Colorado Stores Throw Open Their Doors to Pot Buyers(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Colorado Stores Throw Open Their Doors to Pot Buyers
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/colorado-stores-throw-open-their-doors-to-pot-buyers.html?hp&_r=0
22 comments
The "out of other states" part is what is obviously going to do it. It's just like guns, you can't keep guns out of one state if you can buy them freely in a neighbouring state. It's the same thing here.
The surrounding states are already awash with cannabis (even and especially Utah). Right-thinking people just have to keep browbeating the prohibitionists back into their corners until they can't do anything any more. I'm the first person to try to appeal to another's sense of logic, but logic is obviously not what the Prohibitionists are operating on.
Prohibition has failed, failed spectacularly and expensively and there is simply no room to try some sort of half-measure to appease those that think it can still work. These sorts of people simply need to understand that their opinion doesn't matter at all and will be completely discounted, sad to say.
Prohibition has failed, failed spectacularly and expensively and there is simply no room to try some sort of half-measure to appease those that think it can still work. These sorts of people simply need to understand that their opinion doesn't matter at all and will be completely discounted, sad to say.
And given a little time, this should have significant economic benefits (more tax revenue, less spending) to help with the "browbeating."
Yeah, I like Colorado's legislation because you can grow some if you want to, or you can just go and pay a business that pays taxes for some high-quality stuff without all the work if that's what you want.
The rest of the West should just go ahead, they're already there.
The rest of the West should just go ahead, they're already there.
Well it's a little different than guns. (Old man voice) "They don't grow on trees, you know!"
If it's couched in terms of black/white:pass/fail for keeping it out of other states then it's doomed to fail and the DOJ will come down hard. But Colorado shouldn't be in charge of watching the movement of stuff that's legal to own and sell inside it's jurisdiction. It's duty is to regulate how to own and sell inside the same area. Period. It would, however, be the job of neighbouring states that didn't want it to spill over to maintain their borders appropriately and of course it falls on individual citizens to respect the borders.
Where it differs from guns is, unlike Supreme Court reasoning to the contrary, if there was adequate intrastate supply b/c of the ability to maintain personal plants then interstate exchange shouldn't be much of an issue anymore (obviously that's a gradual process).
If it's couched in terms of black/white:pass/fail for keeping it out of other states then it's doomed to fail and the DOJ will come down hard. But Colorado shouldn't be in charge of watching the movement of stuff that's legal to own and sell inside it's jurisdiction. It's duty is to regulate how to own and sell inside the same area. Period. It would, however, be the job of neighbouring states that didn't want it to spill over to maintain their borders appropriately and of course it falls on individual citizens to respect the borders.
Where it differs from guns is, unlike Supreme Court reasoning to the contrary, if there was adequate intrastate supply b/c of the ability to maintain personal plants then interstate exchange shouldn't be much of an issue anymore (obviously that's a gradual process).
Potter the commerce clause, it is actually the federal government's job to ensure the drugs don't cross state lines. Hence the Justice department's insistence.
Except the federal govt's job would be complete if it allowed intrastate commerce. It's circular. Marijuana isn't a scheduled drug b/c it needs to be kept out of interstate commerce. It's part of interstate commerce b/c it's a scheduled drug for some other reason or reasons that don't really make a great deal of sense.
All of those things were possible with medical marijuana.
Yes, it would be really nice if people and journalists commenting on this would understand and acknowledge that cannabis has been widely available legally in Colorado for years, both through legal home growing and at retail outlets.
You don't think that the expansion of the law to allow recreational use will change the usage patterns? I am really curious.
I think it will change the patterns for some demographics more than others. Most people in the demographic where use is heaviest, college students, have had no problem finding cannabis in Colorado for at least 20 or 30 years now, and particularly in the past few years with the medical dispensaries. Anyone who wanted to could go get a red card for $160 and then shop at any of the numerous dispensaries around the state, in addition to the ample black-market opportunities to purchase such goods. I think that people in certain circles such as older people will find it a lot easier to obtain cannabis now, and that will change their usage patterns. It will be interesting to see how it develops as it goes from niche cultures to more mainstream… If that happens.
I am objecting to reporters and people commenting as if situations regarding cannabis use are novel, for instance some people are saying "what will we do now that there will be stoned to drivers on the streets?" We already have stoned drivers on the streets in every state and have for at least 20 or 30 years, and there have been laws against that in place all around the country as well. Another example, people discussing cannabis exportation from Colorado to neighboring states… That has already been going on and Colorado has had more availability than neighboring states such as Wyoming and Nebraska for a long time, predating the medical situation. It's true that since the medical laws were passed, larger grow operations have been located in Colorado. A couple of years ago a ring with dozens of houses sending 10 pounds at a time all over the country through FedEx was broken up in Denver. I do think this law will further embolden people if you want to grow cannabis for the black market, but on the other hand I sort of think that anyone who wants to do that already is.
It's also worth noting that California has had highly liberalized laws regarding this for years and for some reason that doesn't get much attention. You can go to Norcal and grow dozens of plants on your land and sell them for a large profits legally without anyone batting an eye.
I am objecting to reporters and people commenting as if situations regarding cannabis use are novel, for instance some people are saying "what will we do now that there will be stoned to drivers on the streets?" We already have stoned drivers on the streets in every state and have for at least 20 or 30 years, and there have been laws against that in place all around the country as well. Another example, people discussing cannabis exportation from Colorado to neighboring states… That has already been going on and Colorado has had more availability than neighboring states such as Wyoming and Nebraska for a long time, predating the medical situation. It's true that since the medical laws were passed, larger grow operations have been located in Colorado. A couple of years ago a ring with dozens of houses sending 10 pounds at a time all over the country through FedEx was broken up in Denver. I do think this law will further embolden people if you want to grow cannabis for the black market, but on the other hand I sort of think that anyone who wants to do that already is.
It's also worth noting that California has had highly liberalized laws regarding this for years and for some reason that doesn't get much attention. You can go to Norcal and grow dozens of plants on your land and sell them for a large profits legally without anyone batting an eye.
Sorry for the typos... That was a pretty long comment to tap on my phone.
Not as a noticeable percentage of total usage. There will obviously be some drug tourism, but mostly for the novelty, since no one who wants marijuana in the US can't get it easily and relatively risk-free.
Truth is, every law is based on people who ruin it for everybody else. That is how marijuana got outlawed in the first place. People has this belief that we are somehow rewarded for passing thousands of new laws every year. The resulting authoritarian society is just the unintended consequence. Nobody actually picks authoritarianism on purpose.
Dig a little deeper on the history of anti-cannabis laws, and you'll find they're rooted primarily in fear of Mexicans and blacks. Sometimes authoritarianism is the goal, not the side effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
People has this belief that we are somehow rewarded for passing thousands of new laws every year.
The people in Congress are called "lawmakers." That's the problem right there. Even if society were to reach an ideal 100% perfect state, they'd still need to pass more laws to justify their jobs, so we'd soon be broken again.
The people in Congress are called "lawmakers." That's the problem right there. Even if society were to reach an ideal 100% perfect state, they'd still need to pass more laws to justify their jobs, so we'd soon be broken again.
> Truth is, every law is based on people who ruin it for everybody else.
