Marijuana Ruling Could Signal End of Prohibition on Pot

[Mad Scientist]

I can tell you this........ It will NEVER be legal on my property, in my car, or in my home.

And it's your Right and a Home and Land Owner to have it that way.

 

[MikeK]

Exactly. What about prescription drugs? Do kids get into parents pretty little pills, Valium or Vicatin or Viagra? Sure they can.

But not as easily and as assuredly as they will go after candy. There needs to be some form of emphatic "lock and key" warning about pot edibles -- especially candy and cakes.

 

[Darlene]

Many edibles look exactly like legal candy

They likely taste the same, too. That's what makes it so insidious. At least with alcohol the taste will deter the unsuspecting. Anyone poisons me with pot may suffer death as retribution.

You should probably be locked up for being a mental case.

Actually, you just need to calm down a little...smoke a bowl or something!

I'm pretty sure that if anyone wants to poison anyone else, the last thing they'd choose is THC.

Rat poison is much cheaper.

Marijuana has never directly caused a single death in recorded history. You can't die from THC poisoning. And I've had edibles before. You can taste the difference.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well Yeah. Just think of all the regulations, fines and taxes they are missing out on.

*****************************************************************



It's legal to light up in Colorado and Washington, and soon smoking pot could be legalized across the country following a decision Thursday by the federal government.

After Washington state and Colorado passed laws in November 2012 legalizing the consumption and sale of marijuana for adults over 18, lawmakers in both states waited to see whether the federal government would continue to prosecute pot crimes under federal statutes in their states.

Both Colorado and Washington have been working to set up regulatory systems in order to license and tax marijuana growers and retail sellers, but have been wary of whether federal prosecutors would come after them for doing so. They are the first states to legalize pot, and therefore to go through the process of trying to set up a regulatory system.

Consumption and sale of marijuana is still illegal in all other states, though some cities and towns have passed local laws decriminalizing it or making it a low priority for law enforcement officers. There are also movements in many states to legalize pot, including legalization bills introduced in Maine and Rhode Island, discussion of possible bills in states including Massachusetts and Vermont, and talk of ballot initiatives in California and Oregon.

But on Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it would not prosecute marijuana crimes that were legal under state law, a move that could signal the end of the country's longtime prohibition on pot is nearing. "It certainly appears to be potentially the beginning of the end," said Paul Armantano, deputy director of the pot lobby group NORML.

Marijuana Ruling Could Signal End of Prohibition on Pot

That is one gigantic leap of faith from the feds will not prosecute in a legal state to it will soon be legal everywhere.

It is a leap of faith. Until Fed laws are actually change.. The good news is --- the stoner contingent of Big Government leftists might learn why the 10th Amendment is so important and why State sovereignty isn't an 18th Century notion..

 

[flacaltenn]

Exactly. What about prescription drugs? Do kids get into parents pretty little pills, Valium or Vicatin or Viagra? Sure they can.

But not as easily and as assuredly as they will go after candy. There needs to be some form of emphatic "lock and key" warning about pot edibles -- especially candy and cakes.

Betcha a juicy roach that MOST of those folks making edible candies and foods out of cannabis still HATE the tobacco companies for candy cigarettes and Joe Camel.. Watch for the hypocrisy circus to come to a town near yours..

 

[Samson]

Agreed. While I like the THC candy, I'm concerned about kids getting into it, or kids giving it to other kids, etc.

Unlike EtOH, where you can immediately feel the effect (and, if relevant, the taste), THC takes longer to have an effect. Weather you're an adult or kid, you really don't feel the effect of edible THC while you are ingesting it. Once you DO FEEL it, its really too late to stop.

My experience was with a 75 mg chocolate bar, "Rocky Mountain High." Ate the whole thing waiting for a red-light to change. 4 hours later, holy shit! Paranoia, hallucinations, weird, unpleasant stuff. On the other hand, I've also drunk too much tequila with different, but unpleasant results. The main difference was the hangover: TCH = NONE; EtOH sick the WHOLE WEEKEND.

I've discovered that 30 mg gets me to my "happy place." Each candy contains 10 mg THC. Usually there are 10 candy's per container, and the containers are sold within a child-resistant container.

