Industrial Marijuana Farming Approved In Oakland

Trintech writes "According to MSNBC: 'The city of Oakland, California on Tuesday legalized large-scale marijuana cultivation for medical use and will issue up to four permits for "industrial" cultivation starting next year. The move by the San Francisco Bay Area city aims to bring medical marijuana cultivation into the open and allow the city to profit by taxing those who grow it. The resolution passed the city council easily after a nearly four-hour debate that pitted small-scale "garden" growers against advocates of a bigger, industrial system that would become a "Silicon Valley" of pot.' Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

Comments

Well...

[bigspring]

You know how those wacky developers are with their marijuana!

Re:Well...

[beakerMeep]

int Main()
{
splif_f("Hellooooooo, World-dude!")
return 420;
}

Re:Well...

[nacturation]

You know how those wacky developers are with their marijuana!

Would that be Silibong Valley?

Re:Well...

[TeknoHog]

Checking hash... 420 Not Found

Re:Well...

[GarryFre]

I guess we can now call it Sillycan valley.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how those wacky developers are with their marijuana!

Would that be Silibong Valley?

Sativa Valley

Re:Well...

[OldeTimeGeek]

No, Oakland's in Alameda County. Where the nuclear wessels are. Or at least used to be.

Re:Well...

[spazdor]

You useless doper, it's over there on the hash table, next to the vaporware!

Stoners...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation.

Hey man, those computer things are totall--- hey you got any doritos?

Re:Stoners...

[Anonymous Coward]

No but they probably have plenty of chips.

Oakland needs to mellow out

[MrEricSir]

With all the violence and protests in Oakland, a lot of pot is needed to help everyone just mellow out, man.

Now who's coming to the Phish concert with me?

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Hylandr]

Amen Brother, Amen.

Now as long as everyone passes da twinkies nobodies gunna git hurt

- Dan.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mjwx]

All jokes aside, commercial hemp has more applications then just narcotics/psychoactive.

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

Psychological and physiological health issues are shown to be less then that of legal Alcohol and Tobacco. With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke, although I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.

I'd also like the US to stop pushing drug laws on other nations. I'd like a "happy" pizza in Cambodia.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Bing Tsher E]

The move to medicalize (is that a word?) marijuana will work against moves for industrial hemp. Cultivation will need to be taxed and controlled, just like alcohol. Part of the challenge for the government controllers is going to be that it's, well, a weed. Unlike tobacco, cultivation isn't confined to only a few special regions of land, and processing/curing isn't difficult either.

They're not going to want people growing hundreds of acres, even though growing operations of that scale would doubtless dilute the 'potency' anyway. It's just too easy for people to slip in a row or two of 'potent' weeds. It's too hard to control it and still allow cultivation on an industrial scale for fiber.

What we really need to figure out a use for is kudzu. Since that's pretty much all that we're going to be growing in whole regions before too long.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[demonlapin]

Kudzu is for feeding goats. If you can get Americans to eat goat meat, you'll wipe out kudzu in short order.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mjwx]

The move to medicalize (is that a word?) marijuana will work against moves for industrial hemp.

I think this is a problem with the US Govt rather then the idea of medical marijuana growth. The tax for drugs should be on the sale of the drug itself not the cultivation. But the US Govt I think is not capable of differentiating between the marijuana plant and the use of marijuana as a narcotic.

Which really is a shame as there are variants of the plant with a THC content so low you'd have to smoke a square hectare to get high.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Toonol]

Yeah, I'm a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana (and most other drugs), but I think the 'medical marijuana' movement is a farce. The net result is a bunch of stoner rejects inventing various chronic conditions in order to prove to the officials that they need marijuana to make their life tolerable. How embarrassing... how degrading.

There are legitimate medical reasons to take marijuana; but I'd say at LEAST 90% of those signed up for it are lying through their teeth. Honestly, I think it's closer to 99%.

And as far as non-narcotic uses of hemp; it's a useful plant, but it's wonderful properties tend to be exaggerated by pro-pot boosters.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[TyFoN]

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[dryeo]

You can't grow good pot in a field of industrial hemp. Industrial hemp has a large percentage of males. The males pollinate the good pot and ruin it.
Actually one of the easiest ways to get rid of pot is to grow lots of low potency industrial hemp. The pollen can blow hundreds of miles and ruin all the good stuff. The only way to grow the good stuff is in heavily filtered spaces.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[blueg3]

Kudzu is excellent forage, and creatures like goats will actually eat kudzu to the point that it doesn't grow back.

Also, goat meat is pretty damn tasty, if only you can get Southerners to start cooking like the people of the Caribbean or North Africa.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[shaitand]

"With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke, although I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol."

Citation needed. Recent studies showing no decrease in practical reaction times recently came out. Previous studies have shown that low doses of marijuana increased defensive driving habits and therefore actually improved driving. High doses do show a marked impairment.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[shaitand]

"Cultivation will need to be taxed and controlled, just like alcohol."

Why? Sales are already taxed... of all substances. It is wrong that alcohol and tobacco are singled out and taxed there is certainly no reason to spread this discriminatory bad policy.

Marijuana is a widespread herbal remedy with thousands of years of documented safe use. According to the FDA regulations any substance in that category SHOULD be completely unregulated. Marijuana belongs on the shelf with ginko and vitamin c supplements.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[shaitand]

P.S. with how easy it is to grow and the high yield per acre unregulated marijuana would be dirt cheap, more like $5 a pound than the current $400/oz black market price.

At that point alternate methods of consumption that use more material like vaporization (yes it uses more not less, the less thing is a myth) and cooking become viable.

The only reason people smoke is because it takes very little material and they need to make the most of the expensive herb. When it is plentiful and cheap you probably won't even buy the plant just the foods/drink containing it.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[PiSkyHi]

Around 4000 different chemicals from tobacco smoke, many carcinogenic, but pure pot gram for gram against tobacco has 4 times the tar - takes years of abstinence to expel it from the lungs - plus pot tar goes deeper because the lungs are opened up more during inhalation. Still, smoking is just one way to do it - obviously not the best.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Omestes]

...but I think the 'medical marijuana' movement is a farce. The net result is a bunch of stoner rejects inventing various chronic conditions in order to prove to the officials that they need marijuana to make their life tolerable. How embarrassing... how degrading.

I think its a fairly savvy political move. For some reason the feds (and some local fiefdoms) have an irrational fear of marijuana, and puritan like values are on the rise, so the odds of marijuana ever being legalized on its own merits is slim to none. A lot of the population is nebulously hostile to legalization for vague reasons, or completely apathetic. So the only real way to get the discussion started, and to start demystifying pot is to make it public, available, and outside of the purely hedonistic "some drugs are not evil" arena. Medical marijuana has done this very well.

I really don't think many people actually buy the "needing marijuana to make life tolerable" part of medical marijuana, as much as they view it as a way to eventually for the feds to fix their point of view. Medical marijuana is a gateway drug to legalized marijuana.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[shaitand]

Some of things marijuana helps with are pretty common. If you are one of those who has a hard time letting the idea of marijuana as evil go and therefore think it should require something severe than you are right.

That said, the cannabinoid system is a major body system that touches on large swaths of our physiology. The fact that we have an entire body system regulated by the cannabinoid is a relatively new discovery and regulations + prohibition limits research so the full impact is not yet known.

ADHD, Depression, long term memory problems (everyone knows about the effects on short term memory, what they don't know is that after intoxication marijuana actually stimulates neurogenesis).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html

Note, the research had to use a synthetic because of the prohibition and regulation of marijuana. There is a request process but in practice, only a DEA funded anti-drug facility is allowed to have research cannabis.

Really it doesn't matter. Any herbal remedy with a long established history of safe use is the criteria for an unregulated herbal supplement under FDA policy. Marijuana solidly falls in this category.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mjwx]

Citation needed. Recent studies showing no decrease in practical reaction times recently came out.

Irony, asking for citation whilst providing no citation yourself. Here's Wikipedia, another citation there.

It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster).

I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[JesterJosh]

Well yes Officer, I usually use two hands to drive but it's too hard to hold the bong and light it that way...

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[DrugCheese]

Marijuana belongs on the shelf with ginko and vitamin c supplements.

Yes, nutmeg is a poison. But it's still available to anyone off the shelf.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[elucido]

Kudzu is for feeding goats. If you can get Americans to eat goat meat, you'll wipe out kudzu in short order.

Put goat meat in American supermarkets and they'll eat it. Americans eat anything and they don't care what it is.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[elucido]

"puritan like values are on the rise"

Are those puritan values based upon reason or tradition? Traditional values don't apply to the new world. Old values exist for the old world.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[L0rdJedi]

puritan like values are on the rise

Let's see...smaller government and lower taxes. That's the exact opposite of "puritan like values" if you know anything about history.

The Puritans were very much about telling people what to do and how to worship, which is why they left England. The monarchy had already decided that the "Church of England" was the official church and they did things differently from how the Puritans thought they should be doing things.

If anything, "puritan like values" can be associated with the modern progressive movement, which is all about "you're to stupid to know what's good for you, so we're going to find some experts to tell you how to live your life". That's a throwback to FDR, the 20s, and the Puritans.

One thing I haven't seen anybody touch on yet is that the debate wasn't between those that want it legal and those that don't want it legal, it was between the small growers and the large growers. The small growers are opposed to the large growers simply because the large growers can grow it better and more efficiently and they're causing the price to drop dramatically. That'll mean less tax revenue in the end, but it also means no small growers.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[L0rdJedi]

Uh, according to all the growers up in Oakland and San Francisco, this is completely false. It's the large industrial hemp growers that are growing the good quality pot, driving the price down, and forcing the small growers out of business. A month or two ago I read that the price per pound of pot had dropped from $5000 to $2000 due to the large growers ability to produce better pot in larger quantities.

You don't have to grow large quantities of pot in a field. You just need a warehouse with blue lights.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[denmarkw00t]

sponsored by America's cotton growers.

Please, learn your pot history in America. You see, when hemp became popular in America, it presented a threat to big lumber (and thus paper) and, to a lesser degree, cotton. But paper and lumber stood the most to lose - you can make stronger rope, better paper, and more wipable TP for shit's sake (lol) with hemp than wood. Thus, the paper industry fought hard - sure a field of marijuana could be cultivated year after year with little effect to the land, and trees took far longer to be as nice to the soil, but there was investment. Notice the financial crisis? (Yes, it is still going on). Too many people (or just the right few people) have invested a lot of money in the financial system - anyone with half a brain sees the need for actual reform, but those with more than half a pocket full of cash will do what they want.

For shit's sake: the America Medical Associated testified to the benefits, or at least the lack of risk, of marijuana and it got schedule 1 status - drugs that have no potential benefits - either medicinal, scientific or recreational - and should be deemed dangerous if not deadly. I don't think it's been rescheduled since, though i could be wrong.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.

And Levi Strauss first made his workclothes from ?

Answer is not in wikipedia!

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Omestes]

Let's see...smaller government and lower taxes. That's the exact opposite of "puritan like values" if you know anything about history.

I view this as a rather forced misunderstanding. "Puritan" values generally mean laws against things that are not within religious tenets. "Worship" being the key term. Think "blue laws". Any regulation against sin can be viewed as a law that is puritanical. It isn't so much "your too stupid to know whats good for you", but "we must regulate what we view as moral". The traditional "family values" Republicans are a better example than the Democratic party line.

Any law that is in line with traditional puritan values is a "puritanical" law. the "War on Drugs" is puritanical. Meaning a law based on old religious principles (which by definition is conservative".

One thing I haven't seen anybody touch on yet is that the debate wasn't between those that want it legal and those that don't want it legal, it was between the small growers and the large growers. The small growers are opposed to the large growers simply because the large growers can grow it better and more efficiently and they're causing the price to drop dramatically. That'll mean less tax revenue in the end, but it also means no small grower

I, as a self-admitted socialist liberal, want it legalized, but don't really care about the means to production. As a true liberal, though, I'd rather the government be less involved. As long as production does not harm people overtly (think John Locke), the government should have no say, even if a religious majority has an opinion.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[xaxa]

A month or two ago I read that the price per pound of pot had dropped from $5000 to $2000

Does anyone know how that price compares with other little-used crops? (e.g. some herbs, or plants grown for medicine). It seems much more expensive that it should be.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mikael_j]

Actually, you want red lights as well. It depends on if the plant is in its vegetative or flowering stage. At least if you want to maximize the yield, in practice a lot of people who grow for both personal and commercial use just stick to either high pressure sodium lights (red) or metal halide lights (blue) since they work well enough for both stages.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[hh4m]

so do you know how one would bid for one of these licenses? i bet the people who lobbied for this already snapped em up... guess they do have a right.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[dave420]

Not to mention hemp fibre can make some very nice paper, and the seeds contain more protein than soya. Plus it can grow anywhere (hence the 'weed' moniker - it does grow like one). Oh, and the seeds can be used to make oil, which can fuel cars, or be used for cooking. It really is a fantastic plant. I can't find the quote, but I read that some doctor said that if cannabis was discovered this year, growing in some remote mountain valley, it'd be hailed as the new penicillin - a wonder-drug for the 21st century.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[f3rret]

...I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.
 

Actually there is some research showing that, in small amounts, cannabis makes you less likely to get into an accident.
This is tied to the fact that people who drive stoned tend to be more aware of their impairment that someone driving drunk; add on top of this a hint of paranoia and a tendency to drive more slowly and driving stoned appears less dangerous than driving drunk.

That being said, I don't think that driving while impaired in any fashion should ever be considered acceptable. However the main problem with enforcing a stoned-driving law is the fact that there is no quick roadside test for cannabis intoxication like there is with alcohol which makes it hard to prove that the person you pulled over for doing 20mph in the fast lane on the freeway really is stoned or just really, really slow.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[f3rret]

I think it'd be a relatively simple task to differentiate between 'active' and 'inactive' hemp plants.

Industrial hemp is typically produced from a strain that has been bred for larger fiber yields and and thicker stems/branches. These strains usually end up containing little if any THC and is thus useless to a stoner.
So it would be a relatively simple task for the taxman to confirm whether or not the strain you are growing for industrial purposes is a THC producing strain.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[shaitand]

Wikipedia is hardly a citation, you could have added before linking! The other is an anti-drug site making unsupported assertions. Hardly an unbiased source.

Here is a study:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n645363732641104/

Summary, users with no previous usage experience did experience reduced reaction time on the first experience. Afterward they showed no reduction in reaction time. Users with previous experience showed no difference in reaction time whether using marijuana or not.

"(1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster)"

Yeah, but a bong isn't a single dose it is more like 5-10 (sizes aren't standardized). That is why they have one hitters. In an experienced smoker with tolerance a single hitter of even the most potent material isn't enough to feel a buzz.

Even so, I agree there is a smaller 'safe zone.' But the increased intoxication speed (near instant) allows for more easily controlled dosing. You can tell before the next puff how the last puff impacted you. In contrast, if you are doing shots you won't feel shot one until after drinking shot three!

Some more studies:

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v25/n5/full/1395716a.html

"Although marijuana significantly increased the number of premature responses and the time participants required to complete several tasks, it had no effect on accuracy on measures of cognitive flexibility, mental calculation, and reasoning. Additionally, heart rate and several subjective-effect ratings (e.g., "Good Drug Effect," "High," "Mellow") were significantly increased in a Delta9-THC concentration-dependent manner. These data demonstrate that acute marijuana smoking produced minimal effects on complex cognitive task performance in experienced marijuana users."

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/s1p2.htm

Increased doses cause drivers to sit more upright and caused slightly decreased car following ability. However, in actual road test in a dense urban environment alcohol caused impairment relative to placebo, marijuana cause no impairment... but subjects thought it had.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm

This article refers to a peer reviewed long term study (sorry don't have the study itself) which finds there is NO permanent brain damage caused by marijuana use.

I don't have a handy study with regard to motor skill, only extensive anecdotal evidence. I've yet to see anyone significantly impaired with alcohol who didn't stumble and sway. I've never seen anyone on any dose of marijuana either sway or stumble. Believe me, I've seen and experienced VERY heavy doses of marijuana.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[moortak]

It is in American supermarkets and people still don't buy it in reasonable quantities.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[ThatsNotPudding]

A lot of the population is nebulously hostile to legalization for vague reasons,

Most Americans desperately want the legal system and/or prescription meds placed firmly between themselves and their own feelings. Gravatiting towards simpleton politicians with breezy, moralistic answers to every problem is another symptom.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

Now who's coming to the Phish concert with me?

Yeah, I got an email the other day offering to sell me tickets. All I needed to do was enter my bank account details and password....

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[TheCarp]

It is kind of a chicken and egg sort of problem. I mean, goat meat is out there, but its rare. I can find ground lamb too, but, its not something alot of people cook with, so not every store bothers, and not all the time. Ground beef? I can buy any day at any store.

People buy what they are used to, and what they know how to cook. You need to get it out there for people to get used to it to create a market for it. Of course, whats the incentive for any individual to get it out there and take initial losses hoping that enough people start cooking with it to make it viable? Even if the payoff for all of us is big in the medium to long term, its hard to find enough individuals (especially without organizing them around a cause) that will be willing to take that short term loss when they can't expect to see the long term gain themselves (to the grocer selling beef vs goat isn't a big difference as long as it sells)

-Steve

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[drinkypoo]

I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.

Can I get a what what? Save your FUD for an occasion for which it is warranted, like never.

I'd also like the US to stop pushing drug laws on other nations. I'd like a "happy" pizza in Cambodia.

You mean you'd like to see other nations stop taking bribes from the USA in exchange for criminalizing drugs? It takes two to tango. Those countries are whores.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[rolfwind]

Put goat meat in American supermarkets and they'll eat it. Americans eat anything and they don't care what it is.

"Was der Bauer nicht kennt, frisst er nicht."

I know quite an excellent and cheap sushi place near us. Sushi isn't common here but not completely uncommon. Unlike most Asian food places, this one is mostly frequented by Asians - which is one sign I look for in a ethnic place new to me that it has some quality. Also, all the ingredients were fresh. On rave reviews of my girlfriend after multiple visits, I reluctantly invited some other friends and observed many people don't like sushi or seafood, they beelined to the non seafood offerings and subsequently many people insist on going to a mediocre diner where you can get anywhere in the states. The ones who like seafood love the place.

Also, outside of the major three meats (chicken, pork, beef) I have to travel 2 hours into a large city or someplace with a large ethnic population to get something like goat, hare, etc.

People are creatures of habit. People don't like eating what they don't know. Most "new" things are just old, familiar ingredients mixed up in a slightly different way. If they grew up with mac and cheese, that's what they'll likely prefer, even if they can get pasta with a real cheese sauce for the same money.

Even though I grew up with a variety of foods (calf brains, pig ears, chocolate covered ants), I'm ultimately the same way, I just don't see myself eating other insects or those canned worms that the Koreans like.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[drinkypoo]

Uh, according to all the growers up in Oakland and San Francisco, this is completely false. It's the large industrial hemp growers that are growing the good quality pot,

You're a fucking fraud. You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. Hemp is the name for a group of strains of Cannabis which have little THC content. The plants are not separated because the seeds are not a problem; in fact, they are a potential product. These strains are also bred to have as little flower and as much stalk as possible, because that's where the fibers come from, but wild hemp looks just like something you'd want to smoke. Nobody is growing marijuana with hemp.

Interestingly, George Washington recorded the fact that he separated his males and females... Which can only have been for medicinal/recreational purposes, since it does not substantially alter the character of the fibers.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[frizzantik]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Great post Toonol

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[indifferent children]

> It's the large industrial hemp growers that are growing the good quality pot, driving the price down, Are you sure that this is not an issue of confusing terminology? Maybe the complaint is about "industrial hemp growers" as in "large-scale growers of high-THC hemp, who use industrial-farming practices". That is different from "growers of industrial-hemp", a different strain of the plant that has almost no THC.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[drinkypoo]

I think its a fairly savvy political move. For some reason the feds (and some local fiefdoms) have an irrational fear of marijuana

No, they have a rational fear of losing the income they derive from criminalization of marijuana and other drugs. It also affords us some intense control over various central american countries.

I really don't think many people actually buy the "needing marijuana to make life tolerable" part of medical marijuana, as much as they view it as a way to eventually for the feds to fix their point of view. Medical marijuana is a gateway drug to legalized marijuana.

Far more people are probably in the latter camp than the former, but there are statistically significant numbers of people in the former group, who are using it to replace prescription medications with harmful side effects (or which are simply too expensive; you might get days' worth of weed for the price of a single pill, and this is not at all hyperbole.)

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

...A lot of the population is nebulously hostile to legalization for vague reasons, or completely stoned...

fixed that for you

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

Like many other things though, this will be affected at ROI... given market value for 'schwag' vs 'kind bud,' at a glance one would think that the kind bud would be a better product, but given the same space, initial investment, and available manpower, there is far more earning potential for 'schwag' simply due to the higher overall ROI due to economies of scale. The lower-quality plants can be grown closer together, require far less individual care, are less reliant on temperature and light control.
 
On the other hand, this COULD change significantly. A growing legalized marijuana industry paves the way for more serious research into the plants themselves, and it's entirely possible that given legitimate scientific attention and legitimate laboratory study, a better plant can be developed that offers a better combination of quality and growing density.
 
Pretty sad dropping so many buzzwords into a pot post...

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[YojimboJango]

Your citation says nothing about diminished reaction time (motor control yes, but not reaction time). Also note that your citation only claims that psycomotor control is effected. Those are movements that you have to actually think about, not reactions. How often do you have to concentrate on keeping your gas pedal depressed for your whole car ride?

From your wiki citation: "Aside from a subjective change in perception and, most notably, mood, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure, impairment of short-term episodic memory, working memory, psychomotor coordination, and concentration"

Your American Council for Drug Education citation mentions loss of motor control, however they cite none of their sources, and the citation is more a list of talking points for drug enforcement officials than anything citable in a scientific sense. I guess the wiki isn't either, however I can follow their 112 links at the bottom to see what the actual science says.

That said if pot gets legalized I'd want it to be subjected to all the rules we have for alcohol till we can prove otherwise. Also the only reason I responded was because Cannabis is not a pure depressant, it's mix of stimulant, depressant, and psychoactive.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[rxan]

The problem is that most medical practices won't recommend weed even though it is a valid solution to many illnesses. Instead they'll just recommend whatever pharmaceutical + the side effects it comes with. Weed is taboo: doctors don't recommend it for fear of being prosecuted or losing patients; patients don't ask for it because it isn't mainstream and they fear rejection by the doctor.

I think if weed was more mainstream and accepted, which it is becoming, we would have more people legitimately asking for medical marijuana.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[sac13]

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.

Yeah... cause god knows that those cotton growers couldn't just plant hemp next year instead...

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[sac13]

Citation needed. Recent studies showing no decrease in practical reaction times recently came out.

Irony, asking for citation whilst providing no citation yourself. Here's Wikipedia, another citation there. It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster). I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.

Absolutely. However, people, at least in my experience, tend to drive much faster and recklessly with alcohol where they tend to drive more slowly and carefully (due to paranoia) with the mj.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

I believe it was Hearst, and the soft pulp wood guys who were often seen as starting the "reefer madness" not the cotton growers.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[gemtech]

True, but I'm not likely to smoke 2 packs of pot cigarettes a day. dude.
Question: What happens when you smoke more pot after you're already very high? Answer: Your bag of pot gets smaller.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[garynuman]

are you the guy on /. That keps goats to clear your land? I followed a comment to your blog once, it was interesting

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[raddan]

Interestingly enough, during Prohibition, this is how alcohol was legally obtained. The Walgreen's drug store chain survived the Great Depression rather well, and not just because of milkshakes.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Muad'Dave]

Goat meat happens to be very tasty - I prefer it to lamb. It's very difficult to find if you don't have a decent ethnic market around.

#1 Pork in all of its glorious incarnations
#2 Beef
#3 Goat
#4 Chicken/turkey
#5 lamb
#6 soylent green

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Muad'Dave]

I see 'medicalizing' marijuana as a boon to kickstarting the hemp industry. Their waste (stems, twigs, etc) is the raw material for the hemp industry. It would be essentially free, since the marijuana industry probably won't have any use for it. Since there's no hemp industry now, there won't be a shortage of raw materials until the hemp industry takes off.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[pak9rabid]

It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter.

I see people mis-classify this all the time. Marijuana isn't a depressant or narcotic, but a hallucinogen

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Andy Dodd]

"That said if pot gets legalized I'd want it to be subjected to all the rules we have for alcohol till we can prove otherwise. Also the only reason I responded was because Cannabis is not a pure depressant, it's mix of stimulant, depressant, and psychoactive."

I don't agree with the "until we can prove otherwise". Simply treat it by the same rules we treat alcohol in terms of DUI and such, period.

Although this leads to one of the few truly legitimate reasons I can think of for it to be illegal while tobacco and alcohol (far worse drugs in general, for differing reasons) are legal. I'm not sure if there is an easy scientific method to determine "under the influence" or "not under the influence" without behavioral tests that are a lot easier to challenge in court than a breathalyzer. Pot is known to stay in your system for quite a while after its effects are gone.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird because me and all my gamer buddys seem to destroy while high but do absolutely terrible while even just moderately buzzed on alcohol? I think it's just about the individual and their tolerance level. Of course if you're insanely high off a lot of medical grade stuff then you won't react too quickly but what do i know...i've only won tournaments against the strait edge sober types and pissed them off more than their strict parents ^_^

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mqduck]

All jokes aside, commercial hemp has more applications then just narcotics/psychoactive.

Yes it does. But this is *specifically* about legalizing industrially growing hemp for use as marijuana. That's completely novel, and why the story is notable.

With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke

I'm not sure about what are and aren't carcinogens, but pot smoke has more tar that tobacco smoke. It's actually said to be worse for you, if you compare an equal amount of marijuana and tobacco smoke. The difference is, a pot smoker inhales a hell of a lot less smoke than a tobacco smoker does, making it overall healthier (but still bad for you). And that's even before you factor in all the additives in most cigarettes.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.

While the corn subsidies are crazy, cotton receives more subsidies per acre than any other crop in the US.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[elrous0]

Where are they going to find the cops to make sure growers are paying their taxes?

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[2obvious4u]

Thanks for the tip! Now I know to have clean room filtered grow houses!

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mcgrew]

The "cotton grower conspiracy" seems stupid to me on the face of it; cotton's strength is its softness and comfort while its weakness is its lack of strength, hemp's strength is its strength and its weakness is its lack of comfort. But hemp would be great for papermaking, and possibly biofuels (perhaps a biologist, chemist, or physicist will correct me if I'm wrong about this).

With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke

See the comment I made a little further up -- marijuana actually prevents cancer (citations linked in the above comment). A recent statistical study was done on nonsmokers, long term potsmokers, long time tobacco smokers, and long time users of both drugs. Since there are carcinogens in marijuana smoke (indeed, in all smoke) the expectations were that pot caused cancer. What they found was exactly the opposite. Unexpectedly, tobacco smokers had far more cancers than those who smoked both weed and tobacco, and those who smoked only pot actually had fewer cancers than the nonsmokers (although the difference was statistically isignificant).

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mcgrew]

Snails? Horses? I think you're confusing us with the French.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

Why fight the cotton growers? Just have our govt very nicely ask the cotton growers to start growing commercial-grade hemp. We win, they win - and we can all go out and enjoy a nice bag of Twinkies !!

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[dryeo]

As Drinkypoo points out further down the page, by industrial hemp I meant strains that have been bred for fiber and now a days very little THC.
You're talking about industrial marijuana. Marijuana being the word that was invented/popularized in the '30's to cover cannabis that is used for recreation. People back then would never of stood for illegalizing hemp.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana is not a narcotic.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[blueg3]

Sadly, no. That's a great idea, if only I had enough space to need goats.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[FiloEleven]

There are key differences in the experience, however. Marijuana slows you down, but unlike with alcohol you tend to be very aware of this and able to compensate for it somewhat. The typical example is the drunk driver going 90 MPH passing a stoner going 40. You're less likely to attempt driving in the first place if you're high enough to be dangerous: while your motor skills are impaired, you don't lose your inhibitions like you do with alcohol. Accident records reflect this reality. I don't advocate toking and driving, but I don't think it will become a big issue even with full legalization.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mcgrew]

A lot of the population is nebulously hostile to legalization for vague reasons

The reasons aren't vague, but they are complete and utter bullshit. Go to the partnership for a drug-free Ameraca for a good laugh (or to get pissed off at the lies).

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Pandrake]

Friend of mine explained the secret to me. If you go to your doctor and say you want marijuana because it's medicine that alleviates pain the doctor will prescribe you pain killers, not pot. If you go to the doctor and say you want marijuana because you're in pain and when you smoke pot you don't care about the pain and feel better from the high, then they prescribe it to you. If you go to your doctor and say the chemotherapy has depressed you and destroyed your appitite, the doctor recommends pot so you can feel better and get the munchies.

The medicinal properties of marijuana are one; it's a euphoric barbituate.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[SpongeBob Hitler]

Kudzu is for feeding goats. If you can get Americans to eat goat meat, you'll wipe out kudzu in short order.

Put goat meat in American supermarkets and they'll eat it. Americans eat anything and they don't care what it is.