On the contrary, I think only unreasonable laws are based on people who ruin it for everybody else. Law banning murder and theft, for example, are reasonable and could exist in a world without murder and theft without effecting anyone. However, laws banning firearms or lock picks are unreasonable, and if implemented in a world without murder and theft would effect many people.
On the contrary, I think only unreasonable laws are based on people who ruin it for everybody else. Law banning murder and theft, for example, are reasonable and could exist in a world without murder and theft without effecting anyone. However, laws banning firearms or lock picks are unreasonable, and if implemented in a world without murder and theft would effect many people.
"federal property" - I'm sure the TSA at DIA will be stepping up their pot detection and nail plenty of unsuspecting tourists. I wonder if Colorado will put up a sign going towards the airport reminding people of federal law.
I would be more concerned about federal authorities going in regardless of how well state regulations are working, just because some far-right politician needs to show voters how tough-on-crime he is.
In the situation you're talking about, it would be the feds ruining it for everyone else.
It's a grand old tradition, ain't it.
According to this the price will initially go up:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/30/high-prices-f...
...but since marijuana is literally a weed, why wouldn't the price eventually drop to something like that of tea? I mean, tea is harder to grow, process, and ship, and you can get it for 6 dollars a pound. Even the overpriced teavana stuff can go for as little as 40 dollars a pound.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/30/high-prices-f...
...but since marijuana is literally a weed, why wouldn't the price eventually drop to something like that of tea? I mean, tea is harder to grow, process, and ship, and you can get it for 6 dollars a pound. Even the overpriced teavana stuff can go for as little as 40 dollars a pound.
The "tea" you get for 6 dollars a pound in the US is, generally speaking, the crumbs and fragments leftover from making actually good tea. Wouldn't surprise me if you could also eventually get crumb-and-fragment grade pot for 6 bucks a pound.
There's still a market for legitimately high grade tea (not Teavana). I'm interested to see what sort of market develops, over time, for legitimately high-grade MJ here in Colorado.
There's still a market for legitimately high grade tea (not Teavana). I'm interested to see what sort of market develops, over time, for legitimately high-grade MJ here in Colorado.
Could you recommend a good place online to order good "tea"? I'd seriously like to try some to get a sense of what real tea is suppose to taste like.
I love Red Blossom Tea: http://www.redblossomtea.com/
Also, the Hacker's Guide to Tea is a great resource: http://www.worldoftea.org/hackers-guide-to-tea/
Also, the Hacker's Guide to Tea is a great resource: http://www.worldoftea.org/hackers-guide-to-tea/
I've been ordering from http://theteatable.com/ for a few years now; their prices are pretty good, but their selection is remarkable. I can also strongly endorse http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-tea-steeper/ as a fantastic tea steeper; I was using it long before they recommended it.
I'm surprised no one has recommended YS.
http://yunnansourcing.com/
If you want to get into puer tea, a good way to do so is to order a few samples from their US site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pu-erh_tea
http://yunnansourcing.com/
If you want to get into puer tea, a good way to do so is to order a few samples from their US site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pu-erh_tea
DAVIDsTEA is also good, they have a few retail locations around.
https://www.davidstea.com/
https://www.davidstea.com/store-locator
$20 for 250g (1lb) of earl grey tea, for example.
https://www.davidstea.com/
https://www.davidstea.com/store-locator
$20 for 250g (1lb) of earl grey tea, for example.
a pound is 450g
My wife generally imports her chinese tea from http://www.teaspring.com (she's a big fan of Bai Hao oolong) and her japanese green tea from http://www.o-cha.com .
I get most of my tea from Monterey Bay Spice Company. Nice selection and very fair prices. I recommend their organic black tea (11 USD/lb).
http://www.herbco.com/
http://www.herbco.com/
TeaGschwendner http://www.tgtea.com "Earl Grey No. 69", best damn tea, ever.
Check out http://tealet.com
Based on the above comment I was expecting like $20/lb tea...not $275/lb.
I just checked and I got a box of Bigelow from Food Lion (don't judge). Based on the net weight on the box, it's a little under $35/lb granted it is a small box so buying in bulk would definitely bring that down. So I can't imagine what $6/lb tea would taste like but I'm not sure I can justify $275/lb either.
This is my cheap-ass tea by the way: http://www.amazon.com/Bigelow-English-Teatime-Tea-20-Count/d...
Feel free to suggest something that might amount to a 2x-5x price increase rather than 10x.
I just checked and I got a box of Bigelow from Food Lion (don't judge). Based on the net weight on the box, it's a little under $35/lb granted it is a small box so buying in bulk would definitely bring that down. So I can't imagine what $6/lb tea would taste like but I'm not sure I can justify $275/lb either.
This is my cheap-ass tea by the way: http://www.amazon.com/Bigelow-English-Teatime-Tea-20-Count/d...
Feel free to suggest something that might amount to a 2x-5x price increase rather than 10x.
http://uptontea.com is somewhere in between and has not disappointed the few times I've ordered from them.
[deleted]
http://www.luhsetea.com/products/dorian-grey
I might have to try some of this!
I might have to try some of this!
Arn't even the highest grades of tea only about $40 an ounce though?
Or am I missing some 'Primo Stuff' somewhere?
That still represents a 20x premium over cheap name-brand tea at the store.
You get what you pay for!
I like to compare it to beer rather than tea. You can make it for dirt cheap, but based on some research months ago, growing truly quality stuff is an art. So, like beer, I expect there will be Coors MJ, and there will be Microbrewery MJ. The former a baseline of reasonable quality for the price, the latter far nicer than anything John Doe can grow in his basement, probably complete with hydroponics and sophisticated monitoring.
But for the time being, it will be expensive because of risk, ramp times, capital investment, etc.
But for the time being, it will be expensive because of risk, ramp times, capital investment, etc.
I don't know where you got your information. Yes, hydroponics and growing under artificial light is pretty hard - but farming MJ in the open is easy, the thing grows like grass.
farming MJ in the open is easy
Yes, but supposedly being able to control the water & nutrients is good for premium quality.
Yes, but supposedly being able to control the water & nutrients is good for premium quality.
There's still significant risk in grow operations because it's still a federal crime. The Obama administration has chosen not to enforce that law for the time being, but that can change on a moment's notice, and is likely to change if a conservative attains office (which will probably happen in 2016). Furthermore, even when done legally, there is significant regulatory burden on a state-sanctioned grow.
You're correct that ultimately marijuana will probably be really cheap, but we have to wait for the rest of the drug enforcement apparatus to become irrelevant.
You're correct that ultimately marijuana will probably be really cheap, but we have to wait for the rest of the drug enforcement apparatus to become irrelevant.
Actually, in spite of Eric holder's memo stating otherwise, the raids have continued. As recently as November: 17 raids in one day in CO.
I would imagine customs will single out anybody declaring their destination as Colorado for extra harassment too.
Hang on, can you explain this to a European? How can something be legal and illegal?!
So the EU is basically the "United States of Europe". Remember, the US is a bunch of independent states (NOT provinces) who pool resources for the sake of defensive and economic convenience, just like the EU. Technically, the Feds are supposed to have very limited powers.
The situation in Colorado is analogous to The Netherlands explicitly declaring something allowed that the EU councils in Brussels have explicitly declared disallowed. One authority claims it's OK, the other claims it's not OK, and the citizen has to choose which authority they trust and/or fear more.
