legged old benita?" one police officer asks another. The other cop laughingly replied, "I was about to kick her in her fucking nub." These are people Santa Ana taxpayers empower to use lethal force at their discretion.
Later, OC Weekly got access to a fuller version of the footage. They marvel at what it contains:
Quote
Hon. Jonathan Fish has been an Orange County Superior Court Judge since 2008, but before that he was a prosecutor with the district attorney's office who specialized in narcotics cases.
In the footage, an unidentified Santa Ana Police officer is talking to another cop as they wrap up their raid on the marijuana dispensary.
"You ever work with John Fish, the DA?" the officer asks.
"He was just in when I got there," his partner responds.
"He's the judge that signed our warrant," the first officer continues, adding that he had just spoken with Judge Fish and had enjoyed a good laugh with him about their old times together. "He's the fucker that pulled into a gas station on our way to the Staples Center and goes, 'Let's buy some beers and drink 'em out of a red cup.' I go, 'That's not going to be obvious.' There we are at an am/pm getting styrofoam cups and pouring our beers into them. That fucking blew me away."
That is all part of the backstory.
What's new is the way that the cops caught misbehaving on camera and the police union that represents them have responded to an internal police investigation—not with embarrassment, contrition, and public apologies, as would befit trustworthy people of good character, but with shameless, discrediting chutzpah: They've sued to keep now public video of their indefensible behavior from their overseers!
"A lawsuit, filed last week in Orange County Superior Court by three unidentified police officers and the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, seeks to prevent Santa Ana Police Department internal-affairs investigators from using the video as they sort out what happened during the May 26 raid of Sky High Collective," the Orange County Register reports. The article goes on to characterize the lawsuit's claims:
Quote
The lawsuit argues that the video doesn't paint a fair version of events. The suit also claims the video shouldn't be used as evidence because, among other things, the police didn't know they were on camera. "All police personnel present had a reasonable expectation that their conversations were no longer being recorded and the undercover officers, feeling that they were safe to do so, removed their masks," says the suit.
The dispensary also did not obtain consent of any officer to record them, the suit says. "Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer," the suit says.
To sum up: These police officers are complaining that after rushing into this business with guns drawn, forcing employees outside, and using a crowbar to pry visible surveillance cameras off the walls, they were not warned—by the same employees they forced out—that their efforts to disable all surveillance cameras failed, rendering their decision to eat the business's products visible to its owners. As well, they're arguing that, though on-duty cops, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, having failed to account for their own incompetence at disabling surveillance.
But even more galling is that last bit about how "without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer," as that's only true if one assumes that all cops present would cover for one another's egregious misbehavior and sign off on a police report that misrepresented the raid. That isn't a bad assumption, given that police subculture is rife with cops who fail to report on the misconduct of fellow police officers, but it's really something to see police officers invoke that reality, even implicitly, in an attempt to wriggle out of accountability.
And most galling of all is the fact that this tactic is going to work temporarily. "A Superior Court judge indicated Tuesday that he plans to issue a temporary restraining order that would prevent the Santa Ana Police Department from using video of officers misbehaving during a pot-shop raid as the department investigates the officers' actions," the Voice of OC reports. "According to court documents, Judge Ronald Bauer so far agrees with officers' claims that they would suffer 'irreparable harm' if the department is allowed to use video that the Santa Ana Police Association argues was obtained in an illegal eavesdropping operation."
The reprieve is likely temporary.
As Larry Rosenthal, a law professor of law at Chapman University, told the Orange County Register, "When you are on duty as a public official you have no expectation that what you do will not be subject to public scrutiny. I don't think it matters whether cameras were destroyed or not. They were doing the public's business."
The website of the police union declares that over five decades, it "has grown from a good idea amongst a couple friends to one of the most respected organizations of its kind." Its police-officer members are now funding a legal defense strategy that aims to prevent Santa Ana internal-affairs cops from reviewing the best available evidence in a police investigation of what appears to be illegal behavior. Any loss in respect that this organization now suffers is well deserved.
Will any Santa Ana cops criticize its actions?
https://youtu.be/JTKTfUHfeKM
I had to do a double take at this Judge's name haha make sure it wasn't our boy Jon
QuoteHon. Jonathan Fish has been an Orange County Superior Court Judge since 2008,
I saw this pop up in my newsfeed though, that is some despicable shit for sure. And they even started eating some edibles!? Who hires these ppl?
This is so awesome but please let's not make the word "budtender" a thing.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/25/oregon-newlyweds-offer-weed-bar-their-wedding/32339027
Quote
Oregon newlyweds offer weed bar at their wedding
WEST LINN, Ore. -- The legalization of pot in Oregon has couples considering weed bars at their weddings.
"We were shocked by how much people loved it," groom John Elledge said of his recent wedding reception. "I'm still getting a couple of texts a day from guests who enjoyed the weed tent."
Elledge married Whitney Alexander this summer on a Christmas tree farm.
"On private property where no liquor license is involved, it is legal," Mark Pettinger with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission said.
However, he added, a caterer with a liquor license cannot legally serve alcohol at an event where marijuana is also being served to guests. "Caterers should be aware there cannot be bartenders and budtenders."
"We made sure we were legal," said Elledge, "We know the limit is 8 ounces so we had small amounts of 13 varieties with a budtender controlling consumption."
The couple had a wedding planner from Lake Oswego's Bridal Bliss.
"This was our first request for a weed bar," said owner Nora Sheils, "We made sure everyone was safe and provided transportation. The couple provided the product and hired the budtender for the tent."
Elledge, who describes himself as a professional marijuana grower, seems pleased to be a pioneer.
"Even an 81-year-old woman who hadn't smoked weed since the '60s came into the tent at our wedding," he said. "Though skeptical at first she ended up loving it."
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 28, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
This is so awesome but please let's not make the word "budtender" a thing.
It's a bit late for that.
http://msmarystaffing.com/budtender/ (http://msmarystaffing.com/budtender/)
Quote from: WhatstheUse? on August 30, 2015, 01:13:30 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 28, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
This is so awesome but please let's not make the word "budtender" a thing.
It's a bit late for that.
http://msmarystaffing.com/budtender/ (http://msmarystaffing.com/budtender/)
Yeah Budtender is a official job title here.
While we're at it let's ditch the term "bud" altogether...probably the second lamest term for weed, behind of course "grass"
Quote from: phil on August 31, 2015, 12:55:12 PM
While we're at it let's ditch the term "bud" altogether...probably the second lamest term for weed, behind of course "grass"
Reefer
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 31, 2015, 01:16:05 PM
Quote from: phil on August 31, 2015, 12:55:12 PM
While we're at it let's ditch the term "bud" altogether...probably the second lamest term for weed, behind of course "grass"
Reefer
Reefer is a cool word that deserves a comeback.
Quote from: phil on August 31, 2015, 12:55:12 PM
While we're at it let's ditch the term "bud" altogether...probably the second lamest term for weed, behind of course "grass"
I nominate wacky tobacky.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on August 31, 2015, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: phil on August 31, 2015, 12:55:12 PM
While we're at it let's ditch the term "bud" altogether...probably the second lamest term for weed, behind of course "grass"
I nominate wacky tobacky.
Dude. Reefer is SER BIZ.
im all for reefer. Classic :smoke:
I use reefer all the time
Quote from: phil on August 31, 2015, 02:12:27 PM
I use reefer all the time
me too. :smoke:
I say it also.
I actually like the term "Flowers" and "concentrates" out here to distinguish the strength/type of reefer or reefer byproduct
Madness, especially given its historical context.
Oh yeah, I hate "trees" too.
i used to use green. although, i do like the reefer and it should make a comeback.
Quote from: WhatstheUse? on August 31, 2015, 02:11:06 PM
im all for reefer. Classic :smoke:
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 31, 2015, 02:33:53 PM
Madness, especially given its historical context.
agree
and then there's this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm-L9uMxzQA
CO first state to collect more in taxes from weed than alcohol.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/15/colorado-just-became-the-first-state-in-history-to-collect-more-taxes-from-marijuana-than-alcohol/
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on September 16, 2015, 01:32:09 PM
CO first state to collect more in taxes from weed than alcohol.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/15/colorado-just-became-the-first-state-in-history-to-collect-more-taxes-from-marijuana-than-alcohol/
:clap:
:smoke:
Now this actually blows my mind.
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/07/texas-house-panel-approves-full-legalization-of-marijuana-in-unprecedented-move/?utm_content=bufferaacd6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/07/texas-house-panel-approves-full-legalization-of-marijuana-in-unprecedented-move/?utm_content=bufferaacd6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on September 24, 2015, 09:36:41 AM
Now this actually blows my mind.
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/07/texas-house-panel-approves-full-legalization-of-marijuana-in-unprecedented-move/?utm_content=bufferaacd6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/07/texas-house-panel-approves-full-legalization-of-marijuana-in-unprecedented-move/?utm_content=bufferaacd6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Not sure what's so unprecedented about it: we're already have 4 states that have passed full scale legalization measures (as the article notes in the first graf). Surprising maybe, but certainly not without precedent.
Also, talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reasons:
Quote
The deeply conservative, Tea Party-backed Simpson explained in an op-ed last month that his belief in God, distrust of government and criticism of the "War on Drugs" led him to sponsor the marijuana legalization bill.
"As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity's charge to be stewards of the same," wrote Simpson. "I don't believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix."
If everything made by God is innately good, how do you explain Skrillex?
But,
Quote
And although the bill is not expected to survive the full path to becoming a law in this legislative session, Texas anti-drug law advocates are labeling the move as historic.
Boo
I made that statement because it's Texas dude.
This isn't a crunchy granola state, people have been incarcerated for a few grams of bud.
Think were gonna be seeing a good mix of red and blue states trying to legalize just for the monetary value it brings to the states. Its funny how fast some politicians change their stance on marijuana once they see the $$$
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on September 24, 2015, 11:51:59 AM
I made that statement because it's Texas dude.
This isn't a crunchy granola state, people have been incarcerated for a few grams of bud.
My reply wasn't a swipe at you. It was directed at the headline (or, more accurately, the dude from the advocacy group who said it).
I agree with emay: until it is finally put to bed at the federal level, this issue is likely to cross typical political preconceptions. Hell, if anything Republicans should be more likely to support legalization since they claim to hold limited gov't and personal responsibility as the loftiest of ideals. It's a goddamned shame they've been flaming hypocrites on this issue (and many, many others) for so long, but thankfully both parties are starting to come around (albeit entirely too slowly).
Well, within the context of Texas politics, that move certainly is unprecedented and therefore the headline is surely accurate.
P.S. I love a good semantics argument.
Now speaking of things you might not have been expecting, this news came out of my state today:
South Carolina senate panel approves medical marijuana proposal (http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article36384198.html)
Not surprisingly but no less shittily, the head of our statewide law-enforcement bureau opposes this idea. Hmm, I wonder if that might have anything to do with the fact that police jobs and budgets depend heavily on the drug war. Perhaps he should stick to enforcing laws and not trying to influence them.
meanwhile, some guy that I used to work with, who was quite good at his job, got canned for flunking his random test.
the substance - weed
yea, the guy should have known better considering the random tests, but...
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 24, 2015, 09:19:16 PM
Well, within the context of Texas politics, that move certainly is unprecedented and therefore the headline is surely accurate.
P.S. I love a good semantics argument.
