If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   Right now three states are trying to legalize marijuana, and what happens the morning after Election Day is anybody's guess   (seattletimes.com) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, election days, marijuana legalization, Liquor Control Board, marijuana growers, quality controls, marijuana  
•       •       •

9083 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Sep 2012 at 6:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-23 07:48:50 AM
3 votes:
"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."
2012-09-23 04:39:43 AM
3 votes:
Many people start to make plans to move?
2012-09-23 10:51:39 AM
2 votes:

Igor Jakovsky: I'm for legalization of weed nationwide. Doing it on a state by state basis is a start though. I don't see the feds leaving Washington alone. Look what Obama's DEA is doing to the legal medical marijuana shops in Cali despite originally saying they would be left alone. I'm for states rights on this issue if the feds wont change the national classification of pot, but then again I'm for states rights on a lot of things.


As I understand it, this also mirrors the way alcohol prohibition was defeated -- states rebelled, citizens refused to convict.

Jury Nullification is your right. Don't let any judge tell you otherwise.
2012-09-23 10:40:38 AM
2 votes:

Jon iz teh kewl: but what about employers that demand that employees pass random drug testss?


Probably the same as what happens with, say, healthcare companies that ban consumption of tobacco by employees--you get fired or at the very least get to go to a mandatory "Quit Smoking" course.

(If marijuana became legal and taxable, you'd still have at least some industries that explicitly ban its use whilst on the job or even banning employees from using it at all. Most "CDL jobs" require abstinence from alcohol 24 hours before a run, for example, and it's becoming increasingly common for healthcare companies to ban use of tobacco products altogether--and some even go to the point of "beyond piss tests" to make sure of this.)

marijuana makes u stupid so u can't fly a plane correctly.

You'd be really, really shocked to find what all does bugger up one's perception and makes one "unable to fly a plane correctly"--a surprising number of OTC medications are actually prohibited 24 to 72 hours before flight, including Zyrtec and Actifed and Benadryl (a partial list is here--one of the more surprising ones is that Accutane is a disqualifier for night-flying, presumably because it's a retinoin and thus can interfere with night vision).

Even if marijuana were legalised over all fifty states tomorrow (unlikely--hell, I live in a state where fully half the counties haven't legalised alcohol post-Prohibition, and counties are only starting to go "moist" and/or allow Sunday sales because they realise they're haemorrhaging tax revenue from restaurants refusing to set up shop), it's quite likely you'd still very much have not only the DOT rules in place that prohibit taking a lot of medications for commercial pilots/drivers/conductors/etc...but in addition, you'd still have the laws in place in a lot of states that ban "driving while impaired" on ANY substance, not just alcohol. (In some rare cases, people have actually gotten DWIs from prescription medications and even as a result of going into insulin shock--legality of the substance isn't the determining factor, it's being an impaired driver.)

and makes you see demons

...OK, you really should be checking your source and shouldn't be smoking the "wet" stuff or the stuff mixed with bath salts :D

In all seriousness, the only cases I've heard of--and I've actually read medical journals for funsies on this--involving folks on marijuana seeing "demons" usually ended up with those persons having an underlying psychotic mental disorder with religious hallucinations. I can also state (via experience with a now-deceased relative who likely had a severe undiagnosed mental disorder) that such "religious ideation" and "seeing demons" is quite possible even in teetotalers; interestingly, probably a factor underappreciated would be the fact that persons with psychotic disorders can sometimes trend towards hyperreligiosity (and that at least some coercive religious groups are known to explicitly target the mentally ill for recruitment) and it's precisely those people who would be more likely to see "demonic manifestations" in any sort of psychotic break.

Also underappreciated--it is not unknown and actually fairly common for persons with undiagnosed or even diagnosed-but-untreated mental illness to "self-medicate" with recreational pharmaceuticals, particularly in the US (where the status of mental health care ranges from "medeival" to "functionally nonexistent"). Some of the investigation re the use of marijuana in treatment of PTSD actually comes from observation of this self-medication, in fact.

tl;dr version--if someone's seeing "demons" while on weed and said weed hasn't been laced with something known to be a strong dissociative or hallucinogen, they probably had something Not Quite Right upstairs to begin with. This is marijuana, not "bath salts" :D
2012-09-23 07:55:43 AM
2 votes:
Fail in Human Form I say 70 - 30 chance the Feds step in with an injunction. Given how they're treating medical cannabis I think they'll come down hard to..... nip this in the bud.

