The Cellar - Washington & Colorado Legalize Recreational Marijuana

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Washington & Colorado Legalize Recreational Marijuana (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=28260)

Having partaken since the early eighties, I can assure you that weed has only gotten stronger/better. Infinte Monkey needs to find a different dope slinger.

Here's what will be interesting to see:

1. Will the dope sold by the state-licensed pot stores cost more, or, less than what's sold 'on da street'?

If it's more expensive than 'street-weed', I think they're (WA & CO) pissing up a rope. Ain't no pothead gonna pay extra for weed just 'cuz it's all legal n shit. Unless it's like primo herb, of course.

2. Will 'street dope' survive?

I think it will, if for no other reason, cuz there's always the 'I ain't supportin tha gubmint' types.

3. Will the state sponsored weed be as good as 'reglar dope'?

I think it'll have to be at least as good...nobody'd buy 'bunk weed' twice.

4. How will it be sold?

By weight, like sugar? By the pack, like cigs? Loose? Pre-rolled?

5. The acceptance/non-acceptance by employers' drug testing, will this change?

I don't see it happening. Drug testing by employers is driven not by laws, but, by insurance companies.

Also, the NFL has already said 'You still can't smoke pot in the NFL.', although I believe it's overlooked to some extent already.

Of course, we may all already be ahead of ourselves:

from YahooNews

by Alex Dobuzinskis

Quote:

(Reuters) - Votes making Colorado and Washington the first U.S. states to legalize marijuana for recreational use could be short-lived victories for pot backers because the federal government will fight them, two former U.S. drug control officials said on Wednesday.

They said the federal government could sue to block parts of the measures or send threatening letters to marijuana shops, followed up by street-level clampdowns similar to those targeting medical marijuana dispensaries the government suspects are fronts for drug traffickers.

"This is a symbolic victory for (legalization) advocates, but it will be short-lived," Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the Obama administration's drug czar, told reporters.

"They are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of ... presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition," Sabet said.

Colorado and Washington state legalized the possession and sale of marijuana for adult recreational use on Tuesday through ballot measures in defiance of federal law, while a similar initiative was defeated at the polls in Oregon.

The initiatives appeared to reflect growing national support for liberalized marijuana laws, as indicated by a Gallup poll last year that found 50 percent of Americans favored making it legal, versus 46 percent opposed.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which considers marijuana an illegal drug liable to being abused, said enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act "remains unchanged."

"We are reviewing the ballot initiatives and have no additional comment at this time," a government statement said.

Sabet said he expected the Obama administration would at some point file a federal lawsuit to challenge and seek to block aspects of state-level legalization measures and that this "is going to be caught up in the courts for quite a while."

HARD TO ROLL BACK CLOCK

But federal action was not expected to snuff out state-sanctioned marijuana in those states - especially the ability of individuals to possess an ounce or less of the drug without risk of arrest by local police.

Sabet, who opposes legalization, acknowledged that states were free to eliminate their own penalties for possession. But he said U.S. Attorneys could send letters to Colorado and Washington governors warning them not to implement provisions to regulate and tax marijuana at special stores.

Or the federal government could wait until such a system is created and sue to block it, he said.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, had said he personally opposed his state's legalization measure. But he has since said he plans to respect the will of voters.

In Washington state, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee, who was leading in the vote count in a tight race, has spoken out against his state's initiative but is committed to implementing it, campaign spokeswoman Jaime Smith said.

If the Obama administration reacts too harshly, it could suffer politically with younger, more left-leaning voters who chose legalization and typically lean Democratic.

But President Barack Obama also faces pressure from anti-drug groups to protect young people from harm they say would result if states set up a regulated and taxed marijuana trade.

Robert DuPont, who served as drug czar for former Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and opposes legalization, said he welcomed a confrontation.

"I think it's time to resolve it," he said.

Ian Millhiser, senior constitutional policy analyst with the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said the federal government, even if it sues to challenge the Colorado and Washington initiatives, cannot force police in those states to arrest people for marijuana infractions.

"If I were Barack Obama, I would look at this and say I would rather have young voters with me," Millhiser said.

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Kaminsky in Olympia; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Jim Loney)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam (Post 838032)

my grandfather who devoted a portion of his farm back in Kentucky to the cultivation of hemp as a part of the war effort back in WWII. My patriotic grandfather could never there after completely eradicate the weed from his fields.

I was hunting with Popdigr several years ago, and we had met up to go back to the truck. Popdigr stopped, looked around for a minute, got his bearings, and said "Fella over the hill there used to grow dope when I was a boy." He meant hemp during/after WW II. I talked him into showing me the place. Didn't take ten minutes to find the first plant. Found several. This would've been the mid-seventies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIam (Post 838032)

I think the Feds will begin to see reason, and I bet it won't take them another 67 years, either.

Here's hoping, but, I ain't holding my breath.

I have long thought that talking about hemp and MJ was a lot like
talking about corn and lawn grass... both are grasses but product is totally different.

Even though it's the same plant, isn't/wasn't WWII hemp essentially
a non-THC form of the plant ?... something about male vs female forms.