Actually, most Americans are fairly narrow-minded about food. They won't eat "just anything." They'll simply eat a lot of the same old thing. Anyway, what's wrong with goat? Lots of places have goat, you just don't see it in the States. The only place I got to try goat was in Indonesia. It's not really anything special, but you should try new things from time to time.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be surprised to learn that some studies (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n645363732641104/) have shown that marijuana DOESN'T affect reaction times as you've described and that other studies about smoked marijuana have found no links to cancer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html) despite many people's expectations.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mcgrew]

Citing acde.org for information about marijuana is pretty much like citing BP for studies of the effects of vast quantities of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, or the American Nazi Party's web site for holocaust information. It's almost as bad as citing the Partnership for a Drug Free America; both are propaganda machines full of misinformation and outright lies.

Your wikipedia citation is a good one, though, since it, itself cites an actual study. It doesn't, however, state how much reaction times are diminished, although I would guess the actual study does.

You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go

Sorry, but that's just bullshit. First, three shots of what, Captain Morgan? Sailor Jerry? 190 proof White Lightning? It's a completely meaningless metric; "hard liquor", like marijuana, varies gratly in its potency. Secondly, have you ever had an Irish Car Bomb? It's the equivalent of a six pack of "American" beer consumed in less than thirty seconds. Not even the very best bud is going to get you as intoxicated on one hit as three shots of Captain will.

Yes, there is an effect, but you have wildly overstated it.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Reziac]

Firstoff, I'm all for legalizing and taxing it. This pointless "war on drugs" has got to stop, before it burns up the entire Constitution.

The data I've seen indicated that pot smoke carries MORE carcinogens per ounce of burned matter; however, it's a lower risk than tobacco smoking simply because one smokes pot a few tokes a day, often on random days or weekends, not a pack or more a day every single day. So the *total* ingested volume of particulate matter (the real issue) is less, even tho each individual smoke contains more.

Regardless, IMO everyone has the right to be stupid at their own expense, and if you want to fill *your* lungs with smoke or seawater or even vacuum, that's your business.

And no, it should NOT be at society's expense; if you're stupid the consequences should be on your own nickel, not picked up by the nanny state. Losers are self-limiting, if not enabled by a mommy-fix society. Individual freedom also means the freedom to be a dolt.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Reziac]

At the most expensive end... Saffron appears to retail for between $8/gram and [goes off, fiddles with calculator] $860/ounce, based on http://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Culinary-Spices-Saffron-Bottles/dp/B001EQ57NY

Which works out to a retail range of roughly $3600 to $13,000 per pound depending on the form and supplier. Based on what I know of other seasonings, wholesale price is probably about 5% to 10% of that.

Some cheaper prices cited here, http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/asianveg/msg0821032623921.html but flavouring prices have roughly doubled since then across the board.

At the other end of the scale, most culinary herbs and spices retail for around $4/ounce, but are around $4/pound for bulk packaging (like the big containers sold at Costco).

Anyway, it does appear that marijuana is rather overpriced, even allowing that the 'good' stuff requires some nitpicky handwork (tho not on the scale of saffron). But that's the penalty of an artificially restricted market. What does it sell for where it's legal, unrestricted, and locally-grown? I'm wild-assed-guessing somewhere around $25/lb.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke, although I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.

Oh joy! It's less cancery. I wonder if the tobacco industry released "less cencery" cigarettes, would the anti-smoking movement go away?

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Reziac]

I'd buy more lamb, but it's $7/lb. and the equivalent cut of beef or pork is $2/lb. I have no idea what goat would sell for at retail, but if it's priced like lamb, no wonder it doesn't sell better.

Chicken and egg indeed -- it's gotta be comparably priced before it will attract a comparable market, making the price fall due to better availability... gah. Pass the beef.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

When my mom had brain cancer, the chemo drugs gave her serious nausea and she hadn't eaten more than a few bites for almost two weeks when somebody suggested I try giving her pot. I got some off a neighbor and baked it into a tiny cookie, which I got her to swallow before she realised it tasted funny. About two hours later, she was happy, out of pain and eating everything in sight.

Out of all the many many drugs that she was prescribed, only pot and morphine seemed to help make her life tolerable at all. Maybe some stoners are lying, but my mom was starving until I got her weed. The incredibly expensive ($25 / each) anti-nausea drugs commonly prescribed to cancer patients are extremely likely to be counterfeit, I later learned.

I quit smoking it myself when I signed her up to the legal, medical pot, because I didn't want anything to jeopardize her access. I haven't really smoked since, either, because it reminds me of cancer.

Maybe some folks are faking it, but the difference it made for my mom, in the last few months of her life, was fantastic And if a few people fake it, so what? They're not hurting anybody. My mom was hurting, though, and pot helped.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Shakrai]

so the odds of marijuana ever being legalized on its own merits is slim to none

Why do you say that? Most of the ballot initiatives in recent years related to liberalizing marijuana laws have passed by decent majorities. When you poll the United States you'll find a majority of people in favor of legalization. The issue is with our political process. Half of the politicians have a vested interest in keeping the War on Drugs going while the other half are afraid of being labeled "Soft on Crime". There are only a handful of people in Congress that aren't hypocrites on this issue -- Ron Paul on the right and Maurice Hinchey on the left (just to pick two) -- but they are few and far between.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Raelus]

The two studies in question target entirely different subsets of marijuana users. The latest one showing no loss of driving ability was a study of *regular* smokers, whereas previous studies in the area have targeted occasional and quite possibly newer smokers. Don't drive high until you are used to the effects. Even then, be mindful of where you are driving and what the conditions are.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Dread_ed]

Those are all great points, but the greatest benefits I can see for legalization are the reduced costs of fighting the drug war (in dollars and lives) and the ability to interface users and medical personel.

As long as the product is good and the taxes aren't so high that they keep the black market in operation we could see a drastic reduction in violent crimes, gang activity, incarceration costs, and border and law enforcement costs.

Removing the stigma associated with use could also result in treating some users' underlying psychological conditions, possibly leading to a drop in overall usage.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

What is #6 made out of?

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Shakrai]

I'm not sure I'd say that's the only reason. I've consumed pot through most of the usual channels (pipe smoking, blunts, vaporization, cooking, water pipes, etc.) and I come back to the regular old pipe as my favorite method.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Shakrai]

Secondly, have you ever had an Irish Car Bomb? [wikipedia.org] It's the equivalent of a six pack of "American" beer consumed in less than thirty seconds

Who the hell is making your car bombs if they are the equivalent of six beers? An Irish Car Bomb around these parts is nothing more than a pint glass filled with Guinness and a half shot each of Jameson and Baileys. That's only two beers worth of alcohol.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Omestes]

I do love the non-reality based anti-marijuana propaganda, without it a lot less people would probably smoke pot.

I remember when I was a young thing I was scared to death of pot. Pot was as scary as heroin, the second I smoked it I would turn into some drooling junky who wears tie-dye and sounds like Keanu Reeves ("woh"). My friends sister was a bit of a dealer (much worse things than pot), and kept on trying to get us to try it, and we stately refused every time for fear of life time addiction and stupidity.

When we eventually did try, and got nothing worse than the giggles and a good nights sleep, we smoked A LOT more since obviously everything we were feed was bogus. It might not be good logic, but it is adolescent logic. Its the same problem we have with booze, by American standards EVERYONE in the rest of the world is a lush, and as a result we have very strange drinking problems. For some reason making something taboo increases its chances for abuse, as opposed to having a sane point of view, and endorsing moderation and intelligent use (see also sex, see also violence).

After I realized that every thing I was told about marijuana was a lie, I quickly moved on to harder substances, that are actually harmful. I figured that if they lied about pot, they probably lied about every thing else as well.

Authority should be based on trust, the second you break that trust, everything you say is dubious, even if truthful.

I don't use any drugs anymore (outside of caffeine, cigarettes, and the occasional stiff martini), but I am all for legalization of at least pot, and a re-examination of the rest of our drug laws and policies. Some drugs I can understand banning, or at least harsh regulation, some drugs I can't. Heroin can have bad effects on society (or methamphetamines), but drugs like pot are rather benign. I actually would rather have more pot heads than alcoholics, alcohol is far more destructive than marijuana.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Omestes]

There are only a handful of people in Congress that aren't hypocrites on this issue -- Ron Paul on the right and Maurice Hinchey on the left (just to pick two) -- but they are few and far between.

This is why I made the statement. Our politicians really don't represent us anymore. The government's wishes, and our wishes are WILDLY divergent these days. Public opinion might lean in favor of legalizing pot, but it doesn't matter one bit.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

I think when he says "practical reaction times" he means that people who get high and drive tend to recognise how impaired they are and drive much slower and more cautiously. Whereas people who get drunk and drive tend to have absolutely no idea how impaired they are and might even drive faster than they normally would. So marijuana certainly does raise reaction times, but it's compensated for by the behaviour of the users. Probably 25% of the drivers out there are more dangerous sober than your average high driver.

Not that it shouldn't be discouraged, but it's nowhere near as bad as drunk driving.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Shakrai]

No, it doesn't matter that public opinion favors legalization, but not for the reasons that you stated. It doesn't matter because the politicians know that most people aren't willing to base their vote on the issue. They also know that they will lose more votes from the "soft on crime" crowd than they will gain from the 420 crowd.

If people were willing to base their votes on the issue pot would be legal tomorrow.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Pharmboy]

If true, that is interesting. Citation?

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[hakr89]

But the US Govt I think is not capable of differentiating between the marijuana plant and the use of marijuana as a narcotic.

They used to be able to differentiate.
http://www.archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942_FIXED

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[uvajed_ekil]

All jokes aside, commercial hemp has more applications then just narcotics/psychoactive.

Yeah, we all know all about the numerous non-munchies inducing uses for hemp. Weed has other uses, we get it. But the fiber argument is usually a justification or excuse to legalize growing for all intents and purposes, put forth by people who just want to get high. That's fine, too. I have no problem with any responsible adult toking up at home, but these folks should just admit that their quest isn't about rope (with an "r").
And as for the Oakland deal, that is about marijuana that will be sold for profit largely to people with phony medical "needs." Oaktown is not trying to woo paper companies, they're trying to give people what they want, eliminate some of the shady criminal element from the equation (weed is still the bread and butter product for most drug dealers, but who will mess with those characters if they can get some smoke from a store, safely and cheaply, and make some much-needed money.

Now, if large scale growing is approved, it probably won't be long before the DEA, ATF, and FBI are on the scene shutting them down. They still go after big fish, and the last time I checked, Federal law still supersedes state and local law, even in "The 'Land" (and Arizona).

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

With my experience this "data" is not entirely accurate. Perhaps with indica strains, but those i do not use except medically. I consistently have performed better on a large range of tasks involving motor skills and reaction times while overactivating my cannabinoid receptor systems - e.g. tennis, ping pong, yoga, surfing, skateboarding, piano, cliff jumping, perfecting kendama moves and posting top 10 scores on the Geometry Wars leaderboards.

In a truly objective study I think we would find that a large portion of people actually drive safer after cannabis consumption (certainly not all though - the effects on different nervous systems are truly mind boggling!) - speeds are typically 10-15 mph below that of the sober state and focus on the road is heightened (this is dependent to a great degree on the level of dosage). Of course part of this could be just from the paranoia that one is driving while high and does not want to be caught, but that is not necessarily the case especially with experience users.

Now I'm sure I will be flamed hard for holding this opinion, but it does not matter, as it is the truth. "Studies" are great, but certainly not objective in a society of prohibition and ignorance. Yes, IGNORANT, to the nth degree from, *gasp* propaganda campaigns carried out against the population of this great country for the past three quarters century. I am certainly not saying that across the board all humans have positive performance changes after ingesting a spectrum of cannabis compounds. For individuals with advanced motor development (such as myself - a product of my adolescent conditioning), there is not this "serious effect" that you speak of. That is ridiculously FALSE. However, for some it will be true.

The nature alcohol in the body provides a more clear cut picture for its inhibitory effects on the nervous system, most notably alcohol-induced motor impairment caused by increased extrasynaptic GABAA receptor activity. Studies suggest (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/165/4/416) that CB1 receptors are located on inhibitory interneurons that decrease the release of GABA and essentially decrease the inhibition of the cerebral cortex. Thus we have the opposite effect of what you are proposing. Now, this is certainly not a simple or clear cut issue, but your understanding (and all of ours for that matter) of the pharmacodynamics of cannabis is skewed at best.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Khyber]

"You can't grow good pot in a field of industrial hemp."

We've been working on that problem and have it solved. Forced-polyploid plants typically can't be pollinated and thus can be grown anywhere with large yield.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Son of Byrne]

I'll disagree with your statement about puritan like values. I'm from Colorado Springs (can anyone say Focus on the Family?) and if there ever was a puritanical community, then this place should seem to fit the description. I've yet to discuss medical marijuana (legal here) with anyone in my community that was actually opposed to the legalization. In fact, most of the folks that I've discussed this issue with have agreed that marijuana should have been legalized a long time ago (and not just for medicinal purposes).

I think that, in opposition to your position, marijuana use is becoming more and more acceptable and with generational replacement I think that we'll see legalization of it in general within a few more generations.

Now, I could be completely wrong, but it seems awfully silly that we've had so much contention over such a (relatively) benign substance as this.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Son of Byrne]

ridiculous use of parentheses...one would think I'm a lisp coder...

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[shaitand]

So if you could buy herbal anti-energy drinks from the cooler at any checkout for $0.99 you'd still rather kill your lungs?

It's pretty much the same effect it just comes on slower, hits heavier, and lasts longer.

In my experience most people who don't like having cooked didn't use enough herb. Unlike smoking, 'enough' depends on body weight. You should look at a minimum of 1/4oz of grade herb for a batch of brownies cut into 9 squares. I weigh about 210 and sometimes I take two brownies.

At $100+ 1/4oz a medical user who needs to take their 'pills' three times a day to control chronic pain is looking at a pretty unrealistic price tag. At $5/lb that becomes more realistic.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a common myth that hemp comes from the marijuana plant. They are two different plants. They are in the same family, but they are not the same.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[hakr89]

But the US Govt I think is not capable of differentiating between the marijuana plant and the use of marijuana as a narcotic.

They used to be able to.
http://www.archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942_FIXED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_for_Victory

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Shakrai]

So if you could buy herbal anti-energy drinks from the cooler at any checkout for $0.99 you'd still rather kill your lungs?

Yes. My body, my choice as the feminists say.....

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mcgrew]

Guinness has twice the alcohol content of "American" beer, so a pint of Guinness is equivalent of three twelve ounce cans of "American" beer. The shot adds the equivalent of another beer and a half. Not quite a six pack, but close enough for rock and roll.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Shakrai]

No it doesn't. Guinness is 4% alcohol according to this site. That's squarely in the middle as far as beers go. Budweiser and Coors (if you can call them beer) are 5%, Yuengling is 4.4%, Magic Hat #9 (my current favorite) is 5.1%......

Also, a shot isn't a "beer and a half". A standard shot contains 1.5 fl oz of liquor. With 80 proof spirits that comes out to 0.6 fl oz of alcohol. A pint (16 oz) of Guinness at 4% would add another 0.64 fl oz of alcohol.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[mcgrew]

4%? I thought it was more like 14%. Thanks for correcting me.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Omestes]

I think that, in opposition to your position, marijuana use is becoming more and more acceptable and with generational replacement I think that we'll see legalization of it in general within a few more generations.

Heres hoping. But people said the same thing about the young people of the 60's getting old and grabbing power. They got old, they grabbed power, and things are pretty much exactly as they were.

It would take a large dose of reason to make anything better. I have a fair amount of cynicism on that topic, a rather large amount. Our government doesn't seem to be getting any saner, nor does the civic debate that drives government, the whole messing is turning into a circus sideshow.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[shaitand]

More power to you. There is something to be said about the soothing effects of sitting back and smoking. For me it isn't worth the damage. For you it is.

That said, even if you don't plan to take advantage of it I'm sure you'd agree that sales tax and supply/demand should be allowed to settle the price where people at least have the option to eat rather than smoke. Sin taxes similar to alcohol and tobacco would prevent that.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[moortak]

Goat pricing is wildly variable in my experience. If you buy it in the suburbs it runs more than beef or pork. If you buy it in little ethnic shops it is dirt cheap.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Reziac]

I suppose I should check if there's a Greek market around here... the lamb I had at the Greek festival was fantastic, and I know they got it locally. Tho I've seen Armenians pay up to $100 for a 70 lb. lamb or goat on the hoof, which isn't any great bargain by the pound of meat.

Of course I could just shoot one of the neighbour's goats, next time I catch them destroying my trees ;)

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[brolin9]

I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.

I remember reading a story in Car & Driver magazine back in the 80's in which they tested the effect marijuana consumption had on driving ability (and, no, I don't remember exactly how they managed to conduct the test, given the legal status of the substance). They found that initially, on small doses, driving ability actually increased, with more focus on the job of driving. However, as dosage increased, the subjects driving ability would eventually begin to drop off, eventually getting worse than their sober ability.

In other words, based on their test, a light buzz is actually good for driving, but getting really stoned isn't.

Personally, I find the people that can't survive without downing handfuls of Valiums (or equivalent) multiple times a day far more frightening as drivers than someone that smoked a joint.

(I knew someone, a coworker, about 35 years ago that was taking 6 blue Valiums about 4 times a day, prescribed by his doctor, just to stay "normal". I remember being told the blue ones were the larger dosage. He was moved to Thorazine shortly before I moved away and lost track of him.)

I wonder how many traffic accidents are the direct result of a driver's intoxication on a legally prescribed drug? Because I don't recall ever hearing about someone being tested for that, the way they will test for alcohol.

I have also heard that a big problem the law has with marijuana and driving is the fact we have no test that shows present intoxication. The current tests merely show that you consumed at some point in the (presumably) recent past (testing for the compounds that remain after your body has processed it). So, if marijuana use was legal in itself, you'd have no way of legally proving someone had driven intoxicated, since they could have legally consumed a few weeks before with no impact whatsoever on their driving. Not that I see this as a reason to continue this unconstitutional prohibition, but it does mean I can see why those in traffic enforcement might have concerns.

And if there's anyone questioning why I said unconstitutional prohibition, I point to the alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century and the constitutional amendment that was required because the original constitution did NOT provide the authority. As that amendment was later repealed, and there have been no other amendments providing any similar authority, there is absolutely zero constitutional authority for any drug laws. And the asinine stretching of the "interstate commerce" clause has as much validity as claiming 2+2=5 because we want it to.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[xmvince]

Seems to me you're the one lying to yourself. Go read the DOT study on marijuana and driving. They concluded that on a very high dosage of marijuana, it only compares to about a .05 alochol BAC, which is UNDER the legal limit. You've obviously never tried it before, or are a n00b, because it does not impair motor skills at all - in fact, it makes me much better at video games (much faster reaction when I'm high).

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[sv_libertarian]

Shades of Heinlein. Seems several of his books mentioned marijuana farms.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[MichaelSmith]

Shades of Heinlein. Seems several of his books mentioned marijuana farms.

The Number of the Beast comes to mind but that was in a parallel universe where colonial england ran half of mars. I can't recall him using that idea anywhere else. Could be wrong of course.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[stonewallred]

RAH had the idea. I am all for legalizing marijuana. Better a devil we can control and tax than the one which is fueling the cartels and violence in mexico and South America.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[rtb61]

Hmm, but I smell the high smell of marijuana growing being handed over to licensed only agro-corporations and individuals will be fined for attempting to grow it themselves under penalties of tax evasion. Only four licensed operation, hmm, corporate drug cartels with government lobbied grossly inflated profit margins.

Still better than throwing away billions destroying peoples lives with militaristic raids and extended prison sentences in order to protect them from 'er' destroying the lives having a 'good time' getting high but not being dutiful mass consuming worker drones whilst doing it.

As long as they allow and provide grow your own permits, not for sale or distribution. This allows for a measure of product control, ensures simpler taxation management and means that those who can only afford to grow their own can continue to do so.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[afidel]

Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Darkness404]

Why not simply let it be sold like any other product? I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs. Alcohol is slightly different because if you screw it up it can have toxic side effects but really when was the last time you heard of someone going to their local farmer's market to buy an ear of corn and it had toxic side effects? A plant is a plant is a plant. I similarly don't understand having different tax rates, unless the government goes around helping people grow something, it just needs a tiny sales tax.

Its completely stupid to tax something just because you don't like people doing it. Taxes should -only- reflect the 2 things a government should do, protect their citizens from force and fraud. If the government does something special to benefit someone/something they should be charged a higher rate, but its stupid to tax someone because you don't like it.

And for the record, no, I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana, I think its a terrible habit that stinks and is bad for the body. But thats just it, I can choose not to do that. I can choose not to smoke, I can choose not to drink, I can choose not to eat McDonalds daily, that is my choice. I choose what I want, other people can choose what they want, I don't force my choices on them and they don't on me. That is how freedom works. If I don't like tobacco smoke, I don't smoke, I don't go to places without a dedicated non-smoking seating. If a business wants to allow people to smoke, let them. If I don't want to eat there because of it, I will take my business elsewhere.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[interkin3tic]

Hmm, but I smell the high smell of marijuana growing being handed over to licensed only agro-corporations and individuals will be fined for attempting to grow it themselves under penalties of tax evasion.

All I smell is hypocrisy. The "small" pot growers have their cake and eat it too right now, wanting pot to remain illegal technically, keeping serious competition down, but not really enforced so that they can sell it as they do now. The fact that others are being fined and arrested for what they're getting away with doesn't bother them enough to advocate changing the laws to allow competition.

Furthermore, we have no reason to suspect there's going to be an increase in personal growing and use once the stuff becomes legal. The tobacco industry is huge, but you can grow your own tobacco plants for personal use without any permits of any kind. Very few people do. Growing your own plants, drying them rolling it, and then finally smoking it is tougher than walking down to the gas station, paying $5, and smoking immediately. The marijuana industrial farms are going to blow homegrown competition out of the water for the same reasons and will have no reason in keeping you from growing your own: hardly anyone will

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Scrameustache]

I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs.

Drugs and foods are different kinds of things.

Everyone needs food, only some need drugs.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[TheLink]

You don't need corn. Or beans. Or ice cream. Or candy.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[mikael_j]

Hmm, but I smell the high smell of marijuana growing being handed over to licensed only agro-corporations and individuals will be fined for attempting to grow it themselves under penalties of tax evasion. Only four licensed operation, hmm, corporate drug cartels with government lobbied grossly inflated profit margins.

Well, if proposition 19 passes in California this november private citizens will be allowed to grow their own cannabis as long as it's in a space no larger than 25 square feet. It also allows local governments to regulate commercial production and sale themselves which makes it very doubtful that the grow-ops of Humboldt county and surrounding areas are going to go away anytime soon...

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Cryolithic]

Sure, corn or hemp may not have toxic side effects, but saying "A plant is a plant" doesn't work. Check out Giant Hogweed for example.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[mikael_j]

It's not really the small growers that want it illegal but unenforced, it's the dealers, more specifically it's the shadier of the dealers who know they wouldn't be able to compete with legal marijuana.

And of course the bigger companies are going to end up dominating the market if it's legalized (unless local regulations make it impossible for larger companies to operate marijuana sales and production businesses), but don't count out the little guys yet. It'll probably end up a lot like with wine and beer, if all Joe Sixpack wants to do is get high he'll just buy a little marijuana from some large company, sold at a gas station, coffee shop or whatever. But if he's got a romantic night with his girlfriend planned he might decide to spring for something which isn't the marijuana equivalent of a case of Budweiser or a large jug of cheap white wine. There are still some amazing wines and beers on the market, despite it mainly being dominated by a small number of giants. And honestly, it's a lot easier growing good cannabis at home than it is to brew good beer or wine at home.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[sv_libertarian]

Seems to me there was at least one or two other books or short stories that featured it as well, but I can't think of them at this time. But yes, at least Number of the Beast. That book gave me a headache. It was like being on a drug trip. With hard science. Which, probably was the idea.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[shaitand]

I'd be happy if the state just enforced its own laws. If the state maintains that they have the right to control instate production, sale, and cultivation (I am certainly inclined to agree) then they should be arresting federal agents who are trespassing and violating the rights of Californians with illegal raids.

Lets see, trespassing, wrongful imprisonment, kidnapping, destruction of property... I suspect those agents are breaking quite a few California laws.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[rtb61]

It is a fairly powerful intoxicant that can seriously impair judgement and those that produce and use it have a requirement to ensure that it is kept out of minors reach and not imbibed unknowingly as a practical joke. So permits all round, secured growing and storage, and reminders of responsibilities and accountability, with escalation of same for commercial operations.

As an intoxicant even minor sales should be controlled and it is simpler to band them. You are consuming it, so inappropriate pesticides or fertilisers or any production impurities needs to be monitored and controlled and the is simply not possible in the backyard situation.

Basically if you allow your backyard plot to get in the hands of minors, you will find yourself staring down the barrel of a raid and a prison sentence as such some annual reminders of your responsibilities are appropriate as well as definitions of what are secure growing and storage facilities in the domestic environment.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[RobertM1968]

Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.

Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.

As for the Feds, how long do you think it will be that they hold out? Guarantee you they still have the methods in place to tax this, regardless of the current legality. Money will win out in this.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[afidel]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and until the supreme court changes their view on the commerce clause the federal government will have a legal right to enforce federal drug statutes. Do I like it, or even agree with their flawed logic? No, of course not. The overreaching interpretation of the commerce clause is probably one of the SC decisions that it most obviously far from the framers intentions.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[afidel]

Until and unless all federal laws pertaining to the growing and distribution of marijuana are repealed there's no way. Why? Because what you would see if Phillip Morris were to try to start up one of these operations would be the head of PM goose walked and sent to federal prison on charges of being a drug lord. Can I see PM lobbying congress to enact such repeals? Sure, in fact if they see a potential profit and enough public sentiment they will absolutely go for it.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot choose to not be run over by a pothead. And if you live in a society that takes care of its citizens, you cannot choose not to spend a lot of money treating DUI victims and cancer patients. So trying to influence people to not smoke and drink too much is a good thing for society, and for you. At least in theory.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[L0rdJedi]

Damn, you sound like a libertarian. What are you doing on Slashdot?

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[TapeCutter]

Here in Oz you have to be licensed to grow tabacoo. The fines for growing tabacoo in your backyard are much worse than for growing pot. Last time I checked tabacoo was $10K fine per plant and pot was $500/plant.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[nyri]

As for the Feds, how long do you think it will be that they hold out? Guarantee you they still have the methods in place to tax this, regardless of the current legality.

They have. See this article. A quote:

North Carolina is one of about 20 states that tax illegal drugs. The cost varies by state and weight, as does the stamps’ appearance (Nebraska’s, with a skull surmounting a syringe and joint, looks like Grateful Dead tribute art). Penalties for non-payment also vary, from being classed as a misdemeanour in Georgia to 200% of the tax plus $10,000 or five years in prison in Louisiana.

My guess is that drug warriors made this scheme up to inflict yet another punishment for drug users. What they didn't see was that the stamp laws would open up the possibilities to gradual legalization.

I guess some times, just some times, unintended consequences are good for you.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[drinkypoo]

Lets see, trespassing, wrongful imprisonment, kidnapping, destruction of property... I suspect those agents are breaking quite a few California laws.

Actually, there has been at least one case where California cops were physically impeding the progress of federal cops, and preventing them from making a bust. So it's not what you (and I) would like to see, but it's the next best thing.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd be inclined to agree, if there weren't such large sums of money being laid out
no one's tossing millions down on that kind of risk
if this goes forward, some kind of deal has been done

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[drinkypoo]

Why? Because what you would see if Phillip Morris were to try to start up one of these operations would be the head of PM goose walked and sent to federal prison on charges of being a drug lord.

Too bad we can't get the head of BP goose walked and sent to federal court (you don't get sent to prison on charges) on charges of criminal negligence.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Darkness404]

Ok, so I'm going to be hit by a non-legal pothead than a legal pothead? I'm not really sure where this is going...

The legalization of pot isn't about introducing something new but rather legalizing something that people already do just illegally rather than legally.

And as for treating things, have them (or their insurance) pay for it, not me. If someone wants to get cancer, fine, so long as they are paying for it. Just have people pay for things they use and it all works out. Reduce government regulations and such to make healthcare cheaper (I mean, honestly, I can go to the vet, have a long consultation with a vet who has gone to school sometimes as long as the doctor and having everything be transparent for around $35, no insurance, no lack of quality. On the other hand it costs $200 or so for a shorter conversation with a "real" doctor and few things are transparent. WTF?) and increase competition.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[mcgrew]

Hmm, but I smell the high smell of marijuana growing being handed over to licensed only agro-corporations and individuals will be fined for attempting to grow it themselves under penalties of tax evasion.

I'm not so sure of that; after all, you're allowed to make your own wine and brew your own beer; you just cant sell it without proper licenses, which is the way it should be IMO. I rather like having food and drink I pay for inspected by the government, although if I grow my own garden, nobody but me inspects my tomatos. I don't need a permit to brew my own beer or grow my own radishes, why would I need a permit to grow my own cannibis?

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[mcgrew]

Money will win out in this.