By that logic, any state (or at least red ones, or so the "theory" goes) that enacts a change in policy with regard to marijuana would be considered unprecedented. To me, that doesn't accurately describe the nationwide changes in attitude and policy that we are seeing (which, BTW, may accurately be described as unprecedented). Once CO and WA legalized it (I guess technically when CA passed medicinal), the train left the station and all the other states following suit are just smart enough to hop on.
And if I could preemptively answer your question: yes, yes I am still talking about this. :wink:
OH SHIT I'M FEELING THE BERN
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-will-propose-nixing-marijuana-from-federal-list-of-dangerous-drugs/2015/10/28/be8c3adc-7da2-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html
Quote
Sanders will propose nixing marijuana from federal list of dangerous drugs
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders will announce his support Wednesday for removing marijuana from a list of the most dangerous drugs outlawed by the federal government — a move that would free states to legalize it without impediments from Washington.
The self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont plans to share his proposal during a town hall meeting with college students that will be broadcast on the Internet across the country from George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
"Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use," Sanders says in prepared remarks for the event provided to The Washington Post. "That's wrong. That has got to change."
No other presidential candidate has called for marijuana to be completely removed from the schedule of controlled substances regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Longshot Democratic hopeful Martin O'Malley has said he'd put marijuana on Schedule 2, a less strict designation. The party's front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has repeatedly said she wants to see how legalization experiments in Colorado, Washington and other states play out before committing to any changes at the federal level.
Sanders's plan would not automatically make marijuana legal nationwide, but states would be allowed to regulate the drug in the same way that state and local laws now govern sales of alcohol and tobacco. And people who use marijuana in states that legalize it would no longer be at risk of federal prosecution.
His plan would also allow marijuana businesses currently operating in states that have legalized it to use banking services and apply for tax deductions that are currently unavailable to them under federal law.
In a 2013 memo, the Justice Department essentially agreed to look the other way in states where marijuana is legal, provided that the marijuana industry in those states remained in compliance with state laws. But this memo isn't legally binding, and a new administration or a new attorney general could easily reverse course.
Marijuana's current classification is reserved for drugs with no medically accepted use and a "high potential for abuse."
Most researchers who work in drug policy say that this designation isn't appropriate. Last week, the Brookings Institution said that marijuana's current scheduling status is "stifling medical research." The American Medical Association has called for marijuana's scheduling status to be "reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research."
Sanders has hinted at his position previously, including during a broadcast last week on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on ABC during which he said: "I am not unfavorably disposed to moving toward the legalization of marijuana."
"We have more people in jail today than any other country on earth," Sanders told Kimmel. "We have large numbers of lives that have been destroyed because of this war on drugs, and because people were caught smoking marijuana and so forth. I think we have got to end the war on drugs."
In response to a question during the first Democratic debate, Sanders said he would vote in favor of a local Nevada measure that would legalize recreational pot use.
"I would vote yes because I am seeing in this country too many lives being destroyed for non-violent offenses," he said. "We have a criminal justice system that lets CEOs on Wall Street walk away, and yet we are imprisoning or giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana."
In the first debate, Clinton said she supports the legalization of marijuana and alternatives to imprisoning people for non-violent drug crimes. But she stopped short of endorsing legalization, saying she wants "to find out a lot more than we know today" about the experiences of states like Colorado and Washington.
Sanders's proposal is in line with the thinking of a growing number of Americans and a solid majority of Democrats.
According to a Gallup poll published earlier this month, national support for legalizing pot is at an all-time high, with 58 percent of those surveyed supporting such an outcome.
Still, the ability of Sanders or any Democratic president to move the needle on federal marijuana policy through a reclassification of the drug is likely to face stiff resistance in a Republican controlled Congress.
Medical marijuana is now sold in nearly half of all states, and even one red state has legalized it for recreational use. Veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clamoring for access to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. Loosening pot laws polls better in three swing states than any 2016 presidential candidate.
But in July, conservative House Republicans killed a bipartisan proposal to create a sub-class for marijuana so researchers could simply study the substance legally and offer fresh guidance on whether it should continue to be classified alongside heroin and ecstasy as one of the most dangerous.
He already had my vote, now I wish I could vote for him twice. :mrgreen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/03/ohio-could-legalize-marijuana-on-tuesday-it-could-also-change-the-entire-legalization-game/
the wrong way to legalize weed
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on November 03, 2015, 02:13:00 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/03/ohio-could-legalize-marijuana-on-tuesday-it-could-also-change-the-entire-legalization-game/
the wrong way to legalize weed
I've never seen so many people (of all ages) voting in a non-presidential election. My precinct was about as busy as it was in 2012. It was definitely busier than it was for last year's midterms.
Having said that, I voted for it. Some of the specifics of the measure really blow, but that can be fixed with another ballot initiative next year.
Honestly I'm kind of glad to see that it failed because fuck Nick Lachey.
Looked like a deeply fucked up exploitation scheme.
Build legislation on the Colorado model. I'm sure there are lessons to be learned to improve on it but effectively granting a cartel full control of medical and recreational production via a constitution amendment is not one of them.
Yep. Was happy to see that fail in Ohio. Not the way to go about all this! :smoke:
Glad CO voters came out and voted for the state to keep the extra 66 mil for new schools and school programs, hopefully that keeps art and music in schools as well!
the rebate that would have come back to each registered voter in the city would have been useless it was like 7.60$ or something when it boiled down to it. couldnt even get a chipotle burrito with that
A moot point now, but...
While I agree they definitely went about it the wrong way, I'm inclined to agree with Dan. The idea of a gov't granted cartel controlling production is deeply troubling to my freedom loving heart. And I agree that doing it through a constitutional amendment is certainly problematic. But, what's the alternative? Continue to allow people's lives to be ruined through the disastrous War on Drugs? Seems to me that any law that changes the prohibition status quo is an improvement. I mean, this is Ohio fercrissakes. Not NY, not MA, friggin Ohio. Had it worked in there, I have to believe it would have empowered many more left-leaning states to embrace legalization as a fully legitimate policy.
All that said, it is at least reassuring that these types of measures continue to gain steam. We are banging on the door. All we need is a spark to kick the motherfucker down.
I see your point there, but the topic is on the table now. Which can allow cities or smaller jurisdictions in ohio to maybe legalize or decriminalize it on a smaller city level like Ceveland or Cinci which would curb a lot of marijuana arrests; prob about 50-60% of the arrests they see state wide.
When you see states like Ohio, Texas, Nevada, NM, other states you wouldnt think would legalize seems like it brings good attention for the whole "take if off sch 1 substance" argument and could maybe bring it to light on federal level.
Also that weird mascot type guy is a little troubling I understand a billboard but that captain weed nugget guy is strange.
LEAVE BUDDIE ALONE!!!
(http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2015/08/27/61/39/buddie.jpg)
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
that lady face behind him is priceless
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 10:47:07 AM
LEAVE BUDDIE ALONE!!!
(http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2015/08/27/61/39/buddie.jpg)
That's the type of shit that sets the movement back and undoes decades of hard work by the real activists, shameful.
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
some trouble for buddie on the Ohio State campus
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.
In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.
Forrest from the trees, dudes.
what everyone should take away from all this
weed is tight :mrgreen:
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.
In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.
Forrest from the trees, dudes.
Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.
In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.
Forrest from the trees, dudes.
Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.
Sure, but of course you know the DEA is not going after the recreational user. And you also know that the overwhelming amount of simple possession arrests come from state law enforcement, not federal. I would imagine you are reaping the benefits of these increased freedoms living in a state taking a reasonable approach to marijuana policy.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.
In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.
Forrest from the trees, dudes.
Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.
Sure, but of course you know the DEA is not going after the recreational user. And you also know that the overwhelming amount of simple possession arrests come from state law enforcement, not federal. I would imagine you are reaping the benefits of these increased freedoms living in a state taking a reasonable approach to marijuana policy.
That's true, but no one has won a lawsuit after being fired, at least yet, which is a significant risk that still exists.
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 12:17:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.
In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.
Forrest from the trees, dudes.
Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.
Sure, but of course you know the DEA is not going after the recreational user. And you also know that the overwhelming amount of simple possession arrests come from state law enforcement, not federal. I would imagine you are reaping the benefits of these increased freedoms living in a state taking a reasonable approach to marijuana policy.
That's true, but no one has won a lawsuit after being fired, at least yet, which is a significant risk that still exists.
This bill was one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
"Look at all the money Colorado is making! Now, if only we could funnel that into a handful of rich people's pockets..."
Changing a bad law is one thing. Changing a constitutional amendment is, traditionally and by design a very different and significantly more difficult matter.
Perhaps not in Ohio, but almost everywhere else that I'm aware of.
Legalization can reasonably come about by many paths but enshrining a monopoly in the constitution is horrid and not good democracy.
didnt look too much into it but owners of those ten farms could be like RJ reynolds or one of those dudes, and if it was up to some like highest bidder then game over.
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 12:17:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.
In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.
Forrest from the trees, dudes.
Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.
Sure, but of course you know the DEA is not going after the recreational user. And you also know that the overwhelming amount of simple possession arrests come from state law enforcement, not federal. I would imagine you are reaping the benefits of these increased freedoms living in a state taking a reasonable approach to marijuana policy.
That's true, but no one has won a lawsuit after being fired, at least yet, which is a significant risk that still exists.
Actually, getting fired was probably a bad example on my part: a private employer would have every right to require drug test as precondition of employment regardless of the laws in a given state. Not sure how they would handle public employees; state can't discriminate but you also wouldn't want a bus/subway driver high while on the job. I guess that would have to be included in legalization legislation? Any idea how it's handled in currently legalized states?
ETA: CO Supreme Court recently ruled Dish Network can fire even for off-duty use based on federal classification (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28315256/colorado-supreme-court-affirms-lower-court-rulings-medical); I'm guessing this will be resolved by less companies including THC in their screens (once it's removed from schedule 1, of course), but that there will always be some employers/industries opposed.
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 04, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
This bill was one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
"Look at all the money Colorado is making! Now, if only we could funnel that into a handful of rich people's pockets..."
Changing a bad law is one thing. Changing a constitutional amendment is, traditionally and by design a very different and significantly more difficult matter.
Perhaps not in Ohio, but almost everywhere else that I'm aware of.
Legalization can reasonably come about by many paths but enshrining a monopoly in the constitution is horrid and not good democracy.
It doesn't have the enormously high bar that's required of an amendment to the US Constitution. All that is needed is a ballot referendum supported a simple majority (they were able to get two such referendums on ballot this time with relative ease). It's true that a gov't granted cartel would be increasingly difficult to disrupt as it grew in power and influence. (hell, I live in PA where we basically have this for liquor sales; every 4 or 8 yrs candidates for governor promise to privatize it only to kick the can repeatedly until they are out of office) But again, if the alternative is prohibition, I'll take my chances with the cartel.
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 04, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 12:17:27 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 11:11:21 AM
As for what the alternative is, it's a sensible distribution system like we have in Oregon and Colorado.
Settling for a terrible law is not progress IMO.
Yes, of course those models are superior. But they were not on the table in Ohio. What was on the table, while far from perfect, would have allowed people the freedom to partake in a toke without worrying about losing their job, their kids, etc. That's why LEAP and NORML (reluctantly) supported it. Even DPA and MPP refused to oppose it even while they failed to endorse.
In my mind, the most important change is depriving the gov't the power of imprisoning people for simple crime of smoking a joint. Once that is in place, then the people can fight for greater control over cultivation and distribution rights. But as long as it remains illegal, everybody loses.
Forrest from the trees, dudes.