Is there any prominent warning about delayed effect on the packaging? My impression of the packaging I've seen on tv and in photos (such as the above) is this casual availability will inevitably result in problems which will serve the interest of the Reefer Madness cult.

How about that chocolate bar? No explicit warning to nibble and wait?

I don't really recall seeing the small print, but it could have been there

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Well Yeah. Just think of all the regulations, fines and taxes they are missing out on.

*****************************************************************



It's legal to light up in Colorado and Washington, and soon smoking pot could be legalized across the country following a decision Thursday by the federal government.

After Washington state and Colorado passed laws in November 2012 legalizing the consumption and sale of marijuana for adults over 18, lawmakers in both states waited to see whether the federal government would continue to prosecute pot crimes under federal statutes in their states.

Both Colorado and Washington have been working to set up regulatory systems in order to license and tax marijuana growers and retail sellers, but have been wary of whether federal prosecutors would come after them for doing so. They are the first states to legalize pot, and therefore to go through the process of trying to set up a regulatory system.

Consumption and sale of marijuana is still illegal in all other states, though some cities and towns have passed local laws decriminalizing it or making it a low priority for law enforcement officers. There are also movements in many states to legalize pot, including legalization bills introduced in Maine and Rhode Island, discussion of possible bills in states including Massachusetts and Vermont, and talk of ballot initiatives in California and Oregon.

But on Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it would not prosecute marijuana crimes that were legal under state law, a move that could signal the end of the country's longtime prohibition on pot is nearing. "It certainly appears to be potentially the beginning of the end," said Paul Armantano, deputy director of the pot lobby group NORML.

Marijuana Ruling Could Signal End of Prohibition on Pot

That is one gigantic leap of faith from the feds will not prosecute in a legal state to it will soon be legal everywhere.

It is a leap of faith. Until Fed laws are actually change.. The good news is --- the stoner contingent of Big Government leftists might learn why the 10th Amendment is so important and why State sovereignty isn't an 18th Century notion..

It has been rare finding national leaders to support legalization, and nationwide legal pot is one of the most unlikely of events in the near future.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Dana! I'm not arguing that people SHOULDN'T have the right to policies that represent them.

What I'm saying is the people OPPOSED should EQUALLY not have to PAY for consequences
of legalizing marijuana they don't believe in either!

I'm saying people's beliefs/opinions/interests should be treated EQUALLY.

So the problem remains: if you criminalize it, that imposes on one side that doesn't believe in paying those costs. If you legalize it, that imposes on the OTHER side that doesn't want to pay the costs of that choice/freedom.

I believe the key is to decriminalize it, but set up means to hold local districts and/or cities/states
responsible for handling the costs that the sides don't agree on paying for.

Example: If the people in a district agree to pay for all costs of health care or welfare for people whose health or behavior is directly or indirectly correlated or associated with regular marijuana use, or addiction, etc. then that takes the burden off the people who don't want to pay for what they believe is chosen irresponsible behavior.

I think that is fair. There are nonaddictive nonrisky ways to treat diseases or conditions WITHOUT opening the door to chronic or addictive use of marijuana and charging that to the taxpayers.

For the cases of illegal drug abuse, I would charge the costs to the abusers who rack up the debts or damages caused by their own behavior and not charge the taxpayers. if people want it legalized so badly, they are willing to pay these costs, that's fine.

I believe people SHOULD pay for the costs of their beliefs, just like if you believe in worshipping through Catholic or Hindu or Buddhist practices, yes these should be legalized choices, but the costs should not be imposed on the public. You should pay for that yourself, and not expect Muslims or Hindus to pay for each other's policies.

Since this is a matter of whether or not people BELIEVE there is harm caused, then it is a social or political "belief," so until this is proven in a way people agree to accept (not forced, since govt cannot force beliefs on anyone), then it should remain optional to pay for depending if people believe in one way or another.

I don't agree with FORCING it by law, and that is where this conflict goes around and around.
People are NOT recognizing both beliefs are valid, and they are NOT recognizing the need to separate how to pay for the consequences of either policy.

Both sides keep pushing THEIR way on the other and expect all people to follow and pay for it.
Same problem BTW with abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, etc. People are not figuring out that you cannot change or force political beliefs on people through govt any more than you can with religious beliefs.

