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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[minorproblem]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

[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?

[Muad'Dave]

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

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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...

Silicon Valley of pot?

[Freddybear]

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

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.

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

[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

[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]

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

[Nadaka]

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Some of our founding fathers thought that was sufficient.

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

[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

[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

[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

[WillDraven]

Being arrested for smoking pot is much more likely to ruin your life than the actual act of smoking it.

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").

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?

[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.

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?

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

[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: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

[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.

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: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.

I'm Proud to be an Oakie...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

From, uh...

Where am I, exactly, man?

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!

[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: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?

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.