DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: Chino on November 06, 2012, 09:56:02 PM

Title: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 06, 2012, 09:56:02 PM
"
On Tuesday night, Amendment 64 -- the measure which sought the legalization of marijuana for recreational use by adults -- was passed by Colorado voters, making Colorado the first state to end marijuana prohibition in the United States."

"Under Amendment 64, marijuana is taxed and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco. It gives state and local governments the ability to control and tax the sale of small amounts of marijuana to adults age 21 and older. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. An economist whose study was funded by a pro-pot group projects as much as a $60 million boost by 2017."


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/amendment-64-passes-in-co_n_2079899.html


Your thoughts?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Jaffa on November 06, 2012, 09:56:56 PM
... Somehow it seems really strange to me that it would be Colorado. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: ReaPsTA on November 06, 2012, 09:58:12 PM
... Somehow it seems really strange to me that it would be Colorado.

Why?  If I remember correctly, Boulder is basically a hippie commune.  And, in spite of the state's conservative politics, the vibe is supposedly pretty laid back.

Good on Colorado for doing something that desperately needed to happen.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 06, 2012, 10:00:52 PM
Washington passed for recreational use too.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalization-results_n_2074168.html

:Initiative 502 legalizes it — but only for people over the age of 21. And sorry green thumbs: personal cultivation without a license is still illegal.:
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Jaffa on November 06, 2012, 10:02:18 PM
Why?  If I remember correctly, Boulder is basically a hippie commune.  And, in spite of its conservative politics, the vibe is supposedly pretty laid back.

I really don't know.  It just seems odd to me.

Anyway, yeah, great for them.  I predict a lot of people very suddenly moving to Colorado. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Progmetty on November 06, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
 :'(
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 06, 2012, 10:07:44 PM
personal cultivation without a license is still illegal.:

That honestly seems like the most bullshit part about this initiative. It's obviously a sell-out to moneyed interests. It honestly reminds me of the kind of nespotism that really started the American Revolution, when the British Parliament tried to give the East Indies Tea Company an obviously hand out, and we had the Tea Party.

By the way, what power of the government is used to argue that you can tell people what they can grow in their back yard? It's always seemed like an obvious Constitutional overstep to me. The Commerce Clause is obviously the rational for how they can prevent trafficking, but growing a plant in your back yard for personal use? What?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Progmetty on November 06, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
Do NOT, complain about this :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2012, 10:10:50 PM
The Colorado deal is pretty cool.  The Washington version is a sham.  Still, it's a nice step forward.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: black_biff_stadler on November 06, 2012, 10:13:29 PM
(https://www.clker.com/cliparts/I/r/1/7/L/8/awesome-in-purple-hi.png)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 06, 2012, 10:15:48 PM
Do NOT, complain about this :lol

Oh, Colorado is obviously a step forward. And I think this might get the discussion going on the national scale. It's a discussion that needs to happen, but it is disappointing that the Washington initiative is so obviously flawed.

The best news about it, though, is that people were cool with legalizing it, despite it's flaws. It shows the popular support for the idea.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Super Dude on November 06, 2012, 10:18:36 PM
... Somehow it seems really strange to me that it would be Colorado.

Why?  If I remember correctly, Boulder is basically a hippie commune.  And, in spite of its conservative politics, the vibe is supposedly pretty laid back.

Good on Colorado for doing something that desperately needed to happen.

Knowing personally of Colorado's closet hippie-dippieness, I'm actually more surprised that it didn't happen sooner.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2012, 10:20:25 PM
The best news about it, though, is that people were cool with legalizing it, despite it's flaws. It shows the popular support for the idea.
I suspect a helluva lot of it's supporters don't realize just how screwed up it is.  The Cali proposition was even worse, and the stoners supported it in droves.  None of them had a clue that they were screwing themselves by voting for it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 06, 2012, 10:22:44 PM
The best news about it, though, is that people were cool with legalizing it, despite it's flaws. It shows the popular support for the idea.
I suspect a helluva lot of it's supporters don't realize just how screwed up it is.  The Cali proposition was even worse, and the stoners supported it in droves.  None of them had a clue that they were screwing themselves by voting for it.

Basically what I was going for  :lol

People supported legalizing it, and that's good in and of itself. Forget how flawed it's implementation is.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2012, 10:28:27 PM
I'm curious if the heads in Colorado are already publicly celebrating.  If it had happened here, I'd be walking down the street burning one right now.  After forty years of having to be sneaky about it, the prospect of no longer fearing asshole cops would be monumental to me. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on November 06, 2012, 10:32:00 PM
One of my friends in Colorado says that the smoke from his neighbors is seeping through their door.  :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cedar redaC on November 06, 2012, 10:37:03 PM
It's their right as a state to legalize whatever they want (so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution). It's also their right to tax it into oblivion. I imagine they will.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2012, 10:37:54 PM
One of my friends in Colorado says that the smoke from his neighbors is seeping through their door.  :lol
My guess is that applies to the entire state of Oklahoma.  (backwards-ass hicks could use a good buzz)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: theliloutkast on November 06, 2012, 10:42:15 PM
I'm going to celebrate now.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on November 06, 2012, 11:05:33 PM
People on Tumblr are saying that Puerto Rico is going to become a state. I haven't seen anything official and am extremely skeptical. I'm I rightfully so?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orthogonal on November 06, 2012, 11:05:55 PM
Congrats to Colorado, huge step in the right direction. Now they only need to end the State regulation and taxing and it would be complete.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2012, 11:16:30 PM
Congrats to Colorado, huge step in the right direction. Now they only need to end the State regulation and taxing and it would be complete.
While I agree in principle, the effect of this law is such that their limited regs and taxation don't trouble me at all.  Six plants growing with three flowering, and the ability to transfer up to a lid with no questions asked really makes the tax part of it a factor only to the people who would rather buy it commercially than grow it.  Few people can distil their own bourbon, but anybody can grow decent bud, so this is already a big improvement over alcohol taxation.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ħ on November 06, 2012, 11:17:49 PM
Congrats to Colorado, huge step in the right direction. Now they only need to end the State regulation and taxing and it would be complete.
Taxing drugs is a really good idea, IMO.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: glaurung on November 07, 2012, 12:03:17 AM
I'm really surprised it didn't pass here in Oregon.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 07, 2012, 12:05:23 AM
This is a good step foward, now we get to see what happens and work to improve flaws.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Super Dude on November 07, 2012, 04:21:21 AM
Congrats to Colorado, huge step in the right direction. Now they only need to end the State regulation and taxing and it would be complete.
Taxing drugs is a really good idea, IMO.

Yeah y'know I'm inclined to agree. Taxation = government revenue = money that can go toward paying off state, and perhaps eventually federal debt.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Elite on November 07, 2012, 04:27:51 AM
So, now the Netherlands can follow.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Progmetty on November 07, 2012, 05:38:30 AM
The question returns: does that mean if someone who works in Colorado tests positive for THC at a test his employers demanded; can he still get fired or can he say "It's legal fool!"?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: PowerSlave on November 07, 2012, 06:13:25 AM
The question returns: does that mean if someone who works in Colorado tests positive for THC at a test his employers demanded; can he still get fired or can he say "It's legal fool!"?

I know of companies that are firing/not hiring people that test positive for nicotiene, so I'd imagine that it's up to each employer how they want to go about it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: PowerSlave on November 07, 2012, 06:27:42 AM
People on Tumblr are saying that Puerto Rico is going to become a state. I haven't seen anything official and am extremely skeptical. I'm I rightfully so?

https://www.chron.com/default/article/Puerto-Rico-votes-on-US-ties-and-chooses-governor-4012422.php

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 07, 2012, 06:46:38 AM
The question returns: does that mean if someone who works in Colorado tests positive for THC at a test his employers demanded; can he still get fired or can he say "It's legal fool!"?

It should be allowed if it is suppose to be treated the same as alcohol. You can do it as long as it's not at work. The problem with marijuana is that you can't test it on the spot like you can alcohol. I've read about a device that takes a very tiny sample off your tongue and it can determine if you have had THC introduced your system recently. It is also much harder to tell when someone is on it (which in that case you can argue if that's even a problem). I hope most employers after the transition look at it as though nothing has changed other than the fact that they now know their employees smoke pot, and probably have been all along.

(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/403571_4282053062066_154415501_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: eric42434224 on November 07, 2012, 07:27:18 AM
It doesnt matter if pot is legal, a private employer can absolutely use it as a reason for termination or non-hire.  And THC stays in your system WAY longer than other drugs.  Even weeks depending on usage levels.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: yeshaberto on November 07, 2012, 07:31:43 AM
while I would not want to go on record for being for cannabis use (considering the down sides of it), I think the laws are silly and give a thumbs up to CO.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cedar redaC on November 07, 2012, 07:32:14 AM
It doesnt matter if pot is legal, a private employer can absolutely use it as a reason for termination or non-hire.

Exactly, you can't discriminate based on race, nationality, religion, color, etc., but pretty much everything else is up for grabs. If an employer doesn't want pot smoking employees, there is nothing that stops them from having "clean" employees.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: skydivingninja on November 07, 2012, 07:45:50 AM
Party at Jackie's house!
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 07, 2012, 08:32:43 AM
Medical Marijuana passed here in MA too  :hat
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on November 07, 2012, 09:12:27 AM
Passed here in WA. Or at least is headed that way, might still be too close to call at this point.

Don't smoke, and this won't make me start. It's a flawed initiative as EB mentioned, but glad the states are doing something about this nonsense war on drugs.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: black_biff_stadler on November 07, 2012, 09:33:34 AM
THC stays in your system WAY longer than other drugs.  Even weeks depending on usage levels.

Being in your system doesn't equal impairment though. Weed may stay in your system for a good 30 days but normal usage will result in you being straight as an arrow in as little as a couple hours and absolutely no more than 5 or 6 hours even if you're a first timer and went nuts.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scorpion on November 07, 2012, 09:35:45 AM
Does this now make marijuana exempt from Forum Rule 11?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 07, 2012, 09:37:44 AM
Passed here in WA. Or at least is headed that way, might still be too close to call at this point.

Don't smoke, and this won't make me start. It's a flawed initiative as EB mentioned, but glad the states are doing something about this nonsense war on drugs.

Just curious. Is it  the smoking that turns you off, or the drug? Would you ingest it?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on November 07, 2012, 09:47:01 AM
Passed here in WA. Or at least is headed that way, might still be too close to call at this point.

Don't smoke, and this won't make me start. It's a flawed initiative as EB mentioned, but glad the states are doing something about this nonsense war on drugs.

Just curious. Is it  the smoking that turns you off, or the drug? Would you ingest it?

My college roommate and his buddies smoked ALL THE TIME (his room was like when Spicoli and his buds get out of their van in Fast Times…) and the smoke just annoyed me. And they just sat around all the time when I wanted to go out to the clubs and drink and meet chicks. So pot became a lame drug in my mind. I’m not against it, I just never liked smoking anything and always preferred alcohol.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 07, 2012, 12:20:23 PM
Passed here in WA. Or at least is headed that way, might still be too close to call at this point.

Don't smoke, and this won't make me start. It's a flawed initiative as EB mentioned, but glad the states are doing something about this nonsense war on drugs.

Just curious. Is it  the smoking that turns you off, or the drug? Would you ingest it?

My college roommate and his buddies smoked ALL THE TIME (his room was like when Spicoli and his buds get out of their van in Fast Times…) and the smoke just annoyed me. And they just sat around all the time when I wanted to go out to the clubs and drink and meet chicks. So pot became a lame drug in my mind. I’m not against it, I just never liked smoking anything and always preferred alcohol.

What if they feel the same about alcohol and clubbing? Im just saying, I understand the smoke being a bother though. Shit, I'd respect it if my roommate didn't indulge and would've made oils, butter, vaporized, that is if you didn't mind the smell.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: MetalMike06 on November 07, 2012, 12:36:15 PM
Yeah I don't smoke, but if people keep do it responsibly without harming others, I see no reason to throw them in cages. This is all a great start. I'm interested to see whether the DEA cracks down on it or not.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on November 07, 2012, 12:44:15 PM
Passed here in WA. Or at least is headed that way, might still be too close to call at this point.

Don't smoke, and this won't make me start. It's a flawed initiative as EB mentioned, but glad the states are doing something about this nonsense war on drugs.

Just curious. Is it  the smoking that turns you off, or the drug? Would you ingest it?

My college roommate and his buddies smoked ALL THE TIME (his room was like when Spicoli and his buds get out of their van in Fast Times…) and the smoke just annoyed me. And they just sat around all the time when I wanted to go out to the clubs and drink and meet chicks. So pot became a lame drug in my mind. I’m not against it, I just never liked smoking anything and always preferred alcohol.

What if they feel the same about alcohol and clubbing? Im just saying, I understand the smoke being a bother though. Shit, I'd respect it if my roommate didn't indulge and would've made oils, butter, vaporized, that is if you didn't mind the smell.

I was a dumb 20 year old kid. I was just commenting on how I felt that the time. I am 36 now, older (though maybe not much wiser).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ħ on November 07, 2012, 01:07:45 PM
While I don't really care about marijuana being legal, I do wonder if this is the gateway drug for the legality of much more dangerous substances.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Jaffa on November 07, 2012, 01:08:10 PM
While I don't really care about marijuana being legal, I do wonder if this is the gateway drug for the legality of much more dangerous substances.

It isn't.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ħ on November 07, 2012, 01:08:42 PM
Well, we'll see, I guess.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Jaffa on November 07, 2012, 01:11:09 PM
There will absolutely be someone at a town hall meeting somewhere advocating the legalization of cocaine (there probably already is), but I'm willing to bet fingers that that never finds its way onto a ballot.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Adami on November 07, 2012, 01:13:16 PM
While I don't really care about marijuana being legal, I do wonder if this is the gateway drug for the legality of much more dangerous substances.

I sure hope so.



Plus, dangerous drugs are already legal. Just not all of them.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: theseoafs on November 07, 2012, 01:13:56 PM
No.  People are pushing for marijuana legalization precisely because it's not dangerous (much less dangerous than alcohol, anyway, and that hasn't opened the doors to cocaine/meth legalization).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ħ on November 07, 2012, 01:14:41 PM
Plus, dangerous drugs are already legal. Just not all of them.
Which are you talking about? Tobacco?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Adami on November 07, 2012, 01:15:29 PM
Plus, dangerous drugs are already legal. Just not all of them.
Which are you talking about? Tobacco?

Well that, plus alcohol, plus the medicines which are easily obtained.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 07, 2012, 01:17:57 PM
Yeah I don't smoke, but if people keep do it responsibly without harming others, I see no reason to throw them in cages. This is all a great start. I'm interested to see whether the DEA cracks down on it or not.
They'll crack down because it's in their own interest to do so.  Like most bureaucracies, their interest is in fighting the war, not winning or losing.  This is easy money to them.  They'll run interdiction all hell over Colorado so they can seize vehicles and houses.  Same with the neighboring states, who are the real winners in this whole deal.  If you're the sheriff of Colfax County New Mexico, the first thing you did this morning was to order up 6 brand new cop cars and hire an architectural firm to design your new HQ.  They'll bust 2 cars a day, which means they get to keep the car, and if they're heading Northbound, the cash too. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ħ on November 07, 2012, 01:20:54 PM
Do you think that legality of drugs that are better than cocaine but worse than alcohol/tobacco is on the table? Like MDMA?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: KevShmev on November 07, 2012, 01:23:17 PM
Plus, dangerous drugs are already legal. Just not all of them.
Which are you talking about? Tobacco?

Well that, plus alcohol, plus the medicines which are easily obtained.

Yep, like paxil and some other anti-depressants, which can have devastating effects. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 07, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
Do you think that legality of drugs that are better than cocaine but worse than alcohol/tobacco is on the table? Like MDMA?
X has valid medicinal uses, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it rescheduled.  Outright legalization would never happen, though.  The Man's spent too many years scaring the hell out of people concerning such drugs.  All you really need to look at is his stance on some of the new designer drugs that are coming out.  They only really care that it'll get you high, and that's what will prompt prohibition; not any perceived harmful effects.  Those are suggested afterward as a rationale.  Tons of scare tactics, and no real science other than "they'll make you eat people!!!" 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 07, 2012, 03:21:47 PM
While I don't really care about marijuana being legal, I do wonder if this is the gateway drug for the legality of much more dangerous substances.

I hope it at least gets the discussion going against decriminalization of those drugs. Absolutely no one benefits from making cocaine illegal, or for arresting and putting in jail people who are sniffing some cocaine. Most of the more commonly thought of "more dangerous" substances, are in fact not much more dangerous. Alcohol is probably worse than cocaine.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 07, 2012, 03:33:08 PM
I don't see coke being legalized for the simple reason that it's so addictive.  The cost keeps it in check for most people, but then there's rock, and we've seen what that'll do to a community.  To be clear, I don't think prohibition helps anybody and legalization probably would, but realistically I don't see it happening.

In terms of other drugs being legalized, I'd say that acid and shrooms are probably the most likely.  Non-addictive.  Benign.  Self limiting.  It'd really just be a matter of getting past all the fear-mongering from the 60's.  Still, we're a very long way from that being possible. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 07, 2012, 03:39:33 PM
To be clear, I wasn't advocating the legalization of cocaine, just the decriminalization of it. Get caught with it? Pay a fine. If it's involved in another crime, than require you to go to a treatment center.

As for hallucinogens, most of them have medical benefits. There's a long-term Ivy leage study about the effects of psilocybin (mushrooms), and it shows that in most cases, it's a life-changing event with long-term beneficial effects; they can help people get over OCD, phobias, and other serious mental illnesses.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 07, 2012, 03:51:52 PM
And somewhat ironically, treating alcoholism.  Huh, I wonder if there's a connection there. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 07, 2012, 03:55:41 PM
Oh of course not, there isn't an alcohol lobby that's intent on keeping control of the market, no way
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Rathma on November 07, 2012, 05:25:32 PM
Yeah I don't smoke, but if people keep do it responsibly without harming others, I see no reason to throw them in cages. This is all a great start. I'm interested to see whether the DEA cracks down on it or not.
They'll crack down because it's in their own interest to do so.  Like most bureaucracies, their interest is in fighting the war, not winning or losing.  This is easy money to them.  They'll run interdiction all hell over Colorado so they can seize vehicles and houses.  Same with the neighboring states, who are the real winners in this whole deal.  If you're the sheriff of Colfax County New Mexico, the first thing you did this morning was to order up 6 brand new cop cars and hire an architectural firm to design your new HQ.  They'll bust 2 cars a day, which means they get to keep the car, and if they're heading Northbound, the cash too.

Haha, you make the police and DEA sound like they're some sort of gang!
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 07, 2012, 05:32:21 PM
They are.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Rathma on November 08, 2012, 06:38:51 AM
Just found this

Quote
Furthermore, U.N. treaties oblige all signatories to prohibit the legalization of marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

https://world.time.com/2012/11/08/from-mexico-to-moscow-the-world-turns-on-to-u-s-marijuana-legalization/

Could this be an excuse the administration will use for their crackdowns?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: theliloutkast on November 08, 2012, 07:28:27 AM
The biggest thing I've never been able to figure out is: How did our government decide what drugs should be legal and what should be illegal?


Obviously the best answer, in my opinion, is money. What can they control, and what can't they control to turn a profit. I'm just interested if anyone has a real report on how the government made said decisions.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 08, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
Just found this

Quote
Furthermore, U.N. treaties oblige all signatories to prohibit the legalization of marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

https://world.time.com/2012/11/08/from-mexico-to-moscow-the-world-turns-on-to-u-s-marijuana-legalization/

Could this be an excuse the administration will use for their crackdowns?

Interesting.  The primary focus has been how in the heck we can make it work here in the U.S., and I'd never even considered what the rest of the world might think, or how it might affect them.  Apparently, they have "turned on" to this.  I'm sure that choice of words was not accidental.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: senecadawg2 on November 08, 2012, 07:49:01 AM
While flawed, this certainly is a step in the right direction for CO.  :tup

As for other, 'more dangerous' drugs... While I don't think we will see cocaine legalized, hopefully we begin to more seriously move towards decriminalizing its use.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 08, 2012, 08:20:39 AM
The biggest thing I've never been able to figure out is: How did our government decide what drugs should be legal and what should be illegal?


Race.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Adami on November 08, 2012, 08:24:18 AM
The biggest thing I've never been able to figure out is: How did our government decide what drugs should be legal and what should be illegal?


Race.

Mostly true. Drugs like acid and meth and so forth had nothing to do with race, but weed, coke, heroin etc mostly did.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 08, 2012, 08:44:21 AM
The US doesn't give a damn what the UN says or wants if it's not something already in our interests.  It needs no justification other than the one it's already been using, which is that it's a violation of federal law.

As for why it's prohibited by law, it seems much the same as alcohol prohibition in the twenties.  Basically, if it gets you high, it's bad.  Like I mentioned earlier, the reaction to synthetic pot points pretty clearly to that.  It was banned in most states rather quickly, well before anybody tried to establish if it was actually harmful or not.  The harm is from the intoxication. Same thing with Salvia and the new phenethylamines popping up.

Counter-cultural thinking is a deadly threat to the American way of life!

Race.
I'm not sure if that's really the case or not, although it was certainly a useful tactic in the 30's.  Again, it was the "getting high" part that troubled people.  Convincing America that all of our white women would get stoned and start banging negroes was just a scare tactic.

Crack, on the other hand, was entirely racially motivated.  Or probably more accurately, driven by the desire to fill our new for-profit prisons with less desirable citizens.  America wanted convicts, and affluent coke users are better citizens than poor crackheads. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: rumborak on November 08, 2012, 08:56:04 AM
The US doesn't give a damn what the UN says or wants if it's not something already in our interests.  It needs no justification other than the one it's already been using, which is that it's a violation of federal law.

Well, that used to be the rationale, and it worked in a world where the US was by the far the biggest economically functioning country. But now that the EU and China are becoming equally sized players, it might occur to the US at some point that doing stuff together is a helluva lot cheaper, loses fewer lives on your sides, and comes with far more legitimacy internationally.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 08, 2012, 11:19:10 AM
And the most likely reason that's part of the UN constitution or whatnot is because of the US government anyways.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Super Dude on November 08, 2012, 03:36:34 PM
I know hemp was made illegal because of some corporate thing. I think it was like that twine rope producers were concerned about the fact that rope could be produced more cheaply from hemp, so they lobbied to have all hemp banned on drug usage grounds or something.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 08, 2012, 03:42:24 PM

I'm not sure if that's really the case or not, although it was certainly a useful tactic in the 30's.  Again, it was the "getting high" part that troubled people.  Convincing America that all of our white women would get stoned and start banging negroes was just a scare tactic.

Crack, on the other hand, was entirely racially motivated.  Or probably more accurately, driven by the desire to fill our new for-profit prisons with less desirable citizens.  America wanted convicts, and affluent coke users are better citizens than poor crackheads.

I thought it was because of influx of black jazz musicians and their heavy using of it. The government didn't want white people adopting an element of black culture.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 08, 2012, 04:00:47 PM
White folk were smoking dope long before there were any fashionably cool black dudes, and it was just as terrifying to the mainstream public.  It was popping up in state laws in the mid 1800's, much like most of your opiates.  In fact, it was probably the experience with heroin and opium that spooked people about grass so much.  They were seeing hash bars open up much like the opium dens.

The thing about black folk didn't show up until the 30's, and part of the problem was the notion that it made women overly sexual (if only), something they already thought about black dudes.  Spooky combination in a society that's already insecure about such things. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on November 11, 2012, 01:21:46 AM
While I don't really care about marijuana being legal, I do wonder if this is the gateway drug for the legality of much more dangerous substances.
1) It's not a gateway drug to begin with.
2) Although the example is on a much smaller scale than the US, Portugal had extremely bad rates of drug abuse that were turned around in the years after they legalized everything and started spending all that "drug war" money on education and treatment. So maybe we want to legalize them...
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 11, 2012, 11:55:09 AM
I read the laws and that's exactly how you should have it. Treating it the same way as Alcohol.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 11, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
That crazy-named governor of theirs has submitted a request for clarification from Eric Holder.  I'm quite interested in what he has to say.  I have very little faith that our DOJ will stand by what a lame duck AG says on the matter, but I'm still curious what their official position on Colorado will be. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Rathma on November 12, 2012, 12:21:58 AM
Did they have an official position on medical pot in Cali?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 12, 2012, 08:22:14 AM
Did they have an official position on medical pot in Cali?
Their official policy was that it was none of their business as long as it didn't violate both state and federal law. This was interpreted to mean that they'd only step in if Cali refused to enforce their own laws.

Quote from: The Man
The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the
disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority
in the Department's efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department's
investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a
general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on
individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws
providing for the medical use of marijuana.
For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer
or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen
consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance
with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient
use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that
unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the
Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations
inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement
should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core
enforcement priorities.
     Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in
clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug
trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

• unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
• violence;
• sales to minors;
• financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of
state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or
excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
• ties to other criminal enterprises.

PDF of the complete Ogden Memo (https://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/medical-marijuana.pdf)

A year later, they pretty much ditched that standard and went to town, so to speak.  This article from Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216) describes pretty well what their tactics are, but suffice it to say, they're trying quite effectively to undermine every aspect of the Cali law in a way that makes Californians long for the good ole days of Bush and Ashcroft. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 12, 2012, 08:57:42 AM
How exactly will this work? Will it be sold in stores under brand names? I'm clueless on this whole thing.
(https://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR63UlY3uFmXAQ-DI6kpzHs45vCjv_-9tiMF-feck5yXLwqQn9ftlv95LAR4g)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 12, 2012, 09:05:38 AM
How exactly will this work? Will it be sold in stores under brand names? I'm clueless on this whole thing.
So are they, but the game plan is to treat it exactly the same as alcohol.  Since Colorado (I believe) requires liquor to be sold from specialized stores (unlike beer), I suspect that'll apply to bud as well.  I doubt you'll be able to buy dope at the corner Stop & Rob.  I suppose liquor stores might be able to sell, though. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 12, 2012, 10:03:13 AM
(https://i548.photobucket.com/albums/ii324/jawkjaw/blank-cigarette-pack-vector1-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 12, 2012, 11:03:23 AM
I guess they won't be able to call it Bud OR Bud light?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 12, 2012, 11:04:54 AM
How exactly will this work? Will it be sold in stores under brand names? I'm clueless on this whole thing.
So are they, but the game plan is to treat it exactly the same as alcohol.  Since Colorado (I believe) requires liquor to be sold from specialized stores (unlike beer), I suspect that'll apply to bud as well.  I doubt you'll be able to buy dope at the corner Stop & Rob.  I suppose liquor stores might be able to sell, though.

Pretty much. Theirs going to be places that sell, and possibly grow their own supply.

This site has the full initiative: https://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regulate-marijuana-alcohol-act-2012
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 12, 2012, 11:20:37 AM
Who is the guy in the OP link, Harry Potter? :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: theseoafs on November 12, 2012, 12:53:51 PM
I guess they won't be able to call it Bud OR Bud light?

 :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 12, 2012, 01:14:07 PM
Believe me when I tell you the actual names of the various strains are much more entertaining than that.

matanuska thunderfuck
green crack
super silver sour diesel haze
blockhead
hog's breath
train wreck
rolling thunder
strawberry cough
hilltown humbleweed
foxy's rhinofuck
Bumblefuck
Alaskan Thunderfuck
Zimbabwean Snapneck
Jedi Kush
Bionic Bubba
Supernova Sensai Star

These people are professionals and they're on dope. You're not going to out-clever them.  Also worth noting, people cross strains all the time, so somewhere in the world somebody is probably smoking a bowl of Thunder-Rhino-Bumblefuck #4, right now.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 12, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/7/OU290kgqHEux5ZWEu_ClEA2.jpg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 12, 2012, 01:23:16 PM
(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/7/OU290kgqHEux5ZWEu_ClEA2.jpg)

  :lol

I assume it's photoshopped.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 12, 2012, 01:45:04 PM
Yeah probably.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Adami on November 12, 2012, 01:47:00 PM
You "assume" that a story about dorito riots is photoshopped?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 12, 2012, 01:52:22 PM
You "assume" that a story about dorito riots is photoshopped?
:lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 12, 2012, 02:01:04 PM
Hey, it's on the Internet with a photo and everything.  It must be true!
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Adami on November 12, 2012, 02:02:16 PM
Hey, it's on the Internet with a photo and everything.  It must be true!

Can't argue with facts.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 12, 2012, 02:07:23 PM
You "assume" that a story about dorito riots is photoshopped?

Didn't see that  :P

Only saw taco bells plans expansion.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 12, 2012, 02:07:45 PM
Hey, it's on the Internet with a photo and everything.  It must be true!

Can't argue with facts.

The pixels tell me it's a photoshop.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Adami on November 12, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Hey, it's on the Internet with a photo and everything.  It must be true!

Can't argue with facts.

The pixels tell me it's a photoshop.

What? When?

I talked to the Pixels earlier today, they said they had no comment on the matter. I mean, Margaret Pixel hinted at something that the family was hiding from me, but wouldn't tell me what it was.

Are you really that tight with the Pixels? I mean, they're a pretty hard to get a hold of in general and I know for a fact that the Pixels felt they were very disappointed with the movie Avatar. So no clue why they're so chummy with you. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 12, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
(https://cache.ohinternet.com/images/d/d7/LOL_WUT_PEAR.jpg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 12, 2012, 02:30:07 PM
Hey, it's on the Internet with a photo and everything.  It must be true!

Can't argue with facts.

The pixels tell me it's a photoshop.

What? When?

I talked to the Pixels earlier today, they said they had no comment on the matter. I mean, Margaret Pixel hinted at something that the family was hiding from me, but wouldn't tell me what it was.

Are you really that tight with the Pixels? I mean, they're a pretty hard to get a hold of in general and I know for a fact that the Pixels felt they were very disappointed with the movie Avatar. So no clue why they're so chummy with you.
(https://www.dreamstime.com/pixel-people-family-thumb13503258.jpg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Rathma on November 12, 2012, 09:30:08 PM
Pat Roberson endorsing legal pot

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1&
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 12, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
Pat Roberson endorsing legal pot

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1&
Dude would certainly benefit from smoking some, but he claims to have no interest.  Shame. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 13, 2012, 12:11:03 AM
As a pot smoker, and being engaged to someone who hates that I do it, mostly because its illegal.  I've been telling her that once our generation comes into power in the country (im 28), marijuana would be legal because our generation was not tricked into thinking it was a gateway drug and it was some terrible substance (well they tried to, and some believe so, but there are waayyy more people who can call out the bs). It seems, and I hope so, that we are on that path. I've also noticed a lot more of the older generation coming around to this.  Not that they want to smoke it, but that they realize it's not so bad as they thought and that it actually can be very good for the economy.  I really hope the AG doesn't stick his head into this and at least allows the two states to test this and see what happens.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Super Dude on November 13, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I'd say about 90% of my clients at the Social Security Disability law firm are users, and most of them are in their 40s and 50s, so I'd say that's a totally different older generation we're talking about. Bear in mind that most people who are now in their 60s were part of the hippie generation, who were by far more accepting. Although that could just be in the nature of the clientele.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 13, 2012, 04:43:15 AM
Pat Roberson endorsing legal pot

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1&
Wow, who woulda thunk it?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 13, 2012, 05:38:25 AM
Pat Roberson endorsing legal pot

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1&
Dude would certainly benefit from smoking some, but he claims to have no interest.  Shame.
Oh please, you know damn well he is stoned and has been for years.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 13, 2012, 05:48:33 AM
Penn Jillete's view. This is a really awesome video. Please hear him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&sns=em
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 13, 2012, 06:18:16 AM
Penn Jillete's view. This is an really awesome video. Please hear him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&sns=em
He makes a lot of sense. The number of 1 in 6 people in prison for marijuana is mind blowing. I would like to know if we are talking about only dealers or caught pot smokers in general.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 13, 2012, 07:38:19 AM
As a pot smoker, and being engaged to someone who hates that I do it, mostly because its illegal.  I've been telling her that once our generation comes into power in the country (im 28), marijuana would be legal because our generation was not tricked into thinking it was a gateway drug and it was some terrible substance (well they tried to, and some believe so, but there are waayyy more people who can call out the bs). It seems, and I hope so, that we are on that path. I've also noticed a lot more of the older generation coming around to this.  Not that they want to smoke it, but that they realize it's not so bad as they thought and that it actually can be very good for the economy.  I really hope the AG doesn't stick his head into this and at least allows the two states to test this and see what happens.

That's pretty much my thinking as well.  It always seemed to me that when our generation grew up and managed to get some people into the legislature, things would change.  The problem of course is that stoners are generally not the type to run for public office.  And there's the added complication that if you do run for public office, there's always the chance that you'll be "outed" somewhere along the way as a stoner, possibly ending your political career.  If something's currently illegal, it's hard to get into a position to change that if you partake in it.  Catch-22.  It would have to be people with the drive for office who also happened to have found pot to be okay along the way, whether or not they smoke (or still smoke).

I've never understood all the people who are against it simply because it's illegal.  No moral objection, no personal feeling that it's "wrong" other than that it's against the law.  Okay, I guess I do understand it, but it seems hypocritical.  Speeding is against the law; do these people never go even 2 mph over the speed limit?  Jaywalking is against the law; have they never dashed across the street to get to their car, or parked across the street from a store and not crossed at the corner?  They'll do that, but some guy sitting at home smoking a joint is a criminal?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 13, 2012, 08:26:34 AM
Penn Jillete's view. This is an really awesome video. Please hear him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&sns=em
He makes a lot of sense. The number of 1 in 6 people in prison for marijuana is mind blowing. I would like to know if we are talking about only dealers or caught pot smokers in general.
Don't have any numbers, but I suspect the majority of them are probation violators for failed piss-tests.  Kind of a grey area, really.  I have a friend that did a year because of that.  Her PO neglected to point out that she failed a test, and because she had taken precautions, she assumed she passed it.  This scenario continued for a year or two, at which point they showed up with a court order describing dozens of failed UA's and hauled her ass off. 

I say it's a grey area because it's hard to blame that on the dope.  It was her own fault, really.  I give people several strikes when it comes to bud, but this was a situation of her own creation.  If the initial crime that led her to be on probation was grass-related, I'd cut her more slack (although it was just as silly). 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 13, 2012, 08:51:42 AM
One of here biggest problems is how unfairly the law is applied. If your black, you are much more likely to land in jail for the same offense that gets a white person community service. The laws are a way for cops to fuck who they don't like.


Aren't half of our prison population in jail for non violent crimes? Meth and such? 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Tick on November 13, 2012, 09:46:05 AM
Penn Jillete's view. This is an really awesome video. Please hear him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&sns=em
He makes a lot of sense. The number of 1 in 6 people in prison for marijuana is mind blowing. I would like to know if we are talking about only dealers or caught pot smokers in general.
Don't have any numbers, but I suspect the majority of them are probation violators for failed piss-tests.  Kind of a grey area, really.  I have a friend that did a year because of that.  Her PO neglected to point out that she failed a test, and because she had taken precautions, she assumed she passed it.  This scenario continued for a year or two, at which point they showed up with a court order describing dozens of failed UA's and hauled her ass off. 

I say it's a grey area because it's hard to blame that on the dope.  It was her own fault, really.  I give people several strikes when it comes to bud, but this was a situation of her own creation.  If the initial crime that led her to be on probation was grass-related, I'd cut her more slack (although it was just as silly).
Now that to me is disturbing. It would seem to me, and I'm really an idiot when it comes to these things but if we weren't  spending the amount of money its costs to jail people for dumb ass offenses like smoking weed we would be in better shape.
Just the way that all went down is disturbing as well.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 13, 2012, 09:53:20 AM
That's why the backlash against the "war on drugs" is gaining steam.  We're spending a lot of time, money, and human resources on it, we're losing anyway, and the only thing that happens is the "wrong" people end up in jail.  Somehow, there are still people who feel that people smoking dope is a bigger threat than murderers, thieves, and rapists.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 13, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
Penn Jillete's view. This is an really awesome video. Please hear him out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&sns=em
He makes a lot of sense. The number of 1 in 6 people in prison for marijuana is mind blowing. I would like to know if we are talking about only dealers or caught pot smokers in general.
Don't have any numbers, but I suspect the majority of them are probation violators for failed piss-tests.  Kind of a grey area, really.  I have a friend that did a year because of that.  Her PO neglected to point out that she failed a test, and because she had taken precautions, she assumed she passed it.  This scenario continued for a year or two, at which point they showed up with a court order describing dozens of failed UA's and hauled her ass off. 

I say it's a grey area because it's hard to blame that on the dope.  It was her own fault, really.  I give people several strikes when it comes to bud, but this was a situation of her own creation.  If the initial crime that led her to be on probation was grass-related, I'd cut her more slack (although it was just as silly).
Now that to me is disturbing. It would seem to me, and I'm really an idiot when it comes to these things but if we weren't  spending the amount of money its costs to jail people for dumb ass offenses like smoking weed we would be in better shape.
Just the way that all went down is disturbing as well.
Well, yeah, but at the same time it's not necessarily the dope that people are jailed for in that scenario.  Technically, it's the first crime committed.  In her case, she was handed something like 6 years probation which meant that she was off the hook pending good behavior.  She didn't behave.  I'd say that the biggest flaw here would have been making pot a violation of probation, but for that matter, tons of people on probation can't even drink.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on November 13, 2012, 02:12:54 PM
One of here biggest problems is how unfairly the law is applied. If your black, you are much more likely to land in jail for the same offense that gets a white person community service. The laws are a way for cops to fuck who they don't like.
I recall during one of the Republican debates where Ron Paul had said that 13-14% of drug users are black whereas 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black. Using those numbers they are over-represented by 165-170%

Aren't half of our prison population in jail for non violent crimes? Meth and such?
Washington State ran out of its alloted budget for dental work due to the number of meth addicts. They literally had no money left to use for regular checkups/cleanings because of the number of massive surgeries they had to perform for the meth-heads.

And if we spend money on getting people treated for the addiction instead of throwing them in prison, they likely avoid getting to that point.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 13, 2012, 02:36:05 PM
One of here biggest problems is how unfairly the law is applied. If your black, you are much more likely to land in jail for the same offense that gets a white person community service. The laws are a way for cops to fuck who they don't like.
I recall during one of the Republican debates where Ron Paul had said that 13-14% of drug users are black whereas 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black. Using those numbers they are over-represented by 165-170%
Yeah, but that stat is likely highly skewed because of the crack disparity.  I'd be curious if it's even close to that for other drugs, and I highly doubt that applies to grass.  Honestly, in most states potheads don't go to prison.  While I have no doubt that the drug laws are designed to go after black folk, I don't think pot is really a part of that.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 13, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
One of here biggest problems is how unfairly the law is applied. If your black, you are much more likely to land in jail for the same offense that gets a white person community service. The laws are a way for cops to fuck who they don't like.
I recall during one of the Republican debates where Ron Paul had said that 13-14% of drug users are black whereas 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black. Using those numbers they are over-represented by 165-170%
Yeah, but that stat is likely highly skewed because of the crack disparity.  I'd be curious if it's even close to that for other drugs, and I highly doubt that applies to grass.  Honestly, in most states potheads don't go to prison.  While I have no doubt that the drug laws are designed to go after black folk, I don't think pot is really a part of that.

You will rarely get prison in CT, but there are arrest all the time. Still makes you look like shit to an employer.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 13, 2012, 03:30:41 PM
One of here biggest problems is how unfairly the law is applied. If your black, you are much more likely to land in jail for the same offense that gets a white person community service. The laws are a way for cops to fuck who they don't like.
I recall during one of the Republican debates where Ron Paul had said that 13-14% of drug users are black whereas 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black. Using those numbers they are over-represented by 165-170%
Yeah, but that stat is likely highly skewed because of the crack disparity.  I'd be curious if it's even close to that for other drugs, and I highly doubt that applies to grass.  Honestly, in most states potheads don't go to prison.  While I have no doubt that the drug laws are designed to go after black folk, I don't think pot is really a part of that.

You will rarely get prison in CT, but there are arrest all the time. Still makes you look like shit to an employer.
That's the case in most states.  Very few of them put potheads in prison.  Even in places like Arizona, it's mainly the poor folk who go to prison.  They only want to send you away if you can't pony up a big wad of cash.  I have an acquaintance who recently found out how that works out there.  That's probably as big a factor as any in the racial disparity.  Quality of defense and ability to pay a big-ass fine. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 13, 2012, 07:46:19 PM
I've seen a former law officer make this argument against the war on drugs twice nice, just saw it again, and I think it's one that is often overlooked (becuase there's so many reasons why the war on drugs is a bad policy)

The War on Drugs antagonizes the police and communities. Say someone is the victim of a crime, but is addicted to drugs: they're then much less likely to report that crime, and that crime is less likely to get addressed. It increases the danger for law enforcement officials, and people are more afraid of dealing with the police to give them information and leads that might lead to the resolve of a crime.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 13, 2012, 08:20:04 PM
The cops over at O.com tend to split on the subject of pot.  They're all opposed to legalizing hard drugs.  Sadly, none of them partake.  Shitload of alcoholics, but no stoners in the LEA ranks.  If anything it should be the other way around, frankly. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 13, 2012, 08:35:52 PM
I know someone who's father is a cop and I asked him what his dad thinks about weed and he said its illegal and he's a cop so he doesn't do it but he can't wait to retire to try it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 14, 2012, 08:05:15 AM
I know someone who's father is a cop and I asked him what his dad thinks about weed and he said its illegal and he's a cop so he doesn't do it but he can't wait to retire to try it.

The real question is, does he bust people for it?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 14, 2012, 10:37:58 AM
I dont know, but I would say probably as it is his job.  I cant fault people for doing thier job. The town he polices, which is where I am from, I know my brother got pulled over twice with marijuana in his car and both times, the cops let him go just saying to not smoke and drive, and only use it in your home.  However, my home town is a well off white dominated town so maybe that is why they are lenient  ;)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 14, 2012, 11:34:04 AM
Enforcement is pretty discretionary.  Despite it's illegality, cities and departments often have their own policies.  There's also Johnny's willingness to go through the hassle of arresting you.  If you're a dick you'll always go to jail.  If a department has a zero tolerance policy, you'll always go to jail.  Otherwise, it's the copper's mood that determines whether you get hooked up or not.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on November 14, 2012, 12:10:39 PM
A department zero-tolerance policy also is meaningless, because who's going to turn in the cop for letting you off with a warning if no one else even knows of the incident?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 14, 2012, 03:18:51 PM
A department zero-tolerance policy also is meaningless, because who's going to turn in the cop for letting you off with a warning if no one else even knows of the incident?
Officer dash-cam. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 14, 2012, 03:23:00 PM
That's still iffy.  A cop can pull you over for some minor moving violation, and choose to either give you a ticket or just a warning.  5 mph over the limit, not using a turn signal, etc.  If he smells marijuana when you roll down the window, and the department has a zero-tolerance policy, he's mandated to write you up and/or haul you in.  But a dash-cam can't record the smell of marijuana.  Unless someone's waving a joint or a pipe around on camera, it's just a traffic stop.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 14, 2012, 03:47:22 PM
No cop is going to flat out ignore it if your car reeks.  Ever.  He might not bust you for it, but he's still going to poke around.  Even something as trivial as a roach in the ashtray is going to result in a bunch of questions and a search.  The roach might not be worth dealing with (usually isn't), but the QP that it came form, the gun in the glove box or the dismembered whore in the trunk are all worth his time and the roach just gave him the opportunity to look for all three.  At this point, you've got a report to enter and a recording of the goings on. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 14, 2012, 03:50:30 PM
Right, but it wasn't the presence of the dash-cam which required him to do all that, it was the zero-tolerance policy.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kári on November 22, 2012, 03:39:09 AM
One of here biggest problems is how unfairly the law is applied. If your black, you are much more likely to land in jail for the same offense that gets a white person community service. The laws are a way for cops to fuck who they don't like.
I recall during one of the Republican debates where Ron Paul had said that 13-14% of drug users are black whereas 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black. Using those numbers they are over-represented by 165-170%
I'm not saying that the system is fair or anything but I would just like to point out that you're doing bad statistics. If 14% drug users are black and 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black, that does not necessarily mean that there is an unfair justice system.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 22, 2012, 08:58:56 AM
One of here biggest problems is how unfairly the law is applied. If your black, you are much more likely to land in jail for the same offense that gets a white person community service. The laws are a way for cops to fuck who they don't like.
I recall during one of the Republican debates where Ron Paul had said that 13-14% of drug users are black whereas 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black. Using those numbers they are over-represented by 165-170%
I'm not saying that the system is fair or anything but I would just like to point out that you're doing bad statistics. If 14% drug users are black and 37% of the people in prison for drugs are black, that does not necessarily mean that there is an unfair justice system.

From a purely statisticians perspective, I agree with you. It could be seen as post facto. But, when the proof of a thing is independently so, it does see okay to me to use this stat as a demonstration of how bad the system is.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 22, 2012, 10:09:16 AM
As we all know, I think prosecutors are some of the most vile people on Earth, but I don't think they intentionally seek to imprison all black people while letting the white folks off the hook.  There are a ton of factors at play here, and overt racism, while certainly a real thing, isn't a very big one. 

Consider that poor and minority neighborhoods are generally subject to proactive (as opposed to reactive) policing.  More arrests right off the bat. Then factor in that in those neighborhoods there are more likely to be aggravating factors involved.  Gang membership.  Gun possession.  A general (and quite reasonable, IMO) distrust of cops that could lead to a more adversarial encounter.  A greater likelihood to be a repeat offender, which leads to MMS (where the for-profit prisons really hit the jackpot).  Most importantly, the number of people who sit it out in county until a freshoutofcollege public defender shows up to recommend a plea bargain because they don't care, don't have the time, and don't know any better.  People with means Call Saul and either fight their case and win, or take a much better deal because Mr. Scumbag DA doesn't care enough to take on a real fight.

I think the issue is more about the CJ system as a whole than the way drug laws are applied (again, excluding crack laws).  People are looking at things in terms of race, and I suspect if you looked at things from the wealth perspective you'd see a much better sampling. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 22, 2012, 10:38:26 AM
The problem with using statistics like that is that you're only getting part of the story, the part that someone wants you to see so they can make their point.

So 14% of drug users are black, and 37% of people in prison for drugs are black.  This would seem to indicate that the system is unfairly victimizing blacks or however you want to phrase.

But suppose it turns out that 20% of drug users are white, and 50% of people in prison for drugs are white.  Not likely, but not ruled out by the first set of stats, either.

Maybe 5% of drug users are Hispanic and 60% of people in prison for drugs are Hispanic.

You can hide all kinds of things, and make the one thing you're upset about look worse, when you only give half the story.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 22, 2012, 12:45:32 PM
As we all know, I think prosecutors are some of the most vile people on Earth, but I don't think they intentionally seek to imprison all black people while letting the white folks off the hook.  There are a ton of factors at play here, and overt racism, while certainly a real thing, isn't a very big one. 

Consider that poor and minority neighborhoods are generally subject to proactive (as opposed to reactive) policing.  More arrests right off the bat. Then factor in that in those neighborhoods there are more likely to be aggravating factors involved.  Gang membership.  Gun possession.  A general (and quite reasonable, IMO) distrust of cops that could lead to a more adversarial encounter.  A greater likelihood to be a repeat offender, which leads to MMS (where the for-profit prisons really hit the jackpot).  Most importantly, the number of people who sit it out in county until a freshoutofcollege public defender shows up to recommend a plea bargain because they don't care, don't have the time, and don't know any better.  People with means Call Saul and either fight their case and win, or take a much better deal because Mr. Scumbag DA doesn't care enough to take on a real fight.

I think the issue is more about the CJ system as a whole than the way drug laws are applied (again, excluding crack laws).  People are looking at things in terms of race, and I suspect if you looked at things from the wealth perspective you'd see a much better sampling.

It doesn't have to be an overt attitude to fuck black people over. Racism can simply mean that a judge takes a more disfavorable opinion of the black guy over a white guy, or the DA does the same. Nothing to say he can't respond in the same way to a white person, but if he does it just slightly more often for black people (and here we're talking about basically an unconscious action) than that has an impact. While I think it's fair to bring up the issue of poverty, and I think poverty and wealth is certainly something that is wrong with our legal system, at some point, you have to ask the question as to why blacks and minorities are usually poorer - and in that, I think you'd find a vicious pattern, enough so that it becomes hard to make a good historical distinction.



Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: antigoon on November 22, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
So I take it you're not a fan of the plea bargaining system, EB?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 22, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
So I take it you're not a fan of the plea bargaining system, EB?
I'm fine with plea bargaining.  I just think you're going to get a much better deal with a real attorney than a public defender, and that's largely a function of affluence.

I have an amigo that got caught doing something very stupid in Arizona a couple of months back.  Public defender couldn't get his bail reduced and suggested a plea for 5 years.  A few grand to a good attorney got him out on PR and assurances of probation and a big-ass fine for what he did.  One's a bargain and one's an ass raping.  By the time it's all said and done, avoiding Sheriff Joe's country club is going to cost him well over ten grand, which is something a good chunk of criminals can't or won't do. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: antigoon on November 22, 2012, 07:15:11 PM
I'm not sure it will always shake out like that (or even most of the time), but I agree that the incentives to just go ahead with whatever plea on the PD's side are probably too high. Most of their caseloads are enormous.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on November 23, 2012, 04:08:04 AM
I think the issue is more about the CJ system as a whole than the way drug laws are applied (again, excluding crack laws).  People are looking at things in terms of race, and I suspect if you looked at things from the wealth perspective you'd see a much better sampling.
This exactly.  The problem is systemic, not individual.

All of our major problems are systemic.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 06, 2012, 05:44:41 PM
Its officially legal today in Washington.  Congrats Washington natives and enjoy.  :tup
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on December 08, 2012, 10:41:25 AM
One Seattle bar is trying to beat the competition by officially advertising that they allow pot smoking inside. Someone might want to explain to the owner why restaurants/bars in Washington haven't had "smoking sections" for many years. Idiot.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 08, 2012, 10:52:17 AM
I think to best help the new law, is to respect it.  I think the people in these states did a great thing, but if they are going to be stupid, then they don't deserve the privelage IMO.

I did read that the state doesnt plan to enforce parts of the law like smoking outside just yet until they spread more word about the details to the people, but yea, if you cant smoke cigarettes inside, you arent going to be able to smoke marijuana obviously.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 08, 2012, 11:59:43 AM
That might depend upon how the law is worded.  If it specifically says "no smoking of tobacco products" because they were trying to cover cigarettes, cigars, or pipes, because anything else was illegal anyway, then there is a loophole now that pot is legal.  If it says "no smoking of anything" (or whatever appropriate legal wording) then yeah, that would include pot as well.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on December 08, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
Quote from: RCW 70.160.020
(1) "Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying or smoking of any kind of lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other lighted smoking equipment.

Doesn't say that it has to be tobacco.

edit: copied section number wrong...
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Dark Castle on December 08, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
One Seattle bar is trying to beat the competition by officially advertising that they allow pot smoking inside. Someone might want to explain to the owner why restaurants/bars in Washington haven't had "smoking sections" for many years. Idiot.
Doesn't mean you have to follow them.  When smoking in bars was banned in South Dakota, some owners shouldered the fines for as long as they could, because they felt their business, their right to decide, which I agree with.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 08, 2012, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: RCW 70.60.020
(1) "Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying or smoking of any kind of lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other lighted smoking equipment.

Doesn't say that it has to be tobacco.

Well there you go.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on December 08, 2012, 09:38:07 PM
One Seattle bar is trying to beat the competition by officially advertising that they allow pot smoking inside. Someone might want to explain to the owner why restaurants/bars in Washington haven't had "smoking sections" for many years. Idiot.
Doesn't mean you have to follow them.  When smoking in bars was banned in South Dakota, some owners shouldered the fines for as long as they could, because they felt their business, their right to decide, which I agree with.
The fines are easy to handle (up to $100 per day where a violation occurred). The fact that the health department is enforcing the ban isn't as easy to avoid. And it requires the health department to call upon their attorneys, those of the cities/towns involved, or the county prosecutor to obtain separate civil penalties.

All that can add up quick.

And they run the risk of being shut down outright.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: black_biff_stadler on December 09, 2012, 01:38:29 AM
I can understand the legality thing if someone wants to use that as the basis of their anti-weed smoking in establishments argument but I think the main beef with smoking tobacco indoors was the issue with its aroma. I've heard from numerous sources that it would take an unfathomable amount of second hand weed smoke ("impossible" may actually be a more accurate way to describe it) to cause a non-weed smoker to fail a drug test.

Also, it's pretty doubtful that nearly as many people are as grossed out by weed aroma as they are by tobacco aroma and that has a huge deal to do with the fact that weed is usually not drenched in toxic chemicals (to artificially boost its addictive properties) which means you're merely smelling a burning plant instead of a hazmat fire. Lastly, tobacco smoke odor can linger for days on the clothing of non-smokers who spent an evening in a bar  whereas the stench weed smoke leaves on clothing can dissipate in just a few hours even if you were the person smoking it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 09, 2012, 04:15:12 AM
I can understand the legality thing if someone wants to use that as the basis of their anti-weed smoking in establishments argument but I think the main beef with smoking tobacco indoors was the issue with its aroma. I've heard from numerous sources that it would take an unfathomable amount of second hand weed smoke ("impossible" may actually be a more accurate way to describe it) to cause a non-weed smoker to fail a drug test.

Also, it's pretty doubtful that nearly as many people are as grossed out by weed aroma as they are by tobacco aroma and that has a huge deal to do with the fact that weed is usually not drenched in toxic chemicals (to artificially boost its addictive properties) which means you're merely smelling a burning plant instead of a hazmat fire. Lastly, tobacco smoke odor can linger for days on the clothing of non-smokers who spent an evening in a bar  whereas the stench weed smoke leaves on clothing can dissipate in just a few hours even if you were the person smoking it.
Not sure where you're getting your info.  The problem with smoking indoors is secondhand smoke, not the aroma of cigarettes. 

Likewise, most non-weed-smokers dislike the aroma of weed.  A lot.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 09, 2012, 07:00:16 AM
I think it's probably both, in both cases.  Now that I don't smoke cigarettes anymore, I find the smell of cigarette smoke pretty disgusting, but I'm also quite aware of the second-hand smoke issue.

I haven't completely given up weed, but I do know that not everyone enjoys the smell.  And I wouldn't be surprised if some people are paranoid about the second-hand effects, both the health issue and the possibility of it showing up in a drug test.  Justified or not, if these are actual concerns of people, they will affect behavior, and voting.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on December 10, 2012, 01:57:12 PM
If the main beef about it was the smell, then why does the anti-smoking law specifically have the health department involved? Could it be because the people see it as a health concern? They purposely framed it as being about how workers shouldn't be forced to hang around second-hand smoke that isn't good for your lungs just to have a job. And although it can be fair to say "people choose to have jobs with smoking allowed" it's not as fair in the economic climate of today.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: ResultsMayVary on December 10, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
Likewise, most non-weed-smokers dislike the aroma of weed.  A lot.
This is why I have a problem with people who smoke weed. Despite the secondhand smoking fact that I'm not interested in at all, the aroma is just god awful.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 10, 2012, 03:31:50 PM
Likewise, most non-weed-smokers dislike the aroma of weed.  A lot.
This is why I have a problem with people who smoke weed. Despite the secondhand smoking fact that I'm not interested in at all, the aroma is just god awful.

I beg to differ.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on December 10, 2012, 03:55:45 PM
I don’t have a problem with people smoking weed, or people who do partake. But goddamn do I hate the smell, and am glad it is included in our non-smoking laws that someone indicated above.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 11, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
Most of the smell you guys find objectionable is the paper, not the grass.  Zig-zags are damned effective but they really do stink.  If y'all were around somebody smoking out of a bong or a pipe, you'd probably not smell it at all, or in the case of some really nice bud, think it smells nice.  Really good grass might as well be potpourri. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on December 12, 2012, 04:21:42 AM
If you were vaporizing it'd smell like popcorn.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 12, 2012, 05:47:51 AM
High quality bud smells really good but I do wonder if a pot smokers mind is tricked by associating the smell with the knowledge of the good feeling and therefore like the smell. I wonder this because I only know of one non smoker who enjoys the smell.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 12, 2012, 07:43:50 AM
Most of the smell you guys find objectionable is the paper, not the grass.  Zig-zags are damned effective but they really do stink.  If y'all were around somebody smoking out of a bong or a pipe, you'd probably not smell it at all, or in the case of some really nice bud, think it smells nice.  Really good grass might as well be potpourri. 