Actually as long as it remains illegal Federally you can still lose your job and be arrested and prosecuted by the DEA.
Sure, but of course you know the DEA is not going after the recreational user. And you also know that the overwhelming amount of simple possession arrests come from state law enforcement, not federal. I would imagine you are reaping the benefits of these increased freedoms living in a state taking a reasonable approach to marijuana policy.
That's true, but no one has won a lawsuit after being fired, at least yet, which is a significant risk that still exists.
This bill was one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
"Look at all the money Colorado is making! Now, if only we could funnel that into a handful of rich people's pockets..."
Changing a bad law is one thing. Changing a constitutional amendment is, traditionally and by design a very different and significantly more difficult matter.
Perhaps not in Ohio, but almost everywhere else that I'm aware of.
Legalization can reasonably come about by many paths but enshrining a monopoly in the constitution is horrid and not good democracy.
This, times at least a million.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 02:00:08 PM
if the alternative is prohibition, I'll take my chances with the cartel.
Sounds like an invitation to an ass-raping from the law of unintended consequences.
Quote from: sunrisevt on November 04, 2015, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 04, 2015, 02:00:08 PM
if the alternative is prohibition, I'll take my chances with the cartel.
Sounds like an invitation to an ass-raping from the law of unintended consequences.
As opposed to the ass-raping you could catch in prison?
Again, I am not saying I am in favor of how the law was written. It is antithetical to every fiber of my free market loving being. But look at what you are in favor of in opposition to the (deeply flawed) law: a steadfast continuation the War on Drugs in the state. Ending prohibition and the far-reaching consequences of it is a far more important development in my mind than whether or not Nick Lachey makes bank off it.
It's only a matter of time for legalization to happen, since state laws don't really provide protection it is critical that the distribution piece of the puzzle is handled properly.
Prohibition has been in place for 80 years now, we might as well take the time to end it the right way.
Quote from: Hicks on November 04, 2015, 02:50:54 PM
It's only a matter of time for legalization to happen, since state laws don't really provide protection it is critical that the distribution piece of the puzzle is handled properly.
Prohibition has been in place for 80 years now, we might as well take the time to end it the right way.
The right way is to end it. Distribution is fixable; allowing people's lives to be ruined in the meantime is not.
Every time I am driving around with something, I have at least some amount of worry in the back of my mind. It doesn't consume me, but it's always there somewhere. Mostly I think about what my life would be like if I was unable to be with my three daughters, even for a little bit. You don't have that concern. Now, are you seriously going to tell me state laws don't provide protection?
Federal legalization will not happen until there is critical mass of states that force their hand. The more states that move, the faster it will happen and the better off we will all be. Full stop.
Well for my entire life small amounts were a just a violation in the state of Oregon.
But I still sketched out when I saw a cop because the shit makes you paranoid man!
I find both sides of the Ohio argument to be very persuasive in their respective ways. As such I'm not quite sure which outcome I would have rooted for ahead of time; sitting here today I would have taken both joy and disappointment in the result either way.
Now I can only hope that a couple things are true:
1. Everyone views the failure of Issue 3 as a referendum on the terrible structure of it and not legalization itself
2. Immediate and positive lessons will be learned and a better attempt at this will be not far behind
I'm sure this is old news to most of you but I thought I'd share anyway...
https://news.vice.com/article/bernie-sanders-just-introduced-a-bill-that-would-end-pot-prohibition?utm_source=vicenewsfb (https://news.vice.com/article/bernie-sanders-just-introduced-a-bill-that-would-end-pot-prohibition?utm_source=vicenewsfb)
Interesting/long-ish read in NYMag about weed hitting the Colorado suburbs...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/americas-most-stoned-suburbs.html?#
This is fantastic news in Canada, about damn time too.
https://news.vice.com/article/canadians-can-grow-their-own-medical-marijuana-court-says-in-bombshell-ruling?utm_source=vicenewsfb (https://news.vice.com/article/canadians-can-grow-their-own-medical-marijuana-court-says-in-bombshell-ruling?utm_source=vicenewsfb)
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
Quote from: birdman on February 25, 2016, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
I doubt that the home-grow ban will be part of a lasting status quo; it flies in the face of our liberty-loving ethos.
Quote from: birdman on February 25, 2016, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
Agreed, but let's not lose sight of what's important: Vermont is the 5th state to tell prohibitionists to fuck off. Legalization will never happen in PA until enough states do it and it goes national. And then people like me will owe these brave Patriots a huge debt for helping bring it about.
Forest and trees and shit.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: birdman on February 25, 2016, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
Agreed, but let's not lose sight of what's important: Vermont is the 5th state to tell prohibitionists to fuck off. Legalization will never happen in PA until enough states do it and it goes national. And then people like me will owe these brave Patriots a huge debt for helping bring it about.
Forest and trees and shit.
That's the same way I feel about backwards-ass bible-belt Indiana.
Quote from: mistercharlie on February 26, 2016, 05:58:03 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: birdman on February 25, 2016, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
Agreed, but let's not lose sight of what's important: Vermont is the 5th state to tell prohibitionists to fuck off. Legalization will never happen in PA until enough states do it and it goes national. And then people like me will owe these brave Patriots a huge debt for helping bring it about.
Forest and trees and shit.
That's the same way I feel about backwards-ass bible-belt Indiana.
Yep. And our idiot politicians will probably sue the Feds once they legalize it nationally
Quote from: kellerb on February 26, 2016, 09:09:53 AM
Quote from: mistercharlie on February 26, 2016, 05:58:03 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: birdman on February 25, 2016, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
Agreed, but let's not lose sight of what's important: Vermont is the 5th state to tell prohibitionists to fuck off. Legalization will never happen in PA until enough states do it and it goes national. And then people like me will owe these brave Patriots a huge debt for helping bring it about.
Forest and trees and shit.
That's the same way I feel about backwards-ass bible-belt Indiana.
Yep. And our idiot politicians will probably sue the Feds once they legalize it nationally
I woulda thought IN politicians would be thrilled to steer kids away from meth by legalizing weed.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
QuoteCampbell opposed the bill, saying the timing isn't right, but had promised Sears and the governor he would not use any procedural tactics to prevent the bill from coming before the full Senate
He called the fact that bill did come to the floor "very impressive."
"It is a bill of public interest," he said, citing a recent Vermont Public Radio poll showing that a majority of Vermonters support legalization. "It deserved a debate on the floor."
Wow, imagine that. A politician setting aside his own ego to let democracy unfold. Congressional "leaders" take note.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: kellerb on February 26, 2016, 09:09:53 AM
Quote from: mistercharlie on February 26, 2016, 05:58:03 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: birdman on February 25, 2016, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
Agreed, but let's not lose sight of what's important: Vermont is the 5th state to tell prohibitionists to fuck off. Legalization will never happen in PA until enough states do it and it goes national. And then people like me will owe these brave Patriots a huge debt for helping bring it about.
Forest and trees and shit.
That's the same way I feel about backwards-ass bible-belt Indiana.
Yep. And our idiot politicians will probably sue the Feds once they legalize it nationally
I woulda thought IN politicians would be thrilled to steer kids away from meth by legalizing weed.
Lol, you're giving them way too much credit for rationality, compassion, and common sense.
Quote from: kellerb on February 26, 2016, 10:51:52 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 26, 2016, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: kellerb on February 26, 2016, 09:09:53 AM
Quote from: mistercharlie on February 26, 2016, 05:58:03 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: birdman on February 25, 2016, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on February 25, 2016, 04:00:25 PM
BOOM! Another one down.
Quote@RegulateVermont
BREAKING: VT Senate passes marijuana bill 17-12 on third reading. On to the House! #vtpoli
Background from yesterday since it's still developing...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/marijuana-legalization-advances-through-vt-senate/80869210/
While this is great news , the decision to not allow growing at home irks me a bit.
Agreed, but let's not lose sight of what's important: Vermont is the 5th state to tell prohibitionists to fuck off. Legalization will never happen in PA until enough states do it and it goes national. And then people like me will owe these brave Patriots a huge debt for helping bring it about.
Forest and trees and shit.
That's the same way I feel about backwards-ass bible-belt Indiana.
Yep. And our idiot politicians will probably sue the Feds once they legalize it nationally
I woulda thought IN politicians would be thrilled to steer kids away from meth by legalizing weed.
Lol, you're giving them way too much credit for rationality, compassion, and common sense.
And I'm pretty sure they think that meth is only for "the gays".
So it's official for this country finally (in 2017).
QuoteCanada's legislation to begin the process of legalizing and regulating marijuana will be introduced next spring, Health Minister Jane Philpott announced Wednesday at the United Nations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/philpott-says-marijuana-law-to-come-by-spring-2017/article29690880/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/philpott-says-marijuana-law-to-come-by-spring-2017/article29690880/)
I expect there will to be a year of free-for-all at the 100s of new dispensaries in Toronto before full on regulation kicks in.
Now I kinda want Trump to win...
The wife has agreed to move to Canada already if that happens. :smoke:
Good conversation with Lynne Lyman of the Drug Policy Alliance on CA's ambitious Prop 64.
https://youtu.be/69ndkRkbMBk
^ Pretty good stuff. Here's hoping CA voters come through.
Marijuana had a pretty good day at the polls (http://norml.org/election-2016) yesterday. So there's that.
A couple times late at night in the hotel room in Vegas we put on Rick Steves' travel show on PBS.
If you've ever watched this guy, you'll know how hilarious it was when I found out he's a huge advocate for legal weed (http://norml.org/about/item/rick-steves).
Quote from: VDB on November 09, 2016, 03:16:42 PM
Marijuana had a pretty good day at the polls (http://norml.org/election-2016) yesterday. So there's that.
Yeah good to see mass and possibly Maine go Rec. CO looks like it passed the amendment 300 that will allow public consumption in cafes/events as long as it's out of site of general public.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 23, 2016, 03:40:04 PM
Good conversation with Lynne Lyman of the Drug Policy Alliance on CA's ambitious Prop 64.
https://youtu.be/69ndkRkbMBk
great watch, thanks!
pretty interesting about all the licensing stuff.
sounds like they got a good grasp on things.
Spicer hints that feds could step up MJ enforcement (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/23/spicer-feds-could-step-up-anti-pot-enforcement-in-states-where-recreational-marijuana-is-legal/?utm_term=.4dee8ac2d259).
I think this play would blow up in their faces. Public sentiment and the momentum are clear on this. Stepping all over state-level action could force Congressional Republicans to finally put their voting money where their states'-rights mouths are, which is something I think most would rather not have to go on the record doing.
Quote from: VDB on February 24, 2017, 09:24:12 AM
Spicer hints that feds could step up MJ enforcement (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/23/spicer-feds-could-step-up-anti-pot-enforcement-in-states-where-recreational-marijuana-is-legal/?utm_term=.4dee8ac2d259).
I think this play would blow up in their faces. Public sentiment and the momentum are clear on this. Stepping all over state-level action could force Congressional Republicans to finally put their voting money where their states'-rights mouths are, which is something I think most would rather not have to go on the record doing.
"States Rights" is code for allowing states to legislate oppression.
It's not a term that applies when the Feds can get away with the oppression.
A true business man would think that move is redonkulus. Check in with Colorado on how this thing is working.
Quote from: Bobafett on February 24, 2017, 07:43:21 PM
A true business man would think that move is redonkulus. Check in with Colorado on how this thing is working.
Except they're all getting paid by booze and pharma to keep reefer madness alive. Truly theatre of the absurd.