I suspect it already is winning out. I suspect that the drug cartels are contributing to legislators' campaign funds and lobbying for harsher penalties, which would raise prices and increase their profits. They are, after all, the only ones who benefit from these insane and irrational laws.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Reziac]

I expect many tobacco farmers are also watching with interest... tobacco being so gawdawful hard on the soil, and subject to so many pests -- hemp might be a whole lot more cost-effective to grow if it doesn't need so much doctoring (fertilizer, pesticides). I'm also wondering how much of the commercial tobacco harvesting and processing equipment could be adapted to hemp.

As to the more smokable kind -- the one downside I can see is that it will probably replace a lot of vegetable crops, unless those are subsidized, since the same immigrant labour force can do essentially the same work -- picking strawberries or picking flowers, what's the difference, except that marijuana likely has a better profit margin, and less risk to the grower.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[Shakrai]

Are there any civil rights that you people haven't surrendered to your Government yet?

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[mcgrew]

Why not simply let it be sold like any other product? I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs. Alcohol is slightly different because if you screw it up it can have toxic side effects

Poison peanuts, Poison wheat, poison corn. I, for one, am glad there's an FDA. There can be toxic side effects with foodstuffs, too. But IMO there shouldn't be an ATF, the FDA should regulate alcohol products, as well as tobacco and marijuana.

If you'd ever smoked pot laced with jimson weed or animal tranquilizer, you'd see why I'd like it to be legalized and regulated. You can't regulate an illegal product, or control it in any way. The term "controlled substance" is an extreme oxymoron.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[SmilingSalmon]

The overreaching interpretation of the commerce clause is probably one of the SC decisions that it most obviously far from the framers intentions.

Brilliantly insightful.

The beginning of the evil was Wickard v. Filburn, a most logically twisted ruling. Every Commerce Cluase case since then cites this grand daddy of all Commerce Clause cases. Thanks for packing the court with your patsey judges FDR.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[__aailob1448]

Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.

I did and there are exactly 4 google results...and none of them is relevant. You have lied to me and to slashdot. I demand an apology at once!

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[RobertM1968]

Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.

I did and there are exactly 4 google results...and none of them is relevant. You have lied to me and to slashdot. I demand an apology at once!

Instead of an apology, note that I did not write ""tobacco companies marijuana"" - I wrote search for "tobacco companies marijuana" (meaning type (no quotes) tobacco companies marijuana).

You my friend, have been here long enough that you should know how to use Google and should have been able to at least guess that (a) I meant it as a phrase and thus should be searched for in quotes (which would be asinine - c'mon, really, how many sentences would actually have that exact word construction? Oh, wait... according to Google, 4) - or (b) the quotes were in place to indicate that one should search for the words inbetween them and not any other words in the sentence they were included with. Thus, virtually anyone I know would have picked option b - or even having picked option a, would have tried option b next.

I guess I could have used the em tag instead - lesson learned... even others who have been here for ages aren't the best at using Google. That aside, go back to Google and search for tobacco companies marijuana with no quotes, with no em tag, etc - just those three words.

Or, even do it this way, to make the results a bit more accurate (not that it matters much - due to relevance ranking, the relevant results will be "on top" of the other search results): +tobacco +companies +marijuana - in which case, you will still get more than four. At this particular instant, I am getting about 94,096 more results than the four you claim.

BTW... love your sig.

protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to worry, federal "import tariffs" will ensure Silicon Valley weed farms don't go the same way as the chip fabs for quite a long time.

Re:protectionism

[icebraining]

Let's hope they get an ImportError.

How long will that last?

[Korin43]

Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?

Re:How long will that last?

[MrEricSir]

Flamethrowers, huh? Wouldn't it be easier just to use a Bic?

Re:How long will that last?

[phrackwulf]

No, no, flamethrowers is the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The FBI doesn't do the heavy stuff anymore unless its the Hostage Rescue Team. You can't get the napalm smell out of those nice suits.

You fly back to school now, little Starling. Fly, Fly, Fly.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the.. *ahem*unrest*cough*... that this town goes into over events, im not sure they want to throw that rock into the hornet's nest.

Re:How long will that last?

[minorproblem]

If so i plan on holding a LAN party down wind... make sure you bring nachos!

Re:How long will that last?

[The Hatchet]

flamethrowers and pot farms. Boy, the city downwind of that is going to have a nice day.

Re:How long will that last?

[geoffrobinson]

Well, if we actually had a legitimate understanding of the Commerce Clause, that wouldn't happen. But that would also necessitate that a lot of government regulations would go away.

Re:How long will that last?

[porky_pig_jr]

FBI agents need to mellow up, too.

Re:How long will that last?

[poormanjoe]

No they are still wet. Wet plants don't burn well. That's why you don't see wildfires in southern Louisiana. Usually during busts marijuana plants are up rooted, put in a pile, and use some fire source.

Re:How long will that last?

[catmistake]

Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?

It will end with the federal law being challenged and overturned. The 9th and 14th Amendments are clear on this. It is the right of the States to regulate those things not expressly reserved for the federal government. All your non-enumerated rights are belong to us.

Re:How long will that last?

[Loadmaster]

but interstate commerce is domain of the federal government. Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). An enumerated right does not mean that what is being regulated is specifically stated in the Constitution. That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.

Re:How long will that last?

[DigiShaman]

Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.

Re:How long will that last?

[Korin43]

And the last time the government stopped doing something because of the constitution was when?

Re:How long will that last?

[russotto]

Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in.

No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.

That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.

Really? Because the 10th amendment says precisely that.

Re:How long will that last?

[catmistake]

I think you're probably correct in that this is how the federal government is trying to justify their authority. I believe, however, that they will fail.

Cannibis was demonized in the 20th Century by racists. Once it is exposed that the plant is no threat to civilized society, that it is a wealth of medicene, and a ton of other really great uses, and that most citizens that are sick that cannibis can help want it, then the court will be swayed and the law will change.

No anti-drug attorney anywhere could convince any court that the Founders would have wanted cannibis to be illegal. Every important document from the era of the Founders was drafted on hemp paper. They all wore hemp clothes and used hemp rope. And most of the Founders smoked pot, for entertainment purposes or for various ailments. George Washington was obsessed with his pot crop.

Marijuana is not like cocaine. It's not like heroin, or even legal drugs that are abused like oxycontin. The Federal law banning marijuana makes about as much sense as banning coffee. It may be abused, but it's abuse won't be any more detrimental to society than other abused drugs. In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal. But this negative effect must be weighed against the positive effect, which is tremendous. Marijuana curbs suffering. The DEA's own administrative law judge did not see why marijuana should be illegal. He ruled it should be a scheduled drug, and with expert testimony, wished to place it at schedule IV, rather than schedule I where it is now. The DEA overuled their own judge. The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms

If you add prostitution to the mix, that's the best Bureau *ever*!

Re:How long will that last?

[Loadmaster]

Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in.

No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.

That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.

Really? Because the 10th amendment says precisely that.

It can't mean that because the necessary and proper clause (Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 18).

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that would be the 9th & 10th amendment. And the FBI/DEA would simply respond with the tortured logic of "growing pot in CA decreases interstate demand, therefore it affects interstate commerce, and the federal government is given the power to regulate interstate commerce." Not that I disagree with your logic, but the Feds have won cases with that line of argument before.

Re:How long will that last?

[Loadmaster]

The Raich case is a Supreme Court case that found federal drug laws trump state law due to interstate commerce even if the product is made and sold in the same state. It doesn't matter what the DEA wants to do. This is a case that the SCOTUS will have to overturn one of its earlier rulings. Will it? Maybe, but I don't think we'll get there. The pressure for reasonable pot laws will eventually sway Congressional opinion and we'll probably see marijuana drop off federal regulation leaving legalization up to the states.

Re:How long will that last?

[emt377]

In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal.

A lot of people get belligerent and violent when drunk. I'd rather have them stoned. For the rest of us normal people, I don't know why the government would or even should care if I have a drink or a couple of puffs of pot. They should just mind their own business and go find something useful to occupy themselves with. To be frank I think the illicit market for dealing in contraband is far more detrimental than the contraband itself - at least for things like booze and pot. People get killed in turf wars to control the illicit trade and to show off their third-world peasant machismo, not from smoking pot.

Re:How long will that last?

[dunezone]

Make it legal and you eliminate dealing with regular users dealing with court costs, loss of work, etc, etc.

Then you tax it like cigarettes and finally put restrictions on such like we do alcohol.

So now you take something that you have been spending money on to fight with no profit in return and turn it into some profitable.

Re:How long will that last?

[TooMuchToDo]

And if it's taxed too much, people will simply grow it as they always have. You legalize it, and tax it only to the point where people complain but it's still easier to pay the tax than it is to grow it. As soon as it's easier to grow it than pay the tax, game over.

Re:How long will that last?

[ridgecritter]

Um...if "the courts maintain the fiction that it is", well, that "fiction" is (legal) reality. In the absence of subsequent action by Congress, that is.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a win/win to me...

Re:How long will that last?

[Delarth799]

You need to mellow out man. Your negativity is harming the good vibes of everything else dude

Re:How long will that last?

[stonewallred]

Because of the children. Won't you think of the children? And the terrorists. And the way black men ply white women with jazz and marijuana then have their dastardly way with them.(And why yes, that is exactly what some clown in the federal government said a few decades ago about pot as a reason it should be made illegal.)

Re:How long will that last?

[linzeal]

Even if you taxed it at 400% cost it would still be cheaper than what it is today. Think about how much corn costs.

Re:How long will that last?

[stonewallred]

Making liquor is the same way. Not that I would put champagne yeast into a water/sugar/yeast booster mix and let it ferment for about 10 days then take the results and run it through a water cooled pot still at least three times if not more. Because it would be retarded to spend two or three hours making a gallon of basically 190 proof everclear for all of 10 bucks when I could easily run to the liquor store and buy a gallon for 64 dollars plus tax. I mean who would do that to save 50 bucks or so?

Re:How long will that last?

[Beardydog]

The Necessary and Proper clause says the same thing.

Re:How long will that last?

[TerranFury]

Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve

Yep... to add to this, though, AFAIK studies that have been done indicate that the maximum is well to the right (higher taxation) side of where the U.S. gov't has tax rates now...

Re:How long will that last?

[afidel]

And the states, don't forget that amendments have to be approved by 3/4ths of the states.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Blackjack, and Hookers.

Re:How long will that last?

[mjwx]

Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.

But what will this do to the price on the average bag of pot on the street? Do we have a Splif Price Index to compare this with?

I assume that even with a tax the price will lower as supply can now meet demand. Of course if this was done right only sales of the narcotic part of the plant would be taxed as there are other uses for the same plant such as producing cloth. But knowing the US govt they will tax growing it until it's no longer profitable.

Re:How long will that last?

[TooMuchToDo]

That's because corn is *heavily* subsidized by the federal government. Ever wonder why we convert so much of it to ethanol? Because it's fscking subsidized, not because it makes sense.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.

Yes, and why stop there - those Colombian drug-lords have a lot of profit which could easily be converted to taxation once the model is proven.

Re:How long will that last?

[AlamedaStone]

No they are still wet. Wet plants don't burn well. That's why you don't see wildfires in southern Louisiana. Usually during busts marijuana plants are up rooted, put in a pile, and use some fire source.

WHOOSH... bubble....

Re:How long will that last?

[Maxo-Texas]

I'm more concerned about the small chance of killing or blinding myself than the 50 bucks.

A half gallon (well.. 1.75 liters) of ever-clear lasts me over a year. It's really just like a double shot of vodka.. except you have to use it sparingly (a friend who didn't said, "gah! My mouth feels drier than before I drank this.") to boost other things.

I have to admit I'm also a little afraid of it's flammability.

Re:How long will that last?

[AlamedaStone]

Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms

If you add prostitution to the mix, that's the best Bureau *ever*!

In fact, forget the Bureau!

Re:How long will that last?

[catmistake]

Well, that's part of it. But guess what? If you don't sell it, it isn't commerce. That's the part were it is most definitely under the perrvue of the States. A federal law banning an individual from growing their own pot, for themselves, cannot last. They can tax it, like fuel (you can make your own, but it's still taxed), but, again, if not for sale, not commece.

Re:How long will that last?

[unwastaken]

That ruling also needs to be overturned. That and the related rulings going back to Wickard v. Filburn represent a disgusting overreach of government power. If all commerce is interstate commerce, why did the founders bother with the word INTERSTATE?!

Re:How long will that last?

[Abcd1234]

I think you *massively* underestimate a) how lazy your average pot user is, and b) the complexity involved in growing decent quality pot.

Re:How long will that last?

[DigiShaman]

You don't actually drink that stuff straight do you? It's practically tasteless 95% pure ethanol. The only time I've used it was to make mixed drinks. YMMV

Re:How long will that last?

[TooMuchToDo]

Whatever knowledge you may be missing is easily filled by info online. Growing anything smaller than an industrial operation is fairly trivial (I haven't grown myself, but I've run upon such places in Canada when I traveled with a friend a few years ago).

Re:How long will that last?

[Entropy98]

An outrage it may be, but the law it currently is..
 
--Windows Media Codec

Re:How long will that last?

[interkin3tic]

Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?

The people approving this obviously. And the hundreds of farmers who already grow and sell pot already and have been doing so for years.

Re:How long will that last?

[skids]

Even without the subsidies, it is extremely cheap compared to the current street prices for weed.

Basically they could tax it at just under the dollar value of the inconvenience of tending a few
plants in your house. Not as much as some people are proposing, but enough to make some
revenue.

Actually more revenue would probably be made in the long run from increased economic
activity surrounding industrial hemp products, without having any tax aimed specifically at
cannabis.

In the last decade public support for full legalization has gone up considerably. We're near
50% now. I forget what the magic tipping point number is, but I gotta say watching the
country ever so slowly realize marijuana prohibition is crap policy while so many lives are
ruined by the WoSD, is about as much fun as watching grass grow in a cemetery.

Re:How long will that last?

[b4upoo]

Yes, and they also did not make it clear whether they intended to shut down the small plot growers, home gardeners etc.. But I would bet money that the feds raid large growers and maybe small growers as well.

Re:How long will that last?

[LaRainette]

huh... me ?

No politician wants to legalize marijuana because most of the public doesn't smoke weed and therefore it is regarded as hippy liberal craziness to legalize it BUT no politician would EVER consider backing off on marijuana legalization !

When you think about it it's just the most awesome thing :
A. Taxes, loads of money for the government
B. Much less crime (drug traffic is the number one source of crime)
C. Jobs ! tons of real legit jobs instead of non legit, off the record, criminals.

If people weren't so fuc*ing stupid and ideological about it, and if some conservatives could take the broomstick they have up their ass out for 2 minutes everybody would realize legalizing marijuana is the only pragmatic decision to make.

Re:How long will that last?

[Maxo-Texas]

I mix it 1/3 to 2/3 port before concerts.
My bud basically made it 3/4 everclear to 1/4 port.

I can't drink sweet drinks for flavor any more. If I'm drinking, it's to get intoxicated for a concert or a party. Socially I just have a little suitable wine for the taste.

Diabetes means I need to control sugar & carb intake. I'd like to see pot legalized. I'd probably drink alchohol rarely after that.

Re:How long will that last?

[Scrameustache]

Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

No, growing your own pot in your own backward isn't interstate commerce, even if a corrupt judiciary says it is.
Also, the emperor isn't wearing a pretty suit: he's naked, no matter what the judge said.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'll add that we need a Laffer curve equivalent for "sin tax" stuff. It seems obvious to me that it should have about the same shape... too low a tax and the government doesn't get as much as it could, too high and smuggling reduces the total tax take more than the increased tax rate. This is important because we'd want an equilibrium (like what we currently have with alcohol taxes) so the drug smuggling cartels are broken. We don't want it punitively high (like it intentionally is with tobacco, since the goal there is to outright get people to quit), because the illegal drug infrastructure is *already in place now* and would keep chugging along as usual if illegal pot was half the price of legal-and-taxed pot.

Re:How long will that last?

[DigiShaman]

Could you site one or more of those studies please? With unemployment and our national debt as high as it is, I have a real hard time believing that taxes needed to go up of all things right now. Then again, the only thing growing a breakneck speeds is the growth of the government. And it always grows, but never shrinks... I find that frightening!

Re:How long will that last?

[RobertM1968]

Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.

But what will this do to the price on the average bag of pot on the street? Do we have a Splif Price Index to compare this with?

I assume that even with a tax the price will lower as supply can now meet demand. Of course if this was done right only sales of the narcotic part of the plant would be taxed as there are other uses for the same plant such as producing cloth. But knowing the US govt they will tax growing it until it's no longer profitable.

I always thought that the type of cannibis plant used for pot is not the same as the one used for hemp and the other (non pot related) medicinal purposes.

So does Wikipedia, and a few hundred other sites. Pot plants do not have the same type of fiber or fiber strength, and hemp plants have virtually no THC in them. This is a sad myth that has been spreading for years.

Hemp plants are also very useful as supplements (amino acids, protein and more - in some cases, more than any other thing normally consumed). But again, you cant get high off them. And you cant use pot plants to make decent hemp products.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they use flamethrowers, there will probably be more weed smoke than at woodstock.

Re:How long will that last?

[rodentia]

Actually, no, sale does not enter into it. One of the primary precedents for the expanded interpretation of the Commerce clause is Wickard vs. Filburn from 1942. SCOTUS determined that an Ohio man growing wheat as fodder for his animals and no other purpose was nevertheless subject to Federal limits on production and consequently liable for the statutory fine for his actions. The mere existence of Filburn's wheat was considered to have a *substantial economic effect,* according to the majority.

Re:How long will that last?

[L0rdJedi]

Or a subsequent court challenge. The previous ruling, from sometime back around the turn of the 20th century if I'm not mistaken (to lazy to look it up) would be overturned 5-4 if it gets challenged.

Re:How long will that last?

[L0rdJedi]

Complexity? Give me a break. An old friend of mine once grew a plant in his closet at home with a blue light. Unfortunately, he never got to try out the quality since he left the light on one night. His mom saw the glow from his room and checked it out. Lucky for him, his dad just made him throw out the plant (his mom wanted him out of the house).

The point is, it doesn't take much to grow a pot plant.

Re:How long will that last?

[L0rdJedi]

The government doesn't deserve any of it anyway! The government only needs enough revenue to secure the borders and run the military. Cut all the other social spending and entitlements (and yes I'm talking about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and the government won't need half of what it's taking in right now.

Simply making it legal would break the drug smugglers. If it's legal, why in the hell would you buy it from a drug smuggler? There'd be no point!

Re:How long will that last?

[L0rdJedi]

Which doesn't matter to much anyway. Besides the Laffer curve, there's another curve that's really just a straight line. That "curve" shows that no matter how high you raise taxes, the government keeps taking in the same amount of money. And it's for one very obvious reason: when you raise taxes, people that have money that they don't want taxed find ways of making it so it's not taxed. They either put it in non dividend yield stocks or they send it offshore or they buy bonds (which I don't think are taxed). Either way, they end up holding on to their money while everyone else is kept out of the upper brackets because they keep getting taxed so much that they can't break into those brackets.

The only time the government takes in more revenue is when they cut taxes. Business start hiring, which leads to more people paying taxes, which leads to higher tax revenue. Why this is still not understood is completely beyond me.

Re:How long will that last?

[denmarkw00t]

And I am ALL for that. Taxation sucks, sure, but so does going to your dealer's house, in the middle of downtown, at 2 am, with security cameras and pit bulls watching Water World (really...wtf?) with 5 ganster motherfuckers counting cash. I'll pay tax any day to NEVER have to do that again. I love America but goddamn we have some dumb laws that push people to HAVE to use shady sources to get pot.

A friend once told me about an interesting loophole: you can claim illegal drug sales on your taxes and expenses (like driving) and the gov't won't do shit - the IRS wants your money and they can't get it if you're in a prison. They want their share of your income, no matter how you get it.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that isn't really speech but action.

I think you and the GP are actually saying the same thing. Yeah, it's blatantly unconstitutional when the feds clamp down on things like this by claiming it's "interstate commerce" and when the courts swallow that.

Doesn't mean it's not happening, though. Reality sucks.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who can otherwise earn $50+ in two to three hours?

Re:How long will that last?

[sac13]

The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.

You're making the flawed assumption that the current court would be against the DEA's position. For some reason, I've got a strong feeling that Roberts, Alito and Thomas will compromise their "leave it to the states" position on this particular issue. Maybe, I'm just a cynic, though.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI agents the size of whales...

Re:How long will that last?

[Thing 1]

So that would be Prostitution of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?

Re:How long will that last?

[mqduck]

Please take notice of the loud WHOOSHing you just heard overhead.

Re:How long will that last?

[SuseLover]

This doesn't make any sense at all. The dictionary defines interstate as:

Main Entry: interstate Pronunciation: \in-tr-stt\ Function: adjective Date: 1844 : of, connecting, or existing between two or more states especially of the United States

What Cali wants to do would be intrastate wouldn't it?

intrastate (ntr-stt) adj. Relating to or existing within the boundaries of a state

How can any govt. entity claim they can control what amounts to intrastate commerce?

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the US are extremely lazy when you think about it. One can make a loaf of bread in a couple hours for less than a dollar, or a cup of coffee in 10 minutes for pennies.

And yet how many people pay $3 for bread and coffee?

Re:How long will that last?

[catmistake]

Cudos to your SCOTUS case knowledge. On the face of it, it seems to go against common sense, that something that isn't sold could be considered commerce. The great thing about cases is they can be overturned. For instance, a mother's milk, under these conditions, would have a detrimental effect on the economy... maybe 90 million new mothers... all skirting their responsibility by not paying commerce taxes on the milk they produce feed their babies. Yes, absurd.

Frankly, this Court, by changing the very intention and meaning of the Founders concerning the 2nd (no longer means you have a right to a gun to protect me, the 2nd now means self-defense, something it never meant before 2 years ago, no mention of self-defense in the Constitution), has ceased to impress me. The Majority now appear to be conservative stooges. sry, off topic and just MHO.

Re:How long will that last?

[Muad'Dave]

Think of the poor birds downwind! No tern will be left unstoned.

Re:How long will that last?

[Muad'Dave]

Think of the poor birds that live downwind! No tern will be left unstoned.

Re:How long will that last?

[Muad'Dave]

...blinding myself...

Unless you use old automobile radiators, intentionally adulterate your product, or intentionally disregard common-sense safety practices, I don't think you'll accidentally blind yourself. As the article says, most if not all of the methanol will be in the 'foreshot', so discarding it will result in the least chance of methanol poisoning.

Re:How long will that last?

[smellsofbikes]

In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal.

A lot of people get belligerent and violent when drunk. I'd rather have them stoned. For the rest of us normal people, I don't know why the government would or even should care if I have a drink or a couple of puffs of pot. They should just mind their own business and go find something useful to occupy themselves with. To be frank I think the illicit market for dealing in contraband is far more detrimental than the contraband itself - at least for things like booze and pot. People get killed in turf wars to control the illicit trade and to show off their third-world peasant machismo, not from smoking pot.

“I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument.” -- Bill Hicks.

Among many, many other great Hicks quotes.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?

You might be right; but I laughed after reading that, because It reminded me of a shareware game I played years ago.

http://www.evilx.com/ganjasoft.html

Re:How long will that last?

[Muad'Dave]

...the government won't need half of what it's taking in right now.

Sadly, half a little under the actual figure. As best as I can tell, 56.74% of FY2010 spending is sucked up by Social Security, Unemployment/welfare/other, Medicare, and Medicaid. Throw Health and Human Services and HUD in there, and the figure rises to 60.3%.

That doesn't include all of the other welfare leakage points that have crept into the tax system as 'credits'.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you are wrong; there is a supreme court decision from the 20's that substantially increased the power of the interstate commerce clause.
It had to do with a farmer exceeding a war-time alotment of wheat (which he grew for his own personal consumption); consensus was that even though
the wheat was grown for a specific purpose (local consumption), never intended to cross state lines, did not (in fact) cross state lines it was still
regulated by the interstate commerce clause due to the fact that it *could* cross state lines i.e. affect interstate commerce.

In short, it was a _horrible_ decision that is still legally valid.

Re:How long will that last?

[ducomputergeek]

And the results of the Civil War mean the practical reality of "Whatever the Feds say, goes."

Re:How long will that last?

[Shakrai]

The FBI doesn't do the heavy stuff anymore unless its the Hostage Rescue Team

I thought they only called the HRT out when they needed to shoot an unarmed woman holding her baby?

Re:How long will that last?

[Shakrai]

Well, if we actually had a legitimate understanding of the Commerce Clause, that wouldn't happen

What, you mean the framers didn't intend for it to be used to regulate the growing of wheat and cannabis for personal consumption? Say it isn't so!

Re:How long will that last?

[Shakrai]

You don't actually drink that stuff straight do you?

I've done shots of it. That'll put hairs on your chest in a hurry.....

Everclear was my favorite method of getting drunk back in my young and poor days. Buy a 750ml bottle for $15. Buy a 12 pack of Snapple for $6. Drink two shots worth out of the first snapple, refill with everclear, shake and consume. Repeat as desired.

Re:How long will that last?

[mcgrew]

Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms
If you add prostitution to the mix, that's the best Bureau *ever*!
In fact, forget the Bureau!

No, you need it to store the alcohol, tobacco, ammunition, and condoms.

Re:How long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, a lot of people. No, more than that, maybe everybody that knows anything about federal law enforcement - it would be the DEA if they were going to do it. Not to mention it would be in direct opposition to Obama's stance (not that that means all that much).

You obviously do not live in California, and even more obviously know nothing about the cannabis trade. Score:5, INsightful? Seriously, slashdot moderators are losing touch.

Most likely this will be the first of many legitimate ganja farms in California. What seems more likely is that if current grey market prices hold, it would get ripped off. But to send in the "troops" could stoke a political fire that may not be in the best interest of the Feds at the moment.

Re:How long will that last?

[IICV]

No you fool, there's only one side to the Laffer curve - the "too much taxation" part. You also have to include the "no representation" axis, even though it's mostly imaginary nowadays.

Re:How long will that last?

[Khyber]

"Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrower"

I think this way, for one. Why? Payattention to Canada in Afghanistan, THEY GOT THEIR ASSES KICKED BY A FOREST OF WEED.

Not even white phosphorous could burn clear.

Good luck burning that farm.

Re:How long will that last?

[Khyber]

"Whatever knowledge you may be missing is easily filled by info online."

You haven't visited many pot forums, have you? Most of them still think lumens is the proper way to judge the growing power of a light.

And speaking as a person that works in the horticultural field, I can say they're dead wrong, and that most of that information is BUNK.

Even Jorge Cervantes is caught up in the myths.

Re:How long will that last?

[SmilingSalmon]

But guess what? If you don't sell it, it isn't commerce.

You would think that, but you'd be wrong. The landmark case on the topic is Wickard v. Filburn, where the SC ruled that Filburn's wheat he had grown and consumed on his own land was subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

It's a horrible and illogical ruling because, according to the Court's logic, any activity can be classified as interstate commerce. Yet it is clear that the framers meant that only certain kinds of commerce fell into congressional jurisdiction. That's why they added the adjective "interstate" in front of the word "commerce".

Re:How long will that last?

[bill_mcgonigle]

What, you mean the framers didn't intend for it to be used to regulate the growing of wheat and cannabis for personal consumption? Say it isn't so!

Kudos on the Wickard v. Filburn reference. Your fans appreciate the effort. :)

Re:How long will that last?

[xmvince]

Knowing how draconian and unfair our government is, I wouldn't be surprised if this happened. However, I pray that it doesn't.

Other impacts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be interested to see the enrollment statistics for agricultural studies from community colleges and universities in the Bay Area 3 months from now.

Re:Other impacts

[Anonymous Coward]

3 months from now? You're acting like large-scale pot cultivation in northern California just started with this bill.

Re:Other impacts

[MikeyO]

They already have a school dedicated to such studies.

Groovy..

[phrackwulf]

Somebody had to say it.

Re:Groovy..

[Anonymous Coward]

One day, a scientist smoking marijuana at an industrial farm of it, will come up with a way to grow organic ambient temperature superconducting semiconductor components as part of genetically modified plants. then "silicon valley" and "pot valley" will be united. now THATS groovy.

Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[ZigiSamblak]

Here in the Netherlands we're only allowed to have four plants in natural light and farming cannabis on an industrial scale is only permitted in some rare government experiments.

Didn't think we would start running behind on the Americans with our liberal drugs laws, then again the Christian democrats have been in government for quite a while.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[CastrTroy]

The difference is that you can have it for whatever reason you want. In the US, as an individual, you have to get a prescription for it from your doctor.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, as an individual, you have to get a "prescription" for it from your "doctor".

FTFY.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Surt]

Don't move yet. The USA at the federal government level doesn't approve of this (though they are currently turning an INFORMAL blind eye to it), and may well jail anyone who actually tries to run an industrial scale marijuana farm.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[larry bagina]

To be pedantic, it varies by state. In California, there are doctors who do nothing but sell weed prescriptions. In most states, it's still illegal.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

parent + gp: To be pedantic, prescriptions are federal and Cannabis is Schedule I so no doctor may write a prescription for Cannabis. Instead doctors give recommendations to use Cannabis.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Wyatt Earp]

Umm, no I had a prescription in the State of Oregon for medical pot.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't pay for it, you make a "donnation". The semantics don't really matter. Note also that CA can no longer afford to incarcerate all the users.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that they can't because they have no jurisdiction. Yeah, sorry that pesky Constitution thingy again. If the pot is grown, sold and used inside the state there isn't a damn thing the feds can do about it.