I think you're right.  When people are smoking joints, you smell the weed, but there's a "dirty" quality to the smoke.  If people are hitting a pipe, you just smell the sweetness of the herb.  I'm not sure why I've never really thought about it like that before.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 12, 2012, 09:15:04 AM
High quality bud smells really good but I do wonder if a pot smokers mind is tricked by associating the smell with the knowledge of the good feeling and therefore like the smell. I wonder this because I only know of one non smoker who enjoys the smell.
No, it's definitely the bud.  If you've been around somebody smoking hash or keef, it almost smells like candy.  The plant matter still has some unpleasantness, but all those sticky crystals will overpower that. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on December 12, 2012, 09:40:25 AM
My college roommate and his pals smoked a bong all the time and I hated that smell just as much. But now that you mention it, I do recognize it as a different odor. Still foul though :D
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on December 12, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
The smell of bud in a fresh pipe is good. Like an inscence, i know a lot of people whom dont smoke but like the smell.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Rathma on July 26, 2013, 12:37:18 AM
Looks like the DEA is raiding dispensaries in Seattle....
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on July 26, 2013, 04:01:05 AM
Looks like the DEA is raiding dispensaries in Seattle....

I read about this. I'm trying to remain optimistic. I believe it was four shops that were raided. I guess all four were raided more than two years ago, before the legalized laws erectus put in place. The Feds are saying that these raids were part of an ongoing/unfinished investigation.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: soundgarden on August 07, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
(slight tangent)

So my office was contracted to do the design for an indoor greenhouse with controlled environment for a "weed farm" as we now come to call it.  Its a very large scale operation; the tent in the photo is one of at least 4.  This is 100% legal as its contracted for a medical facility.  There are strict government protocols that has to be adhered to. 

Funny background:  There were three partners that invested in this.  Of course the government did a full background check of each of them.  Turns out one of the guy was an active member of the mafia!  Needless to say, the entire project was shutdown for months while everyone (including our office) were investigated further.

The main investor on this is a friend of my boss; he was explaining how he is getting his foot in early in what is undoubtedly an industry that can only grow in the foreseeable future.

The purple is from the UV lamps used.  Sorry for the camera lens protector;  :facepalm:

https://imageshack.us/a/img713/9959/gjvz.jpg
https://imageshack.us/a/img15/2649/v0f3.jpg
https://imageshack.us/a/img577/5992/63vo.jpg
https://imageshack.us/a/img823/8382/zzlh.jpg

Free samples soon, i hope :biggrin:
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 07, 2013, 05:44:52 PM
That place is beautiful.

Sidebar. Over a dozen cities in Colorado are not allowing the distribution of marijuana despite the fact that it is legal on the state level. I'm guessing they'll come around real quick when they see how much revenue their neighboring towns are generating.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on August 07, 2013, 08:00:29 PM
(slight tangent)

So my office was contracted to do the design for an indoor greenhouse with controlled environment for a "weed farm" as we now come to call it.  Its a very large scale operation; the tent in the photo is one of at least 4.  This is 100% legal as its contracted for a medical facility.  There are strict government protocols that has to be adhered to. 
The fact that it's for a medical facility is meaningless, imo, considering that the federal government has marijuana in schedule I, defining it as having no medical value. Add the fact that it's a felony to grow (and with possible large prison time and fines for such a large operation) and that they ruled that you don't even have the right to grow your own pot, it's definitely not "100% legal."

Not meant to be a killjoy, but just pointing out what the feds would have to say about it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 08, 2013, 05:50:42 AM
What exactly have the feds said about it?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 08, 2013, 08:07:14 AM
From the looks of that crop those free samples are still a few months away  :corn




:beentheredonethat.jpg



Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: soundgarden on August 08, 2013, 09:35:53 AM
(slight tangent)

So my office was contracted to do the design for an indoor greenhouse with controlled environment for a "weed farm" as we now come to call it.  Its a very large scale operation; the tent in the photo is one of at least 4.  This is 100% legal as its contracted for a medical facility.  There are strict government protocols that has to be adhered to. 
The fact that it's for a medical facility is meaningless, imo, considering that the federal government has marijuana in schedule I, defining it as having no medical value. Add the fact that it's a felony to grow (and with possible large prison time and fines for such a large operation) and that they ruled that you don't even have the right to grow your own pot, it's definitely not "100% legal."

Not meant to be a killjoy, but just pointing out what the feds would have to say about it.

The federal government was involved.  In my post I mentioned criminal backgrounds, which was partially conducted at the federal level  It might not be 100% legal to the book, per se, but it does have its ok from the state and federal.  Not sure how they finagled it though...
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 10, 2013, 08:39:55 AM
(slight tangent)

So my office was contracted to do the design for an indoor greenhouse with controlled environment for a "weed farm" as we now come to call it.  Its a very large scale operation; the tent in the photo is one of at least 4.  This is 100% legal as its contracted for a medical facility.  There are strict government protocols that has to be adhered to. 

Funny background:  There were three partners that invested in this.  Of course the government did a full background check of each of them.  Turns out one of the guy was an active member of the mafia!  Needless to say, the entire project was shutdown for months while everyone (including our office) were investigated further.

The main investor on this is a friend of my boss; he was explaining how he is getting his foot in early in what is undoubtedly an industry that can only grow in the foreseeable future.

The purple is from the UV lamps used.  Sorry for the camera lens protector;  :facepalm:

https://imageshack.us/a/img713/9959/gjvz.jpg
https://imageshack.us/a/img15/2649/v0f3.jpg
https://imageshack.us/a/img577/5992/63vo.jpg
https://imageshack.us/a/img823/8382/zzlh.jpg

Free samples soon, i hope :biggrin:
Not how I'd do it. Should work well for bulk, but I'd want considerably more room for quality control. That's a one size fits all plan. It's also very low maintenance, which I guess is a plus, but see above; good quality takes effort.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: slycordinator on August 12, 2013, 03:19:52 PM
(slight tangent)

So my office was contracted to do the design for an indoor greenhouse with controlled environment for a "weed farm" as we now come to call it.  Its a very large scale operation; the tent in the photo is one of at least 4.  This is 100% legal as its contracted for a medical facility.  There are strict government protocols that has to be adhered to. 
The fact that it's for a medical facility is meaningless, imo, considering that the federal government has marijuana in schedule I, defining it as having no medical value. Add the fact that it's a felony to grow (and with possible large prison time and fines for such a large operation) and that they ruled that you don't even have the right to grow your own pot, it's definitely not "100% legal."

Not meant to be a killjoy, but just pointing out what the feds would have to say about it.

The federal government was involved.  In my post I mentioned criminal backgrounds, which was partially conducted at the federal level  It might not be 100% legal to the book, per se, but it does have its ok from the state and federal.  Not sure how they finagled it though...
Sure, you mentioned criminal background checks... which only means that the feds did a background check on the individuals not that they approved the facility to grow weed.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on August 29, 2013, 01:34:49 PM
Update:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The Justice Department said it won't try to block state laws that legalize marijuana and issued loosened enforcement guidelines for federal prosecutors intended to focus on serious trafficking cases.
 
Attorney General Eric Holder, in a conference call Thursday morning, notified the governors of Colorado and Washington that the department, for now, will not seek to pre-empt those states' laws, which followed voters' approval of ballot measures that legalized recreational marijuana use.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 29, 2013, 03:04:17 PM
Update:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The Justice Department said it won't try to block state laws that legalize marijuana and issued loosened enforcement guidelines for federal prosecutors intended to focus on serious trafficking cases.
 
Attorney General Eric Holder, in a conference call Thursday morning, notified the governors of Colorado and Washington that the department, for now, will not seek to pre-empt those states' laws, which followed voters' approval of ballot measures that legalized recreational marijuana use.

Just came here to post this.

The Huff Post has a few more details about it: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html

Quote
The memo also outlines eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:
 •the distribution of marijuana to minors;
 •revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
 •the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
 •state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
 •violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
 •drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
 •growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
 •preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

I'm cool with it.  :hat
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on August 29, 2013, 03:36:31 PM
Wait.... environmental dangers caused by marijuana being grown? What exactly is that?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 29, 2013, 03:39:51 PM
Wait.... environmental dangers caused by marijuana being grown? What exactly is that?

I'm guessing a Marijuana farm dumping hazardous fertilizers into a nearby stream or something. It's a stretch, but it could go as far as the energy efficiency of the building. No excessive carbon emissions, enviromentally friendly grow lights, etc...
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 29, 2013, 04:12:55 PM
So does that mean it it practically legal for recreational use in the country?  By practically I mean it is still illegal, but will not be enforced unless you are an idiot and break one of those outlined rules?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on August 29, 2013, 04:22:34 PM
In Colorado and Washington.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 29, 2013, 04:23:54 PM
Yea realized that after I posted, wishful thinking I guess.  But definitely a HUGE step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 29, 2013, 04:27:44 PM
Lets all keep in mind this isn't the first time Obama's DOJ has said they'd leave the state sponsored stoners alone. As I recall it was one of his campaign promises, and the subsequent 5 years have been a legitimate reign of terror on legalized grass.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2013, 11:35:30 PM
As expected, the other shoe (https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdfhttps://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf). The Man has reserved the right to carry on exactly as he has in California. Eight key enforcement points which, while reasonable, leave tons of room for meddling.

Quote
    the distribution of marijuana to minors;

    revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;

    the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;

    state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;

    violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana

    drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;

    growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;

    preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

Alas, the key to the memo is that if the DoJ deems the State's enforcement of these enforcement points inadequate, the DoJ will enforce them as they have all along. All Holder has done is to decide not to sue the states, a suit which was by no means guaranteed, while reserving the right to conduct it's own enforcement.

Quote
For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department’s guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time.  But if any of the stated harms do materialize—either despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one—federal prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the regulatory scheme themselves in these states.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on September 02, 2013, 09:13:27 AM
Honestly EB, I doubt they could do anything that would please you. As you say, the enforcement points are reasonable. I think it's quite the farce to say they've been waging war on legal weed since '08, considering the current state of legal weed. I just had a cousin move to Oakland, and one of the first things he said was there's a dispensary on like every street corner. If Holder is hell bent on ending legal weed, he's so incompetent that I wouldn't worry about it.

Wait.... environmental dangers caused by marijuana being grown? What exactly is that?

I'm guessing a Marijuana farm dumping hazardous fertilizers into a nearby stream or something. It's a stretch, but it could go as far as the energy efficiency of the building. No excessive carbon emissions, enviromentally friendly grow lights, etc...

This is on public lands, so no buildings, no grow lights, etc. They're talking about large scale operations on federal forest lands.

Since I made that comment, I learned that apparently Mexican Drug Cartels are doing the operations, and apparently they have a bad habit of starting some forest fires. That's a serious concern. There's some suspicion that the Yosemite fire was started by such.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2013, 11:44:32 AM
Honestly EB, I doubt they could do anything that would please you. As you say, the enforcement points are reasonable. I think it's quite the farce to say they've been waging war on legal weed since '08, considering the current state of legal weed. I just had a cousin move to Oakland, and one of the first things he said was there's a dispensary on like every street corner. If Holder is hell bent on ending legal weed, he's so incompetent that I wouldn't worry about it.
All they'd have to do to appease me is to let the states deal with their own drug laws. And just because they're failing in their efforts doesn't mean that the DOJ isn't causing lots of problems using seriously heavy-handed tactics. Things like threatening landlords with the seizure of the properties if they're leased to people in the dispensary trade, or filing tax evasion charges against dispensary owners because they won't accept the customary buiseness deductions. They're also going after bankers who deal with dispensary money. Really, about the only role I can see Holder legitimately holding is enforcing the interstate commerce of it, and even that's probably best left to the states that still prohibit it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on September 02, 2013, 01:56:32 PM
I read an interesting article the other day that compared what's going on now with weed to the end of alcohol prohibition. It pointed out that the end of prohibition started with states disobeying the federal law, and the fed's letting the states do what they wanted. I think you're taking far too pessimistic of a view of what's going on, and ignoring the fact that Holder et al. could be doing much more to actually prevent what's going on from going on.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2013, 03:20:34 PM
I have no idea what your point about prohibition is, so I'll disregard it for now. As for my POV, the fact that Holder could be doing more has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he's doing far more than either his predecessors or the campaign-induced bullshit of his boss. My problem isn't with the actual enforcement, which is probably far more beneficial to me than legalization would be, but the fact that Obama is a lying asshole who appointed a douchebag as AG. And even that's more about disappointment, as I genuinely thought that both Holder and Obama would be much, much better than they actually turned out to be.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on September 02, 2013, 06:19:30 PM
From my research, I still haven't been able to find the widespread systemic attack on medical marijuana that you describe. I've found specific incidents that line up with what you've said, but usually there's criteria and case specific details that seem to get left out in other places I've seen the information reported.

My point about prohibition is that, despite all your glass-half-empty points, there's enough reasons to look at the glass as half full.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2013, 07:04:51 PM
From my research, I still haven't been able to find the widespread systemic attack on medical marijuana that you describe. I've found specific incidents that line up with what you've said, but usually there's criteria and case specific details that seem to get left out in other places I've seen the information reported.
You seem to be in the minority there. It's pretty widely accepted and hard to dispute that the DOJ is trying quite hard to curtail legalized bud wherever it exists. As for the case specific criteria, what was the problem with Richard Lee and Oaksteram? They never even filed any charges against anybody. They showed up in tactical gear, pushed people around, took everything that wasn't bolted down and then disappeared with nary an explanation. It was nothing more than intimidation (and stunningly effective--the staff of 108 is now down to 15, with a similar decline in students all because of fear and uncertainty, despite doing nothing criminal whatsoever), and I don't see how such a tactic could be construed as anything but a widespread systemic attack.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on September 02, 2013, 09:20:07 PM
From my research, I still haven't been able to find the widespread systemic attack on medical marijuana that you describe. I've found specific incidents that line up with what you've said, but usually there's criteria and case specific details that seem to get left out in other places I've seen the information reported.
You seem to be in the minority there. It's pretty widely accepted and hard to dispute that the DOJ is trying quite hard to curtail legalized bud wherever it exists. As for the case specific criteria, what was the problem with Richard Lee and Oaksteram? They never even filed any charges against anybody. They showed up in tactical gear, pushed people around, took everything that wasn't bolted down and then disappeared with nary an explanation. It was nothing more than intimidation (and stunningly effective--the staff of 108 is now down to 15, with a similar decline in students all because of fear and uncertainty, despite doing nothing criminal whatsoever), and I don't see how such a tactic could be construed as anything but a widespread systemic attack.

You're confusing the actions of US Attorneys with the DOJ and Holder. US Attorney's are supposed to be rather independent, and that's the way we want them.

It's pretty easy to construe what happened with Richard Lee as a legitimate distinction made by people between providing medicine to sick patients and the de facto legalization of marijuana. We both know that medical marijuana in California is a fucking farce, even if it technically abides by state laws. There's enough wiggle room between the two to say that just because there is 'medical' marijuana in California it doesn't follow that it's actually for medicinal purposes. It's a facade. It's not beyond reason to say that most of the raids performed on behalf of the local US Attorney's isn't targeting medical marijuana sales or operations, but rather targeting dispensaries and organizations that work to make weed essentially legal.

Basically, just because you call a cow a horse, doesn't make a cow a horse.

As for the IRS, I'd say they're just stuck in a rather shitty position. According to their guidelines, the sale and cultivation of marijuana is an illicit activity, so the appropriate tax code applies. I'd consider this an appropriate thing for any IRS official to do, as they're just doing their job.

The President just doesn't have the kind of power you want him to have in this case. He technically has the authority to go in a change the way some things are done and enforced, but it's rather unrealistic to think he actually is going to spend the time to do that. Should he replace any US Attorney who, on their on free will and fully within their legal domain, goes after a 'medical' marijuana dispensary? Even if they're extremely competent and qualified for the job? Should he spend time trying to lobby congress to change the tax code so that the IRS can't put companies in a catch-22? To me, this is just another example of where people have undue expectation of what a president can actually accomplish. We often ignore the institutional momentum and force that exists within a bureaucracy the size of the US's.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2013, 09:51:05 PM
Independent, but not unsupervised or unguided. This is a top-down organization, with people setting priorities. Doper busting seems to be a priority, certainly more so than the previous outfit.

As for Lee and Oaksterdam, of course medicinal marijuana is a farce, but that has nothing to do with the bust. By all accounts they were completely above board. Busting them was a message job.  It's also hard not to notice that Lee was one of the primary activists supporting proposition whatthehellevertheycalledit.

And the IRS wasn't simply stuck in a shitty position. This was an orchestrated effort. Honestly, I can't believe you're even suggesting that.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on September 02, 2013, 10:28:13 PM
Independent, but not unsupervised or unguided. This is a top-down organization, with people setting priorities. Doper busting seems to be a priority, certainly more so than the previous outfit.

Holder can tell them what they're priorities should be, but in the end, he can't tell them what to do and what not to do. And if they don't follow the priorities exactly, there's not a whole lot of recourse available to Holder. Every time I read about these incidents, it's usually mentioned that the actions were taken by the US Attorney's, and not a directive of the DOJ or Washington.

Dope is more prevalent than under the previous outfit, especially once they thought they were all in the clear. It's a false equivalency.

Quote
As for Lee and Oaksterdam, of course medicinal marijuana is a farce, but that has nothing to do with the bust. By all accounts they were completely above board. Busting them was a message job.  It's also hard not to notice that Lee was one of the primary activists supporting proposition whatthehellevertheycalledit.

And the US Attorney said it was his call, based upon local law enforcement and officials requests. Not the DOJ waging a war on legal pot. Also, the fact that Lee was a primary activist clouds the fact that he was also heavily involved in the industry; they were a large, easy target, one that very questionably supplies "medical" marijuana. The fact that he was such a staunch supporter of that proposition only bolsters that argument.

Remember, I'm not supporting the actions taken, far from it; all I'm doing is objecting to where you lay the blame. I think where you lay the blame is unproductive, and doesn't do anything to solve the problem of marijuana being in illicit drug.

Quote
And the IRS wasn't simply stuck in a shitty position. This was an orchestrated effort. Honestly, I can't believe you're even suggesting that.

Shitty position is probably the wrong wording, because that implies they didn't want to do what they did. But basically, they were aptly applying the tax code, and it's ridiculous to say that a bunch of pen-pushers in the IRS following the tax code is some orchestrated effort to shut down the legal pot market. Operating costs from federally illicit activities are not allowed to be tax deductible. Marijuana production and sale is illicit under federal law. It directly follows from this that marijuana productions costs are not tax deductible. It's the completely rational and logical conclusion of the law, and that's what I would expect IRS employees to do.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on September 03, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
Serious question (mainly mods and BosK)...

How does DTF now view (in regards to the rules) the discussion of Marijuana? I feel enforcement has gotten a little bit more relaxed over the years, and jokes and references about marijuana happen all the time.

I only ask because we have the smokers poll in the GD. I was thinking to myself what the results would have been if the poll in question was about pot and not cigs. If I were to make a related poll/thread, would that still be considered breaking the rules??
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 03, 2013, 06:24:28 PM
Yeah, probably.  It's not legal everywhere.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 04, 2013, 02:36:01 PM
I think we can talk about it here because its a political issue.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 08, 2013, 01:24:10 PM
Very surprising results out of Texas.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/texas-legalize-marijuana_n_4064808.html

"Public Policy Polling found that 58 percent of Texans "support making marijuana legal for adults and regulating it like alcohol." Even more -- 61 percent -- were in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession and instead punishing violations with a civil citation."
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 08, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Not surprising at all. It's just that most people still hold onto the stereotypical view of Texans as dimwitted, gun-toting rednecks.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 08, 2013, 01:38:07 PM
Not surprising at all. It's just that most people still hold onto the stereotypical view of Texans as dimwitted, gun-toting rednecks.

No offense, but that's the image you paint in my mind (not you personally, but your state  :lol).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on October 08, 2013, 01:42:08 PM
Kinda surprising, kinda not.

Many Texans carry guns, and for a lot of people, guns = NRA = Republicans = conservative, but it's not nearly that simple.  I see it as letting individuals do what they want as long as it's not hurting anyone.  In that sense, carrying a gun and smoking pot are both fine if done responsibly, much like drinking alcohol.  It's not strictly a liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat issue.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 08, 2013, 01:43:15 PM
Not surprising at all. It's just that most people still hold onto the stereotypical view of Texans as dimwitted, gun-toting rednecks.

No offense, but that's the image you paint in my mind (not you personally, but your state  :lol).
Oh, I certainly understand that. It's just that the loud and crazy fucks get all of the attention. Despite being the majority, the sane ones aren't particularly newsworthy.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on October 08, 2013, 01:49:52 PM
Very surprising results out of Texas.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/texas-legalize-marijuana_n_4064808.html

"Public Policy Polling found that 58 percent of Texans "support making marijuana legal for adults and regulating it like alcohol." Even more -- 61 percent -- were in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession and instead punishing violations with a civil citation."

Personally, I think it should be legal everywhere. It's not as if we are going to corrupt a whole new generation into a bunch of potheads. They'll smoke if whether or not they want to.  I've never smoked it (but don't think I haven't thought about it), but to me it's not a big deal if people do.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Rathma on October 08, 2013, 11:26:09 PM
Yeah, probably.  It's not legal everywhere.

Neither is alcohol. Or gay sex.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 09, 2013, 12:48:34 PM
Yeah, probably.  It's not legal everywhere.

Neither is alcohol. Or gay sex.

Good point.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on October 09, 2013, 01:06:41 PM
Yeah, probably.  It's not legal everywhere.

Neither is alcohol. Or gay sex.

Good point.

Seeing that gay sex and alcohol aren't legal everywhere makes my stance of the death penalty seem less ignorant.   :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 06, 2013, 06:54:02 AM
Hooray for Portland, Maine.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 20, 2013, 10:25:21 AM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55966936/blunt.jpg)




=====================================================================================


Guy really likes his work, apparently  :hat
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 20, 2013, 04:07:35 PM
I got to think most people who openly support and fight for MJ rights use it as well.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 20, 2013, 04:31:06 PM
I got to think most people who openly support and fight for MJ rights use it as well.

If you've got five minutes, this is a great watch. Penn addresses exactly what you mentioned. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZiuMBpdzlQ
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 20, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
His co-host was dead on. "Maybe a little blow" is exactly what honest to God potheads say.  :lol

And Obama was a legendary stoner. By most accounts he was the biggest pothead in Hawaii when he was in school.

(https://neurobonkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obama-Total-Absorbtion.jpeg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 22, 2013, 12:37:02 PM
That's actually one of the things I like about the guy  :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 22, 2013, 12:57:04 PM
That's actually one of the things I like about the guy  :lol
Agreed. The fact that he was at least at one point a real human being is one of the reasons I supported him early on. It's just annoying that he turned into such an asshole about it all.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 22, 2013, 03:14:33 PM
Yeah, I've got buyer's remorse on quite a few fronts with him.  Marijuana policy being a big one. 


Then again, maybe he'll "evolve" on it the way he did on gay marriage.


I'm only slightly delusional for thinking that  :P
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 22, 2013, 05:02:56 PM
I don't think you can really assess what Obama truly thinks based upon his political stances. And frankly, given the environment we live in, it would be completely unconstructive for him to pursue decriminalization. It's nice to think that people should be elected to office and take really hardline stances, but I think it's unrealistic. President's almost always govern from the center, and I think there are structural reasons for that.

I mean, just imagine the response if Obama put forward a plan to decriminilize Marijuana federally. Yes, there would be a huge upwelling of support. But there would be a more massive upwelling of hatred and racism. Oh, the first black President wants to decriminlize Marijuana? Of course he does! It would start a battle over an issue that likely wouldn't be won with the Congress we have today, and it would accomplish absolutely nothing.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 22, 2013, 05:13:46 PM
Well given the current state, it would be absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe if he could roll in medical marijuana into the ACA it would ease the pain.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 22, 2013, 05:18:34 PM
I don't think you can really assess what Obama truly thinks based upon his political stances. And frankly, given the environment we live in, it would be completely unconstructive for him to pursue decriminalization. It's nice to think that people should be elected to office and take really hardline stances, but I think it's unrealistic. President's almost always govern from the center, and I think there are structural reasons for that.

I mean, just imagine the response if Obama put forward a plan to decriminilize Marijuana federally. Yes, there would be a huge upwelling of support. But there would be a more massive upwelling of hatred and racism. Oh, the first black President wants to decriminlize Marijuana? Of course he does! It would start a battle over an issue that likely wouldn't be won with the Congress we have today, and it would accomplish absolutely nothing.


You might well be right, but that just takes to the point where you and I always butt heads. If he can't actively do anything, then the obvious next step would be the passive approach. Not that hard and nothing stopping him. Instead, his DoJ continues to actively intervene. Besides which, there are plenty of things that can be done short of outright deciminalization. Cut some funding to the DEA commensurate to a decrease in busting potheads. Push for a tweaking of seizure laws so that you can't steel somebody's Corvette because they were driving home with a QP in the trunk. Both of these would lead to a significant decrease in people getting busted for pot matters, while allowing more resources and more incentive for the sorts of things they consider more important.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 22, 2013, 08:59:45 PM
Well, to pick off where you stopped, things they might consider more important are health care, jobs, national security and a host of other things that are more demanding than fixing a few minor things to let a few potheads off. It wouldn't be substantial change, it wouldn't fix the real problem at hand, and it would require Obama diverting attention and energy into solving those problems.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 22, 2013, 09:08:58 PM
By cutting DEA funding and having his goon squad quit wasting time busting businesses that the states want to actually bust some real criminals? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 24, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
How would it not? It seems to me your assuming the President knows everything you know, when in fact he probably knows a lot more about a lot of thigns than you do, and a whole lot less than about a lot of things than you do.

Here's my point:

Imagine you're elected President in '08. You get into office, and immediately you start getting briefings informing you about a lot of programs and information you had no idea about before you got into Presidency. Furthermore, you have constant demands to talk with foreign leaders, deal with foreign relations, managing and leading the armed forces, trying to deal with the economy, dealing with an incalcitrant congress, dealing with Judicial nominees, court battles, legal battles, immigration, and basically the countless issues that face our government.

Now also imagine  before this, that you were running for President, and dealing with the politics of running for President, which doesn't include the War on Drugs.

Meanwhile, you still have to shit, piss, eat, sleep and stay sane.

Where, in all of this, do you find time to investigate the War on Drugs to learn about which measures you can implement to make things better? While, at the same time, not hurting yourself politically so that you can get some other things done about the economy, foreign policy, etc. Even finding someone to deal with these issues would take time and attention.

I think you're idealizing what a President can do. You point to things he can technically do, and think it's realistic that he shoudl be able to do them. But practically speaking, the President is far too busy to get to everything even he may want to get to. He has a LOT of demands, and prioritizing those demands is a pretty difficult thing to evaluate.

As far as I can figure, it's not the President's job to do what you're asking. It's Congresses job, who's sole duty is to evaluate law, pass laws and make the laws the President enforces. It shouldn't be the President who evaluates laws to determine what is and is not working. That's Congress. That's the Press. That's the American people's job. The President is not a legislator, he is not someone who creates law or decides what is lawful.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 24, 2013, 11:30:12 AM
You mean to tell me he doesn't have occasional, if not regular, briefings with the DEA head and his DoJ? Look, Bush found time to prioritize his DoJ, and he was an incompetent simpleton. Obama's just an asshole.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on November 24, 2013, 01:03:52 PM
In the same sentence that you call Bush and 'incompetent simpleton' you also try to use his actions as justification. If he was so incompetant, couldn't some of his prioritization been from incompetence?

I imagine Obama does have regular meetings with the DoJ, and I imagine aspects of the Drug War occasionally do come up. Wasn't one of his first legislative achievements equalizing penalties for crack as with other drugs? I imagine he's also been dealing with immigration, remember his amnesty? And JP Morgan is settling with the DoJ for a $13 Billion fine (which still leaves open criminal prosecution and further fines). I imagine Obama would probably want to be talking about that.

None of which would answer the question of political viability, or deal with the long-term solution. Does it make any sense to risk political backlash for something which would provide only contigient relief for a problem that runs much deeper?

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on December 10, 2013, 08:12:45 AM
Oh Bill O'rielly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhDj8qFyXF0&sns=em

"This is promoting the use of an intoxicant by the Denver Post!!! Why don't you just set it up like, 'here's a bar in Denver where you can get the cheapest chasers and the most gin for your money'?!?!"

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: KevShmev on December 10, 2013, 08:25:37 AM
I saw this live last night at my parent's house and we all laughed when he asked Juan Williams if he gets loaded when he goes to restaurants.  :rollin :rollin

But the funny thing is, you just know that O'Reilly probably got high all the time in college. :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on December 10, 2013, 08:42:28 AM
He probably gets high all the time now and just acts like a piece of shit for the ratings. He's laughing all the way to the bank.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 10, 2013, 08:46:19 AM
I doubt he smokes now, but I thought he was a pretty strong pro-pot kind of guy for practical reasons.

As for his opinions, he's somewhat correct that wine and pot reviews are different. Most people don't drink wine to get fucked up; particularly the wines that get reviewed. However, there are reasons to pick one bag of grass over another that are beyond "this one will get you stoneder." The other thing is that restaurant critics also review bars. I haven't read the POS in ages, but I think the DMN has a bar critic in the guide section. That actually is analogous to what the Denver paper is doing.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on December 10, 2013, 08:50:54 AM
Oh Bill O'rielly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhDj8qFyXF0&sns=em

"This is promoting the use of an intoxicant by the Denver Post!!! Why don't you just set it up like, 'here's a bar in Denver where you can get the cheapest chasers and the most gin for your money'?!?!"

I really cannot even stand that guy for more than a minute.  It usually takes that long before he says something completely ludicrous.  He's a bully...that's all he is.   He's a big goony molester.  Spin this, fuckwad. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 12, 2013, 04:39:42 AM
No link but I read an article on drudge about NY state legislators starting to bring up full legalization. From the article, they stated Moms have a lot of support because their kids are getting arrested for petty crimes. I don't think I heard of mother support for MJ before but sounds good to me.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 12, 2013, 08:01:16 AM
If I remember the poll right, there's something like a 15 point difference in favor of legalization at this point.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 12, 2013, 08:03:50 AM
Wait, what's the argument here?  Their kids are getting arrested for petty crimes, so moms think that legalizing marijuana will somehow help?  I don't follow.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 12, 2013, 08:11:08 AM
Yeah, that's a bit peculiar, however, I guess it makes sense. I suspect we're talking about black folk, and for black folk the very last thing you want is to be arrested in NYC. That's a real bad trip. While they'll still be cited for minor in possession (or whatever the legal term is up there), that's usually not something you go to jail for. You get a ticket and sent on your way. Due to all of the Terry-stopping they have going on up there, they're using joints and nickel bags to toss kids into jail, mostly just to be dicks and maintain their authority. This would prevent that (or at least put more of a spotlight on them).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 12, 2013, 09:22:29 AM
Oh, so possession is the petty crime that they're being charged with, and it's just stupid.  That I get.  I thought it was like legalizing marijuana would somehow cut down on shoplifting or something.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 12, 2013, 09:32:26 AM
Yes. The article mentioned it has a racial impact as well as mostly black and Latinos go to jail for low level MJ crimes. It makes sense. These kids get criminal records for something that is mostly considered safer than alcohol and tobacco.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 12, 2013, 12:22:21 PM
Not that it's probably needed too much here, but this seems like a pretty good page describing the reasons for legalization. Very fascinating graph at the beginning too - don't think I had seen that before.

https://www.policymic.com/articles/73423/marijuana-legalization-is-about-so-much-more-than-smoking-weed

And here's the poll I was referring to:

https://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

58 to 39% in favor of legalization. That's not even close. Hell, we call a 4% win in Presidential races a "landslide."

It really can't be long now. Once a few states do it successfully, more states will jump on. More and more people don't care, more and more people think it should be legal, and more and more people see it as the corrupt enterprise it is.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 12, 2013, 01:46:21 PM

It really can't be long now. Once a few states do it successfully, more states will jump on. More and more people don't care, more and more people think it should be legal, and more and more people see it as the corrupt enterprise it is.
Since when does the will of the people matter in government? Add to that, we've got the biggest stoner ever in the whitehouse, and a Democrat, yet he's still adamantly opposed to legalization. Moreover, we haven't seen it work successfully anywhere yet. Colorado and Washington are still hammering out details, and it remains to be seen how much Herr Holder is going to interfere with their ability to do it right. As I've said before, I suspect that a great deal of their enforcement is directed at making sure these programs do fail.

Incidentally, this was the perfect post for SMF's autocorrect to recommend "whorehouse" for "whitehouse." :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 12, 2013, 02:55:40 PM
Prohibition came to an end in much the same way. First a few states, with the federal government not suing; then the entire thing collapsed. Pressure against the War on Drugs has been mounting for quite some time, and not just from the general public.

I know you're pessimistic and all, and there are certainly plenty of examples where the peoples will doesn't matter one bit, but there are plenty of other examples where the peoples will dramatically changes governmental policies and what goes on.

"Adamantly opposed"? As far as I can tell, Obama has barely taken a position about marijuana personally. I remember he was asked about it directly by, I think, a student in Mexico, and he gave a horrible status quo answer,  but it's not as if the guy is out there railing on it, or even speaking about the issue. I still think your characterization of what has been done is grossly unfair, but I suppose we both know where this specific disucssion goes.

I think one thing that should be mentioned: if Obama or Holder actually wanted to shut down Medical Marijuana, they are doing a fucking horrible, lousy, no good job of doing so. Seriously. You can list a things they are doing, but you don't list the things they aren't doing, that would be within their power. First and foremost, they could sue the states to stop allowing it at all. What do they have to gain by issuing a memo saying Colorado and Washington can go forward - with 8 specific exceptions, all of which are very reasonable - and then taking that back? I just don't see any rational motive, any proof of such motives, nor much of anything, for that matter. They never did rescind their memo saying they wouldn't interfere with state laws, and by and large, they haven't. Where they have, it's been pretty reasonable. Shutting down some cause they're near a school. Other's because the guys we're operating a trans-state operation.

I think it's fine to criticize Obama on his policies, and there's plenty of room for criticism on this issue, but I don't think the ones you bring up are valid. I'd say he deserves some heat for not doing anything, as opposed to being 'adamantly opposed.'
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 12, 2013, 03:54:10 PM
This is strictly conjecture on my part, by my feeling is that they don't want to shut down medical marijuana programs or force states to reject them. They want them to be passed and then fail [ostensibly] on their own merits. I'd liken the DoJ's actions here more to sabotage and harassment than an actual assault.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 13, 2013, 10:05:33 AM
And where does that conjecture come from? Is it independently come upon, or is it trying to force an explanation for what's going on?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 13, 2013, 11:17:22 AM
I don't see how the medical mj programs will fail on their own assuming they are following the laws/guidelines.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 13, 2013, 11:50:07 AM
I don't see how the medical mj programs will fail on their own assuming they are following the laws/guidelines.
But they're by definition contrary to federal laws and guidelines. This leaves the DoJ with leeway to intervene however they see fit.

And where does that conjecture come from? Is it independently come upon, or is it trying to force an explanation for what's going on?
It's my own interpretation of the way things have played out thus far. The DoJ is spending a lot of effort going after people who are trying their damnedest to play by the rules (state, at least). When the DEA is going Raibow-6 all over lawful growers, dispensaries and activists, that leads me to believe it's not smooth, lawful grass sales they want.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 13, 2013, 06:06:55 PM
Pointing out heavy handed police tactics in this country doesn't really prove anything beyond the fact that we have heavy handed police tactics. I don't see how that does anything to prove Obama, Holder, et al. are involved in some conspiracy to thwart medical marijuana. The DEA would go Rainbow-6 on an elderly grandmother if they thought she had some meth on her.

And the cases I've seen regarding the so called "perfectly legal" growers usually weren't so perfectly legal. Up here in Montana, a lot of them were trafficking across state lines, laundering money, and a host of other illegal activities, even with medical weed. The ones that were honest and didn't do anything didn't get shut down by the feds, they got shut down by Republicans in the States House, who called in the Feds in the first place.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 14, 2013, 07:49:03 PM
Does that include your neighbor Tom Daubert? His is similar to plenty of cases I've read about, where the people involved tried like hell to stay above board at the state level, only to find themselves harassed by the Federales. I recall a Humbolt grower who had the sheriff come out to inspect and tag every one of his plants on a regular basis only to have the feds come in and destroy his operation over charges that didn't even stick (and the sheriff testified on his behalf).

One of the things that really troubles me is busting people for charges that probably won't stick anyway. This was a popular trick under Ashcroft/Gonzalez. In their case they were busting pornographers in what would best be described as frivolous prosecution. We've seen some of that here, including the Oaksterdam case where to the best of my knowledge The Man has filed no charges or offered any explanation for their raid. Although, now it would appear they're just going after forfeitures, which is the driving force behind damn near every prosecution of drugs. You mentioned that the DEA would kick down a grandmother's door if she had meth on her. I would suggest that it would only happen if she had property or if it were a benefit to their grant money and funding.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 15, 2013, 11:35:13 AM
Does that include your neighbor Tom Daubert? His is similar to plenty of cases I've read about, where the people involved tried like hell to stay above board at the state level, only to find themselves harassed by the Federales. I recall a Humbolt grower who had the sheriff come out to inspect and tag every one of his plants on a regular basis only to have the feds come in and destroy his operation over charges that didn't even stick (and the sheriff testified on his behalf).

https://billingsgazette.com/news/local/marijuana-raids-built-on-years-of-investigation-yield-millions-from/article_01f9d21f-b862-5ae5-bd48-7b17723d869d.html

Don't believe it was within the state law for them to buy from another dispensary. It also sounds like they performed other trafficking, and from the description given, sounds like they sold to someone who didn't have a card. All violations of State Law. Is it weak? Yes. Is it a waste of time? Yes. But it's not as clear cut as just saying they were fully operating with the States Law.

Also, I don't see how the Feds who did come in means Holder is involved in a conspiracy, or that Obama is behind it at all. There's conflicting law, priorities, desires and interests within the federal government, and they're not always controlled by the top.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/mt/pressreleases/20120910112017.html

Quote
The investigation was a cooperative effort between the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task Force.

I'd be curious to know how much control Holder has over all these tasks forces and agency. I'm sure he has some influence, but don't DEA Agents has some autonomy and regionalization? They're told to enforce the law, and the law they're enforcing unfortunately says growing marijuana is illegal. *edit*
My point here, is that, okay, Holder and the higher ups put in a new prioritization and guidelines that it wants it's attorneys and agents to follow, but it's a long ways down to DEA Agents and other enforcement officials and task forces. It's a huge administration, one's that unnecessarily big because the War on Drugs is futile and expensive, and that just makes communication and strict management sorta impossible. Agents in the field have the loophole that the federal law still dictates selling and growing marijuana is illegal, and there's really not going to be much repercussions for it. This arguments falls in line with your gripe about the whole ordeal, in that coppers and such want a piece of the pie. They're still able to do it, and because of the structure of our government (including the size), there's very little consequences. If you're Obama or Holder, and you don't follow the issue much, you're going to think medical marijuana is functioning just fine. There hasn't been any national coverage on the issue, more states are adopting it - hell, they even said they think legalization is fine. Considering size and scope of the federal government, the duties Holder and Obama both oversee, this is all perfectly reasonable.

Add in the fact that if charges get brought, even if it's a flimsy case for you breaking the state law, the move most people are going to take is a plea deal. The actual charges are going to be impossible to beat, because it's going to be pretty damn hard to say you weren't growing, selling and making money off of marijuana when you operated a business.

One more thing: because of the complication of having one state law and one federal law and trying to make obvious points of disagreement work in harmony is just going to lead some of the cases you bring up. I think what you propose doing is fixing the symptoms of a problem instead of addressing the problem.

Quote
You mentioned that the DEA would kick down a grandmother's door if she had meth on her. I would suggest that it would only happen if she had property or if it were a benefit to their grant money and funding.

And I'm perfectly fine with this argument, thing it's valid, and agree with it. But this is a different argument than saying Obama, Holder or the DoJ are involved in a conspiracy to undermine medical marijuana through a series of raids and whatnot.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 15, 2013, 12:22:39 PM
I don't see any indication that Daubert was up to no good, other than the clear violation of federal law. Clearly Montana had no concerns about it; this was strictly a federal cash grab. Seems telling that they let him cop a plea from 20 years federal time to 5 years probation. After all, they got their money.

And I've never said that Obama was the head of this conspiracy. What I've said is that Obama employs at his leisure a pretty crappy AG, who seems to devote a large amount of resources to busting dopers. Furthermore, the pattern appears oriented at busting plenty of the good guys. Assume what you will of that.

And overall, I still think the biggest issue is that we've made fighting dopers so ridiculously profitable. I'm sure you agree with that. There's no incentive to win the so-called war, nor is there any incentive to fight it reasonably.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 15, 2013, 09:18:47 PM
I don't see any indication that Daubert was up to no good, other than the clear violation of federal law. Clearly Montana had no concerns about it; this was strictly a federal cash grab. Seems telling that they let him cop a plea from 20 years federal time to 5 years probation. After all, they got their money.

Actually, the Montana government was caring quite a bit at this time. There was a HUGE backlash to the law, and I remember reading that most of the actions were done by request of local officials.

Quote
And I've never said that Obama was the head of this conspiracy. What I've said is that Obama employs at his leisure a pretty crappy AG, who seems to devote a large amount of resources to busting dopers. Furthermore, the pattern appears oriented at busting plenty of the good guys. Assume what you will of that.

You referred to "they" when I used Obama and Holder together before, so I assumed you meant Obama as well.

Quote
And overall, I still think the biggest issue is that we've made fighting dopers so ridiculously profitable. I'm sure you agree with that. There's no incentive to win the so-called war, nor is there any incentive to fight it reasonably.

But this is exactly what I'm using to prove my point. There's enough money in it, that regardless of what Herr Holder wants to happen, there will still be people busting pot growers, especially if they're an easy target. In the meantime, there's really not a whole hell of a lot Holder can effectively do. IF he even hears or knows about the cases.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 15, 2013, 10:05:49 PM
But this is exactly what I'm using to prove my point. There's enough money in it, that regardless of what Herr Holder wants to happen, there will still be people busting pot growers, especially if they're an easy target. In the meantime, there's really not a whole hell of a lot Holder can effectively do. IF he even hears or knows about the cases.
There will still be plenty of drug related crime to go around. The difference is that Cali cops can bust people for violating Cali law and still make lots of money in the process. Growing dope and selling it to sick people isn't against Cali law. What we're seeing is the federal government stepping in to bust people who aren't violating Cali law. Likewise, they could just as easily be ripping off dopers in states that are far less tolerant of drugs in general.

Just out of curiosity, did you cut Ashcroft as much slack when he had his goons prosecuting smut peddlers? They did the exact same thing this department is doing in filing questionable charges against people just because the arrest and trial is so disruptive; regardless of whether or not there's a conviction.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 16, 2013, 09:05:24 AM
But this is exactly what I'm using to prove my point. There's enough money in it, that regardless of what Herr Holder wants to happen, there will still be people busting pot growers, especially if they're an easy target. In the meantime, there's really not a whole hell of a lot Holder can effectively do. IF he even hears or knows about the cases.
There will still be plenty of drug related crime to go around. The difference is that Cali cops can bust people for violating Cali law and still make lots of money in the process. Growing dope and selling it to sick people isn't against Cali law. What we're seeing is the federal government stepping in to bust people who aren't violating Cali law. Likewise, they could just as easily be ripping off dopers in states that are far less tolerant of drugs in general.

And how often do you have someone open up a shop and make it public? Busting a questionable grower or two is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not arguing the procedures being done are good, logical or couldn't be done better - I'm arguing that individual corruption, greed and opinions matter a hell of a lot more than you are. DEA agents have regions, do they not? US Attorneys have regions, do they not?

Quote
Just out of curiosity, did you cut Ashcroft as much slack when he had his goons prosecuting smut peddlers? They did the exact same thing this department is doing in filing questionable charges against people just because the arrest and trial is so disruptive; regardless of whether or not there's a conviction.


Honestly, considering you're the only person I've ever heard anything from about what our government does regarding smut, I don't just Ashcroft for that. Even so, I would take the same approach and consider where the orders are coming from. I certainly wouldn't think Ashcroft would have full control, taht he could be expected to, or taht things wouldn't go on in his administration he wasn't terribly partial to.

In general, though, you should be aware that I don't hate the vitriol for the Bush administration that most liberals do. There's a few things I think are extremely valid to point out about him and his administration (*cough* Iraq *cough*), but in large, I still see a failed system and a failed congress.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 16, 2013, 05:09:52 PM
Quote
Just out of curiosity, did you cut Ashcroft as much slack when he had his goons prosecuting smut peddlers? They did the exact same thing this department is doing in filing questionable charges against people just because the arrest and trial is so disruptive; regardless of whether or not there's a conviction.


Honestly, considering you're the only person I've ever heard anything from about what our government does regarding smut, I don't just Ashcroft for that. Even so, I would take the same approach and consider where the orders are coming from. I certainly wouldn't think Ashcroft would have full control, taht he could be expected to, or taht things wouldn't go on in his administration he wasn't terribly partial to.
Ashcroft's DOJ went hardcore on smut for several years. You should read up a little on that; it's pretty interesting (if not infuriating). I know there were some folks in Ft Worth that got rounded up in that for making their own videos. By and large the MO was to go to some small town in Pennsylvania or Ohio, order some DVD's through the mail, and then use prevailing community standards to gain a conviction.

And to be clear, this was very definitely a DC based plan and Ashcroft himself was pretty upfront about being highly motivated to rid the country of porn. This wasn't his far away lawyers acting on their own. That's why I find it so hard to believe that Holder hasn't at the very least offered some suggestions for prioritizing his department with regards to busting dopers.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 16, 2013, 05:42:53 PM
Well if was directly part of Ashcrofts purpose and motivation, then I would say the case is completely different than Holder. For one, Holders official position has been let state-legal pot continue, and there isn't any evidence I've seen ever saying otherwise.

Another difference would be doing something, versus trying to stop something. It's easy to set up a unit / person to go do something like order a DVD and prosecute. It's a lot harder to get everyone within a department to stop doing something, which is still in some ways their job. The level of control is entirely different. Ashcroft would have been using existing law to actively do something, Holder would need new law to stop doing something.




Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 16, 2013, 06:49:34 PM
Well if was directly part of Ashcrofts purpose and motivation, then I would say the case is completely different than Holder. For one, Holders official position has been let state-legal pot continue, and there isn't any evidence I've seen ever saying otherwise.
Perhaps it just means that Ashcroft was more honest about his goals; something I have no doubt of. Don't get me wrong, the guy was awful, but I wouldn't ever question his integrity. I can't say that about Holder.

And while he might not be able to tell his guys to stop something, he can damn sure instruct them to focus their efforts on something that matters, rather than something that's easy and profitable.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 16, 2013, 10:14:10 PM
That's a big perhaps. It's possible, but it's hardly proven. Until proof is given otherwise, I'm gonna go ahead and take people on their word.

Out of curiosity, is there an evaluation of sorts? Yes, we hear about every time a grower or dispensary gets raided and whatnot, but that doesn't really speak of the larger picture. What percentage of the caseload have these cases represented? My point being: his guys could well be focusing on more things 99% of the time, and that 1% makes the news.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 16, 2013, 10:24:46 PM
While that's certainly possible, something that bears mentioning is that more often than not when you hear about these pot busts, it tends to be part of a much larger operation. How many shops got hit when they nabbed that Daubert guy? Wasn't it something like 30, and months worth of investigation? Same thing with Colorado and California. The AG might not have day to day say so about who his agents investigate, but when it comes to national or statewide operations, you'd be best to bet that he signed off on it. As it pertains to the bigger picture, I don't think it's just individual shops and dopers that get busted making up 1%.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on December 17, 2013, 09:57:31 PM
That same Daubert case involved what was reported to be large-scale trafficking. Which flies in the face of state law - even if all we're talking about is buying from another dispensary. Which means nothing done by that investigation in any way contradicts Holders or the DoJ's official stance. They said they would allow state-legal operations to continue, and the  charges brought forth (and the plea deal agreed upon) say that Montana Cannabis was not a state-legal operation. In that case, at least, I see nothing to indicate a change in positions by the DoJ.

Honestly, you wanna know part of what I think happened? People heard Holders statement, and they basically thought they were in the clear. People got over ambitious, they got reckless, and they improperly understood the legal situation. Which is and was a clusterfuck to begin with. Combine that with the beuarcracy and status quo, and you're going to get raids, busts and a lot of seemingly bullshit even though both sides are trying to be honest brokers. Okay, maybe honest brokers shouldn't apply to the DEA and such, but the general point remains.

*edit*

To just add a little bit to the end, you can be sure the Feds aren't going to just be sitting back and hoping people are following the state laws. They're going to be testing companies and people for people who break the law, because that's sorta their MO. Once they found non-compliance with state law, they were technically then within their guidelines to go after the guys, and they probably only know one way to do that. Which is the overblown, SWAT style raid.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on January 02, 2014, 05:47:28 PM

Marijuana Overdoses Kill 37 in Colorado On First Day of Legalization

https://dailycurrant.com/2014/01/02/marijuana-overdoses-kill-37-in-colorado-on-first-day-of-legalization/

"According to a report in the Rocky Mountain News, 37 people were killed across the state on January 1st, the first day the drug became legal for all adults to use. Several more are clinging onto life in local emergency rooms and are not expected to survive."






























 :rollin
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: black_biff_stadler on January 02, 2014, 10:55:52 PM
So how many parody news sites are trying to ride the Onion's coattails by using produce in their name?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: The King in Crimson on January 02, 2014, 11:30:43 PM
Well, at least one good thing came out of this tragic turn of events: we found out what happened to Jesse Pinkman.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jonnybaxy on January 17, 2014, 06:14:08 PM
Seems like i'm one of the only ones against this...

But atleast listen to my side first,

I'm 17, live in the UK where it's illegal and some of my closest friends are pot heads, basically they started but out will small bags say about 0.8g and we'd have a good time, but they started just spending more money on it, up to the point where they spend £60 for one night on it, they became dopey and selling out their friend for weed.

They still do and most of the time they don't go a day without having at least one joint, anyone who says pot doesn't affect your brain is a liar or ignorant.

And as i have found out with both my friends and me, It is a gateway drug to trying other things as well.

What about pot and driving? I have smoked it and had bad effects, and that is even worse whilst drinking at the same time.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: j on January 17, 2014, 06:36:15 PM
I'm 17, live in the UK where it's illegal and some of my closest friends are pot heads, basically they started but out will small bags say about 0.8g and we'd have a good time, but they started just spending more money on it, up to the point where they spend £60 for one night on it, they became dopey and selling out their friend for weed.

They still do and most of the time they don't go a day without having at least one joint, anyone who says pot doesn't affect your brain is a liar or ignorant.

And as i have found out with both my friends and me, It is a gateway drug to trying other things as well.

Correlation =/= causation, etc.  More likely personality traits and other factors responsible for your friends' behavior.

But of course it "affects your brain," why else would you use it?

Quote
What about pot and driving? I have smoked it and had bad effects, and that is even worse whilst drinking at the same time.

I'm certain no one endorsing weed legalization in this thread would approve of driving under the influence of a mind-altering substance.

-J
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 17, 2014, 06:43:44 PM
Seems like i'm one of the only ones against this...

But atleast listen to my side first,

I'm 17, live in the UK where it's illegal and some of my closest friends are pot heads, basically they started but out will small bags say about 0.8g and we'd have a good time, but they started just spending more money on it, up to the point where they spend £60 for one night on it, they became dopey and selling out their friend for weed.

They still do and most of the time they don't go a day without having at least one joint, anyone who says pot doesn't affect your brain is a liar or ignorant.

And as i have found out with both my friends and me, It is a gateway drug to trying other things as well.

What about pot and driving? I have smoked it and had bad effects, and that is even worse whilst drinking at the same time.
Sixty £ doesn't sound so outrageous when you're starting with quarter bags. Doesn't sound like they're increasing the quantity all that much; just the quality. Also, youngsters want to smoke as much as possible. As people get older they learn to smoke until they get as high as they want and then lay off.

Doesn't sound like you still smoke every day. I'd say that calls your theory into question.

I suggest you peruse the gateway thread in GD.

I'm certain no one endorsing weed legalization in this thread would approve of driving under the influence of a mind-altering substance.

-J
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UUBBVvfBUcM/T1t8Zi673mI/AAAAAAAAA0c/uEdZ-PA4IpI/s1600/homer-simpson-bush-gif.gif)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: j on January 17, 2014, 07:16:47 PM
I'm certain no one endorsing weed legalization in this thread would approve of driving under the influence of a mind-altering substance.

-J
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UUBBVvfBUcM/T1t8Zi673mI/AAAAAAAAA0c/uEdZ-PA4IpI/s1600/homer-simpson-bush-gif.gif)

:rollin

I should have known!

-J
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jonnybaxy on January 17, 2014, 08:27:09 PM
No, I don't really smoke pot on a regular occurrence, I got my fill of that 2 years ago, don't get me wrong I don't mind the occasional night with my mates but I see it as 'what's the point if you're doing every night?' just makes it less, shall we say exciting? Enjoyable?'

And it's not quality they're increasing, it's quantity. Not that big of a range in quality when you have to get it off some strange backstrest guy.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 17, 2014, 11:19:14 PM
No, I don't really smoke pot on a regular occurrence, I got my fill of that 2 years ago, don't get me wrong I don't mind the occasional night with my mates but I see it as 'what's the point if you're doing every night?' just makes it less, shall we say exciting? Enjoyable?'
I agree completely, which is why I'll occasionally just quit smoking for a while. Much more entertaining when it's still new and fresh. That wasn't my point, though. You're blaming pot for turning your friends into potheads. I'm blaming your friends for being potheads, and the fact that you're able to smoke occasionally, socially should be an indicator to you that's the case.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 18, 2014, 03:55:09 AM
I wouldn't endorse smoking and driving, but I saw a test on a MJ doc on TV that showed people stoned are pretty safe drivers due to them being extra cautious.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2014, 07:36:41 AM
When is the last time you've ever read about someone killing another person with their motor vehicle because they were driving stoned?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 18, 2014, 09:31:48 AM
When is the last time you've ever read about someone killing another person with their motor vehicle because they were driving stoned?
It's happened. The issue is really a matter of distraction, and with that being the case it happens far less than other forms of distraction-related carnage. Train operators have also had their fair share or misfortune, but that's actually pretty understandable. Sitting at the front of a train is the exact sort of job that just cries out for burning one. The problem there is that they're starting to treat more and more of the train accidents as a form of highway hypnosis, and I'd probably lump being stoned in as at most a minor contributor rather than a cause.

As to the studies that Cramx referred to, they all say precisely the same thing. Stoned drivers are slightly worse at maintaining accurate control over their vehicles, but they way overcompensate for it. Paranoia of cops also assists in that regard. The results do say that they show signs of impairment, and therefore couldn't be considered as good as regular drivers, however 90% of the people on the road aren't as good as regular drivers since they're dealing with day to day driving distractions. If you're going to use perfection as the baseline, nobody on the road is going to be considered unimpaired, honestly.

And to be fair, I'm a terrible driver when stoned. However, I my abilities increase with aggression when driving. The more maniacal I drive the more attentive and defensive I am, and doing something that causes me to be uber-relaxed and docile causes me to far too passive. That's why I generally try to avoid driving high at all costs. Besides which, I'd rather just be a passenger and enjoy the ride.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jonnybaxy on January 18, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
No, I don't really smoke pot on a regular occurrence, I got my fill of that 2 years ago, don't get me wrong I don't mind the occasional night with my mates but I see it as 'what's the point if you're doing every night?' just makes it less, shall we say exciting? Enjoyable?'
I agree completely, which is why I'll occasionally just quit smoking for a while. Much more entertaining when it's still new and fresh. That wasn't my point, though. You're blaming pot for turning your friends into potheads. I'm blaming your friends for being potheads, and the fact that you're able to smoke occasionally, socially should be an indicator to you that's the case.