The situation in Colorado is analogous to The Netherlands explicitly declaring something allowed that the EU councils in Brussels have explicitly declared disallowed. One authority claims it's OK, the other claims it's not OK, and the citizen has to choose which authority they trust and/or fear more.
Well considering the EU has no guns, no army, no police force[1], no courts for people, and no prisons and the Netherlands does, it's obvious which to trust.
EU law binds countries, not people. If a country does something that goes against EU law (which happens all the freaking time), then you can sue the country in the EU courts to get the country to change the law. The EU isn't able to arrest you. And regardless, it's the national law is the only real law. EU law is just what a country is supposed to do.
[1] There is Europol (European Police Office) which is only for aiding cooperation between national police forces. It has no powers of arrest, and (most tellingly) it only has 800 staff for a population of half a billion people.
EU law binds countries, not people. If a country does something that goes against EU law (which happens all the freaking time), then you can sue the country in the EU courts to get the country to change the law. The EU isn't able to arrest you. And regardless, it's the national law is the only real law. EU law is just what a country is supposed to do.
[1] There is Europol (European Police Office) which is only for aiding cooperation between national police forces. It has no powers of arrest, and (most tellingly) it only has 800 staff for a population of half a billion people.
I'd definitely agree that, at least for the moment, the EU's powers are much weaker than the US's powers. I think it involves the EU member states being much less compatible and much more storied than US member states, and also the EU as an organization being much younger.
I believe it's evident that when you fly a bunch of groups under a single banner successfully for a long time, what starts as a loose, powerless alliance with only administrative activities (as the US was originally conceived) eventually becomes a very strong central power apparatus (as the US has now become).
Maybe it'll be different in Europe where the member states have so much independent history. Everything out here was basically a blank slate before it was annexed by the Union. In the relatively few places where this isn't true, there is much stronger anti-federal sentiment (the South, Hawaii). I guess New England is anomalous regarding anti-federal sentiments because I think it has always thought of itself as the most influential power in federal governance.
I believe it's evident that when you fly a bunch of groups under a single banner successfully for a long time, what starts as a loose, powerless alliance with only administrative activities (as the US was originally conceived) eventually becomes a very strong central power apparatus (as the US has now become).
Maybe it'll be different in Europe where the member states have so much independent history. Everything out here was basically a blank slate before it was annexed by the Union. In the relatively few places where this isn't true, there is much stronger anti-federal sentiment (the South, Hawaii). I guess New England is anomalous regarding anti-federal sentiments because I think it has always thought of itself as the most influential power in federal governance.
To put it in plain terms, there are multiple groups of guys with guns, and each group follows different orders.
In (two, I believe) U.S. states, marijuana has been decriminalized. That is, enforcement won't be applied at the state [roughly equivalent to a province] level. At the Federal [National] level, however, there are still laws that prohibit this.
The result of this is that while you can be doing something for which you cannot be charged by the state, the Federal government has the ability to prosecute you at their discretion. This is where the risk comes in; you are at the mercy of the federal government to continue deciding that they won't enforce the federal laws in those states.
The result of this is that while you can be doing something for which you cannot be charged by the state, the Federal government has the ability to prosecute you at their discretion. This is where the risk comes in; you are at the mercy of the federal government to continue deciding that they won't enforce the federal laws in those states.
Lots of states have decriminalized possession of cannabis (see this map: http://norml.org/states).
Only two (or three, depending on how you view the legal status in Alaska) have laws that actually create a legal framework surrounding it (ie, "legalized it").
Only two (or three, depending on how you view the legal status in Alaska) have laws that actually create a legal framework surrounding it (ie, "legalized it").
Isn't that precisely the situation of marijuana in the Netherlands?
Almost but not exactly.
The situation in the Netherlands is more complicated. Technically it's still illegal, however it's effectively decriminalised for personal use. Small amounts found on you (less than 5 grams) will not be prosecuted. No more than 5 grams may be sold to one person in one transaction. You must be over 18. 'Coffee shops' should not cause any trouble, drugs may not be advertised and the mayor can order a 'coffee shop' to be shut down.
More recently (2012) these coffee shops have also been ordered to close their doors to foreigners, and there's a proposal to classify very potent (over 15% TCH) marijuana as hard drugs.
Things keep changing so who knows what will happen in the next few years.
The situation in the Netherlands is more complicated. Technically it's still illegal, however it's effectively decriminalised for personal use. Small amounts found on you (less than 5 grams) will not be prosecuted. No more than 5 grams may be sold to one person in one transaction. You must be over 18. 'Coffee shops' should not cause any trouble, drugs may not be advertised and the mayor can order a 'coffee shop' to be shut down.
More recently (2012) these coffee shops have also been ordered to close their doors to foreigners, and there's a proposal to classify very potent (over 15% TCH) marijuana as hard drugs.
Things keep changing so who knows what will happen in the next few years.
Does the EU have the equivalent of "feds" in the USA (e.g. DEA) that could catch someone with small amounts of marijuana in the Netherlands and prosecute them not under national law, but under EU law?
Nope. EU doesn't do criminal things. EU tells countries what their criminal systems do. There is Europol (European Police Office) which is only for aiding cooperation between national police forces. It has no powers of arrest, and (most tellingly) it only has 800 staff for a population of half a billion people. Not at all like "the feds".
And I don't think there is any EU law on illegal drugs like that.
And I don't think there is any EU law on illegal drugs like that.
Yep. Netherlands is basically "It's illegal but we don't enforce it". Which I can understand. That's different from "It's illegal and legal". Which sounds crazy...
State/Federal laws and law enforcement.
The price will drop significantly when large scale production occurs. Large scale production will be limited until the legal risks are known and quantified. For the near future federal law will continue to expose investors to a significant risk of imprisonment.
However, expect the price to drop moderately as legal sales expand and small "mom & pop" grow operations are replaced by more efficient moderate sized operations that are willing to accept the risk and have the cash on hand needed to bootstrap.
However, expect the price to drop moderately as legal sales expand and small "mom & pop" grow operations are replaced by more efficient moderate sized operations that are willing to accept the risk and have the cash on hand needed to bootstrap.
> since marijuana is literally a weed, why wouldn't the price eventually drop to something like that of tea?
It will, plus whatever extra for taxes and regulatory compliance. But it will be the same as with fruit, where what you see in stores are the A-grade products, and the B- and C-grade products get turned into food, beverages, industrial materials, etc.
It will, plus whatever extra for taxes and regulatory compliance. But it will be the same as with fruit, where what you see in stores are the A-grade products, and the B- and C-grade products get turned into food, beverages, industrial materials, etc.
The difference that will be interesting is that the relative potency of the two drugs is completely different. At $6 a lb weed, the cost of a joint will be about 4 cents (3 cents for the rolling paper, 1 cent for the weed).
Is medical grade tea a thing? It takes a lot of skill and either great weather or a big investment in indoor growing equipment to grow a single medical plant. Comparing tea and cannabis prices doesn't make much sense.
Now stop that right now! :) I strongly doubt there is any such thing as "medical-grade" marijuana.