This is an identical concept to getting around federal firearms laws which don't apply if the weapon is manufactured and sold in the all in the same state.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Nadaka]

That doesn't matter according to the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

The production and sale of pot in California affects the supply and demand within the state, and therefore affects the interstate illegal trade of pot.

It is the same reason that the interstate commerce clause can be used to jail you for building your own automatic weapon. Because by building it yourself, you didn't buy it from a hypothetical supplier that may have been in another state.

Insane? Absolutely. But that is how things work these days.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't move yet. The USA at the federal government level doesn't approve of this.

Just put a sign on your door that says "Go away, DEA!"

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

No you didn't, prescriptions are federal and regulated by the DEA. Cannabis is Schedule-1 which means it has no known medical use and/or cannot be used safely under the supervision of a doctor. Doctors cannot write prescriptions for Cannabis any more than they can for LSD or heroin, no matter what state they practice in. In fact, if a doctor did write a prescription for Cannabis on their prescription form and the DEA found out they would lose their license to write any prescriptions at all. While license to practice is regulated by the state, it doesn't include license to write prescriptions. This is why many doctors are afraid to even recommend cannabis, even if permitted by the state they practice in, because they fear losing their license to write prescriptions which would end their practice.

Only six people legally use Cannabis under federal law as the program

was closed to new people in 1992.

I'm sorry but you simply had a recommendation from your doctor. A doctors note is not a prescription.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It might be nice if they had no jurisdiction; but they've got precedent...(Incidentally, if anybody tries to tell you that Scalia is an "originalist", please punch them).

Apparently, because the California intrastate market has an indirect effect on the interstate market, regulating it is a viable use of the interstate commerce clause. It was a darkly amusing case because it pitted the ostensible 'principles' of both the "conservative" and the "liberal" justices against their tastes. The conservative justices would have loved to chip away at the scope of the interstate commerce clause; but they just couldn't face the grim possibility of a world where potheads can't legally be busted by the feds. The liberals love them some broad interpretations of that clause; but they also have a (comparatively) soft spot for the test-case users.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[apoc.famine]

Which will end up as a pretty interesting legal battle...

Most of the drug laws are based on interstate commerce laws. That clause has been abused like no other, to the point that it doesn't make a lick of sense. When you bust people under interstate commerce for growing and consuming something in their own state, without being near a state line, you're treading on thin ice. So far, the courts have turned a bit of a blind eye to this abuse. I don't know how well that'd go if it was a state sponsored activity.

If the federal courts/Supreme Court can't see that Interstate commerce requires Commerce between States to be regulated, I can see a number of states being a bit uppity. That's the stuff of revolutions.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[BitZtream]

If by informal blind eye, you mean the DEA and FBI are regularly going after people, arresting them and sentencing them to very long jail terms, then yea, they are turning an informal blind eye to it.

I prefer to think of it as they are prosecuting to the fullest extent of their resources, but hey, I supposed thats just my perspective.

California's drug laws (as you said) don't matter, its illegal from a federal perspective and the first industrial grower that opens will either be a CIA funding operation or will promptly be closed by the DEA.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[CyDharttha]

Way off-topic, but I think you have the lowest UUID I've seen yet in comments :)

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Runaway1956]

Actually, no state can "afford" to incarcerate all the users. Counties are building more and bigger jails, and states are building additions to prisons, and there is still a shortage of space in which to put prisoners. The Feds can't afford to lock up all the pot smokers, any more than the states can.

It's far past time to end prohibition. One of the first lessons a good leader learns is to NEVER issue an order that won't be obeyed. Our federal government has failed at leadership.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Most of the drug laws are based on interstate commerce laws. That clause has been abused like no other, to the point that it doesn't make a lick of sense. When you bust people under interstate commerce for growing and consuming something in their own state, without being near a state line, you're treading on thin ice. So far, the courts have turned a bit of a blind eye to this abuse. I don't know how well that'd go if it was a state sponsored activity.

If the federal courts/Supreme Court can't see that Interstate commerce requires Commerce between States to be regulated, I can see a number of states being a bit uppity. That's the stuff of revolutions.

Note that Obama's Healthcare law also bounces off the Interstate Commerce clause. Among others.

It will be very hard for the current Administration to argue that they don't have the power to deal with California's mj, but do have the power to regulate the health insurance of everyone in America.

Even worse, if the Supremes rule that the Interstate Commerce clause doesn't apply to California's mj, then the number of lawsuits that will go winging their way up to the Supremes arguing for similar interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause for their pet peeve will be awe-inspiring.

Note that virtually the entire growth of the Federal government since 1933 has depended on the Interstate Commerce clause being interpreted loosely enough to allow the Feds to do whatever they wanted.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That's the thing, the federal laws are still in place and liable to be enforced at any time. When a Republican administration gets back in, they're very likely to start enforcing it again. If I were thinking of getting into that business, I wouldn't put any more money into it that couldn't get a complete return on investment in less than two years. There is no certainty that Obama will get re-elected and there's no point in being too invested that you can't get out quickly (or I suppose go underground quickly enough) when the pendulum swings again.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[treeves]

He said "most states". That is still correct. Oregon was an early medical marijuana adopter.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. My home town today.... http://www.theunion.com/article/20100721/NEWS/100729994/1066&ParentProfile=1053 Plenty of small scale "medicine" gardens go unnoticed here. Plenty. Small towns with few jobs don't mind some cash in the local revenue here and there, but there is such a thing as pushing the envelope of a gray-ish area. Yes the town is named Rough and Ready, and yes...I am an Anonymous Coward.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[techno-vampire]

the first industrial grower that opens will either be a CIA funding operation or will promptly be closed by the DEA.

Or both. The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[jlarocco]

In the US, as an individual, you have to get a prescription for it from your doctor.

That's not saying much. Here in Colorado college students can get medical pot licenses for nausea. Maybe California is more strict.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[monstermagnet]

Ayep. Read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

This decision was one of the most dispiriting things about law skool.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[lgw]

When a Republican administration gets back in, they're very likely to start enforcing it again.

As an ancient Vulcan proverb puts it "only Nixon could go to China". I think only a Republican administration could legalize pot at the federal level. The libertarian-leaning Republicans support this, too - heck, Buckley started arguing against the "war on drugs" in the 80s. I don't have much hope that the Tea Party folks will bring sense to the GOP regarding smaller government, but at least it's something to be hopeful about.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Maxo-Texas]

Legal pot states
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

1. Alaska 98 1 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature)
2. California 96 8 oz usable; 18 plants (6 mature, 12 immature)**
3. Colorado 00 2 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature)
4. Hawaii
5. Maine
6. Michigan
7. Montana
8. Nevada
9. New Jersey
10. New Mexico
11. Oregon
12. Rhode Island
13. Vermont
14. Washington

Several recently (2006-2010) so it is probably gaining momentum.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[stonewallred]

Hell in NC, the heart of the bible belt, fundies and repubs from hell, they tried to get a medical marijuana bill passed that would allowed ,IIRC 50 square feet of plants per residence. Marijuana will be legal just like alcohol and tobacco within the next 20 years if not sooner.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[stonewallred]

5% of the world population and I think 25% of the prison inmates.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[bm_luethke]

If I could go back and tell our founding fathers just one thing I think it would be "the commerce clause sucks royally". It seems to me that the vast majority of the really bad Supreme Court decisions are based on it - it seems that one can rationalize it to allow the feds to regulate nearly *anything*.

Simply look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause, search for the "civil rights" header and read from there. They can regulate health clubs because the health bars they sell are manufactured in other states? Really? Does *anyone* in their right mind truly think this is what was intended? Or the one you quote - anyone out there really think that the framers of our constitution meant for federal govt to regulate what you can and can not make/grow at your house because if you do that then you will not purchase the item on the open market and that effects national supply and demand? That is simply *crazy* (I agree with the part of that decision that says the states can't legalize something the feds have the power to make illegal).

In the one you link I can somewhat understand Scalia's stance - that allowing states to have people grow restricted items undercuts the federal's ability to regulate something (which is true - it's why California did what it did). While I think that is borderline, allowing you to produce illicit drugs interferes with the feds ability to enforce is quite a bit different than saying growing it in your house lowers the price so the feds can regulate it - my main argument there is that falls under the sovereignty clause, not commerce.

But then I'm that wants the feds to only do what the constitution allows them to do, I prefer most power to be local anyway. There is too much difference both in terms of what people want and what people need from California to Tennessee that moving most regulatory power to a federal level just plain sucks. If you want to move into a hippie, free love, abortion on demand commune then have at it - if you want to move into a religious, gun toting, redneck village then have fun. I see no reason for either one to tell the other they are doing it wrong and try and force them into their lifestyle. But then I seem to be rare in that regards too - most want you to have the freedom to do exactly what they force you too. If we were simply arguing where to draw the line (and there is a great deal of argument there) then it would be one thing, but we are mainly arguing who gets to tell the rest of the people what to do.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

"interstate commerce clause can be " can or can't?

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Vellmont]

Didn't think we would start running behind on the Americans with our liberal drugs laws, then again the Christian democrats have been in government for quite a while.

America is a big place. California is actually so big in itself it really becomes at least a region of its own. Over the years I've come to realize that many (most?) Europeans don't really appreciate just how big and diverse the United States is. The analogy is far from perfect, but I'd say the differences of opinion within the US is somewhere on the same scale of the differences of opinion inside Europe. As an example, most Americans wouldn't think anything of driving 4 hours in a car somewhere on a relatively regular basis. In many states you can drive 4 hours and are still in the same state! In Europe, you can drive 4 hours and you've crossed 2 borders and driven in 3 countries.

The point being, while MJ laws are by and large becoming more liberal in a few states, the rest of the states are still a long ways away. The current economic crisis may change that a little, but this isn't a major change across the entire US just yet.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Bing Tsher E]

The above is all the more reason to get working on rolling back the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Democracy works best when people are electing representatives close to home.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Bing Tsher E]

The Tea Party folks are exactly the group within the Republicans who would get behind legalization.

You won't read about it much in the news, but part of the 'back to basics' about many of the Tea Partiers is to get over all the 'social conservative' bullshit and just get frickin' government off our backs.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[MartinSchou]

It is the same reason that the interstate commerce clause can be used to jail you for building your own automatic weapon. Because by building it yourself, you didn't buy it from a hypothetical supplier that may have been in another state./

Well ... by that logic you're breaking the interstate commerce clause by not buying child pornographer from a hypothetical supplier that may have been in another state.

At least that's what it sounds like to me.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Maxo-Texas]

However, one of the "how to grow pot video" on the torrent sites appears to be from the netherlands and shows about 20-30 plants under artificial lightning.

Based on the recent BBC special where a reporter spent a month smoking pot there in a coffee shop, I'm going to want the giggly high cannabinoid type over the high THC type. THC dominant produced a much more paranoid unhappy high in the reporter. However, she was also an idiot and when told to "take two puffs" she kept smoking for 10 minutes until the high hit her like a mac truck.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[interkin3tic]

There's are in my estimation several reasons it was "Only Nixon could go to China" and not "Only a republican could go to China." One reason of which being Nixon was a leader who his party would follow. I'm not the most informed on leaders waiting in the tea party, but so far I haven't seen anyone who could actually lead like that. Seems to me there are plenty of people who could say what the tea party was thinking for a minute or two, but to get it moving in a direction it wasn't already moving AKA legalizing something many of them think is immoral and somehow anti-american? It might be a while before someone like that comes along.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[EastCoastSurfer]

I was about to say the same thing. I live in Denver and there is a nightly talk radio show for pot smokers. It's hard to listen to because the content is so bad, but I've heard them say that getting a prescription from a doctor takes all of 5 minutes. At one point the 'dispensaries' had doctors located inside of them and you could show up, pay to get a card, and buy your weed at the same place. Apparently they recently changed the law to add a waiting period so that had the guys on the show really up in arms....well I guess as angry as full time pot smokers could actually get.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[EastCoastSurfer]

While what you're saying is true, I think we're about to see a showdown between the states and the federal government with the current economic climate being the driving force. Many states have already passed state amendments re-affirming their states rights and I'm thinking we're going to see either pot or immigration reform (or lack of from a federal level) be the battlefield where states start really pushing back.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[LaRainette]

That's true (and awesome when you live close to the Netherlands)
But he is right about something : the Netherland did crap with their marijuana legalization : they didn't legalize (or at least they didn't free the market) "industrial" large farms.

This has lead to a crazy situation where pot is legally sold to individuals in coffe shop, but this pot often comes from the mafia !!
Because the coffee shop are not allowed to grown as much as they want, and because it's not easy to grow pot on large scale to resell to coffee shops in large amounts, the coffee shop owners have no other option than buying illegal pot !
it's insane !

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? Nixon (a Republican) is the one who started the war on drugs! And have you checked what states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use thus far? Hint: 3 out of the 14 (!) are considered "red" states...

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Scrameustache]

I don't have much hope that the Tea Party folks will bring sense to the GOP

You have some hope that the teabaggers will bring sense to anyone? Man, I bet nor torturer could break your spirit!

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[lmnfrs]

There most definitely are medical prescriptions here in Oregon. It's been recommended to me by patients and well known doctors. It most definitely can help, a lot, depending on the medical condition.

Personally, I have two options: pills that cost about $140 per month for 6-8 months and kinda help, but make me sleepy; or $45 once for the drugs that do help, and make me laugh at dumb things.
Oh darn.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Omestes]

The Tea Party folks are exactly the group within the Republicans who would get behind legalization.

The problem with this idea is that its very hard to tell where the grass ends and the Astroturf begins in the modern tea party movement. The original core of the tea party would be a great ally to legalization, but a lot of the movement has been taken over by the same old creepy Republicans.

It is amusing that legalization is an issue that both the far left, and far right could stand behind though, you just run into problems towards the middle.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[apoc.famine]

I really don't think that's the answer. The Interstate Commerce clause is pretty damn important, and makes a good deal of sense.

The issue is that somehow it's being used for shit that's not interstate, or not commerce. If it's not BOTH, the Interstate Commerce rules can't apply. I'd be happy if judges just started tossing stuff out due to that obvious fact alone.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[lucifron]

The feds just print more money.

Who gives a crap if it's sustainable, as long as the private prison industry & politicians they have on retainer earns well..?

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Surt]

By informal blind eye I mean:

"Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. has announced that the Justice Department will not prosecute people who are selling medical marijuana in compliance with California's law."

The fbi/dea can arrest as they please, but they can't send you straight to jail without a trial, or at least not very often without getting noticed.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[jimicus]

Seriously, a person could (hypothetically at least) get a license, get all the paperwork agreed by the state and still wind up in prison? What's the point in the state issuing such licenses then? And who's going to line up to be the first test case? Don't all rush at once....

That's not stupid, that's institutionalised insanity.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[mikael_j]

It is amusing that legalization is an issue that both the far left, and far right could stand behind though, you just run into problems towards the middle.

Yes, for some reason the more fringe elements in politics tend to respond easier to obviously good ideas, and the even the idiots out on the edges realize that them supporting a Good Thing will most likely lead to greater public support...

The problem is mostly getting them to join forces over issues like this.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[drinkypoo]

Several recently (2006-2010) so it is probably gaining momentum.

Also what enables Oakland to do this is that right now in California by case law there is no limit on the number of plants you may produce, though there are limits on the processed amount you may have at once. Nobody needs a warehouse for 18 plants.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[mdm-adph]

Thing is, the Tea Party folks don't _really_ want "smaller" government -- they just want "different" government. As soon as Republicans are back in power, all this talk about "smaller" government will disappear almost overnight.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

What were the founders smoking when they put that clause in!

I don't even see the necessity for it.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

The original intent was to give the federal government the power to prevent the states from placing tariffs on goods sold from other states. It's part of the what makes the US a single economic zone. So California couldn't put an import tariff on, say, grapefruits grown in Florida. This is how the clause was interpreted before decisions like Gonzales there.

Unfortunately, the federal government has followed a trend of general expansion of power (ever since day one, really). Eventually some clever chap read Humpty Dumpty's comments about words meaning exactly what he wants them to mean, and suddenly preventing the states from limiting interstate commerce also meant preventing someone from growing something on his own land for his own consumption if the feds didn't like it.

Old, old, depressing trend, and hardly the only phrase in the constitution that gets interpreted in ways that makes you think the supreme court justices lack grade one reading skills.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[__aagbwg300]

Here in America, the term "government experiments" has a totally different meaning. Now, if you excuse me, I have to adjust my tinfoil chin strap.

Puff, puff, give!

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[__aagbwg300]

Actually, that is the way it has been since nearly the beginning. Or at least 1824.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[stdarg]

Don't forget healthcare and gay marriage. Individual states are pushing on many fronts these days, it almost makes me optimistic.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[mqduck]

The difference is that you can have it for whatever reason you want. In the US, as an individual, you have to get a prescription for it from your doctor.

Sure, but it's not hard to speculate that this new Oakland law has something to do with anticipation that the marijuana legalization bill might pass in November. I read somewhere that Oakland is also one of the cities already planning bills to set local tax levels for recreational marijuana sale.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Surt]

Yeah, the problem is that the states don't necessarily need or want to outlaw anything or everything that the federal government can and will. It's actually somewhat like slavery: the federal government wanted to ban it, but a bunch of states did not. In that case we wound up fighting a war to settle the issue.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Colorado you need a recommendation from your doctor. Prescriptions are different and entail more legal regulations.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[lgw]

You base your deep knowledge of the inner thought of Tea Party activists on what data, again? Do you spend a lot of time at rallies, or socializing with them?

Ultimately it doesn't much matter - we're out of money and nearly out of the ability to borrow more. The cost of Social Security + Medicaid + Medicare exceeds all combined federal revenue already, so there's not much room to make government bigger. Even Europe's more socialist nations are being forced to embrace austerity measures, so the general cultural acceptance that sometimes you just have to make government smaller (or collapse) is growing. If it's not the Tea Party, some future movement will succeed.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Reziac]

How about we ditch the Commerce Clause entirely, agree that the Feds have no business regulating commerce BETWEEN the states either, and set its duty to regulating only business directly between a state and a foreign power?

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

You base your deep knowledge of the inner thought of Tea Party activists on what data, again? Do you spend a lot of time at rallies, or socializing with them?

History. Every time liberals are in power, conservatives demand smaller government and fiscal responsibility. When conservatives are in power, the rarely talk about these things and government grows and civil liberties shrink. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

In general conservatives and liberals want about the same amount of government. Just in different areas. Conservatives want a huge military and active military. They want more police and tougher law enforcement (tough on crime, etc). They want corporate welfare and protections. When the Tea Party says they'll let people have abortions, gays get married, end crop subsidies, allow free importing of sugar, let people speak any language they want and move about without restrictions, pull our military out of other countries, etc, etc. Then I'll believe they want less government. Best I can tell they just want lower taxes and the ability to pollute without paying the cleanup costs.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Khyber]

"2. California 96 8 oz usable; 18 plants (6 mature, 12 immature)**"

This is no longer true. The California Supreme Court ruled just a couple of months ago that a limit on the amount of plants or processed marijuana a patient could have was unconstitutional, and they amended the law to state "As much as medically necessary."

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not saying much. Here in Colorado college students can get medical pot licenses for nausea. Maybe California is more strict.

It's the same in California. You can get a medical Marijuana recommendation as long as you have $100-$200 on you.

Hopefully if we legalize it in November, responsible recreational smokers won't have to go through what they go through today to enjoy Marijuana. DEA be damned at that point, they can't arrest us all.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[xanadu113]

You can't get a prescription for cannabis, unless you are one of the patients in the I.N.D. program...

You CAN, however, get a written recommendation... They can't prescribe cannabis because it's schedule I...

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Over here in the USA, the Republicans are the christians and the Democrats are the infidels.

Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[countertrolling]

There's anecdotal evidence that pot smokers consume less alcohol when toking up. AND, from the government itself...

So I'm just tellin' ya, Let it go... It's over Johnny, it's over...

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[countertrolling]

Fucked again by a pay wall... Sorry 'bout that...

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[Anonymous Coward]

"Drinking beer and smoking dope together is like pissing into the wind" - Freewheelin' Franklin (often attributed to Fat Freddy himself).

And why did the US repeal prohibition? For the tax revenue after the depression wiped out capital gains...

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[countertrolling]

Oh boy, if history repeats itself that accurately, another world war is just around the corner..

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, if you do it right it's AWESOME.

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[LaRainette]

Let's hope this one doesn't end with nuclear strikes.

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[mikael_j]

Nah, it'll probably start with them.

I don't remember who said it but IIRC some US general said something along the lines of "Smart bombs are fine and all but after a week of real fighting you're back to basics again", implying that if a real large war broke out again both sides would eventually just be chucking big dumb bomb loads at each other since it's cheaper to throw a few tons of explosives at the other guy than it is to use "smart" bombs.

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[countertrolling]

Actually we'll just get bombed back into the stone age.. *cough*

Silicon Valley of pot?

[Freddybear]

I once smoked an Intel chip, all it did was make me cry. ;)

Re:Silicon Valley of pot?

[DWMorse]

Never mod points when you need them. +1 Funny.

Re:Silicon Valley of pot?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Christ, man. You should be more careful. I had a buddy who caught the FDIV bug smoking one of those things... His once promising accounting career was destroyed.

Re:Silicon Valley of pot?

[Anonymous Coward]

well did you get it from new egg? in that case you smoked some plastic

Re:Silicon Valley of pot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod -1 Not Funny

Re:Silicon Valley of pot?

[crgrace]

I live in Oakland, and one of the many nicknames we have for it is "Oaksterdam"

Re:Silicon Valley of pot?

[lmnfrs]

You should try some AMD chips, their stuff will puff into a small cloud!

msnbc

[Anonymous Coward]

According to MSNBC:

That's as far as I got...

Re:msnbc

[Maniacal]

Well, in case you want to know, right after that it said "The economy is doing great, and then, Obama farts puppies, flowers and rainbows"

That didn't take long

[PopeRatzo]

Is it possible that in 2010, there's a sign that our society might actually be growing up a little bit? It's something small, but a good sign. I'm not a pot smoker, but the notion that there's been this prohibition on a harmless plant with medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous. There are only a few things worse than a moralistic, hypocritical society. Saying that marijuana is evil, dangerous and should be illegal while tobacco and alcohol are huge industries with all the social and health problems they create is both moralistic and hypocritical. Worse, it's a hypocrisy fueled by the fact that so much money is involved - money that pays lobbyists who buy politicians.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate over the illegality of crystal meth, cocaine, and some other substances. These are drugs that have had ruinous effects on parts of our society. But the debate over marijuana should have been over 50 years ago.

Next up should be a re-thinking of the laws regarding pain medication, such as opiates and synthetics. Making their sale on the street illegal is one thing, but the fact that doctors are afraid to prescribe them, even in cases where they would be the best treatment for their patients is a shame. We've got this weird proscription against substances that could make us feel better, even for sick or terminal patients, that comes from a moralistic, Puritan streak that runs through this country. It's time to jettison that relic.

Re:That didn't take long

[inKubus]

Oh and F. hang around with a real addict or two for a few days.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that everyone would do the drugs, we'd get addicted, then there would be a sort of reverse Opium War except instead of the British invading China, it'd be China invading us. Granted, a lot of that is blown out of proportion.

I do think you should have to

A. Be 25 B. Pass a several year course of drug education, from health issues to manufacture. C. Obtain a license from your state D. Restrict use to private places E. Don't drive while doing it, or around the time you're doing it

before you can get the legal stuff. After that, it's pretty much up to the person. Why shouldn't stimulants be legal also? Lots of people are prescribed Ritalin and Adderal.

If all of that is any more difficult than just doing it illegally, then you are still going to fund the black market and lose out on all the available tax revenues that an open regulated legal market would have provided.

Your logic is pretty shitty at best, no offense. You think sane reform of legislated morality would result in people doing drugs and getting addicted? First prove that anyone who wants to do drugs is currently unable to find them because of their illegal status. Hint: it isn't working, it hasn't worked, and it will never work. They cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, you really think the legal staus is keeping them out of regular society? Abandon this control fantasy, we've tried that for decades and it has never worked. Besides, most drug users want to leave you alone while being left alone by you. Most of them are not criminals except that they violate drug possession laws. Unlike sane areas of law, drug possession does not involve harming any other human being.

Re:That didn't take long

[swb]

Next up should be a re-thinking of the laws regarding pain medication, such as opiates and synthetics.

Amen. I get terrible "migraines" (doctor's word, not mine -- I just say headaches) and about 20% of the time a timely Midrin will help, but if that fails or I'm not timely, the only thing that helps is opiates.

My doctor gives me *40* Percocets every six months, along with a bullshit lecture on how habit-forming they are, etc etc etc. It's hardly adequate -- I fall short by about 1-2 months and refuse to go back for fear of being labeled and cut off forever or have him force shit like daily tricyclic antidepressants on me.

At my last visit I complained mildly that while effective, the peak duration of pain relief was fairly short, forcing me to take more pills -- was there something with a longer, sustained release? "No, that'd be just more narcotics, and we'll stay where we're at." Meanwhile, a 3 day headache is like 1/4 of my SIX MONTH supply.

I'm pretty sure I could take 40 Percocets in a MONTH and never develop an addiction, but they'd rather have you suffer than "risk" addiction.

Re:That didn't take long

[Internet_Communist]

I don't know if you're serious or not, but that's completely ridiculous for pot quite honestly. and most studies on pot and driving actually showed that people were more cautious, it does not have the same type of coordination effects of alcohol regardless of what some people may tell you.

quite honestly any restrictions on pot if it were made legal i'd expect to be equal or less than alcohol, since alcohol is a much more dangerous drug anyway.

and you know what, people who abuse stimulants (adderall is pretty much one step away from crystal meth) are some of the worst addicts I've met, don't even talk about them in the same paragraph...pot is completely different. you don't burst out into abusive fits of rage when you smoke pot like I've seen people do while hopped up on meth...

if you want people to hang around a real addict, they won't be pot smokers. Real addicts do a lot more than something as relatively harmless as pot.

Re:That didn't take long

[rthille]

Not sure about your predisposition to addiction, but I'm sure that some people are susceptible.
However, when my ex-wife's mother was dying, they figured that she had at most 2 months to live, and the doctors and hospice (!) were worried about her getting addicted. WFT?

Re:That didn't take long

[PopeRatzo]

The problem is that everyone would do the drugs

I don't know about where you live, but around here drugs are pretty readily available, yet "everyone" does not do drugs.

A. Be 25
B. Pass a several year course of drug education, from health issues to manufacture.
C. Obtain a license from your state
D. Restrict use to private places
E. Don't drive while doing it, or around the time you're doing it

There are people who believe the same rules should not apply to firearms, which are designed and manufactured to be lethal, yet should apply to marijuana, which as far as I know has only been lethal to extra-large bags of LAY'S® Kettle Cooked Harvest Ranch Flavored Potato Chips.

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Have you tried botox? Seriously - botox works incredibly well for many people with migranes. It's not addictive, you only need a treatment every 2-3 months, maybe even less frequently. Dunno how much you pay for pain meds, what with copays and all, but 100% out of pocket, botox ought to be significantly less than $500 per treatment - a few years back it was in the ~$300 range if you shopped around. I've heard that it's become less popular for cosmetic uses (not really sure why, maybe fads change, maybe it's the economy) which might have brought prices down even further.

Re:That didn't take long

[PopeRatzo]

Oh and F. hang around with a real addict or two for a few days.

Few extended families have not been affected in one way or another by addiction, whether to drugs or alcohol. But I still don't see how the legality or illegality of marijuana is going to affect the rates of addiction.

Pot is already the number 1 cash crop of the state of California. Considering that the Salinas area is considered the "Salad bowl of the Nation" that's saying an awful lot. To keep such an enormous economy underground and off-the-books is just not reasonable.

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Is it possible that in 2010, there's a sign that our society might actually be growing up a little bit?

No, its just the economic downturn's effect on tax revenues is all. One of the major reasons prohibition finally came to an end too - in the decade or so prior to prohibition roughly 40% of the country's tax revenues were from the sale of alcohol.

Ever wonder why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the feds can ban any old drug they feel like without even a vote of the legislative branch nowadays?

That's some bullshit right there.

Re:That didn't take long

[Briden]

a great documentary on the subject, from a canadian point of view: http://www.theunionmovie.com/TheUnionWeb.html

after watching this, you will understand why it should be legalized. and why it never will be.

Re:That didn't take long

[Wyatt Earp]

Its going to push small operations out of business, it's the consolidation of medical pot in Oakland.

My mother was a pot grower and dealer throughout the 1980s and 90s, she always said laws liberalizing pot were always going to be resisted by the dealers and growers.

Now, the idea that pain medication is under prescribed is nonsense or had to get a script for it ridiculous.. I've had no trouble over the years getting Vicodin, Oxycontin, Opana, Avinza, MS Contin, Methadone and finally Fentanyl patches (which I used daily for 14 months.)