I hope people figure it out, because this is getting old and expensive to keep fighting over
when it is not going to be reoslved by forcing it.

The main problem I see is
* the taxpayers who don't approve of or believe in the unnecessary use of marijuana recreationally
don't want to pay for health problems, irresponsible behavior, risks or causes of accidents from addictions related, etc.
* the taxpayers who WANT the freedom and don't want to pay for wasteful drug wars and excessive law enforcement on nonviolent issues, don't agree to pay for the consequences of it being illegal!

So if there is no way to separate the costs and responsibilities, what do you do?
How can you enforce one way without imposing on the taxpayers who don't want to pay for the consequences of that way?

With religions, you can separate what people practice and pay for.

How do you do that with marijuana use and/or distribution and access which affects the general population?
How can you protect people's rights and interests in NOT paying for things they don't believe in? Either way?

Well Yeah. Just think of all the regulations, fines and taxes they are missing out on.

*****************************************************************



It's legal to light up in Colorado and Washington, and soon smoking pot could be legalized across the country following a decision Thursday by the federal government.

After Washington state and Colorado passed laws in November 2012 legalizing the consumption and sale of marijuana for adults over 18, lawmakers in both states waited to see whether the federal government would continue to prosecute pot crimes under federal statutes in their states.

Both Colorado and Washington have been working to set up regulatory systems in order to license and tax marijuana growers and retail sellers, but have been wary of whether federal prosecutors would come after them for doing so. They are the first states to legalize pot, and therefore to go through the process of trying to set up a regulatory system.

Consumption and sale of marijuana is still illegal in all other states, though some cities and towns have passed local laws decriminalizing it or making it a low priority for law enforcement officers. There are also movements in many states to legalize pot, including legalization bills introduced in Maine and Rhode Island, discussion of possible bills in states including Massachusetts and Vermont, and talk of ballot initiatives in California and Oregon.

But on Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it would not prosecute marijuana crimes that were legal under state law, a move that could signal the end of the country's longtime prohibition on pot is nearing. "It certainly appears to be potentially the beginning of the end," said Paul Armantano, deputy director of the pot lobby group NORML.

Marijuana Ruling Could Signal End of Prohibition on Pot

I don't know about Colorado but a person has to be 21 years or older to buy and consume marijuana legally in Washington state without a prescription.

A person as young as 16 can get a prescription for medical marijuana without their parents signing permission. People under 16 have to have their parents sign for the medical marijuana prescription.

Those without a prescription are allowed up to 1 oz of dry marijuana. Those who have a prescription can have up to 21 oz of dried marijuana. They can grow up to 15 plants too.

Medical marijuana helped extend my dad's life when he was diagnosed with liver cancer. It's also helping to save my life from breast cancer now.

I support legalization of marijuana for all adults in America. I also support adults being able to grow it legally if they want.

In Washington and Colorado it's a case of the people having the right to vote and speak their minds.

The majority of people in both states said they want recreational marijuana legal for adults.

That's called democracy. The majority voted for those laws. That's how most laws are created in America. Whether it's a majority in a congress or the majority vote of the people.

I haven't heard of anyone in either of those states coming forward and saying that legal recreational marijuana has violated their rights or their beliefs or desires on how their tax dollars are spent.

I think it's best to cross that bridge if we ever encounter it.

 

[jillian]

I'm pretty sure that if anyone wants to poison anyone else, the last thing they'd choose is THC.

Rat poison is much cheaper.

I have no idea what a large dose of THC would do to a child, but having it in candy form does seem pretty stupid. Granted, the only way a child could die from this is if he was so stoned he wandered into a busy street or something, still putting drugs in a form that entices children is stupid and wrong.

If you put THC into a cockroach, it would entice children too. Hiding behind our children when legislating a natural plant is thinking with our hearts, not our brains.

Um.....how would placing THC in a cockroach entice children to eat it as much as placing it in a chocolate bar?

there are a lot of things children shouldn't touch. they shouldn't touch pretty little daiquiris or strawberry margaritas either. that's where parents come in. yes?

