Pot

JakeStratham

New member
Oct 28, 2009
2,641
177
0
Location, Location
A brief history:

Awhile back, the state of Washington voted to legalize the sale of pot. That of course didn't mean dealers could immediately start slinging from the corners. They had to get a license.

Today:

According to the NYT, the first licenses are being issued (and most applications are still being denied for various reasons).


POTSHOPS-1-master675.jpg



The article provided a couple of chuckle-worthy comments...

Mr. Larson, 67, who was talked into the venture by his children, said he had never tried marijuana, and, in fact, voted against legalizing it in 2012. But as a business idea — well, that’s different.

“If people were dumb enough to vote it in, I’m all for it,” he said over a cup of coffee near his shop here in southern Washington, just across the Columbia River from Portland, Ore. “There’s a demand, and I have a product.”

Public Education: Employing Principled People Since 1644


Low supply in turn means high prices, at least at first, with an ounce — should anyone even be able to buy one — expected to cost at least $400. That is much more than a buyer would typically pay on the black market here in Washington

In the past, I've mentioned how relying on empiricism to validate ideas is problematic. Too many unknown variables influence outcomes, and thus it's impossible to identify causal relationships between events. So you can probably imagine a politician saying 10 years from now: "we legalized pot 10 years ago and the price remains high. Moreover, there's still a black market. So obviously legalization didn't work."



Personally, I think legalization of pot is a step in the wrong direction. I've explained my reasons in the past, so won't bore you with them here. In any event, it's a brave new world. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unarmed Gunman


I'll just leave this here:

Denver Still Not Overrun By Lawless Zombie Stoners, After 5 Months Of Legal Weed Sales

Why are you against legalization anyway? I haven't smoked myself in probably 8 years, but I could care less if someone else enjoys it. Who am I to say what they should or shouldn't put in their body? I know I get quite pissy when people try telling me what I should / shouldn't do.

It's hardly a harmful substance anyway. You don't hear about many stoned guys (off weed) beating their wives or kids, but drunk guys do it constantly.

Not to mention, wasting tax payers money to criminalize weed (and fuel a black market economy for it, which does actually harm people) is just simply retarded.
 
A couple weekends ago we had a mass check of drivers to get a "base level" of stoned drivers.

If you were high they'd give you a free cab ride home and not charge you. They wanted to determine the base line of how many people are driving stoned.

Now there are tons of warnings about "Drive high, get a dui".

We've had retail dispensaries for years, but you have to have a bogus medical card, now there are ads in the paper offering free delivery with no medical card required.

The dankest weed at the dispensaries is $10/gram. Kief is $15/gram, hash ranges from $15-$35/gram and wax/shatter is $50/gram.
 
A couple weekends ago we had a mass check of drivers to get a "base level" of stoned drivers.

If you were high they'd give you a free cab ride home and not charge you. They wanted to determine the base line of how many people are driving stoned.

Now there are tons of warnings about "Drive high, get a dui".

They have a test now for whether or not you're high? How does that work?

I always thought it was impossible? You can't tell if someone is stoned on not like you can with a breathalyzer. Well, you can tell if someone is stoned, but you can't obtain evidence about it. They can force you to take a piss test for THC, but that doesn't prove anything for the time in question when you were pulled over.

Is there maybe new technology out there nowadays? I'm guessing not, and assuming that's why nobody was getting charged during their little campaign. Was just scare tactics. They can't arrest you for being high behind the wheel, because there's no evidence to prove it in court.
 
surely you're joking

Right now marijuana is regulated in the sense that it's illegal. What they're doing now by "legalizing" it is still regulation, but now they've gained a monopoly on who can sell it (like in the OP story), they can siphon off taxes with it (and thus grow even more) along with a whole slew of other rules/restrictions/regulations I'm sure are to come out..

Ideally it'd be something that's unregulated/deregulated. Anyone can produce, use and sell so as long as they're not initiating force against others. End of story, no state involvement, etc..

^--I imagine this is what he's referring to..

The one massive positive in legalization is the decriminalization aspect; people who smoke or sell marijuana won't be thrown in jail. *That* is a step in the right direction, but the nanny state involvement is still undesirable.
 
Is there maybe new technology out there nowadays? Or just scare tactics?

This was just put out a few days ago.. They want to push through legislation that allows them to draw blood on the scene.

Marijuana legalization: A trojan horse for the advancement of the police state? | The Free Thought Project

And this..

During Independence Day weekend, a time to celebrate US freedom and unalienable rights, Americans in Oregon will be subjected to a “blitz” of ‘no-refusal’ blood-draw checkpoints, as part of a disturbing trend that now extends nationwide.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/da...mple-warrants-30-minutes/#0ryjJu1p3WrWqt07.99
 
surely you're joking

dreamache nailed it.

To add to his post, consider that alcohol and cigarettes are legal. You can consume both only according to what your masters decree, and in fear of penalty or censure for doing otherwise. Use, distribution, and sale are tightly regulated, severely limiting your ability to act of your own accord.

Worse, the use, distribution, and sale of alcohol and cigarettes can be further regulated and taxed based on others' agendas.

Legalization is often misconstrued as the removal of laws. That's a very populist notion. But it is entirely wrongheaded. In fact, additional laws are passed to "make an act legal."

Contrast this to breathing (perhaps a silly example, but bear with me). We do not need laws to breathe. Moreover, breathing is not regulated; we can do it whenever and wherever we want.

That is freedom. Legalization of an act is a further stripping of freedom.
 

They already got it through with the new law.....a cop can request a blood sample on the spot. I wanna say they have a trained nurse come do it, but needless to say you now have to give blood or lose your license.


With recreational use of pot now legal in the state, in the first six months of this year 745 drivers stopped by police tested positive for THC. For all of last year, about 1,000 test positive for THC, the active drug in marijuana.

Over half of those were over the state's new legal limit of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood.

In Washington state, where recreational marijuana use is legal and a per se driving law has been passed, a growing number of drivers are testing positive for marijuana. According to the Associated Press, a State Patrol spokesman said the increase might be because "we're testing blood we didn't test before."
 
Just got in a new shipment of tinfoil hats.... Since we're all gay webmasters I'll give you guys 50% off.