Quote from: pcr3 on February 25, 2017, 12:24:12 AM
Quote from: Bobafett on February 24, 2017, 07:43:21 PM
A true business man would think that move is redonkulus. Check in with Colorado on how this thing is working.
Except they're all getting paid by booze and pharma to keep reefer madness alive. Truly theatre of the absurd.
You're forgetting the private prison industry that was literally built on prohibition.
Quote from: PGLHAH on February 25, 2017, 12:44:14 AM
Quote from: pcr3 on February 25, 2017, 12:24:12 AM
Quote from: Bobafett on February 24, 2017, 07:43:21 PM
A true business man would think that move is redonkulus. Check in with Colorado on how this thing is working.
Except they're all getting paid by booze and pharma to keep reefer madness alive. Truly theatre of the absurd.
You're forgetting the private prison industry that was literally built on prohibition.
"Coincidentally"...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/23/516916688/private-prisons-back-in-mix-for-federal-inmates-as-sessions-rescinds-order (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/23/516916688/private-prisons-back-in-mix-for-federal-inmates-as-sessions-rescinds-order)
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 24, 2017, 09:42:11 AM
"States Rights" is code for allowing states to legislate oppression.
It's not a term that applies when the Feds can get away with the oppression.
QFMFT
Legal weed coming to Canada next year? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-legal-marijuana-pot-1.4041902)
Quote from: VDB on March 28, 2017, 01:38:20 PM
Legal weed coming to Canada next year? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-legal-marijuana-pot-1.4041902)
Oh yeah baby.
Pack your bags Mr. C :wink:
Waiting 15 months is way too long for the average stoner.
I wonder what future Prime Minister Kevin O'Leary's position on weed is?
Quote from: mattstick on March 28, 2017, 02:33:59 PM
Waiting 15 months is way too long for the average stoner.
But they'll get the joy of discovering that Canada is legalizing weed probably 4 or 5 times. :smoke:
Woah.
Just got this email. For those of you thinking you might want to become Jewish (or travel to Israel)
Almost makes the 10 month long winter worth it. Almost.
Also, suck it Jeff Sessions.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/344343-massachusetts-governor-signs-bill-to-allow-recreational-pot
Quote
Massachusetts governor signs bill to allow recreational pot
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) has signed a new measure that sets in motion a nearly yearlong process to legalize marijuana for recreational use, after months of negotiations with the state legislature.
The law comes nine months after voters in Massachusetts and three other states approved ballot measures to allow recreational marijuana. The first recreational pot shops are set to open in July 2018.
"We appreciate the careful consideration the legislature took to balance input from lawmakers, educators, public safety officials and public health professionals, while honoring the will of the voters regarding the adult use of marijuana," Baker said in a statement.
The new legislation makes significant changes to the initiative Bay State voters passed last year, increasing sales taxes on legal marijuana from 12 percent to 20 percent. The state will levy a 17 percent tax, while municipalities will issue their own 3 percent tax.
Massachusetts anticipates generating as much as $83 million in tax revenue from marijuana sales during the first year of legalization alone, the state Department of Revenue estimated earlier this year. Sales during the second year are expected to top out at more than $1 billion, generating tax revenue of up to $200 million.
Question 4 won approval from nearly 54 percent of Massachusetts voters last year. In a first-of-its-kind provision, local governments in cities and towns that voted against the ballot measure will be allowed to ban marijuana stores. In cities and towns where Question 4 passed, any bans on marijuana stores must be approved by voters.
Baker, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and state Treasurer Deb Goldberg (D) must now appoint five members each to a state cannabis advisory board by Aug. 1. They have another month, until Sept. 1, to appoint members of the Cannabis Control Commission, the board tasked with writing rules and regulations for the legal marijuana industry.
The new law gives the commission until March to issue those regulations, covering everything from public advertising to cultivation, manufacturing, testing and sales of edible marijuana products.
Recreational pot shops may begin applying for licenses by April, and the first licenses will be issued in June, just weeks before the first stores are set to open.
Legal marijuana backers said they hope for a speedy regulatory process and an absence of further delays.
"We take elected officials at their word that there will be no more delays in implementation of the legal sales system," said Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the Question 4 campaign.
The other three states that passed recreational marijuana laws last year have moved faster than Massachusetts to set up their own legal frameworks. Pot sales became legal in Nevada last month, just seven months after voters approved a ballot measure last year. California plans to allow its first recreational sales in January 2018, while the first pot shops in Maine will open in February.
Marijuana is already legal for recreational use in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 28, 2017, 02:08:20 PM
Almost makes the 10 month long winter worth it. Almost.
Also, suck it Jeff Sessions.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/344343-massachusetts-governor-signs-bill-to-allow-recreational-pot
Quote
Massachusetts governor signs bill to allow recreational pot
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) has signed a new measure that sets in motion a nearly yearlong process to legalize marijuana for recreational use, after months of negotiations with the state legislature.
The law comes nine months after voters in Massachusetts and three other states approved ballot measures to allow recreational marijuana. The first recreational pot shops are set to open in July 2018.
"We appreciate the careful consideration the legislature took to balance input from lawmakers, educators, public safety officials and public health professionals, while honoring the will of the voters regarding the adult use of marijuana," Baker said in a statement.
The new legislation makes significant changes to the initiative Bay State voters passed last year, increasing sales taxes on legal marijuana from 12 percent to 20 percent. The state will levy a 17 percent tax, while municipalities will issue their own 3 percent tax.
Massachusetts anticipates generating as much as $83 million in tax revenue from marijuana sales during the first year of legalization alone, the state Department of Revenue estimated earlier this year. Sales during the second year are expected to top out at more than $1 billion, generating tax revenue of up to $200 million.
Question 4 won approval from nearly 54 percent of Massachusetts voters last year. In a first-of-its-kind provision, local governments in cities and towns that voted against the ballot measure will be allowed to ban marijuana stores. In cities and towns where Question 4 passed, any bans on marijuana stores must be approved by voters.
Baker, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and state Treasurer Deb Goldberg (D) must now appoint five members each to a state cannabis advisory board by Aug. 1. They have another month, until Sept. 1, to appoint members of the Cannabis Control Commission, the board tasked with writing rules and regulations for the legal marijuana industry.
The new law gives the commission until March to issue those regulations, covering everything from public advertising to cultivation, manufacturing, testing and sales of edible marijuana products.
Recreational pot shops may begin applying for licenses by April, and the first licenses will be issued in June, just weeks before the first stores are set to open.
Legal marijuana backers said they hope for a speedy regulatory process and an absence of further delays.
"We take elected officials at their word that there will be no more delays in implementation of the legal sales system," said Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the Question 4 campaign.
The other three states that passed recreational marijuana laws last year have moved faster than Massachusetts to set up their own legal frameworks. Pot sales became legal in Nevada last month, just seven months after voters approved a ballot measure last year. California plans to allow its first recreational sales in January 2018, while the first pot shops in Maine will open in February.
Marijuana is already legal for recreational use in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia.
About fucking time. However, knowing how things work in MA, that timeline is beyond aggressive. Inching our way to the finish line up here...
July 1, 2018 is the day Canada legalizes too - everybody must get stoned.
Quote from: mattstick on July 28, 2017, 02:40:33 PM
July 1, 2018 is the day Canada legalizes too - everybody must get stoned.
<Bill Pullman> TODAY WE CELEBRATE OUR Wait what was I talking about?
<Jeff Goldblum> Perhaps the, uhhmmm, lighter was in our hands the entire time
Amazing thing on the way to legalization: ending the black market has resulted in a significant drop in wholesale weed prices. Magic!!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/buzz-kill-for-pot-farmers-lower-prices-1504094410
Quote
Buzz Kill for Pot Farmers: Lower Prices
After decades of dodging law enforcement and fighting for legalization, U.S. marijuana growers face a new challenge: falling prices.
After decades of dodging law enforcement and fighting for legalization, U.S. marijuana growers face a new challenge: low prices.
From Washington to Colorado, wholesale cannabis prices have tumbled as dozens of states legalized the drug for recreational and medicinal uses, seeding a boom in marijuana production.
The market is still tiny compared with the U.S. tobacco industry’s $119 billion in annual retail sales, but the nascent cannabis business has grown to more than $6 billion a year at retail, according to data from Euromonitor International Ltd. and Cowen & Co..
For marijuana smokers, the price drop is sweet news. Recreational users and those prescribed cannabis for health reasons have seen prices decline as wholesale prices have fallen, though some retailers have pocketed part of the difference, according to New Leaf Data Services LLC, which researches the U.S. cannabis market.
At Hashtag Cannabis, a Seattle-based retailer running two dispensaries, co-owner Jerina Pillert said wholesale price declines show up on the plastic vials holding green-and-tan nuggets of “Super Silver Lemon Haze” marijuana produced by Longview, Wash.-based Bondi Farms. A gram sells for about $10 currently, down by a third from the $15 a gram it fetched in September 2015, she said.
But for growers—ranging from high-tech warehouse operations to back-country pot farmers gone legit—the price drop has been painful.
Since peaking in September 2015 at about $2,133 a pound, average U.S. wholesale cannabis prices fell to $1,614 in July, according to New Leaf. That is the sort of market decline that hit Midwestern corn and soybean growers in recent years after a string of record-breaking crops.
“There is an increasing recognition, on the part of the industry and those that grow and dispense, that this market is a commodity,” said Jonathan Rubin, New Leaf’s chief executive.
In response, some producers are taking a page from the food industry, where farmers and food companies increasingly appeal to health- and environment-conscious consumers. Growth in organic food products for years has outpaced conventional grocery sales, and products made without genetically modified crops, gluten and artificial flavorings can command premium pricing and shelf space.
Stephen Jensen, who secured a state license to grow cannabis in Washington in 2015, has yet to turn a profit. He is promoting what he described as natural growing methods.
“We needed to give people a reason to select us,” said Mr. Jensen. He said his Green Barn Farms eschews synthetic pesticides and relies on natural light over high-powered lamps, which he said helps his cannabis stand out among more than 1,100 other Washington farms.
Because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, growers can’t get their crops certified as organic, a label that can only be bestowed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Cannabis farmers instead have turned to alternative labels such as SunGrown Certified, which requires that growers use sunlight and water-conservation practices. They hope such labels will entice smokers and secure shelf space in the 29 states where marijuana is legal in some form.
Another label, Clean Green Certified, is modeled on U.S. organic standards. It bars synthetic pesticides and emphasizes what the program deems fair-labor practices. In May, Washington State passed a law that would set up a state-level organic-certification program, though it may need to use a label that doesn’t use that word.
That push to differentiate is splitting pot farmers into rival camps.
Indoor-grown cannabis, where climate controls and high-powered lights allow several crops per year, typically is of a more consistent quality, industry officials say. Its dense, often bright-green buds catch consumers’ eyes, often fetch a higher price and can be costlier to produce.
Proponents of marijuana grown outdoors and in greenhouses say indoor facilities rely on synthetic fertilizers and heavily consume electricity. They point to a 2012 paper by University of California Senior Scientist Evan Mills, which estimated that indoor cannabis production accounted for 1% of national electricity use, though some growers have been adopting LED lights, which consume less electricity.
Jeremy Moberg, owner of Riverside, Wash.-based CannaSol Farms and head of the Washington Sungrowers Industry Association, says marijuana smokers will come to care about the environmental cost of their high.
