Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
Join us on Pete's couch.

DrugWarRant.com is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
November 2012
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Archives

Laboratories

As the usual gang of academics in drug policy have, over the years, continually pointed out the uncertainties of legalization given the lack of any actual examples of legalization, I have often publicly wondered at the lack of interest in pushing for a Justice Brandeis-style “laboratory” to give us that actual data.

Now that Washington and Colorado have stepped up to the plate and voted for legalization despite the paralyzing reams of uncertainty that surely must be haunting their every waking moment, it’s nice to see Mark Kleiman appreciating this new laboratory: States as laboratories for marijuana policy.

So the obvious way to learn something about marijuana legalization would be to try it out one state at a time: relying on what Justice Brandeis called “the laboratories of democracy.” If Colorado’s legalization went badly, that would be a much easier problem to correct than if the mistake had been made on a national basis. […]

So why shouldn’t the federal government cut Colorado and Washington some slack? As long as those states prevent marijuana grown under their laws from crossing state lines and thereby subverting marijuana prohibition in the rest of the states, the Justice Department could step back and let the consequences of the new policies play themselves out. They might succeed, or they might fail. In either case, the rest of us could learn from their experience.

I’m pleased to see Mark engaged in this new opportunity for data.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

68 comments to Laboratories

  • DonDig

    The way this is playing out on the global news stage, this wait and see approach makes more sense than anything. They might even kick back waiting for the whole experiment to fail so they can say, ‘I told ya so.’ Gotta love that prospect, because unless they stack the process somehow, it’ll go fine, and every one will end up wondering why there’s been so much fuss about pot for so many years.
    It’s like on the evening news: you hear about someone getting drunk and killing someone from time to time, but I can’t ever recall hearing about a crime fueled by pot, and that distinction will be obvious to everyone before all that long.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • darkcycle

    Pete, you’re real ticket to understanding Kleiman’s strategy is: “As long as those states prevent marijuana grown under their laws from crossing state lines and thereby subverting marijuana prohibition in the rest of the states, the Justice Department could step back and let the consequences of the new policies play themselves out.”
    Klieman is already setting up the basis for his continued opposition to drug law reform (his was always a concern troll kind of prohibition philosophy, after all). He’s set his “Tripwire” out where everyone can see it. The minute “…prohibition in the rest of the States” is subverted (by so much as a gram crossing state lines), the experiment in his mind can be declared a failure and he is justified in calling for it’s abolition.
    Kleiman is a prohibitionist tool.

    Well-liked Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      Not jut crossing state lines,,how about greedy politicians attempting to make commercial marijuana cost appx $12 a gram,,,how much more profit do they want to give the criminals? When WA tallies up the state sales totals they will either have to claim most people quit smoking marijuana or the black market is still going strong,,,because you can’t charge $12 a gram for something people can grow for pennies a gram and expect no one to try and make a living at it.

      Well-liked Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

    • Common Science

      Darkcycle – Im thinking the same thing. Mark is foreshadowing the 1937 Congressional minefield that could undermine Washington and Colorado’s reform efforts. He is saying just do not be involved in commerce if it has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, or these legalization efforts will be pooh poohed.

      Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • darkcycle

      Sorry, hasty commenting makes for bad editing. I meant your ticket to understanding….

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • You are absolutely right,DC.

      Is there such a thing as almost an ally?

      His thinking is not right, and I refuse to believe that they make professors out of people with such jaded faulty logic.

      Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • strayan

      I love how he implies that it is the duty of state where it is legal to “prevent marijuana grown under their laws from crossing state lines and thereby subverting marijuana prohibition in the rest of the states”.

      He has basically acknowledged that the policy of cannabis prohibition (in those states where it is still prohibited) will not stop cannabis from getting in.

      Mark, if you’re going to argue that prohibition doesn’t actually work, why blame Washington and Colorado?

      Well-liked Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

      • Freeman

        Exactly right. Over a dozen states have legalized mmj, and that has had noticeable effects on street pot in non-mmj states. Full-legal mj will find it’s way to other states, as anyone familiar with the dynamics of prohibition can tell you with great confidence.