"Medical marijuana" refers to pot sold in such as way as to shield the buyer and seller from criminal liability (by requiring a prescription from a health-care provider). No official or semi-official body is holding this medical marijuana to any standard.
Heading off a potential nit: in the last year or two a new strain of pot much lower in THC and much higher in CDB has arrived on the scene, and some doctors are advising some patients to use that strain, but as far as I know, no one refers to that as medical marijuana.
"Medical marijuana" refers to pot sold in such as way as to shield the buyer and seller from criminal liability (by requiring a prescription from a health-care provider). No official or semi-official body is holding this medical marijuana to any standard.
Heading off a potential nit: in the last year or two a new strain of pot much lower in THC and much higher in CDB has arrived on the scene, and some doctors are advising some patients to use that strain, but as far as I know, no one refers to that as medical marijuana.
High CBD/low THC strains are absolutely referred to as MMJ. They're being specifically cultivated and researched for medical uses (especially for epilepsy) in Israel and elsewhere.
Also, calling the "medical" label a legal shield is bizarre. Medical cannabis is, as others commented, high-grade cannabis useful for treating serious conditions and helping cancer, AIDS, MS patients, etc.
I'm sorry but I don't think you are informed on this topic at all.
Also, calling the "medical" label a legal shield is bizarre. Medical cannabis is, as others commented, high-grade cannabis useful for treating serious conditions and helping cancer, AIDS, MS patients, etc.
I'm sorry but I don't think you are informed on this topic at all.
It's no big deal to me, but where I live, California, the phrase "medical marijuana" has been in general use for at least 15 years, with the meaning I indicated, whereas ISTR the high CBD/low THC strains are only about 2 years old.
ADDED. You seem to have taken my comment as an attack on the ability of people with medical problems to get marajuana, but it was not meant that way -- and in fact, I'm for sick people's having that ability -- though I have not made a deep analysis of the issue (and there is a chance that such a deep analysis would change my mind).
I just do not like to see a word that has been used in one way -- by many journalists and commentators and by the general public -- used in a confusingly different way.
ADDED. You seem to have taken my comment as an attack on the ability of people with medical problems to get marajuana, but it was not meant that way -- and in fact, I'm for sick people's having that ability -- though I have not made a deep analysis of the issue (and there is a chance that such a deep analysis would change my mind).
I just do not like to see a word that has been used in one way -- by many journalists and commentators and by the general public -- used in a confusingly different way.
Doesn't 'Medical Grade' just mean high quality? IANAS but there are lots of different levels of quality right?
Like in Pulp Fiction? "That one's a Wild Man."
[deleted]
It just means highly potent, pro grown weed that is suitable for medical use. The expression comes from all those California legal grows who produce AAA weed as compared to shake/brickweed junk you get on the street
> I strongly doubt there is any such thing as "medical-grade" marijuana.
Actually, marijuana contains about 70 different cannabinoids. Different strains contain different ratios of these cannabinoids, and therefore different strains can be more (or less) effective for treating various ailments. Epileptics may require different strains from people suffering from chronic pain, for example.
For people who have very specific medical needs, it is very helpful to have access to specific strains so that they can consume less and still reap the benefits.
Actually, marijuana contains about 70 different cannabinoids. Different strains contain different ratios of these cannabinoids, and therefore different strains can be more (or less) effective for treating various ailments. Epileptics may require different strains from people suffering from chronic pain, for example.
For people who have very specific medical needs, it is very helpful to have access to specific strains so that they can consume less and still reap the benefits.
Here's to the great idea of Federalism, and hoping that Colorado and Washington show everyone else the way forward.
federalism, in reality, is really better exemplified by the unelected federal judges from ivy league law schools who decide the way we live our lives.
That is really what federalism is.
Democracy is what happens when the citizens of colorado and washington create their own laws to live by.
That is really what federalism is.
Democracy is what happens when the citizens of colorado and washington create their own laws to live by.
I believe he was referring to what we call New Federalism, or "states rights".
Colorado, unlike a large number of US states, seems to take crazy things like simple economics and overwhelmingly positive scientific research into account when drafting laws. Here in the south we prefer to use 1950's mores, Jim Crow era law enforcement priorities and 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our laws. Bravo Colorado!
> ...and 3000 year old Judean religious texts...
FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol (still baffled the US ever passed alcohol prohibition) or drugs. I'd argue against prohibition on Christian grounds as well as other grounds.
FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol (still baffled the US ever passed alcohol prohibition) or drugs. I'd argue against prohibition on Christian grounds as well as other grounds.
Your first mistake is in your assumption that Christianity-based legislation and social behavior in general have anything to do with what's in the Bible.
Unsurprisingly, Christians frequently disagree with each other on matters of religion.
If you're going to try to invalidate what I wrote by "people disagree" then justify from the text where it says that drugs should be illegal and punishable by imprisonment.
The fact that there are many christians who do find religious reasons to oppose the consumption of alcohol invalidates what you wrote. You think there is nothing in the bible that is opposed to alcohol, but many people disagree. The existence of those people is the point.
This is your opinion: "FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
This is a fact: "Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
I am not going to defend their beliefs to you; that is a religious discussion that I have absolutely no interest in. I am pointing out that those people do exist.
This is your opinion: "FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
This is a fact: "Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
I am not going to defend their beliefs to you; that is a religious discussion that I have absolutely no interest in. I am pointing out that those people do exist.
This is intellectually lazy reasoning. The existence of people who believe something does not make what they believe true.
Realize that the two statements:
"Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
"...there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
are not necessarily contradictory. People can claim to justify what they believe based on something that doesn't in fact support their beliefs. My point that the Bible doesn't support drug prohibition/imprisonment stands.
Edit: I remain baffled how Christians supported alcohol prohibition when Jesus himself provided alcohol for a party.
Realize that the two statements:
"Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
"...there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
are not necessarily contradictory. People can claim to justify what they believe based on something that doesn't in fact support their beliefs. My point that the Bible doesn't support drug prohibition/imprisonment stands.
Edit: I remain baffled how Christians supported alcohol prohibition when Jesus himself provided alcohol for a party.
You are not getting it. I am not saying they are right. I am saying that they exist.
To them, their religious text do condemn alcohol. Your personal interpretation of the religious texts cannot be taken as fact.
Whether or not they are right is something for you to argue about with other Christians. They think that they are correct just as much as you think that you are correct. Religious bickering, film at '11.
To them, their religious text do condemn alcohol. Your personal interpretation of the religious texts cannot be taken as fact.
Whether or not they are right is something for you to argue about with other Christians. They think that they are correct just as much as you think that you are correct. Religious bickering, film at '11.
There are not. There are no people in the world, not one, who oppose alcohol because they have read the Bible and concluded that the Bible forbids alcohol consumption.
There are people who oppose alcohol for other reasons and who claim the Bible says something other than what it says, but it is nonsense to claim they got their position from the Bible.
There's plenty of evil stupid crazy shit in the Bible, but endorsement of prohibition just isn;t there.
There are people who oppose alcohol for other reasons and who claim the Bible says something other than what it says, but it is nonsense to claim they got their position from the Bible.
There's plenty of evil stupid crazy shit in the Bible, but endorsement of prohibition just isn;t there.
[deleted]
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-states...
My guess is that people in Colorado tend to be more libertarian. They don't want government interference, and at the same time they don't follow the religious culture in the deep south.