Exactly. What about prescription drugs? Do kids get into parents pretty little pills, Valium or Vicatin or Viagra? Sure they can.

yeppers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's a direct comparison,anyone remember candy cigarettes?

I remember L&M actually making the candy cigarettes, and labeling them "for future smokers."

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you put THC into a cockroach, it would entice children too. Hiding behind our children when legislating a natural plant is thinking with our hearts, not our brains.

I support legalization of Marijuana in it's natural form. I find the creation of candy from it to be distasteful at the least. If you want to smoke pot, smoke a joint.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

question. is this stuff being sold in stores now, or do you have to go to specialty shops? This is a real concern. I agree with Jillian and Samson that parents have to keep up with their own kids, but if it looks just like candy in the packaging, i don't want it readily accessible for my kids to touch in the store either.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Here's a direct comparison,anyone remember candy cigarettes?

I remember L&M actually making the candy cigarettes, and labeling them "for future smokers."

THAT was my comparison. Is the candy being made to influence kid? Remember not too long ago when gang members in big cities had umm "special" lolipops

 

[Dana7360]

Hi Dana! I'm not arguing that people SHOULDN'T have the right to policies that represent them.

What I'm saying is the people OPPOSED should EQUALLY not have to PAY for consequences
of legalizing marijuana they don't believe in either!

I'm saying people's beliefs/opinions/interests should be treated EQUALLY.

So the problem remains: if you criminalize it, that imposes on one side that doesn't believe in paying those costs. If you legalize it, that imposes on the OTHER side that doesn't want to pay the costs of that choice/freedom.

I believe the key is to decriminalize it, but set up means to hold local districts and/or cities/states
responsible for handling the costs that the sides don't agree on paying for.

Example: If the people in a district agree to pay for all costs of health care or welfare for people whose health or behavior is directly or indirectly correlated or associated with regular marijuana use, or addiction, etc. then that takes the burden off the people who don't want to pay for what they believe is chosen irresponsible behavior.

I think that is fair. There are nonaddictive nonrisky ways to treat diseases or conditions WITHOUT opening the door to chronic or addictive use of marijuana and charging that to the taxpayers.

For the cases of illegal drug abuse, I would charge the costs to the abusers who rack up the debts or damages caused by their own behavior and not charge the taxpayers. if people want it legalized so badly, they are willing to pay these costs, that's fine.

I believe people SHOULD pay for the costs of their beliefs, just like if you believe in worshipping through Catholic or Hindu or Buddhist practices, yes these should be legalized choices, but the costs should not be imposed on the public. You should pay for that yourself, and not expect Muslims or Hindus to pay for each other's policies.

Since this is a matter of whether or not people BELIEVE there is harm caused, then it is a social or political "belief," so until this is proven in a way people agree to accept (not forced, since govt cannot force beliefs on anyone), then it should remain optional to pay for depending if people believe in one way or another.

I don't agree with FORCING it by law, and that is where this conflict goes around and around.
People are NOT recognizing both beliefs are valid, and they are NOT recognizing the need to separate how to pay for the consequences of either policy.

Both sides keep pushing THEIR way on the other and expect all people to follow and pay for it.
Same problem BTW with abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, etc. People are not figuring out that you cannot change or force political beliefs on people through govt any more than you can with religious beliefs.

I hope people figure it out, because this is getting old and expensive to keep fighting over
when it is not going to be reoslved by forcing it.

To answer your question, written right into the law states tax money collected from sales will be used for substance abuse prevention. It also puts stricter penalties on driving under the influence of marijuana. The law basically put the already existing laws on alcohol on marijuana.

Check out section 1.2

Initiative Measure No. 502 filed July 8, 2011
AN ACT Relating to marijuana; amending RCW 69.50.101, 69.50.401,
69.50.4013, 69.50.412, 69.50.4121, 69.50.500, 46.20.308, 46.61.502,
46.61.504, 46.61.50571, and 46.61.506; reenacting and amending RCW
69.50.505, 46.20.3101, and 46.61.503; adding a new section to chapter
46.04 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 69.50 RCW; creating new
sections; and prescribing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
PART I
INTENT
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The people intend to stop treating adult
marijuana use as a crime and try a new approach that:
(1) Allows law enforcement resources to be focused on violent and
property crimes;
(2) Generates new state and local tax revenue for education,
health care, research, and substance abuse prevention; and
(3) Takes marijuana out of the hands of illegal drug organizations
and brings it under a tightly regulated, state-licensed system similar
to that for controlling hard alcohol.
This measure authorizes the state liquor control board to regulate
and tax marijuana for persons twenty-one years of age and older, and
add a new threshold for driving under the influence of marijuana.