Re:That didn't take long

[Wyatt Earp]

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the right to get drunk or high is not.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

More cautious doesn't necessarily make a better driver. They could be cautious to the point of hesitation, which can easilty lead to an accident.

Re:That didn't take long

[wxjones]

We should be honest about this. Legalized pot will result in more people using, more people abusing, and all the problems that implies. We all remember smart kids from high school that wasted their lives on pot. But, this is still far better than incarcerating people for only harming themselves and the huge amount of money and abuse of freedom that we currently have. In addition, we will be taking away a guaranteed source of income from drug gangs, some of the nastiest people on earth. It is not a panacea, but it is a large net gain.

Re:That didn't take long

[Nadaka]

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Some of our founding fathers thought that was sufficient.

Re:That didn't take long

[Tink2000]

Yeah, but the Declaration says we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I know the DoI isn't law of the land, but it is certainly the spirit of the law of the land... a mission statement of sorts, if you like.

Re:That didn't take long

[TexVex]

I've been a smoker of cigarettes and herb since my late teens. The weed I can take or leave. I've gone through times when I would wake-and-bake and stay high all day for months on end, times when I would get high once or twice a month, and times when I haven't smoked any at all for years on end.

While it is true that you build up a bit of a tolerance after you've been smoking hard and long, there are absolutely no withdrawal symptoms when you stop. Even when you go from being constantly stoned to completely dry, you can quit and not have cravings.

Tobacco is completely the opposite. If I go more than a few hours without a smoke, I'm already hating life. I have quit three times, all of them for several months, but the craving for the nicotine rush just never seemed to go away. It really does suck.

Nicotine is highly toxic, and just a small drop of the pure stuff on the tongue can easily be fatal. With THC, however, you can consume an entire gram of the pure shit and you'll just get really, REALLY stoned. (That's hard to do by smoking, but not so hard to do if you're eating it...)

I remember a very vivid dream from my youth, in which I went into a gas station and bought a pack of Marlboro joints. They looked like cigarettes, and even had filters, and the box looked like a pack of Marlboro 100s except in deep green instead of red.

I think it's time we quit being stupid about the whole thing and flat-out make MJ be equally as legal and equally as commoditized as tobacco. But I'm happy for the baby steps. If it has to be "medicine" for "sick people" then so be it; eventually it'll be legal and commercialized. I guess when it comes right down to it we are ALL terminally ill and in chronic pain. It's just some of us are more immediately terminal and in more pain than others. But we all have pain and we are all gonna die.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you and I, if I can be so bold as to assume something about you, with little or no predisposition to addiction get screwed because the majority (or even just a lot) of people are unable to control themselves when exposed to powerful drugs. My doctor has refused for years to give me anything for my insomnia, saying that it would be habit forming and I need to deal with the root cause instead - which she claims is stress, despite my insistence that I am very low stress already. I think I would be happier dependent on sleeping pills than I am dependent on sleep (like all humans) and NOT GETTING ENOUGH. I have also been on opiates once that were prescribed by my doctor, and although I fully disclose that I found them very pleasurable and enjoyable, as well as very effective at relieving pain, I have never been addicted and felt nothing when I abruptly stopped taking them (60 5mg hydrocodone over a month). They also helped me sleep better than the sleeping pills I have tried from various relatives and over the counter ones.

And I can't change my doctor because she is the only one in the area that accepts my insurance. Thankfully we don't have any of that evil socialized medicine in the US, I'm glad that instead of the government picking my doctor some insurance company gets to!

Re:That didn't take long

[h4rr4r]

Oddly I don't remember a single case of that. I think less folks will abuse and more folks would use if legalized.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible that in 2010, there's a sign that our society might actually be growing up a little bit?

As an a self proclaimed 20 year connoisseur of the pot arts, I'm going to say NO American society hasn't grown up.
A 14 year old child would get joy from such news. Wake me up when we aren't killing people for useless causes and destroying the planet for no reason.
Society has a long way to go before I give it a pass on legalizing weed, it's already everywhere and secretly shared so and thats the ironic truth of societies collective stupidity.

In the meantime i'll support my local pot dealer, he's fucking way progressive and intelligent than anything "modern society" has to offer and I enjoy his company.

Re:That didn't take long

[BitZtream]

These are drugs that have had ruinous effects on parts of our society

This claim is bunk.

The drugs have no effect. The addicts using them do.

In my experience, the addicts have issues regardless of which drug they happen to be using. I've never seen an addict who was a normal contributing member of society before they became an addict.

Take away every drug control law on the planet and the next year or two would result in a lot of deaths and accidents by morons that couldn't keep it together without the law to curb their habits.

After that, we'd be right back to where we are now, sans the drug crimes.

The people who have problems with drugs have problems on their own, the drug may make it obvious, but it doesn't create a problem from nothing.

Re:That didn't take long

[dasunt]

We should be honest about this. Legalized pot will result in more people using, more people abusing, and all the problems that implies.

I'm not too sure about that.

Considering the availability of alcohol, I'd imagine that the choice of drug to abuse might shift, but the total amount of abusers may stay more or less constant.

The health effects of alcohol seem worse than marijuana, so it may be a net plus to society.

Re:That didn't take long

[apoc.famine]

Are you kidding?

You need to do NONE of those things to produce and consume alcohol.

Can you give me any decent research that shows that pot is so much more dangerous than alcohol that it should have those restrictions? It's a pretty facetious question, because you can't. You can't OD on pot. You'd need to smoke like 3000 joints to do that. Or you'd need to eat like 30kg. When researchers looked at pot, they found that it would "moderately impair driving performance alone, but with alcohol, it would "significantly impair driving performance". You know, like alcohol does.

Hang around with an addict? Really? Because "About one in ten of those who ever use cannabis become dependent on it at some time during their 4 or 5 years of heaviest use. This risk is more like the equivalent risk for alcohol (15%) than for nicotine (32%) or opioids (23%)." Yea, it's 1/3 less addicting than alcohol, and 3x less addicting than cigarettes.

You are either very, very naive, or nicely brainwashed in the best Puritanic traditions. Before you post paranoid stuff about drugs, at least learn about them. If not try some. It might help you a great deal.

And crazily enough, I smoked pot 2-3 times in the late 90s. Haven't touched an illegal drug since. What I have done is learn about stuff, before rambling off like a Puritan who's been in deep-freeze for 400 years.

Re:That didn't take long

[Runaway1956]

Legalizing alcohol didn't create more alcoholics. To support your position, you would have to find statistics showing that the use and abuse of alcohol became significantly more widespread after prohibition was repealed.

But, your take on depriving drug gangs of revenue is accurate. Every dollar's worth of pot that remains unregulated and untaxed is a dollar's worth of pot that the cartels profit from. It's time to change that.

Re:That didn't take long

[Wyatt Earp]

And it is not in the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If it has to be "medicine" for "sick people" then so be it; eventually it'll be legal and commercialized.

During prohibition they had the same loophole - you could get a prescription for alcohol for medicinal purposes.
Walgreens went from ~10 stores to ~400 stores during the decade of prohibition and it wasn't by selling milkshakes.

Re:That didn't take long

[Macrat]

Start cooking all your meals with spicy peppers. Researchers are finding they are a natural pain killer.

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the right to get drunk or high is not.

The constitution is a document which describes what the federal government is permitted to do - everything else is forbidden to the federal government.

If the only rights permitted to the people were those enumerated in the bill of rights, we would have practically no rights at all.

Re:That didn't take long

[couchslug]

"We all remember smart kids from high school that wasted their lives on pot.

Who is "we", Kemosabe? I partied with many of the (other) smart kids who went on to lead full, happy lives. Some of the dumbasses smoked too much, and drank too much, and would have been losers even without chemical recreation.

In the 1970s, there were Head Shops on many street corners and my generation smoked harder than a steam locomotive. No problem.

Legalize weed, tell the Christian Taliban to fuck off, and let Americans enjoy a peaceful recreational drug.

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The problem is that everyone would do the drugs, we'd get addicted,

Far from true - look at Portugal - they have effectively decriminalized all drugs, even the hard ones, for about a decade now. The result? Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

Re:That didn't take long

[SpydeZ]

I get 30 of the 10mg Percocets a month for chronic migraines and chronic tension headaches (headaches all day every day suck...).

They helped a ton until I got a medication overuse headache (after ~3 or 4 months of daily use, in my case). Then I got into a horrible spiral of taking Percocet for a headache, which gave partial relief for 2-4 hours (usually), and was immediately followed by a worse headache. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So... moral is, more isn't always better, I guess. But yeah, 40 per half year is pathetically small if you get migraines or really bad tension headaches often and nothing else works. I didn't get addicted when I was taking 1-2 every weekday (and saving up on weekends to create a buffer). I got 20 or so sitting here, forlorn, while I try to get my MOH under control.

I trust you've tried all the tryptans, Migranal, muscle relaxants (if you get tension headaches), blood pressure medicine (beta blocker or calcium blocker (Verapamil is a favorite)), anti-convulsants (Topamax), SSRIs, TCAs, and whatever other crazy-ass guesses your neuro throws at you...

Re:That didn't take long

[monstermagnet]

Dude! I've seen pot addicts assault the refrigerator on a daily basis.

It's ugly, mang, ugly.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I'm sure glad you're here to protect everybody. I was just thinking the other day how difficult it would be to be responsible for my own life.

So thank you, "inKubus," for sharing your infinite wisdom and not only living your own life, but also telling me how to live mine. I really don't think I could handle it without you.

Re:That didn't take long

[rattaroaz]

In my experience, the addicts have issues regardless of which drug they happen to be using. I've never seen an addict who was a normal contributing member of society before they became an addict.

I have, and so have you. Ever know of a recovering alcoholic? I know quite a few. I am a physician. I frequently see people hooked on drugs, going down the drain, getting off the drugs, and being perfectly fine in a good job afterwards. When I see them, they tell me up front never to prescribe narcotics to them, because they will get hooked, and don't want to go there again.

Re:That didn't take long

[WillDraven]

Ok, I'll address this point by point since you laid it out that way.

A: I think 18 is a more sensible age. In fact I think we should drop the drinking age to 18 (at least) as well. Our current situation of scattering the ages of when things are legal really diminishes the concept of becoming an adult and I think is one of the main reasons we have so many people who never seem to grow up. They never have a defining moment that says "Now you are an adult, act like one." In fact, arguments could be made for pushing the age of majority as low as 14. The longer you treat somebody like they can't make their own decisions the more likely they are to make bad ones just to spite the fact that they're being told that they can't.

B: Several years? We're talking about people using drugs not manufacturing them right? You can learn practically everything you need to know to be a safe opiate user in a week, max. In fact all it basically boils down to is this:

1. Always know what you're taking and how strong it is relative to your tolerance.
2: Don't increase your dosage more than 2x what you're used to doing on a regular basis.
3: When you do increase your dosage see how it affects you and use that dosage several times before driving or operating heavy machinery.
4: If IVing don't share needles.
5: Use a fresh sterile needle every time
6: IVing pills not meant to be used IV is bad for you, the waxes, binders, and anti-abuse additives can cause all sorts of problems.
7: Don't mix opiates with other drugs without researching their interactions.
8: If you've been using for a while on a daily basis and want to stop try to slowly wean yourself off, stopping cold turkey can kill a heavy user and will make you sick as hell even if your daily dosage isn't very high.

Those are all the most important points. Some of these could even be dropped in the case of opiates being legal, easily obtainable, clearly labeled, and free from all of the dangerous anti-abuse additives. Those anti-abuse additives I believe are some of the most asinine evil shit the pharmacological companies do to appease the government. Opiate addicts have a physical addiction and making it difficult or dangerous to use will not stop a person who is in great physical pain from finding (often half-assed) ways around them in order to find relief. The only function they perform is endangering the lives of users and I feel run counter to the Hippocratic Oath. (sorry for getting somewhat off topic..)

C: Requiring a license for something is just a half-assed ban against certain groups of people. Especially since I can practically guarantee many states would revoke it for even non-drug related convictions. Similar to the way that non-violent felons are restricted from owning certain types of weapons. It doesn't stop anybody from doing it anyway and makes people into a different class of criminals than they otherwise would have been.

D: Why? It's not even like pot where one could make the argument that nearby people could end up intoxicated without intending to be so. The only reason for such a ban is the puritanical nonsense that got us into this stupid drug war to begin with.

E: You obviously don't know any opiate addicts. They're WAY more dangerous on the road when they DON'T have their typical dose. An addict going through detox experiences nausea, diarrhea, shakes, hot and cold flashes, drowsiness (but unable to actually sleep) and other effects that make them dangerous to be on the road. Of course you shouldn't substantially up your dose to where you're nodding off and have slowed response times before driving, but we already have laws against driving while impaired. If the drugs were legal and could be picked up cheaply at the local drug store, you would almost never have this problem. It happens all too often these days because their prohibited status makes it difficult for users to locate and afford their next dose, they are all too often in a pretty terrible state before they manage to find someone to sell them

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell a cokehead.

Re:That didn't take long

[Matheus]

Yeah... if you're in to pumping poisons into your bod. I've been a migraine sufferer for 25 years. It sucks and yes I'd do quite a lot for the luxury of them going away.

I also am a recovered botulism victim. I spent over a month in the hospital paralyzed eating / etc through tubes. It is a nasty substance and very much not good for you.

The reason cosmetic use is down? Have you not seen the cases that started popping up of people having their injected botox 'getting loose' so-to-speak and giving them botulism symptoms? Why the heck would I take *that risk.

Honestly since I recently started taking medicine for hypertension I've gone from a 6-migraine average a month to 1 in 2-months and you have no idea how happy that makes me but inject botox? never.

Back on the topic of this article: funny thing about pot.. if they were to legalize medical in MN I'd easily be able to get a card due to my migraines. The funny part is if I smoke when I have a migraine it actually makes the migraine worse. damn.

Re:That didn't take long

[linzeal]

See how long you can argue that in federal court nowadays with 200 years of precedent.

Re:That didn't take long

[linzeal]

What are you talking about? I have known more people waste their lives on religion than marijuana. Marijuana does not even impair your ability to drive a car, it is certainly leagues better than Alcohol in that regard.

Re:That didn't take long

[stonewallred]

Just as a question, why is it any business of the government what chemicals an adult consumes? There are plenty of heroin users in the UK who have been using heroin and going to work each day and living a nice life. Most of the horror stories with the various drugs are related to the fact the drugs are illegal and cost a great deal of money which leads the users to do all kinds of things to get their fix. If joe crackhead could buy his rock like willie the wino buys his beer, at the same approximate price per high, there would be few horror stories, just as winos don't need to turn tricks and rob people, neither would drug addicts.

Re:That didn't take long

[stonewallred]

Winner! The percentage of people who abuse drugs and behaviors to induce a changed state of mood/feelings is around 10%, regardless of what chemical available. Been pretty steady now for well over 60 years world wide.

Re:That didn't take long

[stonewallred]

Throw a couple of cigarettes, minus the filters, into a bottle of water, add about a tablespoon of liquid dish washing soap and let it soak for a day or two. Put it in a spray bottle and you have a great insecticide. Not a knock them dead when sprayed, but the type that you spray them, then they start flopping around and take about 20-30 seconds to finally die. Looks like they are in horrible pain too. And you smoke that stuff. Which of course at 3 packs of KOOLs a day for 20+ years, I can't say anything about that.

Re:That didn't take long

[ushering05401]

I was pretty much with you up until the last paragraph. Part of my reason for having a medical marijuana license was an illness that left me in the hospital receiving first morphine, then dilaudid every couple hours for a week. The effect of even that exposure took time to wear off, and I'm not entirely sure that I got completely over it if you know what I mean. The depth of those effects was not the straight dullness of normal painkillers, but rather an aura-like feeling that washed over me with each dose...

Next up should be clarifying why marijuana is being treated differently than the other drugs you mention:

- Most people prefer uncompressed nuggets to bricks, thus even (and especially) the delivery services are carrying small dollar amounts of product at a time. There are wine merchants in my area that deliver, and I'd bet they carry as much value on their forays into the wealthier neighborhoods, not to mention the value of stock at their physical location.

- Marijuana edibles is turning into a vast market and there have already been health scares with improper preparation. The sure to follow inspection fees, sales taxes, production equipment, corresponding utility usage, and fact that kitchens attached to dwellings are not typically able to obtain commercial certification or zoning permits is going to drive a massive secondary wave of revenue. Aside from a REALLY authentic can of coca cola or some opiate & absynth delicacy where is the secondary wave with the others?

- It is really pretty hard for non-allergic individuals to have a life threatening medical situation brought on by straight THC ingestion.

- And finally, the real reason Marijuana is being legalized for mass production in Oakland: San Francisco is right across the water and has a shit-ton of liberal cash. The real losers here are the quality growers from Marin and Humboldt that will have to compete with operations that have no travel time or expenses.

Anyhow, it is highly unlikely that flag waving patriots are going to be able to shrug off decades of programming that marijuana is Class A immediately, but with some sensible dialogue replacing the mindless babbling of the past reality can regain a foothold in the war on drugs....

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

From experience you drive slower and more careful but you tend to make other mistakes like driving past your exit or forgetting to turn. But its not like alcohol where you loose the ability to rationally operate. Think about it, how many times have you heard stories of kids drinking and getting into bad accidents. Now how many times have you heard that story where only pot was involved?

right?

Honestly, I don't advocate driving under the influence of pot, you can still fuck up - i'm just saying its loads safer than alcohol..

Re:That didn't take long

[wxjones]

Considering the availability of alcohol, I'd imagine that the choice of drug to abuse might shift, but the total amount of abusers may stay more or less constant.

Good point.

Re:That didn't take long

[inKubus]

BTW, I'm for legalization of pot to 21 year olds, my post was about all other drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.)

Re:That didn't take long

[Windwraith]

Yeah I am fairly sure a lot of pizzas have wasted their lives because of pot.
Because I've known people that wasted their life on alcohol, coke, and other harder drugs, also gambling, MMOs and insanity. But I absolutely heard no one dying from direct pot or hashish consumption. Do you think pot makes you see unicorns in the rainbow or something? It's not like in movies man.
I assume you have seen many PSA videos where pot is THE GATEWAY TO CERTAIN DOOM, but at worst, all damage caused by pot I have seen (and I live in a pretty marginal area where drug-related deaths are not rare), are munchies and someone who puked from being dizzy. Stoners don't steal their grandma's wallet or sell their homes for a fix. You can live easily without a fix of pot, unlike other drugs, including "legal" ones.

Re:That didn't take long

[wxjones]

Who is "we", Kemosabe? I partied with many of the (other) smart kids who went on to lead full, happy lives. Some of the dumbasses smoked too much, and drank too much, and would have been losers even without chemical recreation.

Yes, you could be right. It is hard to separate cause and effect. It could be the losers I knew in HS who smoked pot would have been losers anyway. In any case, we both agree marijuana should be legalized.

Re:That didn't take long

[inKubus]

I wasn't talking about cannabis, I was talking about all other drugs.

Re:That didn't take long

[wxjones]

You'll get no argument from me than religion is one of the greatest evils.

Re:That didn't take long

[Purity Of Essence]

Somebody mod Parent up. Too many people think like GP. It's poison.

Re:That didn't take long

[Nadaka]

In particular the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:That didn't take long

[emt377]

We all remember smart kids from high school that wasted their lives on pot.

Repeat after me: HS age teenagers are children, not adults. The social dynamics of high school don't apply to society at large. Children are DUMB - you were too, trust me. Lots of people wasted away their high school years, yet they're perfectly fine responsible adults. The A student might be the one who turns out to have an addictive or criminal make-money-fast personality. You can't fit adult behavior into HS age stereotypes, it simply doesn't apply. Life is not that trivial, because people change when they grow up.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

If you try the same mixture without the cigarettes, you'll see that it is the soap and water that suffocates the bugs. The tobacco does fuck-all.

Re:That didn't take long

[WillDraven]

Being arrested for smoking pot is much more likely to ruin your life than the actual act of smoking it.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

the right to get drunk or high is not.

The Constitution is an exhaustive list of powers vested in the federal government. The question is not "is the right to get high in the Constitution". The question is "is the power to prevent people from getting high in the Constitution".

So far the so-called "conservatives" have done more damage to the Constitution trying to stop stoners than the liberals have done with their socialist agenda. At least when the liberals finished with their New Deal, "The Clause" was still known as "The Interstate Commerce Clause" and didn't have to rely on the Supreme Court to strike the words "Interstate" and "Commerce" from the Constitution in order to ensure that a guy couldn't grow pot in his backyard for his own use.

Re:That didn't take long

[forkazoo]

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the right to get drunk or high is not.

The fact that Congress doesn't have the authority to damage the right to bear arms is explicitly in the Constitution. The fact that the Congress doesn't have any authority not expressly granted to it is also in the Constitution. The fact that drugs aren't specifically mentioned does not automatically imply that the Congress has authority in that area.

Re:That didn't take long

[Rooked_One]

I see a problem with it being to 18 year olds because some are still in high school. There was an article I believe was posted here on /. saying that your highest learning potential was at age 17... then it declines. Take that with a grain of salt because there are a lot more details to it.

That being said, if you make it like alcohol - 21 years old, high school *kids* who should stay away from anything mind altering, would have less access to it - it would become difficult to get - like alcohol. Sure you can steal the drug of your choice from your parents, but at least you can't ask them for it.

Re:That didn't take long

[Rooked_One]

So, wait... you're telling me that a poison that deadens nerves is 500 dollars??? Geez... The costs to kill yourself these days is crazy!!

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's that California is going to Hell in a hand basket and needs all the tax revenue it can grab due to sane people leaving the state in droves.

Re:That didn't take long

[blueg3]

While the "not possibly lethal to anyone" implication is arguable, I'll readily agree that it's a bit stupid to regulate marijuana as heavily as guns or cars. Guns are intentionally dangerous, and cars are far more accidentally dangerous than pot.

Re:That didn't take long

[blueg3]

The poison's cheap. Having it not kill you is expensive.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

The notion that decriminalizing or legalizing drugs causes a surge in uptake needs to be debunked. Here's a chunk of text from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0204.htm

There is little hard evidence that marijuana decriminalization actually increases usage. An Australian study from 1997 found no increase in marijuana usage among university students after the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) decriminalized marijuana possession in 1992 (Jill McGeorge & C. K. Aitken, Effects of Cannabis Decriminalization in the Australian Capital Territory on University Students' Patterns of Use, Journal of Drug Issues; Fall 1997). An article in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry reviewed studies on the impacts of marijuana decriminalization in U. S. states, Australian states, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The authors did not see a causal relationship between marijuana decriminalization (or the push in the 1990s to re-criminalize) and actual marijuana usage rates (Wayne Hall & Robin Room, Should We Recriminalize Cannabis Use? The Case Against, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Dec. 2008).

Let's try to stick to the facts, not disseminate perceived wisdom, propaganda, or idle speculation.

Re:That didn't take long

[LaRainette]

You cannot get addicted to pot.
It's proven scientifically plus I tried for you :)

There is no lethal dosage (or to be more precise it's not attainable by smoking although I suppose it is possible to create a solution of higly concentrated THC oil and inject it into somebody's blood.. maybe that would do the trick but I'm not sure)
Marijuana is much less dangerous for your health than alcohol for instance, which is EXTREMELY addictive(don't take my word for granted just go talk to a real alcoholic...)

For these reasons I respectfully disagree with some of your restrictions :
A. Make that 21 (or 18) whatever the majority is I don't know about the USA.
B. waaaat ? do you need a degree to drink alcohol ? OTOH I do agree the government should use some percentage of the tax income to finance a wide campaign of education on the dangers of pot (and alcohol and such...)
C. waaaat ? (again) two questions : why ? and how do you determine who can smoke and who cannot ?
D. As for alcohol it should be illegal to be totally high on the streets of course. For security reasons only.
E. that's kinda obvious. (see alcohol legislation)

Re:That didn't take long

[dissy]

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the right to get drunk or high is not.

Really? I'm 100% certain you are incorrect.

Please quote to us the part of the constitution which removes our right to get drunk and high. I do not see it.

Yes, at one point there was such an amendment in our law, and during that time we did not have the right to get drunk (or high?) however that amendment was removed awhile ago so no longer applies.

So yea, which part in there do you believe grants the government the ability to revoke our right to get drunk or high?

Just like firewall rules, if you don't find a matching rule, the default policy is to allow.

Re:That didn't take long

[Scrameustache]

prohibition on a harmless plant with medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous.

Well, it's not completely harmless. It's true some people turn into pothead couch potatoes... but they also snap out of it, so maybe it's just co-morbidity and self-medication for depression and causation shouldn't be implied from correlation, but there's also the short-term "woozy" effect that's harmless if you're not operating heavy machinery, and there's a down after the high (sleepiness, not bad of itself but at the wrong time it can cause problems). Oh, and inhaling smoke is not good for you (but it can be eaten, or vaporized).

That being said: Legalize it, because the insane approach of the last 70 years has been causing much more harm than the drug would cause naturally.

Re:That didn't take long

[Scrameustache]

I remember a very vivid dream from my youth, in which I went into a gas station and bought a pack of Marlboro joints. They looked like cigarettes, and even had filters, and the box looked like a pack of Marlboro 100s except in deep green instead of red.

I hope you're sitting down

Re:That didn't take long

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

The percentage of people who abuse drugs and behaviors to induce a changed state of mood/feelings is around 10%, regardless of what chemical available.

Unless you are using for "medical" reasons, isn't "induceing a changed state of mood/feelings" the reason *MOST* people use alcohol and pot?

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems unlikely that people who abuse alcohol should switch to pot because it is also freely available. The people who usually get involved with smoking pot now are those who don't like the high alcohol produces. It's simply a matter of taste imho...

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Back on the topic of this article: funny thing about pot.. if they were to legalize medical in MN I'd easily be able to get a card due to my migraines. The funny part is if I smoke when I have a migraine it actually makes the migraine worse. damn.

Wow - pot can have bad side-effects if used when it is not appropriate, just like getting botulism poisoning, imagine that!

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, wait... you're telling me that a poison that deadens nerves is 500 dollars??? Geez... The costs to kill yourself these days is crazy!!

Apparently you've never seen an anesthesiologist's bill. $500 is dirt cheap.

Re:That didn't take long

[FrameRotBlues]

I think you missed the last line of his comment.

Lots of people often have psychological problems that manifest themselves into substance abuse problems. Just because someone is a contributing member of society doesn't mean they don't have deep-seated issues. On the contrary, many of society's "contributors" are frustrated or apathetic in life, not just due to their job - people are not an easily solved equation. The ones who have "come clean" know their weaknesses and have made wise, experienced decisions to refuse those substances. However, not all people have those weaknesses.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

The 3 can be mutually exclusive when you have multiple people though.

Imagine a person whose pursuit of happiness involves taking away the liberty and/or life of others. To prevent his pursuit of happiness from taking away from others, you'd have to eliminate either his pursuit of happiness or liberty, both of which would be dependent on the other anyhow, or you'd need to remove his life. Which, arguably, also destroys his liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Re:That didn't take long

[Inda]

Half true.

My granfather used to spray nicotine in his greenhouse to kill bugs.

I have used a mild soap solution to kill bugs in mine.

Re:That didn't take long

[Inda]

I bounce off the walls for a couple of days if I "give up" the green. A lot of mates do too. Falling asleep also suffers for a couple of days.

But I've done the same; gone for years or months or days without. It doesn't compare to giving up the fags.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, from being an all-day-every-day to non-smoker, I did realize some positive effects from quitting. I'll enumerate them. And you're free to call bullcrap or not (or blame my personality, or not).

1. Motivation increased - yes seriously. I actually started doing more things. I chalk that one up to personality.

2. Memory Recall improved, though mostly only no longer having to "search" for the words I rarely used. (I know a lot of words). I still have to search for some of the less often used ones, but I have to search less often. I also still space stuff out occasionally, such as taking the trash to the curb on Sunday night, but I blame my selectively permeable memory on that (ie: personality, again).

3. Less emotional breakdown. Yeah, it has to be personality obviously, and I don't mean emotional breakdown in the sense that I have to go to a doctor and take meds, but I am less likely to sit in a haze and ruminate on my problems. I still have the problems, but they often seem like less of a big deal now.

4. Very little to no jonesing. I don't like feeling like I am lacking when I am not stoned. I feel like it is... weak. I'm sure its purely psychomological, but it is real. Psychological is a kind of addiction. There are still times though...

5. Positive for me, on a purely personal level - I don't have to consistently and immediately be willing to lie at the drop of any hat. I know "proud" smokers, who don't care who knows, but imo, that's ridiculous. You don't just volunteer that info to kids, employers, judges, lawyers, police, etc. Well, I don't, you may. I like to feel like I am usually an honest man. I may still lie rarely, when I make a mistake and get scared. I try to own up to it eventually, but I'm only human. Still though, any integrity is better than no integrity. (Funny how that list of people was so heavily weighted G).

6. Paranoia - Oh yeah, you know what I'm talking about. I know you do, because I was watching you get stoned and paranoid last week.

7. I can pass a drug test now with no problem and no fake urine. Obviously it isn't (almost always) their business what I do, but it may be partly #5, and partly I don't want to be limited. It is of course, simply the gov getting private enterprise to fight their WoD for them.