“The socially conscious, premium customer is going to want us because we’re sustainable,” he said. “It only takes me 30 seconds to convert somebody wearing Patagonia and driving a Prius that they should never smoke indoor weed again.”
At Hashtag Cannabis in Seattle, Ms. Pillert said customers occasionally ask for pesticide-free or sun-grown varieties. Smokers’ main fixation, she said, is the potency rating for the key active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC: “They want to make sure they are getting the biggest bang for their buck.”
Many in the emergent industry expect marijuana to eventually resemble the beer business, where pricier craft brews have built followings in the shadow of cheaper mass-market beers like Budweiser and Busch.
While high-quality strains and specialty brands may secure premium prices, more low-quality marijuana will be processed into oil used in vaporizer cartridges or adult-oriented baked goods like brownies and cookies, growers and retailers said.
Mr. Jensen, the Seattle cannabis producer, said he hopes that his sun-grown, naturally produced plants over time will yield a 20% to 30% premium over the average market price.
“I always buy organic products at the store and think there is a future for that in the [cannabis] industry,” said Mr. Jensen. But, he said, “it’s a battle getting that awareness out.”
Fuck this guy. Hard.
https://apnews.com/19f6bfec15a74733b40eaf0ff9162bfa
Quote
US to end policy that let legal pot flourish
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions is rescinding the Obama-era policy that had paved the way for legalized marijuana to flourish in states across the country, two people with knowledge of the decision told The Associated Press. Sessions will instead let federal prosecutors where pot is legal decide how aggressively to enforce federal marijuana law, the people said.
The people familiar with the plan spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it before an announcement expected Thursday.
The move by President Donald Trump's attorney general likely will add to confusion about whether it's OK to grow, buy or use marijuana in states where pot is legal, since long-standing federal law prohibits it. It comes days after pot shops opened in California, launching what is expected to become the world's largest market for legal recreational marijuana and as polls show a solid majority of Americans believe the drug should be legal.
While Sessions has been carrying out a Justice Department agenda that follows Trump's top priorities on such issues as immigration and opioids, the changes to pot policy reflect his own concerns. Trump's personal views on marijuana remain largely unknown.
Sessions, who has assailed marijuana as comparable to heroin and has blamed it for spikes in violence, had been expected to ramp up enforcement. Pot advocates argue that legalizing the drug eliminates the need for a black market and would likely reduce violence, since criminals would no longer control the marijuana trade.
The Obama administration in 2013 announced it would not stand in the way of states that legalize marijuana, so long as officials acted to keep it from migrating to places where it remained outlawed and out of the hands of criminal gangs and children. Sessions is rescinding that memo, written by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, which had cleared up some of the uncertainty about how the federal government would respond as states began allowing sales for recreational and medical purposes.
The pot business has since become a sophisticated, multimillion-dollar industry that helps fund schools, educational programs and law enforcement. Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and California's sales alone are projected to bring in $1 billion annually in tax revenue within several years.
Sessions' policy will let U.S. attorneys across the country decide what kinds of federal resources to devote to marijuana enforcement based on what they see as priorities in their districts, the people familiar with the decision said.
Sessions and some law enforcement officials in states such as Colorado blame legalization for a number of problems, including drug traffickers that have taken advantage of lax marijuana laws to hide in plain sight, illegally growing and shipping the drug across state lines, where it can sell for much more. The decision was a win for pot opponents who had been urging Sessions to take action.
"There is no more safe haven with regard to the federal government and marijuana, but it's also the beginning of the story and not the end," said Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, who was among several anti-marijuana advocates who met with Sessions last month. "This is a victory. It's going to dry up a lot of the institutional investment that has gone toward marijuana in the last five years."
Threats of a federal crackdown have united liberals who object to the human costs of a war on pot with conservatives who see it as a states' rights issue. Some in law enforcement support a tougher approach, but a bipartisan group of senators in March urged Sessions to uphold existing marijuana policy. Others in Congress have been seeking ways to protect and promote legal pot businesses.
A task force Sessions convened to study pot policy made no recommendations for upending the legal industry but instead encouraged Justice Department officials to keep reviewing the Obama administration's more hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement, something Sessions promised to do since he took office.
The change also reflects yet another way in which Sessions, who served as a federal prosecutor at the height of the drug war in Mobile, Alabama, has reversed Obama-era criminal justice policies that aimed to ease overcrowding in federal prisons and contributed to a rethinking of how drug criminals were prosecuted and sentenced. While his Democratic predecessor Eric Holder told federal prosecutors to avoid seeking long mandatory minimum sentences when charging certain lower level drug offenders, for example, Sessions issued an order demanding the opposite, telling them to pursue the most serious charges possible against most suspects.
Congress has been and will continue to be happy not to go on the record on this as long as there's nothing ugly to countenance. Let Sessions run up hard against regular, legit business owners, customers and public sentiment and perhaps we'll finally see some legislative movement.
That fuckin' kebler elf needs to get his racist ass back to the cookie tree.
Ugh and I just bought some MJ stock yesterday. :frustrated:
Time to buy more I guess.
https://twitter.com/COSenDem/status/948948921694302209
Colorado Senate Dems
@COSenDem
QuoteWe'll give Jeff Sessions our legal pot when he pries it from our warm, extremely interesting to look at hands.
Quote from: VDB on January 04, 2018, 11:31:29 AM
Congress has been and will continue to be happy not to go on the record on this as long as there's nothing ugly to countenance. Let Sessions run up hard against regular, legit business owners, customers and public sentiment and perhaps we'll finally see some legislative movement.
Yeah, this is where I landed on this issue. You know, once my white hot, I-hope-this-guy-dies-a-slow-painful-death rage passed.
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 04, 2018, 12:14:01 PM
https://twitter.com/COSenDem/status/948948921694302209
Colorado Senate Dems
@COSenDem
QuoteWe'll give Jeff Sessions our legal pot when he pries it from our warm, extremely interesting to look at hands.
To VDB's point, here's the GOP junior Senator from CO expressing a similar sentiment (albeit in a far less hilarious way)
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934652550680578)
This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states.
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934654685601792)
I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation.
ETA: running list of elected officials opposing Session's move. It's mildly disheartening that nearly everyone on that list is from a state that legalized in one form or another, but good to see the pushback nonetheless.
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/lawmakers-react-sessions-anti-marijuana-move/
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 04, 2018, 12:14:01 PM
https://twitter.com/COSenDem/status/948948921694302209
Colorado Senate Dems
@COSenDem
QuoteWe'll give Jeff Sessions our legal pot when he pries it from our warm, extremely interesting to look at hands.
That entire thread is quite brilliant and hilarious.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 04, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
To VDB's point, here's the GOP junior Senator from CO expressing a similar sentiment (albeit in a far less hilarious way)
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934652550680578)
This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states.
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934654685601792)
I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation.
Instead of asking Jeff nicely to look the other way on federal law and then acting shocked – SHOCKED – when he doesn't, how about just pass some different laws? These people do realize they are legislators, right?
Quote from: VDB on January 04, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 04, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
To VDB's point, here's the GOP junior Senator from CO expressing a similar sentiment (albeit in a far less hilarious way)
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934652550680578)
This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states.
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934654685601792)
I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation.
Instead of asking Jeff nicely to look the other way on federal law and then acting shocked – SHOCKED – when he doesn't, how about just pass some different laws? These people do realize they are legislators, right?
It's been so long since they actually legislated instead of the grandstanding circle jerk they've been engaging in for the past decade I'm not sure they remember that.
Another thought. While I'm more than happy to see people inviting GOPers like Sessions to stand by their avowed affinity for states' rights and popular will, there's a danger in framing the argument too squarely in those (political point-scoring) terms. Namely, that it's all to easy to throw that back in progressives' faces. "Where were you on states' rights and majority rule when we were holding votes on bathrooms and 'traditional' marriage?" It's a bad tactic to try and compel someone into a stance based on an ideological underpinning that they can reasonably accuse you of not even necessarily valuing yourself. (Or at least one where holes can be poked from both directions.)
Gee, would it be too much to ask that people simply talk about legal weed as a liberty issue? Then you'd have nothing to reconcile on the "states' rights" front. Progressives can say they support gay marriage because it means more liberty for all. They can say they support legal weed because liberty for all. Easy. Consistent.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 04, 2018, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: VDB on January 04, 2018, 02:10:01 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on January 04, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
To VDB's point, here's the GOP junior Senator from CO expressing a similar sentiment (albeit in a far less hilarious way)
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934652550680578)
This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states
Quote@SenCoryGardner (https://twitter.com/SenCoryGardner/status/948934654685601792)
I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation.
Instead of asking Jeff nicely to look the other way on federal law and then acting shocked – SHOCKED – when he doesn't, how about just pass some different laws? These people do realize they are legislators, right?
It's been so long since they actually legislated instead of the grandstanding circle jerk they've been engaging in for the past decade I'm not sure they remember that.
Exactly, they don't remember how to legislate
Continuing our tradition of sensible liberalization of the law, the Vermont state Senate today approved a bill legalizing possession of up to an ounce of cannabis, as well as up to two mature and four immature plants. No commercial market has been created; apparently the legislature favors a home-grow economy. Our mostly useless Rpublican gov has indicated he'll sign the bill into law.
well, it's not quite what the new governor was promising, but it's a good step - NJ has widely expanded the medical program in the past week, allowing more chronic pain users and those suffering from anxiety and migraines. they also got rid of the ridiculous doctor registry requirements.
very soon, i imagine this will be me:
(http://i.imgur.com/rkr9exh.jpg)
Relevant to our interests at about 4:35
https://youtu.be/4Lc5_FgwSGI
I just watched that this morning and got a kick out of it.
That Jordan Peterson guy, though. Christ. Some of his arguments were creeping dangerously close to the kind of anti-intellectualism you see in right wing circles.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/health/medical-marijuana-opioid-epidemic-sanjay-gupta/index.html
WE DID IT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-passes-government-pot-bill-1.4713222
Quote from: mattstick on June 19, 2018, 10:03:44 PM
WE DID IT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-passes-government-pot-bill-1.4713222
Good on ya.
This Trudeau tweet though:
QuoteIt's been too easy for our kids to get marijuana - and for criminals to reap the profits. Today, we change that. Our plan to legalize & regulate marijuana just passed the Senate.
Of course, what made those people "criminals" was not that they were giving weed to kids particularly, but that they were selling weed to anyone at all. So down with those dirty criminals but hey congratulations to us for righting the injustice that was marijuana criminalization.
Quote from: mattstick on June 19, 2018, 10:03:44 PM
WE DID IT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-passes-government-pot-bill-1.4713222
:clap: Congrats!!
It's not well worded and I'm not defending it per se, but there are definitely criminal organizations that traffic cannabis because it's profitable, as one of several illegal activities they undertake. I think he's referring to the organized crime elements?
I was going to complain about the fact that US border guards will probably ask potential Canadian tourists lots of questions about using Cannabis but given everything happening right now that's some serious white privilege shit.
Quote from: mattstick on June 19, 2018, 10:33:08 PM
It's not well worded and I'm not defending it per se, but there are definitely criminal organizations that traffic cannabis because it's profitable, as one of several illegal activities they undertake. I think he's referring to the organized crime elements?
I was going to complain about the fact that US border guards will probably ask potential Canadian tourists lots of questions about using Cannabis but given everything happening right now that's some serious white privilege shit.
Yup. :frustrated:
:banana:
:smoke:
Quote from: anthrax on June 19, 2018, 10:32:01 PM
Quote from: mattstick on June 19, 2018, 10:03:44 PM
WE DID IT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-passes-government-pot-bill-1.4713222
:clap: Congrats!!