My guess is that people in Colorado tend to be more libertarian. They don't want government interference, and at the same time they don't follow the religious culture in the deep south.
There's a little bit of libertarian undercurrent there, but I believe it's more of an emergent phenomenon from the mixing of independent-by-nature left- and right-wing voters. Colorado, with large swaths of rural areas as well as big cities, is rather purple.
Put together left- and right-wing voters, and you get either statism or libertarianism, and Colorado leans towards libertarianism. Or so my theory goes.
Put together left- and right-wing voters, and you get either statism or libertarianism, and Colorado leans towards libertarianism. Or so my theory goes.
IMO both Colorado's right-leaning and left-leaning populations have had a libertarian bent for a long time -- from the "leave us alone" ranchers of Idalia to the "let us be" hippies of Nederland.
With our luck, the fed gov't will announce that states can choose to expand marijuana laws and they will pay for the infrastructure and it'll be just like Medicaid!
- There are no successful clinical trials on marijuana by the FDA.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
Isn't that because it was scheduled as illegal? Circular logic is fun!
Nailed it.
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
- There are no successful clinical trials on marijuana by the FDA.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
A brief use of the Googles turns up:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373545
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24375977
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/mpohbp/asap/abs/mp060...
and many more if you bother to look (also negative impact if you're interested in those!)
Generally you do not do a 'clinical trial' on something that is marked as a schedule 1 substance.
What straw man are you referring to? You implied it had no benefits because it doesn't have clinical trials... It doesn't have clinical trials because it is said to have no benefits (schedule 1)... Circular logic! Magic!
Edit: Quoting parent
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
A brief use of the Googles turns up:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373545
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24375977
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/mpohbp/asap/abs/mp060...
and many more if you bother to look (also negative impact if you're interested in those!)
Generally you do not do a 'clinical trial' on something that is marked as a schedule 1 substance.
What straw man are you referring to? You implied it had no benefits because it doesn't have clinical trials... It doesn't have clinical trials because it is said to have no benefits (schedule 1)... Circular logic! Magic!
Edit: Quoting parent
THC is already legal in pill form with a prescription. Again as I've stated, there are zero successful clinical trials (in the USA or anywhere else) that show smoking marijuana is beneficial. Standard scientific proof requires clinical trials.
THC is already legal in pill form with a prescription. Again as I've stated, there are zero successful clinical trials (in the USA or anywhere else) that show smoking marijuana is beneficial. Standard scientific proof requires clinical trials.
First you never mentioned "smoking" in your parent (I quoted it in my earlier reply for reference).
Second 'clinical trials' are a specific thing. In the words of Inigo Montoya, you keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means.
A clinical trial is only done at a specific stage of clinical research or commercial drug development. Clinical trials are an expensive process that must be paid for by the researcher/company looking to market the drug. You may want to read up on what a clinical trial entails before you insist on it being the only useful scientific metric. Clinical trials are also primarily concerned with safety (it is at least 2 of the phases of the trial).
You may want to reconsider your use of 'clinical trial' in your criticism here.
Edit: Last it seems that you did not even bother to read or comprehend my comment/links before you replied with a comment that attempts to change the subject (smoking vs THC in pill form). That seems like very 'trolly' behavior and I will stop responding if you would not like to actually discuss the subject.
First you never mentioned "smoking" in your parent (I quoted it in my earlier reply for reference).
Second 'clinical trials' are a specific thing. In the words of Inigo Montoya, you keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means.
A clinical trial is only done at a specific stage of clinical research or commercial drug development. Clinical trials are an expensive process that must be paid for by the researcher/company looking to market the drug. You may want to read up on what a clinical trial entails before you insist on it being the only useful scientific metric. Clinical trials are also primarily concerned with safety (it is at least 2 of the phases of the trial).
You may want to reconsider your use of 'clinical trial' in your criticism here.
Edit: Last it seems that you did not even bother to read or comprehend my comment/links before you replied with a comment that attempts to change the subject (smoking vs THC in pill form). That seems like very 'trolly' behavior and I will stop responding if you would not like to actually discuss the subject.
Are there successful clinical trials on M&Ms? We're talking about recreational use here, not prescriptions.
I don't limit my scientific research to US Studies only since the political climate that controls funding is a very important factor. You might also want to research how the DEA and NIDA regularly hinder any applications for research showing the positive benefits of marijuana. I wouldn't equate lack of FDA studies as an indicator of marijuana's positive/negative effects.
What's your vested interest? Drug law enforcement or treating addiction to a non-addictive drug quackery?
FYI, why the man in the current lede photo is, well, at the top of the story: his purchase is a symbolic one, as he's a Iraq War veteran with PTSD http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/1/5263314/Sean-Azzariti-first...
It's disgraceful that our Veterans are treated the way they are. I have a few acquaintance who served several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and the only thing that's allowed them to "reintegrate" back into peaceful civilian life has been illicit cannabis use. They live in Colorado so I'm hoping today is a great one for them.
Does anyone know if Colorado is enforcing seed traceability? That is one of the rules according to Washington's I-502 (http://www.liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/I-502/I-502_Dra... crtl-f "Traceability"). Theoretically, that means the Feds would be able to know where the pot came from if it was found out of state. If implemented effectively, that would negate some of the worry about the product ending up in the wrong hands.
Plants can be grafted one onto another, sometimes cross-species. You can graft Cannabis onto grape vines for example.
Pro-growers can pretty much maintain the exact "same" plant for generations of plants.
Obviously this doesn't change the DNA "fingerprint" of the graft but it just shows the "seed to customer" tracing is a meaningless regulation.
Pro-growers can pretty much maintain the exact "same" plant for generations of plants.
Obviously this doesn't change the DNA "fingerprint" of the graft but it just shows the "seed to customer" tracing is a meaningless regulation.
Indeed, most growers 'clone' their plants as a propagation technique (cuttings). This style, growing a mother plant from seed and then taking hundreds of cuttings which grow into full size plants, ensures consistency and is faster than starting each plant from seed. Growers often swap trimmings rather than seeds, and they're sold in dispensaries.
Our laws are very friendly to the small homegrower, much like our laws on brewing. Nothing legally stops me and you from trading strains and seeds without telling anyone or registering anything. You can give freely if you dont charge, grow 6 plants per adult (3 budding), and all needed equipment is legal too. We've already had our first hemp crop, which was grown for as many seeds as possible, and many more acres are planned for next year. None of those strains are tracked either
The state has implemented a seed-to-sale tracking system called MITS: http://www.mymits.com/
I'd assume that's like how they do tracking for medications--based on the packaging.
I'm curious what happens to the people who were surviving on the cash from selling it illegally.
Some of them are poor slobs. Some of them are organized crime.
Are they just going to try to sell it at a lower price since the police cannot tell where you got it from and might not even care anymore? Tax savings alone radically reduces the price.
Some of them are poor slobs. Some of them are organized crime.
Are they just going to try to sell it at a lower price since the police cannot tell where you got it from and might not even care anymore? Tax savings alone radically reduces the price.
The same profit margins exist for tobacco and alcohol, especially cities like NYC, but there are relatively few bootleggers in both markets. I think the legal risk significantly offsets the increase in price from taxation. But then again, cannabis differs from tobacco and alcohol in many ways in that an underground market has become highly developed. It will indeed be interesting to see...