That's a true point, but how do you enforce laws to stop people being like that?

Age? What if people under the age are caught?
Amount? What if people have more than allowed?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 18, 2014, 10:25:50 AM
That's a true point, but how do you enforce laws to stop people being like that?
You don't. Laws to dictate who or what people should be are wrong. Somebody wants to be an asshole? Not mine or The Man's place to stop him.

Quote
Age? What if people under the age are caught?
If it's against the law, punish them (within reason, of course). Honestly, though, it should really be more of a parental matter.

Quote
Amount? What if people have more than allowed?
Not sure why there should be an amount more than allowed. If it's to deter black market selling, then the law should be crafted towards that end. Frankly, due to the massive amount of corruption in anti-drug law enforcement, cops are way too eager to find ways to bump possession up to distribution. If I want to grow a pound all at once so I don't have to keep farming for the next year, that shouldn't make me a dope peddler.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2014, 12:46:49 PM

That's a true point, but how do you enforce laws to stop people being like that?

Age? What if people under the age are caught?
Amount? What if people have more than allowed?

Laws that try to enforce such things don't work, they fail, cause more problems and cost more money. If you're worried about addiction and overuse, then you should support, at the very least, decriminalization and the funding of treatment programs.

More often then not, overuse is the symptom of other problems, anyways. Depression is huge. What sense does it make to take someone who is depressed, and trying to medicate themselves, and ruin their lives? That's only going to fuel depression and addiction.

Really, the argment for legalization and decriminalization can rest on nothing more than the above. It can have nothing to do with the drug, it's benefits, it's negatives, etc. All you have to do is look at the practical and pragmatic effects of laws. It's like pro-lifers who want to give a fertlized egg-personhood or make abortion illegal. It's counter-productive, and it doesn't have the desired effect.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 18, 2014, 05:07:38 PM
Yea I don't get why there is a law on how much you can have. Its known that you can't overdose so I don't see the point. Unless you are out of state then I get it because they wouldn't want people taking it home where its illegal.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 22, 2014, 12:56:09 PM
Yea I don't get why there is a law on how much you can have.


It's an effort to curb black-market sales.  Plain and simple.





Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 22, 2014, 01:14:01 PM
The assumption is that there's only so much a person might have for their own personal use. Any pothead could be found with an oz or two. You have 2 lbs in the trunk and it's a safe bet you're dealing.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 22, 2014, 01:23:09 PM
yep
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 22, 2014, 01:43:30 PM
Other than out of state people, why would you be dealing when its legal to buy it in a store? There's no limit on alcohol and you can overdose on that. Also I guess a point can be made that someone could deal to people underage but then id compare that to alcohol again.

Also, surprised no one commented about what Obama said about MJ.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 22, 2014, 01:52:38 PM
Other than out of state people, why would you be dealing when its legal to buy it in a store? There's no limit on alcohol and you can overdose on that. Also I guess a point can be made that someone could deal to people underage but then id compare that to alcohol again.

Also, surprised no one commented about what Obama said about MJ.
Because (as they're finding out in Colorado) the prices for legal bud are artificially high due to taxes, fees, licensing, etc. An entrepreneurial sort could grow a small amount of very good bud and sell it to the neighborhood for far less than they'll pay at the local head shop. Hell, it's probably still cheaper to bring dirtweed up from Mexico and sell it in Colorado for a nice profit.

Don't know if they've changed the rules yet, but it used to be that I could drive up North to Oklahoma, buy 20 cartons of tax free smokes from the Red Man and sell them to my friends for a tidy profit, since 66% of the price you pay at the 7-11 is tax. That's why they put tax stamps in the bottom of cigarette packages.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 22, 2014, 03:30:53 PM
Your response has nothing to do with buying in bulk being illegal since growing your own and selling it is completely different than buying a large amount and selling it and to the point as you say its expensive so there is no money to be made doing that.

Also, for the prices, I read the prices spiked because of demand vs. supply, but the prices should go back down once the supply meets the demand.  However, I am not familiar with the prices so I can't say my opinion on it being expensive or not.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 22, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
I wasn't aware you were referring to strictly buying in bulk. In fact, now I'm not sure what we're discussing at all.  :lol The initial question was why there's a limit to how much you can have. We answered it's to deter black market dealers. You asked why there would be dealers if it's legal. I explained that it's because of basic free market principles of buy low, sell high. Where was the disconnect?

As for pricing, I agree that the prices will normalize. That said, they'll only normalize to a point, and the taxes and fees will still be on top of that. What I can tell you is that down here in our notoriously drug unfriendly state, we're paying less than they are for legal bud. The difference is dramatic, in fact. Honestly, I don't think legal operations are ever going to compete with the low cost guys. The Mexicans have grass distribution down to a science. Their product is inferior, but their prices are well below what any legitimate operator can compete with (for the time being, at least).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 22, 2014, 04:05:19 PM
Maybe using the work bulk was wrong, I meant just more than whatever the legal limit is.  Why cant someone buy a pound of weed for personal use?  We talked about the black market, but your examples were of people growing it for cheap and selling for profit which definitely sounds like lit would make sense and money.  That wasn't my initial question though.  Why is there a limit to how much cultivated marijuana someone can buy?  It doesn't sound like a profitable business to buy it legally and then sell it (unless out of state, which from what you say, doesn't seem profitable either).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 22, 2014, 04:12:59 PM
That makes more sense, and I suppose you're probably right about the interstate market. However, like I said, it's still much cheaper here in Texas than it is in Colorado, even for the connoisseur grade stuff. Part of that is going to be our proximity to Mexico, which creates a market for cheap bud, which keeps the price of high grade bud in check. I suppose it might well be profitable to buy in Co and sell in Utah, but then you introduce extreme risk and high breakage costs. I suppose part of the answer to your question is that they just don't know what's going to happen yet. The upper limits are definitely to deter underground dealers, but the mechanics are still up in the air, I suspect.

BTW, nobody buys more smoke than they'll consume in a month. It dries out and tastes bad. If you've got a pound on you, it's not for personal use unless you're smoking a half per day, and that'd scare Tommy Chong.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 22, 2014, 04:41:07 PM
Trust me, I understand, I was just making a point as to why is there a limit with my main point being you cant overdose so why limit people meanwhile you can overdose on alcohol and there isn't a limit.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Laich21DT on January 24, 2014, 12:11:06 PM
When is the last time you've ever read about someone killing another person with their motor vehicle because they were driving stoned?

Dude... https://youtu.be/EdqspoqhW_8
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 24, 2014, 01:17:00 PM
When is the last time you've ever read about someone killing another person with their motor vehicle because they were driving stoned?

Dude... https://youtu.be/EdqspoqhW_8
That's fake. Everybody knows they'd have cooked the kid in the microwave to make a California Cheeseburger (https://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120114013942/lossimpson/es/images/e/e9/BA4.jpg).

Moreover, at least twenty regular posters on this forum have tried to get a car to smog up like that, and it just won't happen.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Laich21DT on January 24, 2014, 01:33:27 PM
 :lol Twenty together, or separate?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 24, 2014, 03:37:35 PM
So I hear Holder is prepping more written notes for banks to be allowed to handle the banking for pot stores in Colorado.  As of now, the stores have tons of cash that they cant deposit anywhere because banks don't want to be caught "laundering money".  While its not going to be a law, its a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 28, 2014, 08:50:30 AM
hmm, I hadn't even considered that angle.   :\   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 28, 2014, 09:00:16 AM
Yeah, he'd been going after banks in Cali pretty hard threatening them with money laundering charges. He'd also been going after landlords threatening to seize their properties for allowing them to be used as dope houses. While this seems like an improvement, it remains to be seen how it'll play out, and obviously I have little faith in these people. Honestly, I suspect that it'll just be used to reinforce some federal government control. Only dealers they like get to use banks; that sort of thing. Ironic that weeding out corruption in the drug trade seems to be a chief focus, yet their plan is to institute a policy that has such high potential for corruption it boggles the mind.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on January 28, 2014, 10:31:18 AM
Yea since its not law and more guidelines, I don't see it as a solution, but IMO the more we move closer to allowing it, the closer we are getting to making it legal and regulated like a normal product.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on February 05, 2014, 11:57:59 AM


Wow... This is really good. Owned.

Steve Cohen: 'Ask The Late Philip Seymour Hoffman' If Pot Is As Dangerous As Heroin

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/steve-cohen-marijuana-heroin_n_4726794.html


Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on February 05, 2014, 12:14:01 PM
Honestly most of the schedule 1 drugs should be dropped down a notch or two, and several in schedule 2 should probably be moved up. Unfortunately, acid and other hallucinogens tend to scare the bejeezus out of people, so they'll never be re-scheduled.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jonnybaxy on February 06, 2014, 09:13:19 AM
I worked out my problem,

This picture sums it up nicely (But a bit extreme)

(https://img3.joyreactor.com/pics/post/full/funny-pictures-auto-785003.jpeg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on February 06, 2014, 09:55:34 AM
I agree with basically all of that. However, I cut them slack on the date of 4/20 (fuck the referencing of 4:20 every day). Out where I live, we have an annual Brewfest (yes, that's what it's called) that sells about 10,000 tickets. If brew drinkers get a day to celebrate the substance they love, people that enjoy herb should get one too.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on February 06, 2014, 10:00:48 AM
420 is what the cops used to reference reefer smokers.

But I agree, I don't go around parading it. I really don't like wearing cannabis leaves, unless the design is pretty awesome or a subtle funny way of referencing.

Its the same as the flamboyant gay men. Alright your gay and proud, but you don't have to parade your pride, their are kids around.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 06, 2014, 10:42:59 AM
I can agree with all that. I smoke almost every day and by some accounts I could be labelled as a stoner or pothead. I don't really like being called those because of all the reasons in that picture. I don't really associate with the stoner culture and 420 and peace and love and leafs and crap. Id like to think people who see me and talk to me wouldn't think if me like that and I don't think they do. I'm also not a bum. Fuck bums. ;D
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on February 06, 2014, 10:56:29 AM
420 is what the cops used to reference reefer smokers.
That's actually a myth. The origin of 420 is murky, but the CW is that some kids used to meet up every day at 4:20 to get high after school.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: eric42434224 on February 06, 2014, 11:00:36 AM
420 is what the cops used to reference reefer smokers.
That's actually a myth. The origin of 420 is murky, but the CW is that some kids used to meet up every day at 4:20 to get high after school.

I heard decades ago that it was somehow determined that more pot is smoked at 4:20pm than at any other time during the day.  Urban myth obviously.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on February 06, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
I imagine some of the "420 culture" would go away if it were to be legalized. In my experience, part of that culture is about it  being counter-culture and rebellious. Take that away, and it loses it's "cool" factor. Which is sadly what a lot of those stoners think it means.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: KevShmev on February 06, 2014, 12:32:03 PM
I imagine some of the "420 culture" would go away if it were to be legalized. In my experience, part of that culture is about it  being counter-culture and rebellious. Take that away, and it loses it's "cool" factor. Which is sadly what a lot of those stoners think it means.

I completely agree. 

It's kind of like how drinking wasn't as fun once I turned 21.  Granted, I was never the rebellious type, but there was something fun about hanging out with your buddies at 18 and 19 and drinking all night, when you know you aren't legally allowed to.  Part of is the age factor (that stuff is more fun at 18 than 22, for one), sure, but part of it was definitely the cool factor of it not being accepted legally.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 06, 2014, 01:09:02 PM
420 has become such an overused joke now. Tumblr is full of teenaged girls that don't smoke that say "420 blaze it" at every chance they can get. It's meaningless now.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on May 22, 2014, 07:17:33 AM
Very interesting.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10847438/FBI-struggles-to-find-pot-free-hackers.html

Quote
The FBI is struggling to recruit bright young computer programmers because of their fondness for cannabis, according to the bureau's director.
Under current rules the FBI cannot hire anyone who has smoked marijuana in the last three years - a policy that rules out many of the best recent graduates.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on May 22, 2014, 10:14:25 AM
Thats kind of funny and very sad. If these guys are so bright, clearly marijuana hasnt stopped them from continuing beung bright.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on May 22, 2014, 10:17:31 AM
Going on 40 years for me, and I've been told by many people over the years, including multiple bosses, that I'm one of the best programmers they've ever seen.  Fuck the FBI and their rules.  "Don't ask, don't tell" seems a much more reasonable policy.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on May 22, 2014, 03:23:09 PM
Thats kind of funny and very sad. If these guys are so bright, clearly marijuana hasnt stopped them from continuing beung bright.

I don't know, Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all smoked pot. And we all know how much of lazy fuck ups those people were. Clearly, smoking weed makes you lazy and unintelligent. We should all drink booze, which does nothing but gets you laid and makes you just generally awesome.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on May 22, 2014, 05:01:03 PM
Thats kind of funny and very sad. If these guys are so bright, clearly marijuana hasnt stopped them from continuing beung bright.

I don't know, Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all smoked pot. And we all know how much of lazy fuck ups those people were. Clearly, smoking weed makes you lazy and unintelligent. We should all drink booze, which does nothing but gets you laid and makes you just generally awesome.

I think you misunderstood my point or maybe I worded it unclearly. I was trying to saying that smoking pot hasnt made bright people dumb.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on May 22, 2014, 05:45:50 PM
Sorry, fail for humor.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on July 16, 2014, 09:15:32 PM
Well our government seems to be doing something right, ball is rolling for the banks to deal with marijuana businesses

House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/ (https://House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on July 16, 2014, 09:44:17 PM
Well our government seems to be doing something right, ball is rolling for the banks to deal with marijuana businesses

House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/ (https://House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/)
First off, here's the link properly formatted:House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry (https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/)

As for the article, while I'm happy they're actually trying to do something, I'm not sure it'll have much effect on reigning in on Herr Holder's DOJ. I posted a link in some thread here about how they were using banks to harass titty-dancers, head shop owners, pornstars and all sorts of other legal but undesirable characters. These are all legal businesses that the banks are allowed to do business with, but those banks are being pressured to weed out customers who represent a "reputation risk." As I understand it, the threat is basically that if you allow such people to do business with your bank, we might start looking at all of your clients in much greater detail, which means lots of subpoenas and paperwork and research for you to deal with. Particularly with people who tend to deal mostly with cash. It's easier for the banks to just send Jasmine, Sapphire and Diamond off to some other bank.

Operation Choke Point is the badgering in question, by the way.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on July 17, 2014, 06:01:38 AM
Thanks for that correction, posted right before I fell asleep...

Yea, I agree with what you are saying.  I think over time though, the marijuana business wont be looked at the same way as the other undesirables and I think thats because of the large amount of money that these banks will be able to make by doing business with them.  Once the legislation fully goes through and more states start legalizing, I think this issue will slowly go away.  To me, this is just the first step to getting this process going.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on July 17, 2014, 07:46:15 AM
I think we will see marijuana legalization (or at the very least, decriminalization) start to spread with a rapidity similar to the wave of gay marriage acceptance.  In fact, it should go faster.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on July 17, 2014, 08:11:27 AM
I think we will see marijuana legalization (or at the very least, decriminalization) start to spread with a rapidity similar to the wave of gay marriage acceptance.  In fact, it should go faster.

It will go much faster due to the economic impact. Nothing pushes legislation faster than the potential to generate more tax revenue.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 26, 2014, 01:16:01 PM
I think we will see marijuana legalization (or at the very least, decriminalization) start to spread with a rapidity similar to the wave of gay marriage acceptance.  In fact, it should go faster.

It will go much faster due to the economic impact. Nothing pushes legislation faster than the potential to generate more tax revenue.


Some friends of mine are trying to become the owners of one of 11 dispensary licenses that are going to be issued in MA.  The stated goal of the MA law is to put a dispensary "within 30 miles or less" of every resident in the commonwealth.


The law was passed in November 2012, but they've yet to get a single dispensary up and running here. 


Getting a "card" so you can legally cultivate/harvest/use cannabis is pretty easy, though.  There are licensed "caregivers" all over the place who will hook you up with the paperwork you need to legally cultivate/harvest/use cannabis.  It's $220 to acquire the card, then another $80 about six months after you acquire the card, then a "nominal fee" to maintain your compliance annually.


And it's only for  ::)  "medical" ::)


Now look, I think it's silly that pot is still illegal in some places, but this whole "Medical" thing is ridiculous.  Everyone knows that 99% of the applicants for "medical" use are people who just want to smoke weed legally.  It's silly that we, as a society, have to put ourselves through charades like this one.  For what?  So the "morality police" won't be offended?   




Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on August 26, 2014, 02:01:22 PM
The morality police are offended anyway; they think marijuana shouldn't be legal under any circumstances, and know that the whole "medical marijuana" deal is just a way to get it out there legally.  But they're losing, slowly.

I see it as a stepping stone.  We have some states now where it's completely legal, and it appears to be sticking.  Others are following suit.  Some states can't make that jump, though, so they're playing the "medical marijuana" game first.  If they can get that going, get some people used to the idea that it's actually out there and crime didn't suddenly go up and children aren't being born with three heads or whatever the fuck they're all worried about, then public attitudes will slowly swing around and it will eventually get legalized there, too.  Or maybe they'll need to "decriminalize" it first, then legalize it down the road.  Baby steps, but forward steps nonetheless.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 26, 2014, 02:12:08 PM
Yea, its definitely become the stepping stone to outright legalization.

And I dont understand morals with regard to marijuana.  My mother smoked when she was young and then stopped for like 30 years until my siblings all got older and then we all smoked together as a family a few times and then suddenly my mother said she felt morally wrong and wont do it again.  I cant get a real answer out of her of what is morally wrong with it.  I guess breaking a law could make someone feel that way, but I dont know, I just dont see how morals play a role here.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2014, 02:19:40 PM
It's stupid that they make you jump through hoops, but at the same time I think all of the "medical" excuses they come up with are valid. For fuck's sake, if your podiatrist can prescribe Zoloft or Xanax for you, I see no reason why some other Dr. can't prescribe some good but that might very well work better than the former. If it helps you sleep, relax, relieve pain or enjoy shitty movies then I'd consider that a medical benefit.

Furthermore, the results from this approach tend to be much, much better for the average doper than the legalization route. Buy a card, grow a plant in your closet, smoke up, sell your excess to a dispensary and consider yourself damned fortunate. Those people in Colorado are paying out the ass for their bud all for the sake of it being "legal."
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 26, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
I think I saw somewhere that prices will go down once supply meets demand.  But the prices I saw are pretty consistent with prices I have seen on the streets in the north east.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: The King in Crimson on August 26, 2014, 09:09:42 PM
It's stupid that they make you jump through hoops, but at the same time I think all of the "medical" excuses they come up with are valid. For fuck's sake, if your podiatrist can prescribe Zoloft or Xanax for you, I see no reason why some other Dr. can't prescribe some good but that might very well work better than the former. If it helps you sleep, relax, relieve pain or enjoy shitty movies then I'd consider that a medical benefit.
I've never smoked weed, but personally, I'd rather ingest or smoke some weed than take something like Zoloft or Xanax. Weed may not be 100% healthy for you but you'd have to be fucking high to argue that it's worse than many of the prescription drugs already on the market.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2014, 10:05:29 PM
I think I saw somewhere that prices will go down once supply meets demand.  But the prices I saw are pretty consistent with prices I have seen on the streets in the north east.
Is there still a shortage? I was thinking they were in surplus now.

Seeing all sorts of interesting things with Colorado. For one thing, lots of people are still favoring the medicinal side. Once you get your card it's just easier to deal with I reckon. I suspect the recreational side is for the tourists. They're also seeing a huge black market and some interesting "gray market" types of deals. I've also heard that while they're coming up with some great strains up there, they're also absolutely chock full of chemicals. They're having to use a ton of nutrients and pesticides to meet demand and it's showing in their bud. What it's doing for the rest of the country is quite good, though. We're seeing more and more people using hash oil of one sort or another, and more people eating it for the different high. Hell, NY's sham medicinal program won't allow any smoking at all; only vaping and eating. This is a welcome development in my book.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 27, 2014, 06:38:21 AM
I was reading yesterday (I don't want to search for a link on my work machine) that was stating that the states with medicinal marijuana have shown a notable decrease in overdoses on prescription medication.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 27, 2014, 07:23:39 AM
I was reading yesterday (I don't want to search for a link on my work machine) that was stating that the states with medicinal marijuana have shown a notable decrease in overdoses on prescription medication.

Wow, thats really good to hear.


And, I dont know if there are still shortages, I feel like I read that about a month ago along with stuff about the black market in the legal states.  I guess if price is the problem, then its probably more cost effective to just grow your own.

Also, I have had some edibles recently and I agree that there is a lot of positives to go that route instead of smoke.  For one, I think it is definitely better for people using it for medical reasons because it makes your whole body relaxed compared to getting a good head high from smoking and it also lasts longer and is obviously healthier way to use it.  Only problem with the edibles is they are even more expensive.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 27, 2014, 07:52:09 AM
Edibles are super easy to make. I don't understand why anyone buys them when regular herb is an option. Just make your own  :tup
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 27, 2014, 08:10:50 AM
I thought they were a PITA. Also fairly expensive since nobody's going to make one brownie. The other thing is that it's much harder to regulate (end user side, that is). You eat one item and then 15-45 minutes later gauge what effect it had on you. I have no idea what the retail price is, but I can see how it might well be worth it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 27, 2014, 08:33:31 AM
I thought they were a PITA. Also fairly expensive since nobody's going to make one brownie. The other thing is that it's much harder to regulate (end user side, that is). You eat one item and then 15-45 minutes later gauge what effect it had on you. I have no idea what the retail price is, but I can see how it might well be worth it.

It'd take some trial and error, but I wouldn't waste my time making brownies that could go bad if I didn't eat them fast enough. I'd make hard candies or chocolates.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 27, 2014, 08:46:50 AM
I thought they were a PITA. Also fairly expensive since nobody's going to make one brownie. The other thing is that it's much harder to regulate (end user side, that is). You eat one item and then 15-45 minutes later gauge what effect it had on you. I have no idea what the retail price is, but I can see how it might well be worth it.

It'd take some trial and error, but I wouldn't waste my time making brownies that could go bad if I didn't eat them fast enough. I'd make hard candies or chocolates.

Which sounds even more difficult to make.  Ive eaten what would be equivalent to a tootsie roll and its 30 dollars and cut it into 1/3rds or 1/4ths based on your tolerance.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 27, 2014, 08:56:41 AM
I thought they were a PITA. Also fairly expensive since nobody's going to make one brownie. The other thing is that it's much harder to regulate (end user side, that is). You eat one item and then 15-45 minutes later gauge what effect it had on you. I have no idea what the retail price is, but I can see how it might well be worth it.

It'd take some trial and error, but I wouldn't waste my time making brownies that could go bad if I didn't eat them fast enough. I'd make hard candies or chocolates.

Which sounds even more difficult to make.  Ive eaten what would be equivalent to a tootsie roll and its 30 dollars and cut it into 1/3rds or 1/4ths based on your tolerance.

Nah. Chocolate is a piece a cake to make. If you can make a piece of cake, you can make chocolate.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 27, 2014, 09:51:14 AM
I'd say that the point is that people are responding to better alternative means of getting stoned. While I have issues with Colorado's "legalization," this has been a big benefit to everybody else. As smoking becomes less and less relevant the safety issue will continue improve. While NY's law seems to be quite the sham, I could definitely see it adding some legitimacy to the cause. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 27, 2014, 02:37:17 PM
The morality police are offended anyway; they think marijuana shouldn't be legal under any circumstances, and know that the whole "medical marijuana" deal is just a way to get it out there legally.  But they're losing, slowly.

I see it as a stepping stone.  We have some states now where it's completely legal, and it appears to be sticking.  Others are following suit.  Some states can't make that jump, though, so they're playing the "medical marijuana" game first.  If they can get that going, get some people used to the idea that it's actually out there and crime didn't suddenly go up and children aren't being born with three heads or whatever the fuck they're all worried about, then public attitudes will slowly swing around and it will eventually get legalized there, too.  Or maybe they'll need to "decriminalize" it first, then legalize it down the road.  Baby steps, but forward steps nonetheless.


Yeah, I guess you're right.  I just find the whole "medical" charade to be silly. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 27, 2014, 02:39:41 PM
I'd say that the point is that people are responding to better alternative means of getting stoned. While I have issues with Colorado's "legalization," this has been a big benefit to everybody else. As smoking becomes less and less relevant the safety issue will continue improve. While NY's law seems to be quite the sham, I could definitely see it adding some legitimacy to the cause.


Just curious, but why did you put "legalization" in quotes?  It IS legal for adults to possess and use cannabis in Colorado.  Sure, there are conditions, but it's legal.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 27, 2014, 02:44:56 PM
I'd say that the point is that people are responding to better alternative means of getting stoned. While I have issues with Colorado's "legalization," this has been a big benefit to everybody else. As smoking becomes less and less relevant the safety issue will continue improve. While NY's law seems to be quite the sham, I could definitely see it adding some legitimacy to the cause.


Just curious, but why did you put "legalization" in quotes?  It IS legal for adults to possess and use cannabis in Colorado.  Sure, there are conditions, but it's legal.
Didn't mean much by it, but I mostly consider the Colorado and Washington legalizations somewhat of a sham.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on August 27, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
Here in New Mexico they're trying to change the pot charges from jail time to just a $25 fine. I'm hoping they pass it, but if it goes to voters a lot of people will vote for it due to the overcrowded jails being a problem.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 28, 2014, 06:20:57 AM
Here in New Mexico they're trying to change the pot charges from jail time to just a $25 fine. I'm hoping they pass it, but if it goes to voters a lot of people will vote for it due to the overcrowded jails being a problem.
Well, that's one HUGE reason to decriminalize it in the first place.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 28, 2014, 06:38:04 AM
Here in New Mexico they're trying to change the pot charges from jail time to just a $25 fine. I'm hoping they pass it, but if it goes to voters a lot of people will vote for it due to the overcrowded jails being a problem.
Well, that's one HUGE reason to decriminalize it in the first place.

But what about all the jobs that will be lost from not having overcrowded prisons?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 28, 2014, 06:49:04 AM
I would wish that the money put into the jails for drug offenses could be shifted over to clinics and educational institutions for drug abuse.  That way jobs overall dont decrease and the money is going to help people and not put them in positions where they cant recover (going to jail).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 28, 2014, 07:00:04 AM
Here in New Mexico they're trying to change the pot charges from jail time to just a $25 fine. I'm hoping they pass it, but if it goes to voters a lot of people will vote for it due to the overcrowded jails being a problem.
Well, that's one HUGE reason to decriminalize it in the first place.

But what about all the jobs that will be lost from not having overcrowded prisons?
Umm...fuck 'em?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on August 28, 2014, 10:14:59 AM
Great read.

https://www.vice.com/read/leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkiller-drug-companies

Quote
VICE has found that many of the researchers who have advocated against legalizing pot have also been on the payroll of leading pharmaceutical firms with products that could be easily replaced by using marijuana. When these individuals have been quoted in the media, their drug-industry ties have not been revealed.

Take, for example, Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University. Kleber has impeccable academic credentials, and has been quoted in the press and in academic publications warning against the use of marijuana, which he stresses may cause wide-ranging addiction and public health issues. But when he's writing anti-pot opinion pieces for CBS News, or being quoted by NPR and CNBC, what's left unsaid is that Kleber has served as a paid consultant to leading prescription drug companies, including Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Reckitt Benckiser (the producer of a painkiller called Nurofen), and Alkermes (the producer of a powerful new opioid called Zohydro).

Could Kleber's long-term financial relationship with drug firms be viewed as a conflict of interest? Studies have found that pot can be used for pain relief as a substitute for major prescription painkillers. The opioid painkiller industry is a multibillion business that has faced rising criticism from experts because painkillers now cause about 16,000 deaths a year, more than heroin and cocaine combined. Researchers view marijuana as a a safe alternative to opioid products like OxyContin, and there are no known overdose deaths from pot.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on August 28, 2014, 10:48:56 AM
Full disclosure (for no particular reason): I work for a pharmaceutical company.  A big one, the one that produces a very well-known prescription pain killer.  We constantly have to take FDA-required training on everything from workplace safety to laws and ethics regarding pharmaceuticals.  There's so much of it that there's always at least a few on my "to-do" list, because some of them are required every year.  One of them that I just finished recently, as I do every year, specifically deals with our company's position on paying doctors to speak on behalf of our products.  We do not do it, because while legal, it is unethical.  The whole issue is painted broadly enough that speaking against medical marijuana would essentially be speaking in favor of our product, and I would be very, very disappointed to find out that we've done such a thing (even though it would benefit my company).

To the best of my knowledge, we have not done that.  My company and our product (which again, everyone would know by name) are not mentioned in the above article, and I would be surprised if they ever were.  So for what it's worth, not all pharmaceutical companies are the huge evil money-grubbing corporations the media would like you to believe.  Why yes, I think I'll have another glass of Kool-aid.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on August 28, 2014, 11:45:32 AM
Full disclosure (for no particular reason): I work for a pharmaceutical company.  A big one, the one that produces a very well-known prescription pain killer.  We constantly have to take FDA-required training on everything from workplace safety to laws and ethics regarding pharmaceuticals.  There's so much of it that there's always at least a few on my "to-do" list, because some of them are required every year.  One of them that I just finished recently, as I do every year, specifically deals with our company's position on paying doctors to speak on behalf of our products.  We do not do it, because while legal, it is unethical.  The whole issue is painted broadly enough that speaking against medical marijuana would essentially be speaking in favor of our product, and I would be very, very disappointed to find out that we've done such a thing (even though it would benefit my company).

To the best of my knowledge, we have not done that.  My company and our product (which again, everyone would know by name) are not mentioned in the above article, and I would be surprised if they ever were.  So for what it's worth, not all pharmaceutical companies are the huge evil money-grubbing corporations the media would like you to believe.  Why yes, I think I'll have another glass of Kool-aid.  Thank you.


Companies -regardless of the industry- exist for one purpose:  PROFIT


As far as I'm concerned, if big pharma conducts its business in a way that does not run afoul of the current laws and regulations governing their industry, I have no problem with their marketing methods. 


I may not like the messenger or their message, but it's pretty standard practice in advertising to "go negative"  (see: pretty much every national election ever conducted)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on August 28, 2014, 12:12:23 PM
Great read.

https://www.vice.com/read/leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkiller-drug-companies

Quote
VICE has found that many of the researchers who have advocated against legalizing pot have also been on the payroll of leading pharmaceutical firms with products that could be easily replaced by using marijuana. When these individuals have been quoted in the media, their drug-industry ties have not been revealed.

Take, for example, Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University. Kleber has impeccable academic credentials, and has been quoted in the press and in academic publications warning against the use of marijuana, which he stresses may cause wide-ranging addiction and public health issues. But when he's writing anti-pot opinion pieces for CBS News, or being quoted by NPR and CNBC, what's left unsaid is that Kleber has served as a paid consultant to leading prescription drug companies, including Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Reckitt Benckiser (the producer of a painkiller called Nurofen), and Alkermes (the producer of a powerful new opioid called Zohydro).

Could Kleber's long-term financial relationship with drug firms be viewed as a conflict of interest? Studies have found that pot can be used for pain relief as a substitute for major prescription painkillers. The opioid painkiller industry is a multibillion business that has faced rising criticism from experts because painkillers now cause about 16,000 deaths a year, more than heroin and cocaine combined. Researchers view marijuana as a a safe alternative to opioid products like OxyContin, and there are no known overdose deaths from pot.

Makes me sick.  Although its fairly normal in politics.  Bothers me even more when you see that overdoses of pain killers have decreased in states where medical marijuana is legal.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on August 29, 2014, 08:22:14 PM
I was reading yesterday (I don't want to search for a link on my work machine) that was stating that the states with medicinal marijuana have shown a notable decrease in overdoses on prescription medication.
I was just discussing with a friend today that if I wound up strung out on painkillers, as so many people do, I'd probably switch to heroin pretty quickly. As is so often the case, it's just much easier and much cheaper to get something illegal than it is to jump through the hoops to go the legal route. Doctors will get you strung out and then the FDA and DEA clamp down and fuck up your whole world. Then wonder why people are OD'ing on H.

Turns out Sanjay Gupta had the exact same thing to say (https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/health/gupta-unintended-consequences/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29) today.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on September 02, 2014, 09:33:04 AM
Turns out Colorado has made something like $21m less in taxes than they projected. They're finding a good amount of people are still buying on the black market in order to dodge the 27% tax rate. Serves them right, IMO. First you jail people for doing something harmless, and then you say "okay, we're going to let you do this now, but we are going to take a bunch of money from you first".
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on September 02, 2014, 09:45:50 AM
They need to find that happy medium price point to keep it off the black market.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2014, 10:06:01 AM
I doubt there will be that happy medium. The overhead to sell legally will still push the prices for legal bud higher than the black market. Besides which they hugely overestimated the amount of revenue they'd take in to sell the thing. Hell, they even hedged it a bit for their own purposes.

Here's what's interesting, though. They made 12 million in taxes anyway. What I'd like to know is what the net loss or gain was offsetting that from profits fighting the so-called war on drugs. I wonder what they've lost out on in seizures, fines, grant money and what not.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 02, 2014, 02:07:16 PM
Hmm...I think over time the black market may force legal prices down.  Why would ANYONE buy an OZ of weed for $300 when they can get it close by for half that much?  Especially now that the substance itself is no longer illegal.  The only people who will buy at the dispensaries are people who want to experience the novelty of legally buying it and vacationers who don't know any locals and thus don't have any black market connections. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on September 02, 2014, 02:35:16 PM
Hmm...I think over time the black market may force legal prices down.  Why would ANYONE buy an OZ of weed for $300 when they can get it close by for half that much?  Especially now that the substance itself is no longer illegal.  The only people who will buy at the dispensaries are people who want to experience the novelty of legally buying it and vacationers who don't know any locals and thus don't have any black market connections.

At this point, the only compelling reason would be product safety, and while I am far from an expert here it is my understanding that there are few if any barriers to entry for the "manufacture" of marijuana, unlike other regulated substances (i.e. liquor, prescription medication, etc.) and few ways to really screw up the manufacture.

In other words, moonshine can (potentially) kill you which is why people buy their liquor from licensed dispensaries rather than drink "their own", whereas the worst that happens from a bad batch of weed is a smelly room.   Am I wrong on this?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Hmm...I think over time the black market may force legal prices down.  Why would ANYONE buy an OZ of weed for $300 when they can get it close by for half that much?  Especially now that the substance itself is no longer illegal.  The only people who will buy at the dispensaries are people who want to experience the novelty of legally buying it and vacationers who don't know any locals and thus don't have any black market connections.

At this point, the only compelling reason would be product safety, and while I am far from an expert here it is my understanding that there are few if any barriers to entry for the "manufacture" of marijuana, unlike other regulated substances (i.e. liquor, prescription medication, etc.) and few ways to really screw up the manufacture.

In other words, moonshine can (potentially) kill you which is why people buy their liquor from licensed dispensaries rather than drink "their own", whereas the worst that happens from a bad batch of weed is a smelly room.   Am I wrong on this?
There's a significant amount of knowledge and effort that go into growing quality bud. It's not the stinky room that'd bother you, in fact that's more a sign of really good bud. It's that what you cranked out would taste bad and not get you all that stoned. Most would rather pay the experts for great quality bud, but some will certainly decide to grow some far superior stuff; likely the same sorts of people that roast their own coffee beans or brew their own beer.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on September 02, 2014, 04:10:13 PM
Hmm...I think over time the black market may force legal prices down.  Why would ANYONE buy an OZ of weed for $300 when they can get it close by for half that much?  Especially now that the substance itself is no longer illegal.  The only people who will buy at the dispensaries are people who want to experience the novelty of legally buying it and vacationers who don't know any locals and thus don't have any black market connections.

At this point, the only compelling reason would be product safety, and while I am far from an expert here it is my understanding that there are few if any barriers to entry for the "manufacture" of marijuana, unlike other regulated substances (i.e. liquor, prescription medication, etc.) and few ways to really screw up the manufacture.

In other words, moonshine can (potentially) kill you which is why people buy their liquor from licensed dispensaries rather than drink "their own", whereas the worst that happens from a bad batch of weed is a smelly room.   Am I wrong on this?
There's a significant amount of knowledge and effort that go into growing quality bud. It's not the stinky room that'd bother you, in fact that's more a sign of really good bud. It's that what you cranked out would taste bad and not get you all that stoned. Most would rather pay the experts for great quality bud, but some will certainly decide to grow some far superior stuff; likely the same sorts of people that roast their own coffee beans or brew their own beer.

Yea,a "bad batch of weed" would likely result in something that doesnt taste good and has little to no effect.  Not something that would be a health concern.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2014, 06:40:53 PM
Foul-tasting, less than potent weed is shwag. It's what the Mexicans have been selling for decades and it's what we all smoked before people started flooding the market with Cannabis Cup winners. There's always been a choice where you've got Mexican ditchweed selling for the same price it was 20 years ago, and high-grade boutique bud for 4x that amount. No doubt that situation still exists in CO as well, but there can't be much of a legal market for shwag. The mistake the CO politicians made was thinking that all of the people who were used to spending $30 for a quarter were suddenly going to start popping $75 for an eighth, or that people could fill that market void despite all of the taxation and overhead. It might eventually happen, but it's going to take RJR or Philip Morris to pull it off. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on September 03, 2014, 09:23:41 AM
I doubt there will be that happy medium. The overhead to sell legally will still push the prices for legal bud higher than the black market. Besides which they hugely overestimated the amount of revenue they'd take in to sell the thing. Hell, they even hedged it a bit for their own purposes.

Here's what's interesting, though. They made 12 million in taxes anyway. What I'd like to know is what the net loss or gain was offsetting that from profits fighting the so-called war on drugs. I wonder what they've lost out on in seizures, fines, grant money and what not.

I'm curious to know if that tax loss is just on the taxes expected to be generated from the weed sales alone. Surely there have been been many jobs created that are giving people disposable/taxable income. Not to mention the tourism businesses that have started up and the accessories that have probably also gotten a huge boost in sales as well.

I'd also like to know where Colorado's black market product now originates. I'm assuming it's mostly the herb that is grown locally and turned down by the dispensaries. I sure the amount of herb coming from cartel related activities has dropped significantly, which is in itself a great victory.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 03, 2014, 09:39:20 AM
I suspect your cartel related stuff is in higher demand than ever. Like I said, a helluva lot of smokers can't afford quality over quantity and some just don't want it. Somebody's got to supply those hundred dollar lids.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on September 03, 2014, 09:49:35 AM
I suspect your cartel related stuff is in higher demand than ever. Like I said, a helluva lot of smokers can't afford quality over quantity and some just don't want it. Somebody's got to supply those hundred dollar lids.

Seems like a little of both

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/colorado-marijuana-black-market_n_5669302.html
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 03, 2014, 10:45:57 AM
I checked a website where people post dope prices, and it seems that while shwag is officially dirt cheap in CO, it's also hard to come by from what I can tell. If so that'd kind of muddle my entire assessment. All we really know is that it's still quite early in the game and nobody really knows how it is or will play out. I'm not surprised their tax revenue is far below their estimates (aren't they always), but I'd certainly be interested in knowing why that is.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on September 03, 2014, 11:07:50 AM
If there is a demand for shwag, why doesnt the state just grow some and sell it for cheap?  I am assuming that wont help the situation completely as with taxes, itll still be more expensive.  If we can grow 30 strands then why cant we grow one more of crap weed to help people who want cheaper bud?  I have personally never heard of people who want shwag, but hey if they exist then the state should meet the demand.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 03, 2014, 11:23:26 AM
If there is a demand for shwag, why doesnt the state just grow some and sell it for cheap?  I am assuming that wont help the situation completely as with taxes, itll still be more expensive.  If we can grow 30 strands then why cant we grow one more of crap weed to help people who want cheaper bud?  I have personally never heard of people who want shwag, but hey if they exist then the state should meet the demand.
You're dealing with a product at such a low price point that the 25% tax would make it unfeasible when compared to the illicit variety. And while there are plenty of people who can't afford $60 eighths, there are also people who just prefer the simplicity of rolling a joint of shwag. My brother is one of them. Hell, I can actually appreciate the loss of that cultural aspect, as well. There are plenty of old timers here who will vouch to the fact that smoking ridiculous amounts of grass to try and smog out a van Spicolli style, or competing to see who can roll the biggest joint was a tremendous good time. That's something that you're not going to see when the value of bud is so high and the potency makes it completely unnecessary.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on September 03, 2014, 11:30:25 AM
If there is a demand for shwag, why doesnt the state just grow some and sell it for cheap?  I am assuming that wont help the situation completely as with taxes, itll still be more expensive.  If we can grow 30 strands then why cant we grow one more of crap weed to help people who want cheaper bud?  I have personally never heard of people who want shwag, but hey if they exist then the state should meet the demand.
You're dealing with a product at such a low price point that the 25% tax would make it unfeasible when compared to the illicit variety. And while there are plenty of people who can't afford $60 eighths, there are also people who just prefer the simplicity of rolling a joint of shwag. My brother is one of them. Hell, I can actually appreciate the loss of that cultural aspect, as well. There are plenty of old timers here who will vouch to the fact that smoking ridiculous amounts of grass to try and smog out a van Spicolli style, or competing to see who can roll the biggest joint was a tremendous good time. That's something that you're not going to see when the value of bud is so high and the potency makes it completely unnecessary.

I think el Barto has it right, even if he hasn't said it in so many words:  I think there are too many factors at play and it is too early to tell how it will all play out.     The "illegals" have to run out of supply, the long-time users (who probably have a healthy distrust for anything "The Man" has his fingers into) have to come around to using the official supplies, and the price point has to settle to equilibrium.     I don't think it is realistic for anyone to think this will be a seamless and instant transition, or that early data is necessarily accurate data.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Scheavo on September 05, 2014, 05:57:47 PM
If there is a demand for shwag, why doesnt the state just grow some and sell it for cheap?  I am assuming that wont help the situation completely as with taxes, itll still be more expensive.  If we can grow 30 strands then why cant we grow one more of crap weed to help people who want cheaper bud?  I have personally never heard of people who want shwag, but hey if they exist then the state should meet the demand.
You're dealing with a product at such a low price point that the 25% tax would make it unfeasible when compared to the illicit variety. And while there are plenty of people who can't afford $60 eighths, there are also people who just prefer the simplicity of rolling a joint of shwag. My brother is one of them. Hell, I can actually appreciate the loss of that cultural aspect, as well. There are plenty of old timers here who will vouch to the fact that smoking ridiculous amounts of grass to try and smog out a van Spicolli style, or competing to see who can roll the biggest joint was a tremendous good time. That's something that you're not going to see when the value of bud is so high and the potency makes it completely unnecessary.

Since hemp/marijuana theoretically has other uses, if people just want some schwag, then deregulation and legality without all the strings attached could mean selling of schwag is simply a side business for a company that uses that hemp for other things. Isn't diversification all the craze in businesses these days?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on September 16, 2014, 01:55:13 PM
The mistake the CO politicians made was thinking that all of the people who were used to spending $30 for a quarter were suddenly going to start popping $75 for an eighth, or that people could fill that market void despite all of the taxation and overhead. It might eventually happen, but it's going to take RJR or Philip Morris to pull it off.


I can just see it now:


Pall Mall "Gorilla Stix" Marijuana Cigarettes


Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on September 16, 2014, 03:01:37 PM
The mistake the CO politicians made was thinking that all of the people who were used to spending $30 for a quarter were suddenly going to start popping $75 for an eighth, or that people could fill that market void despite all of the taxation and overhead. It might eventually happen, but it's going to take RJR or Philip Morris to pull it off.


I can just see it now:


Pall Mall "Gorilla Stix" Marijuana Cigarettes
Perfect. It lends itself well to all of the derogatory terms they'll earn for being weak and tasting like shit.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 02, 2014, 08:24:13 AM
Well Philly made some moves

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/philadelphia-decriminalizes-marijuana_n_5919896.html

Quote
Those possessing 30 grams or less of marijuana will be cited and fined $25. Those smoking in public will be cited and fined $100, or made to perform nine hours of community service.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 02, 2014, 08:31:03 AM
A move in the right direction and an east coast city too. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 02, 2014, 08:33:33 AM
There has been a lot of success out east north of the Carolinas.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 02, 2014, 08:36:08 AM
True, but not the likes of the west coast.  One of the biggest cities in the US in a state that I havent seen a whole lot go on about legalization doing this is encouraging.  I did think that NYC had decriminalized though, I must have been wrong.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: DerekTheater on October 10, 2014, 01:19:19 PM
The morality police are offended anyway; they think marijuana shouldn't be legal under any circumstances, and know that the whole "medical marijuana" deal is just a way to get it out there legally.  But they're losing, slowly.

I see it as a stepping stone.  We have some states now where it's completely legal, and it appears to be sticking.  Others are following suit.  Some states can't make that jump, though, so they're playing the "medical marijuana" game first.  If they can get that going, get some people used to the idea that it's actually out there and crime didn't suddenly go up and children aren't being born with three heads or whatever the fuck they're all worried about, then public attitudes will slowly swing around and it will eventually get legalized there, too.  Or maybe they'll need to "decriminalize" it first, then legalize it down the road.  Baby steps, but forward steps nonetheless.


Yeah, I guess you're right.  I just find the whole "medical" charade to be silly.

It's not a charade. It's being pushed in hopes of becoming completely legal, yes, but marijuana has medicinal uses that can't be denied.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 10, 2014, 04:58:24 PM
It's not a charade. It's being pushed in hopes of becoming completely legal, yes, but marijuana has medicinal uses that can't be denied.
Absolutely right. And as far as I'm concerned all it has to do is to make a person feel better or even improve their spirits and I'm all in favor of calling it medicine. It doesn't have to cure cancer or grow new replacement organs. It only has to improve quality of life.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: DerekTheater on October 10, 2014, 05:09:09 PM
It's not a charade. It's being pushed in hopes of becoming completely legal, yes, but marijuana has medicinal uses that can't be denied.
Absolutely right. And as far as I'm concerned all it has to do is to make a person feel better or even improve their spirits and I'm all in favor of calling it medicine. It doesn't have to cure cancer or grow new replacement organs. It only has to improve quality of life.

Its pain relieving effects are well-documented, and folks who can't admit it have permanent blinders on the subject.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 13, 2014, 07:11:10 AM
It's not a charade. It's being pushed in hopes of becoming completely legal, yes, but marijuana has medicinal uses that can't be denied.
Absolutely right. And as far as I'm concerned all it has to do is to make a person feel better or even improve their spirits and I'm all in favor of calling it medicine. It doesn't have to cure cancer or grow new replacement organs. It only has to improve quality of life.

Its pain relieving effects are well-documented, and folks who can't admit it have permanent blinders on the subject.

But if people can medicate with marijuana, they aren't going to need 3 months prescriptions for things like morphine and vicodin.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: DerekTheater on October 13, 2014, 10:19:32 AM
It's not a charade. It's being pushed in hopes of becoming completely legal, yes, but marijuana has medicinal uses that can't be denied.
Absolutely right. And as far as I'm concerned all it has to do is to make a person feel better or even improve their spirits and I'm all in favor of calling it medicine. It doesn't have to cure cancer or grow new replacement organs. It only has to improve quality of life.

Its pain relieving effects are well-documented, and folks who can't admit it have permanent blinders on the subject.

But if people can medicate with marijuana, they aren't going to need 3 months prescriptions for things like morphine and vicodin.

You underestimate the amount of Americans who like to party!  :metal
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 05, 2014, 04:27:49 AM
Congrats to Oregon for full legalization and Washington DC for decriminalization.  Still waiting to hear on Alaska and boo for Florida to not pass Medical use.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 05, 2014, 11:39:51 AM
Wow. Haven't been able to read the whole text yet, but from my skimming it looks like Oregon went the total freeforallFTW route on their law. Possess up to a half pound and 4 mature plants, presumably meaning immature plants don't count against; hello steady rotation. Also seems that you can sling up to an oz for "non-commercial" purposes. All that with no attempts to appease the doomsayers. Also pretty generous allowances for hash and edibles, from what I can tell. Off hand it seems like the best of the dope laws by far right now.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Dark Castle on November 05, 2014, 11:43:12 AM
Congrats to Oregon for full legalization and Washington DC for decriminalization.  Still waiting to hear on Alaska and boo for Florida to not pass Medical use.
Mannnnnnnnnnn Florida was 57% yes
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 16, 2014, 02:17:13 PM
https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/16/7403337/congress-victory-for-medical-marijuana-in-spending-bill (https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/16/7403337/congress-victory-for-medical-marijuana-in-spending-bill)

Quote
The 2015 spending bill contains a provision that says no federal funds may be used to prevent states from enforcing their own medical marijuana laws

Interesting.  Another move forward on this.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 16, 2014, 02:39:03 PM
That makes no sense. Why would Uncle Sammy prevent states from enforcing marijuana laws? Seems to me his problem is with states failing to enforce their laws.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 16, 2014, 02:47:07 PM
After re-reading that quote, it sounds misleading or incorrect, but I get the point it.  This other quote says it better:

Quote
nside the fiscal 2015 spending bill — yes, the one that's 1,603 pages long — is a measure that prevents the federal government from interfering with states that have allowed medical marijuana or allow the drug entirely. Federal agents are now prohibited from raiding marijuana retail operations.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 16, 2014, 02:52:27 PM
That makes more sense. Technically it was already the case within the DoJ, according to their policy memos, but then Holder is one of the few people whose word means less than Obama's right now.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on December 17, 2014, 08:52:33 AM
Well, not knowing where that second quote came from, it is the original language that will be scrutinized and enforced, not what some news source interprets it as, and that original language is faulty.   That is actually a pet peeve of mine; these representatives are almost always lawyers, they should know "words matter" and not be so sloppy with what they intend. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 17, 2014, 08:56:31 AM
Agreed, when I read the actual wording, it wasnt very clear to me, but I assumed that I am just not skilled in reading law and took the journalist word on its interpretation.  Regardless, I cant see it as a bad thing in general even if its shadily worded.  I would much rather a broad decriminalization federally and leave it to the states, but it seems the way this is going is its going to be bits and pieces until it finally reaches that point.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 17, 2014, 09:01:28 AM
Well, the text of the bill doesn't really offer much.

Quote from: The Man
Sec. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

From what I can tell it does nothing to curtail federal enforcement of federal laws. It only suggests that the DOJ can't prevent the states from rolling out their programs, saying nothing about future enforcement.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on December 17, 2014, 09:17:17 AM
... and took the journalist word on its interpretation. 

That there should be a punishable offense.  ;) 

I'm kidding, of course, but as one who IS skilled in reading the law, I can tell you that I trust very few legal interpretations as done by journalists, even when they are vetted through staff attorneys.   The story is the king, and will more often than not trump anything pesky like the truth, or the boldface intent of the language.   Sorry if this sounds cynical, but...
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 17, 2014, 09:34:09 AM
... and took the journalist word on its interpretation. 

That there should be a punishable offense.  ;) 

I'm kidding, of course, but as one who IS skilled in reading the law, I can tell you that I trust very few legal interpretations as done by journalists, even when they are vetted through staff attorneys.   The story is the king, and will more often than not trump anything pesky like the truth, or the boldface intent of the language.   Sorry if this sounds cynical, but...

Nope, you are 100% right.  Journalism has no integrity anymore.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 19, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
Nebraska and Oklahoma sue Colorado over marijuana legalization

Quote
Nebraska and Oklahoma filed the lawsuit directly with the nation's highest court on Thursday. The two states argue in the lawsuit that, "the State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system."

"Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," the lawsuit alleges.

https://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_27163543/nebraska-and-oklahoma-sue-colorado-over-marijuana-legalization (https://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_27163543/nebraska-and-oklahoma-sue-colorado-over-marijuana-legalization)

Don't think anything will come of it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 19, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
Oh no, people are buying pot legally, then bringing it into our states illegally!

Yep, it's draining their treasuries and placing stress on the criminal justice systems.  That's one of the biggest arguments for legalization, and why Colorado did it in the first place.  Nebraska and Oklahoma can get with the times, decide not to get all hot and bothered about people getting stoned and maybe focus more on murders and robberies, or they can whine about it.  I guess they're going with option C.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 22, 2014, 07:18:15 PM
Oh no, people are buying pot legally, then bringing it into our states illegally!
Seems like a legitimate situation that shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

Is it all that much different than transporting fruits or other contraband across state/country lines?

Its not, except its been happening illegally well before Colorado made it legal.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 22, 2014, 08:33:52 PM
Its not, except its been happening illegally well before Colorado made it legal.
What hasn't happened before laws were introduced?

I really don't care what people do on their own time (if it isn't harming others).  But we can't just dismiss the implications.

There should be some considerations to being "under the influence" while at work or operating heavy machinery (even a car).  As some have said, it is a bit more difficult to detect recent pot use (beyond the overwhelming smell).

I've been in the back seat of a car when somebody has decided to get high while driving.  Not fun. 

I've witnessed coworkers that smoke pot during lunch, then go back to work stoned.  If sensible testing isn't considered, workers comps rates will go up.  Will the business get sued for letting somebody go (or just telling them to clock out and go home with a write up) if it appears (and smells) that they are stoned?  Will they get sued by others if that stoned person isn't told to go home, gets on a forklift, knocks over a storage rack and seriously injures others?  What about an attorney that loses a case that is later found to be impaired?

Being in California, I am more or less pro-pot legalization.  I've watched as landlords were sued for not allowing pot dispensaries, only to have the Feds shut it down a few months later and left with a destroyed unit (mainly by the raid).  I've talked to pot sellers that opened (or fantasized about opening) these dispensaries, only to vote no a few years later for legalization expansion because it would increase competition.

If people want to have a discussion on pot legalization, then they should have it and not dismiss it when they don't like where the conversation detours.

Well that had nothing to do with I was inferring, but clearly you dont trust people smoking marijuana while in a work environment and I totally agree with you.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on December 22, 2014, 08:55:08 PM
Yes, it is more difficult to detect if someone is high on marijuana vs. being drunk.  That is something that should get better for detecting people under the influence while driving or at work I would hope.  I personally don't think being drunk vs being high on marijuana should be considered the same, but I do agree that there should be better testing and proper penalties.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 23, 2014, 06:25:28 PM
Looks like there is a "pot breathalyzer" of sorts in the works, so apparently that stuff will get ironed out soon.

https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400 (https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 23, 2014, 07:12:02 PM
Looks like there is a "pot breathalyzer" of sorts in the works, so apparently that stuff will get ironed out soon.

https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400 (https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400)
This will simply be another cash cow for LEO. Much like DWI enforcement we'll see an arbitrary number which is great for drawing a bright line for conviction (cha-ching!) but not actually indicative of impairment.

Sigh.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 24, 2014, 10:48:06 AM
Looks like there is a "pot breathalyzer" of sorts in the works, so apparently that stuff will get ironed out soon.

https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400 (https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400)
This will simply be another cash cow for LEO. Much like DWI enforcement we'll see an arbitrary number which is great for drawing a bright line for conviction (cha-ching!) but not actually indicative of impairment.

Sigh.


Yeah, this actually bugs me a lot.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 24, 2014, 02:20:16 PM
On the upside, it might do something to help shut up those who oppose legalization for the reasons recently discussed, that there's no way to tell when someone is "under the influence".  Some people can function pretty well while high, just as some people can function pretty well with a fair amount of alcohol in them, so no, this will not be a true indicator of impairment any more than a breathalyzer.  But it can and will likely be promoted as more or less the equivalent, and it is objective, and that's good enough for a lot of people.

Where pot is legal, many are afraid that there are people driving around stoned out of their minds, and there's no way for law enforcement to "prove" impairment, not like a breathalyzer for alcohol.  This provides the means.  Once again, baby steps.  We're living in a time of great change, and it's not gonna happen overnight.  I find it fascinating to watch the process, to be honest.  So this isn't perfect, and nothing ever will be, but it's not a bad first step.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 24, 2014, 04:50:25 PM
On the upside, it might do something to help shut up those who oppose legalization for the reasons recently discussed, that there's no way to tell when someone is "under the influence".  Some people can function pretty well while high, just as some people can function pretty well with a fair amount of alcohol in them, so no, this will not be a true indicator of impairment any more than a breathalyzer.  But it can and will likely be promoted as more or less the equivalent, and it is objective, and that's good enough for a lot of people.