It's going to be more difficult for states to tax and regulate. Were they to simply decriminalize it, it would merely become the feds responsibility to enforce it (I'm not sure you can get a court order to force the state to pass a law or to require the state use resources to enforce something that isn't a law). In states that want to become the distributor of it, they're ignoring federal law, which is no better than Arizona and their border shenanigans. Besides, from what I understand, states that only sell liquor at state-owned shops have their own issues. Tax it? You bet. Be the sole distributor for the state? May be time to rethink that.
2012-09-23 05:55:04 AM
2 votes:
what happens the morning after ...

The respective state legislatures pass laws to delay, obstruct, and if possible repeal, the will of the people.
2012-09-24 05:13:51 PM
1 votes:

Great Porn Dragon: Jon iz teh kewl: Jesus saw demons. prove me wrong

First, there's a few bits to sort out:

a) Prove the historical existence of a person by the name of Jesus the Christ, even under the alternate names Yeshua bin Yosef, Yeshua the Nazarene, or even "Rabbi Joshua" in such a way that the person described is unmistakably the same figure described in the Bible.

Difficulties: Firstly, it is not even historically agreed that the person known as Jesus as described in the Bible existed--there are theories that a lot of the more "mythic" aspects of the story of Jesus are in fact glosses from other non-Abrahamic religions that the early Christian church may have been influenced by including Mithraism and Zoroastrianism.

Secondly, as will be noted, even the four books of the Bible with the closest thing to a "historical" account of Jesus have undergone heavy editing between initial writing and revision, with some books having upwards of six authors and various additions before canonisation.

Thirdly, the existence of Jesus (even as a rather eccentric rabbi of the time) is poorly attested outside of Christian sources of the period--especially unusual considering that the supposed formative act of the Christian faith is the execution-as-a-supposed-revolutionary-and-resurrection of Jesus is not recorded outside of Christian sources, and even the execution of someone around the time considered a claimant to the throne of Judah (which would have been a big deal, especially considering that the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem over an attempted uprising in 70 CE and formally incorporated Judaea as a province of the Roman Empire rather than as a protectorate--yes, at the time of Jesus, Judah or Judaea was basically to the Romans as American Samoa or Guam are to the US). About the only reliable account we have of Jesus from a non-Christian source is from Judaeo-Roman historian Josephus, and even his records are "after the fact" and more a record of post-Second-Temple/early Great Dia ...


I happened to like the history lesson. Also your Eastern Kentucky knowledge is interesting as well.

/went to EKU
//Miguel's Pizza is still the best pizza I've ever had.
2012-09-24 02:25:56 PM
1 votes:
Considering how difficult it is to get government agencies to even perform research on cannibinoids, which is required in abundance before legalization would occur, I highly doubt any of these will pass.

flashfearless: Weed is a serious waste of time and demotivator. If you use, you're a tool.


Well, at least you can feel superior over someone today. Thanks for sharing.
2012-09-24 12:43:18 PM
1 votes:

Madduck: Real Women Drink Akvavit: so the biggie would be what to make first once I got the butter part nailed. Hmmm....

Making butter is fairly easy, after straining through cheesecloth, I would put the melted butter/water into the freezer. Once frozen, it is a you break off the butter from the ice, and it is nicely seperated and most of the particulate matter that the cheesecloth didnt catch, is caught with this method.

I have also made infused olive oil for cooking. Same principle as making butter.


Also, leave the buds whole in the cheesecloth, do not grind/blend them up. All you are going to do is get more nasty plant taste into your butter. The THC is fat soluble, so it will be drawn into the fat cells of the butter regardless of how much it is grinded up.
2012-09-23 12:38:41 PM
1 votes:

Jon iz teh kewl: but what about employers that demand that employees pass random drug testss?

marijuana makes u stupid so u can't fly a plane correctly. and makes you see demons


I don't see legalization of recreational MJ affecting drug-free employers. They can already refuse to hire tobacco users.

The ADA argument for medical MJ use doesn't hold water, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Link The ADA does not protect employees who are using a drug that is illegal under federal law, regardless of state law.
2012-09-23 10:46:58 AM
1 votes:
I don't think we're really being helped with the "it's from the earth, man" arguments, either.

I say we grow up and admit that sometimes adults do things purely for the pleasure of it.

