420

30 comments

• Digitech

  •

  11 years ago

  This sure is getting a lot of hype and news coverage. My hunch is that in the long run it won't really be a big deal. Kind of like the brothels in Nevada. Hardly anyone in the mainstream talks about that.
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  For anyone about to make the statement that marijuana is still against federal law please note... A couple months ago the feds did come in and bust some medical marijuana shops and left others alone. They did not reveal the details of their investigation but it was suspected that there was a connection between those shops and drug cartels. Laws are in place to be able to track marijuana from seed to sale
• gawker

  •

  11 years ago

  All states have laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors and yet teenagers have no trouble getting it. 50 years ago when I was 18 I had an ID saying I was 22. Teenagers have been smoking weed illegally everywhere for decades. Now, with the variety and potency assured by the state, teenagers will be using/consuming/eating/smoking weed and one wonders about the impact on adolescents whose brains are still in a formative stage and learning is interrupted by the THC in the weed. 75 years ago it was legal. My father smoked weed and drank alcohol during prohibition. So it's nothing new, but the potency and proliferation will be interesting to watch.
• shadowcat

  •

  11 years ago

  I have to wonder about it's use in strip clubs. Will there be topless with marijuana and totally nude without it?
• Alucard

  •

  11 years ago

  It's still a FEDERAL CRIME.
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  ^^^fuck you
• ilbbaicnl

  •

  11 years ago

  I would guess the limits on where you can smoke tobacco will also apply to pot. I wonder if there will be tobacco smokers that will object to pot being smoked in the smoking room/porch.
• Dougster

  •

  11 years ago

  WTG Colorado! One of the best states out there!
• toysales

  •

  11 years ago

  Didn't Washington State pass something similar last year?
• motorhead

  •

  11 years ago

  Oregon passed a law that went into effect Jan 1 prohibits smoking in a car with a child inside. I have mixed feelings. Both my parents smoked and I hated being trapped in a smoke-filled car. But laws like this make me very nervous. What's next? And it's only a secondary offense. Cops can only ticket you if they already pulled you over for something else - like speeding. If it's important, then don't make it a secondary law.
• skibum609

  •

  11 years ago

  I noticed that the estimate at present is that weed will cost 50-60 per 1/8 oz. That is unless demand makes it more scarce and drives the price up. That works out to about 400 - 480 per ounce. I am right now paying $350 per ounce so why on earth would I want it to be legalized?
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  @toysales...Washington state may have passed a law allowing medical use. Colorado has allowed medical use for quite a while now and is the first to allow recreational use. @ skibum...why not get a medical card so you can grow it yourself for way cheaper?
• Dougster

  •

  11 years ago

  I don't know the exact details in WA, but I believe that possession of MJ is decriminalized for everyone in WA - not just medicinal users.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  11 years ago

  Alucard, as I've pointed out, and you've ignored, before, the Constitutional issue concerning whether the feds have jurisdiction when THE PRODUCTION, SALE AND USE OF MARIJUANA ALL HAPPEN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE is far from settled. The feds decided they had jurisdiction because of the interstate commerce clause, but if there is no interstate commerce involved, the individual States have a *very* good case for telling the feds to take a flying leap. In addition, in one of the more intelligent decisions he's made, President Obama has already informed his Justice Department that they won't be investigating or prosecuting these types of completely internal cases. That may be good enough to set precedent, even if his successors don't particularly like it. I believe this whole thing will show more people that there really is no more harm in MJ than there is with alcohol, less when you consider that there are no documented cases of anyone toking themselves to death. It won't be easy, and expect at least *some* attempts from BATFEces, DEA and Homeland Security to extend their jurisdictions where they don't belong, but I expect the trend to continue, even if it takes another 20 years or more.
• jackslash

  •

  11 years ago

  I don't know why weed is illegal. It seems to be less dangerous than alcohol for users and for the general public. Even though weed is illegal in Michigan, it is easy to get. My ex-ATF moved from one Detroit suburb to another, losing her dealer. She walked into a local bar, asked some patrons, and got hooked up in 20 minutes.
• SlickSpic

  •

  11 years ago

  It's Colorado rocky mountain high I've seen it rainin' fire in the sky Friends around the campfire and everybody's high Rocky mountain high
• ilbbaicnl

  •

  11 years ago

  @gmd the feds did an end-run around constitutional limits of their power when they forced all the states to raise the drinking age to 21. They did it by threatening to cut off federal highway funds. Interesting they haven't tried this ploy on Colorado (so far).
• georgmicrodong

  •

  11 years ago

  @ilbbaicnl: I don't expect anything to happen before the next presidential election. It *might* be an issue then, depending on the results, and the makeup of Congress at the time. Colorado appears to be blue now, but hasn't always been so, and might switch back. However, I think that unless the Republicans field someone much more classically Republican-like than the last couple of times, there's little danger of a Republican President in the near future. I don't think even the ACA is going to derail the next democrat, because there will be *enough* "good" results that most people will ignore the bad, just like they do for welfare, medicare/medicaid and social security, that it's here to stay. Those who do continue to oppose it will be labeled "extremist", regardless of how accurate they actually are, and will become non-factors.
• dallas702