We here in NY are finally moving towards it....
Hopefully soon!
And today is the day. While I'm not one of these guys...
(https://www.latimes.com/resizer/R4czRqjrSlNCMqyfyKg_HE3vCLc=/1400x0/www.trbimg.com/img-5bc6c2f7/turbine/la-1539752688-1j8ojq4vuz-snap-image)
It's a fun thing to wake up to. This time of year, it's pretty ridiculous to pay $10/g but it will be nice for it to be an option when I feel like spicing it up.
Great for travel here too.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on October 17, 2018, 07:21:29 PM
And today is the day. While I'm not one of these guys...
(https://www.latimes.com/resizer/R4czRqjrSlNCMqyfyKg_HE3vCLc=/1400x0/www.trbimg.com/img-5bc6c2f7/turbine/la-1539752688-1j8ojq4vuz-snap-image)
It's a fun thing to wake up to. This time of year, it's pretty ridiculous to pay $10/g but it will be nice for it to be an option when I feel like spicing it up.
Great for travel here too.
Congrats!!! What a day for you guys! :clap: :clap:
I ordered some Indica gel caps from the Ontario government at noon today.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on October 17, 2018, 07:21:29 PM
And today is the day. While I'm not one of these guys...
(https://www.latimes.com/resizer/R4czRqjrSlNCMqyfyKg_HE3vCLc=/1400x0/www.trbimg.com/img-5bc6c2f7/turbine/la-1539752688-1j8ojq4vuz-snap-image)
It's a fun thing to wake up to. This time of year, it's pretty ridiculous to pay $10/g but it will be nice for it to be an option when I feel like spicing it up.
Great for travel here too.
Just look at those happy druggies.
Canada is winning the war on drugs. So much winning. I can't stand it.
Quote from: gah on October 18, 2018, 09:31:26 AM
Canada is winning the war on drugs. So much winning. I can't stand it.
(https://i.imgur.com/jiVKTOc.png)
Quote from: gah on October 18, 2018, 09:31:26 AM
Canada is winning the war on drugs. So much winning. I can't stand it.
absolutely.
then I walk in the office this morning to my Jamaican co-worker reading an article about the $1 billion in sales in Colorado since August... and that's just one state. :mindblown:
but it's cool, we'll stay over here with our alcohol and tobacco... no biggie :roll:
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on October 19, 2018, 07:12:27 AM
Quote from: gah on October 18, 2018, 09:31:26 AM
Canada is winning the war on drugs. So much winning. I can't stand it.
absolutely.
then I walk in the office this morning to my Jamaican co-worker reading an article about the $1 billion in sales in Colorado since August... and that's just one state. :mindblown:
but it's cool, we'll stay over here with our alcohol and tobacco... no biggie :roll:
Hey, Ohio's got Medical now, right? As soon as they figure out how to grow,manage,sell,and regulate properly. As a person 30ish minutes over the border in Indiana, I'm wondering how Anthem views cross-state-border doctors, and the legality.
Michigan goes recreational (https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/michigan_marijuana_legalizatio.html)
Quote from: VDB on November 07, 2018, 12:15:36 AM
Michigan goes recreational (https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/michigan_marijuana_legalizatio.html)
Baby steps. We still don't have retail here in MA. But I know a guy... :sbw:
Quote from: VDB on November 07, 2018, 12:15:36 AM
Michigan goes recreational (https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/michigan_marijuana_legalizatio.html)
Woo! Looks like I may need to drive up north for a short vacation pretty soon. The wife and I have been wanting to visit Frankenmuth. :mrgreen:
Quote from: VDB on November 07, 2018, 12:15:36 AM
Michigan goes recreational (https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/michigan_marijuana_legalizatio.html)
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: pcr3 on November 07, 2018, 01:53:28 AM
Quote from: VDB on November 07, 2018, 12:15:36 AM
Michigan goes recreational (https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/michigan_marijuana_legalizatio.html)
Baby steps. We still don't have retail here in MA. But I know a guy... :sbw:
Nice work MI! 2 years later, Maine still does not have retail. Not that it bothers me at all. :smoke:
Quote from: susep on November 07, 2018, 07:10:12 AM
Quote from: pcr3 on November 07, 2018, 01:53:28 AM
Quote from: VDB on November 07, 2018, 12:15:36 AM
Michigan goes recreational (https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/michigan_marijuana_legalizatio.html)
Baby steps. We still don't have retail here in MA. But I know a guy... :sbw:
Nice work MI! 2 years later, Maine still does not have retail. Not that it bothers me at all. :smoke:
Retail is a novelty, I've yet to go to a store. I'm just happy I can grow a few plants and not have to worry.
I make butter so I have edibles whenever I want them around, life is good.
Unfortunately, the loss in ND means that many more Montanans get to remain comfortable in their belief that this whole recreational thing is still a "Big city liberal" thing.
But nice to see MI going the right way. :rawk:
good job, Michigan! Missouri too, which is even more shocking when you think about it.
Now, just waiting on the NJ legislature to stop hitting their vape pens long enough to actually vote on this fucking thing and make my life much kinder.
coming soon to IL...
Quote from: nab on November 07, 2018, 09:14:26 AM
Unfortunately, the loss in ND means that many more Montanans get to remain comfortable in their belief that this whole recreational thing is still a "Big city liberal" thing.
I'm kind of surprised more of the rural West hasn't picked up on the Alaska example. You can absolutely be conservative and be pro-legalization. Like, it's really easy.
Quote from: mistercharlie on November 07, 2018, 08:49:58 PM
Quote from: anthrax on November 07, 2018, 08:07:25 PM
Quote from: mbw on November 07, 2018, 11:55:25 AM
coming soon to IL...
u think?
Aren't you guys already medicinal there?
Yes medicinal, but not like "uh my like back hurts, man."
It's gotta be like, "uh, I'm dying of a specific cancer, man."
https://www.jbpritzker.com/marijuana/
Quote from: mbw on November 07, 2018, 10:53:20 PM
Quote from: mistercharlie on November 07, 2018, 08:49:58 PM
Quote from: anthrax on November 07, 2018, 08:07:25 PM
Quote from: mbw on November 07, 2018, 11:55:25 AM
coming soon to IL...
u think?
Aren't you guys already medicinal there?
Yes medicinal, but not like "uh my like back hurts, man."
It's gotta be like, "uh, I'm dying of a specific cancer, man."
https://www.jbpritzker.com/marijuana/
Ah, that sucks.
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/pritzker-legalize-marijuana-illinois
Quote from: mbw on November 08, 2018, 12:01:30 PM
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/pritzker-legalize-marijuana-illinois
Whoa
Quote from: anthrax on November 08, 2018, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: mbw on November 08, 2018, 12:01:30 PM
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/pritzker-legalize-marijuana-illinois
Whoa
I like this guy. I hope you all voted for him.
Quote from: gah on November 08, 2018, 04:57:00 PM
Quote from: anthrax on November 08, 2018, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: mbw on November 08, 2018, 12:01:30 PM
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/pritzker-legalize-marijuana-illinois
Whoa
I like this guy. I hope you all voted for him.
Looks a little like this guy...
(https://cimg.tvgcdn.net/i/r/2014/05/07/d45a2a77-78f4-4a00-bf57-c46fb2b1c9c0/resize/350x509/455ee7f7935d09c3131cd7b072444ea8/140506fargo1.jpg)
His family owns Hyatt, amongst other things and is one of the richest families in the country. Their name is all over everything in Chicago.
I voted for him of course, but not very excitedly. He pretty much bought the governorship.
You know you live in Canada when a Christmas strain of weed shows up at your company yankee swap.
And I work in the healthcare insurance industry.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on December 17, 2018, 09:05:27 AM
You know you live in Canada when a Christmas strain of weed shows up at your company yankee swap.
And I work in the healthcare insurance industry.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Yeah I dropped a few 1/8ths of this Aurora "Banana Split" on local friends for Christmas...
That's a very kind gift
Quote from: Bobafett on December 17, 2018, 02:25:55 PM
That's a very kind gift
I want Matt to be my secret Santa.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on December 17, 2018, 03:35:53 PM
Quote from: Bobafett on December 17, 2018, 02:25:55 PM
That's a very kind gift
I want Matt to be my secret Santa.
With gifts like that, Santa wants Matt to be his secret Santa. :hereitisyousentimentalbastard
Legislative doings in Jersey (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/pot-stocks-rally-after-new-jersey-politicians-unveil-legal-weed-plan.html).
Quote from: VDB on March 13, 2019, 01:00:02 PM
Legislative doings in Jersey (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/pot-stocks-rally-after-new-jersey-politicians-unveil-legal-weed-plan.html).
yeah it's not looking good... fucking stupid. we'll see on Monday!!
Quote from: tet on March 22, 2019, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: VDB on March 13, 2019, 01:00:02 PM
Legislative doings in Jersey (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/pot-stocks-rally-after-new-jersey-politicians-unveil-legal-weed-plan.html).
yeah it's not looking good... fucking stupid. we'll see on Monday!!
Fell through. Fuckers.
In positive news, I just got approved for my medical card. So I got that going for me. Which is nice.
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT...
Quote"The state of Illinois just made history, legalizing adult-use cannabis with the most equity-centric approach in the nation. This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance. I applaud bipartisan members of the General Assembly for their vote on this legislation and I especially want to thank the sponsors Senator Steans and Representative Cassidy, as well as Senator Hutchinson, Senator Aquino, Leader Gordon-Booth, Representative Villanueva, the Black and Latino Caucuses, and Senator Barickman and Representative Welter for their tremendous work to make legalization a reality. In the interest of equity and criminal justice reform, I look forward to signing this monumental legislation."
Quote from: anthrax on May 31, 2019, 04:29:53 PM
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT...
Quote"The state of Illinois just made history, legalizing adult-use cannabis with the most equity-centric approach in the nation. This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance. I applaud bipartisan members of the General Assembly for their vote on this legislation and I especially want to thank the sponsors Senator Steans and Representative Cassidy, as well as Senator Hutchinson, Senator Aquino, Leader Gordon-Booth, Representative Villanueva, the Black and Latino Caucuses, and Senator Barickman and Representative Welter for their tremendous work to make legalization a reality. In the interest of equity and criminal justice reform, I look forward to signing this monumental legislation."
:rockout:
oh wait, I don't do that anymore.
props on the expungement aspect.
Quote from: anthrax on May 31, 2019, 04:29:53 PM
I CAN'T BELIEVE IT...
Quote"The state of Illinois just made history, legalizing adult-use cannabis with the most equity-centric approach in the nation. This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance. I applaud bipartisan members of the General Assembly for their vote on this legislation and I especially want to thank the sponsors Senator Steans and Representative Cassidy, as well as Senator Hutchinson, Senator Aquino, Leader Gordon-Booth, Representative Villanueva, the Black and Latino Caucuses, and Senator Barickman and Representative Welter for their tremendous work to make legalization a reality. In the interest of equity and criminal justice reform, I look forward to signing this monumental legislation."
:smoke:
Alrighty time to start visiting my neighbors (by a couple of hours) a bit more often.
Another article in favor of Medical
https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-medical-marijuana-effective-for-treating-lo-1839234481
Quote from: sls.stormyrider on October 22, 2019, 03:21:37 PM
Another article in favor of Medical
https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-medical-marijuana-effective-for-treating-lo-1839234481
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard :wtu:
So what an awesome feeling in Canada these days, everyone seems to be okay with it.