Beyond that, I'd note that cannabis has a remarkable safety record for non-toxicity, and ask just what exactly is my goverment's compelling interest that necessitates restraining this particular liberty.
2012-09-23 10:36:42 AM
1 votes:
I'm for legalization of weed nationwide. Doing it on a state by state basis is a start though. I don't see the feds leaving Washington alone. Look what Obama's DEA is doing to the legal medical marijuana shops in Cali despite originally saying they would be left alone. I'm for states rights on this issue if the feds wont change the national classification of pot, but then again I'm for states rights on a lot of things.

/doesn't partake
2012-09-23 10:19:22 AM
1 votes:

qsblues: I have absolutely no problem with legalizing weed. I used to puff bales of it back in the day. It's a harmless recreational drug. My deal is, being a recovering alcoholic, that this stuff IS legal, and should be under more scrutiny. The fact that the gubment makes millions off of taxes on it, and BILLIONS off of incarcerating casual weed smokers, means that it just plain won't happen. But, people that drive while stoned still get into wrecks; much less than drunk drivers, but it still happens.

I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My wife smokes weed, to my detriment, since I'm in recovery and have no support from her whatsoever. I told her not to bring it in the house, and she does anyway, and goes out to smoke as well. She's driving while impaired, and I have a serious problem with that, being as I have 2 DUI's under my belt. I had to get legal action to stop her from driving with the kids while she was stoned, since "our kids are friends with their kids". I called bullshiat, and got a lawyer. Bottom line is, if you want to get high, by all means, have at it. But if you're in a relationship with someone in recovery and still want to get high, you are doing SERIOUS damage.

/end rant


You were at the point where you either had to or wanted to stop that behaviour. She's not.

Driving the kids around while toasted is obviously not a good thing, I think we can all agree on that.

It definitely makes it more difficult to quit a habit or behaviour when the person you live with is still living that lifestyle, but the "I'm quitting, so now you have to too" ultimatum is never going to work. The lightbulb has to want to change.
2012-09-23 09:07:24 AM
1 votes:

demonwolf04: Fail in Human Form I say 70 - 30 chance the Feds step in with an injunction. Given how they're treating medical cannabis I think they'll come down hard to..... nip this in the bud.

It's going to be more difficult for states to tax and regulate. Were they to simply decriminalize it, it would merely become the feds responsibility to enforce it (I'm not sure you can get a court order to force the state to pass a law or to require the state use resources to enforce something that isn't a law). In states that want to become the distributor of it, they're ignoring federal law, which is no better than Arizona and their border shenanigans. Besides, from what I understand, states that only sell liquor at state-owned shops have their own issues. Tax it? You bet. Be the sole distributor for the state? May be time to rethink that.


This is one thing I have been wondering about with the feds vs states. What will happen if all 50 states legalize it yet it is still illegal at the federal level? Other than us becoming a laughing stock to the rest of the world, would the federal law have to disappear? I would hope at that point congress critters would eventually view it as politically safe to legalize it on the federal level, but who knows with those idiots.
2012-09-23 09:02:27 AM
1 votes:

Jon iz teh kewl: but what about employers that demand that employees pass random drug testss?

marijuana makes u stupid so u can't fly a plane correctly. and makes you see demons


Apparently religion will do that too.
2012-09-23 08:21:02 AM
1 votes:

qsblues: I have absolutely no problem with legalizing weed. I used to puff bales of it back in the day. It's a harmless recreational drug. My deal is, being a recovering alcoholic, that this stuff IS legal, and should be under more scrutiny. The fact that the gubment makes millions off of taxes on it, and BILLIONS off of incarcerating casual weed smokers, means that it just plain won't happen. But, people that drive while stoned still get into wrecks; much less than drunk drivers, but it still happens.

I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My wife smokes weed, to my detriment, since I'm in recovery and have no support from her whatsoever. I told her not to bring it in the house, and she does anyway, and goes out to smoke as well. She's driving while impaired, and I have a serious problem with that, being as I have 2 DUI's under my belt. I had to get legal action to stop her from driving with the kids while she was stoned, since "our kids are friends with their kids". I called bullshiat, and got a lawyer. Bottom line is, if you want to get high, by all means, have at it. But if you're in a relationship with someone in recovery and still want to get high, you are doing SERIOUS damage.

/end rant


Walk away, man, FAST, she is going to fark you up, and laugh while she's doing it. And for Jebus' sake don't talk to her of touch her. The local DA will ram it up high and break it off short, and as someone with a Y chromosome, you can't do shiat.

Later you can get the kids from her by proving her a stoner, if she doesn't kill them first while DUI.