Where pot is legal, many are afraid that there are people driving around stoned out of their minds, and there's no way for law enforcement to "prove" impairment, not like a breathalyzer for alcohol.  This provides the means.  Once again, baby steps.  We're living in a time of great change, and it's not gonna happen overnight.  I find it fascinating to watch the process, to be honest.  So this isn't perfect, and nothing ever will be, but it's not a bad first step.
While it is fascinating to watch change happen, in this case I'm pretty certain which directions things will go and it won't be pretty. I suppose it might well alleviate a few concerns about decriminalization, but it's going to introduce some far worse ramifications. Pot is already mostly ignored in most places, and here in Texas I'd damn sure rather get busted for having a lid on me than whatever the insane consequences of getting a DUI are. Particularly since we both know that a DUI in these sorts of cases won't be indicative of anything at all.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 24, 2014, 06:44:15 PM
Yeah, but Texas is half crazy anyway.  No offense intended; you know it's true.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 24, 2014, 07:05:19 PM
Yeah, but Texas is half crazy anyway.  No offense intended; you know it's true.
Well, yeah, it is. And if I get caught with a trunk full of KB I'm still going to get off a helluva lot easier than blowing a .08. Hell, a friend got popped in AZ with the aforementioned trunk and still got off easier and cheaper than a DUI would have been. And AZ is second only to OK insofar as their treatment of dopers is concerned. Plus, you know as well as I do that there's no amount of THC that is going to be indicative of impairment.

For that matter, insofar as driving high is concerned, the studies done by every country that isn't called Amur'ka suggest that to reach a comparative level to a .08 you're going to smoke 3 joints, by yourself, in an hour. How many decades has it been since you were that silly?  :lol  You think the congressmen in your state are going to set a threshhold so reasonable in your state that they never get to bust anybody?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on December 24, 2014, 07:53:23 PM
No.  And I do get your point about the threshhold probably never being realistic.  I just figure that nothing they come up with will ever be "right", so the best we can hope for is "not horrible".  Something that will keep most of the conservatives happy, and the liberals, and keep us moving forward.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on December 29, 2014, 09:39:23 AM
Looks like there is a "pot breathalyzer" of sorts in the works, so apparently that stuff will get ironed out soon.

https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400 (https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400)
This will simply be another cash cow for LEO. Much like DWI enforcement we'll see an arbitrary number which is great for drawing a bright line for conviction (cha-ching!) but not actually indicative of impairment.

Sigh.

Legitimately, I don't follow.  Are you saying that the numbers for alcohol aren't indicative of impairment?  Or that you fear that the numbers for pot will be arbitrary in a way that alcohol's isn't?   

I guess, so you know I'm not just being contrarian, my question would be; does it matter?  It's the same number for everyone (even though bodies are different, I get that).  Presumably, I know what my limit is, and I have to make that choice when I drink.  Do I drink in my living room (or with a DD), or do I drive to meet my friends? Why should it be any different with weed?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 29, 2014, 01:53:16 PM
Looks like there is a "pot breathalyzer" of sorts in the works, so apparently that stuff will get ironed out soon.

https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400 (https://m.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-marijuana-breathalyzer-horizon-police-struggle-stop-stoned-drivers-1734400)
This will simply be another cash cow for LEO. Much like DWI enforcement we'll see an arbitrary number which is great for drawing a bright line for conviction (cha-ching!) but not actually indicative of impairment.

Sigh.
Legitimately, I don't follow.  Are you saying that the numbers for alcohol aren't indicative of impairment?  Or that you fear that the numbers for pot will be arbitrary in a way that alcohol's isn't?   
You and I have had the discussion before about policing for profit. I'm of the opinion that even if your cause is just, an external incentive tends to overshadow the good. As we often see, once you turn CJ into a for-profit enterprise you start policing towards that goal, often to the detriment of the just cause. Speeding is the original example of that. Cops don't spend entire shifts looking for unsafe drivers. They spend entire shifts looking for people driving 42+ in a 35. Which do you honestly think would be more beneficial, bust 15 shitheads a day for stupidly bad driving, or 45 of those people driving 7 (but not 6) over the posted limit? DUI enforcement has taken on a very similar quality. They're not busting people for actual impairment (though I don't deny that in many, or perhaps even most, cases that is present), they're busting people for a BAC that is only a generalization of intoxication. Yet because it's now such a lucrative thing for so many different people, that's become the primary motivation. I'm all for keeping impaired drivers off the road, but focusing solely on people with a .08 BAC is stupid, and frankly the entire thing has become a steaming boulder of Sasquatch scat, with entire cottage industries set up to take a bite.

Quote
It's the same number for everyone (even though bodies are different, I get that).
Yes, which is exactly why I consider it a tax; just like speeding and red light tickets.

As it pertains to people driving while stoned, the disparity will be far greater. That there's even any real impairment is actually open to debate (quite interesting debate, at that), but to assume that the impairment is universal is outlandish. Alas, that's not the point as far as politicians are concerned. What they want is a bright line to aid in prosecution.

And as a personal observation, I'm baffled as to what they'd come up with. In my case, one bowl will have me high enough to make a noticeable change in my driving (which is not to say impairment). I'm not sure smoking another 10 after that would actually make any difference. Either I'm driving like I'm high or I'm not. Perhaps some others with similar experience will chime in.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 29, 2014, 08:39:05 PM
They're not busting people for actual impairment (though I don't deny that in many, or perhaps even most, cases that is present), they're busting people for a BAC that is only a generalization of intoxication.
1.  You don't get pulled over unless you are already exhibiting signs of impairment.  I've never been asked to randomly take a BAC test.   Even at a New Year's Eve drunk stop, they don't administer the test to everybody.  Just those that are appearing to be impaired.  When I go through one of these, I quickly get waved through.
2.  A BAC or THC test at least takes out the human element and gives a cold, hard fact based off an agreed upon number as opposed to the cop making a judgment call as to whether you were too drunk.
1. You get pulled over (or corralled) for all manner of things. You get breath-tested because you're "exhibiting signs of impairment." Here's the tricky bit, though, are you being tested because you might be an impaired driver or because you might blow a .08? See the difference? By and large I think your point is reasonable. I've never been asked to submit to any testing, either. That doesn't change the fact that Johnny is incentivized on several levels to bust DUI's, and that fosters abuse and negligence.

2. It measures an agreed upon number that only tangentially relates to what it claims to be ascertaining.

And again, all of this is removing resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Quote
I'd have a much bigger problem with cops not having a BAC/THC test.  It is less flawed than a gun radar because the cop can't attribute a result to the wrong mouth.
Yeah, except for that pesky margin of error we're not supposed to think about. We're talking hundredths of a percent here. It doesn't take much to cause a helluva variance. Even the non-portable intoxilyzer units have a significant margin of error under perfect conditions. That's a perfect operator, unit and suspect. To assume that all of those factors are met is like assuming that cop calibrated his radar gun before he clocked you (you know, like they always do  :lol).

Quote
The reason I support pot legalization is because I assume it will be handled responsibly.  If pro-pot people are just going to try and strike down the laws of responsibility, then my pro-pot legalization stance weakens.
Since you've been lurking here a while I'll assume you're not lumping me in with the pro-pot people just trying to shoot down laws of responsibility. I'll also point out that what you should want is reasonable laws. That means considering their validity instead of considering their aim. As I said before I'm all in favor of keeping impaired drivers off the road. I'd just like to find a better way of doing it, and more importantly, I'd like to see it not come at the expense of ignoring a lot of more dangerous drivers. One thing I can tell you with complete certainty is that drunk drivers don't scare me in the slightest; never have. Ditzy, distracted soccer moms driving 3 ton Escalades while yammering on about nothing scare the piss out of me. Don't recall ever seeing a checkpoint set up to check for shithead drivers, though.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: The King in Crimson on December 29, 2014, 10:45:29 PM
And as a business owner, I am a bit worried about dealing with a THC-enhanced employee.  What if I turn my back and they cause an accident?  What if I insert myself and get sued for employee harassment?
THC-Enhanced sounds way cool, like marijuana turns you into a super soldier or something. Aside from that, how is this any different than drunk people on the job causing accidents? Is it because being a drunk is more obviously noticeable than being stoned?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 08:25:19 AM
That doesn't change the fact that Johnny is incentivized on several levels to bust DUI's, and that fosters abuse and negligence.
The incentive for red lights (cameras), speeding (radar gun) and drunk driving (breathalyzer) is probably attributed to the fact that they are far easier for them to prove in court (backed by an electronic gadget).  Swerving in and out of traffic is probably harder, but proper cop cams (dash cams) is probably making it easier to make that a more successful *bust*.

I'm sure LEO is incentivized by pulling in traffic violation fines (I agree with your tax comparison).  As far as stretching resources in the wrong direction, that's partly true and partly a self-defense mechanism.  "Why aren't you going after ______?"

Ease of conviction doesn't sound much better than the cha-ching method of policing. And I'm not enough of a drinker to need a self-defense mechanism.

Quote
That still seems relatively large compared to similar devices that commonly measure parts per million.  And don't forget, if you know you've been drinking, you always say "let's do the breathalyzer at the station."  So there are ways to game it in your favor as well.

Everybody I've known that have DUI problems are drunks.  They literally ooze alcohol from their pores when they sweat.  So maybe my state is just different, but I've never once feared being charged with a DUI if I wasn't "inebriated".  And like I said, I've been in cars with guys smoking pot, driving 200 miles, across state lines.  Wasn't stopped once, despite their obviously impaired driving.  So the idea that cops are out there looking to cash in on drunk drivers doesn't really line up with my experiences.
In this state, if you know you've been drinking you refuse the breathalyzer outright. You'll get hooked up regardless, but the outcome will usually be far cheaper.

And the people I know who have gotten DWIs haven't been drunks in as much as bad drinkers. The drunks actually tend to do much better than to get pulled over in the first place.

If you're interested in some fun reads, the "what's your highest BAC arrest" threads at officer.com are damned entertaining. Seems a good percentage of them are perfectly functional well into the .3s. Three or four posts into this one (https://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-170896.html) some jerk lists all of the various BAC threads. Here's a surprisingly common example:

Quote from: Some Random Cop
.39 on a BAC DataMaster. He nailed the physical field tests, and I wouldn't have arrested him if I hadn't been trained in HGN. He was a long-time alcoholic.

Some good stories, and for the curious, there were a couple who were blood tested over .6.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 08:30:34 AM
THC-Enhanced sounds way cool, like marijuana turns you into a super soldier or something. Aside from that, how is this any different than drunk people on the job causing accidents? Is it because being a drunk is more obviously noticeable than being stoned?

*Stoned* is different than drunk.  You can be somewhat more physically capable than when drunk, but mentally you think you are more competent than you really are.  So you could probably go undetected for a longer time unless you were being watched like a hawk for an extended time.

When I was an employee, we had a joking phrase of "are you on crack?" when somebody did something stupid.  We weren't really asking if they did crack.  It was more of friendly ribbing.  But the phrase turned to "are you high?" when somebody did something stupid, as in not funny.  One dude knocked over an entire rack with a forklift.  One guy got his leg caught in the conveyor rollers.  We said "are you high?, not "are you on crack?"  They were high.

But in some ways it is easier to detect a semi-stoned person than a full on drunk.  A casual drunk doesn't really stink.  A full on drunk does.  A semi-stoned person, well, come on.  We all know how strong it smells.

So if you are just using your senses, you can be pretty positive that you are kicking a full on drunk off the job before an accident happens by their smell (and usually speech).  Somebody can reek of pot and have just been the dude next to the pot smoker.  So if you smell pot on their clothes, you are in a grey area.
You might ant to recalibrate your radar. As less and less people roll joints nowadays, sniffing out a doper will become damned hard. At least (from your perspective) the black dudes might smell like cigar smoke; although that's hardly indicative.

Also, you mentioned driving with a stoned driver who was obviously impaired, and you're referring to impairment here. I'm curious how you define impairment. You have any experience smoking pot? While easily distracted could certainly be considered impairment, it tends to be mitigated by the highly cautious aspect.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on December 30, 2014, 09:05:29 AM
You and I have had the discussion before about policing for profit. I'm of the opinion that even if your cause is just, an external incentive tends to overshadow the good. As we often see, once you turn CJ into a for-profit enterprise you start policing towards that goal, often to the detriment of the just cause. Speeding is the original example of that. Cops don't spend entire shifts looking for unsafe drivers. They spend entire shifts looking for people driving 42+ in a 35. Which do you honestly think would be more beneficial, bust 15 shitheads a day for stupidly bad driving, or 45 of those people driving 7 (but not 6) over the posted limit? DUI enforcement has taken on a very similar quality. They're not busting people for actual impairment (though I don't deny that in many, or perhaps even most, cases that is present), they're busting people for a BAC that is only a generalization of intoxication. Yet because it's now such a lucrative thing for so many different people, that's become the primary motivation. I'm all for keeping impaired drivers off the road, but focusing solely on people with a .08 BAC is stupid, and frankly the entire thing has become a steaming boulder of Sasquatch scat, with entire cottage industries set up to take a bite.

Well, you and I agree on the basis of this, no question, and I can't say I'm thrilled with it, but I do think we differ in that it's a tough thing to argue, especially when there is that spectre of "what if"?   If .08 is stupid (and I think I'm at 0.08 right now, just based on last night) what's the alternative?  At what point would you suggest that the onus be put on the driver?  I'm kidding about my 0.08, but even if I wasn't, I'm sitting at my kitchen table and not hurting anyone so who cares?   I have the choice to get behind a wheel.

Quote
As it pertains to people driving while stoned, the disparity will be far greater. That there's even any real impairment is actually open to debate (quite interesting debate, at that), but to assume that the impairment is universal is outlandish. Alas, that's not the point as far as politicians are concerned. What they want is a bright line to aid in prosecution.

And as a personal observation, I'm baffled as to what they'd come up with. In my case, one bowl will have me high enough to make a noticeable change in my driving (which is not to say impairment). I'm not sure smoking another 10 after that would actually make any difference. Either I'm driving like I'm high or I'm not. Perhaps some others with similar experience will chime in.

Serious question: how would you do it?  I am not a big smoker at all (though I like it and am not against it; it is purely opportunity with me), and I can't name a time I did it knowing I would be driving in the immediate future, so I don't know what the answer is.  But how do you not have an arbitrary line?   I don't mean this to sound sarcastic (though given our fairly entrenched positions, it can't help but sound that way), but do you really want it to be case by case?  That puts a lot of leeway on the side of Johnny....
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on December 30, 2014, 09:13:00 AM
And the people I know who have gotten DWIs haven't been drunks in as much as bad drinkers. The drunks actually tend to do much better than to get pulled over in the first place.


This is money, right here.   Spot on.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 10:03:27 AM
You and I have had the discussion before about policing for profit. I'm of the opinion that even if your cause is just, an external incentive tends to overshadow the good. As we often see, once you turn CJ into a for-profit enterprise you start policing towards that goal, often to the detriment of the just cause. Speeding is the original example of that. Cops don't spend entire shifts looking for unsafe drivers. They spend entire shifts looking for people driving 42+ in a 35. Which do you honestly think would be more beneficial, bust 15 shitheads a day for stupidly bad driving, or 45 of those people driving 7 (but not 6) over the posted limit? DUI enforcement has taken on a very similar quality. They're not busting people for actual impairment (though I don't deny that in many, or perhaps even most, cases that is present), they're busting people for a BAC that is only a generalization of intoxication. Yet because it's now such a lucrative thing for so many different people, that's become the primary motivation. I'm all for keeping impaired drivers off the road, but focusing solely on people with a .08 BAC is stupid, and frankly the entire thing has become a steaming boulder of Sasquatch scat, with entire cottage industries set up to take a bite.

Well, you and I agree on the basis of this, no question, and I can't say I'm thrilled with it, but I do think we differ in that it's a tough thing to argue, especially when there is that spectre of "what if"?   If .08 is stupid (and I think I'm at 0.08 right now, just based on last night) what's the alternative?  At what point would you suggest that the onus be put on the driver?  I'm kidding about my 0.08, but even if I wasn't, I'm sitting at my kitchen table and not hurting anyone so who cares?   I have the choice to get behind a wheel.
Truth be told I don't think the current approach is flawed in theory. Johnny has discretion to decide if people are noticeably impaired and a blood test (not breath) can back that up, and a jury will decide finally. My problem is that it has been monetarily incentivized. Sadly there won't be a way to remove all of the money from the equation, but if I had my druthers I'd probably replace the $10k miscellaneous payouts with a week in jail. As you and I have discussed before, I think CJ should be expensive, not profitable. If the county had to pay to lock people up for a week instead of cashing a few checks then I suspect we'd see a much greater emphasis on real problem cases rather than every single borderline case they can nab.

Quote
Serious question: how would you do it?  I am not a big smoker at all (though I like it and am not against it; it is purely opportunity with me), and I can't name a time I did it knowing I would be driving in the immediate future, so I don't know what the answer is.  But how do you not have an arbitrary line?   I don't mean this to sound sarcastic (though given our fairly entrenched positions, it can't help but sound that way), but do you really want it to be case by case?  That puts a lot of leeway on the side of Johnny....
To be honest, I probably wouldn't worry about it at all. There are far more dangerous drivers on the road than the guy burning one on the ride home from work. Find a way to deal with cellphone users first, then worry about the overly cautious dopers.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 30, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
I disagree with EB about 0.08 not being a good standard fro DUI, but I agree wholeheartedly with him that stoned drivers are the last thing in the world I'm worried about.  It's basically a non-issue.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on December 30, 2014, 10:26:42 AM
Attention deficit disorder.  Decreased cognitive ability.  Lowered self awareness.  I know lots of pot heads, so this isn't watching TV experience.

Random thought here, but would you have a system in place to deal with those effects that AREN'T caused by pot?  I know plenty of people that fit the first three categories but haven't been within 50 yards of a bag of herb in their life.

Quote
Yes, but like getting drunk, it never did much for me.  So I barely drink now and can't even remember the last time I had pot, directly.  So I am aware of the smells and tastes, and it is heightened by the fact that it isn't really in my system.  Kind of like a non-cat owner walking into a cat owner's house.  They can't smell it, but you can't catch your breath.  I don't know how many conversations I've had where I've told somebody "Dude.  I can smell that shit from a mile away" at the workplace and they swear nobody can smell it because their pot head friend did the smell test for them.

HAHA, that is the truth across the board, with liquor, weed and regular tobacco. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 10:52:38 AM
Not sure how we got onto race.  It doesn't smell like cigar smoke to me. 

I can smell it in a bag. 
I can smell it in a joint.
One thing I'm assured,
my nose won't disappoint.
Black dudes will often roll pot up in cigar papers. Aside from getting a gnarly buzz from the paper (and a gnarly headache in my case), it masks the smell almost entirely.

Two things smell. Loose weed and rolling papers. Burning weed might or might now smell depending on the quality, but it's not the sort of thing that lingers or that people tend to notice. I've associated with this particular lifestyle for 32 years now, and unless I'm around while someone is smoking, if they've been hitting a pipe I'd never notice. It just doesn't reek. And now that vaperizing is all the rage, there's even less to go on. Once hash oil becomes easier to manufacture people will be hitting e-cigs and I guarantee you won't notice any smell.

Quote
Attention deficit disorder.  Decreased cognitive ability.  Lowered self awareness.  I know lots of pot heads, so this isn't watching TV experience.
ADD I'll give you, although it's a different sort of thing than the traditional sort. I don't think I buy decreased cognitive ability. Slowed, probably, altered perhaps, but not decreased. As for lowered self awareness that couldn't be further from the truth. And as it translates to driving what the research shows is that enhanced self awareness actually mitigates the other deficiencies for the most part.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 11:09:50 AM
I disagree with EB about 0.08 not being a good standard fro DUI, but I agree wholeheartedly with him that stoned drivers are the last thing in the world I'm worried about.  It's basically a non-issue.
Actually, I'm not particularly opposed to .08 as a standard; it's the bright line aspect and the rigorous enforcement of that line that concerns me. I can't honestly say I have first hand experience at that threshold since I've never been tested, but based on the standard chart that says 4 drinks for me, that actually might be rather generous under normal operating conditions. Two problems, though. For one thing it's a bit arbitrary. While I wouldn't say impaired, I can notice a difference in my driving after 1 drink. More to the point, though, there's a very random element to drinking; one which I'm sure we've all experienced. There have been times where two or three drinks have me far more tight than should be the case. There are times where I'll put away the better part of a 12-pack and be functional like a fucking boss.  Since BAC remains a constant, that would be a time when I shouldn't be driving with a .05 or so, and another time where I'd be fine with a .14. Still, by and large I think the .08 is a fair enough average indicator. Just treat it as an average indicator and not an excuse to ding somebody for $10k and whilst appeasing voters.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on December 30, 2014, 11:17:26 AM
I smoked on the job for 8+ years and nobody had a clue.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 11:18:11 AM
Where this came from is me suggesting you recalibrate your radar as the returns aren't what they used to be. You say you can smell dopers, and I'm saying that's becoming less and less the case. And I've been a non-cat owner several times over those decades. I smoke for affect, rather than habitually. When it gets to the point that the effect isn't what it should be, or I find I'm smoking just for the sake of smoking I'll usually up and quit for a couple of years.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 11:20:17 AM
I smoked on the job for 8+ years and nobody had a clue.
To each his own.  I hate being high at work, regardless of what that work might be. Either I've got important stuff to do, or I'm board off my ass. Neither of which is when I really want to be stoned.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 11:31:18 AM
Just treat it as an average indicator and not an excuse to ding somebody for $10k and whilst appeasing voters.

What state is a 1st time DUI offense $10k?

CA DUI fine rates (https://dui.drivinglaws.org/california.php)
Just going by CA's fine rates, lets factor in:

paying the sheriff's brother in law to get your car out of impound--$400
Paying the folks at Allstate increased rates--$1,200/yr
Paying the judge's best campaign donor for an ignition interlock--$100+50-100/mo for monitoring
bail-not sure about that one, honestly
Paying the judge's second best campaign donor for drug counseling and various other court mandated nonsense--$500
At least in Texas there's a surcharge of 1-2k/year for 3 years on top of the standard fine amount. I suspect Cali has something similar

What I can tell you is that the estimates in Texas are 9-18k. Since Cali is a state that charges a grand just to register and smog your damn car, I'd be amazed if they were actually any cheaper IRL.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on December 30, 2014, 11:33:45 AM
Just treat it as an average indicator and not an excuse to ding somebody for $10k and whilst appeasing voters.

What state is a 1st time DUI offense $10k?

CA DUI fine rates (https://dui.drivinglaws.org/california.php)

Speaking from experience, those $$s add up real quick, once you include a lawyer, any assessment/treatment costs, interlocks, ankle bracelets, etc...
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 11:38:08 AM
Where this came from is me suggesting you recalibrate your radar as the returns aren't what they used to be. You say you can smell dopers, and I'm saying that's becoming less and less the case.

Most of the dopers I've known most of my life still have that same smell.  So I don't think I have to recalibrate just yet.

But my point was the fact that the smell can alert you, but it doesn't tell you how stoned they are.  Whereas if you can smell the alcohol oozing out of someone's pores, they didn't just have 1 cocktail at lunch.

That was the point.  The difficulties of dealing with it on the job.  Especially with people that may be in a warehouse.  Because as an employer, you will get sued for the actions of your employees affecting clients, other employees, and the sparkletts delivery guy.

And even if they come up with a cheap and highly effective THC testing device, it isn't like you can just go around testing everybody.  So therefore your two defenses are smell and pattern recognition.  Beyond that, you may first become aware only after an incident has occurred.
Well, if I had to worry about employees in a warehouse then yeah, I'd have some minor concern about it. Honestly, though, it'd be general carelessness that worried me more. Still, I get your trepidation.



edit:
Since Cali is a state that charges a grand just to register and smog your damn car, I'd be amazed if they were actually any cheaper IRL.

I pay like $20-$30 to smog one of my cars every two years and nothing for another car because it is a hybrid.

I've paid anywhere from about $100 to $400 to register cars.  And it is a tax write off.
Fair enough. I was basing it on an acquaintance who had her Texas title transferred over, and they really buggered her for it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Cool Chris on December 30, 2014, 12:03:06 PM
Speaking from experience, those $$s add up real quick, once you include a lawyer, any assessment/treatment costs, interlocks, ankle bracelets, etc...

From a first time offense that didn't involve injuring any person or property?

It varies based on offense, circumstances, and such. But yes, it will go up that high.

But half of it can go to the lawyer, so that doesn't seem to factor in to this conversation. Which I am not really following. Carry on. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 30, 2014, 12:05:50 PM
I disagree with EB about 0.08 not being a good standard fro DUI, but I agree wholeheartedly with him that stoned drivers are the last thing in the world I'm worried about.  It's basically a non-issue.
Actually, I'm not particularly opposed to .08 as a standard; it's the bright line aspect and the rigorous enforcement of that line that concerns me. I can't honestly say I have first hand experience at that threshold since I've never been tested, but based on the standard chart that says 4 drinks for me, that actually might be rather generous under normal operating conditions. Two problems, though. For one thing it's a bit arbitrary. While I wouldn't say impaired, I can notice a difference in my driving after 1 drink. More to the point, though, there's a very random element to drinking; one which I'm sure we've all experienced. There have been times where two or three drinks have me far more tight than should be the case. There are times where I'll put away the better part of a 12-pack and be functional like a fucking boss.  Since BAC remains a constant, that would be a time when I shouldn't be driving with a .05 or so, and another time where I'd be fine with a .14. Still, by and large I think the .08 is a fair enough average indicator. Just treat it as an average indicator and not an excuse to ding somebody for $10k and whilst appeasing voters.
I don't know of a workable way around it.  If everyone knows the threshold is .08, then everyone is playing by the same rules.  Everyone should know, on average, how many drinks they can handle.  Just don't drive if you are at or over that threshold.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on December 30, 2014, 12:19:38 PM
I disagree with EB about 0.08 not being a good standard fro DUI, but I agree wholeheartedly with him that stoned drivers are the last thing in the world I'm worried about.  It's basically a non-issue.
Actually, I'm not particularly opposed to .08 as a standard; it's the bright line aspect and the rigorous enforcement of that line that concerns me. I can't honestly say I have first hand experience at that threshold since I've never been tested, but based on the standard chart that says 4 drinks for me, that actually might be rather generous under normal operating conditions. Two problems, though. For one thing it's a bit arbitrary. While I wouldn't say impaired, I can notice a difference in my driving after 1 drink. More to the point, though, there's a very random element to drinking; one which I'm sure we've all experienced. There have been times where two or three drinks have me far more tight than should be the case. There are times where I'll put away the better part of a 12-pack and be functional like a fucking boss.  Since BAC remains a constant, that would be a time when I shouldn't be driving with a .05 or so, and another time where I'd be fine with a .14. Still, by and large I think the .08 is a fair enough average indicator. Just treat it as an average indicator and not an excuse to ding somebody for $10k and whilst appeasing voters.
I don't know of a workable way around it.  If everyone knows the threshold is .08, then everyone is playing by the same rules.  Everyone should know, on average, how many drinks they can handle.  Just don't drive if you are at or over that threshold.
But that's my point. The same person isn't even playing by the same rules from one night to the next. The number of drinks certainly doesn't remain constant.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 30, 2014, 02:59:34 PM
It's not wildy varied, either.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
Well our government seems to be doing something right, ball is rolling for the banks to deal with marijuana businesses

House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/ (https://House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/)
First off, here's the link properly formatted:House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry (https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/)

As for the article, while I'm happy they're actually trying to do something, I'm not sure it'll have much effect on reigning in on Herr Holder's DOJ. I posted a link in some thread here about how they were using banks to harass titty-dancers, head shop owners, pornstars and all sorts of other legal but undesirable characters. These are all legal businesses that the banks are allowed to do business with, but those banks are being pressured to weed out customers who represent a "reputation risk." As I understand it, the threat is basically that if you allow such people to do business with your bank, we might start looking at all of your clients in much greater detail, which means lots of subpoenas and paperwork and research for you to deal with. Particularly with people who tend to deal mostly with cash. It's easier for the banks to just send Jasmine, Sapphire and Diamond off to some other bank.

Operation Choke Point is the badgering in question, by the way.
Heh. It seems the right has now figured out that gun store owners fit into the "perfectly legal yet undesirable" category and are having their bankers scared off, just like the pay-day lenders and titty-dancers. While I think they'll probably worry about a finding an exemption to gun store owners rather than an axe to the whole sham process, at least it'll get some attention.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/16/doj-accused-blocking-legal-gun-shops-other-businesses-from-banking/

Isn't Holder fucking gone yet? I'll state it yet again: Ashcroft was a fucking loon, but at least he was principled. I'd take a crazy person with integrity over unprincipled shitbags like Gonzalez and Holder any day of the week. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on January 16, 2015, 12:34:49 PM
Well our government seems to be doing something right, ball is rolling for the banks to deal with marijuana businesses

House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/ (https://House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry

https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/)
First off, here's the link properly formatted:House votes to let banks work with the marijuana industry (https://fortune.com/2014/07/16/house-votes-banks-marijuana/)

As for the article, while I'm happy they're actually trying to do something, I'm not sure it'll have much effect on reigning in on Herr Holder's DOJ. I posted a link in some thread here about how they were using banks to harass titty-dancers, head shop owners, pornstars and all sorts of other legal but undesirable characters. These are all legal businesses that the banks are allowed to do business with, but those banks are being pressured to weed out customers who represent a "reputation risk." As I understand it, the threat is basically that if you allow such people to do business with your bank, we might start looking at all of your clients in much greater detail, which means lots of subpoenas and paperwork and research for you to deal with. Particularly with people who tend to deal mostly with cash. It's easier for the banks to just send Jasmine, Sapphire and Diamond off to some other bank.

Operation Choke Point is the badgering in question, by the way.
Heh. It seems the right has now figured out that gun store owners fit into the "perfectly legal yet undesirable" category and are having their bankers scared off, just like the pay-day lenders and titty-dancers. While I think they'll probably worry about a finding an exemption to gun store owners rather than an axe to the whole sham process, at least it'll get some attention.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/16/doj-accused-blocking-legal-gun-shops-other-businesses-from-banking/

Isn't Holder fucking gone yet? I'll state it yet again: Ashcroft was a fucking loon, but at least he was principled. I'd take a crazy person with integrity over unprincipled shitbags like Gonzalez and Holder any day of the week.

Why would you say 'the right'?  As a general proposition, I would think the right would be doing whatever it can to keep gun shops open and profitable, but even in the specific case, the one Republican quoted was rather critical of the DOJ for going on the "witch hunt".  I think the video called them the "morality police". 

This seems to me to fall right into your wheelhouse, el Barto:   criminal justice being used to further political aims.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 12:45:17 PM
My wheelhouse? Really? No. I'm not a fan of CJ in general, but to the extent that I'll accept it is when it comes to public safety. This is a huge overreach.

And I cite the right in this because Operation Chokepoint has been going on well over a year and it's mostly been left-leaning sources complaining about it. Dispensaries, titty-dancers and porn starts have been the primary target. Not a peep from the GOP. Now that gun shops have made the list it seem that FOX is suddenly bent out of shape over it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 02:28:55 PM
Which is why as soon as I saw FOX report it I immediately posted a holy shit thread? Huff post and Techdirt (I think we'd both consider them both to be left leaning sources) have been raising hell about this for ages.

And to be fair, finding creative avenues to have your DoJ come down on legal activities you disapprove of has hardly been indicative of this administration.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on January 16, 2015, 02:38:53 PM
My wheelhouse? Really? No. I'm not a fan of CJ in general, but to the extent that I'll accept it is when it comes to public safety. This is a huge overreach.

No, that's what I meant, I just worded it badly.  I would think that this is the kind of thing that drives you crazy.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on January 16, 2015, 02:40:12 PM

And to be fair, finding creative avenues to have your DoJ come down on legal activities you disapprove of has hardly been indicative of this administration.

No, they use the IRS instead. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 02:45:10 PM

And to be fair, finding creative avenues to have your DoJ come down on legal activities you disapprove of has hardly been indicative of this administration.

No, they use the IRS instead.
I thought we already concluded that the president has little to no juice with the IRS.

Quote
No, that's what I meant, I just worded it badly.  I would think that this is the kind of thing that drives you crazy.
This makes much more sense. I even looked up the wheelhouse expression to make sure it mean what I thought (in support of). 


And to be fair, after doing a few searches it seems that reporting on Choke Point is pretty even across the lines. FOX has only reported on it twice, but none of the other cable networks have at all. The papers and blogs come from both sides. It's just interesting that they're hitching their horses to porn and guns.  :lol George Carlin could do a whole special about that.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 02:52:47 PM
And to be fair, finding creative avenues to have your DoJ come down on legal activities you disapprove of has hardly been indicative of this administration.

And reported as a main story.  There's the big difference.
Damn, Stadler's becoming a bad influence on me. I meant exclusive rather than indicative.  :rollin

Nevertheless you seem to have gotten my point. As for yours (if I understand it correctly), it wasn't exactly mainstream news when the previous administration was using frivolous prosecutions to go after industries it didn't approve of. Guess it just goes to show that both sides prefer to stick to things that'll gain traction.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 03:20:32 PM
Guess it just goes to show that both sides prefer to stick to things that'll gain traction.

The idea that you could suddenly get a letter from your bank that your account has been seized and closed despite no legal wrong doing happening to everyday people seems like it would gain quite a bit of traction ... if it was on prime time news.
Uh, to the best of my knowledge no funds have been seized under Choke Point. They're just closing out the accounts. The seizure would get some traction.

And again, it's a matter of interests. Half the country won't shed any tears for the strippers and pornstars, but they'll get all kinds of bent out of shape about gun store owners getting fucked with. This might get some traction though since a lot of anti-gun people might start talking about the program, as well. As we've seen over the last 15 years, pitting the people against each other is a helluva lot more effective than feeding them information when you want to rile them up.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 03:57:31 PM
I recall a story of a business woman (I think it was a bakery or restaurant) that had her capital frozen because of too many cash transactions.  It was over a year ago, so it might be harder to find now without more specifics.

As a business, having your capital frozen is death.
You can blame that on that war on drugs bullshit, or the war on terror bullshit; take your pick. I don't think Choke Point authorizes seizures or frozen assets. Cash transactions have always been a target and likely always will be (and it's not a one party vs the other thing, either).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on January 16, 2015, 07:03:23 PM
Well, seems on the same day I reiterate my opinion that Holder is a shitbag he actually does something surprisingly just. The DoJ has eliminated a component of CAF that encouraged a good deal of rotten activity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

Under the adoption program that just got cut, Johnny got to keep 80% of CAF dough while Uncle Sammy got the other 20. While the states will still be running interdiction for cash based on their own (usually rotten) laws, a great deal of those mandate that the forfeiture goes into the state's coffers rather than directly to the department. Sounds like a lot of cops are going to be approaching interdiction as something they have to do rather than something they love to do. Have to consider this a significant step towards removing one of the monetary incentives for CJ work.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2015, 10:30:16 AM

And to be fair, finding creative avenues to have your DoJ come down on legal activities you disapprove of has hardly been indicative of this administration.

No, they use the IRS instead.

I have been accused before of not having a sense of humor.  ;)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on February 24, 2015, 05:47:44 AM
Add Alaska to the list.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/alaska-marijuana-legal_n_6738328.html

Quote
Alaska on Tuesday becomes the third U.S. state to end prohibition of marijuana, officially putting into effect Ballot Measure 2, approved by 53 percent of state voters in November.

Alaskans age 21 and older may now legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana, grow as many as six marijuana plants in their homes (with no more than three flowering), and possess any additional marijuana produced by those plants.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 24, 2015, 05:54:31 AM
Add Alaska to the list.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/alaska-marijuana-legal_n_6738328.html

Quote
Alaska on Tuesday becomes the third U.S. state to end prohibition of marijuana, officially putting into effect Ballot Measure 2, approved by 53 percent of state voters in November.

Alaskans age 21 and older may now legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana, grow as many as six marijuana plants in their homes (with no more than three flowering), and possess any additional marijuana produced by those plants.

::claps::

In other news regarding this, it seems the lawsuit from the state's bordering Colorado and the other lawsuit from some guys arrested for growing in CA combined may force the government to re-evaluate the classification of the drug (which is really the bottomline to this problem).  If this doesn't change, its entirely possible that the next president decides to enforce the federal drug policy which could really hurt the legalization movement.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on February 24, 2015, 09:36:49 AM
Add Alaska to the list.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/alaska-marijuana-legal_n_6738328.html

Quote
Alaska on Tuesday becomes the third U.S. state to end prohibition of marijuana, officially putting into effect Ballot Measure 2, approved by 53 percent of state voters in November.

Alaskans age 21 and older may now legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana, grow as many as six marijuana plants in their homes (with no more than three flowering), and possess any additional marijuana produced by those plants.

::claps::

In other news regarding this, it seems the lawsuit from the state's bordering Colorado and the other lawsuit from some guys arrested for growing in CA combined may force the government to re-evaluate the classification of the drug (which is really the bottomline to this problem).  If this doesn't change, its entirely possible that the next president decides to enforce the federal drug policy which could really hurt the legalization movement.
Not sure how rescheduling would help. While it's laughable that Uncle Sammy treats it as more dangerous than crank, even if they knock it all the way down to a schedule V (which will never, ever happen) then the law remains essentially the same. A scrip is still required and what the states are doing is still illegal. It might alter the enforcement practices, and it'll lower the penalties a bit, but the racketeering claims and civil suits wouldn't be effected. The only thing that'll make a difference is de-scheduling and that won't happen given the completely wrecked and dysfunctional state of this country. We've reached a point where practical considerations are meaningless (if not scoffed at), and even if they did matter the anti-lobby is ten times that of the pro-lobby.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 24, 2015, 10:39:38 AM
Add Alaska to the list.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/alaska-marijuana-legal_n_6738328.html

Quote
Alaska on Tuesday becomes the third U.S. state to end prohibition of marijuana, officially putting into effect Ballot Measure 2, approved by 53 percent of state voters in November.

Alaskans age 21 and older may now legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana, grow as many as six marijuana plants in their homes (with no more than three flowering), and possess any additional marijuana produced by those plants.

::claps::

In other news regarding this, it seems the lawsuit from the state's bordering Colorado and the other lawsuit from some guys arrested for growing in CA combined may force the government to re-evaluate the classification of the drug (which is really the bottomline to this problem).  If this doesn't change, its entirely possible that the next president decides to enforce the federal drug policy which could really hurt the legalization movement.
Not sure how rescheduling would help. While it's laughable that Uncle Sammy treats it as more dangerous than crank, even if they knock it all the way down to a schedule V (which will never, ever happen) then the law remains essentially the same. A scrip is still required and what the states are doing is still illegal. It might alter the enforcement practices, and it'll lower the penalties a bit, but the racketeering claims and civil suits wouldn't be effected. The only thing that'll make a difference is de-scheduling and that won't happen given the completely wrecked and dysfunctional state of this country. We've reached a point where practical considerations are meaningless (if not scoffed at), and even if they did matter the anti-lobby is ten times that of the pro-lobby.

Yea you are right, but its a movement in the right direction since the scheduling of the drug is so completely absurd (also considering the US government owns a patent for its health benefits so its really mind boggling).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on February 24, 2015, 11:26:09 AM
Honestly, I consider token steps to usually be in the backward direction. Rescheduling grass down to III (as low as they'll go, methinks) will appease without actually changing anything, and that appeasement will prevent actual reform for a very long time.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 24, 2015, 01:38:55 PM
Or it could be babysteps, just like going one state at a time with legalization.  It will get to the point where the feds just flat out need to remove it as a scheduled substance or enforce the federal laws, but if they admit to it having a medical purpose and lower the scheduling then you may see more states legalizing it for medicinal purposes and then eventually flat out legalization and then removing it completely from scheduled substance.  That seems logical to me, but nothing the government does is logical.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 25, 2015, 03:12:02 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/congressmen-warn-district-columbia-pot-legalization-163344749--business.html (https://news.yahoo.com/congressmen-warn-district-columbia-pot-legalization-163344749--business.html)

Nice!  Washington D.C. is going ahead with its voter approved legalization even though Congress tried to stop it.  Starts at midnight tonight.  Finally legalization on the East Coast.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on February 26, 2015, 02:51:07 PM
Add Alaska to the list.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/alaska-marijuana-legal_n_6738328.html (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/alaska-marijuana-legal_n_6738328.html)

Quote
Alaska on Tuesday becomes the third U.S. state to end prohibition of marijuana, officially putting into effect Ballot Measure 2, approved by 53 percent of state voters in November.

Alaskans age 21 and older may now legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana, grow as many as six marijuana plants in their homes (with no more than three flowering), and possess any additional marijuana produced by those plants.

::claps::

In other news regarding this, it seems the lawsuit from the state's bordering Colorado and the other lawsuit from some guys arrested for growing in CA combined may force the government to re-evaluate the classification of the drug (which is really the bottomline to this problem).  If this doesn't change, its entirely possible that the next president decides to enforce the federal drug policy which could really hurt the legalization movement.


Nah, it's too late for that.  The toothpaste has been out of the tube way too long.  Legalization for medical use is now the law of the land in almost half of the states (23) and I don't see that being reversed and I don't see any presidents from either party swooping into office and going after pot heads. 


This is very much like the gay marriage issue.   The left will lead the way, the right will resist until they realize they're outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history.  Again.  And they'll give in.  Again.  (See: slavery, women's rights, civil rights for minorities, gay marriage, etc, etc etc)









Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on February 27, 2015, 04:38:52 AM

This is very much like the gay marriage issue.   The left will lead the way, the right will resist until they realize they're outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history.  Again.  And they'll give in.  Again.  (See: slavery, women's rights, civil rights for minorities, gay marriage, etc, etc etc)

This is so misleading and self-serving as to be trolling.   What a total and utter misrepresentation of both sides, and most of history. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on February 27, 2015, 04:48:47 AM

This is very much like the gay marriage issue.   The left will lead the way, the right will resist until they realize they're outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history.  Again.  And they'll give in.  Again.  (See: slavery, women's rights, civil rights for minorities, gay marriage, etc, etc etc)

 :\

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 27, 2015, 05:18:26 AM

This is very much like the gay marriage issue.   The left will lead the way, the right will resist until they realize they're outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history.  Again.  And they'll give in.  Again.  (See: slavery, women's rights, civil rights for minorities, gay marriage, etc, etc etc)

This is so misleading and self-serving as to be trolling.   What a total and utter misrepresentation of both sides, and most of history.
Which of those causes were fought for by conservatives and resisted by progressives/liberals?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on February 27, 2015, 05:29:14 AM

This is very much like the gay marriage issue.   The left will lead the way, the right will resist until they realize they're outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history.  Again.  And they'll give in.  Again.  (See: slavery, women's rights, civil rights for minorities, gay marriage, etc, etc etc)

This is so misleading and self-serving as to be trolling.   What a total and utter misrepresentation of both sides, and most of history.

I think it's actually pretty spot on.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on February 27, 2015, 07:47:20 AM
I believe the percentage of Republicans that voted for the Civil Righs Act of 1964 was higher than the percentage of Democrats.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on February 27, 2015, 09:00:50 AM

This is very much like the gay marriage issue.   The left will lead the way, the right will resist until they realize they're outnumbered, and on the wrong side of history.  Again.  And they'll give in.  Again.  (See: slavery, women's rights, civil rights for minorities, gay marriage, etc, etc etc)

This is so misleading and self-serving as to be trolling.   What a total and utter misrepresentation of both sides, and most of history.
Which of those causes were fought for by conservatives and resisted by progressives/liberals?

Almost all of them?
Slavery:
Lincoln is kind of famous for this.  Kind of Republican

Women's right to vote:
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. (https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=13&title.raw=19th%20Amendment%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%3A%20Women%27s%20Right%20to%20Vote)
GOP assumes control of Congress, May 19, 1919 (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37445.html)

Civil Rights for Minorities:  carried through with Republican, not Democrat support

Gay Marriage:
DOMA assed with broad bipartisan support.  Signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton (the same President in control for Don't Ask, Don't Tell

You guys can spin it all you want, but these are the facts of history.
While the political representation might suggest one thing, you do need to look at who was opposed, and in most of those cases the people not elected to congress who were in opposition do fit into the conservative wing. The people in favor of DOMA were not tree huggers in SF. They were farmers in Oklahoma and Nebrask and Cowboys in Texas. Also, lets keep in mind that you can't really throw around liberal, conservative, democrat and republican labels and have them mean the same thing in 2015 as they did in 1870 or 1960. Southern democrats in the 19th and 20th century were a very different breed of animal.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 09:39:35 AM
Notice Kirk didn't say Dems and Republicans. He said right vs left. You're forgetting about the platform shift. It's always been liberals vs conservatives, and over time Kirk is correct.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 27, 2015, 09:57:08 AM
Not really.  We are talking about the Gore family here.
???

And no goalposts were moved.  Again, he didn't specify political parties.  He used the terms right and left, and I used the terms conservatives and progressives/liberals.  All of those causes have always been progressive causes rather than conservative causes, almost by definition.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on February 27, 2015, 12:20:53 PM
While the political representation might suggest one thing, you do need to look at who was opposed, and in most of those cases the people not elected to congress who were in opposition do fit into the conservative wing. The people in favor of DOMA were not tree huggers in SF. They were farmers in Oklahoma and Nebrask and Cowboys in Texas. Also, lets keep in mind that you can't really throw around liberal, conservative, democrat and republican labels and have them mean the same thing in 2015 as they did in 1870 or 1960. Southern democrats in the 19th and 20th century were a very different breed of animal.

Look, all good points (from others too, like Hef, Implode, Calvin, ProgSnob) and I get it.   Times change, circumstances change, and so do the hot button issues of the time.  I guess it's the baiting way in which it was said, with the condescending and judgment "Ah-GAIN"'s, implying that BUT FOR the goddamn, head-up their asses conservatives, this country would be right side up and we'd all be living free and easy, and that just isn't the case.  It's a narrow view, and a self-serving one, especially if you happen to be a liberal.  More importantly, it is ignorant of the difference between conservatism as an ideology (republicanism) and conservatism as a disposition (resistant to change of any kind). 

Notice I didn't say "self-serving if you happen to believe in race equality, women's rights,  civil rights, and gay marriage", because many on the right DO believe in those things (I know I do).    And while we've lost some of the perspective of who was what in history (would JFK be a liberal or a conservative today?) we haven't lost - except in antagonistic statements like the one I'm responding to - the idea that there is more than the "what" in some of these issues, there is also the "how".  There's always going to be the fringe in both parties, and there's no doubt that some of the minority factions of the conservative movement have not embraced the liberal agenda right out of the gate, but even with that, is that the worst thing in the world?   Is the push and pull of ideas the important part of this process, in order to make sure that the result is as comprehensive and well-thought out as it could possibly be?   Isn't there a benefit of sorts to having a devil's advocate on BOTH sides to keep the other in check?  Granted, when people are dying it is a different matter, but is it better to move forward consistently or lurch forward in fits and starts as "bright ideas" pop up only to later to be found problematic?  Let's talk about the early 20th century liberal predilection for the ideas of pre-WWII Europe, the same ideas that led to eugenics and worst kind of political - as opposed to economic - socialism.   

And I haven't even begun to discuss the various other issues where the "leadership" isn't quite so clear.  Like the "leadership" from the left right into Viet-fucking-nam.  Or "leadership" from the left right into some of the biggest debt the world has ever known (and growing!).

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 27, 2015, 02:21:03 PM
More importantly, it is ignorant of the difference between conservatism as an ideology (republicanism) and conservatism as a disposition (resistant to change of any kind). 
I don't think it is ignorant of it.  It just isn't specifying any difference, because the two go hand in hand so often.

Notice I didn't say "self-serving if you happen to believe in race equality, women's rights,  civil rights, and gay marriage", because many on the right DO believe in those things.
While this may be true of conservative citizens, I see little evidence (what they say/how they vote) that "many on the right DO believe in those things" as far as the members of the right that count - the ones who actually hold office/make decisions.

Or "leadership" from the left right into some of the biggest debt the world has ever known (and growing!).
Well, that outstanding debt was built on the firm foundation of the war in Iraq, which was spearheaded by the right.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on February 27, 2015, 02:41:51 PM
More importantly, it is ignorant of the difference between conservatism as an ideology (republicanism) and conservatism as a disposition (resistant to change of any kind). 
I don't think it is ignorant of it.  It just isn't specifying any difference, because the two go hand in hand so often.

While sometimes they can be mentioned along side each other, they are not the same.  Because of the shitty state of the Republican Party and most Republicans in congress losing their conservative values, most of the conservatives I know have tried to distance themselves from the Republican Party and just referred to themselves as conservatives. I feel the same way. Do NOT refer to me as a Republican.  The  GOP is not what it once was.  Yes I am a registered Republican but that's just so I can vote in the primaries. Otherwise I would just register as a Libertarian or Conservative. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 27, 2015, 02:59:23 PM
I don't disagree with what you're saying.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 04:49:33 PM
Call it what you will, most of the world associates the right with Fox News, Republicans, anti-gay marriage, pro-military, reaganomics, and rich, old, white people. You're right that what that's become is not what core conservatism is about, but if that's what most people call it, should we just stick with the most common definition? Or should we come up with a new label for them? Wouldn't it be easier to create a new label for you?

I usually don't get into semantics, but clearly you don't associate these things with where you lie on the political spectrum. How would you describe these things?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 04:54:38 PM
By definition, you can't be racist against rich, old, white people. They hold all the power and run this country.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 04:57:46 PM
Well, if that's how you're going to be about it, then god, no. Clearly it's just going to give us both headaches and get us nowhere.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 05:02:17 PM
Though just so I cover my behind, let me amend my state with this: In the US in 2015, it's impossible to be racist to the point of oppression of white men as whole or similar to racism that is still felt by minority groups to this day.

You can still disagree with that. I just wanted to make my statement more clear.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 05:10:02 PM
That's fine. It's not exactly on topic anyway.  :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 05:25:11 PM
Based on what Snob was saying, it sounded like you guys don't want to associate yourselves with what the general publics views as "Republican", "Conservative", or "the right". Is that accurate? If that's so, is there some other label that would more accurately describe what you identify as? Or would you rather relabel what that group referenced earlier has become?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 27, 2015, 06:42:11 PM
So.... how bout legalizing some marijuana?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 27, 2015, 07:34:00 PM
Let's get it over with already.  :P
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 27, 2015, 07:48:59 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/tribes-around-us-gather-discuss-221855295.html;_ylt=A0LEV1xILPFU_JUAabRXNyoA (https://news.yahoo.com/tribes-around-us-gather-discuss-221855295.html;_ylt=A0LEV1xILPFU_JUAabRXNyoA)

Well since it is legal on US Native American Reservations, they may want to make profits on it

https://news.yahoo.com/tribes-around-us-gather-discuss-221855295.html;_ylt=A0LEV1xILPFU_JUAabRXNyoA (https://news.yahoo.com/tribes-around-us-gather-discuss-221855295.html;_ylt=A0LEV1xILPFU_JUAabRXNyoA)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 28, 2015, 04:17:21 AM
While this may be true of conservative citizens, I see little evidence (what they say/how they vote) that "many on the right DO believe in those things" as far as the members of the right that count - the ones who actually hold office/make decisions.

You aren't talking about core values here. 
I'm talking practicality and reality, what actually happens.  Not theory, or academic definitions, or "back in my day".
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on February 28, 2015, 05:25:37 AM
By definition, you can't be racist against rich, old, white people. They hold all the power and run this country.

Of course you can. Especially if the "rich, old, white" person isn't so rich, but poor and destitute.  It's a blatantly disparaging comment that only reflects the characteristics of a small group of white people or, as racists like to refer to them,  crackers or honkeys. See, I can use those words because I'm white, much like black people say they are allowed to use the N word because they are black and I know some people here have defended blacks in that aspect. When someone wants to use the terms cracker or any other condescending term, and their intent is to be hurtful and racist, then of course a white person can claim racism. It doesn't matter how fat his wallet is.

Saying "you can't be racist against rich, old, white people. They hold all the power and run this country" is extremely condescending and biased, not to mention inaccurate. It would be like saying "hey look, there's a group a black folk hanging out. are they getting ready for a drive-by?"

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: KevShmev on February 28, 2015, 07:44:30 AM
By definition, you can't be racist against rich, old, white people. They hold all the power and run this country.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the actual definition of racism.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2015, 08:05:17 AM
More importantly, it is ignorant of the difference between conservatism as an ideology (republicanism) and conservatism as a disposition (resistant to change of any kind). 
I don't think it is ignorant of it.  It just isn't specifying any difference, because the two go hand in hand so often.

Whether it does or not is a matter of perception.  But the difference is real, and is integral to understand when looking at the individual issues noted.   I say this enough to sound like a broken record, but opposition can be to the "how" just as often as it can be to the "what", and that is important when people are casting aspersions and throwing stereotypes around so frivolously. 

Notice I didn't say "self-serving if you happen to believe in race equality, women's rights,  civil rights, and gay marriage", because many on the right DO believe in those things.
While this may be true of conservative citizens, I see little evidence (what they say/how they vote) that "many on the right DO believe in those things" as far as the members of the right that count - the ones who actually hold office/make decisions.[/quote]

And yet many of these initiatives pass Congress.   There's perception and there's reality, and the reality isn't reflected in blanket statements like some here are making.

Or "leadership" from the left right into some of the biggest debt the world has ever known (and growing!).
Well, that outstanding debt was built on the firm foundation of the war in Iraq, which was spearheaded by the right.
[/quote]

Bush's was, but not Obama's.   The debt is steadily rising even as expenditures in the Middle East are dropping.   The debt is continuing to increase as a result of many things, including stimulus, subsidies, making up for shortfalls on program after program while trying to play the popularity contest of keeping taxes low... 

Look, I'm not trying to make this into a partisan argument.  Just the opposite.  NONE of this stuff works in a vacuum, and pointing fingers and throwing meaningless labels around doesn't help the situation, it perpetuates it. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2015, 08:08:04 AM
By definition, you can't be racist against rich, old, white people. They hold all the power and run this country.

"Racism" isn't about power.  It is about "race".  If you single out someone based on their race, it is "racism".   We just tolerate it when it serves our agenda.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on February 28, 2015, 08:19:54 AM
Based on what Snob was saying, it sounded like you guys don't want to associate yourselves with what the general publics views as "Republican", "Conservative", or "the right". Is that accurate? If that's so, is there some other label that would more accurately describe what you identify as? Or would you rather relabel what that group referenced earlier has become?

Not exactly.   I am after something a little deeper and requiring a little more effort.  I'm looking for the general public to have a more accurate view.   I'm not sure why we tolerate misconceptions and stereotypes when talking about Republicans and/or conservatives, but squawk like our undies are on fire when someone does that same thing about almost any other group (the only exception being "Christians".  You can say anything you want about "Christians" without fear).

I think what I would like is to see some understanding of the nuance of these issues.  Some acknowledgement that neither side has a monopoly on being "right" and neither side has a monopoly on "bat shit crazy".    That Rush Limbaugh has a voice has no bearing on me or my politics (or the politics of the Party, for that matter), and the breadth of his voice is almost universally overstated.  He claims to reach "20 million people", and his syndicator claims the show reaches "15 to 20 million people", but those numbers are unaudited and unconfirmed.  The best Arbitron data (which is itself inconclusive) puts the number at below 5 million people.  A "snapshot" from 2008 had about 3.5 million listeners for any given quarter hour.   That's about 1% of the population.  1%.  There are more estimated sociopaths in the country than there are Rush Limbaugh listeners, but the myth that he drives conservative platforms persists. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: KevShmev on February 28, 2015, 08:38:45 AM
The fact that that many people still listen to Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment for conservatives.

Even more so is the fact that Ann Coulter's books always sell well.  Who in their right mind would buy a book written by such a hateful, disgusting person?  Seriously?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Implode on February 28, 2015, 11:50:41 AM
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the actual definition of racism.