 

[EverCurious]

I guess I'd always assumed that if they legalized marijuana they'd sin tax it just like alcohol and tobacco. Not that the money collected on that goes to what it's supposed to go to, but it generally appeases the ones that hate those things enough to stop complaining.

I do know that marijuana was legal in AK here until like 89, (maybe it was 90, was whenever the Feds forced us to make it illegal,) We didn't have any taxes or much regulation on it at all, there were just a few regulations about what age one could have it, how much, and stuff like it couldn't be on school grounds, etc.

Is there any evidence out there that it'd just be made legal and not be taxed?

 

[Samson]

question. is this stuff being sold in stores now, or do you have to go to specialty shops? This is a real concern. I agree with Jillian and Samson that parents have to keep up with their own kids, but if it looks just like candy in the packaging, i don't want it readily accessible for my kids to touch in the store either.

Specialty Stores. No one under 21 is allowed in. Normally ID is checked at door and before payment.

 

[SixFoot]

If you put THC into a cockroach, it would entice children too. Hiding behind our children when legislating a natural plant is thinking with our hearts, not our brains.

I support legalization of Marijuana in it's natural form. I find the creation of candy from it to be distasteful at the least. If you want to smoke pot, smoke a joint.

I'm not against making liquid extracts that can be used in e-cigs. Marijuana plant matter has tar too, and like tobacco, I'd like to get my fix as cleanly as possible, with as little second-hand risks as possible, which for the environmentally-concerned, is also greener in that it reduces waste matter.

I'm not opposed to edibles either, which are far "healthier" than smoking anything. Likewise with any adult product, its up to the parents to be responsible enough to keep such things away from their kids, and especially important for businesses to abide by the law by not selling the products to minors. The key here is responsibility without infringing on people's rights.

With the way the 14th Amendment is upheld in case law studies regarding most civil rights issues, and with the Executive Branch's decision to not enforce Federal Statutes on States that choose to create a public industry of marijuana, the entire Federal Statute is already null and void, its just that some people don't realize it yet.

As a side bonus, I own 13 acres of highly fertile farmland that are just itching to have the herds and flocks sold off, tilled up, and sowed with a brand new industry that Missouri will inevitably have. This venture capitalist is ready to help make the economy grow dollar bills on trees for me!

​

 

[ScienceRocks]

Legalize it
Tax it

 

[Samson]

If you put THC into a cockroach, it would entice children too. Hiding behind our children when legislating a natural plant is thinking with our hearts, not our brains.

I support legalization of Marijuana in it's natural form. I find the creation of candy from it to be distasteful at the least. If you want to smoke pot, smoke a joint.

Um, you don't smoke the candy.

 

[Dana7360]

question. is this stuff being sold in stores now, or do you have to go to specialty shops? This is a real concern. I agree with Jillian and Samson that parents have to keep up with their own kids, but if it looks just like candy in the packaging, i don't want it readily accessible for my kids to touch in the store either.

No it's not sold in regular stores.

There are three ways to get marijuana products legally in Washington.

1. At a dispensary that sells it to people with a prescription. They sell marijuana in many forms a spray, soda pop, baked goods, candy, oils, dried marijuana and what is called keef. These stores aren't regulated or controlled by the government.

2. A person the patient had formally chosen to be their grower of their medicine. They fill out forms and a person can be the grower and you can buy from them.

3. At an approved and licensed state liquor control board shop. These stores are regulated and controlled by the government.

I've never been to one of the stores that aren't dispensaries so I can't say exactly what they sell. There's one not far from me in the town next door but I haven't had time to go over there and check it out. I will. I want to buy marijuana from a government controlled store.

The dispensary that I have been going to is just up the street from my home so it's more convenient for me to go there than to the town next door.