(Life is hard, and the kids come first, but you can't help them if she puts you in jail.)

2012-09-23 08:20:16 AM
1 votes:

tomWright: Maybe we start obeying the 9th and 10th Amendments and leave to the States all authority not granted to the feds? You know, like how Alcohol required an Amendment to prohibit at the federal level?

Wait, that's just crazy talk. Obey the Constitution? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhHhCOUGHCOUGHWHEEEEZE


The problem is, the 9th and 10th Amendments have become excuses as to why we can't have nice things and invest in infrastructure and the social safety net.
2012-09-23 08:10:54 AM
1 votes:
I have absolutely no problem with legalizing weed. I used to puff bales of it back in the day. It's a harmless recreational drug. My deal is, being a recovering alcoholic, that this stuff IS legal, and should be under more scrutiny. The fact that the gubment makes millions off of taxes on it, and BILLIONS off of incarcerating casual weed smokers, means that it just plain won't happen. But, people that drive while stoned still get into wrecks; much less than drunk drivers, but it still happens.

I have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My wife smokes weed, to my detriment, since I'm in recovery and have no support from her whatsoever. I told her not to bring it in the house, and she does anyway, and goes out to smoke as well. She's driving while impaired, and I have a serious problem with that, being as I have 2 DUI's under my belt. I had to get legal action to stop her from driving with the kids while she was stoned, since "our kids are friends with their kids". I called bullshiat, and got a lawyer. Bottom line is, if you want to get high, by all means, have at it. But if you're in a relationship with someone in recovery and still want to get high, you are doing SERIOUS damage.

/end rant
2012-09-23 08:01:54 AM
1 votes:

Sgygus: what happens the morning after ...

The respective state legislatures pass laws to delay, obstruct, and if possible repeal, the will of the people.


Where's the "Sad But True" button?

Seriously, the "smaller gubbmint" assholes will never get this.
2012-09-23 07:51:03 AM
1 votes:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: How timely an article! We've got about a month or so until harvest in the Emerald Triangle, which isn't too terribly far from me. I'm not a pot smoker, but I do have some problems with my back and hip from decades of mosh pits and skateboard parks. I'd love to get my hands on some of the "shake" (I think that's what they call it) and experiment with cannabis butter. I'm a wonderful cook, so the biggie would be what to make first once I got the butter part nailed. Hmmm....


brownies :)
2012-09-23 07:49:51 AM
1 votes:

scotto: I love how Mcaffrey looks so high in the picture.


Barry McAffery is a tyrant when it comes to this subject. I suspect he's getting paid by big Pharma.
2012-09-23 07:22:31 AM
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: Girion47: Hobodeluxe: Girion47: Hell I'd be happy if the DEA would reschedule marijuana, I've yet to see a good reason for it to be schedule I

there's another rescheduling hearing set for Oct 16th. I wouldn't hold my breath though

I was told you're supposed to hold your breath after taking a hit.

go for it. we'll see you on the 16th. or not. :P


Oh I can't, working for the federal government keeps me from ever indulging since some agencies will write you off if you've ever used. But I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. I'm betting it's the only way I'll ever be able to use and keep my job.
2012-09-23 07:17:33 AM
1 votes:

Girion47: Hobodeluxe: Girion47: Hell I'd be happy if the DEA would reschedule marijuana, I've yet to see a good reason for it to be schedule I

there's another rescheduling hearing set for Oct 16th. I wouldn't hold my breath though

I was told you're supposed to hold your breath after taking a hit.


go for it. we'll see you on the 16th. or not. :P
2012-09-23 07:12:45 AM
1 votes:

Girion47: Hell I'd be happy if the DEA would reschedule marijuana, I've yet to see a good reason for it to be schedule I


there's another rescheduling hearing set for Oct 16th. I wouldn't hold my breath though
2012-09-23 07:05:39 AM
1 votes:
Hell I'd be happy if the DEA would reschedule marijuana, I've yet to see a good reason for it to be schedule I
2012-09-23 07:03:33 AM
1 votes:
As the article states, it ultimately doesn't matter. Federal law cannot be changed because the DEA must continue to be thrown at non-violent SUSPECTS so they don't have to be used in the actual war on drugs. Conservatives don't care about a bunch of potheads until someone tells them to, which is getting pretty under the wire with overcrowding in prisons reaching fever pitch and actual violent offenders in some states being sent back into the population.

Weed makes people too lazy to commit real crimes! C'mon, this is less than logic here!
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report