There's a lot of bootleggers for cigarettes in NYC. I've found many places, mainly in Brooklyn, that sell Virginia cigarettes. Big selections too!
Alcohol flows plentifully and relatively cheaply here though although I hear there are speak easies.
So I guess the moral is, if you tax it so much people are paying exorbitant amounts for it, you may end up creating a bootlegger's market, especially if you don't have to cross any national borders with the product.
Alcohol flows plentifully and relatively cheaply here though although I hear there are speak easies.
So I guess the moral is, if you tax it so much people are paying exorbitant amounts for it, you may end up creating a bootlegger's market, especially if you don't have to cross any national borders with the product.
There's also the consumer component. How many people would buy unbranded non-shrinkwrapped cigarettes off the back of a truck?
As it turns out, plenty!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/nyregion/05loosie.html?pag...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/nyregion/05loosie.html?pag...
They can now get a legal job selling it over the counter. They can get licensed and sell it legally via delivery or whatever (I don't know the regulations). They can leverage their growing operation into a legal business that sells to dispensaries. They can get a job in another field...though, the skills acquired through dealing illegal drugs aren't necessarily very marketable.
I dunno...but, we didn't, as a nation, mourn the end of bootlegging as a career option when alcohol prohibition ended. So, I'm not going to mourn the end of the small-time drug dealer (or the large scale cartel dealers, either).
I dunno...but, we didn't, as a nation, mourn the end of bootlegging as a career option when alcohol prohibition ended. So, I'm not going to mourn the end of the small-time drug dealer (or the large scale cartel dealers, either).
This has already been tested with the medical setup. Many retail buyers continued to purchase their cannabis the way they were before, from their friends. That system had been in place for such a long time that people didn't feel the desire or need to change. Growers also found dispensaries to be a ready new group of wholesale buyers.
When I was in Seattle this summer, there were dozens of people selling it in the park by Pike Place. I asked one of them what he was going to do when recreational marijuana was legalized, and he said "keep sellin'!"
why not? it would be just like selling contraband cigarettes for the small guy. the big shots probably can just move to another market since they have a know how of dealing illegal stuff.
Apparently its way way more cheap to buy it illegally(for now atleast). I am guessing it would not make much difference to those people.
I imagine that since part of the customer base is underage, the illegal market will still exist.
Are there illegal markets for booze and tobacco?
If you can consider random poor people in front of supermarkets and older friends and as illegal markets, then there is.
If you have the right (or wrong, depends on how you view it) friends, then booze will be almost always available. Your friend doesn't necessarily need to be old enough to buy the booze, since if she/he has the contacts to yet older friends then you can understand how the buying circulates trough different levels. This way you don't necessarily need more than one middleman to buy vodka at age of 17.
Tobacco gets usually passed on the same way as booze, but at least in case of snus there are usually known groups which adopt the use. For example, hockey players are known to use snus, so there's high chance that you can buy some from them. And you don't need to know more than one hockey player, as the players know which one of their teammates has the stuff and when.
In cases where some known groups have the substances and the interest to sell them, you could consider it as somewhat centralized market. The people who run the market don't likely think it as one, but that's up to the viewer. After all, the way the liquer and tobacco gets spread may seem like there's no market at all.
If you have the right (or wrong, depends on how you view it) friends, then booze will be almost always available. Your friend doesn't necessarily need to be old enough to buy the booze, since if she/he has the contacts to yet older friends then you can understand how the buying circulates trough different levels. This way you don't necessarily need more than one middleman to buy vodka at age of 17.
Tobacco gets usually passed on the same way as booze, but at least in case of snus there are usually known groups which adopt the use. For example, hockey players are known to use snus, so there's high chance that you can buy some from them. And you don't need to know more than one hockey player, as the players know which one of their teammates has the stuff and when.
In cases where some known groups have the substances and the interest to sell them, you could consider it as somewhat centralized market. The people who run the market don't likely think it as one, but that's up to the viewer. After all, the way the liquer and tobacco gets spread may seem like there's no market at all.
One thing I don't see mentioned here is the illegal tobacco market due to high taxes. You can get cigs from Mexico, or a low-tax state, say, and re-import them into a high-tax state.
This is one of the braking factors on tobacco taxes. It applies to any market -- if the taxes are too high, people will cheat the taxes.
Edit: I see the first link by @munin refers to a Virginia-to-NY cig smuggling scheme.
This is one of the braking factors on tobacco taxes. It applies to any market -- if the taxes are too high, people will cheat the taxes.
Edit: I see the first link by @munin refers to a Virginia-to-NY cig smuggling scheme.
Moonshining is on the rise! In my travels in the south last year, I encountered many people drinking and selling corn whiskey, especially in the form of Apple Pie liquor.
Another anecdote: at my high school there were several people involved in a ring of cigarette carton theft, who would then sell cartons at the school for inflated prices.
Another anecdote: at my high school there were several people involved in a ring of cigarette carton theft, who would then sell cartons at the school for inflated prices.
[deleted]
Not nearly as organized, but yes, absolutely.
Sure, for the under 21&18 crowd.
So, now that pot is legalized, how will the police fill all those costly new jails with black people now?
Criminalize them just for being black?
Criminalize them just for being black?
The black population is just 4.1% of Colorado, vs. the national average of 13.1%
I'm non-US so I dont have any idea where to obtain detailed statistics - but does anyone have data about how many blacks in Colorado are in state/fed jail for pot compared to the whole US?
And as a side question: do private jails exist in Colorado, or is the jail system in state hands?
And as a side question: do private jails exist in Colorado, or is the jail system in state hands?
Federal jail would be a federal thing. There are federal prisons in CO, most notoriously the Supermax in Florence, but they don't put simple drug dealers in there. Federal arrests for pot in CO?
Most recent stats I found are 2010 http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/2010_Colorado_Quick_Facts.pdf Latinos/as account for 17.1% of the population in Colorado, but 31% of the state prison population. • African-Americans make up 3.8% of Colorado’s population, but represent 19.4% of people in state prison. • Anglos are 74.5% of the state’s population, but only 46% of the prison population CO has private prisons too. I think that's nationwide these days, sadly.
Now bear in mind that pot has been de-facto legal in CO for about 4 years already. The Denver PD (largest city in the state) has been de-emphasizing pot enforcement for several years. There's been greater emphasis on other enforcement areas, like domestic violence and drunk driving.
Most recent stats I found are 2010 http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/2010_Colorado_Quick_Facts.pdf Latinos/as account for 17.1% of the population in Colorado, but 31% of the state prison population. • African-Americans make up 3.8% of Colorado’s population, but represent 19.4% of people in state prison. • Anglos are 74.5% of the state’s population, but only 46% of the prison population CO has private prisons too. I think that's nationwide these days, sadly.
Now bear in mind that pot has been de-facto legal in CO for about 4 years already. The Denver PD (largest city in the state) has been de-emphasizing pot enforcement for several years. There's been greater emphasis on other enforcement areas, like domestic violence and drunk driving.
Maybe you should do that research yourself before you spout off about how marijuana legalization in Colorado will drastically affect the racial ratios of imprisoned inmates here.