        Mark Kleiman’s not an idiot (he just plays one on the internet), and he knows damn well that WA and CO will be no more able to prevent illegal export than Mexico. It’s an idiotic statement, but since he’s not actually an idiot I suspect he’s pandering to his paying audience (not us!) in order to hang on to his cred as a go-to academic “expert” on drug policy. He’s threading the needle between what those in charge of policy want to hear and what the rest of us want to hear, and hedging his bets so that he can later say he was right no matter which way things play out. It’s his way of trying to mitigate all that “uncertainty” he’s always so concerned about.

        Preemptively hanging the blame for prohibition’s predictable failures on states that choose to re-legalize is intellectually dishonest, as is his repeated deceptive mantra that “there aren’t 45,000 Americans in prison for marijuana possession […] at least 95% of them are in for production or sales, not mere possession” when he knows damn well that typically, if a person is arrested with more than one-half ounce of marijuana (amount varies by state) in their possession, they are charged with “intent to distribute” and any grow operation, including home-grow for personal use, is “production”. We quickly and easily recognize this dishonesty, but the audience he’s addressing it to does not.

        It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book and the easiest way to lie to someone — tell them what they want to hear. Funny thing is, he thinks he’s fooling us the same way when he says he favors reform of marijuana laws while at the same time warning against doing so out of the other side of his mouth with statements like “But actually trying it on a national basis carries heavy risks. If it goes badly – if, for example, heavy use and use among teenagers quadrupled – it would be very hard to put the genie back in the bottle. All those new users would become potential customers for an expanded illicit market if the drug were re-prohibited.” as if he actually believes the preposterous notion that there may exist some huge wave of potential “new users” among teenagers just waiting for legalization before they’re willing to try it, and those same people who are now unwilling to break the law would be too hooked on pot to quit if it were “re-prohibited”.

        Well-liked Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

        • strayan

          Outstanding post.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • Francis

          “there aren’t 45,000 Americans in prison for marijuana possession […] at least 95% of them are in for production or sales, not mere possession”

          Oh, so we have 45,000 Americans in prison for gardening or peaceful and mutually-beneficial exchange? Yeah, that WOULD make it better. Ass.

          Well-liked Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

        • Matthew Meyer

          The notion that possession and use are kind of OK but distribution is still evil and should be punished has way too much moral credibility with John and Susie Q. Public.

          Within it, it contains the old idea of the pusher as one who would tempt us, giving kids a lick for free and then…BAM!–they’re hooked.

          It’s the Serpent in the Garden 2.0.

          I think where this notion is vulnerable is where it asserts, implicitly, that people who continue to seek out and use drugs are inherently unfree because the drugs have taken their autonomy.

          I think most people in this country, even if they accept the implications of the Pusher-as-Devil scenario, are not prepared to apply it to the responsible cannabis-consuming adults many of them know personally.

          And once you drive home the message that Yes, Virginia, sane people DO choose cannabis, it’s pretty hard to keep affirming that those people who make it available are necessarily Satanic.

          Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

        • Freeman

          Thanks, Strayan.

          Francis and Matthew make excellent points. Not only is it dishonest to say only “dealers” are getting busted without acknowledging the “intent” laws, it’s also dishonest to imply that it’s OK possess it for personal use but not to sell it. Where are users supposed to get it if nobody’s allowed to sell any? And why is the dealer the bad guy when he’s simply supplying a product in demand?

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • darkcycle

      DOH! I promised myself I wouldn’t call Mark a tool anymore. I apologize, Oh, I am sorry.
      Tools are useful.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .

    Well I think that the best State for that is Hawaii because they can blockade the State to insure that there isn’t any exporting of that evil merrywanna.

    The second best IMO is Maine as that State only shares a border with 1 other State and the residents of Maine don’t seem to have a lot of animosity towards us.

    I have no doubt that one day Prof. Kleiman will sit on our side of the table.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      GOOD,,he will be close enough to poke in the eye.

      Well-liked Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

      • Duncan20903

        .
        .

        Have you poked Eric Sterling in the eye yet? He certainly deserves it a lot more than Prof Kleiman for helping implement mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture, like that. All that Prof Kleiman does is write books and produce hot air. People buy books if they want to do so. Mr. Sterling’s laws have caused people to suffer an involuntary long vacation at the Gray Bar Hotel or Club Fed.

        Of course I do think that Mr. Sterling should be forgiven. He’s made his restitution for that heinous behavior several times over.