My dad was crazy psyched to check out my plants.
I offered our 65 year old neighbour with MS a cookie for walking our dog each day.
It's just the way it should be frankly.
Any edibles in stores out east yet?
Check out the GEMS indica gelcaps if your local store has 'em. Cheap (>$1) and potent.
Quote from: mattstick on November 22, 2019, 09:48:18 AM
Any edibles in stores out east yet?
Check out the GEMS indica gelcaps if your local store has 'em. Cheap (>$1) and potent.
I've only been into the NB store once this Summer but I don't think they have them yet. Looks like after Christmas from what I've heard. I will definitely check those gelcaps out online this weekend. Thanks for the tip (although even the word gelcap gives me a twinge of fear from the late 90s :crazy: )
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on November 21, 2019, 04:52:16 PM
So what an awesome feeling in Canada these days, everyone seems to be okay with it.
My dad was crazy psyched to check out my plants.
I offered our 65 year old neighbour with MS a cookie for walking our dog each day.
It's just the way it should be frankly.
Excellent.
It's Legalization Eve here in Illinois, and the new governor just pardoned 11,000 marijuana convictions, so that's cool.
Quote from: mbw on December 31, 2019, 07:28:24 PM
It's Legalization Eve here in Illinois, and the new governor just pardoned 11,000 marijuana convictions, so that's cool.
I envy you. I feel like I live in the 'shitty neighbor' state now that Indiana is surrounded by legalization.
Quote from: mistercharlie on December 31, 2019, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: mbw on December 31, 2019, 07:28:24 PM
It's Legalization Eve here in Illinois, and the new governor just pardoned 11,000 marijuana convictions, so that's cool.
I envy you. I feel like I live in the 'shitty neighbor' state now that Indiana is surrounded by legalization.
Oh, you always have. :-P
Just come over here for your weed and we'll keep coming over there for our guns.
Quote from: mbw on December 31, 2019, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: mistercharlie on December 31, 2019, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: mbw on December 31, 2019, 07:28:24 PM
It's Legalization Eve here in Illinois, and the new governor just pardoned 11,000 marijuana convictions, so that's cool.
I envy you. I feel like I live in the 'shitty neighbor' state now that Indiana is surrounded by legalization.
Oh, you always have. :-P
Just come over here for your weed and we'll keep coming over there for our guns.
This is N'diana... nobody takes r guns! :sbw:
What's up with THC breathalyzers and impairment detection (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/business/cannabis-breathalyzers-are-coming-to-market/index.html).
NJ is legal now, which is pretty fucking awesome. No shops for a while I'm sure, but I've made drives to Mass. and now don't have any fear once I cross the border here at least. It does seem like 'gifting' might be a gray market for a bit, we'll see if that really picks up - would love to just get deliveries!!
(https://www.nj.com/resizer/bFO64Z5OVlxLmRMqjSQkrCc9eDs=/1280x0/smart/advancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/image.nj.com/home/njo-media/width2048/img/entertainment_impact/photo/20617084-standard.png)
Quote from: tet on February 25, 2021, 10:15:10 AM
NJ is legal now, which is pretty fucking awesome. No shops for a while I'm sure, but I've made drives to Mass. and now don't have any fear once I cross the border here at least. It does seem like 'gifting' might be a gray market for a bit, we'll see if that really picks up - would love to just get deliveries!!
I visited Colorado between Legalization and Regulation. You would walk into a head-shop and spend $30 on merch, an overpriced shirt or bowl or what have you, and then they gave you the green for 'free'.
Quote from: mistercharlie on February 25, 2021, 10:58:21 AM
Quote from: tet on February 25, 2021, 10:15:10 AM
NJ is legal now, which is pretty fucking awesome. No shops for a while I'm sure, but I've made drives to Mass. and now don't have any fear once I cross the border here at least. It does seem like 'gifting' might be a gray market for a bit, we'll see if that really picks up - would love to just get deliveries!!
I visited Colorado between Legalization and Regulation. You would walk into a head-shop and spend $30 on merch, an overpriced shirt or bowl or what have you, and then they gave you the green for 'free'.
Yeah--buddy here in VT charged me $200 for consulting on my first grow (last year), with 6 clones gifted as free teaching materials, or something.
Also, next week is town meeting--lots of ballot questions about allowing retail cannabis sales, brick & mortar shops, etc. My town opted against even putting the question, but there'll be some shops opening near me soon enough.
I know it's apples and oranges or wtv but here, all of the shops opened and didn't really have much repercussions in advance of legalization.
As far as I can tell, there is a serious grey area as far as a head shop and a gov't dispensary.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on February 25, 2021, 10:26:35 PM
I know it's apples and oranges or wtv but here, all of the shops opened and didn't really have much repercussions in advance of legalization.
As far as I can tell, there is a serious grey area as far as a head shop and a gov't dispensary.
yeah i'm thinking of heading to a local shop where they have legit goods (they are official Pax store) because now i need a concentrate option, and hoping they have started already... it would not at all surprise me if virtually all of the head shops around here start to skirt the law a bit. NJ is not exactly the wild west, however, and the police are going to be itching to do something because arresting people for pot has been their biggest cash cow.
saw somethin in the paper saying VA about to pass recreational.
19 year old slim never saw that comin.
Quote from: VA $l!m on February 28, 2021, 11:00:21 PM
saw somethin in the paper saying VA about to pass recreational.
19 year old slim never saw that comin.
If (when) the Governor signs it, legalization won't be in effect til 2024.
Which means people of color will continue to be disproportionately prosecuted for something that has been legalized by the legislature.
Absurd.
Cuomo must really be in trouble if he finally allowed Legal Weed in NY.
Quote from: Multibeast12 on March 31, 2021, 04:25:38 PM
Cuomo must really be in trouble if he finally allowed Legal Weed in NY.
I'm sayin'
Hello from VA.
Quote from: rowjimmy on April 08, 2021, 08:34:21 AM
Hello from VA.
Can't see you, too cloudy in there :mrgreen: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:
Congrats, Virginia is now, more than ever, for lovers. :smoke:
Is anybody else out there buying Delta 8? I bought some gummies in a local Austin shop and ate one the other night. Y'all know I don't generally smoke weed, so my tolerance is nil, but that gummy had me zooted like a teenager taking his first bong hit. I still can't believe I bought it legally in texas! Shit is basically legal weed. I love the modern era!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2021/03/12/delta-8-thc-offers-a-legal-high-but-heres-why-the-booming-business-may-soon-go-up-in-smoke/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2021/03/12/delta-8-thc-offers-a-legal-high-but-heres-why-the-booming-business-may-soon-go-up-in-smoke/)
Quote from: PIE-GUY on May 18, 2021, 08:54:25 AM
Is anybody else out there buying Delta 8? I bought some gummies in a local Austin shop and ate one the other night. Y'all know I don't generally smoke weed, so my tolerance is nil, but that gummy had me zooted like a teenager taking his first bong hit. I still can't believe I bought it legally in texas! Shit is basically legal weed. I love the modern era!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2021/03/12/delta-8-thc-offers-a-legal-high-but-heres-why-the-booming-business-may-soon-go-up-in-smoke/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2021/03/12/delta-8-thc-offers-a-legal-high-but-heres-why-the-booming-business-may-soon-go-up-in-smoke/)
I hadn't yet, but I just ordered myself a GDP cart to give it a try.
I've been meaning to check out the D8 but keep forgetting. I've heard good things.
Just found out that the CBD shop at the end of my street sells it. I may grab some on the way home, too!
A friend of mine had a cartridge the other day. We all agreed that the experience is basically just like the regular stuff, though a little shorter in duration and perhaps a little clearer-brained. It all bears further research, I've decided.
I ended up not going to the shop at the end of my street, since I had already ordered a cart online I figured I'd wait to see if I like it before buying more. And I just watched the mailman deliver mine through my Ring doorbell. I'll be giving it a try tonight when I get home. I'll report back. :mrgreen:
All right, I like this stuff. I got a cart of "Grand Daddy Purp' and the taste and effect are damn near identical. Good stuff, I'm definitely going to go into my local shop and see what they have to offer.
I hope you will/did have a wonderful retail buying experience like I did, MC. There's this CBD shop in town that's set up (rather comically, if you ask me) just like a real dispensary: lobby in the front, window in the wall looking in on the store itself, person checking your ID then waving you in through the doors. Display cases inside, countertops, weed-y products and product branding. My budtender was a nice little stoner chick who walked me through all their D8 offerings. I got a preroll, two different grams of bud (as marketed based on listed effects; on sale for $10 each), and some gummies. Paid with credit card, gave her a nice tip, and walked out with my drugs in a paper bag. As with the cartridge I'd tried, the other two formats basically jibed with the control group. This will be fun while it lasts, I say.
One thing that may be cause for concern among some (or at least can make D8 objectively inferior to D9) is that what you buy isn't always strictly a natural product. Some D8 products are apparently made from naturally extracted D8, taken directly out of the plant just like one might CBD or any other cannabinoid. But in other cases the D8 has been made in a lab. Since it occurs in such small amounts naturally, having not been bred to high levels like CBD and D9 have, often the efficient thing to do is to synthesize it from other cannabinoids. Apparently cannabinoids all branch from the same original chemical and are similar enough that you can turn them into each other using chemistry. This involves extracting CBD or what have you from the plant, adding chemicals to stimulate reactions, rinsing those, trying not to leave behind byproducts--I'm not an expert on the process. Then, you can take your synthesized D8 and (as with naturally extracted D8) make vape oil with it, or edibles, or in the case of bud, apply it to the (otherwise nonpsychoactive) hemp flower. So clearly, synthesized D8 is not the same as nor as preferable as regular old, made-by-the-plant D9. But not as inherently artificial, flagrantly chemical, mysterious, and (presumably) dangerous as the K2/spice of old, either. Perhaps growers will be able to breed hemp with high enough natural levels of D8 that the synthesis option will go by the wayside soon. Perhaps the synthesized stuff is still perfectly safe, insofar as it might be chemically identical to the natural version. I do not know. Alls I know is it works. And that means score one for the counter culture.
Quote from: VDB on May 18, 2021, 11:35:16 AM
I've been meaning to check out the D8 but keep forgetting. I've heard good things.
My daughter :laugh: introduced me to it recently. Took a 60mg edible to give it a shot. Was definitely high AF but was different. The only way I can explain it is there isn't a psychedelic component to the high, if that makes sense.
Quote from: mehead on June 09, 2021, 03:49:44 PM
Quote from: VDB on May 18, 2021, 11:35:16 AM
I've been meaning to check out the D8 but keep forgetting. I've heard good things.
My daughter :laugh: introduced me to it recently. Took a 60mg edible to give it a shot. Was definitely high AF but was different. The only way I can explain it is there isn't a psychedelic component to the high, if that makes sense.
That's exactly how I'd describe it, too.
Quote from: mistercharlie on June 09, 2021, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: mehead on June 09, 2021, 03:49:44 PM
Quote from: VDB on May 18, 2021, 11:35:16 AM
I've been meaning to check out the D8 but keep forgetting. I've heard good things.
My daughter :laugh: introduced me to it recently. Took a 60mg edible to give it a shot. Was definitely high AF but was different. The only way I can explain it is there isn't a psychedelic component to the high, if that makes sense.
That's exactly how I'd describe it, too.
Then what's the point?