Just like there are different varietals of grapes, there are different varietals of cannabis. Hemp is Cannabis Ruderalis, a form of the plant that doesn't produce anything psychoactive. The psychoactive varietals are Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica. Those two forms have been crossbred to produce many different strengths and different psychoactive "signatures".

- Dr Weed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gravdigr (Post 838066)

I can tell you how it works with medical marijuana in Colorado. What UT said about the different varieties. The legal dispensaries sell pot that has a quality which is as high, usually higher than what you find on the street. Pot in smokeable form is sold by weight. You can also buy oils and ingestible forms of pot. The price is competitive with what you would pay your local dealer.

The beauty of legal pot is that it's legal. You can grow your own plants and not get busted by the cops. You can hop in your car and drive over to the nearby dispensary and browse through a variety of different strains. The dispensary is not going to burn you like a dealer might. You show the dispensary guy your medical card - easily obtained with the blessing of an MD who actually makes a living just authorizing patients to get medical mj. You pay your money, grab your smoke and go down the street singing a song. No Colorado law enforcement official is going to bother you. That's pretty sweet. When it's so easy to obtain legally, why bother getting it illegally and potentially having to pay some stupid consequence?

As far as drug testing - this is my personal experience - all you have to do is show your medical card to prove that it is legal for you to use pot. The employer will then just let it go. I guess maybe some big corporation might get in a snit about it, but I'm not aware of any in Colorado that has.

Now that Colorado has legalized recreational as well as medical marijuana, I think illegal growers will become fewer and fewer. Again, why risk what could be a pretty heavy duty bust when you don't have to? Why always have to worry that someone might come across your crop and rip you off while they turn you in? Just become that American icon - the owner of a small business that pays a nice living. It beats having to do deals with Mexican thugs down some back ally. Just my opinion.

It would also be nice knowing that no one died when transporting that weed and you are not financially supporting some of the most ruthless people on the planet...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gravdigr (Post 838066)

Having partaken since the early eighties, I can assure you that weed has only gotten stronger/better. Infinte Monkey needs to find a different dope slinger.

Is stronger better?

Yes, stronger just means it requires less smoking to be effective.

I guess I'm wondering because there are apparently other healthful compounds which you'd presumably get less of. Once we're all legal it'll be all boutique so we could choose our poison, but are the higher levels linked to paranoia? bitd I had a drug studies professor deny it but I wonder.

Not really. The whole thing is, you smoke until you're high and some people have a paranoid or panic reaction to being high. In the 70s you smoked 3 joints or bowls to reach that point. Now you smoke half of one. But at some point you have reached all of the receptors in your brain and you don't really get "higher" or more prone to paranoia at that point.

The interesting thing is, the Sativa plant results in a buzzier and more paranoid high, and the Indica results in a more narcotic sort of high. So since California went legal, weed growers set out to produce plants that are more effective for different kinds of medical needs.

Benefits of Indica:
1. Relieves body pain
2. Relaxes muscles
3. Relieves spasms, reduces seizures
4. Relieves headaches and migraines
5. Relieves anxiety or stress

Benefits of Sativa:
1. Feelings of well-being and at-ease
2. Up-lifting and cerebral thoughts
3. Stimulates and energizes
4. Increases focus and creativity
5. Fights depression

(from here; if you click prepare to pause the video)

You now know more than most smokers, who should at least understand that Indica is "couch-lock" weed and Sativa is "Let's write some songs" weed.

You know, I used to be one of those people who got paranoid on pot, but that was back in the dark ages where like UT said, people would sometimes have to smoke 3 joints to get high. With the stronger varieties available today, a few hits give me a nice buzz without any paranoid response. I prefer sativa, myself, but if you go into a medical marijuana dispensary here in Colorado, there's an array of products available, carefully grown and prepared to meet your every need. Or so the dispensary owner claims. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymous

If I'm stocked and have the cash I smoke like, a bowl every hour or two for a nice rolling high throughout the evening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 837968)

LSD isn't addictive but there is too much we currently don't know about it to justify its legalization.

Conversely, I would argue that we didn't know enough about it to make it illegal in the first place--after all, it wasn't illegal when it was discovered.

And from what I understand, there were many likely beneficial effects of this compound being researched (with great promise) when it was made illegal. So if we "don't know enough about it" it's because it was made illegal.

I don't want to digress from the main subject here, into a more questionable landscape, but I do struggle with this particular argument.

Regarding the main point here, about marijuana use, I think the people (the people I know, anyway) are clear how they feel about this. I think we're waiting fore some dottering old hardliners, who believe the internet is a series of tubes, to (sorry to have to say this) die off. And leave the rest of us sensible folk the hell alone. To be clear here, I don't smoke. But if you do, I don't care if you do. I also don't care who you sleep with or if you have any religious leanings--these things are none of my business, and for goddamn sure none of the government's business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 838552)

Conversely, I would argue that we didn't know enough about it to make it illegal in the first place--after all, it wasn't illegal when it was discovered.

At the end of prohibition, Elliot Ness & Co would be unemployed, so make something else illegal, because moonshiners weren't wide spread enough. Something only lowlifes like Negroes and musicians and Hobos, cared about. ;)