I know I shouldn't have said "by definition". But at the same time, the idea was trying to convey by stating racism isn't uncommon enough to say I was wrong. Either way, I already corrected myself. (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=34612.msg1929050#msg1929050)

"Racism" isn't about power.  It is about "race".  If you single out someone based on their race, it is "racism".   We just tolerate it when it serves our agenda.   

That's pretty accurate. However, it also begs more questions as to what we consider racism. There's a disconnect there clearly.

Of course you can. Especially if the "rich, old, white" person isn't so rich, but poor and destitute. [/blockquote]

But that's changing what I said. What is this even supposed to mean?

It's a blatantly disparaging comment that only reflects the characteristics of a small group of white people or, as racists like to refer to them,  crackers or honkeys. See, I can use those words because I'm white, much like black people say they are allowed to use the N word because they are black and I know some people here have defended blacks in that aspect. When someone wants to use the terms cracker or any other condescending term, and their intent is to be hurtful and racist, then of course a white person can claim racism. It doesn't matter how fat his wallet is.

Saying "you can't be racist against rich, old, white people. They hold all the power and run this country" is extremely condescending and biased, not to mention inaccurate. It would be like saying "hey look, there's a group a black folk hanging out. are they getting ready for a drive-by?"

Like I said above, there's a disconnect here on what we're talking about. By the dictionary, you're absolutely right. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is oppression. I guess that's on me for using the ambiguous wording. To me, racism isn't just the dictionary definition. In this day and age, racism implies a relationship that includes not just prejudice, but power as well--hence oppression. Many people have been saying for decades that that's what racism was become to mean. You can disagree with that, but arguing semantics is silly. Let's just agree that's this definition is the one I'm going by; call it what you will.

As for your claim, the difference between assuming a group of black Americans are getting ready for a drive-by and surmising that rich, white people hold all the power in the country is that one of those statements actually negatively affects the quality of life of the group it's referencing. Sure, painting all white people as selfish and racists jerks is not only demeaning and not completely accurate, but at the same time, it doesn't stop white people as a whole from getting jobs, and it doesn't make people want to cross the street so they don't have to directly walk past them. When one group already has more power so to speak than another, making "racist" comments against them won't bring them down much. On the flip side, making those little jokes or assumptions about minority groups or those that are on the short end of the power difference is just enough to perpetuate it.

Again, not really on topic, but I hope I've at least made it a bit more clear.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 28, 2015, 05:59:36 PM
I say this enough to sound like a broken record, but opposition can be to the "how" just as often as it can be to the "what", and that is important when people are casting aspersions and throwing stereotypes around so frivolously. 
The only "stereotypes" I'm talking about are images that conservatives in the House and Senate have worked hard to create.

And yet many of these initiatives pass Congress.   There's perception and there's reality, and the reality isn't reflected in blanket statements like some here are making.
They pass in spite of the conservatives who stand against them.

Look, I'm not trying to make this into a partisan argument.  Just the opposite.  NONE of this stuff works in a vacuum, and pointing fingers and throwing meaningless labels around doesn't help the situation, it perpetuates it.
Whitewashing the actual voting record of conservatives doesn't help either.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 01, 2015, 08:14:51 AM
The fact that that many people still listen to Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment for conservatives.

Even more so is the fact that Ann Coulter's books always sell well.  Who in their right mind would buy a book written by such a hateful, disgusting person?  Seriously?

Why is it "embarrassing to conservatives"?   I believe - strongly - that people should have the right to express their ideas, no matter how abhorrent someone else might find them, and let them sink or swim in the crucible of public debate.   Because you find them unpleasant means actually nothing to me, and that someone else finds them pleasant means just as little.  And for the record, my opinion means just as little.

Why would anyone listen to Huey Newton, either?   Or George Soros?   Or Andrea Dworkin?   Seriously?   George Soros is every bit the hypocrite agenda-pusher that the Koch Brothers get made out to be.  I think the one difference is that there is less of a "unified" voice on the extreme left because of the very nature of the party (it is more a conglomeration of special interests than the right is).

And you can't assume that just because it sells, it is only selling to acolytes. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: KevShmev on March 01, 2015, 08:21:34 AM
It's embarrassing because Coulter is a hateful and racist human being.  Conservatives really want someone like her being one of their loudest voices in the media, whether it's the news or print media?

And I of course think people should have the right to express their views; I never said otherwise.  But just like I think Al Sharpton is an embarrassment to the civil rights movement, I think Coulter is an embarrassment to the right.  The fact that both have so many followers is a sad state of affairs, IMO.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 01, 2015, 08:23:35 AM
I say this enough to sound like a broken record, but opposition can be to the "how" just as often as it can be to the "what", and that is important when people are casting aspersions and throwing stereotypes around so frivolously. 
The only "stereotypes" I'm talking about are images that conservatives in the House and Senate have worked hard to create.

And yet many of these initiatives pass Congress.   There's perception and there's reality, and the reality isn't reflected in blanket statements like some here are making.
They pass in spite of the conservatives who stand against them.

Look, I'm not trying to make this into a partisan argument.  Just the opposite.  NONE of this stuff works in a vacuum, and pointing fingers and throwing meaningless labels around doesn't help the situation, it perpetuates it.
Whitewashing the actual voting record of conservatives doesn't help either.

If that's what you believe.    Relying on misleading stereotypes based on sweeping generalizations and the over-amplified, over-emphasized posturing of a distinct minority doesn't help either.   It's just not fun for those who throw stones and want to castigate people who believe differently than they do to reference "boring" moderates like George Pataki, Jodi Rell, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, John Boehner, Chris Christie, Christine Todd Whitman (the so-called "RINO's").    They don't make the papers. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 01, 2015, 12:13:33 PM
It's embarrassing because Coulter is a hateful and racist human being.  Conservatives really want someone like her being one of their loudest voices in the media, whether it's the news or print media?

And I of course think people should have the right to express their views; I never said otherwise.  But just like I think Al Sharpton is an embarrassment to the civil rights movement, I think Coulter is an embarrassment to the right.  The fact that both have so many followers is a sad state of affairs, IMO.

She's not embarrassing to me, because I don't lump the entire group together as one, I didn't vote for her so she doesn't represent me, she isn't my spokesperson so she doesn't speak for me, and she no more espouses my views on politics or social issues than Mickey Mouse does.  She's a polarizing figure even among many conservatives.   https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/03/09/my-beef-with-ann-coulter.html (from 2009). 

I really don't get this.   I don't understand why there is this pack mentality when it comes to conservatism, and the argument that "they're all the same" and that we should reject the whole lot because "the spokespeople are the ones saying this stuff" just isn't true at all:  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/threat-vacate-boehners-post-shows-003611649.html;_ylt=AwrBEiJbY_NUAngAK5CTmYlQ   Honestly?  This is just lazy "journalism", or whatever you call it when laypeople try to talk about current events. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 01, 2015, 01:10:37 PM
And if we are going to talk about theory/ideology v. reality; I don't exactly think the left is the side of "progress".  I think it is clear to the most casual observer that most of this is about dividing the nation to create voting blocs, not voting rights.  The Democrat agenda on "rights" have been more punitive than level playing field.  It is why I consider myself social libertarian, not social liberal.

Well, I've said this before:  it's not enough to talk about the "what".   You HAVE to talk about the "how", and not letting the a certain mindset tax and spend us into oblivion has no bearing on the legitimacy of any one specific "right".   That I might be against "affirmative action" doesn't make me de facto against civil rights.    So any bill, any agenda, any platform that marries the two into one is going to be problematic. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 02, 2015, 07:49:17 AM
If that's what you believe.
It is.

Relying on misleading stereotypes based on sweeping generalizations and the over-amplified, over-emphasized posturing of a distinct minority doesn't help either.
That's not what I'm doing.  But if it makes you feel better.

It's just not fun for those who throw stones and want to castigate people who believe differently than they do to reference "boring" moderates like George Pataki, Jodi Rell, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, John Boehner, Chris Christie, Christine Todd Whitman (the so-called "RINO's").    They don't make the papers.
Yeah, none of those guys ever get any publicity.  Come on.

Those people may be moderate, but they aren't the ones who are actually in control.  The party has gone hard right.  The actual votes in Congress and Senate aren't being led by moderates.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on March 02, 2015, 08:02:01 AM
The RINOs in congress are really insignificant and conservatives like myself don't even give them a second thought.  There are plenty of others to look to for hope. Just the fact that Republicans control both houses is a good sign that there are still plenty of politicians out there who do hold traditional conservative values in high esteem.

The last time I gave a RINO like John McCain a thought was when I had no choice but to vote for him. Since then, I consider him to be an embarrassment to the party.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 02, 2015, 08:24:22 AM
Two bills have been proposed in CT legislature that would legalize, regulate, and tax recreational marijuana. This would be the first time a state legislature passed recreational use without a vote from the people. With Vermont lawmakers pushing for legislation, and Massachussets, Rhode Island and Maine having serious talks about it, things in New England are looking pretty positive.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 02, 2015, 09:18:16 AM
Two bills have been proposed in CT legislature that would legalize, regulate, and tax recreational marijuana. This would be the first time a state legislature passed recreational use without a vote from the people. With Vermont lawmakers pushing for legislation, and Massachussets, Rhode Island and Maine having serious talks about it, things in New England are looking pretty positive.

Cool, but what are the chances something like that gets approved without votes by the people? 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 02, 2015, 10:14:51 AM
Two bills have been proposed in CT legislature that would legalize, regulate, and tax recreational marijuana. This would be the first time a state legislature passed recreational use without a vote from the people. With Vermont lawmakers pushing for legislation, and Massachussets, Rhode Island and Maine having serious talks about it, things in New England are looking pretty positive.

Cool, but what are the chances something like that gets approved without votes by the people?

I'm actually pretty optomistic about it. Legislators proposed this on their own with almost no encouragement or rallying from the state's people. Heck, this legislation was put forth more than three weeks ago and I just heard of it. I'm surprised more by that. The state went the decriminalization and medicinal routes on their own, full recreational use wouldn't come as a surprise at this point. CT is in a pretty big financial rut. We've had jobs and companies fleeing this state for the last decade. Governor Malloy's team just had a $60million dollar fuckup in the budget. There's a several hundred million dollar project kicking off in Hartford that most analysts are predicting will fail. The state needs money desperately. Looking at Colorado's success, it would be in CT's bes interest to generate some revenue anyway they can.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 02, 2015, 11:16:07 AM
Two bills have been proposed in CT legislature that would legalize, regulate, and tax recreational marijuana. This would be the first time a state legislature passed recreational use without a vote from the people. With Vermont lawmakers pushing for legislation, and Massachussets, Rhode Island and Maine having serious talks about it, things in New England are looking pretty positive.

Cool, but what are the chances something like that gets approved without votes by the people?

I'm actually pretty optomistic about it. Legislators proposed this on their own with almost no encouragement or rallying from the state's people. Heck, this legislation was put forth more than three weeks ago and I just heard of it. I'm surprised more by that. The state went the decriminalization and medicinal routes on their own, full recreational use wouldn't come as a surprise at this point. CT is in a pretty big financial rut. We've had jobs and companies fleeing this state for the last decade. Governor Malloy's team just had a $60million dollar fuckup in the budget. There's a several hundred million dollar project kicking off in Hartford that most analysts are predicting will fail. The state needs money desperately. Looking at Colorado's success, it would be in CT's bes interest to generate some revenue anyway they can.

Nice, I am hopeful too then!  I live in NJ and barely know anything about our close by but not neighboring state of Connecticut.  If they go the full route, I will have to make a trip to experience a shop.  I would love to go to Denver or something to see what its like, but thats a lot more money and details than an hour or two car ride.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 02, 2015, 12:21:40 PM
Two bills have been proposed in CT legislature that would legalize, regulate, and tax recreational marijuana. This would be the first time a state legislature passed recreational use without a vote from the people. With Vermont lawmakers pushing for legislation, and Massachussets, Rhode Island and Maine having serious talks about it, things in New England are looking pretty positive.

Cool, but what are the chances something like that gets approved without votes by the people?

I'm actually pretty optomistic about it. Legislators proposed this on their own with almost no encouragement or rallying from the state's people. Heck, this legislation was put forth more than three weeks ago and I just heard of it. I'm surprised more by that. The state went the decriminalization and medicinal routes on their own, full recreational use wouldn't come as a surprise at this point. CT is in a pretty big financial rut. We've had jobs and companies fleeing this state for the last decade. Governor Malloy's team just had a $60million dollar fuckup in the budget. There's a several hundred million dollar project kicking off in Hartford that most analysts are predicting will fail. The state needs money desperately. Looking at Colorado's success, it would be in CT's bes interest to generate some revenue anyway they can.

Nice, I am hopeful too then!  I live in NJ and barely know anything about our close by but not neighboring state of Connecticut.  If they go the full route, I will have to make a trip to experience a shop.  I would love to go to Denver or something to see what its like, but thats a lot more money and details than an hour or two car ride.

I'm really not sure why it was done so discretely. It's pretty big news in my book, huge news actually. Only thing I can think of is that CT is looking to rewrite a lot of legislation for the brewing, distribution, and taxing of alcohol in the state. This has been talked about on every type of media in great detail. Anyone that lives near Rhode Island, Mass, or NY goes beyond state lines to buy booze. It's a lot cheaper. The state is losing business. Also, I think Governor Malloy is trying to entice micro brewers to set up shop here (jobs). My guess is, that by hyping up the MJ legislation at the same time, CT might start to get the image of focussing too much on getting intoxicated rather than solving economic problems.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 02, 2015, 01:38:09 PM


I'm really not sure why it was done so discretely. It's pretty big news in my book, huge news actually. Only thing I can think of is that CT is looking to rewrite a lot of legislation for the brewing, distribution, and taxing of alcohol in the state. This has been talked about on every type of media in great detail. Anyone that lives near Rhode Island, Mass, or NY goes beyond state lines to buy booze. It's a lot cheaper. The state is losing business. Also, I think Governor Malloy is trying to entice micro brewers to set up shop here (jobs). My guess is, that by hyping up the MJ legislation at the same time, CT might start to get the image of focussing too much on getting intoxicated rather than solving economic problems.

Honestly?  I think you are overthinking.   I have no doubt that Malloy is looking into the brewery thing, but the subterfuge has nothing to do with the perceived image of the state, but rather, is indicative of the desperate nature of Malloy to fix this budge snafu without laying off a shit-ton of employees.    Almost the entire Probate Court system is in jeopardy at this time unless and until the shortfall can be answered.   

The liquor issue has been going on since I was 18; we used to sneak over to Brewster, NY, and when I got to college (UConn) we used to run up to Sturbridge or Palmer (Palmer had the strip clubs).  Connecticut has made it's bones on the vice taxes (I include gasoline in  that one) since before I can remember.  Cigarettes, gas and liquor in CT are about as expensive as you get in New England.    We have the fourth highest cigarette tax in the country (NY is 1, though MA and RI are 2 and 3), the third highest gas tax in the country (behind NY and HI), and when you combine beer, wine and spirits (the tax rates are different for each) we are the second highest in New England (for perspective, ours is a combined $6.65 per gallon, RI is $4.46, MA is $4.71, and NH is $0.30). 

The fact of the matter is, he needs this.   And while you (and cramx3) are excited about it, the vast majority couldn't give a shit, so to have it pitched doesn't help matters, and could only possibly hurt them.  This is all about ensuring that it gets enacted and ensuring that his budget doesn't get thrown to the wolves for political reasons.

(For the record, despite what it sounds like, I am a Malloy (D-CT) supporter and voted for him last election).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 02, 2015, 02:10:47 PM
If that's what you believe.
It is.

Relying on misleading stereotypes based on sweeping generalizations and the over-amplified, over-emphasized posturing of a distinct minority doesn't help either.
That's not what I'm doing.  But if it makes you feel better.

It's just not fun for those who throw stones and want to castigate people who believe differently than they do to reference "boring" moderates like George Pataki, Jodi Rell, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, John Boehner, Chris Christie, Christine Todd Whitman (the so-called "RINO's").    They don't make the papers.
Yeah, none of those guys ever get any publicity.  Come on.

Those people may be moderate, but they aren't the ones who are actually in control.  The party has gone hard right.  The actual votes in Congress and Senate aren't being led by moderates.

If and when John Boehner gets vacated, I will concede the argument.  Until then, most (if not all) of the stuff that seems so extreme is all bluster, and those that think otherwise have sort of fallen for the hype. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 02, 2015, 02:21:07 PM


I'm really not sure why it was done so discretely. It's pretty big news in my book, huge news actually. Only thing I can think of is that CT is looking to rewrite a lot of legislation for the brewing, distribution, and taxing of alcohol in the state. This has been talked about on every type of media in great detail. Anyone that lives near Rhode Island, Mass, or NY goes beyond state lines to buy booze. It's a lot cheaper. The state is losing business. Also, I think Governor Malloy is trying to entice micro brewers to set up shop here (jobs). My guess is, that by hyping up the MJ legislation at the same time, CT might start to get the image of focussing too much on getting intoxicated rather than solving economic problems.

Honestly?  I think you are overthinking.   I have no doubt that Malloy is looking into the brewery thing, but the subterfuge has nothing to do with the perceived image of the state, but rather, is indicative of the desperate nature of Malloy to fix this budge snafu without laying off a shit-ton of employees.    Almost the entire Probate Court system is in jeopardy at this time unless and until the shortfall can be answered.   

The liquor issue has been going on since I was 18; we used to sneak over to Brewster, NY, and when I got to college (UConn) we used to run up to Sturbridge or Palmer (Palmer had the strip clubs).  Connecticut has made it's bones on the vice taxes (I include gasoline in  that one) since before I can remember.  Cigarettes, gas and liquor in CT are about as expensive as you get in New England.    We have the fourth highest cigarette tax in the country (NY is 1, though MA and RI are 2 and 3), the third highest gas tax in the country (behind NY and HI), and when you combine beer, wine and spirits (the tax rates are different for each) we are the second highest in New England (for perspective, ours is a combined $6.65 per gallon, RI is $4.46, MA is $4.71, and NH is $0.30). 

The fact of the matter is, he needs this.   And while you (and cramx3) are excited about it, the vast majority couldn't give a shit, so to have it pitched doesn't help matters, and could only possibly hurt them.  This is all about ensuring that it gets enacted and ensuring that his budget doesn't get thrown to the wolves for political reasons.

(For the record, despite what it sounds like, I am a Malloy (D-CT) supporter and voted for him last election).

Do the vast majority not give a shit?  If they don't know about it, how could they have an opinion?  I know legalization has a generally favorable view at this point, but to say most dont care is inaccurate.  Just playing devils advocate.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 02, 2015, 02:48:46 PM
If that's what you believe.
It is.

Relying on misleading stereotypes based on sweeping generalizations and the over-amplified, over-emphasized posturing of a distinct minority doesn't help either.
That's not what I'm doing.  But if it makes you feel better.

It's just not fun for those who throw stones and want to castigate people who believe differently than they do to reference "boring" moderates like George Pataki, Jodi Rell, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, John Boehner, Chris Christie, Christine Todd Whitman (the so-called "RINO's").    They don't make the papers.
Yeah, none of those guys ever get any publicity.  Come on.

Those people may be moderate, but they aren't the ones who are actually in control.  The party has gone hard right.  The actual votes in Congress and Senate aren't being led by moderates.

If and when John Boehner gets vacated, I will concede the argument.  Until then, most (if not all) of the stuff that seems so extreme is all bluster, and those that think otherwise have sort of fallen for the hype.
As long as he doesn't actually get voted out of office by his constituents, I have no doubt that House Repulicans will keep him in charge of their delegation.  They run all over him now, and he has been embarassed over and over again by the rank and file not behaving how he wants.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 02, 2015, 06:19:17 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: The King in Crimson on March 02, 2015, 06:32:32 PM
I blame all this on Jon Stewart.
Of course you do.

Quote
Dropping out of the "No. The left/right sucks" debate here because it is the pot thread.  Should we create a "Bitch about the Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives Here" thread and of course a "Bitch about the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives Here" thread?

Probably should just be one thread because most use one side to contrast the other.

 :hat
Here, let me sum that potential thread up for you. "Your side sux becuz they did x."  "Nu uh, your side sux moer cuz of Z." "Nu uh..." repeat ad nauseum.

But, considering there's already a 'Bitch about liberals thread' and I've always been a fan of being fair....
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 02, 2015, 07:46:31 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 03, 2015, 07:46:46 AM
IDK how weed is ever going to become legal with opposition like this;

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/stoned-rabbits-dea_n_6789232.html

Matt Fairbanks, an agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration's "marijuana eradication" team in Utah, testified to a state Senate panel last week, and said rabbits could get addicted to pot, lose their natural instincts and sit around getting high all the time

Fairbanks testified in opposition to the bill, and spent some of his testimony splitting hares, according to The Washington Post. He claimed that illegal pot farms could have bad environmental consequences, and said he saw rabbits addicted to weed at illegal grow sites. "I deal in facts. I deal in science", "One of them refused to leave us, and we took all the marijuana around him, but his natural instincts to run were somehow gone," he added.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on March 03, 2015, 07:50:25 AM
Was the term "splitting hares" used intentionally?   :lol


I will say this, I'm probably one of the few conservatives for the legalization of weed.  That's where my Libertarian stance comes in.  Stop banning everything! 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 03, 2015, 08:03:20 AM
lol wow, the DEA never ceases to amaze.... can rabbits even get high from eating the plant?  Humans cant, it needs to be cooked/heated for the THC to activate.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 03, 2015, 08:06:06 AM


Do the vast majority not give a shit?  If they don't know about it, how could they have an opinion?  I know legalization has a generally favorable view at this point, but to say most dont care is inaccurate.  Just playing devils advocate.

In CT?  The vast majority DON'T give a shit.  This is a weird state, politically, though I don't say that because of the pot issue.   It's mostly liberal, but it acts almost like two halves (well, it's thirds, but...).  We've got the wealthiest (or one of the wealthiest) counties in the United States (Fairfield) that acts and votes as if they are their own state, you've got everything east of the river (the Connecticut River, which basically cuts the state in two halves) that is tied to either Electric Boat/the Groton Naval Base or the casinos, and you've got the northwest corner which is kind of a throwback to 1860 in a lot of ways (Darryl Hall has a house there, Ron Howard, Meryl Streep and a ton of other actors live there). 

There are some areas that are struggling, economically (Bridgeport, Norwich, downtown Hartford) but even poorer sections are fairly liberal in a "limousine liberal" kind of way.   And honestly?  As long as any one of the thirds doesn't feel like they are footing the bill for everyone else, things are relatively copacetic.   It isn't literally that simple, but that is a easy way to think about it. 

100% percent - literally, 100% - of my discussions about pot legalization are on this forum.  Perhaps it is because I have Boston and New York an hour and a half on either side, but those of my friends that do smoke will not likely change much in terms of behavior if things are legalized.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 03, 2015, 08:39:01 AM
lol wow, the DEA never ceases to amaze.... can rabbits even get high from eating the plant?  Humans cant, it needs to be cooked/heated for the THC to activate.

No, they can't. Unless rabbits have some mechanism in their digestive track that can extract the THC molecules from the plant independently, they'd need to eat something infused with it. But this guy said "I deal in facts. I deal in science"... I'd trust him.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 03, 2015, 08:43:04 AM

100% percent - literally, 100% - of my discussions about pot legalization are on this forum.  Perhaps it is because I have Boston and New York an hour and a half on either side, but those of my friends that do smoke will not likely change much in terms of behavior if things are legalized.

I'm 25 minutes from New York and about 50 from Mass. Pot is a hot topic where I live, and it's not just the group I hang out with. I've heard it come up, from a political perspective, many times in the office and at family functions. Part of that could be that Watertown, the town I lived in for 24 years, has one of the few medicinal growing facilities in the state. It's been talked about quite a bit out this way.

You're dead on about the North West part of this state being in the 1860's. I worked in Salisbury for a few summers. Four years ago they still didn't have high speed internet... 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 09:05:27 AM
lol wow, the DEA never ceases to amaze.... can rabbits even get high from eating the plant?  Humans cant, it needs to be cooked/heated for the THC to activate.

No, they can't. Unless rabbits have some mechanism in their digestive track that can extract the THC molecules from the plant independently, they'd need to eat something infused with it. But this guy said "I deal in facts. I deal in science"... I'd trust him.
I'm not so sure about that. As I recall, it's not impossible absorb THC from a plant; just highly inefficient. Furthermore, I think the rules change when you're talking about hash rather than bud, so if what they were growing was particularly thick with tricomes then that changes things, as well. Next, we're talking about a very small animal with a small body mass. It probably takes very few get-highs to light up that tiny rabbit brain, so eating a mess of greens might still get him enough. Lastly, rabbits are herbivores who subsist almost entirely on grass and weeds. It's pretty likely that they have a mechanism for extracting all sorts of nutrients from plant matter that we lack.

I could be completely wrong, but I'm guessing rabbits can get high from eating it.


edit: and after reading what Johnny said, I don't think he actually says that the rabbits are stoned. Just that they'd developed a taste for it. You remove a particularly tasty food source from any animal and they're going to object. TOMACCO!!!
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 03, 2015, 09:17:24 AM
Ohhh... I thought he was saying they weren't running away because they were too high to move  :rollin

So it's kind of like the pidgeons squirrels in NYC with literally every piece of food. Should New Yorkers be banned from eating outside?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 03, 2015, 10:47:10 AM
 :rollin

I was thinking he was implying they were high too.  Not that it makes the argument any better, just more sense but still very much ridiculous.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Fiery Winds on March 03, 2015, 11:28:41 AM
Now Texas has introduced a bill to wipe the books of any marijuana regulations: https://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-lawmaker-files-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-6111922.php

Quote
In Texas, a conservative lawmaker filed a bill to completely deregulate marijuana in the Lone Star State Monday, proposing to strike any mention of the psychoactive plant from state law.

"Everything that God made is good, even marijuana" said state Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, who filed the bill. "The conservative thought is that government doesn't need to fix something that God made good."

The 24-page bill begins: "The following provisions are repealed," then lists dozens of Texas statutes related to marijuana. If the Legislature were to approve the bill, pot in Texas would be regulated like any common crop.

In a press release, Simpson said he supported regulating marijuana like the state regulates "tomatoes, jalapeños or coffee."
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 03, 2015, 11:41:14 AM
That's great and all, but I disagree with his reasonings behind it. King Cobras, scorpions, black widow spiders, and poison dart frogs all came from the same place as marijuana, it doesn't mean we should let the public do as they please with those.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: vtgrad on March 03, 2015, 11:46:44 AM
 :lol ... splitting hares...

My (somewhat non-convoluted) stance on pot as a conservative minded person (please notice I did not say Conservative in the political sense)... legalize it and profit from it.

If the inhabitants of our great nation have proven anything, it's that they will do what they want, when they want, regardless of the laws surrounding said activity.  Continuing down the road of pot being illegal isn't going to stop people from using it; just as legalizing it isn't going to stop the underground (non-taxed thus cheaper) production/distribution of it.  IMHO, our nation should simply legalize it and profit from it; once it's legalized, the legally grown product will become a boutique product anyway... profit from it as such.

And before I get stoned by someone with the argument "well, why don't we just legalize all illicit substances" please be aware that I am not in favor of that.  Comparing pot to (insert any drug you wish, including prescription drugs) is non-sense imo UNLESS THAT SUBSTANCE HAS THE SAME EFFECT ON THE HUMAN BODY as pot.

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 03, 2015, 11:47:46 AM
That's great and all, but I disagree with his reasonings behind it. King Cobras, scorpions, black widow spiders, and poison dart frogs all came from the same place as marijuana, it doesn't mean we should let the public do as they please with those.

All of which are significantly more dangerous than marijuana though.  While I don't believe members of congress should be talking about legislature and using any reference of God, I do actually personally believe what he is saying.  The plant grows (or grew) naturally on this planet and should be treated like any other plant/fruit/vegetable.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 03, 2015, 11:51:23 AM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: The King in Crimson on March 03, 2015, 12:11:22 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?
I've never smoked either and I'm not vtgrad, but yes. I also wouldn't be completely averse to smoking it either.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 12:21:02 PM
Some congressman here proposes new marihuana laws every other year when congress convenes. Never moves forward. The last attempt actually wasn't too bad, but honestly the quality of a bill doesn't mean dick anymore. In fact, this one is going to be counterproductive. They'd stand a much better chance of regulating it than decriminalizing it here.

Honestly, while I wouldn't mind some tweaking of the rules, the current state doesn't offend me too much at all. More and more departments are letting one's personal stash slide or writing a summons, so the prospects of getting hooked up continue to decrease. Moreover, as is so often the case, we're getting better bud for cheaper under the current paradigm. I really don't want to see it commercialized. I suppose I'd build a cabinet for my own grow, but fuck, that's a lot of work. 

VTGrad: At some point pragmatism needs to take hold; something you definitely seem to understand. As you pointed out, the people will do whatever they want. This includes shooting heroine and smoking/snorting crank. While I'm not crazy about the idea of people being able to by 8ths whenever they feel like, I really have a hard time escaping the reality that it'd honestly be for the best. Too many downsides to prohibition and wasted opportunities that could come from legalization. The fact that those are more harmful than pot really doesn't factor into it since the harm is greatly exasperated by prohibition.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 03, 2015, 12:31:34 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?
Wasn't directed at me, but I will answer: no I wouldn't.  I tried it in the past, didn't care for it.  I see nothing wrong with it, and I think it should be legal, but I don't want any myself.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 12:51:00 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?
Wasn't directed at me, but I will answer: no I wouldn't.  I tried it in the past, didn't care for it.  I see nothing wrong with it, and I think it should be legal, but I don't want any myself.
Apples and oranges, Hef. You've tried it and formed an opinion. They haven't tried it, presumably because of it's status or primary means of ingestion.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: vtgrad on March 03, 2015, 01:22:53 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?

For myself personally, no.  My reasons for that are Scriptural (Ephesians 5:18-21 KJV).

BUT, that doesn't give me the right to tell someone else what to do... and when I see young lives (friends) being ruined by the experience of jail/prison over something that arguably has the same or less effect on our bodies as alcohol (which is legal) I think that the legal system's reaction is over-reaching.

Again, people are going to participate in the activities that they choose to; in my opinion, what we as individuals choose to participate in is governed by what authority(s) we choose to attach ourselves to and place ourselves under.  Personally, I believe that only GOD can change a man's wants, desires, and actions; I am not in authority over anyone and cannot tell anyone what to do.

El: That is an interesting take regarding full legalization... and your point is well taken.  I'm not crazy about people openly involved in the more illicit substances either, but, as I commented above, I believe we cannot change ourselves (as individuals) without help.  And it is, after all, ironic that in order to truly undercut the illicit drug trade (and everything that comes with it), legalization is probably the best viable option (as I believe I understand your position; please correct me if I'm wrong).  If substances are legalized, then the money is being paid to the Big Crooks (read government) instead of John Q Crook that likes to turn turtles loose in the desert.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 03, 2015, 01:40:29 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?

For myself personally, no.  My reasons for that are Scriptural (Ephesians 5:18-21 KJV).


I'm not baiting, I'm genuinely curious. Ephesians 5:18-21 KJV says "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I'm just going to rattle some questions off. Please don't take offense.
 
1) The passage is explicitly referring to whine (for sake of argument, we'll say all alcohol), not a plant. Why does that passage get applied to marijuana as well?
2) Debauchery is defined as bad or immoral behavior that involves sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. What if someone using marijuana (or even alcohol for that matter) isn't acting bad or immorally? If someone smokes a J before volunteering at a soup kitchen, they are acting both good and morally. What's the problem?
3) It says "which leads to debauchery". Is this saying you can not get drunk on beverages because it leads to debauchery, or you can't get drunk IF it leads to debauchery (implying it has different effects on everyone)?
4) What's the "19" and "20" mean in this passage?
5) What if one uses marijuana and still "always gives thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on March 03, 2015, 02:02:08 PM
Well as far as I know, the 19 and 20 are just the verse numbers. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jammindude on March 03, 2015, 02:21:51 PM
Well, besides just the one scripture pointed out, the Bible condemns drunkenness.   Period.   Obviously a drunken state (as everyone knows) lowers inhibitions and can lead to other things.   But ultimately, you're responsible for your own actions.   You can't say, "I only did it because I was drunk", because you are supposed to not be getting drunk in the first place.

As to marijuana....it is not specifically mentioned in the scriptures.  But there are more than a few examples of principles which would make it inappropriate for Christians.   All Christians need to be of clear and sound mind, and whenever possible, avoid things that would put us in some form of altered state where cultivating the Christian requirement of "self-control" would be hindered. 

But probably the best scripture would be Gal 5:20 which commands that Christians abstain from any form of spiritism (witchcraft in some older translations).   The original Greek word translated spiritism is "pharmakia"....and in some translations, this word is actually translated as "druggery".     At the time this was written, there were certain popular drugs (opium would have most likely been a key one) that were used by practicers of spiritism to put them into an altered state of mind where they felt more in contact with the spirit realm.    So any drugs that are known for this recreational use would be inappropriate for any Christian. 

If you don't believe that marijuana is used for such a purpose, then you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 03, 2015, 02:26:23 PM
Isnt there also a scripture from the bible that says something along the lines that God gave plants to man to use?  I have to look this up because I always see it referenced in comment sections on marijuana legalization articles.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 02:30:40 PM
El: That is an interesting take regarding full legalization... and your point is well taken.  I'm not crazy about people openly involved in the more illicit substances either, but, as I commented above, I believe we cannot change ourselves (as individuals) without help.  And it is, after all, ironic that in order to truly undercut the illicit drug trade (and everything that comes with it), legalization is probably the best viable option (as I believe I understand your position; please correct me if I'm wrong).  If substances are legalized, then the money is being paid to the Big Crooks (read government) instead of John Q Crook that likes to turn turtles loose in the desert.
Well, that's certainly half my point. The lost opportunities I mentioned are the other half and reflect part of your concern. With an end to prohibition you're turning a 40 billion/year loss into a net profit after taxation. You spend a few percent of those dollars on treatment and education programs and you're actually helping people to help themselves.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 02:31:10 PM
Isnt there also a scripture from the bible that says something along the lines that God gave plants to man to use?  I have to look this up because I always see it referenced in comment sections on marijuana legalization articles.
According to Cypress Hill there is.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jammindude on March 03, 2015, 02:32:30 PM
Isnt there also a scripture from the bible that says something along the lines that God gave plants to man to use?  I have to look this up because I always see it referenced in comment sections on marijuana legalization articles.

I wouldn't doubt it.   But to claim that "use" equates with "ingestion" is just silly.   I'm sure the tobacco plant has many fantastic uses.   That doesn't mean you need to smoke it. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 03, 2015, 02:32:33 PM
Isnt there also a scripture from the bible that says something along the lines that God gave plants to man to use?  I have to look this up because I always see it referenced in comment sections on marijuana legalization articles.

Just one in a long line of examples of people picking and choosing the parts that fit their argument.   In the grand scheme of things, it is up to us to reconcile the differences and the inconsistencies according to our beliefs.   But "using the plants God gave us" doesn't de facto translate into "let's all spark some herb".   

EDIT:  Jammin' beat me to the thought, and in half the words.  :)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 03, 2015, 02:34:07 PM
El: That is an interesting take regarding full legalization... and your point is well taken.  I'm not crazy about people openly involved in the more illicit substances either, but, as I commented above, I believe we cannot change ourselves (as individuals) without help.  And it is, after all, ironic that in order to truly undercut the illicit drug trade (and everything that comes with it), legalization is probably the best viable option (as I believe I understand your position; please correct me if I'm wrong).  If substances are legalized, then the money is being paid to the Big Crooks (read government) instead of John Q Crook that likes to turn turtles loose in the desert.
Well, that's certainly half my point. The lost opportunities I mentioned are the other half and reflect part of your concern. With an end to prohibition you're turning a 40 billion/year loss into a net profit after taxation. You spend a few percent of those dollars on treatment and education programs and you're actually helping people to help themselves.

For the record, I'm for full legalization.  You could regulate the more illicit substances, but I wouldn't have any black market on recreational drugs if I was the King. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 03, 2015, 02:35:13 PM
https://www.openbible.info/topics/marijuana (https://www.openbible.info/topics/marijuana)

Heres a bunch, all talking positive about plants and negative about not being sober. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jammindude on March 03, 2015, 02:41:35 PM
https://www.openbible.info/topics/marijuana (https://www.openbible.info/topics/marijuana)

Heres a bunch, all talking positive about plants and negative about not being sober.

I agree with every word of this....and I think it makes it that much more obvious that ingesting marijuana for recreational use is inappropriate.   All of those scriptures must be understood to be read in harmony with the passage at Gal 5:20....which condemns "druggery" as "spiritism" and "witchcraft".   All of those scriptures harmonize beind that thought.    Especially the ones that speak of being careful not to be misled. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: vtgrad on March 03, 2015, 02:44:03 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?

For myself personally, no.  My reasons for that are Scriptural (Ephesians 5:18-21 KJV).


I'm not baiting, I'm genuinely curious. Ephesians 5:18-21 KJV says "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I'm just going to rattle some questions off. Please don't take offense.
 
1) The passage is explicitly referring to whine (for sake of argument, we'll say all alcohol), not a plant. Why does that passage get applied to marijuana as well?
2) Debauchery is defined as bad or immoral behavior that involves sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. What if someone using marijuana (or even alcohol for that matter) isn't acting bad or immorally? If someone smokes a J before volunteering at a soup kitchen, they are acting both good and morally. What's the problem?
3) It says "which leads to debauchery". Is this saying you can not get drunk on beverages because it leads to debauchery, or you can't get drunk IF it leads to debauchery (implying it has different effects on everyone)?
4) What's the "19" and "20" mean in this passage?
5) What if one uses marijuana and still "always gives thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."?

I understand you're not baiting and I'll not take offense my friend.  Please allow me to address one at a time...

1)"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" The command is to "be filled with the Spirit"; in order to be filled, one must first be empty of everything else.  Wine is used as an example to the people of Ephesus because, being a port city and a trade destination during those days, the city was a rich city and thus inhabitants there could afford the luxury of wine and spirits.  Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was attempting to guide the Ephesians to empty themselves of the possible excess of wine (which could lead to debauchery) in order to be filled with the Spirit.  As I see it applied today, imo of course, I personally don't want to consume anything that might relieve me of the capability to adhere to what I believe.

2) "...wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit"  The Greek term used for excess is asotia, which can be translated as profligacy- excess, not technically debauchery though excess can lead to debauchery I guess.  I read this as Paul attempting to guide the Ephesians to not be involved in anything that might move them away from being Spirit filled.  Again, the Greek term used in KJV is asotia which is not defined as debauchery.  In the example you give, the actions of the person at the soup kitchen are not in question IMO, if that person wants to smoke a J, whether or not they are Spirit filled is between them and GOD.  I personally believe that one cannot be Spirit filled if they are under the influence of anything else or if they have anything in their life that hampers their fellowship with The Lord.

3) Again, the original Greek word implies excess, and speaking from my own experience from drinking days (a long time ago), it didn't take much for my mind to be in the wrong place.  Once my mind was in the wrong place, my body soon followed.  The command here is to be Spirit filled, which goes back to #1... empty yourself of the possibility of the excess of wine.  Alcohol does effect everyone differently I guess, I personally don't want to give myself even the possibility of losing my testimony and doing something that The Lord doesn't want me to do.  Though, as long as I'm robed in flesh, I will struggle against my nature.

4) Verse 19: "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" Verse 20: "Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;"  These verses have the idea of filling your life with the things that please The Lord... so that your longing is toward those things so much so that you are filled with excess with the things of The Lord, and not drawn to be filled with things that may take you away from The Lord.  C.H. Spurgeon says of these verses "To make God great and ourselves little is our peculiar occupation; we are to give him glory in all that we do, and seek no honor for ourselves, but willingly take the lowest place among our brethren for the Lord's sake."  If I involve myself in something that may take me away from The Lord, I cannot therefore give Him the Glory He is due.

5) Again, the use of a substance is between the user and GOD.  These verses refer to the Graces given by The Lord to the Ephesians (and to us as well) to find and continue in His will, to abstain from anything that may lead them away from The Lord, and to prepare them for the coming persecution.  Basically, this is thanksgiving for the Grace and Mercy, given by The Lord, to keep themselves in the excess of the things of GOD instead of the excess of things that may take them away from GOD.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 03, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 03, 2015, 03:11:18 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?
Wasn't directed at me, but I will answer: no I wouldn't.  I tried it in the past, didn't care for it.  I see nothing wrong with it, and I think it should be legal, but I don't want any myself.
Apples and oranges, Hef. You've tried it and formed an opinion. They haven't tried it, presumably because of it's status or primary means of ingestion.
We're gonna call that a giant brain fart on my part.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 03:12:51 PM
So would there be punitive taxes on the harder drugs?
Since I'm the one discussing full on legalization rather than what God "really meant to say," I'll assume that's directed at me. I didn't envision that in what I was saying, although I suppose it's probably to be expected. If it's too the point that it still fosters a black market then you've done no good at all,which would be a wonderful example of government stupidity. At the same time, it would have to be legislated that some percentage of the taxes go to treatment and education, otherwise the more conservative elements would chip away at it until it was no more.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 03:13:31 PM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?
Wasn't directed at me, but I will answer: no I wouldn't.  I tried it in the past, didn't care for it.  I see nothing wrong with it, and I think it should be legal, but I don't want any myself.
Apples and oranges, Hef. You've tried it and formed an opinion. They haven't tried it, presumably because of it's status or primary means of ingestion.
We're gonna call that a giant brain fart on my part.
It's all those cigars you're smoking. I told you that shit'd make you stupid!
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 03, 2015, 03:39:58 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jammindude on March 03, 2015, 03:53:27 PM
From my personal experience.  I was addicted.    And research seems to be all over the place on that subject.   In the 70's and 80's, they said it was addictive.  In the 90's and 00's, you couldn't find a shred of evidence that it was addictive.   Now I'm seeing that the latest research is firm in that 10% become addicted if they start as adults, and the number jumps to 35% (I believe, going from memory) if you start using as a teenager. 

I was addicted.   I had co-workers who were addicted (as in, they had gotten to a point where they were incapable of functioning without it).    I'm not claimin that it's AS addictive as harder drugs.    But people who have that friend who's a doctor that was never effected by the recreational use of it are the same friends who had a grandfather who smoked two packs a day his entire life and died healthy in his sleep at the age of 96. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 03:58:43 PM
I just can't bring myself to  :tup the hard drug legalization based off life experience.

- I know a few friends that have turned their life to sh*t over the stuff.

- I've had a roommate (from Europe) that had a loving family that looked after him, got him clean, only to watch him relapse and get strung out to the point of being on death's door.  He also did some really sh*tty things like bring LA gang drug dealers into our shared home.

A cousin's girlfriend died of an overdose.  It wasn't pretty.

A friend's girlfriend died of an overdose.  It wasn't pretty

Another had a stroke.

All of these people were in their early 20s and one was very early 30s.

I'm fine with pot legalization (or decriminilization), even though I know all but 1 of the above started with pot (the 1 may have, but I never asked or witnessed).  And this all ties in with my view of police work in general.  They need to make a wide line between violent and non-violent crimes.  They already have it to some degree, but somebody didn't tell the cops.
Two things to keep in mind. Where your friends "started" makes no difference. People are either inclined to "broaden their horizons" or they're not. If they are, then they start with something lightweight and readily available. Moreover, I'd bet money that those people that "started with pot" actually started with Budweiser, Marlboro, or Skoal. And as a tangent, it's already to the point where prohibition has made illicit drugs easier for kiddos to get than the aforementioned legal ones. Dealers don't check ID. If you actually do believe in so-called gateway drugs, then prohibition is not your friend; it's part of the problem.

Secondly, your overdosed friends are more a consequence of prohibition that the opium that killed them. Introduce known potency, known purity, access to Narcan, and the reduced threat of arrest for involving help into the current equation and you'll see those numbers plummet. If you call 911 on your OD'ing friend there's a very good chance he'll die anyway and you'll go to jail. That's why people just dump bodies at the ER nowadays.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 03, 2015, 04:24:56 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: The King in Crimson on March 03, 2015, 06:17:53 PM
How about simply decriminalization instead? I'm pretty leery about full blown legalisation of the harder drugs, some of which, like meth, are straight up poison, but I don't think the problem can be 'solved' until we start moving away from being straight up illegal. Moving funding away from punishing and jailing addicts to physical and mental health treatment instead would be a nice start.

And yes, the harder drugs on their own are dangerous but they are made even more dangerous by the societal stigmas, the laws, and the current manufacturing processes. That said, I'm not really sure where I stand on the issue. While I think full blown legalization is probably 'the best' move to make... eventually, my mind still can't accept the fact that having a 'reputable' company cooking up meth in a pristine factory would be really any better than a trio of rednecks brewing up a batch in a rickety RV out in the woods.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 03, 2015, 06:44:53 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 03, 2015, 07:35:47 PM
Hasnt the legalization of drugs in other countries shown that the numbers of users actually drop?

I am actually with El Barto on full legalization.  I believe people will do what they want at the end of the day so we should allow them to with knowledge such as dosages and "nutrition facts" so people know what they are getting into.  I don't endorse the use of any drugs really besides marijuana, I cant even endorse the use of alcohol (even though I use this substance).  I just believe in the freedom of choice and when people have knowledge and the freedom of choice, they will more likely chose the better path.  Even those who don't, instead of going to a back alley to buy something that may or may not be what they think, they can go somewhere that is regulated and informed.  Those people can do what they want with the full knowledge and full responsibility.  I do believe the illegality actually brings attention to the drugs in some way.

As for marijuana addiction, I believe it.  I dont believe it is physical or chemical addiction, but mental.  Like those squirels who werent high, just enjoyed the taste.  Its not physical that they have to stay there, but they chose to because they enjoy the taste.  Heroin and alcohol addiction are chemical dependencies, completely different type of addiction.  Addiction none the less however. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 03, 2015, 08:09:07 PM
Secondly, your overdosed friends are more a consequence of prohibition that the opium that killed them.

I know where you are coming from, but I don't think so.  Unless you are saying legal drugs have no health problems associated with them?  And these were hardly amateurs that bought Tide from some junk dealer.  The "don't blame the drug, but the drug maker" seems kind of naive.  They are called hard drugs for a reason.

And I know some that didn't do the crap simply because they had too much going on in their lives to risk something on their record.  And once you make it to a certain age, the curiosity diminishes ... making you less and less likely to ever try the hard crap.

I think you are taking the over-criminilization of petty drugs and applying it too liberally to the hard drugs.

Not at all. I'm taking the simple and pragmatic point of view that the prohibition of hard drugs is an abject failure. It's insanely expensive and does nobody any good. By forcing things underground you lose control and invite mayhem. I think there is plenty of good that can be done to minimize drug harm that's just not currently doable when drug policy is a component of criminal justice rather than public health.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on March 04, 2015, 06:33:06 AM
Secondly, your overdosed friends are more a consequence of prohibition that the opium that killed them.

I know where you are coming from, but I don't think so.  Unless you are saying legal drugs have no health problems associated with them?  And these were hardly amateurs that bought Tide from some junk dealer.  The "don't blame the drug, but the drug maker" seems kind of naive.  They are called hard drugs for a reason.

And I know some that didn't do the crap simply because they had too much going on in their lives to risk something on their record.  And once you make it to a certain age, the curiosity diminishes ... making you less and less likely to ever try the hard crap.

I think you are taking the over-criminilization of petty drugs and applying it too liberally to the hard drugs.

Not at all. I'm taking the simple and pragmatic point of view that the prohibition of hard drugs is an abject failure. It's insanely expensive and does nobody any good. By forcing things underground you lose control and invite mayhem. I think there is plenty of good that can be done to minimize drug harm that's just not currently doable when drug policy is a component of criminal justice rather than public health.

I think Prohibition did a excellent job of proving that. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 04, 2015, 06:45:57 AM
So would there be punitive taxes on the harder drugs?

Where are you going with the adjective "punitive"?    If you are asking me, I would allow "vice taxes" on harder drugs much like there are taxes on wine, beer, spirits, and cigarettes.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 04, 2015, 06:46:18 AM
Secondly, your overdosed friends are more a consequence of prohibition that the opium that killed them.

I know where you are coming from, but I don't think so.  Unless you are saying legal drugs have no health problems associated with them?  And these were hardly amateurs that bought Tide from some junk dealer.  The "don't blame the drug, but the drug maker" seems kind of naive.  They are called hard drugs for a reason.

And I know some that didn't do the crap simply because they had too much going on in their lives to risk something on their record.  And once you make it to a certain age, the curiosity diminishes ... making you less and less likely to ever try the hard crap.

I think you are taking the over-criminilization of petty drugs and applying it too liberally to the hard drugs.

Not at all. I'm taking the simple and pragmatic point of view that the prohibition of hard drugs is an abject failure. It's insanely expensive and does nobody any good. By forcing things underground you lose control and invite mayhem. I think there is plenty of good that can be done to minimize drug harm that's just not currently doable when drug policy is a component of criminal justice rather than public health.

Imagine a world where funds that now go to arresting these people instead went to rehab facilities. What if instead of going to jail (I'm talking users here, not manufacturers and people that use children as mules) you could go get help with no fear of legal consequences?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 04, 2015, 07:11:19 AM
I just can't bring myself to  :tup the hard drug legalization based off life experience.

- I know a few friends that have turned their life to sh*t over the stuff.

- I've had a roommate (from Europe) that had a loving family that looked after him, got him clean, only to watch him relapse and get strung out to the point of being on death's door.  He also did some really sh*tty things like bring LA gang drug dealers into our shared home.

A cousin's girlfriend died of an overdose.  It wasn't pretty.

A friend's girlfriend died of an overdose.  It wasn't pretty

Another had a stroke.

All of these people were in their early 20s and one was very early 30s.

I'm fine with pot legalization (or decriminilization), even though I know all but 1 of the above started with pot (the 1 may have, but I never asked or witnessed).  And this all ties in with my view of police work in general.  They need to make a wide line between violent and non-violent crimes.  They already have it to some degree, but somebody didn't tell the cops.

Some of the things you are talking about, though, would go away with legalization.   Why would there be "LA gang drug dealers" in your house if you could buy the substance of choice from, say, CVS? 

I've had relatives basically kill themselves with alcohol and yet that isn't a problem for most people.   

I think also there is a different dynamic at play; the advertisement of cigarettes and alcohol is highly regulated, and there is little incentive to coerce people to participate.  Yes, there is peer pressure to drink, but I didn't have an enabling "dealer" for my binge drinking in college.  I DID have people encouraging me to enjoy the cocaine, via "free samples" and what not.   To a significant degree I think most of what you are talking about can be minimized, though it won't be completely eliminated.  I think - and this is where I lose people, but truth is truth - there will always be someone who falls through the cracks.  That's a dirty thought in the US circa 2015, but we fail when we try to shoehorn programs to fit every last person without any downside. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 04, 2015, 07:24:52 AM
Secondly, your overdosed friends are more a consequence of prohibition that the opium that killed them.

I know where you are coming from, but I don't think so.  Unless you are saying legal drugs have no health problems associated with them?  And these were hardly amateurs that bought Tide from some junk dealer.  The "don't blame the drug, but the drug maker" seems kind of naive.  They are called hard drugs for a reason.

And I know some that didn't do the crap simply because they had too much going on in their lives to risk something on their record.  And once you make it to a certain age, the curiosity diminishes ... making you less and less likely to ever try the hard crap.

I think you are taking the over-criminilization of petty drugs and applying it too liberally to the hard drugs.

Not at all. I'm taking the simple and pragmatic point of view that the prohibition of hard drugs is an abject failure. It's insanely expensive and does nobody any good. By forcing things underground you lose control and invite mayhem. I think there is plenty of good that can be done to minimize drug harm that's just not currently doable when drug policy is a component of criminal justice rather than public health.

Imagine a world where funds that now go to arresting these people instead went to rehab facilities. What if instead of going to jail (I'm talking users here, not manufacturers and people that use children as mules) you could go get help with no fear of legal consequences?

The problem with this discussion is that it involves so many competing principles as to be unwieldly.  I'm not coming at this from a "public health" perspective, because - and I mean this facetiously - I could give a shit.   I believe people have the right to live their lives, and that means eating vegan and running 15 miles a day, and that means sitting on a couch smoking a pound of hash and playing PlayStation all day, as long as the chooser accepts the consequences of their actions.   If we are going to do this in order to reallocate the funds used on enforcement and incarceration, I don't necessarily want the funds to be diverted to rehab centers for the 1% of the population that uses cocaine.   Use those funds to establish some transparency in the ACA.  Give it back to the taxpayers.   Put it into infrastructure improvements.   Do SOMETHING with it that benefits society as a whole, and not a distinct minority.

The whole problem with criminalization is that people ARE making the choices; that's why there is a black market.  So worrying about the consequences of individual decisions shouldn't really be a motivating force for the regulatory scheme we choose.   We have proven time and time and time again that regulation does not drive behavior like it is intended to do.  Incentives and economics drive behavior. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 04, 2015, 07:44:12 AM

For the record... I have never smoked pot (or inhaled) and very likely never will.  I simply think that law enforcement has taken pot to a level that it doesn't deserve.

If you could legally purchase it in a store and could experience it by eating it in the form of your favorite cookie rather than smoking it, would you try it?
Wasn't directed at me, but I will answer: no I wouldn't.  I tried it in the past, didn't care for it.  I see nothing wrong with it, and I think it should be legal, but I don't want any myself.
Apples and oranges, Hef. You've tried it and formed an opinion. They haven't tried it, presumably because of it's status or primary means of ingestion.
We're gonna call that a giant brain fart on my part.
It's all those cigars you're smoking. I told you that shit'd make you stupid!
You did.  You did.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: vtgrad on March 04, 2015, 09:25:47 AM
Hasnt the legalization of drugs in other countries shown that the numbers of users actually drop?

I am actually with El Barto on full legalization.  I believe people will do what they want at the end of the day so we should allow them to with knowledge such as dosages and "nutrition facts" so people know what they are getting into.  I don't endorse the use of any drugs really besides marijuana, I cant even endorse the use of alcohol (even though I use this substance).  I just believe in the freedom of choice and when people have knowledge and the freedom of choice, they will more likely chose the better path.  Even those who don't, instead of going to a back alley to buy something that may or may not be what they think, they can go somewhere that is regulated and informed.  Those people can do what they want with the full knowledge and full responsibility.  I do believe the illegality actually brings attention to the drugs in some way.

As for marijuana addiction, I believe it.  I dont believe it is physical or chemical addiction, but mental.  Like those squirels who werent high, just enjoyed the taste.  Its not physical that they have to stay there, but they chose to because they enjoy the taste.  Heroin and alcohol addiction are chemical dependencies, completely different type of addiction.  Addiction none the less however.

I could get behind the ideas in bold 100% actually.  Perhaps if some of the limelight of the substance being illegal were to be removed, maybe less attention would be given to the substance by those who wish to be seen as rebellious.  Please realize that I'm not saying all partakers wish to be rebellious or wish to be seen that way, but I'm sure we would have to agree that there is a certain draw for some of us to sometimes do things we shouldn't.  Gets the heart pounding and so on...

I also believe in marijuana addition (again evidenced by friends)... but I honestly never thought to approach it as a possible mental addiction rather than a type of chemical dependency.

As far as full legalization goes, and viewed in the sight of the greater good (the greater good), wouldn't we all agree that there would have to be some control in place with regard to potency?  Of course, that type of control in itself would likely give rise to a black market.  This truly is a slippery situation; but something must be done because the current policies are not in the public's best interest IMO.  I personally think that to many individuals go to prison/jail for lower schedule narcotics and come out of jail/prison much worse off than when they were originally incarcerated. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 04, 2015, 09:49:09 AM

As far as full legalization goes, and viewed in the sight of the greater good (the greater good), wouldn't we all agree that there would have to be some control in place with regard to potency?  Of course, that type of control in itself would likely give rise to a black market.  This truly is a slippery situation; but something must be done because the current policies are not in the public's best interest IMO.

No. I say let people use the potency they want. If you can walk into a store and legally buy this, then any potency of weed should be okay.