There are some negatives, such as when my feet hurt at the end of a long day, nothing makes it go away immediately like a bowl. Like after the first two hits. Instant relief. I feel like I am not as creative. I cannot sit in the same haze and ruminate on designs, scopes, plans, or roadmaps quite as readily. I feel like I'm not as funny... though it is possible that I'm not, that pot makes you think some stuff is funny that is not. Boredom is another thing, I get bored. Also, a buzz feels pretty nice. Surely etc, etc.

Anyway, if it did become legal in my state, there is some chance I'd start smoking again, mostly because #5 wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Uuhh, smoking weed and smoking pole are not comparable. If you're having trouble giving up the "fags," perhaps you should re-evaluate your orientation? There are special bars that will help you explore your love of "fags." They are usually labeled with rainbows or red triangles. Or you can just follow the nice "gentlemen" with assless pants.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure people will give up alcohol and tobacco cigarrettes and we'll all live in a magical land of happy pot smokers. Because it's not like anybody could do 2 or more of the above simultaneously...

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a very vivid dream from my youth, in which I went into a gas station and bought a pack of Marlboro joints. They looked like cigarettes, and even had filters, and the box looked like a pack of Marlboro 100s except in deep green instead of red.

You weren't dreaming, but they weren't joints. Maybe you were stoned.

Re:That didn't take long

[delinear]

Marijuana does not even impair your ability to drive a car

From the linked article:

While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

>but the notion that there's been this prohibition on a harmless plant with
>medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous

Yeah, I'm glad that it's harmless. Not like cigarettes. Really, when was the last time you ran across any drug that came without risks and side effects?

Me, I'm looking forward to the day when "Big Tobbaco" swoops in and takes over the industrial pot farms (you KNOW this is going to happen; money, politics and all that) and we see the next round of Joe "Hemp" Camel billboards - for "recreational" use only.

Re:That didn't take long

[shadowofwind]

I agree on all counts (except for being less confident that the net gain is 'large'). I didn't feel like arguing the 'more people abusing' point on /. though.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are you at? Here in the Denver, Colorado area the doc is always trying to push opiates on me for my back pain, a constant cough, or anything else he can. Same with most people here at work. it has reached the point now where a complaint of any pain will bring an offer from 2 or 3 people to share their Percocet or other prescription pain killers.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who suffers real migraines will know that pretty much the last thing you want to do when you get one is stand there cooking up a feast. Not to mention if you suffer nausea with them (I never used to but these days the migraines are far less frequent but the nausea is insufferable) you won't be keeping any of it down long enough to help. Seriously, though, I can understand exactly where GP is coming from. I don't suffer as much these days but when I was younger I'd get migraines that could easily last 5-7 days where I was in so much pain that anything other than just lying in a darkened room for the duration was out of the question.

For years I suffered like this, I'd have an attack once or twice every month which would just knock me off my feet, but I refused to seek medication because I'd heard horror stories about addiction and didn't want to go down that path. Eventually I gave in and the doctor prescribed me codeine - it helped a lot but the relief was short lived and I think I got something like 24 pills and wasn't allowed back within 6 months - using them sparingly I could get through that in half that time (in fact, three pills per day for 5 days even only once per month would have exhausted my supply in just over two months).

I managed to just put up with the pain and only take them when it was at its worst and I needed the relief to sleep (the lack of sleep cycle was a big issue for me as I suffer with insomnia anyway and usually manage about 3 hours a night, once I get a migraine I definitely can't sleep and the lack of sleep makes the migraine worse which makes sleep still harder, etc) and somehow managed not to go back for 10 months, but the way they treated me on my second visit, like I was some scrounging drug addict - bearing in mind I'd suffered incredible pain for years because I refused to even take the risk of becoming addicted - just put me off completely.

From that day on I'd rather just deal with the pain. Fortunately my sleep patterns are a little better these days and the migraines are far fewer and much shorter (although seemingly the symptoms are worse than they used to be), but nobody should have to face being treated like that to get some relief from debilitating pain. It's ridiculous that the abuses of the few make life so difficult for so many responsible people. I've never taken drugs, I drink very rarely, and the result is that when I need pain relief it's more difficult for me to obtain it than it is for an addict who has abused drugs their whole life. Just the same way that I never believed in borrowing beyond my means but I'm still expected to pay for the irresponsible people who did. I wonder what reason there is to behave responsibly at all in society anymore, when we can just put the blame for our excesses on a scapegoat and make everyone else pay.

Re:That didn't take long

[Vasheron]

We should be honest about this. Legalized alcohol will result in more people using, more people abusing, and all the problems that implies. We all remember smart kids from high school that wasted their lives on alcohol. But, this is still far better than incarcerating people for only harming themselves and the huge amount of money and abuse of freedom that we currently have. In addition, we will be taking away a guaranteed source of income from alcohol gangs, some of the nastiest people on earth. It is not a panacea, but it is a large net gain.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that THC is less toxic than tap water. As in, you could drink yourself to death on water before you could smoke or eat yourself to death on marijuana or it's derivatives.

Re:That didn't take long

[2obvious4u]

Ever wonder why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the feds can ban any old drug they feel like without even a vote of the legislative branch nowadays?

Actually it took two. First they had to allow the income tax, then they could ban alcohol. Taxes on alcohol pretty much paid for government.

Re:That didn't take long

[Vasheron]

Thank you for saying what needed to be said.

Re:That didn't take long

[plurgid]

the fact that you had to preface your statement with "I'm not a pot smoker" speaks volumes to exactly how deep seated the stigma and fear run in our society. Things may not be changing as quickly as you think.

Re:That didn't take long

[Just Some Guy]

We should be honest about this. Legalized pot will result in more people using, more people abusing, and all the problems that implies.

So what? If an adult wants to do something they enjoy in the short term but which may be detrimental in the long run, more power to 'em. There are plenty of (much more) dangerous leisure activities that are perfectly legal. People die while snowskiing, but we keep letting people tie sticks to their feet and fall down mountains. People die while bungie jumping, but you can still buy the cord and leap off a bridge. People die while driving, riding motorcycles, parachuting, river rafting, snowboarding, bicycling, drinking beer, skateboarding, jumping on trampolines, playing football, and doing pretty much any other fun activity you can imagine - but we still let them.

It's not my job or anyone else's to tell a rational adult that they're not allowed to enjoy their preferred form of recreation because it may hurt them. I may think that they and their hobby are stupid and a reckless waste, but it's legal to be be stupid and reckless.

BTW, I agree with your general point. It's just that I thoroughly disagree with the very premise that an activity's potential risk to the people engaging in it is a reason to consider banning the activity. People do risky stuff all the time, and it's your inherent right to do dumb things.

Re:That didn't take long

[Hatta]

You should consider low doses of magic mushrooms. Sub-psychoactive doses of psychedelics have been found effective in migranes. Mushroom spores are legal in most places, and they're easy to grow on a small scale, so you don't have to deal with criminals to get it. Good luck.

Re:That didn't take long

[Reziac]

Main thing I've noticed is that while stoned on pot, people make decisions rather slowly, or more often not at all. So they might see the red light but not be able to make the decision to stop. I don't see this as intrinsically different from the drunk who misfigures he can beat the light. Either way they don't manage to do what's needed, having failed to make the correct decision.

Which is why we call it "under the influence".

I don't care WHY someone is impaired, nor about the fine details of different sorts of impairment. I'm sure we can work up a reasonable average threshold for THC intoxication -- yeah, it won't be perfectly accurate but it'll be a tolerably good benchmark for most people's level of impairment, much like blood alcohol (at least before MADD got it twiddled downward).

Point is, the law should be consistent on the point of a driver being impaired, and to what degree, and should not care WHY he is impaired (other than as needed for a legal measure thereof -- unfortunately "he acted drunk" is a bad metric subject to even more forms of abuse and misuse).

Re:That didn't take long

[Reziac]

"All things not compulsory are forbidden."

    -- old Soviet jape

Re:That didn't take long

[Thing 1]

Heh, I saw that Daily Show with the author of Last Call as well. Excellent book, added to my Amazon queue.

Re:That didn't take long

[Khyber]

"Legalized pot will result in more people using, more people abusing, and all the problems that implies."

Look at Portugal, realize you're wrong.

Good day.

Re:That didn't take long

[Khyber]

They are also finding out that capsaicin might have some majorly beneficial effects for sufferers of diabetes, as well.

Re:That didn't take long

[PopeRatzo]

the fact that you had to preface your statement with "I'm not a pot smoker" speaks volumes

I only mention that to point out that I'm not trying to justify my own preference by advocating for legalization.

It's too easy for the other side to try to paint everyone who is pro-sanity in regard to drug laws as wasted potheads.

I don't believe that people who do smoke pot have any reason at all to be apologetic.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW

I live in a country where Melatonin is a prescription medicine. I buy it when I'm in the US instead, since it's available dirt cheap in any pharmacy, and use it as a sleeping aid.

It also seems to help against my migraine. 3mg every night and the attacks go from a few times every week to "I wonder when I last had a migraine attack .. "

Re:That didn't take long

[Kernel Kurtz]

Legalized pot will result in more people using, more people abusing, and all the problems that implies.

Do you actually believe that anyone who wants to smoke pot refrains from doing so because it's illegal?

Re:That didn't take long

[alexo]

Just as a question, why is it any business of the government what chemicals an adult consumes?

Because it creates a venue for funneling money to "special interests".

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's opioids you're looking for try a drug called kratom. The active ingredients are opioid agonists and the effects are similar to other opioids. The drug has a stimulating side effect so I never liked it but it might work for you. Indonesian is the least stimulating out of the different kinds.

If you've been suffering from migranes for so long I'm sure you've done research on your own so you probably already know about kava but kava is another drug that has painkilling properties, though it acts through calcium channels and not through opiod receptors.

There's also this over the counter headache remedy that's basically capsasin nose spray and it works pretty well sometimes.

I've been suffering from chronic headaches with ocompanying neurological side effects (like not being able to properly form sentences very well) for a couple years now and have received very little treatment from my doctor. I was surprised when i read that your doctor is actually doing something for you, even prescribing that little amount of pain killers. I think if they want play this capitalist game with our health care that we should be able to get refunds when your doctors suck. Especially when your insurance dictates you can only see that one doctor :/.

Anyway good luck. I might give this marijuana stuff another shot. I think last time I tried to use it I was using it wrong (smoking too much lol).

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

They underestimated the ultimate level of stupidity that would be achieved by future generations of the general population.

Re:That didn't take long

[aqk]

Oh and F. hang around with a real addict or two for a few days.

Oh and F. hang around with a real AA member or two for a few days

Re:That didn't take long

[EightBitMe]

Exactly right, pursuit of happiness. If medical pot helps me with my pain and suffering should it not be allowed by the constitution!

fair comparison

[v1]

Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

Both industries go through a lot of chips.

Northern California

[by (1706743)]

As someone who grew up in Northern California proper (and now lives in Silicon Valley), I must protest. We already have our "Silicon Valley" of maryjane -- it's called the Emerald Triangle. Not to mention, my county has already decriminalized cultivation of the good herb (grep for "Measure G"), at least for personal use.

Although, it would be illegal to grow GMO weed there (search for "Measure H").

Re:Northern California

[drinkypoo]

You're so far behind the times it's not even funny. Oakland has a district known as Oaksterdam which has its own newspaper; it's pretty thick for a free rag, too. And there have been warehouses of this type operating in Oakland for some time now.

This is a particularly interesting test of States' Rights, and it will be more than interesting to see how it plays out.

Re:Northern California

[Anonymous Coward]

It's long past time you filthy hippies stood aside and let some real bidnissmen show you how it's done. This is 'Merica, after all!

Re:Northern California

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a moderation option for Insightful Sarcasm.

lol

[Charliemopps]

How long until these morons realize the reason it's called "WEED" is because it IS a weed. You can easily grow it in your backyard and a single, well maintained plant can keep even the heaviest smoker in pot all year long. Grow 2 or 3 and its enough for the whole family and you really don't have to do much to take care of it. The only reason the price for pot is even as high as it is now is the fact that its illegal. They aren't going to make squat on taxes on pot, because once it's legal its going to be growing in every backyard, ditch, park and camp ground in the state.

Re:lol

[h4rr4r]

Just like that beer we all homebrew instead of buying it?

Weed grown as you suggest is total garbage. Much like all useful plants careful cultivation is needed. OR SO I HEARD.

Re:lol

[mrnobo1024]

Just because one can feasibly do something oneself, doesn't mean that most people will. People are lazy. (How do computer makers stay in business when people could easily just buy the parts and assemble them themselves?)

Re:lol

[minorproblem]

Case in point, the Netherlands.

Re:lol

[countertrolling]

Beer still takes a lot of work and equipment... Weed is virtually the only drug that requires no infrastructure. The markets for alcohol and other drugs will diminish significantly. Those industries will not be happy about this. That would include the law enforcement and prison industries.. Good-bye huge budgets for those guys...

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

You have heard wrong. The only problem with outdoor stuff is stopping it from becoming pollinated.

Sincerly, pot smoker and gardener for 35yrs.

Re:lol

[kaoshin]

I have multiple friends who brew their own beer, and I can tell you that it is a lot more complicated than growing a plant.

Re:lol

[CastrTroy]

It really depends on the price. People don't grow gardens of carrots and lettuce in their back yard, because they are relatively cheap, and because you need a lot, and most people don't have enough land. Contrast that with say, herbs (like oregano, thyme, and rosemary) which many people do grow, because fresh herbs are expensive, and it takes very little land to grow all the herbs you need. They could probably sell marijuana, as long as the price was cheap, but if they start taxing it heavily like alcohol, you can bet that a lot of people are going to be growing their own. Unlike making your own alcohol, growing marijuana is actually pretty simple, and doesn't require that much effort or space. Your comments are more like, "how do grocery stores stay alive when you can just get food pre-made at McDonald's, or have pizza delivered to your door?" Sure some people will pay the premium to have everything done for them, but a lot of people are willing to make their own meals, because it saves a lot of money, or for the same price, you get a much better product.

Re:lol

[h4rr4r]

Only because you want to smoke bales of that crap.

Re:lol

[h4rr4r]

Again look at the Netherlands, and the fact that growing pot like that makes garbage.

Re:lol

[MichaelSmith]

Where I used to live my neighbors complained that the stuff was growing up under their back fence. Another neighbor of mine had a plant he claimed was for horticultural purposes in his front yard. A couple of kids broke into his neighbor and escaped into his place, landing on the plant. They were running too hard to do anything more than note it and because of all the cops around the next day the plant had to be moved pronto. My problem was that during the next night the kids came back, crossing my back yard and looking over the fence for the plant. Pissed me off to no end so I called the cops (not for the first time).

Re:lol

[countertrolling]

And I can remind you again that decent cultivation requires only a hippy chick with a pair of clippers and some time in the sun. Unlike the Netherlands, much of the US has plenty of sun.

Re:lol

[HornWumpus]

Pot potency is determined primarily by genetics.

If you can grow tomatoes you can grow good sensi.

As with tomatoes your first crop will teach you many things.

Smoking all year on one plant is ambitious.

You want more then one type for other reasons.

Some nefarious troublemaker planted 4 OG-kush, a G-13 and a Purple between rows in my vegetable garden this year. Damn him.

Re:lol

[h4rr4r]

and brewing is wine is almost that easy too.

People will not want to wait months to get high, they will want to go buy some already dried herb.

Re:lol

[icebraining]

No, there are some others like Payote, Psilocybin mushrooms and Salvia which require very little preparation.

Re:lol

[MikeyO]

Beer still takes a lot of work and equipment... Weed is virtually the only drug that requires no infrastructure

You can make beer by putting sugary water and yeast into a bucket. You'll certainly end up with a substandard product. The same goes for growing weed. You can put a seed in soil and it will probably grow. If you want better and or quicker results, you can invest a lot of effort and equipment.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

The "bales of crap" are in your post. Sure there are benifits to growing indoors but increased potency is not one of them. As HornWumpus points out, potency is determined by genetics.

Re:lol

[OttoErotic]

I have a little routine that I love:
Save all the seeds, then randomly throw them into the air at inappropriate locations (churches, the grounds of government buildings, into people's flower beds, random roadside ditches, etc). The odds of anything growing are tiny, but I make up for it with volume. I'm sure anything that did grow would be garbage, but it makes me smile every time I think of someone finding a plant at the state capitol building.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Beer still takes a lot of work and equipment... Weed is virtually the only drug that requires no infrastructure. The markets for alcohol and other drugs will diminish significantly. Those industries will not be happy about this. That would include the law enforcement and prison industries.. Good-bye huge budgets for those guys...

Sure, no infrastructure "required" to grow bad weed in dirt in a perfect climate for weed (which you probably don't live in). But if you want the good stuff you'll need high pressure sodium and metal halide bulbs and ballasts, drip irrigation systems including air & water pumps, chemical fertilizers and rooting compounds, rock wool and clay stones, CO2 generators or tanks, forced air systems, mylar, fungicides, insecticides, motorized ballasts, air conditioners, dehumidifiers, reverse osmosis filtration systems, temperature humidity pH and CO2 sensors, D/A converter & Relay controller boards, computer controlled adaptive environmental controls, and the water and power necessary to supply all of those systems.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

How do computer makers stay in business when people could easily just buy the parts and assemble them themselves?

It's not about laziness, it's about ROI. Anymore it seems to be cheaper just to buy off the shelf unless you need something that isn't available off the shelf.

And if you don't buy off the shelf? Ok, so you might (MIGHT) save yourself a whole 10% on your system cost by buying the parts. For this you get no real warranty and if you're running Windows? Kiss that 10% goodbye. And for the 98% of all users who don't know a hard drive from a modem it's going to cost them more in time and frustration than they'll ever save in a lifetime of building their own machines.

Home brew PCs use to make sense. Some were even impressive. Anymore it seems to be more an old hanger-on from a time when a fair percentage of the home users cared about their computers since they cost as much as some mid-grade used cars. Today they get all the respect of a VCR.

I know I don't build my own anymore. My days of hardcore gaming are done. I couldn't be bothered to pay an extra nickle to get an extra FPS out of my system. I don't have hours to read Tom's Hardware to figure out which CPU and MoBo combo gives me the most bang for my buck. Hell, I already know I'm not going to use that bang anyway. I avoid a few hours of putting crap together and a few headaches by just buying off the shelf. I take it home, it works. No waiting on FedEx to bring me parts. No 10 boxes littering up my dining room. No DOA hardware. No returns. No hassles.

I'm sure there are a ton of things around you right now that someone would scoff at and tell you that you wasted your money and you should have just made it yourself. If you have any kind of life what-so-ever you already know that saving yourself a few bucks just isn't worth the hassle to learn a new discipline. Why question it when it comes to PCs anymore?

Re:lol

[liquidsin]

sorry 'bout that, i didn't think you'd mind. i'll be right over to get them out of your way.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I've brewed beer for a long time. My friends kept telling me it was better, then the next party's beer was better... And better. At some point, they started telling me that they prefer my beer to any commercial beer they can buy. By that point, my brewing rig was worth about $2200, not to mention the ingredients which are a continually cost. I figure a properly brewed 10 gallon batch of homebrew costs about $35-$50 in ingredients if you buy in bulk, with an additional system cost amortized over a period of years that depends on the individual brewer. So it comes out between 40 to 60 cents per pint plus some overhead for the equipment. Overall, it is cheaper, but it is certainly not as easy as going to the nearest 7-11 and buying a six-pack. When pint prices start getting up toward $7 or $8 outside of the crazy metro areas, I think we'll start to see a wholesale shift toward homebrewing, assuming it hasn't been banned yet. The convenience of buying pre-made beer is worth a lot to most people.

Re:lol

[adamchou]

even better is goodbye a portion of the profits for the drug cartels. the more of their income we take, the less they can spend on weapons and man power making our fight against them easier. i bet they're just as pissed about this.

Re:lol

[HornWumpus]

Best to wait another 2 or 3 months.

Re:lol

[tsotha]

Well, maybe so, but from what I remember in college there's nothing less lazy than a pothead with a few seeds and no money.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in the Netherlands most of the cafes are full of tourists not the locals who do tend to grow their own if that way inclined. The big point about the Netherlands is the lack of the out of control spiralling drug use boogeyman the prohibitionists keep conjuring.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing good pot takes at least as much effort as making decent homebrew I dare say. You can grow weed anywhere, sure, under natural light I suppose if it's allowed. Generally speaking the stoner hightimes fans go for hydroponic systems with multiple different grow lights at different stages of development to influence how many buds and what thc levels. They'll have fluorescents, high pressure sodiums, metal halides or mecury vapors, and jump through hoops to get different spectra hitting the leaves at different times in the plants growth. A lot of potheads know more about growing plants than I would ever want to. I know a lot about beer, and you can go all out on that, but you can also buy a kit put it in a bucket and ferment it. The extremes of effort are pretty similar.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I have multiple friends who brew their own beer, and I can tell you that it is a lot more complicated than growing a plant.

Having done both right, I can tell you that growing a plant correctly is significantly harder.

Re:lol

[TapeCutter]

"Again look at the Netherlands, and the fact that growing pot like that makes garbage."

Well of course, I've been to Amsterdam and summer lasts about a week. Here in Oz it's actually easier to grow "Amsterdam quality" pot outdoors, ( even as far south as Tasmania ).

A simple rule of thumb is that if you can grow quality tomatoes outdoors where you live then you can do the same with pot. How many Dutch people grow their own tomatoes outdoors?

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I have multiple friends who brew their own beer, and I can tell you that it is a lot more complicated than growing a plant.

As a horticulturist with a background in agriculture, I can tell you that if you don't know much about what you're doing growing a plant for produce you will not maximise your yield or quality except by luck. You can buy a home brew kit with everything you need to brew beer and follow a few instructions. Naturally, if you like beer you pay more attention to it than that and develop better talent.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is easy to grow a plant. There is a reason they call this particular plant "weed." It grows anywhere with very little intervention. However, milking the same plant for maximum quantities of one specific high grade psychoactive chemical while minimizing the undesirable chemicals is not easy at all. Harvest a few days early, and you have a bag full of headaches. A few days late, and you might as well smoke newspaper. Being as how I am posting ac, i do not mind saying that I have grown before. It is nearly impossible if you do not have the perfect setup. You can have the right seeds, lights, soil, fertilizers, and take the best care of the plant you possibly can, only to find out your buds are too dense for the humidity, and bam! Your entire crop is destroyed by botrytis. (grey bud mold.) Its like sports. There is a big difference between playing soccer with your buddies on the weekend, and winning the world cup. And even if everything in the environment is perfect, you still have a high chance that your seeds aren't what they are supposed to be and you end up with one hermaphrodite plant that ruins your entire crop. Its not as easy as shoving a seed in the dirt and sticking it on your windowsill.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

No infrastructure? So why are home growers busted due to their electricity bills and IR signatures?

Re:lol

[delinear]

So the obvious answer is to decriminalise carrying and using, but to severely restrict growing to licensed producers who are using recognisable (i.e. taxable) dsitribution channels. I can't see the average hippy wanting to risk jail time when they can legally buy instead of growing, the growing was always a means to a specific end (but by all means they should feel free to grow the munchies and buy the product if they're really attached to the horticultural aspects of it).

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Electricity gets you a better growth time and better yield. And lets you grow it indoors. But it isn't necessary to grow something that'll get you high.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not. I've done both and growing good marijuana is a complicated task, just like brewing good beer.

Re:lol

[Dragoness Eclectic]

As someone who grows fresh kitchen herbs, I can add that fresh herbs are expensive because you have to sell them FRESH, not "chill-preserved for weeks in a refrigerator car". Sweet Basil, for example, has NO (zero, none, nada, zip) shelf life. It rots a day after picking it and putting it in the vegetable chiller in the refrigerator. You can freeze it or dry it, but you can't keep it fresh without keeping the whole plant alive.

Re:lol

[Khyber]

"Pot potency is determined primarily by genetics. "

No, it is not. This has been experimentally tested and repeated with the same results since the 80s, starting with John Lydon, who determined that UVB and other forms of high-energy blue light are responsible for the overall production of the trichomes where the majority of cannabinoids are formed, and that UVB especially was respnsible for most of the formation of THC, which is a natural sunscreen to the plant.

I can take 15% THC midgrade, grow it under my LED lights, come out with 25% THC medical quality.

It is about 90% grower effort, and 10% genetics.

Re:lol

[Khyber]

I brew my own beer. It's nowhere near as complicated as maintaining one of THESE

Re:lol

[Khyber]

"And I can remind you again that decent cultivation requires only a hippy chick with a pair of clippers and some time in the sun."

Wanna know how I know you don't do cannabis cultivation?

Re:lol

[Khyber]

"You can easily grow it in your backyard and a single, well maintained plant can keep even the heaviest smoker in pot all year long. "

This is bullshit. A full pound of medical won't last me a month.

"You can easily grow it in your backyard"

And get some of the nastiest bug-infested stuff.

When will businesses relax their testing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for legalizing pot, and I have zero issues with people who smoke marijuana. But with more and more legalization becoming a reality, I'm starting to wonder when places that do drug tests on employees will start to lighten up and quit testing for marijuana. I like to smoke now and again, but don't do it regularly because I don't want to fail a random test, and have laid off completely for weeks to get a job. I'm not a hardcore smoke so this isn't a huge deal to me, but it'd be nice to know I could be somewhere and toke legally AND definitely keep my job.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[HornWumpus]

Get a Marinol sript.

I know a class A driver that routinely pees dirty for pot but the DOT doesn't do anything because of the prescription.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[icebraining]

I find it completely abusive requiring drug tests for any jobs, except maybe if your job requires driving or heavy machine handling. Otherwise, what the hell as my company to do with what I do in my free time? Sure, drugs can affect my performance, but in that case they can fire me for not producing what I should; does it matter to know why?

Here in Portugal some companies are starting to do the same, and there was a politician that wrote an opinion piece where he said "surely no one is against this measure". What the hell? I'm against it! And so should be any person who values privacy. If I'm not putting others' safety at risk, stay the hell away from my blood.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[Tink2000]

Yeah, because they just hand that prescription out to anyone who complains about migraines, back pain, or the inability to sleep. Wait no: it's just Tourette's & depression people that get the prescription, and usually then only after everything else has failed.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[linzeal]

Takes 6 months with the same doctor. Works for pilot licenses too.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[HornWumpus]

I've got to introduce you to my script doctor.

He's a quack and he knows it, but he's fast with the script pad.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[Alarindris]

Don't work where you personal rights are violated. It's that simple.

If you choose to take a job where you get drug tested, well that's your choice. There are plenty of places that don't test.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[jimicus]

Here in Portugal some companies are starting to do the same, and there was a politician that wrote an opinion piece where he said "surely no one is against this measure".

What your politician is trying to do is demonise drugs in the same way as terrorism and paedophilia - the next logical statement were you to publicly say "I'm against it" would be something along the lines of "You must be a drug-addled junkie" or "Are you in favour of more drug addicts in our society?".

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[Just Some Guy]

Sure, drugs can affect my performance, but in that case they can fire me for not producing what I should; does it matter to know why?

I couldn't agree more. If I'm being unproductive, whether because I got stoned before coming to work or because I stayed up all night playing WoW, get rid of me. If I'm being productive, even if I got stoned before coming to work or stayed up all night playing WoW, keep me. I don't do either of those, but I'm grateful to work for a boss who is much more interested in whether I'm good at my job than what I do when I go home and I wish every company saw it that way.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[BubbaDoom]

If your working for me, I'd like the ability to fire you on the spot if you come to work high (or drunk). Its a liability for my business.

Re:When will businesses relax their testing?

[icebraining]

If you can tell I'm drunk or high, you don't need tests. If I'm behaving normally, why would you fire me? In any case, you have no valid reason to test me.

Likely legalization US-wide by 2020?

[swb]

I think governments get that trying to stop it is a colossal waste in an era of shrinking revenue and resources and that legalizing it enables a revenue source that has thus been untapped.

I don't think the Feds will necessarily roll over, but the smart states will realize that if they get on top of it before it becomes Federalized they can collect pretty much all the taxes on it -- production, wholesale, retail, plus licensing fees to growers, wholesalers and retailers; smart regulations will ensure only in-state product is sold by anyone at any level.

Re:Likely legalization US-wide by 2020?

[by (1706743)]

...a revenue source that has thus been untapped.

Wrong word; prostitution is a revenue source that is untapped (in the U.S.A., except for Nevada).

Marijuana, on the other hand, is a revenue source that hasn't been hit.

Re:Likely legalization US-wide by 2020?

[maxume]

The IRS doesn't care where you get your income from, and they expect you to pay your taxes.

Re:Likely legalization US-wide by 2020?

[Macrat]

Wrong word; prostitution is a revenue source that is untapped

I'm pretty sure they have been tapped. In multiple positions.

Corporate take over of pot farming

[Anonymous Coward]

What this really concerns is big business shutting out small scale farmers. Only four farms are being allowed essentially shutting out small growers. That didn't take long. It's sad because small family farms could actually make a profit growing pot but there's simply too much profit involved to allow small farmers to be allowed to play. I wonder how much lobbying went into this decision?