        Just FYI my prediction only applies to Prof. Kleiman who I think will defect when he figures out that he’s so wrong, wrong, wrong. The Sabets, the Walters and the Fays of this world don’t have enough native intelligence to figure out that they’re wrong.

        Picture Dorothy on the yellow brick road and instead of “lions and tigers and bears” substitute Sabet and Walters and Fays (oh my) Sabets and Walters and Fays, (oh my) With Arizona Governor Jan Brewer playing the wicked witch the west. Sheriff Joe is in charge of the flying monkeys when they’re not being used for evil motives. Is there anyway possible that Jerry Brown is the man behind the curtain?

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • I like that he almost sides with us. Like someone sticking a toe into cold water.

      He might sit at the table one day to try to stop the tribunal from coming down so hard on his head.

      Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    • Freeman

      He’ll sit on our side of the table when it’s all over and we’ve won, insisting that he’s been here on our side all along.

      Well-liked Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  • ezrydn

    The problem is that there’s no one alive today that was alive when it was NOT illegal, but as common as wheat and corn. The prohibs overlook the personal writings of the Founding Fathers where the speak of “retiring to the evening veranda to settle down with a sweet bowl of hemp.”

    History marches on. The prohibs show up in America’s timeline and prohibit marijuana. They BRING ATTENTION to it, causing a growing problem.

    I can say I tried acid the first time while it was legal. Well, it wasn’t illegal yet!

    They could easily learn from history, as we did. But, they won’t. They’ve built a warm, fuzzy shell around a concept and climbed inside. And that’s been the norm for the second half of US History. It didn’t start with Nixon. He made it dirty.

    Much involved comment from many nations. People and governments are watching. And being watched! We will not blink.

    Well-liked Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    • aye… and there be a lady that has our backs, she stands with a sword and her scales… and in those scales we place our truths and the prohibs place their truths. Let’s see upon whose neck that sword shall fall.

      Well-liked Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  • claygooding

    WASHINGTON — Americans believe overwhelmingly that the
    Drug War Poll Shows Americans Believe U.S. Is Losing

    http://tinyurl.com/atcxfvc

    “”U.S. is losing the war on drugs and are unenthusiastic about spending more money to win it, according to a Rasmussen poll released Tuesday.

    The national telephone survey found only 7 percent of American adults think the United States is winning the war on drugs, while 82 percent say the country is losing and 12 percent aren’t sure. That’s a marked decrease in support since AngusReid Public Opinion last posed the question in June, when two-thirds of Americans considered it a failure.””

    But since there is no “war on drugs”(pay no attention to the sound of your door being kicked in)this poll will be easily ignored.

    Well-liked Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

    • Nice find Clay. I found this interesting:

      Recent pot users are twice as likely as non-users — 60 percent to 30 percent — to think the government spends too much money on the war on drugs.

      So if I’m reading that right, 40% of recent pot users think we either spend the right amount or too little on the drug war? Who are these 40% of tokers?

      More important though is the fact that only 7% think we’re winning the war on drugs. It seems to me that most people acknowledge that the Wo(s)D is a failure at its stated objective (a drug-free America by 1990, no 1999, I mean 2008, haha!), but at the same time cannot accept the “radical” and obvious solution, legalization and regulation of ALL drugs (or at least the safest and most popular ones like cocaine, opiates, entheogens. maybe not some of the newer “designer” drugs for which little is known about, but demand for these would be very low if people had safe, reasonably priced and legal alternatives). And so we are perpetually between a rock and a hard place, can’t stand the status quo but won’t accept the logical alternative.

      I wish the liberty argument, the freedom to consume whatever you want as long as you are an adult and do no harm to others, carried more weight with people. Unfortunately its interpreted as “you just wanna get high all day”- that old prohibitionist straw man. People are more receptive to the fact that they aren’t getting much value for their drug war dollars.

      Then again maybe more stories like this one would speed things along:
      Idaho inmates claim gangs run prison

      Well-liked Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  • claygooding

    “”So if I’m reading that right, 40% of recent pot users think we either spend the right amount or too little on the drug war? Who are these 40% of tokers?””

    DEA and ONDCP employees.