(https://rumproject.com/images/GravesGrainAlcohol.jpg)


Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 04, 2015, 09:58:39 AM


As far as full legalization goes, and viewed in the sight of the greater good (the greater good), wouldn't we all agree that there would have to be some control in place with regard to potency?  Of course, that type of control in itself would likely give rise to a black market.  This truly is a slippery situation; but something must be done because the current policies are not in the public's best interest IMO.  I personally think that to many individuals go to prison/jail for lower schedule narcotics and come out of jail/prison much worse off than when they were originally incarcerated.

Why are we handling this any different than any other product, even "inherently dangerous" ones?   Are there limits on how fast the cars are that we drive?  There are limits on how fast we can drive them, but not on the cars themselves (for the most part).  We could take direction from the gun and alcohol trade, perhaps.   But I don't think it's a "slippery situation" unless we make presuppositions beforehand that make it slippery. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on March 04, 2015, 10:01:17 AM

As far as full legalization goes, and viewed in the sight of the greater good (the greater good), wouldn't we all agree that there would have to be some control in place with regard to potency?  Of course, that type of control in itself would likely give rise to a black market.  This truly is a slippery situation; but something must be done because the current policies are not in the public's best interest IMO.

No. I say let people use the potency they want. If you can walk into a store and legally buy this, then any potency of weed should be okay.

(https://rumproject.com/images/GravesGrainAlcohol.jpg)

Not all states sell that legally, ironically enough. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: vtgrad on March 04, 2015, 10:25:26 AM

As far as full legalization goes, and viewed in the sight of the greater good (the greater good), wouldn't we all agree that there would have to be some control in place with regard to potency?  Of course, that type of control in itself would likely give rise to a black market.  This truly is a slippery situation; but something must be done because the current policies are not in the public's best interest IMO.

No. I say let people use the potency they want. If you can walk into a store and legally buy this, then any potency of weed should be okay.

(https://rumproject.com/images/GravesGrainAlcohol.jpg)

That's a good point...

With regard to potency, I was referring more to the higher schedule narcotics that people were talking about when referring to full legalization (across all substances); but your point applies to those substances as well I guess.



As far as full legalization goes, and viewed in the sight of the greater good (the greater good), wouldn't we all agree that there would have to be some control in place with regard to potency?  Of course, that type of control in itself would likely give rise to a black market.  This truly is a slippery situation; but something must be done because the current policies are not in the public's best interest IMO.  I personally think that to many individuals go to prison/jail for lower schedule narcotics and come out of jail/prison much worse off than when they were originally incarcerated.

Why are we handling this any different than any other product, even "inherently dangerous" ones?   Are there limits on how fast the cars are that we drive?  There are limits on how fast we can drive them, but not on the cars themselves (for the most part).  We could take direction from the gun and alcohol trade, perhaps.   But I don't think it's a "slippery situation" unless we make presuppositions beforehand that make it slippery. 


I was actually thinking of the gun and alcohol trade model when making that comment; there are still black-market entities available with both of those substances.  My thoughts were more geared toward attempting to make the black-market model as limited as possible; thus hampering the violence that comes with it.

To use your auto analogy, I would assume (I do not know) that most automotive manufactures do use some type of speed limiter for extreme speeds (I think most American car companies limit; most UK companies limit but will usually allow the sale of a model without the limiter for an additional cost); however, there are third-party companies that exist that will allow an individual to re-flash the internal cpu removing the limiter and allowing the auto to operate with improved performance.  Though these third parties are not inherently black-market, they are in a sense subverting how the product was originally delivered and intended.  My point is that there may be no way to entirely eliminate the black-market trade no matter how well regulated; hence why it's slippery in my opinion.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 04, 2015, 11:45:40 AM
I was actually thinking of the gun and alcohol trade model when making that comment; there are still black-market entities available with both of those substances.  My thoughts were more geared toward attempting to make the black-market model as limited as possible; thus hampering the violence that comes with it.

To use your auto analogy, I would assume (I do not know) that most automotive manufactures do use some type of speed limiter for extreme speeds (I think most American car companies limit; most UK companies limit but will usually allow the sale of a model without the limiter for an additional cost); however, there are third-party companies that exist that will allow an individual to re-flash the internal cpu removing the limiter and allowing the auto to operate with improved performance.  Though these third parties are not inherently black-market, they are in a sense subverting how the product was originally delivered and intended.  My point is that there may be no way to entirely eliminate the black-market trade no matter how well regulated; hence why it's slippery in my opinion.

The cars were probably a bad example, because there are so many competing factors at play (including import taxes and emissions controls requirements) that color the discussion.  But as with anything, it is a cost-benefit analysis, and the definitions we use are important here.   Is the goal total and utter elimination of a black market?  Or is it the elimination of that portion of the black market that is sapping the majority of the resources?   Even if it is just that fringe minority that wants to operate outside the system to stick it to The Man, it's sort of like getting that last drip of toothpaste out of the tube.  At what price? 

There is always going to be some regulation, and that is fine.  (For example, no matter how you frame the legalization, it will probably continue to be illegal to provide these substances to minors). 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 01:20:42 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 04, 2015, 01:29:19 PM
Pretty sure it will be legal for anything countrywide within 10 years, max.  It's already legal for medical use in 23-odd states and recreational in, what, 5 states now?



Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on March 04, 2015, 01:31:53 PM
Imagine a world where funds that now go to arresting these people instead went to rehab facilities. What if instead of going to jail (I'm talking users here, not manufacturers and people that use children as mules) you could go get help with no fear of legal consequences?

This already exists.

Users should get a chance to reprieve themselves, but that also depends on the circumstances. Though making marijuana legal would probably save millions in law enforcement and obviously wasted millions because people are still doing it regardless of its legal status. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 04, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Pretty sure it will be legal for anything countrywide within 10 years, max.  It's already legal for medical use in 23-odd states and recreational in, what, 5 states now?

23 for medicinal and 4 for recreation.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 02:00:38 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: jammindude on March 04, 2015, 02:43:33 PM
I get tired of the alcohol vs marijuana comparison.   Because it *never ever ever* compares marijuana with moderate drinking, it only compares it with being sloshed and out of control. 

You can have a couple of drinks with a meal and not be drunk or even impared at all.  But if you smoke pot, you *are* stoned.    That is a *HUGE* difference.   

People need to quit the pot/alcohol comparison.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 04, 2015, 03:26:06 PM
Also, being in California and having friends that are Warehouse/Office lessors, I observed the pot dispensary phenomenon.  While Bush was president, CA passed the medical marijuana law.  The dispensaries started popping up.  The federal govt. let it be, so the only opposition was from local govt. that was brought on by neighbors of the dispensaries.  It wasn't popping up in CVS.  There were robberies of the dispensaries.  And a problem to be dealt with was those that would literally smoke it right outside the shop and toss the mess in the parking lot.  Just like drug dealers, there were professional dispensaries and there were out of control dispensaries.  But it all came to an end with Eric Holder approved raids. (Bush is the Dem and Holder is the Neocon right?)
Christ, dude. I thought you said you didn't get high. To be clear, the Bush administration via Ashcroft and that fuckstick Gonzalez went after California's medical marijuana programs with a vengeance. While Obama's DOJ has certainly been even more aggressive (up until recently, it would appear), much of what they were doing was a continuation of the same programs and policies set forth from Dumbass's administration. Moreover, while Obama's enforcement is, at least ostensibly, against people gaming the system, Bush was going after the very people the medical marijuana laws were supposed to work for. Angel Raich? If you want to rag on Obama for being a fascist I've got no problem with that; hell, I'd largely agree with you. Dumbass certainly doesn't get a pass on that, though. His DOJ was every bit as ruthless about things like that.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 03:57:25 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 04, 2015, 04:46:48 PM
I get tired of the alcohol vs marijuana comparison.   Because it *never ever ever* compares marijuana with moderate drinking, it only compares it with being sloshed and out of control. 

You can have a couple of drinks with a meal and not be drunk or even impared at all.  But if you smoke pot, you *are* stoned.    That is a *HUGE* difference.   

People need to quit the pot/alcohol comparison.

I agree alcohol vs marijuana is not a good comparison on many levels, but it gets compared because one is worse for you and legal and the other is not.  But being stoned is not the equivalent of being drunk.  You can also have a small dose of marijuana not be stoned, but relaxed or simply just "high".  To be "stoned" you need a higher dosage or less tolerance.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 04, 2015, 04:54:22 PM
If you take 1, 3, 5, or 7 hits from a bong, you will 100% notice a difference between them in terms of how stoned you are. Eat half a cookie vs. two full ones and see what happens. One makes you feel good, the other could incapacitate you. You most certainly can compare smoking pot to drinking alcohol.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 04, 2015, 05:31:11 PM
Christ, dude. I thought you said you didn't get high. To be clear, the Bush administration via Ashcroft and that fuckstick Gonzalez went after California's medical marijuana programs with a vengeance.
And where are you located?  And what is your connection with the medical marijuana dispensaries from about 2004 to present day.  I'm not telling you what I read in a paper.  I'm telling you what I witnessed directly or heard from a landlord that witnessed it first hand.  These are units all over Southern California.  It was a big deal with landlords.  They originally said "we don't want to deal with the implications."  Then they were threatened suit for discriminating against the dispensary, so they let them in.  Then the dispensaries were making so much cash, that the landlords started to crave them as tenants.

Then the local counties and cities started having some outrage and local laws were passed, but as long as you stayed out of that city, you were fine.

I was so close to this that I know people that were beginning to start their own dispensaries.  They went to a doctor and got the medical card.  Then you had to find others with medical cards that allowed you to grow for them (that was how the law made it).  They went to seminars and talked to the people I introduced them to that were already doing it successfully.  These people actually bought some of the equipment and set up test runs in their garage before they scaled out.

Then Eric Holder took office and there wasn't just talk about shutting them down.  There were non-stop raids.  They DEA was raiding every dispensary, including the highly professional ones I was acquaintances with.  The people that were about to start up dropped everything, took the loss and found something else to do.  Within 6 months, the many I was directly aware of were gone.

So I don't really need a lecture about what actually happened in California where Bush and Holder were concerned.  I'm living in reality on this one.
Perhaps an instance where you're beinga bit myopic. I don't have to be in the thick of things, unless you're going to suggest that reports and court dockets are being fabricated. It was the DEA that kicked in Raich's door, and at the time of her case there were 30 other federal prosecutions delayed pending the results. This was in 2002. There were several other high profile prosecutions (remember Tommy Chong doing 18 months for selling glass?) and plenty of raids. I'm not saying that Obama hasn't been a complete Hippocratic asshole about the whole thing, he most certainly has, but to say that Bush was even close to being hands-off about it is just wrong. Ashcroft had a real hardon for going after dopers in Cali, legal or otherwise (which is quite ironic, since had he the normal, healthy kind of hardon he probably would have had to drown himself a la Javert, saving us all a lot of hassle).

And for the record, one of Obama's key talking points was that he was going to stop fucking with the states and their medical marijuana programs. Doesn't make much sense if there wasn't any fuckery to begin with. One of the articles calling him out as a liar cited 36 raids per year vs 20 for Bush's goons. Take that for what it's worth, but the outrage over him reneging on his promise to stop raiding dispensaries is very real.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 06:48:37 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 06:54:12 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 07:02:39 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 04, 2015, 07:56:48 PM
It's in dispute because you were giving the Bush administration a free pass where it was not deserved. I've already conceded in all of my posts that Obama has been a real dick about the whole thing and that he is much worse than Bush's goons were. You seem to be taking the side that everything was just dandy between y'all and the federal government until Obama's gestapo came in a cracked down.

And the articles you cited all seem to back that up. Notice the steady trend upward in federal actions taken under Bush's DOJ peaking in 2007 demonstrated in the Huff-Po article? The first paragraph in the RS article says exactly what I did earlier: "he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot."

I'll say again, blast Obama all you want about it, but don't act as if dumbass's minions weren't real dicks about it, as well. They were. And don't forget they were also the ones who lobbied hard for a huge expansion of interstate commerce status to back up their power trip (they're the liberals, right?).

And by the way, this forum is littered with arguments between me and Scheavo about Obama being a POS in as far as marijuana enforcement goes. It's one of the few areas we always butted heads about.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 04, 2015, 10:00:44 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 05, 2015, 07:10:41 AM
Some of the things you are talking about, though, would go away with legalization.   Why would there be "LA gang drug dealers" in your house if you could buy the substance of choice from, say, CVS? 
That is a good point.  And I'm not saying there aren't some positives with legalization, but there are also negatives and the positives seem to be exaggerated and simplified.  But some counterpoints: people on hard drugs make really stupid decisions.  These LA gang drug dealers were there to collect on roommate's tab.  CVS doesn't run a tab.

Bro, people on AIR make bad decisions.  One thing about me, I don't want to legislate stupidity.  Everyone has the right to be a fucking moron if they so choose (as long as they are willing to accept the consequences, of course).  I do not subscribe, in any way shape or form, to the idea that government is there to protect us from ourselves.   It's what separates me from most conservatives and almost all liberals.
 
Quote
Also, being in California and having friends that are Warehouse/Office lessors, I observed the pot dispensary phenomenon.  While Bush was president, CA passed the medical marijuana law.  The dispensaries started popping up.  The federal govt. let it be, so the only opposition was from local govt. that was brought on by neighbors of the dispensaries.  It wasn't popping up in CVS.  There were robberies of the dispensaries.  And a problem to be dealt with was those that would literally smoke it right outside the shop and toss the mess in the parking lot.  Just like drug dealers, there were professional dispensaries and there were out of control dispensaries.  But it all came to an end with Eric Holder approved raids. (Bush is the Dem and Holder is the Neocon right?)

I highly doubt the hard drugs would be offered in places like CVS.  It would be like the pot dispensaries.

I think you are quibbling with semantics; the point of the post was not to pimp CVS, but rather to say that the distribution would be standardized.   And some of the problems you are talking about aren't "legalization" problems, they are the problems that are inherent any time we try to do the "big government" thing and do things half-assed.  None of this stuff exists in a vacuum, and none of this stuff should be done piece meal.  It is a systemic thing that should be addressed systemically. 

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the huge warehouse of weed was targeted when it was still illegal for personal use.  That's just government being dumb.

Quote
The majority of alcohol users are casual.  That isn't the case for hard drugs.  The path for hard drugs seems to always be to wise up and get off them or meet an early grave.  I have yet to see an in between, like with alcohol.  Not to mention grain v. chemicals.  I can't tell you from personal experience (just observation), but as bad as alcohol addiction is, hard drugs seem to be infinitely worse.

Look we can argue this till the cows come home, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was more a function of "casual users" keeping it quiet because of the stigma than any indicator that there is no such thing as casual use.   I dated a girl in law school whose brother was basically a functional heroin user, and you wouldn't know it other than he would nod off at the table on occasion, and any gifts you gave him mysteriously disappeared after a few weeks (the Mom gave him FOUR VCRs in the time I dated his sister and had no clue where they were going.  They just "broke" apparently.)

Either way, who cares?  Well, I care, but I mean, we spend an estimated $50 BILLION - with a B - dollars a year on the war on drugs.   Why is our economy, and the well being of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens being held hostage to the 1% of people that use, for example, cocaine, and the even smaller percentage of those that can't control it?   It won't be the first thing and it certainly won't be the last thing that someone somewhere is going to have problems with.   I don't mean to be cavalier with the individual - we can do things to get them help - but it does not, in my humble opinion - justify the immense infrastructure we currently have in place (as well as diverting the billions in funds for the illicit sale of hard drugs primarily out of our country). 

Quote
I'd probably compare the addiction of hard drugs closer to cigarettes than alcohol.  But hard drugs tends to kill you young, whereas alcohol and drugs tend to catch you in the early senior years.  And the advertising kind of makes me chuckle to myself because I can totally see the path.  Legalize.  Proclaim it is great.  Then a few years later, go after it like smoking.  Shame it.  Stigmatize it.  Have people ask why we allow such poison.  Sound familiar?  People just need a cause and I think that is what most of the hard drug talk is about.  And if Wal-Mart starts selling heroin .... all bets are off on the levels of vilification.

But you are assuming that the smoking path is legit, and you are also forgetting that the "smoking" issue had as much (if not more) to do with the cigarette companies "spiking" the cigarettes without telling people.   I know the witch hunt is on, and all, but I tend to think that if the cigarette manufacturers operated totally above board, it wouldn't have turned out like it did.   


Quote
Quote
and there is little incentive to coerce people to participate.  Yes, there is peer pressure to drink, but I didn't have an enabling "dealer" for my binge drinking in college.  I DID have people encouraging me to enjoy the cocaine, via "free samples" and what not.
Which leads back to why drug dealers aren't just going to go away with legalization.

Huh?   Why wouldn't they?  Where's the incentive?  If done correctly, there would be no reason for anyone to risk the downside and no reason for any user to opt for the illicit dealer.    Are you honestly saying that the majority of people would rather drink the rotgut their Uncle George brews in his barn (and puts into old 40 bottles with a screw top) or go to the local liquor store and get a fifth of even half-assed whiskey for, what, under $20?  And so what if some did?   


Quote

But we are talking about hard drugs.  Someone brought up Europe.  And it is why I stressed my roommate was from Europe.  He had a serious drug problem while in Europe.  His family helped him kick it (more than once) and sent him to the US to go to school (where our paths crossed).  Our "roommate wanted" sign had a big "no drugs" warning.  The guy showed up looking like the prime example of a non-druggie.  Hell, people would have guessed my other roommate and I were the druggies before him at that time.  It took him all of a couple of weeks to change appearance dramatically.  My other roommate was an ex-drug user and recognized the signs way before I did.  Heroin.  The fall from ready to work at a Fortune 500 company to scumbag was ridiculously fast.  This dude was a complete mess.  When he disappeared, we talked to his friends and went in his room for clues on his whereabouts and I'd be surprised if the guy doesn't have AIDS or something else rampant in the needle user / prostitute using community.  Lack of money was not his problem.  The money from his family enabled him to extremes.

Honestly, so what?   Look, this guy had problems regardless of whether it was legal or not.  The legitimization isn't going to change that.   So why spend $50 BILLION dollars a year for the exact same outcome?  I feel bad for the individual here, but what about all the kids that die in drug-related crimes?  What about all the illegal and illicit hand-guns that trade hands because of the drug trade?  What about all the money that gets spent on healthcare for people getting bad product, or sometimes no product?   

I feel sympathy for this person's plight, but the legalization (or not) is not the issue here, and in some ways you are stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny.


Quote
So acceptance that hard drugs is a problem to be dealt with in rehab (barring violence, theft or similar) is fine.  We already have that.  But I think the stigma for that stuff exists for a reason and it isn't just religion.  The stigma should remain because the only meaningful path for hard drugs is to get off them, not regulate them.

I'm not sure I understand that.   Who says the only meaningful path is to get off them?  Why can't someone opt to live their life the way they choose?   Why do you get to decide what is "right" for any individual person? 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 05, 2015, 07:21:20 AM
This is possibly ironic coming from me, but what is the point of the argument?   You're both talking about a half-assed scheme that was cobbled together piece meal, and didn't take out the key piece of the problem, the misplaced profiteering, meaning, the state-by-state licensing of medicinal use dispensaries failed to address the profit motive for the illicit sale of recreational marijuana, and failed to address the profit motive for the LEA in fighting the still-illegal recreational trade.   To say this was poorly thought out is being overly disrespectful to other laws that really are just "poorly thought out".

Whether Bush is worse than Obama is like saying the drunk I get from Stoli is better than the drunk I get from Tito's.  You're still drunk. 

(Though I will say this, el Barto:  using a Rolling Stone article that starts out bashing Bush is not really fair game.  At this point, they don't even bother with the charade of being even remotely fair to the guy).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: The King in Crimson on March 05, 2015, 08:31:37 AM
Calvin posted the rolling stone article fyi.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: vtgrad on March 05, 2015, 09:22:16 AM
Stadler's quote: "... Look, this guy had problems regardless of whether it was legal or not.  The legitimization isn't going to change that.   So why spend $50 BILLION dollars a year for the exact same outcome?  I feel bad for the individual here, but what about all the kids that die in drug-related crimes?  What about all the illegal and illicit hand-guns that trade hands because of the drug trade?  What about all the money that gets spent on healthcare for people getting bad product, or sometimes no product?"

The bold points are the points that I was always attempting to get at.  We all make decisions, every moment of every day; some of those decisions are good, some are bad, some are down right horrible.  But we (as individuals), also deal with the consequences of those decisions everyday; the bystanders that are involved in the drug related crimes that Stadler mentions didn't make a conscious decision to be caught-up in the crime in question.  If legalization can save even one life or stop even one violent crime, is it not worth a try?

Also, please don't think that I am saying that your old roommate deserves what has happened to him because of his decisions (I truly feel broken-hearted for him and it is not my place to judge him or his actions, I can only judge myself); I'm saying that the innocent people around him (including you at that time) don't deserve to be caught-up in the consequences of someone else's decisions.  If legalization can put some sort of dent in the black-market trade (and all the unsavory elements that come with it) I think it becomes important to make an attempt.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 05, 2015, 10:28:11 AM
Calvin posted the rolling stone article fyi.

True, but el Barto cited it as saying "exactly" what he was saying: 
The first paragraph in the RS article says exactly what I did earlier: "he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot."

That's the reference to which I was referring.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 05, 2015, 10:29:53 AM

The bold points are the points that I was always attempting to get at.  We all make decisions, every moment of every day; some of those decisions are good, some are bad, some are down right horrible.  But we (as individuals), also deal with the consequences of those decisions everyday; the bystanders that are involved in the drug related crimes that Stadler mentions didn't make a conscious decision to be caught-up in the crime in question.  If legalization can save even one life or stop even one violent crime, is it not worth a try?

Also, please don't think that I am saying that your old roommate deserves what has happened to him because of his decisions (I truly feel broken-hearted for him and it is not my place to judge him or his actions, I can only judge myself); I'm saying that the innocent people around him (including you at that time) don't deserve to be caught-up in the consequences of someone else's decisions.  If legalization can put some sort of dent in the black-market trade (and all the unsavory elements that come with it) I think it becomes important to make an attempt.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say as well.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 05, 2015, 12:06:13 PM
Calvin posted the rolling stone article fyi.

True, but el Barto cited it as saying "exactly" what he was saying: 
The first paragraph in the RS article says exactly what I did earlier: "he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot."

That's the reference to which I was referring.
Actually, I cited it to shoot down an argument he was trying to make, not to prop up my own. He keeps arguing that Bush was just fine with dispensaries as if to reinforce the "Obama hates capitalism!" mantra. The first paragraph referred to high profile dispensary raids that he denies. This was even the case with the other article, that showed a steady rise in legal actions through the entire run of Dumbass's reign. All he notices is the sharp rise a year after Obama took over.

And for the record, it wasn't just the dispensaries that Ashcroft was on about. Angel Raich's caregiver was operating fully under Cali's law and growing six plants in her own residence, yet it didn't stop Bush's goons from breaking her door down. Similar stories about legal grows in Humboldt where law obliging folks had the sheriff come out to confirm that they were completely legitimate only to find their assets seized by the DOJ. All of this run the same course as lots of other actions taken by Bush's DOJ against legal or trivial things to send messages. Tommy Chong's prosecution served no purpose other than to send a message that they're not going to tolerate pot related commerce.

And like Calvin, I have no idea why this is being debated. His whole focus seems to be to point out that Obama sucks, which I agree with. The problem is trying to paint Bush as a good guy on this front to prop up that case which is both wrong as fuck and completely unnecessary.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 05, 2015, 04:24:43 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 05, 2015, 04:45:40 PM
He keeps arguing that Bush was just fine with dispensaries as if to reinforce the "Obama hates capitalism!" mantra.
First, nice strawman with the Obama hates capitalism mantra.  Kind of showing your own bias there.
Note the "as if." I've never taken you for the sort that actually tosses that nonsense about, you're far more reasonable than that, but your craving to make Obama seem as bad as possible in that regard sure sounds a lot like the standard rhetoric.

Quote
Second, I stated a fact in CA.  That CA dispensaries did significantly better under Bush and significantly worse under Obama.  Everything I provided supports that.
You've gone on and on about it, despite the fact that I've made it clear in every post I agree with you. Hence the similarity between your posts at the aforementioned rhetoric.

As for the rest, there's plenty of evidence of Ashcroft/Gonzalez going after legal Cali dopers, but since you seem completely unwilling to recognize it, yeah, I guess we are done.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 06, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
Quote from: Calvin6s
The majority of alcohol users are casual.  That isn't the case for hard drugs.  The path for hard drugs seems to always be to wise up and get off them or meet an early grave.  I have yet to see an in between, like with alcohol. 
Two of the things that make alcoholism so "cunning, baffling and powerful" are the fact that many who suffer from alcoholism do so in silence for years before they find the will or the courage to seek help. So you're right in one way, but there is an "in between" for addicts too.  Functional alcoholics and functional addicts are everywhere in our society.


Quote from: Calvin6s
Not to mention grain v. chemicals.  I can't tell you from personal experience (just observation), but as bad as alcohol addiction is, hard drugs seem to be infinitely worse.


But they're really not any worse than alcohol and in fact, alcohol is far, far more damaging to a human body than any opiate.  You cannot die from opiate withdrawal, it's miserable, horrible, painful and every kind of ugly you can conjure up in your mind multiplied by 100, but it is extremely unlikely to end your life.   Alcohol withdrawal, on the other hand, can be deadly, if not conducted in a controlled medical environment (detox). 


One of the things my Gastroenterologist (who is treating my Hepatitis C) told me a while back was that opioid narcotics have practically no lingering physical consequences whereas alcohol is -literally- poison to your body and treated as such by your liver.  Long-term use of opiates does not damage the liver.  Long-term consumption of alcohol can lead to cirrhosis.


Going back to the original topic of legalizing marijuana for recreational use, one of the common themes to emerge from the opposition to legalization is that marijuana acts as a "gateway" to harder drugs.  This is demonstrably false.  (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ending-addiction-good/201408/marijuana-the-gateway-drug-myth) 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 06, 2015, 04:19:08 PM
Good points about alcohol, most people don't realize how dangerous and harmful alcohol really is since it is legal and socially acceptable, but its insanely dangerous when you think about it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 06, 2015, 05:20:05 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 06, 2015, 05:49:26 PM
Going back to the original topic of legalizing marijuana for recreational use, one of the common themes to emerge from the opposition to legalization is that marijuana acts as a "gateway" to harder drugs.  This is demonstrably false.  (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ending-addiction-good/201408/marijuana-the-gateway-drug-myth)

We aren't talking about a gateway in the idea that it creates something in your system to demand a new and stronger high.

We are talking about the personality of the people that follow that path.  Just as that article stated, it begins with alcohol and nicotine.  Reason.  Because those are legal.  Even if you are underage, you will hardly get put before a judge for being caught with a cigarette.
I agree about it being a personality type, hence my use of the "broadening one's horizons" euphemism. I see no reason to blame that on pot, though, as so many insist on doing. People take the end result of all dopers saying they started with pot and use that to falsely suggest that without the pot they never would have gotten strung out on horse tranquilizers. Quite simply, if it's not pot it'll be something else.

I'll also point out that none of those things are legal to minors, and I reckon that's where the whole gateway nonsense is focused.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 06, 2015, 06:16:06 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 06, 2015, 06:24:20 PM
Quite simply, if it's not pot it'll be something else.

But I have yet to find a heavy user that wasn't a pot user right before the hard stuff.  I have yet to find a single person that didn't have nearly identical drug paths.
And I doubt you ever will. I just don't see any reason to blame pot for it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 07, 2015, 10:38:58 AM
Quite simply, if it's not pot it'll be something else.

But I have yet to find a heavy user that wasn't a pot user right before the hard stuff.  I have yet to find a single person that didn't have nearly identical drug paths.


And I know about a dozen people who have been heavy users for 10+ years and have never even bothered trying the hard stuff.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 07, 2015, 10:43:21 AM
Quite simply, if it's not pot it'll be something else.

But I have yet to find a heavy user that wasn't a pot user right before the hard stuff.  I have yet to find a single person that didn't have nearly identical drug paths.


And I know about a dozen people who have been heavy users for 10+ years and have never even bothered trying the hard stuff.

I've known a couple to have gone on to hard drugs, but most pot smokers just stick to that from my experience.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 07, 2015, 11:23:45 AM
Quite simply, if it's not pot it'll be something else.

But I have yet to find a heavy user that wasn't a pot user right before the hard stuff.  I have yet to find a single person that didn't have nearly identical drug paths.


And I know about a dozen people who have been heavy users for 10+ years and have never even bothered trying the hard stuff.
Same here. 

Heavy drug users often start with pot, but it isn't pot that makes them go to heavy drugs.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 07, 2015, 02:13:27 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 07, 2015, 05:53:37 PM
Heavy drug users often start with pot, but it isn't pot that makes them go to heavy drugs.

Nobody has really claimed that, so this whole line of the thread seems kinda unnecessary.

But if you have two kids and one is a pot head and one is SE, the odds are higher for the pot head to move on to hard drugs than the SE.
Well if you accept that one thing doesn't lead to another, why even bring it up? Not trying to give you a hard time, but either it's a precursor drug, which makes it a valid topic of discussion in a thread about legalizing pot/drugs, or it isn't and I don't see the relevance.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 07, 2015, 05:59:57 PM
One could also argue that many teens try alcohol before trying pot. I did.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: yeshaberto on March 07, 2015, 06:15:44 PM
One could also argue that many teens try alcohol before trying pot. I did.

I would go back even further to nicotine
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 07, 2015, 10:26:14 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on March 07, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
Heavy drug users often start with pot, but it isn't pot that makes them go to heavy drugs.


I would think it's the need for something stronger to take the edge off.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 08, 2015, 05:54:52 AM


As far as "functional users", that's what they say ... until they don't.  Philip Seymour Hoffman?


Look, no offense, but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.  I've got extensive experience with this stuff.  The fact that Philip Seymour Hoffman or any other addict is dead from an OD in no way, shape or form demonstrates anything other than the fact that Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead. 


Please, seriously, educate yourself about this topic a bit more (https://www.recoveryranch.com/articles/what-is-a-functional-alcoholic/) before making these nonsensical statements. 



Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 08, 2015, 07:26:31 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 09, 2015, 07:06:40 AM
Heavy drug users often start with pot, but it isn't pot that makes them go to heavy drugs.

I have to agree with this.

When I was a kid, I was a total pyro. I went through a period that actually frightened my parents. I didn't just start by dissoving stryfoam in gasoline and making crude napalm. My first experiences were in the driveway with leaves and a magnifying glass. One could argue that the magnifying glass could have been a gateway to me being a deadly arson, but I think that I was always an arson and the magnifying glass was just the easiest thing for me to get my hands on at the time. I would have learned the more intricate methods of burning things with or without the magnifying glass.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 09, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
Heavy drug users often start with pot, but it isn't pot that makes them go to heavy drugs.

Nobody has really claimed that, so this whole line of the thread seems kinda unnecessary.

But if you have two kids and one is a pot head and one is SE, the odds are higher for the pot head to move on to hard drugs than the SE.


That statement is a text book example of the confusion between "cause", "correlation" and "coincidence".  Nothing you've said points any more to causality than it does to pure coincidence (though correlation is the likeliest answer). 

The whole argument that "illicit drugs are bad for you and if we legalize them it'll be a Ted Nugent-style free-for-all" is backward logic.   Some - not all - of the "casualties" of drug use is based on the unpredictability and unregulated nature of the transaction.  Are there some that will try it because it's now legal?  Of course.   But who knows? Perhaps there is someone for whom the thrill of doing something illicit is now gone and they DON'T try it. 

I see no reason whatsoever why Phillip Seymour Hoffman - as an educated, self-aware adult - shouldn't be able to decide to do heroin for his pleasure if he so chooses.

Given that, I choose to drink.  Legally and responsibly.  And if I get a bottle of Tito's, that says it's 40% alcohol by volume, but actually it's 96% alcohol by volume, I have recourse.  Legal, documentable recourse.   I don't see why if Phillip Seymour Hoffman gets a quarter gram of heroin on the understanding that it is 25% pure heroin, 75% starch that he doesn't have recourse - and his dealer isn't liable - if it turns out to be 25% heroin with impure additives, 25% Tylenol PM, 50% starch and a lace of fentanyl.   The only way for this to happen is if it is legalized.   It isn't government's job to protect us from ourselves.  They can only provide access to the tools by which we protect ourselves.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
That's a good point. Didn't PSH die because he got some bad shit?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 09, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 09, 2015, 11:38:57 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
That's a good point. Didn't PSH die because he got some bad shit?
Wiki said it was combining drugs.
Alright. At the time they were speculating it was the same heroin that had killed a lot of other NY junkies.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 09, 2015, 11:52:19 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2015, 12:46:29 PM
That's a good point. Didn't PSH die because he got some bad shit?
Wiki said it was combining drugs.
Alright. At the time they were speculating it was the same heroin that had killed a lot of other NY junkies.

On a related note, are there health inspectors right now that are going over the quality of the pot sold by dispensaries?  I never heard any of my dispensary contacts talk about inspections for the pot quality itself.  Fire Marshall checking for extinguishers and exit plan .. yup.  Occupancy .. yup.  But checking to make sure Super Kush was actually Super Kush and not Bad Seed.

That's one that the market will sort out on its own. There isn't any weed so potent or nasty that it's dangerous, so it's really just a matter of quality. Some people will buy what's good and others will buy what's cheap; the American way. Where there might be a concern is the high concentration of chemicals involved. I've heard of bud in Colorado that'll actually crackle and spark when lit; pumping a plant full of CalMag+ will do that, ya know. That too will get sorted out, though. I've been getting mostly organic stuff for years, and I'm sure there are plenty of boutique places there that are offering it up, as well. Demand will force two different markets, neither of which warrant any real oversight from The Man.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 09, 2015, 01:05:40 PM
That's a good point. Didn't PSH die because he got some bad shit?
Wiki said it was combining drugs.
Alright. At the time they were speculating it was the same heroin that had killed a lot of other NY junkies.

On a related note, are there health inspectors right now that are going over the quality of the pot sold by dispensaries?  I never heard any of my dispensary contacts talk about inspections for the pot quality itself.

Many of the more advanced shops out west and in Colorado heavily inspect their strains. Samples are put under an electron microscope and any bud that shows the slightest indicator of pests, mold, dust, or any other imperfections is not purchased from the grower. More samples will be taken and they will be tested chemically. Accurate THC and CBD percentages will be determined, and any foreign substances could easily be identified.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 09, 2015, 05:19:49 PM
Given that, I choose to drink.  Legally and responsibly.  And if I get a bottle of Tito's, that says it's 40% alcohol by volume, but actually it's 96% alcohol by volume, I have recourse.  Legal, documentable recourse.   I don't see why if Phillip Seymour Hoffman gets a quarter gram of heroin on the understanding that it is 25% pure heroin, 75% starch that he doesn't have recourse - and his dealer isn't liable - if it turns out to be 25% heroin with impure additives, 25% Tylenol PM, 50% starch and a lace of fentanyl.   The only way for this to happen is if it is legalized.   It isn't government's job to protect us from ourselves.  They can only provide access to the tools by which we protect ourselves.

If it isn't government's job to protect us, then how is the regulation taking place?  Why is soda limited and starting to get a groundswell of support to tax it (by the very same people pushing for less regulation on hard drugs).

And does that mean you are against government regulated rehabilitation programs in lieu of prison sentences?

What about lead in my paint?  Should I be able to use that at my own risk?  What about asbestos?

Don't change my words, it makes a difference.  It's not their job to protect us FROM OURSELVES.   Big adder, there.  Regulation is meant only for standardization (and don't get me wrong; it's STILL a compromise for me to allow that in).

I'm on the fence on taxing of soda.  We can drink it, but it is the tool  of the devil (especially diet soda) so taxation is a way of paying for those that want to abuse themselves (and they are paying the consequences - to some degree - not me).

I don't think "rehab versus prison" is applicable here; I am for whatever works to achieve the end with the least amount of intrusion and cost.

Asbestos and lead paint: bad subject because I used to work in the environmental field.   Why anyone would sell lead-based paint now is beyond me, but if someone wanted to pay for it and use it and was willing to make the disclosures when they sell (or remediate it if the buyer asked and it make financial sense for the deal) then sure.  Go for it.  A little kid eats it and dies and you better plead "Guilty" and move along, though.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2015, 05:38:39 PM
I'm fine with kids dying of lead poisoning, but what's your beef with diet soda?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 09, 2015, 06:15:49 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 09, 2015, 06:40:45 PM
https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8177255/federal-medical-marijuana-law (https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8177255/federal-medical-marijuana-law)

Quote
Kirsten Gillibrand, Rand Paul, and Cory Booker will introduce a Senate bill to legalize medical marijuana under federal law tomorrow, various outlets are reporting. This bill would mark an unprecedented push to legalize medical use drug on a federal level. We've seen a handful of states (and the nation's capital) legalize recreational marijuana over the last two years, and about half the states have a medical marijuana program, but the proposal — called the "Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States (CARERS) Act" — would be the widest attempt at legalization yet.

Vox is reporting that the bill will also attempt to reclassify marijuana from Schedule 1 to 2. Schedule 1 drugs are considered dangerous with no medical value, while Schedule 2 classification would recognize marijuana's medical benefits.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2015, 06:56:21 PM
https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8177255/federal-medical-marijuana-law (https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8177255/federal-medical-marijuana-law)

Quote
Kirsten Gillibrand, Rand Paul, and Cory Booker will introduce a Senate bill to legalize medical marijuana under federal law tomorrow, various outlets are reporting. This bill would mark an unprecedented push to legalize medical use drug on a federal level. We've seen a handful of states (and the nation's capital) legalize recreational marijuana over the last two years, and about half the states have a medical marijuana program, but the proposal — called the "Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States (CARERS) Act" — would be the widest attempt at legalization yet.

Vox is reporting that the bill will also attempt to reclassify marijuana from Schedule 1 to 2. Schedule 1 drugs are considered dangerous with no medical value, while Schedule 2 classification would recognize marijuana's medical benefits.
That'll never happen. They'd be much better off pushing to have it removed from federal law altogher and punting it off to the states. The Republicans here will balk at what they can call a cave to the medical marihuana scam. Whereas touting it as a state's rights issue would put them in between a rock and a hard place.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 10, 2015, 05:58:48 AM
Kirsten Gillibrand, Rand Paul, and Cory Booker are well aware that there's no way of that going through. They are just trying to gain some points with people in the opposing party.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 10, 2015, 08:03:29 AM
I'm fine with kids dying of lead poisoning, but what's your beef with diet soda?

I found that kind of funny as well.  Soda is the devil (The Waterboy?), but lead paint and asbestos ... buyer beware.

This is the second time; I don't care if you don't read my posts (they're not that important) but if you do, at least get it right:   It's buyer beware for both, and both are dangerous.  "Diet soda" and lead paint and anything else you want to put on the list should all be handled the same:   producer can't lie about what's in there or lie about the effects if they know them, but if the person wants to commit slow suicide by using them, so be it.   

As for diet soda, I just think it is a massive chemical soup that we don't know all the impacts of at this point.   I'd be the first (you've seen it) to note that "cause" and "correlation" are not the same thing, but I think further research has to be done about the coincidental timing of the explosion of diet soda products on the market and the explosion of obesity.     I think further research has to be done on the reports that drinking a lot of diet soda causes headaches in certain users.   I know aspartame has been deemed safe by most of the world, and I know that much of what's out there is false information (the "Nancy Merkle hoax" or whatever it is), but to me, there's just too little upside.  Plus, I'm one of those people for whom the aftertaste is very, very strong.   

Having said that, I don't want to ban it, and if anyone wants to drink it, have at it.  It's your party. 

Quote
BTW, regulations aren't just for standards.   They are also there with the understanding that not everybody has the time to research every product extensively that they come in contact.

Out of high school, I took some of that Twin Lab Amino Fuel.  I assumed that if it passed the FDA, then I'm relatively ok from any serious side effects.  Then other people were dying from that Phen-Fen stuff and found out the Ripped Fuel had similar substances.  Thankfully, it was only for about a summer and the taste was so horrendously awful that I skipped many a scheduled intake sessions.  Then you get the internet and read all about the fact that those GNC products were mostly unregulated.

Well, I said "standardization" not standards.  They aren't the same.  I don't care what you put in your body, but if a company SAYS it is 40 proof alcohol, then each bottle should be reasonably close to 40 proof.   Whether the "standard" is 10 proof or 100 proof, I don't really care.   And while the testing is important, and I'm not suggesting we shouldn't do it or we should stop it, to some degree, there are mechanisms to prevent that (tort lawsuits).

Quote
Getting back to the lead paint.  What about an apartment or better yet office space with a high turnover rate?  Some tenant paints the offices with lead paint without informing the landlord (the norm, not the exception).  And now the new tenant is moving in and decides to remodel.  They might not die, but they may have caused some damage that will show up years later.  Right now there is the understanding that if the space/building/home was constructed post lead paint ban, you don't need to pay for expensive testing.  You said this was your field, so I'm sure you are fully aware of this.  So they a) wouldn't even know they've been violated at the time and b) if they did, what previous tenant caused the problem.

Not sure why we're off on this tangent, but I'll bite.   LBP testing is about $150; add that to the security deposit ("First, last, LBP test").  You can skip that if you sign a waiver, in which case, if there is a problem down the road, you've indemnified the home owner.   In any event, this is sort of off topic, because I don't really have a problem with LBP being banned, even though that is contradictory, because no freedoms are being infringed.  There is a suitable and equivalent replacement.  In any event, if disclosure was required it would likely cut down on the number of manufacturers also reducing the risk.

Quote
And why wouldn't rehab v. prison be an issue?  Isn't that also one of the main rallying cries on government's role with drugs?  Alcohol is legal, but you can still go to jail.  Also, if lead paint were still legal, you even stated there would be criminal consequences.  So decriminalization doesn't mean drug laws just melt away.

I'm not sure what your question is; I mean it isn't an issue for me.   I don't care what the "government's rallying cry" is; the government is as fucked as Hogan's goat.  As for "criminal consequences" and/or drug laws, as a general proposition, my position is "tend to your own garden".   If everyone watches their own shit - read: is responsible for their own actions - then things will tend to work out.  We don't need Government telling us what we can or can't eat/drink/smoke/snort/fuck, but we can have government there to provide for consequences when we don't get what we bargained for.   

There's a thread here on "Courtesy Flushing" (I know...) and it is exactly the same theory.  There are all these people who are all over the map (I don't courtesy flush, I don't want to get water on my ass, but you better flush the urinal so I don't get piss on my jimmy!), and as I was thinking about it trying to make sense of it, it struck me that most of the opinions were all about "ME ME ME" and what someone else had to do for ME ME ME.   And I think that is wrong.    I'M responsible for me.  I'm the only one that can do for ME.  So if I courtesy flush and I flush my own urinals, that's all I can do.  And if everyone did that, courtesy flushed and flushed their own urinals, we'd all have rosy smelling, piss free urinals, water-free asses, and piss free jimmies.   

Same here; as long as people are telling the truth - that's your regulation for you - then all I can do is tend my garden.  Drink responsibly, or not.  But be accountable for the times I'm "not".   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 12, 2015, 08:35:17 AM


Do the vast majority not give a shit?  If they don't know about it, how could they have an opinion?  I know legalization has a generally favorable view at this point, but to say most dont care is inaccurate.  Just playing devils advocate.

In CT?  The vast majority DON'T give a shit.   

https://www.courant.com/business/hc-qpoll-marijuana-legaliation-0312-20150311-story.html

Quote
The latest Quinnipiac University poll shows support building for recreational marijuana in Connecticut.

Sixty-three percent of Connecticut voters said they support legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.

The poll, released Wednesday, shows an increase in support from last May, when the same poll showed 52 percent in favor of possession for personal use.

This polling was done last week. An 11% increase in favor over the course of a year is pretty significant.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 12, 2015, 10:46:02 AM
Wow, yea 11% is a big jump and a jump to the good side (IMO).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 12, 2015, 12:14:36 PM
The numbers don't surprise me at all, but as far as "conversations about CT politics go", weed isn't high on the list.   It might be among those particular people for whom it is personally an issue, but for the general non-smoker, it's not as if it is a buzz-list topic in every bar and speakeasy in the state. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 12, 2015, 03:31:18 PM
Heavy drug users often start with pot, but it isn't pot that makes them go to heavy drugs.

Nobody has really claimed that, so this whole line of the thread seems kinda unnecessary.

But if you have two kids and one is a pot head and one is SE, the odds are higher for the pot head to move on to hard drugs than the SE.

That statement is a text book example of the confusion between "cause", "correlation" and "coincidence".  Nothing you've said points any more to causality than it does to pure coincidence (though correlation is the likeliest answer). 

The whole argument that "illicit drugs are bad for you and if we legalize them it'll be a Ted Nugent-style free-for-all" is backward logic.   Some - not all - of the "casualties" of drug use is based on the unpredictability and unregulated nature of the transaction.  Are there some that will try it because it's now legal?  Of course.   But who knows? Perhaps there is someone for whom the thrill of doing something illicit is now gone and they DON'T try it. 

I see no reason whatsoever why Phillip Seymour Hoffman - as an educated, self-aware adult - shouldn't be able to decide to do heroin for his pleasure if he so chooses.

Given that, I choose to drink.  Legally and responsibly.  And if I get a bottle of Tito's, that says it's 40% alcohol by volume, but actually it's 96% alcohol by volume, I have recourse.  Legal, documentable recourse.   I don't see why if Phillip Seymour Hoffman gets a quarter gram of heroin on the understanding that it is 25% pure heroin, 75% starch that he doesn't have recourse - and his dealer isn't liable - if it turns out to be 25% heroin with impure additives, 25% Tylenol PM, 50% starch and a lace of fentanyl.   The only way for this to happen is if it is legalized.   It isn't government's job to protect us from ourselves.  They can only provide access to the tools by which we protect ourselves.


This doesn't happen often, but we agree completely here.   :)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 12, 2015, 03:50:53 PM
That's a good point. Didn't PSH die because he got some bad shit?
Wiki said it was combining drugs.
Alright. At the time they were speculating it was the same heroin that had killed a lot of other NY junkies.

On a related note, are there health inspectors right now that are going over the quality of the pot sold by dispensaries?  I never heard any of my dispensary contacts talk about inspections for the pot quality itself.  Fire Marshall checking for extinguishers and exit plan .. yup.  Occupancy .. yup.  But checking to make sure Super Kush was actually Super Kush and not Bad Seed.

Will Bath Salt be legal as part of this hard drug legalization?

And what if Philip Seymour Hoffman or the Joker REQUESTED that their heroin or meth be laced with 25% Tide?  Is that their right?


I've been to Colorado since the legalization there and from what I could tell there is pretty much no significant policy in place to check the quality of the product they're selling.  Let's keep in mind that we're talking about dried flowers here.  So, there's not really a whole lot to inspect, although I would want any grow operations supplying any dispensary I was buying from to be running clean facilities, there isn't too much that can go wrong in growing, drying and curing marijuana. 


I think they need to start putting some limits on the edibles, though.  For all practical purposes, it's almost impossible to "overdose" from smoking or vaporizing the flowers.  Inexperienced users may feel nausea or dizziness, but that's about it.  Edibles, on the other hand, can make inexperienced users quite ill.  They won't kill you, though.  The problem happens when an inexperienced user eats a marijuana-infused cookie, waits 20 minutes to see if it worked, decides it didn't work and eats a second cookie.  An hour later, though, our intrepid experimenter will be pretty ripped and maybe nauseous and light-headed.  Some will feel bad enough to go to the emergency room.  I worry about children getting their hands on some of these highly concentrated edibles like some of the chocolate bars I've had.  I'm a 35-year marijuana user, off and on, but mostly on.  Even I got a little too buzzed after eating half a chocolate bar, so yeah, I think they should put some limits on the edibles but other than that, I'm not sure how they could regulate the quality of the weed available in any dispensaries. 

Here in MA there are no dispensaries yet.  If you want to use it and be 100% legal, you need a qualifying condition in order to get a "recommendation" from a doctor.  Once you have the recommendation you apply to the state on their web site, pay the $50 license fee and a couple of weeks later you get your ID card in the mail.

At that point, in MA, you are then qualified to cultivate and possess marijuana.  You're allowed to have 12 plants growing at any one given time.  And you can have up to 6 ounces on your person without any problem.

And yes, I'm familiar with it because I'm participating in the program.  I've had my card since September 2014.  I've already had a couple of successful grows.   :hat 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 12, 2015, 04:00:32 PM
At that point, in MA, you are then qualified to cultivate and possess marijuana.  You're allowed to have 12 plants growing at any one given time.  And you can have up to 6 ounces on your person without any problem.

And yes, I'm familiar with it because I'm participating in the program.  I've had my card since September 2014.  I've already had a couple of successful grows.   :hat
What count's as a plant? I'm assuming clones don't. Do they distinguish between flowering or not?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 12, 2015, 04:12:35 PM
Yes, but the letter of the law clones count, but I really don't think I'm going to have the pot police breaking down my door because I have a half a dozen clones and 12 plants.  Actually, right now I have 8 plants in seedling stage, 8 plants on their 7th week of flowering and I just harvested 4 auto-flowering Skunk 47.  They're drying now, probably going into the curing jars this weekend.  I bought this complete hydroponic grow cabinet. (https://supercloset.com/product/grow-boxes/superstar-led-stealth-grow-boxes/)  It's a Deep Water Culture (DWC) and top-feed system.  A bit noisier than I'd like, but it does exactly what it's advertised to do.  I'll never spend money on marijuana again.  And I'm certainly not going to the dispensary when they open.  Not for $20/gr
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 12, 2015, 04:17:07 PM
Realized I didn't quite answer your question.


By the letter of the law you're allowed to have up to 12 plants.  No more than 6 in veg and 6 in flower.  I doubt anyone will pay much attention to that, but people like me just want to grow a bit for personal use, so I don't need to have dozens of plants.  I'm averaging about 600gr/plant.  But I'm still kind of searching for some favorite strains.  So far the best thing I've grown was something called Pineapple Chunk.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 12, 2015, 04:22:28 PM
Im all for limits on edibles and I think that is something in the works, better labeling/packaging.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: adace on March 13, 2015, 02:31:49 AM
This has probably been mentioned in this thread before, but the medical marijuana laws, at least here in California, are a complete joke.

I was able to walk in with my "recommendation" and buy any damn thing I pleased. Most of the products didn't have the THC/CBD content on the packaging. The candy I got had "low THC" according to the dispensary worker so I figured I'd try it. As I found out later, it was indeed "low," only 2-3 mg of THC, but it still messed me up pretty bad (first THC product I tried). Anxiety attack, feelings of unreality, confusion, sluggishness: the whole works. Only 1 or 2 hours of euphoria/giddiness. 2 days later and I'm still feeling the effects. Had to be prescribed a Xanax pill just to calm down. I really shouldn't have been able to buy it in the first place without a proper diagnosis from my primary physician.

Call me a nanny state supporter, but I'm in favor of much stricter legislation on this stuff, especially when it comes to first-time users. Governments may have the power to legalize anything they want, but they also have the responsibility to protect consumer safety, something that is sorely lacking in the medical MJ world. THC is no joke, people.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 13, 2015, 06:00:30 AM
Its not for everyone, sorry you had a bad experience.  I dont think edibles even "low THC" ones are the way to start with marijuana.  In my experience with edibles, you dont get the "euphoria/giddiness" but you get a body high that relaxs you (at least for me) and it definitely will make you sluggish. 

The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 13, 2015, 06:05:15 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 13, 2015, 06:09:30 AM
The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.

The problem wouldn't be from the pot itself, but what a dispensary mixes/adds to it.  That's why some type of oversight (just like a restaurant, food or ... drug producer) is necessary.

Dispensaries are mixing/adding things to the marijuana? 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: adace on March 13, 2015, 06:25:31 AM
Its not for everyone, sorry you had a bad experience.  I dont think edibles even "low THC" ones are the way to start with marijuana.  In my experience with edibles, you dont get the "euphoria/giddiness" but you get a body high that relaxs you (at least for me) and it definitely will make you sluggish. 

The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.
Yeah, most people don't start with it but I didn't want to risk inhaling carcinogens with vaping even if there's little risk with that method. The euphoria for me came right after seeing the doctor, but I killed it off with the Xanax and it hasn't come back since.

It's true it can't kill you but it can mess you up pretty badly even at a low dose. Any drug that presents a risk of mental illness needs to be strongly regulated.   

The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.

The problem wouldn't be from the pot itself, but what a dispensary mixes/adds to it.  That's why some type of oversight (just like a restaurant, food or ... drug producer) is necessary.

No, I'm pretty sure it's actually from the THC, but either way I definitely agree there needs to be oversight.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 13, 2015, 06:54:47 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 13, 2015, 07:02:13 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 13, 2015, 07:21:40 AM
The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.

The problem wouldn't be from the pot itself, but what a dispensary mixes/adds to it.  That's why some type of oversight (just like a restaurant, food or ... drug producer) is necessary.


I don't think you understand what marijuana is.  It's a plant.  You put a seed in some dirt and pour water on it and it grows.  There's nothing to "mix" or "add" to the plant.  It grows, it flowers, you cut it down, make sure it's dried, cured, then packaged up for sale.   


If you're not in favor of legalization that's fine, but I think you might be trying a little too hard to find a problem where none exists.


Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 13, 2015, 07:31:41 AM
The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.

The problem wouldn't be from the pot itself, but what a dispensary mixes/adds to it.  That's why some type of oversight (just like a restaurant, food or ... drug producer) is necessary.


I don't think you understand what marijuana is.  It's a plant.  You put a seed in some dirt and pour water on it and it grows.  There's nothing to "mix" or "add" to the plant.  It grows, it flowers, you cut it down, make sure it's dried, cured, then packaged up for sale.   


In all fairness, there are many different growing styles. Some growers do indoor, some do outdoor, some do hydroponic, some do all soil, some add nutrients, others use pestisides. My point is, it is not just planting a seed and harvesting three months later. To grow in large quantities, many growers have to make it their full time job. They spend 8+ hours a day in their grow rooms. It's easy to grow shitty weed. It's very difficult to grow top shelf product for dispensaries. Those growers will use all kinds of techniques to make sure their crop survives (just like any other farmer). If growers start using a fertilizer that ends up being toxic when heated and smoked, I'd prefer that not make it to shelves.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 13, 2015, 07:37:15 AM
The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.

The problem wouldn't be from the pot itself, but what a dispensary mixes/adds to it.  That's why some type of oversight (just like a restaurant, food or ... drug producer) is necessary.


I don't think you understand what marijuana is.  It's a plant.  You put a seed in some dirt and pour water on it and it grows.  There's nothing to "mix" or "add" to the plant.  It grows, it flowers, you cut it down, make sure it's dried, cured, then packaged up for sale.   


In all fairness, there are many different growing styles. Some growers do indoor, some do outdoor, some do hydroponic, some do all soil, some add nutrients, others use pestisides. My point is, it is not just planting a seed and harvesting three months later. To grow in large quantities, many growers have to make it their full time job. They spend 8+ hours a day in their grow rooms. It's easy to grow shitty weed. It's very difficult to grow top shelf product for dispensaries. Those growers will use all kinds of techniques to make sure their crop survives (just like any other farmer). If growers start using a fertilizer that ends up being toxic when heated and smoked, I'd prefer that not make it to shelves.   

I was under the impression calvin was saying the dispensary adds something to the weed, not fertilizer or other nutrients that farmers use to grow plants which is at least what I was questioning.  I dont see an issue with using normal techniques to grow plants for human consumption, but that is probably another reason to add more oversight and regulation.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 13, 2015, 07:39:55 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 13, 2015, 07:51:15 AM
In all fairness, there are many different growing styles.

Thank you.  I don't understand why some pot proponents like to shout down people that aren't really pot heads, but don't have a problem with pot legalization / decriminalization.  It is like any industry.  Set up some basic regulations.  I'm not even calling for anything far fetched.  Basic FDA / city inspections.  If a pot dispensary is terrible, wouldn't people that are consumers want to see an F grade posted or even a shut down until conditions are corrected?