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[Tink2000]

Uhm, only four industrial permits are being given at the moment. Industrial implies that they'll be huge operations. Small farmers will still keep doing what they are doing and doing it inside or outside whatever legal boundaries they currently exist. If you want to argue about how little farmers fail in the face of industrialized farms, I'd like to invite you to some coffee tastings. Coffee cultivation proves that farms that produce 2000 lbs a crop can compete (and make a way better product with much greater demand and thus claim higher prices) than farms that produce 2000 tons a crop.

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[rebot777]

I don't think it's the small scale mom and pop growers these farms would be competing with... Any move we make to curtail the growth of Mexican drug cartels the better, not just for us but for Mexico too.

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[adamchou]

and on top of that, i'm willing to bet that the 4 companies that do get the license are lobbying the california government pretty heavily. this is going to be more bullshit of politicians lining their friend's and family's pocket with money

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[Anonymous Coward]

let's let the market decide. seems that in many other industries a variety of price points & quality levels easily coexist, even for the same consumer in different situations. example: perhaps you splurge for the premium for your own ride, but load that rental car up with regular. or maybe you'd spend as much on a 6-pack of microbrew as someone else would for 12 bud/coors/etc. i'm envisioning the farmers' markets & the megamarts both being there for me when i need them. and they are both green.

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[Anonymous Coward]

but there's simply too much profit involved to allow small farmers to be allowed to play.

What?! There is nothing there that prohibits small farms from competing or shutting them down. It's just giving bigger ones the ability to enter that market. You think that should not be allowed simply based on their size?

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[Lloyd_Bryant]

What this really concerns is big business shutting out small scale farmers. Only four farms are being allowed essentially shutting out small growers. That didn't take long. It's sad because small family farms could actually make a profit growing pot but there's simply too much profit involved to allow small farmers to be allowed to play. I wonder how much lobbying went into this decision?

What makes you think there will be all that much profit? The plants are *not* hard to cultivate, and it sounds like distribution will be strictly local.

Don't assume that the price of something on the black market has any bearing on what it will sell for if legalized - most of the current price of pot is the typically huge black-market markup.

Of course, it will undoubtedly be taxed at a ludicrous rate, but it won't be the growers raking in the dough from that.

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[Anonymous Coward]

When the story was on NPR the talk was to have a farm Co-op where people got space together and you were allocated a portion of the farm to do your growing. Since it was one big farm, only one entity had to pay the very expensive license.

Re:Corporate take over of pot farming

[sycorob]

On the plus side, this may be the wedge that gets marijuana in the door; big agri-business, that donates to politicians and employs a bunch of people, that's too big to skirt taxes the way many small businesses could. So long as small businesses can still grow small quantities too, I don't see the problem. I can legally brew small batches of beer in my home, but if I want to start producing and selling I have to get in compliance with the liquor board. Should be the same with pot.

Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[phantomcircuit]

The ONLY reason they're doing this is because they believe they can get ahead of the curve when California legalizes marijuana. They want the tax revenue and nothing more. This is not about freedom or fighting for what's right.

Frankly the dominance of tax revenue in the discussion of legalization disgusts me.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[h4rr4r]

Why?
It adds another good reason to legalize. Just like with alcohol prohibition the government gives up tons of revenue and then wastes money arresting people.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[geoffrobinson]

I would think rounding up all the drug dealers and taking all their money would raise the most money.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Half-assed legalization in CA has already put a lot of small dealers out of business. What sucks is seeing all the young kids smoking high-quality product (including concentrates) on the street, especially when mixed with tobacco. If you leave marijuana illegal, you should also make tobacco illegal. There's no real logic to these laws.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[h4rr4r]

Compared to taxes? Are you crazy?

That is a one time thing, this is on going income.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[Deadstick]

I would think rounding up all the drug dealers and taking all their money would raise the most money.

Oh, yes. We could organize a federal agency to do that: call it the Drug Enforcement Administration...the dealers wouldn't have a chance against THEM.

rj

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[MadUndergrad]

So many bad things are done for good reasons... When a good thing is done for middling reasons I'll take it.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[swb]

While it would be great to see the government doing the right thing for the right reasons, when did THAT last happen?

Personally, I don't have an issue with it, and it's hardly a new meme in the legalization fight. It's always been a plank in the legalization platform that legalization could/would/should be taxed for revenue purposes, just as liquor and cigarettes are now.

I think most smart government officials realize that there's a window of time between the local legalization of marijuana and the eventual Federal legalization of marijuana where the locals get to collect ALL the taxes -- production, wholesale, retail, licensing fees at all levels, you name it.

Once it's legalized at the Federal level, the Feds will swoop in and excise tax the shit out of it, leaving only morsels & local regulation licensing fees left for local government. They can only tax it so much before it becomes sensible to grow your own or people shift back to the black market.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[RelliK]

this was the same reason that alcohol prohibition was repealed. US was in the middle of great depression at the time.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to tax it is what will lead to the decriminalization though. Do other sin taxes disgust you? It's the same deal...

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[TapeCutter]

"I would think rounding up all the drug dealers and taking all their money would raise the most money"

What planet have you been living on for the last 50yrs?

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[Khyber]

"Frankly the dominance of tax revenue in the discussion of legalization disgusts me."

Why? For so long people have been growing weed and not paying taxes on the sales they make, which puts undue economic strain on our system.

And maybe people will finally get their heads out of their asses and see that there's a HUGE ripple effect from legalizing cannabis in all forms, in the form of economic boosts in many sectors of industry. People are only looking at the direct tax money and not the other taxable sales that will result from legalization.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at the guy's .sig, he's clearly a hard-core right-winger, wanting to force his point of view on others. The terminally braindead think prohibition does work.... or at least, they will not admit to shortcomings of it, as it jives with their moralistic views.

That twat advocates war, and justifies it with dodgy logic: direct slavery ended in various ways in various countries. Metaphorically it still exists. Nazism is still a problem, so war never fixed that. There were never any truly communist states, and if they were it wasn't long until they morphed into Stalinism or Maoism or something. And the Soviet Union collapsed for internal economic reasons, not due to constant proxy wars. America would probably have gained independence without war at some point too. Britain barely has an empire any more, and most colonies left without resorting to war.

states right kind of get in the way!

[Joe The Dragon]

states right kind of get in the way!

any ways we spend way to much to lock up Marjuana uses, dealers, and farmers.

sheesh!

[FudRucker]

the feds and all 50 state govs should just legalize it already, you can not die from an overdose, you can not get addicted to it like hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth & etc), make the pot laws like alcohol, anyone over 18 or 21 years old is ok & no driving under the influence, and like alcohol anyone can grow for personal use only, and the stuff grown for sale in stores will contribute in taxes. (at least the quality will be regulated and you dont have to worry about some mad-scientist spraying dangerous chemicals on it.

Re:sheesh!

[grumling]

you can not die from an overdose, you can not get addicted to it like hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth & etc)

Just you wait. Once it's legal, Monsanto will make it highly addictive and if you smoke enough you'll die. But it will be one hell of a high!

Re:sheesh!

[FudRucker]

i doubt the growing community will let monsanto get dominance over the cultivation of marijuana like the corn and wheat farmers did.

Re:sheesh!

[BitZtream]

God, I hate ignorant fucks who try to 'educate' about drugs.

Just stop talking, you make the rest of us look stupid.

you can not die from an overdose

You most certainly can, its not something that happens due to the impracticality of it. You'll die from oxygen deprivation first if you're trying to smoke it. Stop talking out your ass with some bullshit you read on the Internet or your little stone friend told you.

you can not get addicted to it

This is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. Only a completely idiot would make such a statement. The withdrawl symptoms from the physical addiction are rather lax and are far less to deal with than nicotine withdrawl but they are most certainly there. Second, ANY SUBSTANCE can be mental addictive, which is FAR worse than ANY physical addiction.

Please don't talk about pot like you know anything about it, go hit your bong and shut up. Ignorance such as yours won't help get it legalized, it'll just give those against it more fire power to stop it.

Next time you have a thought on the subject, just let it go. We'll all be better off because of it.

Re:sheesh!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the most misinformed dumbass I have yet to run across on the topic of marijuana.

Re:sheesh!

[Sparcrypt]

Of course you can get addicted to it. You can get addicted to anything. Maybe it has no chemical addiction but I've seen plenty of people who are addicted to pot and it screws them up just as much as alcoholism. Granted, I don't consider it any worse then alcohol or tobacco.. but if either of these things were discovered tomorrow do you think they'd have the same laws attached as they currently do? Tobacco would probably be outlawed completely. Personally I would like to see it legalised only in non smokable forms (or maybe non smokable forms outside a private residence), soley for the fact that I already have to deal with people smoking cigarettes blowing their smoke all over the place, I don't need to get high walking to work.

Re:sheesh!

[linzeal]

Lol, are you serious? They do tobacco what makes you think they haven't already been working with cannabis?

Re:sheesh!

[mjwx]

you can not get addicted to it like hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth & etc),

I think the words you are looking for are "chemically dependent". There is no measurable dependency, unlike tobacco.

Many forms of addiction are entirely psychological such as alcoholism and gambling addictions and this depends on the kind of person taking the drug (thus blanket bans are not productive). It's ignorant to say that there is no risk, just as it's ignorant to say that dope will make you crazy and kill your family. I agree with your sentiment that it should at the very least be decriminalised, if not legalised and treated the same as tobacco or alcohol but there are still risks from smoking marijuana the same as there are risks from drinking alcohol. But these are risks we as a society accept and in many cases control outside of controlling the drug (I.E. drinking and driving).

Re:sheesh!

[Anonymous Coward]

no driving under the influence

That is one of the hold ups. There are fast, easy tests for alcohol, but not for THC. Urine tests can tell if you have been exposed in the last 5-60 days (not testing directly for THC, but certain metabolites), but not if you are currently under the influence. Blood tests are a little better, but still not 100% reliable. Find the reliable test (especially an easy, fast one for roadside use) and you will open the way...

Re:sheesh!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get addicted to marijuana. Granted, it's not like getting addicted to meth/nicotine/cocaine/etc but I know quite a few people who couldn't stop smoking it if they wanted to (and they do go through withdrawals if they don't smoke it). IMO, it falls under the same umbrella of addictions such as eating addictions, game addiction, etc.

Re:sheesh!

[h7]

Actually, it's you who is doesn't know what he's talking about. Throwing around heated invective and shouting doesn't make you right. (You are wrong)

Re:sheesh!

[MoeDumb]

Sheesh? Ha! HaSheesh.

Re:sheesh!

[drinkypoo]

you can not die from an overdose

You most certainly can, its not something that happens due to the impracticality of it. You'll die from oxygen deprivation first if you're trying to smoke it.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on slashdot. If you ever tried this experiment you'd know it's impossible. But of course, you're talking out of your ass.

you can not get addicted to it

This is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. Only a completely idiot would make such a statement. The withdrawl symptoms from the physical addiction are rather lax and are far less to deal with than nicotine withdrawl but they are most certainly there.

Citation?

Second, ANY SUBSTANCE can be mental addictive, which is FAR worse than ANY physical addiction.

Physical addiction can kill you. Mental addiction can not. Logic fail.

Next time you have a thought on the subject, just let it go. We'll all be better off because of it.

Right back at you, and welcome to my foes list for your hypocritical ignorant spouting.

Re:sheesh!

[Anonymous Coward]

And we've all read stories (or perhaps even know people) who are addicted to gaming. That's a relevantly new thing but fortunately so far only a few wackos have called for a ban. The fact is some people have a greater propensity for addiction, but GP's point is that it's not chemically addictive. Something like nicotine, anyone can become addicted to regardless of their personality, it creates a physical need in the body. Anything which is only mentally addictive can be substituted for something else (if, for instance, it were found to be harmful down the line, it wouldn't be difficult to replace the target of the addict's attention with something less harmful).

Re:sheesh!

[tirefire]

Many forms of addiction are entirely psychological such as alcoholism and gambling addictions

Sudden cessation of heavy, regular alcohol consumption can be fatal. It is a shock to the central nervous system to suddenly go without a depressant; seizures and hallucinations are possible. Cannabis withdrawal symptoms (yes they do exist) are very mild. Usually there's a loss of appetite, sometimes nausea, and a worsened mood for a few weeks. But it's nothing as bad as the suicidal I-feel-like-I'm-dying heroin withdrawals you hear about in DARE.

Re:sheesh!

[Khyber]

You're damned right I won't. As long as I have access to landrace strains untouched by human hands, Monsanto won't stand a chance.

They joys of partnering with the Dutch seedbanks.

Moore's Law

[ThomConspicuous]

Is it possible we'll also have a similar theoretical law predicting the growth in complexity of THC?

A curious mix of Depression 2.0 and Lotto

[istartedi]

First, the Obama administration is already not prosecuting people, as long as they follow state law. It's not a total lift of Prohibition 2.0, but it's as close as you can get without untangling the web of international treaties and Federal laws that prop up the insane "war on drugs".

Second, It will be like Lotto and other forms of legalized gambling. As soon as one state gets it, the other states get revenue envy. The dominoes tumble.

The tide has been turning for quite some time. Prop 215 is... how old? This is just one more wave, washing away the hypocrisy of Prohibition 2.0. Economic hard times will also have a way of making prohibitionists forget their "morality" if money is to be had.

I remarked some time ago, that if there is a California association of Restaurants and Motel owners, they should be heartily endorsing this, and Prop 19 (tax and regulate) on the ballot this fall. Can you say "drug tourist dollars"?

Re:A curious mix of Depression 2.0 and Lotto

[Concern Is A Faggot]

First, the Obama administration is already not
prosecuting people, as long as they follow state law.

Horseshit.

Re:A curious mix of Depression 2.0 and Lotto

[Anonymous Coward]

read the article?

"Based on our investigation, we believe there are not only violations of federal law, but state law as well,"

That seems reasonable.

Wonder how popular it will be when RJR starts

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how popular this whole movement will be when RJR, Phillip Morris, Anheuser Busch, and Monsanto get into the game. I predict that weed cultivation will only be a popular cause until it actually becomes an established big buisness. Then it will be vilified.

Re:Wonder how popular it will be when RJR starts

[h4rr4r]

You can get loose no-chemical added tobacco, Micro-Brew beer and Organic veggies, why would this be any different?

I opened the front page here

[countertrolling]

And guess how many comments the article had...

That's right... 42!

Is that what you would call "serendipity"? Or was it just a coincidence?

Re:I opened the front page here

[delinear]

Oblig. Shelldon: "Oh, well, this would be one of those circumstances that people unfamiliar with the law of large numbers would call a coincidence."

Waiting for press release.....

[failedlogic]

I'm just waiting for a press release from Snoop Dogg - btw I did check his twitter account before posting this - nothing ...... yet!!!.

FOR PRESS RELEASE. Oakland, CA - Acclaimed rap star Snoop Dogg, a multi-platinum record seller, has today announced that he is moving to Oakland, California. Snoop would like to tell his fans - "the shizzle is more growing opportunities for my rap in Oaktown. Ain't nothing growin' where I am. You know, I need more green for my raps.". Snoop hopes his fans can support him while he waits for the growing opportunities in Oakland to help him record his next album.

Re:Waiting for press release.....

[grouchomarxist]

Heh. If this farming gets approved we'll be seeing Snoop Dogg brand chronic.

Re:Waiting for press release.....

[TheSync]

1) Snoop has always been hooked up.

2) Even if Snoop did need the legizzle shizzle, anyone in the LBC can get a medical MJ note from a doctor and hit one of the legal collective stores, there are at least 30 in Long Beach.

Federal Enforcement Roadmap

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1) Let Oakland "legalize" giant industrial pot farms, producing dozens if not hundreds of pounds of pot per day, selling it in bulk to bay-area collectives.
Step 2) Continue turning a blind eye while production and profits ramp up.
Step 3) Whoever gets elected after Obama decides to start enforcing federal drug laws again in California and whichever federal dept wins the asset-forfeiture lotto doesn't have to worry about sneaking their budget past congress for the next few decades.

Oh, now, here we go

[PagosaSam]

Are we trading one narco crime inc. for another? Laws will limit production to 4 government farms and shutting down small farms and individual growers.

Limited production, high taxes, regulation, and a ready and gifted police force to enforce it all. Here come the ATF jack boots to crash through grandma's door to pull up her magic plant. It's sad really...

Why can't they just legalize personal production and use and be done with it? Oh, right, the taxes. How long will it be before the boys from down south match their price???

Re:Oh, now, here we go

[sqrt(2)]

I can grow my own tobacco if I want, tax free. I can brew my own beer if I want, tax free. I'm sure whatever form legalization takes that growing marijuana for your own use won't be taxed - there is a lot of precedent for that. You only start paying taxes when you sell it.

Re:Oh, now, here we go

[Reziac]

Why shouldn't it be like beer or wine? Brew or grow what you want for your own consumption, no problem. The moment you sell it commercially, you pay tax on it.

Pass it to the Left

[poormanjoe]

We all know that inhaling burning plant material creates by-products such as: tar, ash, CO2, carbon monoxide and other gases & carcinogenic elements, because so much time and money has been spent on proving this with tobacco. Nobody ever talks about the strain legalizing it would put on the health care system. Clearly it would contribute to some people getting cancer. No not everyone would just like not all cigarette smokers get cancer, and don't give me that bullshit you read on the inside of the Cypress Hill CD that there has never been a documented death from smoking marijuana.

I do realize that a casual marijuana smoker does smoke far less often than even a light cigarette smoker, but how many strait up potheads are there to the casual 1 gram or less a day smokers? 100 to 1? Your guess is as good as mine, I just think if we are going to be realistic about this issue we should also be genuine with our intent to improve our quality of life.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

So insist on vaporizing: no combustion, no carcinogens. Or cooking.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[drinkypoo]

We all know that inhaling burning plant material creates by-products such as: tar, ash, CO2, carbon monoxide and other gases & carcinogenic elements, because so much time and money has been spent on proving this with tobacco. Nobody ever talks about the strain legalizing it would put on the health care system. Clearly it would contribute to some people getting cancer

clearly what?

and don't give me that bullshit you read on the inside of the Cypress Hill CD that there has never been a documented death from smoking marijuana.

So you have a citation, then?

I do realize that a casual marijuana smoker does smoke far less often than even a light cigarette smoker, but how many strait up potheads are there to the casual 1 gram or less a day smokers? 100 to 1?

Logical fallacy: misdirection. This is irrelevant.

Your guess is as good as mine, I just think if we are going to be realistic about this issue we should also be genuine with our intent to improve our quality of life.

Which is why you've chosen to spread FUD when in fact people have talked and are talking about the potential impact on the health system and finding that it would be positive. There can only be one reason why you would ignore the health benefits in the context of a conversation which is supposedly about the impact (or in your words, "strain") that it might put on the health care system, and that is that you are pushing an anti-cannabis agenda.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[h4rr4r]

Which is why there are other methods of consuming it. Eating, dissolving the THC in something else, or vaporizing. There are far more casual smokers vs potheads. Pot is expensive.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[germansausage]

What you say is somewhat true. Fortunately smoking is not the only way (or the best way) to consume Cannabis. You can vaporize, which involves no smoke or carcinogenic tars or you can cook it any number of ways.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[MichaelSmith]

It least if it is legal it can be regulated in a sensible way. I would like my next door neighbor to stop smoking marijuana in their back yard because it gets into my sons bedroom. But if I call the cops it will turn into a drug bust with lots of bad impacts for me.

That said I think we are too soft on passive smoking and drug use while driving.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[h4rr4r]

Closing the window might be a good idea. Way easier than calling the cops too.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[MichaelSmith]

People should have access to fresh air.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[h4rr4r]

Sure, but if you want to protect your kid, close the window while they smoke.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[poormanjoe]

So you have a citation, then?

Yep.

Logical fallacy: misdirection. This is irrelevant.

Agreed, I'm from Wisconsin just talking experience.

you are pushing an anti-cannabis agenda.

You are paranoid, I'm not against you sir. I push no agenda. It does however seem though you think the benefits of marijuana to people who do actually need it is a cure for them. It's not. Yes, it takes away pain, and helps in many ways that no other drug can. It is a miracle drug without a doubt. It is not a cure though. Making someone eat who normally would not only prevents other health issues, it doesn't solve the one causing them to not eat.

Legal recreational use will create unforeseen problems, while perhaps minor, it will not result in world peace.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[poormanjoe]

Cigarettes are expensive that doesn't stop people from smoking a carton a week. It's been a while, but I'd say on average mind you, that you can get 1/2 ounce of marijuana for the price of a carton of cigarettes ($60 national average)

14 grams in 7 day's qualifies as a pothead IMO. Casual would be more like 1/2 ounce a month or average of joint or less a day.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

If you weren't so insistent about paying for other people's medical care, it wouldn't be a problem.

Seriously, just mind your own business.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[codepunk]

Why do you feel like it is your duty to worry about someone else's quality of life? I personally do not want you to worry about my quality of life. I am a smoker and rather much happy with my decision, and don't get me started about the increased cost in health care. The state I am from squandered their tobacco settlement, was it to help smokers? No little if any went towards that. In fact I told my wife when I die sue the hell out of the state for not doing it's job in using the settlement to help me quit. Do you have any idea how much money I pay a year in additional taxes and medical insurance because I smoke? So where does that additional money go?

Re:Pass it to the Left

[liquidsin]

have you tried asking your neighbour not to smoke outside your kids window?

Re:Pass it to the Left

[codepunk]

smoking while driving? What do you have a hepa filter on your car's ventilation system? I guess you never thought about the fact that the guy's tailpipe in front of you is putting out 1000 times the nasties that the dude sitting in his car smoking in front of you is putting into the environment.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[h4rr4r]

You might be able to get 1/4 ounce for that much, of really cheap weed. More likely an 1/8th.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, nicotine constricts airways while THC expands them. Have you experienced secondhand smoke from both? While tobacco smoke hurts, marijuana smoke is almost pleasant to breathe.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[HornWumpus]

Modern cars are amazingly clean running.

You wouldn't want to burn your pot that hot, it would destroy the good parts.

I bet you could rig up a vaporizer on the exhaust manifold. I know you can build an oven that way (to cook on the trails).

Tricky to operate while driving.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[mikael_j]

Yep. [ama-assn.org]

I stopped reading after "Marijuana use prior to injury was determined prospectively in 1023 patients injured as the result of vehicular (67.6%) and nonvehicular (32.4%) trauma.". Do you know why? Because those aren't "marijuana deaths" any more than me smoking a cigarette and jumping of a building is a "tobacco death". When people talk about "marijuana deaths" in this context they mean overdoses or causes of deaths otherwise directly attributable to marijuana use, not "he was an idiot, got high, drove off and died". All that tells us is that driving while drunk or high is a bad idea and should be avoided, doesn't tell us that being high in itself is a bad idea (but it is common knowledge through many many years of research and practical experience that alcohol really can kill you simply because you drank too much of it).

Re:Pass it to the Left

[sqrt(2)]

Marijuana smoke, second hand or otherwise is painful for me to breathe - like all smoke. I can't get over it, just doesn't work with my body. Marijuana cookies on the other hand...

Re:Pass it to the Left

[MichaelSmith]

I do, but its nice to go outside without sharing the neighbours drug habit.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[MichaelSmith]

Actually I ride a bike most of the time but my concern is that drivers are not allowed to use marijuana when driving, and this is a problem if legalisation leads to more consumption.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[drinkypoo]

So you have a citation, then?

Yep.

You're talking about traffic deaths, we're talking about marijuana deaths. 85,000 people die every year in the USA alone directly due to consumption of alcohol, which is to say dying of alcohol poisoning or choking on vomit. Now, find a real citation, or admit that you're spreading FUD.

You are paranoid, I'm not against you sir. I push no agenda

You are indeed attempting to push an anti-marijuana agenda with a dearth of facts. Hit up your local dictionary if you don't believe me.

It is a miracle drug without a doubt. It is not a cure though.

Actually, there are indications that it not only reduces lung cancer risk, but also fights various other cancers. And cancer is one of those things that you don't really cure, you just fight off individual cancers or not. Even most people who die of something other than cancer have had cancer and beat it, often multiple times. It happens on a small scale all the time and you don't even notice.

Legal recreational use will create unforeseen problems, while perhaps minor, it will not result in world peace.

Now you're really attacking a straw man. Are you addicted to logical fallacy?

Re:Pass it to the Left

[drinkypoo]

Modern cars are amazingly clean running.

They put out orders of magnitude more crap than a cigarette. Not that I like sucking people's cig smoke while driving, either. It's certainly more gross than anything I wouldn't call in as a gross polluter. And yes, I've called in several. I drive diesels but they have turbos and don't smoke excessively.

You wouldn't want to burn your pot that hot, it would destroy the good parts.

The cherry of a cigarette can reach over 1200 deg F. Not sure what your statement has to do with anything.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[Shakrai]

You do realize that the amount of THC you absorb from inhaling second hand smoke at a distance is physiologically insignificant, right?

Re:Pass it to the Left

[MichaelSmith]

Thats interesting because drivers in my state can lose their license for having physiologically insignificant quantities of THC in their system.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[Anonymous Coward]

1/2 ounce for $60? Where do you live or what kind of weed are you talking about?

An 1/8th of a decent grade is about $40 in CA without markup.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[Shakrai]

All that proves is that the law is badly written.

Re:Pass it to the Left

[HornWumpus]

Orders of magnitude more crap from a car?

Only if you define crap as CO2 and Water.

My point was that you don't want a clean hot fire when you are smoking. Clean hot fires produce little or no smoke. Smoke is dirty by definition.

Reasonably tuned cars don't belch smoke (older diesels belch soot on occasion).

Nah, u wrong

[Ubitsa_teh_1337]

Yea, and what kinda hash can you get from it? That's right, epic hash :-p Home-grown plants can also be used to bake with quite nicely.

Re:Nah, u wrong

[h4rr4r]

You do make a good point, I wonder if leaf material would be available cheap if pot were legalized.

going green

[Cyko_01]

Now that's what I call going green! what is more environmentally friendly:
a) seizing massive quantities of pot in police raids and incinerating it, releasing all kinds of toxins into the air
or
b letting the idiots ingest it a little at a time letting there bodies filter out the toxins before they affect the environment

Easy solution - eat it instead

[c0d3g33k]

Brownies, cookies and other baked goods. Maybe even a tossed salad with a garnish of buds. Smoking and inhaling is totally not required. For those who are worried about adverse effects of smoking on health, ingestion should do just fine.

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol you ever eaten to much? If not you'll find out tommorow when you can't move.
NO THANKS I'd rather smoke the shit.

Next someones going to suggest a repository is safer no thanks i'm smoking it!!!!
Cancer? I'm sure a headline for a cure will appear on /. soon, o yeah and they have not proved it causes it no more than car exhaust!!!

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[Anonymous Coward]

But the absorption rate is not as high.

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[pipedwho]

Next someones going to suggest a repository is safer no thanks i'm smoking it!!!!

Give's a whole new meaning to terms like "checking out" and "branch/tag".

Oh, you meant suppository.

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[mikael_j]

Lol you ever eaten to much? If not you'll find out tommorow when you can't move.

What are you talking about? Are you saying the effects of eating cannabis stay with you for 24+ hours? or that it causes paralysis?

Neither of those are true btw, the effects do stay with you longer than when smoking though, if you eat too much there's a good chance you'll end up falling asleep/passing out (depending on how you look at it) and waking up five hours later still somewhat high.

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[delinear]

Cancer? I'm sure a headline for a cure will appear on /. soon, o yeah and they have not proved it causes it no more than car exhaust!!!

I don't know about you, but just to be on the safe side I don't huff on my car's exhaust pipe.

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[Shakrai]

He's saying that it's very easy to "overdose" (not in the "your dead" sense, but in the "Holy shit I'm WAY more fucked up than I care to be" sense) when you eat pot as opposed to when you smoke it. If you make this mistake (and you'll only do it once) you can forget about doing anything productive for the next 12-24 hours.

It's also downright uncomfortable to be that fucked up, at least IMHO.

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm...welll u actually need to activate the THC in the bud in order to get hi...soooo just thrown it on a salad would be a waste. cook it down with a fatty acid to bond to...and then ur set!

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[Anonymous Coward]

There are alot of people here really downplaying the effects of marijuana. I grew up with alot of people that were into it and I must say most of them are pretty dim. I personally am for a smaller government and less control. But I want to be able to go to a public place and and not smell any smoke, not see people puking on themselves etc. I could care less how people live their own lives, but if it effects me or my children in even the smallest degree I am against it. People that smoke feel their rights are trampled on when a no smoking sign is in place. What about my rights? I have to breath their smoke because they are worried about their rights? Very selfish. So that said what happens when pot is legalized? Do I have to smell that too? I care about people to a certain level.I would help a lady getting mugged or raped, I would intervene on a robbery. But when people do stupid stuff to their body's I could care less unless it effects me. Now I know ingesting marijuana probably has a less of an effect on the persons body, So great. I would prefer a person did that then smoke it near me. But it has been proven that marijuana is a gateway drug. So once it is legal to use marijuana, will people sneak some angel dust into that brownie? So the guy that is all mellow in the park all of a sudden turns psycho and attacks my daughter. No good.