    Well-liked Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

    • I think that works out to somewhere around 2 and a half people. I should pull out a calculator. 88% hadn’t smoked pot in the last year.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • The survey had 1000 respondents, so if 12% smoked some bud in the last year (not what I would call recent but whatever) that’s 120 people, 40% of 120 is 48 people who smoke weed and think we spend too little on the Wo(s)D…my guess is dealers who want to keep the prices artificially high, and maybe those that hold stock in CCA.

        DEA? ONDCP? Ha! It’s funny cuz it’s true.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • So I’m sure we’re all aware, opiates (and a whole lot else) were available OTC before 1914. Heroin was sold in cough drops (imagine that, cough drops that actually worked), so when people say if we legalized heroin it would be a huge unknown, that its never been done before, well this isn’t really true. Is it such a stretch to compare the opiate markets and consumption patterns from before 1914 to today? I mean in the 19th century its not like everyone was nodded out all day every day. Can anyone reasonably make the argument that a complete free market in opiates was a serious threat to society? It was a pretty industrious time if I remember correctly.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • TieHash

      In more civilized countries (the rest of the English speaking) world low dose codeine preparations are available behind the counter. The sky has not fallen in Canada for instance, so there is a current model for some (albeit weak opiates) available in a regulated yet non-prescription environment.
      Speaking of more powerful pharmacists, it might be a way to keep medical costs down. The scam here that only a doctor can dispense (prescribe) medications is completely irrational. If I want to fix the brakes on my car I can risk many more lives than my own yet a legal activity. If however I determine that I am in pain, only an M.D. can “fix” my body.

      Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      • darkcycle

        That “low dose” is never available “clean” it is always compounded with Acetaminophen and or aspirin, so as to “discourage” recreational consumption. (It is actually there to poison people who try to get high)

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • DC is right about the acetaminophen in most codeine pills. It is relatively easy to remove the acetaminophen from the codeine with a cold water extraction (codeine has decent solubility in cold water, acetaminophen not so much, this also works with pills like vicodin so if you’re eating handfuls of vikes a day do your liver a favor and remove most of the acetaminophen, although this may also be illegal depending on where you live) BUT codeine as an opiate leaves much to be desired. It has high toxicity when used at large doses and I don’t know I single opiate lover that really prefers codeine. Most of the opiate effects is due to the biotransformation of codeine to morphine (roughly 10%). NEVER EVER INJECT CODEINE IT IS VERY DANGEROUS!!!! The margin of safety between getting high on IV codeine and getting dead is very small.

        The other problem with OTC codeine is krokodil. Now the drug these Russians are homebaking is desomorphine, which is a safe and efficacious opiate. The problem is they shoot the final mixture straight with no purification so they inject the red phorphorous, HI acid and other household chemicals along with the desomorphine with horrifying results. (Do NOT click this link if you have a weak stomach or have just eaten).
        TieHash is also right about the costs. One thing that is infuriating about methadone is that it costs $15-25 per day. And for what? About 50 cents worth of methadone. The rest goes to administrative costs. Can’t afford methadone? Well you could afford black market opiates so just hussle like you did for heroin. Who cares if people had to commit crimes and sell their bodies, if you did it for dope you can do it for methadone. After all the mortgage payments of all the nurses, security guards and doctors who work at clinics needs to get paid.

        Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    • ezrydn

      If no one believes Opi, I’d suggest you go to a city library and find a 1914 Sears & Roebucks Catalog and see what you could buy via mail order. And see what was offered for children.

      Well-liked Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  • strayan

    No it’s not a stretch: http://i.imgur.com/pR7Ls.png

    Heroin was legal in Australia until 1953. In the 10 years preceding the prohibition, there wasn’t a single recorded heroin overdose: http://i.imgur.com/gwnGY.png

    In 1949, when the UN first demanded Australia ‘explain themselves’ for prescribing heroin, the then Health Minister responded: http://adlrf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Screen-Shot-2012-02-04-at-8.57.43-PM.png

    Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  • HenryMookowlić

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon says the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in two U.S. states limits that country’s “moral authority” to ask other nations to combat or restrict illegal drug trafficking.

    Calderon says the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado represents a fundamental change that requires the rethinking of public policy in the entire Western Hemisphere.