And I think my views are frequently being misrepresented between my take on pot and hard drugs because the thread keeps going between the two.

Im not sure why any pot proponent would do that to people like you, I would assume that anyone who agrees to legalization should be on the same side  :\  I believe your ideas of regulation are justified.  I think a lot of marijuana users are used to the way it is now, no regulation at all and for the most part, no problems in terms of getting marijuana that is bad or tainted so the idea of throwing more regulation seems unnecessary but with big business especially human consumables, I think its necessary and honestly never thought about it myself until reading through this thread as it progresses.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on March 13, 2015, 12:32:06 PM
Its not for everyone, sorry you had a bad experience.  I dont think edibles even "low THC" ones are the way to start with marijuana.  In my experience with edibles, you dont get the "euphoria/giddiness" but you get a body high that relaxs you (at least for me) and it definitely will make you sluggish. 

The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.

Not replying to @cramx3, but nosing into the conversation, but what does it matter?  I turn 21, I can go in and buy a Coors Light (<3% alcohol) or grain alcohol (something around 90% alcohol) and not have anyone check anything but the date of my birth.    I don't understand why we're all of a sudden worried about "degrees of buzz" with pot.   What am I missing?

I would agree to clear labeling, and I would agree to sanitary conditions, if applicable, but no more or no less than what we do now for other items that are regulated but available over the counter.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 13, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
Its not for everyone, sorry you had a bad experience.  I dont think edibles even "low THC" ones are the way to start with marijuana.  In my experience with edibles, you dont get the "euphoria/giddiness" but you get a body high that relaxs you (at least for me) and it definitely will make you sluggish. 

The reason you can buy whatever you want is because it can't kill you no matter how strong it is.

Not replying to @cramx3, but nosing into the conversation, but what does it matter?  I turn 21, I can go in and buy a Coors Light (<3% alcohol) or grain alcohol and not have anyone check anything but the date of my birth.    I don't understand why we're all of a sudden worried about "degrees of buzz" with pot.   What am I missing?

I would agree to clear labeling, and I would agree to sanitary conditions, if applicable, but no more or no less than what we do now for other items that are regulated but available over the counter.

This is kind of where I stand as well. If I take six shots and a 5'1 female takes 6 identical shots, odds are we will experience them differently. Fortunately for pot, you won't end up in the hospital if you over indulge.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 13, 2015, 12:45:22 PM
This is kind of where I stand as well. If I take six shots and a 5'1 female takes 6 identical shots, odds are we will experience them differently. Fortunately for pot, you won't end up in the hospital if you over indulge.
Not arguing with you, but if you're a rookie you might well. Plenty of people overindulge and freakout, particularly with the edibles that we're discussing. It's a lot like Spice back a year or two ago. People (looking in Demi Moore's direction) were completely unprepared for the potency and freaked the fuck out, winding up in the ER getting shot full of diazepam (which might actually be pretty cool, now that I think about it). I posted the 911 call of a cop who thought he was dying after eating some brownies in some thread a couple of weeks ago.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 13, 2015, 12:50:54 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 13, 2015, 12:52:04 PM
Assuming the natural progression of legalization, would the basic cigarette rules apply to smoking pot?  Not in a restaurant, not at work or in a public enclosed space?

What about right outside a school fence?
I suspect that the same rules would apply, but they're rapidly becoming outdated.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 13, 2015, 12:57:31 PM
Assuming the natural progression of legalization, would the basic cigarette rules apply to smoking pot?  Not in a restaurant, not at work or in a public enclosed space?

What about right outside a school fence?

You'll have indoor places where you will be allowed to smoke. I know in CT, as long as your front sign say "& smoking lounge", you can smoke inside. It's mostly only cigars though. We also have hookah bars that can legally circumvent the no smoking inside rules.

This is kind of where I stand as well. If I take six shots and a 5'1 female takes 6 identical shots, odds are we will experience them differently. Fortunately for pot, you won't end up in the hospital if you over indulge.
Not arguing with you, but if you're a rookie you might well. Plenty of people overindulge and freakout, particularly with the edibles that we're discussing. It's a lot like Spice back a year or two ago. People (looking in Demi Moore's direction) were completely unprepared for the potency and freaked the fuck out, winding up in the ER getting shot full of diazepam (which might actually be pretty cool, now that I think about it). I posted the 911 call of a cop who thought he was dying after eating some brownies in some thread a couple of weeks ago.

Fair enough. I didn't think that one through. I meant to imply one winding up in a hospital with a chance of dying if they don't their stomach pumped. I've heard the police phone call before  :rollin
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on March 13, 2015, 01:00:47 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 13, 2015, 01:18:17 PM
I can't click the link at work, but if you're referencing Walk Hard, I love every scene where he debates trying the new drug  :lol

"It gives you a boner. If boner lasts for more than four hours, call more ladies"
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on March 18, 2015, 07:08:57 AM
Good news out of Colorado.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/colorado-marijuana-schools_n_6888444.html

Quote
Since Jan. 1, 2014, when the state's first retail marijuana shops opened, $15.6 million has been generated for the Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) grant program, said Scott Newell, director of the office of capital construction for the state's Education Department. The marijuana funds for schools were generated via a special voter-approved 15 percent excise tax on marijuana sales.

Quote
"Money from marijuana sales that used to disappear into the underground market is now appearing in the state's school construction fund," said Mason Tvert, communications director for Marijuana Policy Project and a key backer of the 2012 amendment that legalized adult use of marijuana in the state. "Colorado voters wanted a portion of the tax revenue to be used to improve our public schools, and that’s exactly what’s happening."
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on June 25, 2015, 09:34:35 AM
I dont recall which thread where driving while high was being discussed, but here is a read comparing driving while under the influence of alcohol vs marijuana

https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html (https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on June 25, 2015, 11:11:19 AM
I dont recall which thread where driving while high was being discussed, but here is a read comparing driving while under the influence of alcohol vs marijuana

https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html (https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html)
Has anybody ever been able to smog up a car like that? Man, we tried like hell and could never get anything close to that.


Quote
“The five-nanogram cutoff in practice means that many regular cannabis consumers can never legally drive, even when they’re not impaired, which hardly seems sensible or fair.”
Well obviously this is true, but it points to the greater problem I've been getting at which is that the standard itself is flawed, regardless of the number used. It points out that cumulative usage is a part of any test result, which makes it useless as a test for current impairment.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on June 25, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
I dont recall which thread where driving while high was being discussed, but here is a read comparing driving while under the influence of alcohol vs marijuana

https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html (https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html)
Has anybody ever been able to smog up a car like that? Man, we tried like hell and could never get anything close to that.


My friends and I did like 7 or 8 years ago. We took one of these things, put a bowl made of foil over the induction fan, turned it on and let it rip. The car filled up in seconds and we wasted about $45 worth of pot  :lol :lol

(https://r1.coleman.com/ProductImages/Full/2000002850_500a.jpg)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on June 25, 2015, 11:34:07 AM
lol

Never understood the point of "hotboxing"
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on June 25, 2015, 11:46:23 AM
I think both the desire and ability are a function of our generations. When I was a young doper Jeff Spiccoli was a hero of sorts to us. Rolling out of the van in the high school parking lot was just pure coolness. But emulating that wasn't really the impetus, rather the opportunity was just regularly occurring.  When getting high at your parent's place isn't possible the car becomes the next best option. Since you spend so much time smoking in the car it's pretty normal to see how smogged up you can get it.

I suspect there's also a marked difference in the number of people who roll joints now vs back then. You're not going to smoke a car up like that with a pipe, but 25 years ago pipes were the exception.

The other thing is that cars are much better insulated nowadays. In an effort to keep out road noise it's probably quite a bit easier to keep copious amounts of smoke in.


edit: and yeah, LOL at the airpump. I guess the ability to burn a quarter in 45 seconds is also a modern development.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on June 25, 2015, 11:58:23 AM
Joints are few and far between these days. No need to waste that much product.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: kingshmegland on June 25, 2015, 12:17:23 PM
I dont recall which thread where driving while high was being discussed, but here is a read comparing driving while under the influence of alcohol vs marijuana

https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html (https://www.yahoo.com/health/how-driving-while-stoned-drunk-is-different-122336380243.html)
Has anybody ever been able to smog up a car like that? Man, we tried like hell and could never get anything close to that.


All I can think of is the Fast Times scene with Spicoli. :lol
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on June 25, 2015, 12:43:11 PM
Joints are few and far between these days. No need to waste that much product.

Not with my friends, thats the preferred method but I totally agree with you on wasting it which is why I dont like that method.

And El Barto, I agree with the desire and ability... I guess for me, I never tried marijuana until I was 18 so I guess at that point I was past the point of having to hide it as I was away in college.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 16, 2015, 06:04:23 AM
Bringing back this thread since this was where marijuana legalization discussion was, although title is specific to Colorado, but here are some states that could be voting on legalization next year (with Ohio's vote coming up this year still)

https://www.cheatsheet.com/business/5-states-and-one-city-ready-to-legalize-marijuana.html/?a=viewall (https://www.cheatsheet.com/business/5-states-and-one-city-ready-to-legalize-marijuana.html/?a=viewall)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 16, 2015, 07:22:51 AM
Listened to an interview with MA's governor a few weeks ago about this. He's highly against its legalization but said it's not his decision to make. He sounded like he was pretty certain it was going to happen.

I'm surprised Hawaii hasn't legalized it yet.

Ohio is most likely going to pass it. 

Connecticut legislators wrote up some stuff last February, but I haven't heard anything about it making the ballot yet. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 16, 2015, 07:33:21 AM
Ohio is most likely going to pass it. 

What makes you say that?  Last I read it was favored by something like 56% of the population, not a huge majority so they need to vote, but as discussed in the other thread, the seperate law to try and find the roundabout way to kill the legalization is also being voted on.  I'd like for the legalization to pass (and shove it up the lawmakers ass), but I am not so sure it will.

I would really like MA or really any northeastern state to legalize, that I think would start a domino effect on the east coast sort of like whats happened on the west although sadly I dont see NJ turning the corner anytime soon, but would imagine once one northeastern state makes the move, the rest such as connecticut, maine, and new york would follow.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 16, 2015, 07:43:59 AM
Ohio is most likely going to pass it. 

What makes you say that?  Last I read it was favored by something like 56% of the population, not a huge majority so they need to vote, but as discussed in the other thread, the seperate law to try and find the roundabout way to kill the legalization is also being voted on.  I'd like for the legalization to pass (and shove it up the lawmakers ass), but I am not so sure it will.

I would really like MA or really any northeastern state to legalize, that I think would start a domino effect on the east coast sort of like whats happened on the west although sadly I dont see NJ turning the corner anytime soon, but would imagine once one northeastern state makes the move, the rest such as connecticut, maine, and new york would follow.

56% are polling in favor now, but come voting day, I think you'll see much more in favor of it. I think more people than that want it legalized, they just don't love the idea of the limited number of farms (even though that's no different than brewery licenses, but whatever). When the times comes, I think a lot of voters (more than 56%) will end up voting yes. They'd would rather have it legalized and have to deal with those limitations than have it still be illegal.

New England really needs someone to do it soon. CT is up in the air at this point. Citizens in this state overwhelmingly want it legalized, but based on how strict the medical legislation is, I don't know what they'd end up doing with recreational stuff. I'd say MA is the going to be the first to do it. Maine might pull it off on it's second go around. New Jersey most likely won't legalize it as long as Krispy Kreme is in there.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 16, 2015, 07:49:37 AM
Ohio is most likely going to pass it. 

What makes you say that?  Last I read it was favored by something like 56% of the population, not a huge majority so they need to vote, but as discussed in the other thread, the seperate law to try and find the roundabout way to kill the legalization is also being voted on.  I'd like for the legalization to pass (and shove it up the lawmakers ass), but I am not so sure it will.

I would really like MA or really any northeastern state to legalize, that I think would start a domino effect on the east coast sort of like whats happened on the west although sadly I dont see NJ turning the corner anytime soon, but would imagine once one northeastern state makes the move, the rest such as connecticut, maine, and new york would follow.

Don't assume that.   The drinking laws were all out of whack for years here.  I lived in CT growing up and had to wait to 21 to drink, but I could pop over the border to Brewster, NY to wet my whistle.   Vermont too.  Crazy, and made little sense (nothing like actually PROMOTING drinking and driving).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 16, 2015, 08:35:32 AM
The Ohio bill isn't terrible, but it's not really the way I'd want it to go. I'd certainly want to now how much the license costs. If it's affordable, and is protected from meddling by the owners of the ten commercial grows (looking in your direction, Tempus Vox) then I'd probably vote for it since it's better than the current situation. Still, I don't really like the idea of the licensing requirement. I can see some normal doper growing a few plants in his closet getting hassled by The Man since they automatically know who he is. Particularly since this bill is creating a very, very powerful lobby in the commercial side.

It always annoys me when dumb dopers here "legalization" and assume it's a great thing. The Cali proposition a couple of years ago was terrible considering how well they have it now. Ohio is the only one of the 6 states on that list (Hawaii is just pushing for decriminalization) that spells out the rules. We've already seen that the devil is in the fine print, and some states really aren't all that bad right now.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 16, 2015, 08:46:33 AM
I just want the ability to grow myself without fear of jail time. I know this isn't the responsible citizen way to think about this, but I could care less what they do on the commercial side as long as I can legally have at least dozen plants growing at a time (including clones). As long as I'm allowed to grow, I will never have a reason to set foot in a dispensary.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 16, 2015, 09:04:17 AM
I just want the ability to grow myself without fear of jail time. I know this isn't the responsible citizen way to think about this, but I could care less what they do on the commercial side as long as I can legally have at least dozen plants growing at a time (including clones). As long as I'm allowed to grow, I will never have a reason to set foot in a dispensary.
God damn, Chong!

The Ohio bill allows you to possess 4 flowering plants. Clones aren't an issue, and if you're timing is good you'd be able to maintain a rotation to only have 4 flowering at a time. You're also allowed an HP, so the drying and whatnot shouldn't be an issue. However, they might stick you a grand for that license, for all we know, and you'd be opening the door to scrutiny from The Man.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 16, 2015, 09:06:49 AM
I think Ohio still would allow personal growing of 4 plants so you dont have to rely on the 10 farms, I think that makes things OK with me for that law, it's not perfect, but while I gave Tempus some question, I think it's good enough to vote for it because I dont see it really as a monopoly like that, plus licensing should be available over time,  this is just to get things started. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 16, 2015, 09:20:06 AM
And as an outsider that isn't interested in any of this, I'm somewhat amused that we are trading hassles from The Man (in the form of busts and fines and petty jail time) for hassles from The Man (in the form of licenses and requirements and rules). 

At least there is a legit revenue stream, though, no?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 16, 2015, 09:23:25 AM
And as an outsider that isn't interested in any of this, I'm somewhat amused that we are trading hassles from The Man (in the form of busts and fines and petty jail time) for hassles from The Man (in the form of licenses and requirements and rules). 

At least there is a legit revenue stream, though, no?

Yes, and I believe one is better than the other as well for the general public.  At the end of the day, creating a new marketplace will require hassles from the Man in the end anyway.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 16, 2015, 09:25:35 AM
I just want the ability to grow myself without fear of jail time. I know this isn't the responsible citizen way to think about this, but I could care less what they do on the commercial side as long as I can legally have at least dozen plants growing at a time (including clones). As long as I'm allowed to grow, I will never have a reason to set foot in a dispensary.
God damn, Chong!

The Ohio bill allows you to possess 4 flowering plants. Clones aren't an issue, and if you're timing is good you'd be able to maintain a rotation to only have 4 flowering at a time. You're also allowed an HP, so the drying and whatnot shouldn't be an issue. However, they might stick you a grand for that license, for all we know, and you'd be opening the door to scrutiny from The Man.

So you're allowed to have four plants flowering, or four plants in total? If you want to have a perpetual grow with 4 flowering plants at all times, you'd need to have at least 8 in total.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 16, 2015, 09:26:05 AM
And as an outsider that isn't interested in any of this, I'm somewhat amused that we are trading the risk of hassles from The Man (in the form of busts and fines and petty jail time) for hassles from The Man (in the form of licenses and requirements and rules). 

At least there is a legit revenue stream, though, no?
The way I'd look at it.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 16, 2015, 09:28:51 AM
I just want the ability to grow myself without fear of jail time. I know this isn't the responsible citizen way to think about this, but I could care less what they do on the commercial side as long as I can legally have at least dozen plants growing at a time (including clones). As long as I'm allowed to grow, I will never have a reason to set foot in a dispensary.
God damn, Chong!

The Ohio bill allows you to possess 4 flowering plants. Clones aren't an issue, and if you're timing is good you'd be able to maintain a rotation to only have 4 flowering at a time. You're also allowed an HP, so the drying and whatnot shouldn't be an issue. However, they might stick you a grand for that license, for all we know, and you'd be opening the door to scrutiny from The Man.

So you're allowed to have four plants flowering, or four plants in total? If you want to have a perpetual grow with 4 flowering plants at all times, you'd need to have at least 8 in total.
The bill specified flowering. So some clones and 4 in veg shouldn't be an issue. Just a helluva lot of work, and a potential awkward discussion with The Man about whether or not #4 in veg has begun to flower yet. It's the last part that would annoy me.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 16, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
I just want the ability to grow myself without fear of jail time. I know this isn't the responsible citizen way to think about this, but I could care less what they do on the commercial side as long as I can legally have at least dozen plants growing at a time (including clones). As long as I'm allowed to grow, I will never have a reason to set foot in a dispensary.
God damn, Chong!

The Ohio bill allows you to possess 4 flowering plants. Clones aren't an issue, and if you're timing is good you'd be able to maintain a rotation to only have 4 flowering at a time. You're also allowed an HP, so the drying and whatnot shouldn't be an issue. However, they might stick you a grand for that license, for all we know, and you'd be opening the door to scrutiny from The Man.

So you're allowed to have four plants flowering, or four plants in total? If you want to have a perpetual grow with 4 flowering plants at all times, you'd need to have at least 8 in total.
The bill specified flowering. So some clones and 4 in veg shouldn't be an issue. Just a helluva lot of work, and a potential awkward discussion with The Man about whether or not #4 in veg has begun to flower yet. It's the last part that would annoy me.

I would think the last part would be the easiest to explain. You see, Mr. Man, these plants are flowering and are under 2700K lighting and have their timer set for 12/12 light and dark. These other plants, which are in a completely different room, are under 5600K lighting and have their timer set for 18/6 light and dark. These are flowering, these are not. Unless they really wanted to be a douche and argue that the pre-flowering hairs indicate that the plant is in flower. That's bullshit though seeing as clones can have those without even having roots yet.

As for the work, four plants in both flowering and veg isn't really any different than two plants in those same environments.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 16, 2015, 09:40:29 AM
Every plant is work.

Moreover, whether or not you win the conversation is besides the point. It's the conversation itself that I would want no part of.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on October 16, 2015, 07:44:08 PM
And as an outsider that isn't interested in any of this, I'm somewhat amused that we are trading hassles from The Man (in the form of busts and fines and petty jail time) for hassles from The Man (in the form of licenses and requirements and rules). 

At least there is a legit revenue stream, though, no?

I know what you're getting at, but I'd think an avowed libertarian would be completely for legalization, for the principle.


It honestly annoys me marijuana is illegal anywhere, but I still refuse to be around it personally.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 17, 2015, 11:03:53 AM
Listened to an interview with MA's governor a few weeks ago about this. He's highly against its legalization but said it's not his decision to make. He sounded like he was pretty certain it was going to happen.

I'm surprised Hawaii hasn't legalized it yet.

Ohio is most likely going to pass it. 

Connecticut legislators wrote up some stuff last February, but I haven't heard anything about it making the ballot yet.

You have a cool governor That understands. Here in New Mexico, hell naw is our gov going to give us a chance. hell, Albuquerque's Mayor already had his decision in mind to Veto decriminalization, doesn't help he was a prosecutor ex cop.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 19, 2015, 07:51:41 AM
I just want the ability to grow myself without fear of jail time. I know this isn't the responsible citizen way to think about this, but I could care less what they do on the commercial side as long as I can legally have at least dozen plants growing at a time (including clones). As long as I'm allowed to grow, I will never have a reason to set foot in a dispensary.
God damn, Chong!

The Ohio bill allows you to possess 4 flowering plants. Clones aren't an issue, and if you're timing is good you'd be able to maintain a rotation to only have 4 flowering at a time. You're also allowed an HP, so the drying and whatnot shouldn't be an issue. However, they might stick you a grand for that license, for all we know, and you'd be opening the door to scrutiny from The Man.

So you're allowed to have four plants flowering, or four plants in total? If you want to have a perpetual grow with 4 flowering plants at all times, you'd need to have at least 8 in total.
The bill specified flowering. So some clones and 4 in veg shouldn't be an issue. Just a helluva lot of work, and a potential awkward discussion with The Man about whether or not #4 in veg has begun to flower yet. It's the last part that would annoy me.

I would think the last part would be the easiest to explain. You see, Mr. Man, these plants are flowering and are under 2700K lighting and have their timer set for 12/12 light and dark. These other plants, which are in a completely different room, are under 5600K lighting and have their timer set for 18/6 light and dark. These are flowering, these are not. Unless they really wanted to be a douche and argue that the pre-flowering hairs indicate that the plant is in flower. That's bullshit though seeing as clones can have those without even having roots yet.

I just saw you move those "other" plants into that dark room.  When we got here they were in that first room.  Didn't you see that, Officer Donut?

I'm not saying it's right, but you've got to assume a new level of education for the people enforcing these laws.  You can only get so cute before there are problems.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 19, 2015, 07:59:26 AM
And as an outsider that isn't interested in any of this, I'm somewhat amused that we are trading hassles from The Man (in the form of busts and fines and petty jail time) for hassles from The Man (in the form of licenses and requirements and rules). 

At least there is a legit revenue stream, though, no?

I know what you're getting at, but I'd think an avowed libertarian would be completely for legalization, for the principle.


It honestly annoys me marijuana is illegal anywhere, but I still refuse to be around it personally.

And I am; I am actually for legalization of ALL recreational illicit drugs.  I'm no fan of harder drugs, but at least having it made somewhere traceable, and not in the kitchenette of a shitty tenement in Hartford has got to be a plus.   Give the people that want/need to snort/shoot their life away a chance of doing it without shooting Drano into their system.   

My problem is the pseudo science of all this, and the bogus arguments in favor of it.  "Right answer for the wrong reasons" and all that.  So what that it's "less addictive than liquor".  "Personal harm" is not the only reason that something is illegal.  I laugh uncontrollably when I hear "there are 7,652,189 million people in jail for marijuana possession, more than any 9 countries selected at random, including China, combined" and so we should legalize it.   So fucking what?   They knew it was illegal, and they still did it.  Whether it SHOULD be illegal or not isn't the point.  You don't get to just "disregard" the laws you don't like in the hopes that someday they'll be repealed and you get your sentence commuted.   In fact, even in the light of these law changes, I WOULDN'T release all those prisoners. Not because they are dope smokers (couldn't care less, frankly) but because they took the law into their own hands. 

It just seems so... opportunistic.   That's not to say I oppose it on that principle, I don't, I just worry that our debate and our diligence on the process of these things is going down the crapper.   It's SUPPOSED to take a long time to do these things, so we can avoid things like Germany circa 1933. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 19, 2015, 09:30:19 AM
I laugh uncontrollably when I hear "there are 7,652,189 million people in jail for marijuana possession, more than any 9 countries selected at random, including China, combined" and so we should legalize it.   So fucking what?   They knew it was illegal, and they still did it.  Whether it SHOULD be illegal or not isn't the point.  You don't get to just "disregard" the laws you don't like in the hopes that someday they'll be repealed and you get your sentence commuted.   In fact, even in the light of these law changes, I WOULDN'T release all those prisoners. Not because they are dope smokers (couldn't care less, frankly) but because they took the law into their own hands. 

I actually agree with this reasoning, you break a law you pay regardless of your opinion of that law.  All fine and good, but the people who use the jail system as a reason for legalization is because jailing someone for drug use is not effective. Especially when you can get drugs into prisons.  Also getting a felony offense for possession IS a pretty big price to pay for a small crime (although I think the reality is you have to be really unfortunate to get a felony or you get that because you pleaded to a smaller crime than what was actually committed)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 19, 2015, 10:02:40 AM
(although I think the reality is you have to be really unfortunate to get a felony or you get that because you pleaded to a smaller crime than what was actually committed)
You just have to be unable to afford a good attorney. The difference between what a court appointed attorney and one that you pay is staggering.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 19, 2015, 10:05:44 AM
(although I think the reality is you have to be really unfortunate to get a felony or you get that because you pleaded to a smaller crime than what was actually committed)
You just have to be unable to afford a good attorney. The difference between what a court appointed attorney and one that you pay is staggering.

Yea thats true too, without a decent attorney you aren't going to get a good plea deal (if any).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 19, 2015, 11:08:25 AM
I laugh uncontrollably when I hear "there are 7,652,189 million people in jail for marijuana possession, more than any 9 countries selected at random, including China, combined" and so we should legalize it.   So fucking what?   They knew it was illegal, and they still did it.  Whether it SHOULD be illegal or not isn't the point.  You don't get to just "disregard" the laws you don't like in the hopes that someday they'll be repealed and you get your sentence commuted.   In fact, even in the light of these law changes, I WOULDN'T release all those prisoners. Not because they are dope smokers (couldn't care less, frankly) but because they took the law into their own hands. 

I actually agree with this reasoning, you break a law you pay regardless of your opinion of that law.  All fine and good, but the people who use the jail system as a reason for legalization is because jailing someone for drug use is not effective. Especially when you can get drugs into prisons.  Also getting a felony offense for possession IS a pretty big price to pay for a small crime (although I think the reality is you have to be really unfortunate to get a felony or you get that because you pleaded to a smaller crime than what was actually committed)

Fine.  It's not effective.  I agree with that.  But that's not the argument.  The argument is "volume".  "We have more people in jail than both Russia and China and India combined!".   Which is then closely followed with "and most are non-violent crimes". and sometimes, depending on the liberalism of the person making the argument, we'll get the "and are overwhelmingly persons of color" at the end.  No analysis of what is the right solution (meaning, what does "success" look like AND how do we get there) and no analysis of whether there are more variables in that argument.

I get it.  I understand the arguments.  I've even made them at times.   You still have to make them coherently and cogently.   And you still can't ignore the problem that a) they knew it was illegal, and b) they did it anyway.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 19, 2015, 11:27:50 AM
I laugh uncontrollably when I hear "there are 7,652,189 million people in jail for marijuana possession, more than any 9 countries selected at random, including China, combined" and so we should legalize it.   So fucking what?   They knew it was illegal, and they still did it.  Whether it SHOULD be illegal or not isn't the point.  You don't get to just "disregard" the laws you don't like in the hopes that someday they'll be repealed and you get your sentence commuted.   In fact, even in the light of these law changes, I WOULDN'T release all those prisoners. Not because they are dope smokers (couldn't care less, frankly) but because they took the law into their own hands. 

I actually agree with this reasoning, you break a law you pay regardless of your opinion of that law.  All fine and good, but the people who use the jail system as a reason for legalization is because jailing someone for drug use is not effective. Especially when you can get drugs into prisons.  Also getting a felony offense for possession IS a pretty big price to pay for a small crime (although I think the reality is you have to be really unfortunate to get a felony or you get that because you pleaded to a smaller crime than what was actually committed)

Fine.  It's not effective.  I agree with that.  But that's not the argument.  The argument is "volume".  "We have more people in jail than both Russia and China and India combined!".   Which is then closely followed with "and most are non-violent crimes". and sometimes, depending on the liberalism of the person making the argument, we'll get the "and are overwhelmingly persons of color" at the end.  No analysis of what is the right solution (meaning, what does "success" look like AND how do we get there) and no analysis of whether there are more variables in that argument.

I get it.  I understand the arguments.  I've even made them at times.   You still have to make them coherently and cogently.   And you still can't ignore the problem that a) they knew it was illegal, and b) they did it anyway.

You ever turn right on red even though there was a sign saying not to? Ever watch something violating copyright on Youtube? Ever do over 65mph on the highway in CT?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 19, 2015, 01:44:38 PM

You ever turn right on red even though there was a sign saying not to? Ever watch something violating copyright on Youtube? Ever do over 65mph on the highway in CT?

Of course.  But when I get a ticket I take my medicine, because I broke the law.  I don't not pay the fine because I don't think there should be "No Right Turn On Red" at that intersection.  And if later they decide that it shouldn't be, I don't get my money back. 

Not 100% sure where you're going with that?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on October 19, 2015, 02:42:15 PM
Eh, I mean I get what you're getting at, that if everyone picked and chose which laws to follow, it'd be bedlam. But at the same time:

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-TJ


Hell, our last 3 presidents all smoked pot (last 2 coke). It becomes a problem when people are jailed not for the crime, but for being the unlucky bastards that are caught. Close to half the adult population in the US consistently states on polls they have smoked at least once. The laws as deterrents certainly aren't working, and are only used to punish the unlucky ones.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 19, 2015, 03:05:26 PM
I think you should replace unlucky with poor. Even the unlucky do just fine if they've got the money to pay to get off. If Obama had gotten busted he might well have gotten off by virtue of his middle class status. Dumbass would have gotten off, had the whole thing buried, and received an apology from whatever department busted him.

Also, I'm not aware of Obama doing coke to any significant degree, though I don't suppose it'd surprise me. Dumbass probably smoked a couple of times but I'd bet he hated it. I'm not challenging your point, I agree with it, but I wouldn't call Bush a dope-smoker or Obama a coke user. It'd have been akin to experimental use.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on October 19, 2015, 07:12:32 PM
Well, we're splitting hairs at some point. But Obama has admitted to doing coke as a teen when living in Hawaii, and there's way, way too many people that corroborate stories of being there / doing coke with Bush as well when he was younger. Had either been caught, regardless of it just being an experimental thing, they'd have faced charges, and knew full well they were breaking the law. They also have no deniability on weed, as Laura and George both were known as stoners in college, (I think even Jeb and Marvin have admitted to smoking with W), and well just google choom gang for Obama.

All I'm saying is, these guys being locked up in prison who just happened to not be as lucky / rich / whatever as the most recent 3 presidents is pretty dumb, and the exact type of idiotic law that should be retroactively enacted to free the non violent offenders.


edit: to be fair, I actually don't know how I feel about coke. I DO NOT AT ALL want it ever near me, and actually kicked out a roommate when I found out he was doing it. But weed, for me, is just asinine that it's illegal, even if I'm not crazy about its actual use.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on October 19, 2015, 07:24:11 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on October 19, 2015, 07:25:20 PM
Not when we're discussing people who just happened to get caught. And Stadler's rule of thumb that they broke the law and should face the consequences.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 20, 2015, 09:25:28 AM
Why isn't the problem that people are unjustly getting off?   I'm okay with the notion that now we as a society are achieving momentum on marijuana, to an extent that renders Jefferson's comment (well, it's more likely MLK's comment) more appropriate.   But who decides "just"?  We don't get to pick and choose the laws we want to follow.  I think it is pretty "just" to be able to kill devious, cheating scum-bag whore ex-wives, but I'm not going to use that as my legal strategy, nor as a basis for actually going through with that. 

We can equilibrate the legal system in this country; pay prosecutors and court-appointed defense attorney's more money. 

I still don't feel like people should get a pass for knowingly contravening the laws.  I have no beef with weed, and other than some pretty severe paranoia at times, rather enjoy the feeling I get from it.   But it is not conducive - to me - to the job I do (both professional and as a parent) and so I don't partake.   Part of that is that I am not willing to accept the consequences for having it in my possession (and that was the argument I used - successfully, I might add - when confronting that issue with my kids). 

I don't think this is endemic with marijuana, though.  It's part of our society now, that somehow we as individuals have this power to decide what applies to us and what doesn't.  We need a course in high school about the "Social Contract".   For real.   This is no different than Kim Davis in my view.  If the weed toker gets a pass, I'm not sure why she doesn't too.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 20, 2015, 09:39:42 AM
I don't think this is endemic with marijuana, though.  It's part of our society now, that somehow we as individuals have this power to decide what applies to us and what doesn't.  We need a course in high school about the "Social Contract".   For real.   This is no different than Kim Davis in my view.  If the weed toker gets a pass, I'm not sure why she doesn't too.

I agree with and understand most of what you're saying. I too do not believe people should get to just choose what laws apply to them and which ones don't. However, there is also the matter of the majority of society standing up and saying that a certain law is bullshit, this is what we want, and politicians continuing to ignore who they represent. I think there comes a time when the societal norm can (and has to) challenge the law. I supposed you can take it to the extreme and ask what would happen if all of society decided that murder or rape wasn't bad, and I don't even know how to begin arguing against that from a legal perspective.

As for the Kim Davis thing, I think there definitely is a difference there. While I guess in concept they are both similar, they have very different weights. Kim Davis was directly violating what is arguably one of the most important elements of this nation, one that our founding fathers and ancestors bled for. She is violating an oath she voluntarily made while getting paid via the taxes of the very people she's denying rights to. Someone smoking pot is violating a law that was only put in place to deal with the darkies and their culture. I didn't sign something at birth or swear that I would never use cannabis. I just happened to be born into a country where it's considered a more harmful substance than heroine. Unlike Kim Davis, I didn't agree to those terms when I came into this world. I'm just playing the hand I was dealt.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 20, 2015, 11:05:04 AM
I don't think this is endemic with marijuana, though.  It's part of our society now, that somehow we as individuals have this power to decide what applies to us and what doesn't.  We need a course in high school about the "Social Contract".   For real.   This is no different than Kim Davis in my view.  If the weed toker gets a pass, I'm not sure why she doesn't too.

I agree with and understand most of what you're saying. I too do not believe people should get to just choose what laws apply to them and which ones don't. However, there is also the matter of the majority of society standing up and saying that a certain law is bullshit, this is what we want, and politicians continuing to ignore who they represent. I think there comes a time when the societal norm can (and has to) challenge the law. I supposed you can take it to the extreme and ask what would happen if all of society decided that murder or rape wasn't bad, and I don't even know how to begin arguing against that from a legal perspective.

As for the Kim Davis thing, I think there definitely is a difference there. While I guess in concept they are both similar, they have very different weights. Kim Davis was directly violating what is arguably one of the most important elements of this nation, one that our founding fathers and ancestors bled for. She is violating an oath she voluntarily made while getting paid via the taxes of the very people she's denying rights to. Someone smoking pot is violating a law that was only put in place to deal with the darkies and their culture. I didn't sign something at birth or swear that I would never use cannabis. I just happened to be born into a country where it's considered a more harmful substance than heroine. Unlike Kim Davis, I didn't agree to those terms when I came into this world. I'm just playing the hand I was dealt.

But Chino - and by the way, this is WHOLLY an intellectual discussion, and one better had over a beer than here, so don't think I'm arguing with you - doesn't that sort of ignore that in today's society, very distinct minorities are acting as if they are representative of the "majority".   Yeah, some politicians are scumbags out to further their own agenda (Hi Ted!) but have you ever talked with a sitting politician in any depth?   They can reach out and touch, but to some degree, many ARE acting on their perception of the issues and the feelings of their constituents.  I get that we live in a Twitter age, but "#potrules, #keepspicolioutofjail" is not political discourse.   How many actually called up their local rep and said "you know.. [insert cogent, intelligent argument in favor of the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana]"?   

In a real sense, Kim Davis is empowered to feel EXACTLY the same way as the person that is advocating legalization of weed. I agree with you on Kim Davis, and think that avenue is wrong, but it is the avenue that is accepted these days, the same way we accept that now courts can effectively "pass" laws.  I would bet that if she was smart enough (she's not) or her advocates were smart enough (they're not) they could put a very compelling argument as to why it was NECESSARY for her to actually disobey her oath in order to "execute" on Jefferson's (well, MLK's) admonition to disobey any laws that are unjust. 

I'm not saying she's right, and I'm not saying that I am against the legalization of marijuana, but there's a beauty and elegance to the process that I think is being lost in this wave of social justice.  Yeah, it blows for those that have to wait, but to your point about "murder and rape" that's why it's the way it is (and "murder and rape" may be too egregious an example for the point being made). 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 20, 2015, 11:18:00 AM
Why isn't the problem that people are unjustly getting off?
That's definitely one half of the equation. My problem is that fixing that aspect when the other half, people going to jail for pot in the first place, is still on the table. One is a change in the law, and one is a massive (and in my opinion absolutely crucial) change in the framework of the entire criminal justice system. They both need to be dealt with.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 22, 2015, 05:41:17 AM
If I am reading this correctly, it seems the Medical Marijuana industry scored a big win this week

Quote
Medical marijuana dispensaries scored a major win on Monday when a federal judge ruled that the Department of Justice cannot prosecute legal providers of medical cannabis.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/medical-marijuana-ruling_56265df9e4b08589ef48fee0?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/medical-marijuana-ruling_56265df9e4b08589ef48fee0?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on October 22, 2015, 07:10:52 AM
That sounds like a win to me.  I always thought it was completely stupid that a state-authorized business (and it is a business) could still be raided by the feds and prosecuted, when it is actually legal in that state.  That's a state's rights issue, it seems to me, and I never know where I stand on that, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's stupid.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 22, 2015, 09:12:29 AM
That sounds like a win to me.  I always thought it was completely stupid that a state-authorized business (and it is a business) could still be raided by the feds and prosecuted, when it is actually legal in that state.  That's a state's rights issue, it seems to me, and I never know where I stand on that, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's stupid.

Well, generally speaking, based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (the 6th Amendment, I think) Federal law is the law of the land, and while state laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal law, they can't be LESS restrictive or in conflict with Federal law, so this is in keeping with the premise of constitutional law.   This is relatively new ground, and the Supreme Court will be weighing in on this in one form or another very soon (and Snoop Dogg will not likely be pleased at the result; the law is fairly cut and dry).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 22, 2015, 09:15:20 AM
That sounds like a win to me.  I always thought it was completely stupid that a state-authorized business (and it is a business) could still be raided by the feds and prosecuted, when it is actually legal in that state.  That's a state's rights issue, it seems to me, and I never know where I stand on that, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's stupid.

Well, generally speaking, based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (the 6th Amendment, I think) Federal law is the law of the land, and while state laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal law, they can't be LESS restrictive or in conflict with Federal law, so this is in keeping with the premise of constitutional law.   This is relatively new ground, and the Supreme Court will be weighing in on this in one form or another very soon (and Snoop Dogg will not likely be pleased at the result; the law is fairly cut and dry).

Since you are a smart man especially with regards to law, how is it that a state is even allowed to vote to legalize if its against federal law?  It is pretty straight forward that federal law rules over state law, but if thats the case, how does such a state law get on the ballet in the first place?  Obviously it happened, Im just curious how that can happen.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 22, 2015, 09:23:03 AM
That sounds like a win to me.  I always thought it was completely stupid that a state-authorized business (and it is a business) could still be raided by the feds and prosecuted, when it is actually legal in that state.  That's a state's rights issue, it seems to me, and I never know where I stand on that, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's stupid.

Well, generally speaking, based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (the 6th Amendment, I think) Federal law is the law of the land, and while state laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal law, they can't be LESS restrictive or in conflict with Federal law, so this is in keeping with the premise of constitutional law.   This is relatively new ground, and the Supreme Court will be weighing in on this in one form or another very soon (and Snoop Dogg will not likely be pleased at the result; the law is fairly cut and dry).

Since you are a smart man especially with regards to law, how is it that a state is even allowed to vote to legalize if its against federal law?  It is pretty straight forward that federal law rules over state law, but if thats the case, how does such a state law get on the ballet in the first place?  Obviously it happened, Im just curious how that can happen.

It's part of the process of checks and balances.  Whatever it is, the legislature's job isn't to assess the constitutionality of a law they are passing (though it is in their best interest to have an eye towards that, to prevent an entire law from being tossed over one specific aspect of it) but to pass those laws that their constituents find important and necessary.  It is the judicial branch's responsibility to then adjudicate the constitutionality of that.   

The problem comes in when no case presents itself to the court.   The Supreme Court does NOT issue "advisory opinions" (which are basically pre-emptive judgments - no 'e'! - telling actors what a decision might be if they were to be in front of the court) and so issues like these don't get looked at until there is a ripe case that presents that specific issue. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 22, 2015, 10:16:04 AM
That sounds like a win to me.  I always thought it was completely stupid that a state-authorized business (and it is a business) could still be raided by the feds and prosecuted, when it is actually legal in that state.  That's a state's rights issue, it seems to me, and I never know where I stand on that, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's stupid.

Well, generally speaking, based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (the 6th Amendment, I think) Federal law is the law of the land, and while state laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal law, they can't be LESS restrictive or in conflict with Federal law, so this is in keeping with the premise of constitutional law.   This is relatively new ground, and the Supreme Court will be weighing in on this in one form or another very soon (and Snoop Dogg will not likely be pleased at the result; the law is fairly cut and dry).
Is there actually a law that says a state law can't conflict with a federal law? I thought it was just a matter of the federal law taking priority when the matter comes up. It seems in the past when it has come up and needed to be defended the DOJ found specific arguments to justify its involvement, rather than "our law trumps your law, just because."  In the case of dopers, Ashcroft/Gonzalez asserted authority as a matter of interstate commerce (and won in a rather dubious decision).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on October 22, 2015, 10:56:24 AM
while state laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal law, they can't be LESS restrictive or in conflict with Federal law

I was pretty sure that that was the case, but 10th grade U.S. History was a very long time ago for me.  Like cramx3, I was wondering how it even gets passed in the first place, so I was starting to think that maybe I didn't remember things correctly, but you've explained that as well.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 23, 2015, 08:48:02 AM
Is there actually a law that says a state law can't conflict with a federal law? I thought it was just a matter of the federal law taking priority when the matter comes up. It seems in the past when it has come up and needed to be defended the DOJ found specific arguments to justify its involvement, rather than "our law trumps your law, just because."  In the case of dopers, Ashcroft/Gonzalez asserted authority as a matter of interstate commerce (and won in a rather dubious decision).

That's exactly right; it is sort of an "order of precedence" in case someone asks the question.  The current state of affairs can go on indefinitely, unless and until someone bitches and whines about it and takes action.  (I say that to be funny; it is a legitimate inquiry, and wouldn't, technically, be "bitching and whining", especially if jail time was on the table). 

The reason for the arguments is more likely to not have the Court find a way for the two laws to co-exist (which is a fundamental premise many judges take in terms of finding a solution). 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on October 23, 2015, 02:45:45 PM
That sounds like a win to me.  I always thought it was completely stupid that a state-authorized business (and it is a business) could still be raided by the feds and prosecuted, when it is actually legal in that state.  That's a state's rights issue, it seems to me, and I never know where I stand on that, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's stupid.

Well, generally speaking, based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (the 6th Amendment, I think) Federal law is the law of the land, and while state laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal law, they can't be LESS restrictive or in conflict with Federal law, so this is in keeping with the premise of constitutional law.   This is relatively new ground, and the Supreme Court will be weighing in on this in one form or another very soon (and Snoop Dogg will not likely be pleased at the result; the law is fairly cut and dry).


But, the executive branch is the one that is responsible for executing and enforcing the laws. And while your boy Obombs is in office, and publicly announced that he has no interest in meddling with marijuana law in states that have legalized it, those states don't have to worry. It depends on who the next president is, as I don't see any of the Dems changing that policy.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on October 23, 2015, 02:57:53 PM
That sounds like a win to me.  I always thought it was completely stupid that a state-authorized business (and it is a business) could still be raided by the feds and prosecuted, when it is actually legal in that state.  That's a state's rights issue, it seems to me, and I never know where I stand on that, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's stupid.

Well, generally speaking, based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (the 6th Amendment, I think) Federal law is the law of the land, and while state laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal law, they can't be LESS restrictive or in conflict with Federal law, so this is in keeping with the premise of constitutional law.   This is relatively new ground, and the Supreme Court will be weighing in on this in one form or another very soon (and Snoop Dogg will not likely be pleased at the result; the law is fairly cut and dry).


But, the executive branch is the one that is responsible for executing and enforcing the laws. And while your boy Obombs is in office, and publicly announced that he has no interest in meddling with marijuana law in states that have legalized it, those states don't have to worry. It depends on who the next president is, as I don't see any of the Dems changing that policy.
What Obama says and what he does are two very different things in this instance. Despite his claims to the contrary his DOJ have been total dicks insofar as medicinal marijuana goes; far more so than Gonzalez and Ashcroft were (and they were pretty awful). I suspect it's died down a bit on the surface, but that's going to be because they've switched to back-channel pressure, as opposed to the high-profile DEA smash and grab operations. Now they just lean on banks and landlords to smother them; same difference in the long run.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on October 23, 2015, 03:00:44 PM
Interesting, I guess I'm out of the loop on marijuana politics.

The amount of money my state, CO has made alone in pot sales makes me think it's incredibly freaking stupid the feds are refusing to accept funds from marijuana sales. Jesus, it is quite literally free money that will just go back to being untaxed if the "legal" shops are forced to shut down.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 02, 2015, 06:21:44 AM
https://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/6/pot-colorado.html

Quote
The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) examined state statistics and found Colorado saved millions of dollars because it was no longer locking up as many people for marijuana violations. Police arrested only 1,464 people for marijuana-related offenses, compared to 9,011 in 2010 before legalization, according to the study.
Win.

Quote
Crime rates have dipped since Colorado enacted the law, according to the report. It found a 9.5 percent drop in burglaries in Denver and an 8.9 percent decline in overall property crime in the city.
Win.

Quote
Additionally, tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales brought in at least $40.9 million into the state’s coffers.
Win.

Quote
He said marijuana tax revenue had been able to pay for the costs of regulating the drug, and had funded programs intended to keep youth away from abusing substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
Win.

Quote
The report also noted that fears of a spike in traffic fatalities, voiced by the Colorado Dept. of Transportation, did not materialize. Deaths dipped a bit in the first 11 months of 2014, down to 436 from 449 the year before.
Win.


Every single state in this country should be looking to mirror what Colorado has done. Not doing so is beyond foolish. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 02, 2015, 06:32:17 AM
Those are great things, I am curious if the remaining legalized states will have similar outcomes.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 02, 2015, 08:25:20 AM
We just really need to get a handle on this for consistency sake. 

Regardless of these great stats (and they are great), there are still relevant facts that have to be addressed:  dependency is going up (not a dealbreaker for me) and ANY substance abuse by minors is still a problem.    The 16 year old brain is NOT the same as a 25 year old brain.  And for those states that aren't Colorado, guess what, you are still going to jail.  You don't get to live by Colorado laws in Connecticut.

So legalize it, get it done, and focus on the real issues like how do we educate our 16 year olds that some of the rhetoric used to get to those wins isn't exactly true for you.  Yet.   

I had to explain all this to a 17 year old in my family, and while I (think I) was successful, it was a lot harder than it needed to be.   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 02, 2015, 08:52:31 AM
Those are great things, I am curious if the remaining legalized states will have similar outcomes.

Similar, but not as good. The thing many people need to keep in mind is that while this is a smashing success in Colorado, a lot of revenue has come from tourism. As other states legalize it, and that novelty begins to disappear, you'll stop seeing success at this level.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 02, 2015, 08:58:57 AM
Those are great things, I am curious if the remaining legalized states will have similar outcomes.

Similar, but not as good. The thing many people need to keep in mind is that while this is a smashing success in Colorado, a lot of revenue has come from tourism. As other states legalize it, and that novelty begins to disappear, you'll stop seeing success at this level.

But even moderate success is good.  Here in CT, I am waiting for it to happen, and if I'm being honest, I don't quite understand why it hasn't.   Our governor has taken his eye off the CT ball in favor of national aspirations (he just started his tenure as head of the National Governor's Association) so that probably has a lot to do with it, but I still can't quite suss out why.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 02, 2015, 09:11:04 AM
Regardless of these great stats (and they are great), there are still relevant facts that have to be addressed:  dependency is going up (not a dealbreaker for me) and ANY substance abuse by minors is still a problem.    The 16 year old brain is NOT the same as a 25 year old brain.  And for those states that aren't Colorado, guess what, you are still going to jail.  You don't get to live by Colorado laws in Connecticut.

Has there been any stats that have shown a rise in abuse from minors?  Many anti-legalization people use the children as a reason to not legalize, saying more minors will now have access.  Is this actually the case, I am curious. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 02, 2015, 09:11:59 AM
Those are great things, I am curious if the remaining legalized states will have similar outcomes.

Similar, but not as good. The thing many people need to keep in mind is that while this is a smashing success in Colorado, a lot of revenue has come from tourism. As other states legalize it, and that novelty begins to disappear, you'll stop seeing success at this level.

But even moderate success is good.  Here in CT, I am waiting for it to happen, and if I'm being honest, I don't quite understand why it hasn't.   Our governor has taken his eye off the CT ball in favor of national aspirations (he just started his tenure as head of the National Governor's Association) so that probably has a lot to do with it, but I still can't quite suss out why.

No doubt. CT is whack with cannabis. We have one of the strictest medicinal programs in the country. I know that in February legislation was proposed for full legalization. Nothing has come of it since. I'd try to find it for you, but I don't need to be Googling that on my company machine  :lol

Connecticut has taken a few good steps though. We get a fine equivalent to J-walking if caught with under a half ounce. That's still retarded, but it's a hell of a lot better than getting cuffed and put in the back of a cruiser. People with prior marijuana convictions that are not related to manufacturing or distribution are allowed to have the conviction removed from their record.

Part of me thinks that there's an element of pride preventing us from seriously considering full legalization. So much effort went into finding the select few doctors to come up with the country's smallest list of eligible ailments, that coming out in favor of full legalization would make that effort look very foolish and wasteful (which it was).
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 02, 2015, 09:17:18 AM
Regardless of these great stats (and they are great), there are still relevant facts that have to be addressed:  dependency is going up (not a dealbreaker for me) and ANY substance abuse by minors is still a problem.    The 16 year old brain is NOT the same as a 25 year old brain.  And for those states that aren't Colorado, guess what, you are still going to jail.  You don't get to live by Colorado laws in Connecticut.

Has there been any stats that have shown a rise in abuse from minors?  Many anti-legalization people use the children as a reason to not legalize, saying more minors will now have access.  Is this actually the case, I am curious.

"Although marijuana use had been declining among high school students for more than a decade, in recent years it has started to climb, in contrast to continuing declines in cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Marijuana was found -- alone or in combination with other drugs -- in more than 455,000 patients visiting emergency rooms in 2011. Nearly 70 percent of the teenagers in residential substance-abuse programs run by Phoenix House, which operates drug and alcohol treatment centers in 10 states, listed marijuana as their primary problem."  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/opinion/what-science-says-about-marijuana.html?_r=0

From the same article:
"A long-term study based in New Zealand, published in 2012, found that people who began smoking heavily in their teens and continued into adulthood lost an average of eight I.Q. points by age 38 that could not be fully restored. A Canadian study published in 2002 also found an I.Q. loss among heavy school-age users who smoked at least five joints a week.

The case is not completely settled. The New Zealand study was challenged by a Norwegian researcher who said socio-economic factors may have played a role in the I.Q. loss. But the recent review by experts at the National Institute on Drug Abuse concluded that adults who smoked heavily in adolescence had impaired neural connections that interfered with the functioning of their brains. Early and frequent marijuana use has also been associated with poor grades, apathy and dropping out of school, but it is unclear whether consumption triggered the poor grades."

Look, I don't post this to argue against marijuana legalization; I am actually all for it.  But as I often do in these cases, I want the arguments to be the right ones.   Do the right thing for the right reasons, not the right thing for the wrong reasons.  Precedent matters in these cases, and we will find ourselves doing the WRONG thing for the WRONG reasons that we thought were right if we are not careful (see class action suits, and many environmental regulations for examples). 

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 02, 2015, 09:28:22 AM
Totally agree that the reasons need to be right.  I wasn't questioning you, just actually curious if we knew more about minor's use since legalization.  I'm not sure those references answered that question other than there is a rise recently after the decline (but I do wonder if the rise is due to more people being open about it).  Also a decline in tobacco and alcohol is actually a positive result of a rise in marijuana IMO.  Tobacco and alcohol are worse drugs, although Im not sure it's a good argument as you are just replacing drugs, but I do think it is true that marijuana is a safer drug than tobacco and alcohol.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 02, 2015, 09:37:00 AM
Tobacco and alcohol are worse drugs, although Im not sure it's a good argument as you are just replacing drugs, but I do think it is true that marijuana is a safer drug than tobacco and alcohol.

I agree if we are looking at adults. However, the brain is a very delicate thing. While booze and cigs might be more dangerous from a health perspective, an underdeveloped brain could be even worse later in life.

If we were able to pinpoint and prove beyond reasonable doubt that cannabis use damages the brains of adolescents in anyway, that should be one of the highest (if not the highest) priorities when writing up legislation. Someone who gets addicted to cigs could get sick in life, but someone who ends up half retarded because they started heavy cannabis use at 12 could end up in a shitty job  and unable to afford to keep themselves healthy. I think it's better to have wealth and smoke cigs than to be be poor and equally unhealthy as a result of cannabis use.

As a cannabis user, I am a little biased in favoring it. However, I didn't start smoking until I was few weeks shy of 18, and even then it was just a typical Friday night thing we did as a group. I wasn't smoking 5 joints a week, but I think I turned out just fine. Anything I fail at in life is always due to my laziness and procrastination, which is something I've demonstrated since I was about four years old. If I was a parent and knew my kid was going to play around with intoxicants, I'd want them to choose cannabis over booze. If my kid was to use stuff behind my back, I'd rather them dump a few brain cells with cannabis rather than polish off a few beers and get behind the wheel of a car.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 02, 2015, 09:51:46 AM
Pretty much agreed on all points, I also did not start smoking until I hit 18 and probably only used it occasionally from that point until 20.  I totally agree we don't want our kids damaging their brains, but what I am trying to figure out is if legalization does in fact lead to more minors using.  Many anti-legalizers say it will because if its more mainstream then it is easier to get and viewed as not so bad so more kids will try, and then the counter argument is that since it is regulated, it will be harder for a minor to get and if you take away the illegal aspect, kids may not care to try it in the first place.  I am curious to see where the truth is in this argument.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 02, 2015, 09:58:35 AM
I get the realpolitik, I really do, and I even endorse it under most circumstances.  But maybe it's the parent in me, I bristle at this lesser of two evils approach.  Two wrongs don't make a right.   I don't think we should criminalize booze, and in fact I am in favor of legalization of ALL Schedule 1 substances ("legalization" does not mean "free from regulation") so don't misunderstand.

But I don't want my kid drinking and driving OR rolling a bone on her 16th birthday.  And right now, we're implicitly sending a message that the latter is all of a sudden okay.  It's not.

Chino is 100% correct, though I would be more forceful in how I say it:   the 16 year old brain is NOT the same as the 25 year old brain.   Eight IQ points is a LOT of change.  Other than "average" (which is a 20 point range) all of the IQ classifications are 10 points.   So this is a significant change in mental acuity.   Morality is one thing; but when our societal dialogue is centered so heavily around education and healthcare and providing for those that can't make it happen, why we are entitling (in the political sense of the word) people to downgrade their chances of success in these areas because "we don't like the law" or it's "less dangerous than liquor" baffles me.   

I'm a diehard libertarian, but that doesn't mean we get to be collectively stupid. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 02, 2015, 04:07:27 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/02/four-decades-later-the-dutch-have-no-regrets-about-legal-marijuana/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/02/four-decades-later-the-dutch-have-no-regrets-about-legal-marijuana/)

Interesting, I've been to Amsterdam 5 times in the last 2 years for work and I usually make a stop at a coffee shop.  It's interesting how the people there seem to not really have problems with marijuana legalization.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: TempusVox on November 03, 2015, 12:26:37 AM
We vote tomorrow here in Ohio. Despite the fact that I've put a small fortune into this initiative, the opponents of this issue are pulling out all the stops (arguing we'll create a monopoly, and getting an anti monopoly ballot initiative on tomorrow's ballot); and as a result, I'm not holding my breath as I don't have much faith in society overall.