It's disappointing to see race baiting on HN. Save it for reddit.
I'm sorry if some consider my comment offensive - but it is, at least as tons of reports suggest, the pure truth that vastly more blacks get fucked up by US justice system than white people.
And this is unacceptable for a self-named "world leader".
And this is unacceptable for a self-named "world leader".
Fortunately there's always meth :(
...and a shitload of other drugs. While white people can get away with pretty much anything.
Meth in America is typically stereotyped as a "white" drug. Google "faces of meth" to see what I mean. 29% of white prisoners in Federal prisons report using meth in the month before their arrest., compared to only 1% of black prisoners. Law enforcement efforts targeting methamphetamine use have traditionally targeted rural areas; areas that are traditionally white.
*"The American criminal justice system is rife with racial disparities such a these, according to a report from the Human Rights Watch. But the fight against methamphetamine in Iowa in recent years is thought to be behind a spike in the number of whites imprisoned on drug charges and a decrease in blacks imprisoned on drug offenses, according to the report.“It suggests that law enforcement was increasing its attention to meth and less to other types of drugs … Meth is a ‘by whites, for whites’ drug,’” said Jamie Fellner, senior counsel and author of the report, titled “Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States.”"
http://iowaindependent.com/2431/meth-arrests-likely-behind-l...
Knock it off with your uninformed race-bating.
*"The American criminal justice system is rife with racial disparities such a these, according to a report from the Human Rights Watch. But the fight against methamphetamine in Iowa in recent years is thought to be behind a spike in the number of whites imprisoned on drug charges and a decrease in blacks imprisoned on drug offenses, according to the report.“It suggests that law enforcement was increasing its attention to meth and less to other types of drugs … Meth is a ‘by whites, for whites’ drug,’” said Jamie Fellner, senior counsel and author of the report, titled “Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States.”"
http://iowaindependent.com/2431/meth-arrests-likely-behind-l...
Knock it off with your uninformed race-bating.
More acceptance would presumably result in more clinical trials of cannabis.
I'm aware of some small scale studies which have shown promise for diseases such as IBD (Crohn's/ulcerative colitis). How it stands presently some sections of society (global) suffer unnecessarily.
I'm lead to believe that some substances in cannabis are neuroprotective; This contrasts to something like alcohol, which causes neurological damage.
And from what I've read, it can also inhibit angiogenesis within tumours. Thus, may be legitimately useful against cancer.
It's hard for me to make assertions with sources, as this is merely what I've read over the years. It simply hasn't been worth the time to investigate further, given its legal status. But from what I can gather, outlawing of a drug with low toxicity and potential medical benefit is an absolute travesty for humanity! It's tantamount to low-grade torture by the state on people who have an illness that can be, to some degree, ameliorated. There also seems to be a pandering to special interests (alcohol, tobacco, and the prison industry). And a disregard for people's freedom.
Some may not like the idea of Cannabis being legal, but if it becomes a substitute for alcohol and tobacco, it could turn out to be a health boon (given its low toxicity). Not to mention the saving of lives via a reduction in organised crime.
It's a shame this didn't happen earlier, and in more places!
I'm aware of some small scale studies which have shown promise for diseases such as IBD (Crohn's/ulcerative colitis). How it stands presently some sections of society (global) suffer unnecessarily.
I'm lead to believe that some substances in cannabis are neuroprotective; This contrasts to something like alcohol, which causes neurological damage.
And from what I've read, it can also inhibit angiogenesis within tumours. Thus, may be legitimately useful against cancer.
It's hard for me to make assertions with sources, as this is merely what I've read over the years. It simply hasn't been worth the time to investigate further, given its legal status. But from what I can gather, outlawing of a drug with low toxicity and potential medical benefit is an absolute travesty for humanity! It's tantamount to low-grade torture by the state on people who have an illness that can be, to some degree, ameliorated. There also seems to be a pandering to special interests (alcohol, tobacco, and the prison industry). And a disregard for people's freedom.
Some may not like the idea of Cannabis being legal, but if it becomes a substitute for alcohol and tobacco, it could turn out to be a health boon (given its low toxicity). Not to mention the saving of lives via a reduction in organised crime.
It's a shame this didn't happen earlier, and in more places!
More research seems like a really good side benefit if it happens.
Inhaling burning plant matter is still bad for you. There are alternate means of ingesting the compounds in Marijuana though.
Inhaling burning plant matter is still bad for you. There are alternate means of ingesting the compounds in Marijuana though.
Vaping, edibles, and tea. At least that's what pop culture says.
I'm learning so much from this article/submission!
"This contrasts to something like alcohol, which causes neurological damage"...
Not true, except for long term extremely heavy drinking.
Moderate alcohol consumption is neuroprotective.
Not true, except for long term extremely heavy drinking.
Moderate alcohol consumption is neuroprotective.
I wonder what the web-based POS system they are using in that photo
My employer, MMJMenu :)
[deleted]
Smoking a bowl to celebrate! :-)
A lot of mentions of airports in the first few paragraphs -- no doubt a foreshadow of articles to come on the DOJ.
Finally, I am certain once other states see the revenue they will follow suit in legalization.
We have same in Silicon Valley: http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=medical+marijuana+dispe...
Except in California it's nominally medicinal, and in Colorado it's recreational.
>To skeptics, it marked a grand folly, one they said would lead to higher drug use among teenagers
They don't know what the proper incidence of usage is. Meanwhile, we all need to know why some people become addicts and others don't
They don't know what the proper incidence of usage is. Meanwhile, we all need to know why some people become addicts and others don't
So it looks like there may be chronic price increases, at least until some kind shop owners open up. Once the stores start spreading like weeds, prices should come down.
US invasion imminent.
in this discussion in the media, out of all the millions of words that are going to be written about pot legalization in WA and CO over the next few weeks, how many words are going to be devoted to the fact that in the states of washington and colorado pot was legalized because the citizens of those states are able to create their own laws?
Very few words will be devoted to that aspect of it, and those corporate media articles that do discuss it will speak negatively of it.
And because the media will not bring it up much, neither will comments online do so.
Well, except for my comments.
Very few words will be devoted to that aspect of it, and those corporate media articles that do discuss it will speak negatively of it.
And because the media will not bring it up much, neither will comments online do so.
Well, except for my comments.
They are hardly unique in that regard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_...
(They both have direct and indirect initiative statutes, but plenty of other states have one or the other (with more states having the direct initiative, which is probably closest to your "citizens of those states are able to create their own laws"))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_...
(They both have direct and indirect initiative statutes, but plenty of other states have one or the other (with more states having the direct initiative, which is probably closest to your "citizens of those states are able to create their own laws"))
The initiative process will continue to be problematic until it is restricted by the necessity of providing funding for any expenditures it mandates. Witness California.
BC Liberals listen up! BC bud is the last good thing remaining besides the shit job market and housing bubble. Take note of the Southern brethrens and emulate, tax, pay off the Olympic debt. If Vancouver does not do this, all the tech people will leave!
It will be very interesting to see the numbers in the next 5 years. Numbers of those who smoke pot vs who don't. Lets see how successful financially each group are. How much they contribute to society. It will also be interesting to see which group goes further in school or their career. Which group turns out more long term "happy" people. Which group breaks more laws ETC.