It is already bad enough that alcohol and tobacco are legal. I think the laws should remain. I am not a religious man either, so my opinions dont fall that way. I am an all natural no preservatives, vegan . I eat all kinds of herbs, just not mind altering ones. You only have one of those you should use it to better the planet, not cruise through till your dead.

Re:Easy solution - eat it instead

[EightBitMe]

Don't forget Vaping is much healtier tha smoking as well. I don't really want to get HIGH I just want help with my PAIN. I can control vaping better than ingestion. Just a small hit helps reduce my pain to be able to do some work and get around. I didn't read all the comments but am sure someone mentioned why pot was made illegal and the powers that be are heavily intrenched in oil and all of its wonders and miracle products, and environmental benefits of oil. Now if we had used more hemp maybe we wouldn't have all these little anoyances in the gulf! You no we can trust the government and BP (Bad People) to take care of us and all our problems! Thank GOD we are here for such a short time. But GOD help our decendents.... Go ahead President OBlahBlah and do something for the people and help legalize this natural miracle product...........

hemp for textiles?

[bugi]

MJ for the mellow is all well and good, but what about growing hemp (low-THC cousin of MJ) for textiles? It's about time we stop subsidizing the cotton industry.

Re:hemp for textiles?

[Yvan256]

Isn't hemp textile also a lot more resistant than cotton? But how does it feel compared to cotton, etc?

Re:hemp for textiles?

[bugi]

I couldn't say. It's too expensive. But, c'mon, even birch feels fine when it's processed.

Re:hemp for textiles?

[Falconhell]

It is absolutley excellent for clothes. It has a soft feel like cotton and the pair of hemp jeans I had lasted more than 5 times longer than normal cotton jeans. They were expensive but the long life made it a bargain.

I wish I could get more.

Re:hemp for textiles?

[Reziac]

How does it hold up to bleach? I've discovered that those wonderful comfy cotton/bamboo socks are just great for everything *except* working around bleach -- eats thru 'em like they're made of air. Much worse than straight cotton.

Re:Good for the consumer

[Yvan256]

Posting AC for a reason.

Because you like to shill out?

P.S.: can someone fix Slashdot so that it stops removing/cancelling <em> in quotes?

monoculture

[Anonymous Coward]

Now subject to the advantages and disadvantages of industrial scale agriculture.

Monoculture, corporate lobbies, agri-chemicals, no transparency.

Like supermarket vegetables a focus on yields rather than quality.

Good luck with that.

     

Propagation?

[RevWaldo]

Is there much chance that major fields of pot being grown will result in pot plants showing up all over the place? I'm imagining the seeds being carried about all over through the wind, birdshit, etc. It worked for Monsanto after all.

.

I'm sorry, they did WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT WERE THEY SMOKING?

only 4 large companies

[SuperBanana]

The resolution passed the city council easily after a nearly four-hour debate that pitted small-scale "garden" growers against advocates of a bigger, industrial system

In short, big business wins again. They're playing the fear card (neighbors growing pot! In your neighborhood! OMG!) to make sure that only a few (already rich) people are protected from competition, and the county/city/state gets their tax revenue:

will issue up to four permits

Ain't that grand? The only purpose here is to commercialize something that is basically free for the cost of a piece of clay, some dirt, water, and sunshine.

I'm Proud to be an Oakie...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

From, uh...

Where am I, exactly, man?

Re:I'm Proud to be an Oakie...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dave's not here, man.

YOU GOTTA FIGHT! FOR YOUR RIGHT! TO REVENUUUEEEE!

[monstermagnet]

Not that it's a bad plan for Oakland.

Burnout cases

[Animats]

I have misgivings about legalizing pot. Walk down Haight St. in San Francisco and see all the burnout cases. We already have enough of an underclass of drugged-out losers in SF.

The whole "medical marijuana" thing has gotten out of hand. Make it a class III prescription drug (a downgrade from the current class I) and let people with legit prescriptions for it as a painkiller get it at Walgreens and Rite-Aid. Some people really need it, but not many. The "pot club" thing is just silly.

Re:Burnout cases

[droopus]

I suspect many of the "burnout cases" are from a lot more than weed. I know it's anecdotal but I've smoked regularly (like daily) for more than 35 years and I'm what you might call a well-educated, affluent, suburb dwelling geek, husband of 20 years and proud parent of two well-adjusted, successful kids. I further suspect I am not that unusual. In fact, in my career of media distribution, I would say at least 85% of the senior execs (and as many of the junior execs and associates) are regular smokers.

It's all a matter of decisions and planning. If I choose to roll up a fat spliff of sour diesel after dinner, why does that automatically make me a "burnout" any more than the neighbor who has a glass of Glenmoragie at the same time? Yet, there are FAR more alcoholics than burned out weed heads, and no one calls for that to be criminalized. Didn't work when it was...

It's all about controlling your pleasures, be they weed, alcohol, sex or gambling, and not letting them control you. There is no reason whatsoever for weed to be illegal.

Re:Burnout cases

[Anyd]

Trust me, the people you see along the street have done WAY worse things than smoke pot.

Re:Burnout cases

[drinkypoo]

I have misgivings about legalizing pot. Walk down Haight St. in San Francisco and see all the burnout cases. We already have enough of an underclass of drugged-out losers in SF.

Nobody is merging ass and concrete on the Haight because of weed, unless they have a related felony conviction making them unable to get a job. Or, of course, unless they're selling it there; I am usually offered drugs of various sorts every time I visit. I guess I don't look too square with my long hair. I know what puts people on the street, I grew up with kids who lived in squats and shit like that. Sure there's always some tourists but most of these kids have been abused at home, usually physically, often sexually. A lot of the sketchiest-looking adults on the street have actually been institutionalized previously; a lot of them were living on the state's dime until Reagan put his foot down and put them out on the street.

The whole "medical marijuana" thing has gotten out of hand. Make it a class III prescription drug (a downgrade from the current class I) and let people with legit prescriptions for it as a painkiller get it at Walgreens and Rite-Aid. Some people really need it, but not many.

When alcohol is legal, making pot illegal is hypocritical at best. There continue to be zero records of anyone ever being killed by weed. 85,000 people die due to direct consumption of alcohol in the USA alone every year. Weed does not appear to increase cancer risk or even cause traffic accidents. If anything, alcohol should be illegal, and weed legal!

Re:Burnout cases

[Locke2005]

Gee, think there is a chance some of those "burnout cases" may have taken a few intoxicants other than pot?

Funny

[jimmyfrank]

I live in Nebraska and the state is deciding on whether or not people will be allowed to drink booze in parks yet pot is illegal as hell. Go figure...

Re:Funny

[codepunk]

Heaven forbid you light a cigarette though, you would be burned at the stake.

Compared

[Cur8or]

I think they compared pot cultivation to computer chip fabrication.

California love

[cloakedpegasus]

I love my state.

Why is this Slashdot news?

[lanner]

WTF?

Okay, so the bay area is kind a technology hub, but that's about as close as I can get to associating this article with anything to do Slashdotty. Are nerds secret pot smokers or something. WTF does this have to do with science, computers, technology, or even nerdy-politics. Nothing. WTF?

Re:Why is this Slashdot news?

[blueg3]

There are a lot of Libertarians here.

Re:Why is this Slashdot news?

[h7]

I take it you've not seen the idle section yet? That should show you the other stuff that gets posted here.

Re:Why is this Slashdot news?

[Anonymous Coward]

The sheer amount of people who are secretly pot smokers would blow your mind.

Re:Why is this Slashdot news?

[mqduck]

Are nerds secret pot smokers or something.

Not personally, no. I don't keep it a secret.

WTF does this have to do with science, computers, technology, or even nerdy-politics.

Slashdot is big on discussions around government curtailment of liberty. Nerds also fancy themselves to be very "logical" thinkers, and logical marijuana prohibition ain't.

Just fully legalize it

[Darkness404]

Just fully legalize it and leave it like that. The idea of "Medical Marijuana" is simply stupid. Let pot smokers buy pot legitimately and let the currency circulate on real goods rather than on the black market. Really, why is there such opposition to letting it be sold like cigarettes with smoking/driving restrictions like alcohol.

And no, for the record I'm not a smoker, pot or otherwise, never tried it, never will. But thats just it, why should I have my tax dollars wasted on "enforcement" that just moves it underground and breeds crime. Phillip Morris doesn't spend their money on stolen goods because they are a legitimize business, on the other hand the "drug" dealer does. The money spent on "drugs" ends up being spent on stolen goods and breading violent crime because they can't just walk into Best Buy with cash and buy a new plasma, on the other hand they can talk to Pedro and get the stolen plasma just fine.

Its stupid, pointless and self-defeating to try to ban marijuana, simply legalize it and be done with it. No special difference, just sell it in the places cigarettes and booze are sold. Keeping money circulating out of the hands of the stolen goods market and reducing taxpayer waste, its a win-win, lower crime rates + lower theft (of the taxpayer) rates.

Re:Just fully legalize it

[sqrt(2)]

Who says you can't buy large purchases with cash? I've bought cars and your example, TVs with cash, both multi-thousand dollar purchases. People were actually happy to get cash than some other form of payment as it was instant and hassle free. The TV was at a retail store too, the car was used but from a big name dealership.

Re:Just fully legalize it

[Khyber]

"The idea of "Medical Marijuana" is simply stupid."

So sayeth the person without titanium replacing a good deal of their skeleton.

Seriously, that statement of yours competes with some of the stuff W said.

Re:Just fully legalize it

[slick7]

They will, when the tobacco industry fully integrates M into their processes. Then it will be outlawed for all individual growing for personal medicinal/ recreational use. The tobacco industry will then adulterate their product to be even more harmful than cigarettes. As for hemp products, the industrial conglomerates will never stand for hemp paper, oil, protein, ethanol, clothing, plastics, medicines, or any other product that will benefit the world's populace.
The greed, hunger for power and control will just continue seamlessly into the same corrupt hands as always.

Arbitrary standards

[Anonymous Coward]

I just took a shot of totally legal whisky. I knew it was a bad idea because I'm an alcoholic, but it's hard to resist a physical addiction. I took another shot just now and it's increasingly likely that I'll show up for work late tomorrow.

Marijuana is much less harmful than our primary sanctioned drug.

Legalize it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I myself don't smoke it, but every pot smoker I've known, all they do is sit around eating Twinkies. They never decide to go out on some rampage, they just want to stay put. Have you ever heard of a pot fueled slaying, a marijuana crazed carjacking, etc? It just doesn't happen.

Want to have a pliant and subservient public without the hassle of religion? Legalize marijuana. Of course you'll also get nothing done, but you can't have it both ways.

more like a chainsaw...

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

it's that lumberjack rata-tat cuttin through the woods

A square hectare?

[grahamsz]

I think you've smoked that already. I can't wrap my head around that many dimensions.

Re:A square hectare?

[Anonymous Coward]

Four dimensions of hemp. Insert sitar music here.

Re:A square hectare?

[xaxa]

A square hectare is presumably a square 1hm x 1hm (= 100m x 100m). A non-square hectare is anything else with area 1ha.

(Whoosh, etc.)

Re:A square hectare?

[TheRaven64]

I don't see the problem. It's a simple four-dimensional hypercube that is 100m along each side. The only difficulty is how you arrange the soil in such a hypervolume to allow water and sunlight to get to the plants.

I see the connection

[hyades1]

"MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

I can see why they compared the two. Having enjoyed some pot, who doesn't want chips?

The health benefits of marijuana tea.

[elucido]

The benefits are immeasurable. It's a relaxing drink, just like green tea.

The image you are looking for

[dargaud]

Thirty seconds after California legalized pot (from Craption)

i'm going to make an ironclad prediction

[circletimessquare]

if (god forbid) san francisco has a major quake in the recent future, some religious conservative asshole will proclaim it is god's punishment for growing weed

mark my words

Re:i'm going to make an ironclad prediction

[Shakrai]

some religious conservative asshole will proclaim it is god's punishment for growing weed

Conservatives don't have the monopoly on religious assholes you know.....

Re:i'm going to make an ironclad prediction

[Locke2005]

I think the Funnymentalists would be much more likely to jump on the gay butt-sex angle. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for getting high...

Just a moment

[konmpar]

Legalizing Marijuana is not necessary means more users, more more people abusing, etc... first of all marijuana is not abusing you... Unlike marijuana, alcohol and tobaccos kills people and we buy them from the local store... legal... Maybe we should start thinking that if was not illegal like others things, then people would not go crazy about it... The fact that is illegal is only benefits the drugs merchants who make the hell profit out of illegal things... and goverments knows that... drugs market is the most profitable market of all... think of it... heroine is like the most cheap product you can produce... but they sell it like x10 of its original price.... hell yeah.... the right way to go with, in my opinion, is to stop any kind of bans... i mean make them all legal and start educating the kinds in school so they what is and whats not and let them decide what to do with their life in their own... and not impose them what you want them to do.......

Weed is harder to 'make' properly then beer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've grown lots of weed (got busted for 3.5 kgs in 3 plants) and made lots of beer. Weed is defiantly harder to grow properly. Hydro lights on timers, changing water every week, checking PH every few days. Tying the plans down a few times a week.

As opposed to beer where your setup for a batch takes a few hours and bottling/cleanup takes a couple of hours.

Not irrational

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason the feds (and some local fiefdoms) have an irrational fear of marijuana

Fear has nothing to do with it. Drug prohibition rakes billions of dollars through the business of government each year. Drug prohibition gives them the justification they need for continuous expansion of power and revenue. It sets precedents that can be leveraged in other sectors of government. There is an entire industry built around drug prohibition, and the architects were after one thing: money.

Imagine yourself an executive in the business of government, and do the math.

yes, you should hate money

[circletimessquare]

however, nothing happens without it

money is absolutely evil, and unfortunately, completely necessary, in this world

learn to harness money and not be corrupted by it. but not agreeing to or understanding how money works only leaves you ideologically useless

Global Warming and Carbon Capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Hemp is a good way to capture carbon and be green.
Furthermore, the hemp and oil can be distilled to ethanol.
Waste can be made to paper - this saves trees that would be otherwise cut down
The roots add nitrogen and micro drainage to the soil - soil improver's.
Ignoring the potential for misuse, hemp is the solution to basket case pacific/ carrabean nations, and places where deforestation has occurred (PNG,Malaysia,Solomons, maybe amazon too).
Unlike sugar cane, the oil can be filtered to become 'green diesel'.

Negatives: Cotton growers hurt, Corn/ethanol lobby hurt, lumberjacks hurt, and the oil industry, mainly arab countries.

Helping Texas and Beef: Would you buy 100% pot feed beef, a potburger, or greens with your burger. Actually that roughage may lower bowel cancer rates too.

In return for growing pot, the cultivators should be made to switch to switch grass, and maybe opium poppies , which is also good for soil stabilization

Bong == 2 drinks

[tepples]

with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster).

I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.

In that case, the answer might be education to give people experienced with alcohol a frame of reference. Alcohol culture estimates intoxication potential in "drinks": 350 ml of beer, 150 ml of wine, 50 ml of liquor, and now half a bong.

Re:Bong == 2 drinks

[Kelz]

And just like booze, weed is highly dependent on the person's physiology and how often they drink/smoke. 1/2 a bong bowl knocks me on my ass, while I feel an okay buzz after 2 beers.

Wickard v. Filburn

[tepples]

Ever wonder why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the feds can ban any old drug they feel like without even a vote of the legislative branch nowadays?

It was the Supreme Court's expansion of the definition of "commerce among the states" in Wickard v. Filburn that allowed this to happen.

Tax, commerce, and post roads

[tepples]

The constitution is a document which describes what the federal government is permitted to do

Let's see: "the power to lay and collect taxes [for] general welfare", "regulate commerce [...] among the several states", and "establish post offices and post roads". Almost every alleged abuse of Congress's power has been rationalized as one of these. The national drinking age is to ensure the safety of post roads. Modern prohibition (Schedule I) is to keep from competing with approved drugs in interstate commerce. National health care is taxation for welfare.

I would start smoking

[pigwiggle]

It's true. More people would start smoking pot. I would. I don't now because of the potential legal consequences. But I honestly don't know about these other consequences you elude to. No, I don't remember the smart kids that wasted their life on pot. I smoked pot all through high school. All through college - a chemistry and a mathematics BS, minored in physics (stopped before graduate school). Most of my friends smoked as chronically as I did - that is, every day. Chemical Engineers, EE, Biologists, Mathematicians, Philosophers. All smart people, doing hard things while enjoying marijuana. I did know some smart kids that did smoke pot, and didn't make it too far. They had other problems. Broken families, alcoholic parents, and so forth. Maybe smart kids with other challenges take solace in drugs and your mistaken impression is that it's the drugs that's jamming them up. But pot doesn't make you dumb, or make you "waste your life". It wont make you a superstar either. It's just a fun thing people like.

Read the Science News article

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Yeah, I'm a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana (and most other drugs), but I think the 'medical marijuana' movement is a farce."

Please educate yourself on this subject. Marijuana is extremely useful in a medical context. One of its many uses is in helping with PTSD. There is an article in Science News (Pot Rx - June 19, 2010) that covers this topic in detail (all uses, not just PTSD.) You will be amazed to discover how far off you are if you read it.

And in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

... Frito-Lay and Little Debbie to team up with Oakland to provide one stop shopping.

!(depressant || narcotic)

[pak9rabid]

I see people mis-classify this all the time. Just to be clear, marijuana isn't a narcotic of a depressant, but a hallucinogen.

Oblig Blind Faith

[mcgrew]

I'm weary and I just ain't got the time, and I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.

To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults? It's one of the safest psychoactive drugs there is. There is no lethal dose, there is no physical addiction (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or tobacco), and actually prevents cancer. If you smoke cigarettes, you really should be smoking pot as well.

The laws against it cause all the problems it purports to solve, just as alcohol prohibition did. Teenagers shouldn't smoke pot, but unlike beer, it's easier for a teen to obtain than it is for an adult. Like alcohol prohibition, it allows adulterants to be added whether on purpose or accident; you cannot regulate an illegal substance. Its prohibition finances violent gangs. Marijuana doesn't "lead to harder drugs", but its prohibition does, since the people who sell heroin and cocaine also sell marijuana. Rather than wasting tax dollars jailing dopers, it could be taxed itself.

There is no reason whatever for this plant to be against the law. The only people who the pot laws help are those who grow, import, and sell it. Anyone who is for pot being against the law is being duped or bribed by the drug cartels.

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[Shakrai]

To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults?

It effectively is in some of the states with medical pot. In California you can literally get a prescription for "medical" pot by visiting a "Doctor" you've never seen before and telling him that you have trouble sleeping. It's backdoor legalization under the guise of medicine. Now I happen to think that pot SHOULD be legal for recreational purposes but I still don't agree with what California is doing. It's the cowards way out -- we are too afraid of the political costs of repealing these unjust laws so we'll just smile and nod about cancer or some such.....

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[Khyber]

"To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults?"

Assuming things go right in California, November will be the beginning.

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[merockstar]

To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults?

In fact, California is scheduled to vote this November on all out legalization. It's a public vote, not one of those representatives vote it down because they're scared to look soft on drugs type thing, and enough Californians support the idea that it could feasibly become a reality.

If this vote succeeds, it may just change the status quo and make it ok for other states to completely legalize, the way other states have done with medical marijuana. Especially if other states become jealous of the extra tax dollars and population this will bring Cali. Enough states do that and eventually the constituency will demand that the federal government bring their outdated laws into the 20th century.

So we may be closer than you think sir...

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[mcgrew]

Enough states do that and eventually the constituency will demand that the federal government bring their outdated laws into the 20th century.

Tne Marijuana Tax Stamp Act that led to the outlawing of pot was enacted in 1937.

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[9] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[10]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.

Hopefully, laws against pot will be solely a 20th century thing.

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[bunuel]

I agree. Among the opponents of legalization in California are the growers, since the profits will be lower if everyone can grow legally.

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[merockstar]

I meant 21st century, that always gets me.

But the reasoning still stands...

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

OK McGrew. You just quoted a line from the best recorded music that white people have ever managed to make on this earth.

props. I'm gonna spin up "John Barleycorn", now...

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[alexo]

There is no reason whatever for this plant to be against the law.

Yes there is. Two words: special interests.

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[mcgrew]

Ah, you're a geezer too, eh? We're living in the future. A science fiction future!

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[mcgrew]

I saw Blind Faith live!

Great concert; Delaney and Bonnie opened, Blind Faith performed their only album, then both bands got on stage and jammed. It was one of the best concerts I ever saw.

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

45.

But I am really a creature of the 60's & 70's - not much the 80's.

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Wonderful.

It must have been great to see 'em. Closest I come to that is post-Janis Big Brother and Joe Cocker - who were on a bill in Monterey in '71 or '72. That was an afterglow "festival" tied to Vietnam-protest - not the famous 1967, where I would now have killed to see The Butterfield Blues band perform. But I was only 3. :-)

I can't say enough about Stevie Winwood. 16 years old, he sounded like like a brother, who'd really got the chops. That's not just technique, but feeling.

And his underrated guitar playing has always been mind blowing. Listen to his Hendrix tribute in Pearly Queen. I think he is super-hip to Buddy Guy, too. Buddy was certainly one of Jimi's forerunners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHRpRzXzTHg
In '94, he sounded as good as '68.

I can listen to Shanghai Noodle Factory all day long. Makes me want to break out the chelsea boots and velvet waistcoat again...

Re:Oblig Blind Faith

[mcgrew]

I would now have killed to see The Butterfield Blues band perform

I was never at Woodstock, but I did see the movie. Damned shame it's unavailable on DVD. I have the soundtrack on CD, but that's only because I sampled it from vinyl. The shame is, it should be in the public domain by now.

Perception != reality

[Zero__Kelvin]

"It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control"

Well than I must be much faster than the average human ;-)

In truth, reaction times are about the same, but one perceives them as slower, making it much easier to react intelligently (You have 10 perceived seconds to react to a 7 second event.) The Wiki you cite doesn't even make the claim you made. It says what I said, to wit, it affects your perception.

Drugs may not cause but they can precipitate

[MisterSquid]

Bill Clegg was a well-known and well-regarded literary agent and editor. His childhood predisposed him to wanting to hide. From a review:

After several years representing a growing list of highly acclaimed writers, literary agent Bill Clegg walked away from his world and went on a two-month crack binge. He had been released from rehab nine months earlier, and his relapse would cost him his home, his money, his career, his status, and--very nearly--his life.

What is it that makes an exceptional young mind want to disappear? Clegg makes startlingly clear the powerful attraction of the reality-obliterating drug that had him in its thrall, calling its effect a state where "doom does not eclipse bliss." The terrifying story of Clegg's addiction is intercut with flashbacks to his childhood, when a harrowing physical condition is treated with mockery by one parent and with negligence by the other, shaping the future addict's desire to hide, to be "away."

Please stop spreading misinformation

[Zero__Kelvin]

"takes years of abstinence to expel it from the lungs"

That is complete bullshit. After smoking pot daily for more than 25 years my doctor informed me that my lungs were in perfect shape.

Moore's Law?

[Aggrav8d]

If we apply the same work ethic to pot growing that we did to chip manufacturing, does that mean customers will be able to get two times higher every 18 months? ;)

FTFY

[GameboyRMH]

Put goat meat in American fast food restaurants and they'll eat it. Americans eat anything as long as there's some slick marketing behind it.

FTFY.

When I was in prison for weed...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in prison for weed (6 years, federal), I used to joke with one of my friends (30 years for the same thing, just weed) that they'd only let the drug dealers out when they needed the space for the political prisoners. So now the government might decriminalize weed because they need the money. Funny, that's why I sold it too. I wonder if I'll get an apology.

THC != barbituate

[Shakrai]

The medicinal properties of marijuana are one; it's a euphoric barbituate.

THC != barbiturate

Re:THC != barbituate

[Pandrake]

Narcotic, then?

Re:THC != barbituate

[Shakrai]

Not sure if you could call it that either.

An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain.

The term narcotic (pronounced /nrktk/) strictly refers (medically) to any psychoactive compound with morphine-like effects (see Opiate). A Narcotic is defined as a drug such as opium or morphine that in moderate doses relieves pain and induces deep sleep. Excessive use can cause tremors and seizures. However, the term is also used colloquially to refer to any psychoactive drug that induces sleep. Examples of narcotics include morphine, laudanum, and heroin.

From answers.com and Wikipedia.

California is screwing itself on economics if

[assertation]

California is screwing itself on economics if the rules that apply to other businesses in the US apply to growing pot.

Smaller businesses supply more jobs,
Larger businesses pay less taxes.

Silicon Valley of Pot

[Khyber]

"Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

Why not? Silicon is a critical component to fabricate plant cell walls.

who cares if it's true and smoking is bad for me?

[Shakrai]

I don't regard it as a proper role for Government to protect me from myself. I'm sick of the nanny state.

Just one problem.

[Locke2005]

I'm all in favor of medical marijuana, but shouldn't people surrender their driver's license when they get their medical marijuana card?

Re:Just one problem.

[Parlett316]

Nah, just put the Sleepy Guy on the pill bottle like they do with everything else.

Put that in yer pipe and cease it!

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who use this argument better hope that violence ceases when their drug of choice becomes legal or they're going to look like fools.

Why does Snoop Dogg need an umbrella?

[droopus]

For drizzle.

A little common sense PLEASE

[JetJagger1]

1) Drug dealers kill women and children to get their products marketed. Legalize it, and you'll have those same killers eventually elected to government positions to maintain their control. Keep in mind that the consumption of drug isn't the only "intoxicating" element. The money earned from drug sales is perhaps even more-so; just ask the pharmas....and the murderous drug lords....and border guards....and the living victims of drug crimes...and, etc., etc., adnauseum. ---- 2) Making pot legal isn't a clear sign that "society is growing up". Nope (not to be confused with "dope"). It's a clear sign that people can face reality on a daily basis without a daily (or, at least a periodic "fix"). What if we could make some other "wrongs" right and enjoy the soberness of those things instead of getting high just to deal with the intolerable societal issues we all face? ---- 3) As a parent, I'm already in the mind-set that any arsewipe who sells ANY drug to my kids is going to be in my crosshairs. Now, I face the government making me a criminal for want to to protect my children from a wider-spread drug community operated by our elected officials, in the open, and then ultimately forcing me to pay taxes on "Drug Education" that they'll want to impose on kindergartens or rehab programs for the teens and adults whose only desired "Drug Education" was knowing how much a dime bag costs from "vendor A" as opposed to "vendor B". ---- I'm sick of this already. ----

Re:A little common sense PLEASE (Correction)

[JetJagger1]

Error correction: [[[ It's a clear sign that people can face reality on a daily basis without a daily (or, at least a periodic "fix"). ]]] should be "that people CANNOT..." --- Sorry.

sharpton and farrakahn are conservatives

[circletimessquare]

seriously. listen to their beliefs

i guess traditional white conservatives think of them as liberal only because white conservatives don't know what to make of dem scary black people

its just xenophobia: the "other" is always an agglomeration of everything outside your experience, everything you fear and hate, even if logically the grouping makes no sense

Eat, drink, and vape your cannabis, be merry.

[ptudor]

You don't need to smoke cannabis to release the THC and CBDs.

1) Many use vaporizers, heating the flowers to 390-400 degrees, below combustion but sufficient to release a mist of active ingredients. Like those "no-smoke e-cigarettes" somewhat.

2) Drink your cannabis: Think back to chemistry and polar solvents like water versus non-polar. If you drop plant material into a bottle of Everclear, vodka, or whatever alcohol, in a short time (five seconds to a month) the non-polar THC has saturated the alcohol and hopefully a minimal amount of chlorophyl has tinted the polar H2O. Because this will not be heated during smoking or vaporizing, one may desire to first decarboxylate the plant material--release an OH from the THC-A and THC-B to create the useful THC--by baking the plant material in the oven for ten minutes at just over the boiling point, around 106C/220F.

3) Eat your cannabis. A lipophilic substance, cannabis blends well with oil and fat. So one may melt butter and cannabis together, heat soy/coconut/almond milk and stir in cannabis, or warm olive oil and simmer in the cannabis, staying above 180F but below 360F to decarboxylate without vaporizing. The cannabis-infused product may then be used as you like --- butter for cookies, milk for cereal, oil for bread and salads, you can have whatever you like. Or just drop a little bit of butter into your coffee.

I would posit, anecdotally of course, that cigarette smoke is notably harsher than all but the worst ditch weed.

Re:Eat, drink, and vape your cannabis, be merry.

[Reziac]

To my personal aereating system, cannabis smoke is much worse than ordinary cigs, right up there with cigar smoke, and the pot smoke residue that gets into fabrics etc. is vastly worse (and harder to get rid of).

However, as you say there is really no necessity to smoke the stuff; in fact ISTM a much better way, especially for those who depend on a specific dosage, would be ordinary extraction such as is done with caffeine and essential oils from other plants (via alcohol, another oil, or water as may seem best).

And I'd think known reliable dosage would be just as much to the benefit of recreational users as to medical users. Would also reduce wildassed-guesswork in DUI cases.

Your subject line is priceless :)

How dare they make that comparison!

[mswhippingboy]

Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

Pot cultivation is far more technologically advanced, not to mention the fact that burning pot smells much better than a frying CPU.