I don't use marijuana now, and if it passes despite then owning part of one of the farms, I don't know if I will. But I've done extensive research on this issue, and we continue to hear the same tired lies about marijuana use. There are tons of made-up stats about cannabis. Since it was mentioned, the NZ study that tried to show a correlation between adolescent use and lower I.Q. has been disputed by none other than our own NIH ( the National Institues of Health) which claims the percentage is probably a zero effect and negligible at best. They attribute the I.Q. deficits not to cannabis, but to socio-economic status. A study in Oslo reinforced the NIH findings, yet all we hear about is the original study. And in fact UCSF claimed in a 2012 that smoking a joint everyday for 20 years still would not cause permanent neural damage. 

Opponents use the teen or adolescent use argument all the time. The reality is if legal and REGULATED teens would have less access to marijuana. An FBI study I saw somewhere this year claimed that anywhere in North America, any citizen can gain access to pot within 2 miles of their home where population is greater than 5,000.

The price of marijuana on the street in Ohio now is roughly 385 dollars an ounce. We plan to sell it at 150 if the initiative passes. And we set this price without knowing what other farms plan to do.

But marijuana which is unregulated is already easily acceptable to teenagers. We won't be selling to anyone who sells to teens. It will all be very highly controlled and regulated.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on November 03, 2015, 01:04:16 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: adace on November 03, 2015, 03:16:46 AM
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/highlights-california-marijuana-legalization-measure-34925582 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/highlights-california-marijuana-legalization-measure-34925582)

As a Californian and occasional medical pot user, I'm tempted to support this bill - I definitely agree with most of the oversight and consumption limits parts.

However, a 15% excise tax is kinda steep considering that pot is already quite expensive in general. I can only hope that legalization will result in dispensaries lowering their prices since their risk factor will be greatly reduced.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 03, 2015, 06:29:05 AM
But marijuana which is unregulated is already easily acceptable to teenagers. We won't be selling to anyone who sells to teens. It will all be very highly controlled and regulated.

You don't think a 16 year old is going to ask his older brother to buy him weed from the dispensary? How do you think we used to get booze in high school?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2015, 08:04:41 AM
But marijuana which is unregulated is already easily acceptable to teenagers. We won't be selling to anyone who sells to teens. It will all be very highly controlled and regulated.

You don't think a 16 year old is going to ask his older brother to buy him weed from the dispensary? How do you think we used to get booze in high school?
While this will certainly happen (and let's not forget pinching from the rents--the other tried and true method), it's still harder than just buying it yourself and necessitates knowing somebody of age. Most 21 year olds don't hang out with the junior high crowd. I had my own dealer when I was 13, but it wasn't until I was much older that I had a reliable source for beer. Moreover, the penalties are fairly excessive now. In my day it was pretty easy to find some cool dude in front of a liquor store to help you out. If some teenagers hit me up running into the bottle shop nowadays, despite my overall support for their cause, I'd have to assume they were working for Johnny and turn them down.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 03, 2015, 08:16:04 AM
We vote tomorrow here in Ohio. Despite the fact that I've put a small fortune into this initiative, the opponents of this issue are pulling out all the stops (arguing we'll create a monopoly, and getting an anti monopoly ballot initiative on tomorrow's ballot); and as a result, I'm not holding my breath as I don't have much faith in society overall.

I don't use marijuana now, and if it passes despite then owning part of one of the farms, I don't know if I will. But I've done extensive research on this issue, and we continue to hear the same tired lies about marijuana use. There are tons of made-up stats about cannabis. Since it was mentioned, the NZ study that tried to show a correlation between adolescent use and lower I.Q. has been disputed by none other than our own NIH ( the National Institues of Health) which claims the percentage is probably a zero effect and negligible at best. They attribute the I.Q. deficits not to cannabis, but to socio-economic status. A study in Oslo reinforced the NIH findings, yet all we hear about is the original study. And in fact UCSF claimed in a 2012 that smoking a joint everyday for 20 years still would not cause permanent neural damage. 

Opponents use the teen or adolescent use argument all the time. The reality is if legal and REGULATED teens would have less access to marijuana. An FBI study I saw somewhere this year claimed that anywhere in North America, any citizen can gain access to pot within 2 miles of their home where population is greater than 5,000.

The price of marijuana on the street in Ohio now is roughly 385 dollars an ounce. We plan to sell it at 150 if the initiative passes. And we set this price without knowing what other farms plan to do.

But marijuana which is unregulated is already easily acceptable to teenagers. We won't be selling to anyone who sells to teens. It will all be very highly controlled and regulated.

Well, ordinarily I wouldn't disagree with you (I've already said I'm 100% for legalization) but your post is what I'm talking about (and I understand you to be a writer, so I'd expect better).   All over the map.    This study refuted, that one sort of, but only "probable", this one ignored, but that one good (but not kids, since a '20 year study' by definition means it's not children) but we're not selling to kids now, but kids get it now, but they won't later, but the stats show that they are (which you failed to cite), ...

That's the whole point.  The argument is all over the map.   No different than Monsanto saying "that chemical is perfectly fine! in rats over the age of 75 who already had cancer of the tail, paw, and groin."  Bottom line:  it probably DOESN'T materially affect the 40 year old man who becomes a moderate or casual user.  The studies are clear, though:  the earlier you start marijuana use, the less you earn, etc. etc. (I'm not copping out on the stats, but only not repeating myself; they are there above).    Not at all suggesting this is enough to stop the legalization, but man up and stop making excuses for how fantastic it is, and how it's a crime against humanity that it is illegal.   All we're doing here is reprioritizing where we expend our effort.    It's NOT healthy - neither is liquor, diet soda, McDonald's, or FourLoco - but the money we're spending to prevent it's use (and failing) is not worth the benefit of getting revenue from it and regulating it, so our users aren't burning wallpaper paste instead of quality herb. 

At the end of the day, it IS harmful for my 14 year old to smoke this shit until her brain stops growing.  Not to say she will be a vegetable if she does, or that she will completely forsake it (I know I didn't, and I think intellectually I am doing okay, though one always wonders if I wouldn't be better).  Just don't insult the intelligence I do have by trying to say "there is no effect". 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2015, 08:19:29 AM
We vote tomorrow here in Ohio. Despite the fact that I've put a small fortune into this initiative, the opponents of this issue are pulling out all the stops (arguing we'll create a monopoly, and getting an anti monopoly ballot initiative on tomorrow's ballot); and as a result, I'm not holding my breath as I don't have much faith in society overall.

I don't use marijuana now, and if it passes despite then owning part of one of the farms, I don't know if I will. But I've done extensive research on this issue, and we continue to hear the same tired lies about marijuana use. There are tons of made-up stats about cannabis. Since it was mentioned, the NZ study that tried to show a correlation between adolescent use and lower I.Q. has been disputed by none other than our own NIH ( the National Institues of Health) which claims the percentage is probably a zero effect and negligible at best. They attribute the I.Q. deficits not to cannabis, but to socio-economic status. A study in Oslo reinforced the NIH findings, yet all we hear about is the original study. And in fact UCSF claimed in a 2012 that smoking a joint everyday for 20 years still would not cause permanent neural damage. 

Opponents use the teen or adolescent use argument all the time. The reality is if legal and REGULATED teens would have less access to marijuana. An FBI study I saw somewhere this year claimed that anywhere in North America, any citizen can gain access to pot within 2 miles of their home where population is greater than 5,000.

The price of marijuana on the street in Ohio now is roughly 385 dollars an ounce. We plan to sell it at 150 if the initiative passes. And we set this price without knowing what other farms plan to do.

But marijuana which is unregulated is already easily acceptable to teenagers. We won't be selling to anyone who sells to teens. It will all be very highly controlled and regulated.
Well, not knowing some of the details which are yet to be ironed out, I'd probably be forced to vote against that prop. It's a tough call, though.

The US has a long history of using it's own flawed studies to support its drug war. There are plenty of examples of other countries doing studies on this or that, and the US will cherry pick one detail to tell you the opposite of what they determined. Look into the driving while stoned studies for a wonderful example.

I'd be curious to know the quality of what y'all plan to sell. There isn't really a market for midrange down here, and you're priced in a peculiar place. When you say that the street price is $385, that has to be the silly number the DEA use to promote their efforts. "Well if a quarter sells for $100, then a pound must sell for $6,400." Obviously it doesn't work that way. Still, yours would be slightly above the Mexican ditch-weed that the commoners smoke, and well below what other states are dealing the high-grade stuff for.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2015, 08:23:28 AM
Stadler: the problem is that it's almost impossible to know for sure. Who's to say whether or not somebody might have turned out better or worse. I was smoking at 12, and I couldn't tell you one way or the other if I'm more or less intellectually inclined because of it. The same applies to someone like Penn Jillette, who has never touched drugs or alcohol in his entire life. Life's a crapshoot.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 03, 2015, 08:37:08 AM
Stadler: the problem is that it's almost impossible to know for sure. Who's to say whether or not somebody might have turned out better or worse. I was smoking at 12, and I couldn't tell you one way or the other if I'm more or less intellectually inclined because of it. The same applies to someone like Penn Jillette, who has never touched drugs or alcohol in his entire life. Life's a crapshoot.

This is how I feel as well. I think there are too many external factors to confidently attribute cannabis use to certain things. I know people who have never touched the stuff and can't even make mac & cheese without fucking it up. I also know people who have been toking regularly for the last decade (since they were 14) and are writing software for the automated guidance systems for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 03, 2015, 09:23:43 AM
Stadler: the problem is that it's almost impossible to know for sure. Who's to say whether or not somebody might have turned out better or worse. I was smoking at 12, and I couldn't tell you one way or the other if I'm more or less intellectually inclined because of it. The same applies to someone like Penn Jillette, who has never touched drugs or alcohol in his entire life. Life's a crapshoot.

This is how I feel as well. I think there are too many external factors to confidently attribute cannabis use to certain things. I know people who have never touched the stuff and can't even make mac & cheese without fucking it up. I also know people who have been toking regularly for the last decade (since they were 14) and are writing software for the automated guidance systems for SpaceX.

I'm with you both.  We all start out with different capacities, and if el Barto's capacity is five times mine, and he stunts it 5% with weed, and I don't smoke, he's still better off than me.   I get that.

I'm just objecting to the message that there is NO effect, and to the apparent abdication of responsibility for whatever effect there might be.  Whether the effect is negligible or not is up to the user, like with alcohol, smoking, diet soda or unprotected sex. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: TempusVox on November 03, 2015, 03:41:16 PM
We vote tomorrow here in Ohio. Despite the fact that I've put a small fortune into this initiative, the opponents of this issue are pulling out all the stops (arguing we'll create a monopoly, and getting an anti monopoly ballot initiative on tomorrow's ballot); and as a result, I'm not holding my breath as I don't have much faith in society overall.

I don't use marijuana now, and if it passes despite then owning part of one of the farms, I don't know if I will. But I've done extensive research on this issue, and we continue to hear the same tired lies about marijuana use. There are tons of made-up stats about cannabis. Since it was mentioned, the NZ study that tried to show a correlation between adolescent use and lower I.Q. has been disputed by none other than our own NIH ( the National Institues of Health) which claims the percentage is probably a zero effect and negligible at best. They attribute the I.Q. deficits not to cannabis, but to socio-economic status. A study in Oslo reinforced the NIH findings, yet all we hear about is the original study. And in fact UCSF claimed in a 2012 that smoking a joint everyday for 20 years still would not cause permanent neural damage. 

Opponents use the teen or adolescent use argument all the time. The reality is if legal and REGULATED teens would have less access to marijuana. An FBI study I saw somewhere this year claimed that anywhere in North America, any citizen can gain access to pot within 2 miles of their home where population is greater than 5,000.

The price of marijuana on the street in Ohio now is roughly 385 dollars an ounce. We plan to sell it at 150 if the initiative passes. And we set this price without knowing what other farms plan to do.

But marijuana which is unregulated is already easily acceptable to teenagers. We won't be selling to anyone who sells to teens. It will all be very highly controlled and regulated.

Well, ordinarily I wouldn't disagree with you (I've already said I'm 100% for legalization) but your post is what I'm talking about (and I understand you to be a writer, so I'd expect better).   All over the map.    This study refuted, that one sort of, but only "probable", this one ignored, but that one good (but not kids, since a '20 year study' by definition means it's not children) but we're not selling to kids now, but kids get it now, but they won't later, but the stats show that they are (which you failed to cite), ...

That's the whole point.  The argument is all over the map.   No different than Monsanto saying "that chemical is perfectly fine! in rats over the age of 75 who already had cancer of the tail, paw, and groin."  Bottom line:  it probably DOESN'T materially affect the 40 year old man who becomes a moderate or casual user.  The studies are clear, though:  the earlier you start marijuana use, the less you earn, etc. etc. (I'm not copping out on the stats, but only not repeating myself; they are there above).    Not at all suggesting this is enough to stop the legalization, but man up and stop making excuses for how fantastic it is, and how it's a crime against humanity that it is illegal.   All we're doing here is reprioritizing where we expend our effort.    It's NOT healthy - neither is liquor, diet soda, McDonald's, or FourLoco - but the money we're spending to prevent it's use (and failing) is not worth the benefit of getting revenue from it and regulating it, so our users aren't burning wallpaper paste instead of quality herb. 

At the end of the day, it IS harmful for my 14 year old to smoke this shit until her brain stops growing.  Not to say she will be a vegetable if she does, or that she will completely forsake it (I know I didn't, and I think intellectually I am doing okay, though one always wonders if I wouldn't be better).  Just don't insult the intelligence I do have by trying to say "there is no effect".

Expected better? really? Sorry to have disappointed you.  ::) First of all, I posted that from my phone at like 2:00-something this morning. Secondly, I wasn't writing a brief; nor was I posting findings for peer review. And lastly, I don't have to post citations of everything I say. I'm lazy. Do your own damn research. Hell, Google the study. You'll find a plethora of studies that have debunked the one from NZ, which I was referencing. Be that as it may, how do you account for the fact that over 85% of marijuana users in the U.S. started using marijuana by the age of 17; and nearly 9% of high school seniors use marijuana everyday, but IQ scores continue to rise? Anecdotal? Sure. But intelligence and cognition is affected by a plethora of other factors, including genetic, social and environmental influences that may supersede any influence from drug use.

The proponents of prohibition love to confuse correlation and causation. I understand you to be a lawyer. Surely you know the difference. When I was in law school we got went over that first semester. I expected better from you. (See how that feels?)  :biggrin:

I get that you're not advocating that prohibition continue, but your claim that your worried about your daughters brain power is without merit in my opinion. I also never said that cannabis was some magic elixir that everyone should use. I don't advocate that any teenager use any mood altering substance, but for pots sake it's for entirely different reasons. Using a mood altering substance brings a tremendous amount of risk. Those risks are not without at times some very serious, life altering, and permanent consequences that teens should be fiercely protected from when it comes to drug use and abuse. I don't want my 18 year old to use marijuana. When you're high on anything, your inhibitions are lowered and you take unnecessary risks. He's too young to be able to deal with that. But I don't want him to use pot primarily because it's illegal.

I'm not too naive to know that both sides like to cherry pick data, but the same old arguments against marijuana legalization have been proven false over and over again. And the government and prohibitionists continue to lie over and over again, as they have for decades now. I too used to fall prey to the bullshit. Marijuana is guaranteed to be addictive, it's a proven gateway drug, it leads to poor productivity, it causes cancer, it causes psychosis, it leads to dementia, low sperm count and over developed breast tissue in men, violence, lowered IQ, it kills brain cells, legalization will lead to everyone smoking or using it, it destroys lives and families, you can die, you can OD, stifles creativity, it leads to impotence, and lastly--it can make straight people become gay! ALL BULLSHIT! Don't believe me? Look it up. There are studies refuting all these claims that can be found online.

I started researching this issue about 5 years ago. I suffer from severe osteoarthritis in my knees and back. Abuse from college football has taken it's toll on my body. The only thing that modern medicine can offer me now are opioids for pain. Drugs that are highly addictive, are guaranteed to slowly destroy my kidneys and liver, and that eat up my intestines over time with Ulcerative Colitis. Colitis that I already suffer from today. (Ironically, marijuana has been proven to cure UC. Imagine that!) So my motives were purely selfish to seek an alternative for my situation. I started becoming passionate about speaking out about the bullshit and the lies. The only truth I've found from the claims I mentioned above, is that it destroys lives and families due to prosecution and incarceration because it's illegal. I was asked if I wanted to be a part of  ending prohibition in my state, and I did.

The bottom line is it is your responsibility to arm your daughter with as much information as possible and teach her how to think things through, so that she can make informed decisions about her life, and the consequences of her actions. Be that alcohol, or taking too much Tylenol. But when she becomes 21, it should be entirely up to her to decide if she wants to use it or not. Not the government, society, or a bunch of lies that sway her decision.

Finally, if I had to choose, I'd rather my son use cannabis any day over alcohol, or tobacco, or any lethal drug.

 

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 03, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
and lastly--it can make straight people become gay!

whoa learn something new everyday  :lol

I started researching this issue about 5 years ago. I suffer from severe osteoarthritis in my knees and back. Abuse from college football has taken it's toll on my body. The only thing that modern medicine can offer me now are opioids for pain. Drugs that are highly addictive, are guaranteed to slowly destroy my kidneys and liver, and that eat up my intestines over time with Ulcerative Colitis. Colitis that I already suffer from today. (Ironically, marijuana has been proven to cure UC. Imagine that!)

This is pretty big and hasn't really been mentioned in a lot of our discussions lately.  We don't even know the full potential of medicinal benefits of marijuana.  Even if its not legal for recreation, it's crazy how the laws prevent many studies to be done on marijuana.  I would guess this is getting better, but it would be nice for the DEA to wake up and understand there are people out there that can benefit greatly from pain reduction of marijuana.  So sad, especially when you see the kids with epilepsy who's families move to Colorado for their child.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on November 03, 2015, 10:08:43 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 04, 2015, 09:15:35 AM
I'm not too naive to know that both sides like to cherry pick data, but the same old arguments against marijuana legalization have been proven false over and over again. And the government and prohibitionists continue to lie over and over again, as they have for decades now. I too used to fall prey to the bullshit. Marijuana is guaranteed to be addictive, it's a proven gateway drug, it leads to poor productivity, it causes cancer, it causes psychosis, it leads to dementia, low sperm count and over developed breast tissue in men, violence, lowered IQ, it kills brain cells, legalization will lead to everyone smoking or using it, it destroys lives and families, you can die, you can OD, stifles creativity, it leads to impotence, and lastly--it can make straight people become gay! ALL BULLSHIT! Don't believe me? Look it up. There are studies refuting all these claims that can be found online.

But here's the thing, and I don't want to get into a rhetorical argument with you, BUT... you can't dismiss statistics as "one sided" and "cherry-picked" and then do the exact same thing.   I don't need to be told to do the research.   I think I've proven that I'm willing to do that.  I take no number or study or assertion on faith if I haven't seen something like it myself from a credible organization.   I'm the guy that ALWAYS clicks the "About Us!" tab on a website to find out what their agenda is. 

And you list a litany of evils to make your point, but it's torpedoed, because they aren't all the same.  No, marijuana is NOT the gateway drug it is claimed to be.   But the "lower IQ", "lower income" studies have NOT been clearly and outright debunked.  Of course there are studies online that refute them, but I can show you a study that refutes we landed on the moon, too. It doesn't make that study any more reliable than the one it is reacting to.

Look, I'm not here to make the case for or against marijuana; I am sort of an iconoclast in this realm.  I've tried it, I LOVE it, but don't use because I have a family that I have responsibilities to, so I just don't choose to self-medicate like I used to, and I also am not willing to accept the consequences of breaking that particular law.   It's just not worth it to me.  And I would legalize it, but not for the selfish, agenda-furthering reasons you keep falling back on.  I just would because it makes no sense for government to make that choice for us.  If someone wants to lower their IQ, or limit their career earnings (all true, Google it, studies, yadda yadda yadda) then they should be allowed to do that ONCE THEY REACH 21.   I would legalize ALL (or at least most) Schedule 1 drugs (note that "legalize" doesn't mean "free from regulation"). 

But when the argument is centered on "the bullshit and the lies" you've lost me.  When your argument is centered on the destruction of "lives and families due to prosecution and incarceration because it's illegal", you've lost me.  WHAAAA.  You broke the law and you got caught.   Man up and accept the consequences of your actions.    And I only say this not because I am anyone special, but because your fight is not a slam dunk as proven yesterday.  The statistics battle is CLEARLY not being won.  If anything you're going to win via greed and apathy.   Greed when States realize there is another revenue stream out there (what I am waiting for in Connecticut, frankly) and apathy when people ask "are we STILL talking about this???". 

Quote
The bottom line is it is your responsibility to arm your daughter with as much information as possible and teach her how to think things through, so that she can make informed decisions about her life, and the consequences of her actions. Be that alcohol, or taking too much Tylenol. But when she becomes 21, it should be entirely up to her to decide if she wants to use it or not. Not the government, society, or a bunch of lies that sway her decision.

Up until the nonsense about the "lies", I am in 1000% agreement.  Couldn't have written it better (though I tried above). 

Quote
Finally, if I had to choose, I'd rather my son use cannabis any day over alcohol, or tobacco, or any lethal drug.

Okay, your call, but not a reason to make it legal. 

And for the record, none of this is intended personally or toward you in particular.   It's observation from someone who is already at the "apathetic" stage, and now is taking positions based more on philosophy rather than any deep moral conviction either way. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: adace on November 04, 2015, 04:06:01 PM
https://www.buzzfeed.com/cjciaramella/sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-federal-ban-on-marijuana#.uyrdgQW2V (https://www.buzzfeed.com/cjciaramella/sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-federal-ban-on-marijuana#.uyrdgQW2V)

Even though it wouldn't really change what's happening in individual states, I still hope this passes.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on November 04, 2015, 04:11:59 PM
Wouldn't it, though?  I'm thinking about the states where medicinal marijuana is legal, but they still get raided by the Feds because it's against federal law.  If the federal ban is lifted, then the individual states can rest easy.  Or they can still keep it illegal if they want, or whatever.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on November 04, 2015, 06:57:57 PM
I'm not too naive to know that both sides like to cherry pick data, but the same old arguments against marijuana legalization have been proven false over and over again. And the government and prohibitionists continue to lie over and over again, as they have for decades now. I too used to fall prey to the bullshit. Marijuana is guaranteed to be addictive, it's a proven gateway drug, it leads to poor productivity, it causes cancer, it causes psychosis, it leads to dementia, low sperm count and over developed breast tissue in men, violence, lowered IQ, it kills brain cells, legalization will lead to everyone smoking or using it, it destroys lives and families, you can die, you can OD, stifles creativity, it leads to impotence, and lastly--it can make straight people become gay! ALL BULLSHIT! Don't believe me? Look it up. There are studies refuting all these claims that can be found online.

But here's the thing, and I don't want to get into a rhetorical argument with you, BUT... you can't dismiss statistics as "one sided" and "cherry-picked" and then do the exact same thing.   I don't need to be told to do the research.   I think I've proven that I'm willing to do that.  I take no number or study or assertion on faith if I haven't seen something like it myself from a credible organization.   I'm the guy that ALWAYS clicks the "About Us!" tab on a website to find out what their agenda is. 

And you list a litany of evils to make your point, but it's torpedoed, because they aren't all the same.  No, marijuana is NOT the gateway drug it is claimed to be.   But the "lower IQ", "lower income" studies have NOT been clearly and outright debunked.  Of course there are studies online that refute them, but I can show you a study that refutes we landed on the moon, too. It doesn't make that study any more reliable than the one it is reacting to.

Look, I'm not here to make the case for or against marijuana; I am sort of an iconoclast in this realm.  I've tried it, I LOVE it, but don't use because I have a family that I have responsibilities to, so I just don't choose to self-medicate like I used to, and I also am not willing to accept the consequences of breaking that particular law.   It's just not worth it to me.  And I would legalize it, but not for the selfish, agenda-furthering reasons you keep falling back on.  I just would because it makes no sense for government to make that choice for us.  If someone wants to lower their IQ, or limit their career earnings (all true, Google it, studies, yadda yadda yadda) then they should be allowed to do that ONCE THEY REACH 21.   I would legalize ALL (or at least most) Schedule 1 drugs (note that "legalize" doesn't mean "free from regulation"). 

But when the argument is centered on "the bullshit and the lies" you've lost me.  When your argument is centered on the destruction of "lives and families due to prosecution and incarceration because it's illegal", you've lost me.  WHAAAA.  You broke the law and you got caught.   Man up and accept the consequences of your actions.    And I only say this not because I am anyone special, but because your fight is not a slam dunk as proven yesterday.  The statistics battle is CLEARLY not being won.  If anything you're going to win via greed and apathy.   Greed when States realize there is another revenue stream out there (what I am waiting for in Connecticut, frankly) and apathy when people ask "are we STILL talking about this???". 

Quote
The bottom line is it is your responsibility to arm your daughter with as much information as possible and teach her how to think things through, so that she can make informed decisions about her life, and the consequences of her actions. Be that alcohol, or taking too much Tylenol. But when she becomes 21, it should be entirely up to her to decide if she wants to use it or not. Not the government, society, or a bunch of lies that sway her decision.

Up until the nonsense about the "lies", I am in 1000% agreement.  Couldn't have written it better (though I tried above). 

Quote
Finally, if I had to choose, I'd rather my son use cannabis any day over alcohol, or tobacco, or any lethal drug.

Okay, your call, but not a reason to make it legal. 

And for the record, none of this is intended personally or toward you in particular.   It's observation from someone who is already at the "apathetic" stage, and now is taking positions based more on philosophy rather than any deep moral conviction either way.


I'm a little worried you're misusing some of these statistics, however. Marijuana use may be correlated with lower income and earning potential, but why is that? There are gazillions of factors, but perhaps the most important is the one you, yourself illustrate - the deterrent for you getting caught in a higher income position is greater than the cook at Red Robin. That doesn't in anyway reflect on the use of marijuana itself, but rather the risk adverse v. the risk takers. If it were legal and even more ubiquitous than it is currently, it stands to reason a lot of that correlation will dissolve, as there's less incentive for people to not smoke.

Again, I've tried it and I hated it. HATED it. Just wanted to be sober. But it genuinely does irk me that tax dollars are wasted (both in not having it legalized and taxed, and on the "war on drugs") over marijuana.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on November 04, 2015, 10:00:30 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 05, 2015, 07:49:03 AM
I'm a little worried you're misusing some of these statistics, however. Marijuana use may be correlated with lower income and earning potential, but why is that? There are gazillions of factors, but perhaps the most important is the one you, yourself illustrate - the deterrent for you getting caught in a higher income position is greater than the cook at Red Robin. That doesn't in anyway reflect on the use of marijuana itself, but rather the risk adverse v. the risk takers. If it were legal and even more ubiquitous than it is currently, it stands to reason a lot of that correlation will dissolve, as there's less incentive for people to not smoke.

Again, I've tried it and I hated it. HATED it. Just wanted to be sober. But it genuinely does irk me that tax dollars are wasted (both in not having it legalized and taxed, and on the "war on drugs") over marijuana.

And I wouldn't argue with you.  You bring up good points.   But underlying BOTH our points is the uncertainty that seems to disappear when advocates start pushing their agenda.   I'm less concerned with the "war on drugs" (though that's not to say "not concerned at all", it's just not the driving emphasis for me) than I am the notion of government action creating risk.   Meaning, here in the Northeast we're getting a lot of (bad) stories about synthetic marijuana causing a lot of harm, and in supplies being tainted for whatever reason (which makes no sense to me, since pot doesn't really have the same business model as say, coke, which makes a lot of sense to cut, especially progressively with regular habitual users).  It's just stupid.  We spend billions and billions on Obamacare to get people healthy, we spend billions on dumb safety devices to keep idiots from culling themselves from the herd, but we don't seem to care one bit that a quarter of our population is willing to smoke mold or Diazanon or inject Drano or snort levamisole. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on November 05, 2015, 12:29:18 PM
All the more reason for it to be legalized and regulated. The onus should always be on proving something should be illegal, rather than the burden being on making something legal. And I see no reason why marijuana should be illegal when it could be so easily regulated for safety, and taxed.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 06, 2015, 07:15:07 AM
Interesting survey done by the DEA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/05/marijuana-is-literally-the-least-of-the-nations-drug-worries-the-police-have-announced/

Quote
The DEA asked a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 law enforcement agencies what they saw as their biggest drug threats. Marijuana came in at the bottom of the list, named by only 6 percent of survey respondents. The share of law enforcement agencies naming pot has been declining steadily since the mid-2000s, even as states have moved to legalize medical and recreational marijuana during that time period.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/11/dea-threats.png&w=1484)

The most frightening thing on that graph is the decrease in pain killers and the increase in heroin. I know it's a problem all over the country, but Connecticut is having a really hard time with heroin and teens. They get hooked on the pain killers and then opt for heroin because it's significantly cheaper and they make next to no money.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Yeah, the decrease in painkillers is remarkable. If I'm not mistaken they're still the number one source of overdose fatalities, as well. I suspect the drop off is related to, as you said, the preference in heroin for it's price, but also because it's so much easier to score.

I am curious about the dropoff in cocaine. I would like to think it's because Johnny wised up to the fact that the overall harm factor is relatively low, but that seems unlikely to me. Moreover, that only applies to blow and not crack, which I have to assume is included in the overall "cocaine" category. Makes me wonder if crack has just lost it's appeal.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 06, 2015, 08:50:38 AM
The cocaine and heroin deltas are almost mirror opposites of each other. I've never tried either, so I don't know if they are comparable, but could cocaine users be switching to heroin as well?

Also, I read that in 2014, more teenagers died from legal pain killers than anything on the federal narcotics list.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on November 06, 2015, 08:59:06 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2015, 09:08:05 AM
Cocaine and heroin are so starkly different that they're not really switchable. There are certainly people out there who are omni-users and will do anything that's put in front of them, but in terms of people with a penchant for one, they're not likely to enjoy the other nearly as much. One is what you do because it's your thing. The other is something you do circumstantially.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on November 06, 2015, 10:37:15 AM
Don't know anybody that went from cocaine to heroin.  In fact, cocaine seems to only be on TV.

Marijuana is the gateway drug.  Here's the path.

Marijuana time.  Prison time.  Intro to meth/heroin time.

I'm confused what you mean about coke only being on tv? It's disturbingly ubiquitous. I hate that drug, and it's seemingly everywhere with the under 40 crowd.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on November 06, 2015, 11:40:21 AM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 06, 2015, 12:58:52 PM
In college coke was everywhere, but - and I admit I lead a fairly sheltered existence now - I have seen it once in probably a decade, and that includes living in the City for a spell.   A girl I went out with a couple times (kind of a party girl; to the extend I "shook off" my divorce - and I didn't, not really - it was with her) liked to have a bump now and again. She was way younger than me, though. 

Having said that, smoking in the City was EVERYWHERE.  Everyone smoked, it seemed like.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 06, 2015, 01:32:03 PM
Despite knowing people who did it and being outside bathrooms where people were doing it, I've never actually seen heroin or cocaine with my own eyes.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2015, 01:36:31 PM
Coke has traditionally been fairly popular down here. No surprise since Dallas is so stupidly superficial. However, I don't know as it's particularly popular with my generation or the younger generation anymore. I suspect the 30's might still be into it, but that's the group I know the least about. I know the last time it was presented to me was probably 3 years ago.

Personally, I enjoy it when it's free and the setting is right. Mostly I think it's a tad silly, though.


edit: Heroin was only popular amongst the suburban adolescent set down here.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on November 06, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
Despite knowing people who did it and being outside bathrooms where people were doing it, I've never actually seen heroin or cocaine with my own eyes.

Seen coke, not heroin, though I've never tried either one (and never will).   I don't mind a buzz now and again (alcohol) but I don't even like taking pills for pain; I don't like that loopy disconnected feeling.  I can't imagine taking something stronger.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on November 06, 2015, 01:58:46 PM
Despite knowing people who did it and being outside bathrooms where people were doing it, I've never actually seen heroin or cocaine with my own eyes.

Seen coke, not heroin, though I've never tried either one (and never will).   I don't mind a buzz now and again (alcohol) but I don't even like taking pills for pain; I don't like that loopy disconnected feeling.  I can't imagine taking something stronger.

When I was in the hospital after my fall, they were injecting me with dilaudid every two hours or so.A week or so before I was released, I requested they stop giving it to me. That stuff was awesomely terrifying. I get addicted to stuff pretty easily. I didn't want to take any chances with that. I had my friends bring me some edibles instead. Worked like a charm.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on November 06, 2015, 02:04:28 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on November 06, 2015, 03:12:30 PM
Taking heroin socially is a bit of an oxymoron since it spaces you out so much your interactions with others are nonexistent. People who do it aren't looking to do it socially.

I recently kicked out a roommate for doing coke in the house, constantly telling me he was going to "wear [me] down to try it" and having his ex gf scream at me while in  the middle of a bender about how it's none of my business if they do cocaine in front of me, on my kitchen table.

Unfortunately I've seen people doing it more times than I care to count
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 06, 2015, 03:32:08 PM
Despite knowing people who did it and being outside bathrooms where people were doing it, I've never actually seen heroin or cocaine with my own eyes.

Seen coke, not heroin, though I've never tried either one (and never will).   I don't mind a buzz now and again (alcohol) but I don't even like taking pills for pain; I don't like that loopy disconnected feeling.  I can't imagine taking something stronger.

When I was in the hospital after my fall, they were injecting me with dilaudid every two hours or so.A week or so before I was released, I requested they stop giving it to me. That stuff was awesomely terrifying. I get addicted to stuff pretty easily. I didn't want to take any chances with that. I had my friends bring me some edibles instead. Worked like a charm.
When I've been given MS at the hospital I found it awesomely pleasant for the initial rush, but we're talking 20 seconds, tops. After that it did nothing for me, and wasn't particularly effective for pain, either. After the transplant, when I actually was experiencing some discomfort, I had them switch me to dilaudid and found that even less effective and without the awesome rush you got from the opium rush.

I do know that whatever opiate+acetaminophen caps they gave me to take home helped me sleep through the night, but I only used them for a night or two. My sister Kidney Girl took them as directed for about 4 days, and then spent 2 weeks feeling like shit from the withdrawal.

If you ask me, the pharmaceutical industry has really fucked up recreational drug use for everybody. Bastards.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 06, 2015, 05:59:25 PM
I understand coke is pretty popular but I have never personally seen it.  I became friends with a few people when I first got to college and after we became friends and comfortable with each other they asked if I wanted to do it with them, I declined and slowly stopped being friends with them.  2 dropped out from college and the other had to go to rehab to kick the habit and she graduated on time and I was friendly with her throughout our stay in college.  I've never seen heroin, but had a family friend who was younger than me that I grew up with die from an overdose. I have known many people (probably majority of people I know) who have at least tried marijuana.  They all seem to be doing fine.  Anecdotal I know.  I personally am also scared of pain pills.  I just don't like putting any pills in my body unless its necessary. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: KevShmev on November 06, 2015, 07:07:31 PM
Call me sheltered, but I have never seen anybody do any drug except alcohol or pot.  And I used to go out a lot and whatnot, but the people I hung around were just never hard drug users. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: portnoy311 on November 06, 2015, 07:11:48 PM
It might just be the demographic of the area I'm in, but I'd suspect plenty of you guys have been around people doing coke without realizing it. They're usually very good at being discreet about it for obvious reasons. The first time I ever saw someone do it was actually in the parking lot of a Target in a nice suburb, the girl bent down and took a bump in her car before getting out. I had no idea what was happening, but my buddies both agreed, that is definitely what just happened.

Nasty, nasty drug, that is way more popular than it should be. I'm very much pro legalization of marijuana because I don't think it has the harmful effects of coke, and I'm very much against coke legalization.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on November 06, 2015, 07:17:11 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on November 06, 2015, 07:54:46 PM
I have definitely been around people who do coke and are high on coke, I just don't think I've ever noticed it because I have never actually seen it. 

I believe in legalization of all drugs with obvious regulation.  If there is a backlash against it then fine, move it back to illegal (at least the people would have spoke and made both decisions themselves), but I would rather our drugs be secured, regulated, and taxed with our abusers in rehabs (not jails) than our current system of "war" on drugs.  I believe in freedom of choice, and it's no different than now, anyone who chooses to do those harmful drugs will do them regardless. 

Maybe we also learn a lot more about positive purposes from these drugs such as marijuana and LSD which we cannot study now due to the laws. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on November 07, 2015, 11:54:25 AM
Nasty, nasty drug, that is way more popular than it should be. I'm very much pro legalization of marijuana because I don't think it has the harmful effects of coke, and I'm very much against coke legalization.
I've generally found it to be rather benign. Obviously crack is an exception, but blow is cost prohibitive to really producing major problems aside from the stupid rich. The rank and file partyers can only use it on a recreational basis and that's seldom a problem.

Now crank, that's a nasty, nasty drug.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on February 26, 2016, 02:32:59 PM
Not necessarily related to legalization, but relevant to the marijuana discussion which was mostly in this thread:

https://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/16482/dare-program-no-longer-lists-marijuana-as-gateway-drug (https://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/16482/dare-program-no-longer-lists-marijuana-as-gateway-drug)
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Calvin6s on February 26, 2016, 02:37:16 PM
a
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 08, 2016, 10:01:19 AM
Not necessarily related to legalization, but relevant to the marijuana discussion which was mostly in this thread:

https://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/16482/dare-program-no-longer-lists-marijuana-as-gateway-drug (https://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/16482/dare-program-no-longer-lists-marijuana-as-gateway-drug)
DARE continues to be a real joke. Kids aren't so dumb that they don't notice when the practical effects don't matchup with what the program assured them would happen. That's the problem with scare tactics. You burn up all your credibility when kids don't actually microwave up an infant sandwich or burn out their retinas staring at the sun.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 09, 2016, 10:08:32 AM
Not necessarily related to legalization, but relevant to the marijuana discussion which was mostly in this thread:

https://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/16482/dare-program-no-longer-lists-marijuana-as-gateway-drug (https://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/16482/dare-program-no-longer-lists-marijuana-as-gateway-drug)
DARE continues to be a real joke. Kids aren't so dumb that they don't notice when the practical effects don't matchup with what the program assured them would happen. That's the problem with scare tactics. You burn up all your credibility when kids don't actually microwave up an infant sandwich or burn out their retinas staring at the sun.

I honestly haven't seen/heard much from DARE but maybe that is because I am not a kid nor have kids, but you are right.  I don't believe scare tactics work much in general, but they definitely don't work with kids.  To me, it seems that just makes kids want to do it even more.  Education is always the best, be honest and people respect that and can make their own decisions.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 21, 2016, 01:21:44 PM
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marijuana-states-20160321-story.html (https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marijuana-states-20160321-story.html)

Good win for legalization.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 21, 2016, 01:50:58 PM
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marijuana-states-20160321-story.html (https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marijuana-states-20160321-story.html)

Good win for legalization.
Good win for Oklahoma and Utah, as well. The police chief of Syndey, NE is bitching about how awful marijuana is for his state. In the meantime they're driving shiny new Blazers, riding new Harleys, buying new police dogs, and the fire-rescue truck looks pretty damned nice.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 21, 2016, 02:08:47 PM
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marijuana-states-20160321-story.html (https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-marijuana-states-20160321-story.html)

Good win for legalization.
Good win for Oklahoma and Utah, as well. The police chief of Syndey, NE is bitching about how awful marijuana is for his state. In the meantime they're driving shiny new Blazers, riding new Harleys, buying new police dogs, and the fire-rescue truck looks pretty damned nice.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  Who is driving the new cool stuff?  The police in the bordering states or the ones in the legalized states?
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: El Barto on March 21, 2016, 02:40:27 PM
By running effective interdiction the police of neighboring states get to seize lots of property. Moreover, by busting dopers crossing the border they get grant money, as well. Unless they're completely incompetent those states are making far more money busting dopers than they're spending.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on March 21, 2016, 02:43:12 PM
That's what I thought you meant but wasn't totally sure, thanks.  Effectively what the Justice said, enforce your laws as you want in your state not that I agree with law enforcement focussing in on marijuana with their time.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on June 29, 2016, 02:45:25 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-gets-ahead-vote-legalization-marijuana-030418535--nfl.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-gets-ahead-vote-legalization-marijuana-030418535--nfl.html)

Looks like full legalization will be on the ballot in CA since they got the # of signatures required.   :tup
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on June 29, 2016, 04:46:01 PM
With Washington, Colorado, and Oregon now legalized, there's no way it doesn't pass this time.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on June 29, 2016, 05:26:11 PM
With Washington, Colorado, and Oregon now legalized, there's no way it doesn't pass this time.

And that would make it the entire west coast and also legalized in one of the largest economies in the world (if you took California as it's own economy).  I believe Nevada and Arizona are close to a legalization bill as well meaning even more of the west which is just crazy to think it could still be illegal federally but 1/3 of the country it is legal.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on June 30, 2016, 05:43:02 AM
With Washington, Colorado, and Oregon now legalized, there's no way it doesn't pass this time.

And that would make it the entire west coast and also legalized in one of the largest economies in the world (if you took California as it's own economy).  I believe Nevada and Arizona are close to a legalization bill as well meaning even more of the west which is just crazy to think it could still be illegal federally but 1/3 of the country it is legal.

I blows my mind that no states in New England have tried to jump on it yet, Connecticut especially. We need an economic hail mary so bad right now, and not getting into this industry while the gettin's good is foolish as all hell. Massachusetts looked like they were going to, but now thanks to the heroin epidemic out here, state officials are saying "it's just not the right time to be legalizing any more drugs".
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on June 30, 2016, 08:19:46 AM
With Washington, Colorado, and Oregon now legalized, there's no way it doesn't pass this time.

And that would make it the entire west coast and also legalized in one of the largest economies in the world (if you took California as it's own economy).  I believe Nevada and Arizona are close to a legalization bill as well meaning even more of the west which is just crazy to think it could still be illegal federally but 1/3 of the country it is legal.

I blows my mind that no states in New England have tried to jump on it yet, Connecticut especially. We need an economic hail mary so bad right now, and not getting into this industry while the gettin's good is foolish as all hell. Massachusetts looked like they were going to, but now thanks to the heroin epidemic out here, state officials are saying "it's just not the right time to be legalizing any more drugs".

Chino, SPOT ON.  CT could use the infusion of cash right now (they are literally nickel and diming layoffs and service closures to make budget; pot isn't the $$$ windfall everyone thinks it is, but every little bit helps and they NEED the help desperately).  I think Chino also nailed the "why not"; we seem to get a report a day about one or more deaths from bad or tainted heroin, and I think politicians who are already reeling are not willing to touch a hot-button issue like this.  They'd rather appear on TV with a faux tear in their eye and a Sandy Hook family member behind them pledging to STOP THE MADNESS OF ANY MORE GUN DEATHS.  Whores.   I hate my state sometimes. 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on June 30, 2016, 08:25:13 AM
It is kind of sad that heroin and marijuana would get linked.  One drug that kills people pretty easily and the other has never killed anyone.  I get it from a political standpoint that these politicians don't want to come off as being drug friendly, but people just need to open their eyes a bit and realize there is no real correlation between marijuana and heroin and they should be viewed as separate.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on June 30, 2016, 08:33:26 AM
With Washington, Colorado, and Oregon now legalized, there's no way it doesn't pass this time.

And that would make it the entire west coast and also legalized in one of the largest economies in the world (if you took California as it's own economy).  I believe Nevada and Arizona are close to a legalization bill as well meaning even more of the west which is just crazy to think it could still be illegal federally but 1/3 of the country it is legal.

I blows my mind that no states in New England have tried to jump on it yet, Connecticut especially. We need an economic hail mary so bad right now, and not getting into this industry while the gettin's good is foolish as all hell. Massachusetts looked like they were going to, but now thanks to the heroin epidemic out here, state officials are saying "it's just not the right time to be legalizing any more drugs".

Chino, SPOT ON.  CT could use the infusion of cash right now (they are literally nickel and diming layoffs and service closures to make budget; pot isn't the $$$ windfall everyone thinks it is, but every little bit helps and they NEED the help desperately).  I think Chino also nailed the "why not"; we seem to get a report a day about one or more deaths from bad or tainted heroin, and I think politicians who are already reeling are not willing to touch a hot-button issue like this.  They'd rather appear on TV with a faux tear in their eye and a Sandy Hook family member behind them pledging to STOP THE MADNESS OF ANY MORE GUN DEATHS.  Whores.   I hate my state sometimes.

I've defended this state so much over the last few years, but I've been seriously considering bailing lately. It's gotten so bad out this way with no signs of a turn around. Anyone with money is fleeing, taking their taxes with them, and those with no money keep breeding. Hartford's hispanic population is now 44%. Nothing against hispanics, but given what I see every day on my hour long lunch break walk, there's no mystery as to why this city is sinking as fast as it is. We just laid off 235 Hartford education employees and constructed a $63M baseball stadium that's now an abandoned, unfinished project, that requires $6200 a day just to keep firemen on site because the fire surpression systems were never installed. The mismanagement in our state's capitol is beyond shameful.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on June 30, 2016, 02:33:06 PM
https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/news/california-marijuana-legalization/index.html (https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/news/california-marijuana-legalization/index.html)

Quote
The legalization of marijuana for recreational use will be on the ballot on Nov. 8 in California, Nevada, Arizona, Massachusetts and Maine, according to Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML. Legalization for medical use will also be on the ballot in Florida, Missouri and Arkansas on that same day.

Looks like you guys may get your wish.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on July 01, 2016, 10:46:51 AM

I've defended this state so much over the last few years, but I've been seriously considering bailing lately. It's gotten so bad out this way with no signs of a turn around. Anyone with money is fleeing, taking their taxes with them, and those with no money keep breeding. Hartford's hispanic population is now 44%. Nothing against hispanics, but given what I see every day on my hour long lunch break walk, there's no mystery as to why this city is sinking as fast as it is. We just laid off 235 Hartford education employees and constructed a $63M baseball stadium that's now an abandoned, unfinished project, that requires $6200 a day just to keep firemen on site because the fire surpression systems were never installed. The mismanagement in our state's capitol is beyond shameful.

Where would you go?  I'm actually considering Florida, believe it or not (I have an office there). 

My problem is that I've left twice already and I always seem to come back...
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on July 05, 2016, 07:45:20 AM

I've defended this state so much over the last few years, but I've been seriously considering bailing lately. It's gotten so bad out this way with no signs of a turn around. Anyone with money is fleeing, taking their taxes with them, and those with no money keep breeding. Hartford's hispanic population is now 44%. Nothing against hispanics, but given what I see every day on my hour long lunch break walk, there's no mystery as to why this city is sinking as fast as it is. We just laid off 235 Hartford education employees and constructed a $63M baseball stadium that's now an abandoned, unfinished project, that requires $6200 a day just to keep firemen on site because the fire surpression systems were never installed. The mismanagement in our state's capitol is beyond shameful.

Where would you go?  I'm actually considering Florida, believe it or not (I have an office there). 

My problem is that I've left twice already and I always seem to come back...

I'm really not sure. It's a tough decision. I'd love to move out out to Oregon or Washington (no, not just for legal weed). There are a lot of California companies in emerging tech industries that are expanding to nearby states with lower taxes. The hardest part about moving would be leaving my family behind. My parents have both officially crossed the 60 year old line. They are well off and I don't anticipate them struggling, but you never know what life's going to throw you. I'd hate myself if either of them ever ended up getting sick and I wasn't able to be around for their final month/years because I moved away. I know that's something everyone has to decide on at some point, but I struggle with pulling the trigger. They gave me a solid 25 years of every kind of support a parent could give their child, and I'd like to be here to reciprocate if needed.

I really like New Hampshire and would have no problem moving up there. Convincing my girlfriend of that would be next to impossible though as she gets cold when it's 80 degrees outside  :lol

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on July 11, 2016, 09:17:49 AM

I've defended this state so much over the last few years, but I've been seriously considering bailing lately. It's gotten so bad out this way with no signs of a turn around. Anyone with money is fleeing, taking their taxes with them, and those with no money keep breeding. Hartford's hispanic population is now 44%. Nothing against hispanics, but given what I see every day on my hour long lunch break walk, there's no mystery as to why this city is sinking as fast as it is. We just laid off 235 Hartford education employees and constructed a $63M baseball stadium that's now an abandoned, unfinished project, that requires $6200 a day just to keep firemen on site because the fire surpression systems were never installed. The mismanagement in our state's capitol is beyond shameful.

Where would you go?  I'm actually considering Florida, believe it or not (I have an office there). 

My problem is that I've left twice already and I always seem to come back...

I'm really not sure. It's a tough decision. I'd love to move out out to Oregon or Washington (no, not just for legal weed). There are a lot of California companies in emerging tech industries that are expanding to nearby states with lower taxes. The hardest part about moving would be leaving my family behind. My parents have both officially crossed the 60 year old line. They are well off and I don't anticipate them struggling, but you never know what life's going to throw you. I'd hate myself if either of them ever ended up getting sick and I wasn't able to be around for their final month/years because I moved away. I know that's something everyone has to decide on at some point, but I struggle with pulling the trigger. They gave me a solid 25 years of every kind of support a parent could give their child, and I'd like to be here to reciprocate if needed.

I really like New Hampshire and would have no problem moving up there. Convincing my girlfriend of that would be next to impossible though as she gets cold when it's 80 degrees outside  :lol

Not trying to get you to leave or anything, but two things:

- you can always come back.  I've already left twice and returned.
- How about the Lehigh Valley (Pennsylvania, north of Philly; Mike lives there).  Better weather, not that far, and still within shitting distance of two cities (New York and Philly, as opposed to New York and Boston). 
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 09:19:09 AM
Hot Damn

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/12/colorado-pot-record-sales-122-million-july-2016/

"Colorado’s monthly marijuana sales notched an all-time high in July 2016 as shops sold nearly $122.7 million of medical and recreational cannabis — a 27 percent increase from July 2015, according to state revenue data released Monday."
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on September 28, 2016, 02:41:38 PM
I've posted similar before, but another bump for this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/marijuana-measures-ballot-9-states-nov-8-134736988--politics.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/marijuana-measures-ballot-9-states-nov-8-134736988--politics.html)

The 9 states that will be voting on recreational or medical marijuana.

Please Maine or Massachusetts pass this and get the Northeast of the US rolling with legalization.

It seems California, Arizona, and Nevada have a good shot at legalization, and those states would be stupid not to legalize as I'd imagine people in the neighboring legalized states are started to take potential money away from them as people move to where they can get high legally.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 29, 2016, 07:50:34 AM
I really hope that passes in all states.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 06, 2016, 05:57:16 AM
I'll just leave this here..

https://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaRaid-HG-100116-5074664
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Prog Snob on October 06, 2016, 06:01:36 AM
All of that for a single plant? Something seems off.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: TAC on October 06, 2016, 06:05:47 AM
If that's truly all it was, then it's a waste of resources. While I have no issues with seizures of illegal substances, I'm sure there are much bigger and more dangerous fish to fry.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 06, 2016, 06:32:41 AM
All of that for a single plant? Something seems off.

A single plant from her, but...

"Within 10 minutes of the helicopter departing, several vehicles arrived at the home, including a pickup truck with a bed filled with marijuana plants seized at other locations"

&

"He said the plant at Margaret Holcomb’s home was one of 44 found on various properties outside and in plain view that day."

Her plant was part of a larger operation. Still completely ridiculous and a disgusting waste of taxpayer resources.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: TAC on October 06, 2016, 06:33:50 AM
Well not if it's part of a larger operation.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 06, 2016, 06:41:35 AM
Well not if it's part of a larger operation.

An entire day's use of a helicopter that costs thousands of dollars an hour to operate, a full convoy of ground vehicles, and who knows how many officers and SWAT agents, all for 44 Marijuana plants. I've personally seen home grows with five times that capacity, and that's considered a moderately sized operation.

Seriously, how much better off is MA, a state that has recreational cannabis on the ballot this November, now that these 44 plants will never be harvested? Nearly 1100 people died in MA due to opioids last year, and this is what taxpayer funds are being used to combat? Please.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: TAC on October 06, 2016, 06:43:33 AM
  Nearly 1100 people died in MA due to opioids last year, and this is what taxpayer funds are being used to combat? Please.

If that's truly all it was, then it's a waste of resources. While I have no issues with seizures of illegal substances, I'm sure there are much bigger and more dangerous fish to fry.

Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Orbert on October 06, 2016, 07:08:08 AM
That's where the more intelligent states have things figured out.  Heroin is killing people, while pot-smokers sit around watching TV all day, so they go after the heroin dealers.  Bigger fish.

Then you have the morons going "It's all bad! We must go after the maniwanja growers (also, because we can't find the heroin dealers)."
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 06, 2016, 07:15:42 AM
That's where the more intelligent states have things figured out.  Heroin is killing people, while pot-smokers sit around watching TV all day, so they go after the heroin dealers.  Bigger fish.


I dedicate 12 hours a day to work a job that results in me paying more in taxes than a lot of my non-pot smoking friends gross, while at the same time starting an LLC on the side so I can one day maybe be a job creator. Please stop lumping us all into the same category and continuing such stigmas. Thanks!
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 06, 2016, 07:54:18 AM
I follow the local facebook page for my county's police and emergency services.  Every once in awhile they post a story about undercover police who after months of work made an arrest of a low level marijuana dealer and then the facebook comments are loaded with "wtf is wrong with the police force wasting resources on this".

That article is taking things to another level.  Ridiculous. 

Also read another story this week about a police lady going undercover (also in Maryland I think) working in a Burger King and after 2 months she busted two employees, one who sold her a small amount of weed and one who sold her a morphine pill.  Great use of 2 months salary as well as ruining public faith in the police as well as that Burger King.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Chino on October 06, 2016, 07:56:33 AM
I follow the local facebook page for my county's police and emergency services.  Every once in awhile they post a story about undercover police who after months of work made an arrest of a low level marijuana dealer and then the facebook comments are loaded with "wtf is wrong with the police force wasting resources on this".

That article is taking things to another level.  Ridiculous. 

Also read another story this week about a police lady going undercover (also in Maryland I think) working in a Burger King and after 2 months she busted two employees, one who sold her a small amount of weed and one who sold her a morphine pill.  Great use of 2 months salary as well as ruining public faith in the police as well as that Burger King.

I read that story two, after two months she was able to secure like 5 grams of weed total.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 06, 2016, 08:53:58 AM
This is complicated, but let me say that a) I am for the legalization of marijuana (and most hard drugs, too, if you want to know the truth) and b) I support Chino in his comment that you can't generalize, but having said that...

You can't generalize.   For the most part, the operations going after a plant here or a dealer there are like the conversations I'm having in the Football thread:  QBs that are great with numbers but haven't won a championship.  But having said that, we're not in a position to make this call.  You have no idea if the "plant bust" isn't a way to get that person into the system in order to further a larger - possibly even non-drug related - operation.  We're regaled with stories of how dumb law enforcement is, and how stupid and frivolous they are with their rocket launchers and assault vehicles, but that's only one side of the story, and only a small portion of the population.  The vast majority of law enforcement are well-eaming, reasonable people that have the goal of making every day safer than it was before, as per the laws of this country (not, it should be said, determined by them). 

Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion.   The initial arrest of Sammy The Bull Gravano was for narcotics; in fact, "narcotics" was a frequent way of getting alleged criminals into the system.   Not suggesting this is right or not (although, as long as they are illegal, I don't have a problem with that.  Once pot is legal, it will be something else.) but it does mean that there is more to the story than just "wasted resources for a pot plant".   
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: cramx3 on October 06, 2016, 08:58:56 AM
Yea, it's the fed's making sure they use the budgeted money so they don't lose it and god forbid save money for the tax payers. The point is that there are better ways to use that money.  Putting an 81 year old lady into the system makes zero sense.  In fact, it seems they only wanted the plant and not to even press charges on the lady.  It's a numbers game most likely from the surface of reading this.
Title: Re: Amendment 64 Passes: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana For Recreational Use
Post by: Stadler on October 06, 2016, 09:22:51 AM
Yea, it's the fed's making sure they use the budgeted money so they don't lose it and god forbid save money for the tax payers. The point is that there are better ways to use that money.  Putting an 81 year old lady into the system makes zero sense.  In fact, it seems they only wanted the plant and not to even press charges on the lady.  It's a numbers game most likely from the surface of reading this.

Maybe.  Or there's a way to trace the plan