I already know the answers to all of these questions, but it will interesting to see it become a provable, statistical reality.
I already know the answers to all of these questions, but it will interesting to see it become a provable, statistical reality.
What are the answers? Is there a back of the book? Give up the goods!
This (OP) is one of the funniest HN submissions I've ever seen for comments. What does this have to do with HN?
This (OP) is one of the funniest HN submissions I've ever seen for comments. What does this have to do with HN?
It's cool that you know before you've seen the numbers. Perhaps you could share the answer for us non-prophets. Also, what other wisdom can you impart?
>> "“This is our dream,” said Kirstin Knouse, 24, who flew here from Chicago with her husband, Tristan, to take their first-ever marijuana vacation."
And there's some people already ruining it. I believe Amsterdam had this same problem. Drug tourism is not something cities want for many obvious reasons.
And there's some people already ruining it. I believe Amsterdam had this same problem. Drug tourism is not something cities want for many obvious reasons.
I understand the sentiment, but you forgot to include the rest of the paragraph:
>> She said that she suffered from seizures and fibromyalgia, and her husband from post-traumatic stress, but that the couple had not been able to get medical marijuana at home. “We’re thinking about moving here because of it,” she said.
Maybe they're just making up excuses, but doesn't sound like these are a couple of 20 year olds just looking to get high in the middle of the day.
>> She said that she suffered from seizures and fibromyalgia, and her husband from post-traumatic stress, but that the couple had not been able to get medical marijuana at home. “We’re thinking about moving here because of it,” she said.
Maybe they're just making up excuses, but doesn't sound like these are a couple of 20 year olds just looking to get high in the middle of the day.
Not that there's nothing wrong with that either.
Agreed.
I have a MMJ card in CA because it helps with some nerve pain I have. Half the time I use it it's a tiny amount to get me through the next couple hours (placebo or not it works well especially for the trivial cost) and half the time it's to get so high at night that I stop caring about it and hopefully get at least a few hours of uninterrupted sleep in. The benefits of the latter are severely underrated when you deal with chronic pain.
Not to mention I have no idea why society has a double standard with casual marijuana use especially given the use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, prescription drug abuse, and more out there. I'm trying to drink less alcohol as part of my weight loss plan for my wedding and it really shocked me to realize that people around me easily kill a bottle of wine per person at a single dinner on top of drinking cocktails, beer and straight liquor... and that my restraining myself to 1-2 alcoholic drinks a week is crazy in comparison. Some of my friends persistently bother me for Adderall that I never give away because I barely have enough of for myself. Et cetera. Weed is pretty harmless in comparison I would think.
I have a MMJ card in CA because it helps with some nerve pain I have. Half the time I use it it's a tiny amount to get me through the next couple hours (placebo or not it works well especially for the trivial cost) and half the time it's to get so high at night that I stop caring about it and hopefully get at least a few hours of uninterrupted sleep in. The benefits of the latter are severely underrated when you deal with chronic pain.
Not to mention I have no idea why society has a double standard with casual marijuana use especially given the use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, prescription drug abuse, and more out there. I'm trying to drink less alcohol as part of my weight loss plan for my wedding and it really shocked me to realize that people around me easily kill a bottle of wine per person at a single dinner on top of drinking cocktails, beer and straight liquor... and that my restraining myself to 1-2 alcoholic drinks a week is crazy in comparison. Some of my friends persistently bother me for Adderall that I never give away because I barely have enough of for myself. Et cetera. Weed is pretty harmless in comparison I would think.
It's been an open secret for years. The Denver Post published stats a couple years ago that showed that around 80% of the red card holders in CO were men age 25 and younger. If you remember from the health care debate, this is the healthiest population around.
It was dead simple to get a red card - go into one of the many shops advertising an on site doc, complain of chronic back pain (or PTSD if a veteran), and there you go. The hardest problem was finding a shop taking new patients, as the MMJ law capped the number of patients per provider.
It was dead simple to get a red card - go into one of the many shops advertising an on site doc, complain of chronic back pain (or PTSD if a veteran), and there you go. The hardest problem was finding a shop taking new patients, as the MMJ law capped the number of patients per provider.
I skimmed the article and have to admit I missed that part. My issue was tourism for the sake of getting high - which clearly doesn't apply here.
Napa and Sonoma don't seem to mind the alcohol tourism.
Not really an equivalent scenario. If all you want to do is get drunk, there's no reason to go to Napa to do it, so while the average level of intoxication is probably higher, it's much less so that it would be if it was the only place you could legally buy alcohol.
It's not just a few coffee shops, Colorado and Washington are big states. They will very much welcome tourism and the dollars that brings in. The cannabis cup was already in Denver and I don't recall hearing complaints about all the money it brought to Colorado.
Agreed. If CO (not sure about WA's law) didn't want the tourism they wouldn't have made provisions allowing non-residents to purchase.
To be fair, if all you want to do is get high, there's no reason to go to Colorado to do it.
I think wine country is a pretty good analogy.
I think wine country is a pretty good analogy.
Actually, this is the opposite of ruining it.
Cities love to have tourists come, spend money, use hotels, etc
Cities love to have tourists come, spend money, use hotels, etc
Yes but people who come explicitly for the drugs don't tend to be the best tourists. While not everyone will cause trouble there will undoubtedly be a few. It just depends on whether the towns are happy to put up with a few stoned idiots roaming the streets causing trouble for the extra money it brings in from the people not causing trouble.
> Yes but people who come explicitly for the drugs don't tend to be the best tourists.
This is a jingoistic view of "drug users" that really needs to die. Marijuana "users" are normal people -- with a slim majority supporting marijuana legalization and a significant fraction of that openly admitting marijuana use, the old stoner/loser stereotype is hopefully on its last legs. Paul Bucheit's comment above is really right on the nose.
This is a jingoistic view of "drug users" that really needs to die. Marijuana "users" are normal people -- with a slim majority supporting marijuana legalization and a significant fraction of that openly admitting marijuana use, the old stoner/loser stereotype is hopefully on its last legs. Paul Bucheit's comment above is really right on the nose.
> It just depends on whether the towns are happy to put up with a few stoned idiots roaming the streets causing trouble for the extra money it brings in from the people not causing trouble.
Most places already allow bars, so this is something they have to deal with anyway.
Most places already allow bars, so this is something they have to deal with anyway.
Perhaps there will be an issue with local convenience stores running out of snacks, but I don't imagine marijuana vacations to be very raucous affairs. Also, marijuana isn't exactly rare or expensive anywhere in the US, odds are if you're going to get on a plane and head to Colorado for weed you will also spend a lot of dollars on other stuff. It should be a great boon for the economies of CO and WA.
The short time I spent in Amsterdam makes me agree with you. Stoned (and other highs), wondering around acting inappropriately and causing trouble.
And drunks? We all seem to ignore the droves of them wandering around causing trouble. I've never had anyone high on weed bother me for anything but cookies.. drunks on the other hand, tend to be violent &/or obnoxious, destructive, and much more.
The drunks were just as bad, however they are fairly bad everywhere in my experience. There was just an added layer of trouble. The guy trying to sell me a dolphin was memorable...
The laws that explicitly mention out-of-area residents might make people think otherwise.
I have a feeling there are going to be people who ruin it for everyone else.