  •

  11 years ago

  GMD, I do so hope you are wrong. I cannot imagine any "good" results from ACA since my reading (yes, I did read the entire thing) indicated that the law is about 1.>forcing insurance companies to offer only a very limited spread of coverage, 2.>forcing states to dramatically increase the number of people on Medicaid, 3.>forcing everyone with a paycheck to buy bad coverage, 4.>taxing everyone with a paycheck about a dozen different ways, 5.>forcing most independent general practice doctors out of business, 6.>taxing medical suppliers, 7.>providing billions in earmarks for every democrat who voted for the ACA. Fully implemented, the ACA might cause the US government to follow Detroit into bankruptcy. I cannot imagine a Democrat elected to the White House in 2016 without her (or him) endorsing and supporting ACA. That scares me!
• georgmicrodong

  •

  11 years ago

  @dallas702: I don't precisely disagree with much of what you wrote. My point was that by the time the next presidential election rolls around, and maybe by the time the next congressional one does (though that's more doubtful consider that some of the more onerous requirements have been delayed), the good *results* will start coming in, and people will either willfully ignore, or attempt to gloss over all the evil that is inherent in *any* program that depends on forcing productive people to do things in the way that the unproductive and non-contributing people want them to be done. And make no mistake, some good *will* come of this bill. Because they actually have coverage, more people will tend to get preventative care than would before, and somewhere, some sick child won't lose coverage because dad lost his job, and so will live rather than die. In the public's eye, that will be good, because everybody and his brother will insist that we all have to sacrifice for the good of society as a whole (a contemptible lie), etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The fact that underemployment will go up as unemployment goes down will be lost on people. The fact that companies with 51 employees will downsize to 49 will be ignored. The fact that Wal-Mart will reduce the hours of it's 30 plus hour per week employees to 29 and less, and *maybe* hire a few more to make up for it will be used against *Wal-Mart* instead of against the retards that passed the law giving them the option of doing precisely that. All of those bad things, even ignoring the assault on liberty that tells an insurance company how to do business (fascist, anyone), will be glossed over, even by the Republicans, because anybody who objects to a sick child or poverty stricken family getting the health care they need will be a sick bastard. And lets not forget that significant portions of what is now know as "Obamacare" were originally forged by the Republicans in Newt Gingrich's time. In fact, the individual mandate, the piece that appears to be one of the more *minor* sticking points in this version, was largely responsible for it's death back then. No, the Republicans won't openly oppose the ACA, at least not in general. They may begin to migrate towards trying to modify it so that it favors the insurance companies more than the poor, but once a government program like this is instituted, it won't go away as along as the politicians can use it to further their own prosperity.
• ilbbaicnl

  •

  11 years ago

  The problem with the US health care system is that neither party wants to face facts, they just argue over which brand of denial is better. The Republicans just want to throw up their hands and say if people can't get their health care covered, well, the market has spoken, too bad. The Democrats want to ignore a couple of facts: 1) If you largely remove the market as a constraint on health care costs, you need other realistic constraints, and 2) if there's no limit on the subsidy of unhealthy behavior, that creates perverse incentives. If someone needs to have their health care subsidized by taxes, they should accept cost-cutting measures. Like maybe having a PA/NP rather than an MD as their general practitioner. And better cost-benefit analysis of treatments. A huge portion of health care spending is on desperate treatments in the last few weeks of a person's life, that often just contribute to a torturous death. The ACA forces higher premiums for young people to reduce the premiums of older people. That only makes sense so the it can be claimed that the ACA (technically) does not involve large tax increases.
• sharkhunter

  •

  11 years ago

  I'm concerned with the possibility of illegal smoking in strip clubs and my work place doing drug testing and failing a test due to heavy second hand smoke. Right now that doesn't happen where I live. However I could imagine it becoming an issue for someone especially if they lose their job just because of second hand smoke. If it just got legalized everywhere, it would not be a concern but I would still like it restricted to private use.
• sharkhunter

  •

  11 years ago

  I forgot most of the educational stuff about drugs way back in High School.
• Alucard

  •

  11 years ago

  ^^^ Don't go into a club that allows smoking of any sort. ESPECIALLY smoking that is a Federal Crime or may cost you your job.
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  @ sharkhunter...i don't think that will be an issue...smoking weed in sc's. In Colorado smoking tobacco is banned in all restaurants and bars unless they have a specific license to operate as a cigar bar. In most places you would have to go outside to smoke. I am sure weed would be treated similar. Right now you are only allowed to consume marijuana in private as I described above. Your back yard, balcony or front porch was deemed your private area when law makers were figuring this all out. That is how it stands as of now. This is still all very new and law makers have been scrambling to come up with regulation legislation for the past 1+ year. There is still a long way to go. I will keep everyone posted as events developed.
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  I will keep everyone posted as to how this all impacts crime also. So far when medical marijuana dispensaries have filed to obtain licensing to sell for recreational use neighboring businesses have supported dispensaries in their neighborhoods. They are glad to have them because of reduction in crime in those areas. Reduction? Yes. Dispensaries are not allowed to have bank accounts because of how banking laws are written so they cannot accept credit cards. It is currently a cash only business. That being the fact customers all have cash and the businesses have lots of cash on hand most of the time so security is tight. Lots of video servailance inside and out. None of the thugs want their faces on camera doing illegal things so crime is minimal in areas where these businesses are. Marijuana is cleaning up neighborhoods
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  @ alturd...go smoke a bowl and chill out
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  Colorado also has many marijuana refugees. Many people who have kids with polio are comming here. They have found that hash oil greatly reduces seizures in kids with polio. Some have reduced seizures by 75 % or more when traditional medicine has done very little. Because ofthis scientists have rreceived grants to do research on how hash oil affects on polio.
• crazyjoe

  •

  11 years ago

  I wonder if they should do research on the affects on aspergers syndrome
• sofaking87

  •

  11 years ago

  Sounds like Colorado is turning into a hippie state.