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 10, 2021, 09:11:01 AM
Quote from: mistercharlie on June 09, 2021, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: mehead on June 09, 2021, 03:49:44 PM
Quote from: VDB on May 18, 2021, 11:35:16 AM
I've been meaning to check out the D8 but keep forgetting. I've heard good things.
My daughter :laugh: introduced me to it recently. Took a 60mg edible to give it a shot. Was definitely high AF but was different. The only way I can explain it is there isn't a psychedelic component to the high, if that makes sense.
That's exactly how I'd describe it, too.
Then what's the point?
It still takes the tension out of my back, neck and shoulders. As well as mediating my anxiety. Take that and add in a puff or two off my onie and I'm feeling great.
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 10, 2021, 09:11:01 AM
Quote from: mistercharlie on June 09, 2021, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: mehead on June 09, 2021, 03:49:44 PM
Quote from: VDB on May 18, 2021, 11:35:16 AM
I've been meaning to check out the D8 but keep forgetting. I've heard good things.
My daughter :laugh: introduced me to it recently. Took a 60mg edible to give it a shot. Was definitely high AF but was different. The only way I can explain it is there isn't a psychedelic component to the high, if that makes sense.
That's exactly how I'd describe it, too.
Then what's the point?
While I TOTALLY hear you on this, you, based on my understanding of things you've dealt with, have to appreciate the positive non-psychedelic (I?m talking medical) effects that cannabis can have. But yeah, the high part of it is also great too.
Quote from: pcr3 on June 10, 2021, 11:42:50 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on June 10, 2021, 09:11:01 AM
Quote from: mistercharlie on June 09, 2021, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: mehead on June 09, 2021, 03:49:44 PM
Quote from: VDB on May 18, 2021, 11:35:16 AM
I've been meaning to check out the D8 but keep forgetting. I've heard good things.
My daughter :laugh: introduced me to it recently. Took a 60mg edible to give it a shot. Was definitely high AF but was different. The only way I can explain it is there isn't a psychedelic component to the high, if that makes sense.
That's exactly how I'd describe it, too.
Then what's the point?
While I TOTALLY hear you on this, you, based on my understanding of things you've dealt with, have to appreciate the positive non-psychedelic (I?m talking medical) effects that cannabis can have. But yeah, the high part of it is also great too.
Checks calendar...
I'm good for a couple more weeks.
It's today.
A day I thought I would not live to see.
Quote from: rowjimmy on July 01, 2021, 08:04:05 AM
It's today.
A day I thought I would not live to see.
:mrgreen:
Quote from: rowjimmy on July 01, 2021, 08:04:05 AM
It's today.
A day I thought I would not live to see.
I'm pure Smuckers over here.
Quote from: rowjimmy on July 01, 2021, 08:04:05 AM
It's today.
A day I thought I would not live to see.
Awesome. Now please hurry up, NC and GA.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ2wowoBu0Y/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ2wowoBu0Y/)
So ridiculous. :shakehead:
A worthwhile read in the paper of record:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/opinion/sunday/drug-legalization-mdma-psilocybin.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/opinion/sunday/drug-legalization-mdma-psilocybin.html)
If you?re not a nytimes subscriber, this link should work:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/opinion/sunday/drug-legalization-mdma-psilocybin.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfqohkT1UbCibSRdkhrxqAwuPSxrA1lzjyNjWaDDJPwO0RApqJ50bKY-9ma946miyARdtGO64lRfo0zvNaOwYlbTiUlaa-ucZPJTQp-8X0V3kq3pnJUPc2qGbmYjiwJKJ0z-Gy-k-LbGL1UKTf2Gl3cF5h9cNhJgut2ycY1-ySRL4Or9p72_klBZF8RC5RJ3XZ-qm1VGgtfYmOfRre6QEpWu9GWDG1ndSU6bsIcQU6GkuRBTokoj56sIUATYtRaKXvLBcgeN78h6ERCAFrLoSoBp4yRuvEhtCZoMp2ojWmo15OVD-PkFw&smid=em-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/opinion/sunday/drug-legalization-mdma-psilocybin.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfqohkT1UbCibSRdkhrxqAwuPSxrA1lzjyNjWaDDJPwO0RApqJ50bKY-9ma946miyARdtGO64lRfo0zvNaOwYlbTiUlaa-ucZPJTQp-8X0V3kq3pnJUPc2qGbmYjiwJKJ0z-Gy-k-LbGL1UKTf2Gl3cF5h9cNhJgut2ycY1-ySRL4Or9p72_klBZF8RC5RJ3XZ-qm1VGgtfYmOfRre6QEpWu9GWDG1ndSU6bsIcQU6GkuRBTokoj56sIUATYtRaKXvLBcgeN78h6ERCAFrLoSoBp4yRuvEhtCZoMp2ojWmo15OVD-PkFw&smid=em-share)
Opening day here in Montana. I can't even partake (random DOT testing is a job requirement).
But that didn't stop me from driving right down to the dispensary and buying a gram on principle. Best part was just tossing it up on the dash and driving home with it there; loud and proud.
My wife will enjoy it.
:samurai: :pbjtime:
apparently i can set my calendar when Nebraska fails to get medical marijuana on the ballot each year. :(
Biden announced a big marijuana policy shift today! Pardoning all federal possession offenses. Trying take MJ off Schedule 1.
"Sending people to jail for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives – for conduct that is legal in many states. That's before you address the clear racial disparities around prosecution and conviction. Today, we begin to right these wrongs."
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1578097875480895489 (https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1578097875480895489)
It's common sense. :clap:
:clap:
One step at a time.
Why do in the first week of your administration what you can wait until the October before the midterms to do?
MD and MO legal now too :pbjtime:
Quote from: emay on November 12, 2022, 12:43:17 AMMD and MO legal now too :pbjtime:
And didn't you folks in CO legalize boomers too?
Quote from: emay on November 12, 2022, 12:43:17 AMMD and MO legal now too :pbjtime:
Trips home next year just got a whole lot better. :)
Quote from: mistercharlie on November 12, 2022, 06:10:33 AMQuote from: emay on November 12, 2022, 12:43:17 AMMD and MO legal now too :pbjtime:
And didn't you folks in CO legalize boomers too?
In therapeutic settings, I think.
Also, Arkansas and the Dakotas just said no. :'(
Quote from: VDB on November 12, 2022, 05:33:42 PMQuote from: mistercharlie on November 12, 2022, 06:10:33 AMQuote from: emay on November 12, 2022, 12:43:17 AMMD and MO legal now too :pbjtime:
And didn't you folks in CO legalize boomers too?
In therapeutic settings, I think.
Exactly, but they also decriminalized them in general
i hear Minnesota about to legalize this summer. grats... one step closer.
also, i about flipped today watching this video about 20 seconds in they show a map and say Nebraska has legal access to cannabis.
the world is just fucking with me now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5qvOiCXlt4
^^^ yeah, there were some facts outta place in that clip for sure. and did she say "medicinable marijuana?"
mmmmmmmmm, medicinable.
progress
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/health/marijuana-rescheduling-fda-review/index.html
QuoteMarijuana has a lower potential for abuse than other drugs that are subjected to the same restrictions, with scientific support for its use as a medical treatment, researchers from the US Food and Drug Administration say in documents supporting its reclassification as a Schedule III substance.
An employee at the Good Leaf Dispensary measures out marijuana for a customer on the reservation Mohawks call Akwesasne, Monday, March 14, 2022 in St. Regis, New York.
HHS official calls for reclassifying marijuana as a lower-risk drug in letter sent to DEA
Marijuana is currently classified as Schedule I, reserved for the most dangerous controlled substances, including heroin and LSD. In 2022, President Joe Biden asked US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and the attorney general to begin the administrative process of reviewing how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine wrote a letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration in August in which she supported the reclassification to Schedule III, a list that includes "drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence" such as ketamine, testosterone and Tylenol with codeine.
The FDA documents, which are posted online, "reflect HHS' evaluation of the scientific and medical evidence and its scheduling recommendation" to the Department of Justice, HHS said Friday.
The members of the FDA's Controlled Substance Staff write in the documents that the agency recommends rescheduling marijuana because it meets three criteria: a lower potential for abuse than other substances on Schedules I and II, a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US and a risk of low or moderate physical dependence in people who abuse it. The National Institute on Drug Abuse concurs with the recommendation.
Although marijuana has a "high prevalence of nonmedical use" in the US, it doesn't seem to elicit serious outcomes compared with drugs such as heroin, oxycodone and cocaine, the researchers say. "This is especially notable given the availability" of products that contain very high levels of Delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary active compound in cannabis.
A view of cannabis plants at the Illicit Gardens production facility in Independence, Missouri, on March 18, 2023. - Missouri, a largely conservative Midwestern state, is the latest to legalize the recreational use of cannabis. The new regulation, approved by voters in a referendum in November, has sparked an economic boom for the "Show Me" state, fueled by thousands of pot smokers from the eight states on its edges, most of which have not legalized the drug. Across Missouri, cannabis sales in February -- when recreational use was legalized -- totaled $103 million, as compared with $37.2 million the month before, according to the state's health department. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
More US states are regulating marijuana. See where it's legal across the country
The data also provides "some credible level of scientific support for some of the therapeutic uses for which marijuana is being used in clinical practice in the United States," namely anorexia, pain, and nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, the researchers say. However, they note that their analysis and conclusions "are not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana" that would support its approval for any particular health condition.
Finally, the researchers point out that marijuana withdrawal has been reported in heavy, chronic users – with symptoms that peak within days and decline over a week or two – but not in occasional users.
"The marijuana withdrawal syndrome appears to be relatively mild compared to the withdrawal syndrome associated with alcohol, which can include more serious symptoms such as agitation, paranoia, seizures and even death," they write. Rather, marijuana withdrawal symptoms are similar to those of withdrawal from chronic use of Marinol and Syndros, two FDA-approved drug products that use synthetic THC, and the magnitude and timeline of marijuana withdrawal are similar to that of tobacco.
Rescheduling marijuana could open up more avenues for research, allow cannabis businesses to bank more freely and openly, and have firms no longer subject to a 40-year-old tax code that disallows credits and deductions from income generated by sales of Schedule I and II substances.
GET CNN HEALTH'S WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team.
Twenty-four states, two territories and DC have legalized cannabis for adult recreational use, and 38 states allow medical use of cannabis products, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Since the first adult-use cannabis sale took place in 2014 in Colorado, cannabis has blossomed into a multibillion-dollar industry that has attracted the attention of multinational companies across sectors such as alcohol, agriculture, pharmaceutical and tobacco.
The DEA will have the final authority to make any changes to marijuana's scheduling, and it will go through a rulemaking process that includes a period for the public to provide comments before any scheduling action is finalized.
CNN's Meg Tirrell, Jacqueline Howard, Kevin Liptak and Alicia Wallace contributed to this report.
Hey sls, what's your take on the growing evidence of a link between cannabis and heart disease?
As someone who smoked ridiculous amounts of weed in my 20s, I think it may have been a factor for me, among other things like my sleep apnea and genetics.
That's the problem - it is illegal for any research to be done. There is data that weed contributes to heart disease but hard to say how much. Hopefully with a schedule change we can get some real data.
Genetics is huge, high cholesterol, tobacco use (any form), diabetes, high blood pressure are the big ones. Smoking week probably made it worse, but hard to say by how much. I haven't seen anyone (yet) with that as their only risk factor.
As an American, Hicks is predisposed towards heart disease
w/e happened to the rescheduling thing?