    Calderon spoke in an interview with the newspaper Milenio that was published Tuesday.

    us-lacks-moral-authority

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • kaptinemo

    Horse carriages and buggy-whips. Phlogiston chemistry. Dancing angels and heads of pins. Kleiman’s version of ‘prohibion-lite’. All equally relevant…and for the same reasons.

    Events are overtaking all the suppositions and theorizing and posturing. Two years from now, no one will care about the various arcane minutiae of any prohib’s desperate dream of re-tooling prohibition. That ‘Invisible Hand’ of the market will wind up bitch-slapping the prohibs as it has, all along…and, this time, no amount of TV studio makeup will hide the stinging, pulsing, glowing handprint..

    In light of the public’s evident desire, courtesy of that generational shift I keep harping on about, manifested through the political system, favoring full re-legalization, it remains folly to think that the ancien regime of drug prohibition is going to be allowed to continue. If only for two reasons: economics and public anger at wasteful spending.

    It seems that all the factors necessary for real change have come into play in a way that will lead to the eventual discarding of what was once thought of as a classic Immovable Object. And those who try to prop it up face winds of hurricane force. Grab some popcorn; the show’s about to begin…

    Well-liked Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

    • kaptinemo

      I am not the only one seeing this generational shift.

      From FiredogLake:

      Poll Finds Americans Evenly Split on Marijuana Legalization.

      From the article:

      “The poll once again confirms that there is a significant generational divide on the issue. A majority of all voters under they age of 65 support legalizing marijuana, with voters under the age of 30 being most supportive. According to the poll, 55 percent of adults under the age of 30 believe marijuana should be legal.

      The main source of opposition to changing our current marijuana laws is senior citizens. As a group they overwhelmingly oppose marijuana reform. Just 30 percent of Americans over the age of 65 think marijuana should be legalized while 67 want it to remain illegal.

      What this generational divide means is that it is only a matter of time before a solid majority of Americans support marijuana legalization. The simple fact is people most opposed to marijuana reform are dying out and being replaced by a young generation that wants to end marijuana prohibition.”

      It doesn’t get any simpler than that. And all the Rube Goldberg-ian crap about trying to tweak to perfection something that’s destined for History’s dumpster is just pointless beetle-tracking.

      Well-liked Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  • a nice piece by Betsy Woodruff over at the National Review:

    Taking Back the Joint

    Remember, you don’t have to like THC to hate Washington, D.C. As a general rule, states’ assertion of autonomy is good news for friends of limited government, rendering the question not how conservatives should feel about marijuana decriminalization, but rather how they should respond to it.

    This is especially important because the Obama administration could have given Republicans the perfect opportunity to signal an ideological re-emphasis. The White House is surprisingly uncool when it comes to toking up: A Reuters piece that Charles C. W. Cooke noted on the Corner last week reports that the victories are largely symbolic. Ken Sabet, former assistant to Obama’s drug czar, said that state leaders “are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of . . . presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.” In other words, the Obama administration cares more about maintaining the concentration of federal power than preventing thousands of bored college students from getting arrested for doing exactly what the president did when he was a bored college student.

    Well-liked Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  • hardhats! Get on those hardhats! bricks are crumbling everywhere…

    Somebody get those barriers and flagging up…

    So, Mr Obama, have you heard us yet?

    State Legislators in Rhode Island and Maine Are Introducing Marijuana Legalization Bills Tomorrow
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/14/state-legislators-in-rhode-island-and-ma

    Hoorah!

    Well-liked Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

    • Jose

      Might be time to drag out the flares too!

      I get the feeling that these bills may be a direct result of the sound of crickets chirping on “the hill” since last week. Maybe the ongoing fed silence will embolden more states!

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      oops,,did not see yours allan,,but I was so excited I didn’t even look.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • N.T. Greene

      Yet again, my predictions are coming true!

      Bring in the heavy machinery, brothers and sisters! They’re going to stand back while we bring this wall down. It is even in their best interest to let us do it — lest we fell a fair share of politicians and special interests in the process as well.

      The feds are in a real pickle here. They either pick a fight they will probably lose and with that loss end up with a nullified CSA, or they concede defeat on this front and suffer a slow dissolution instead. In terms of funding for the DEA and others, a slow dissolution is strongly preferred if they cannot hold things steady. Which they can’t. The thundering blows of the voters struck deeper than they had feared, and threaten the source of their power.

      oo-rah, indeed. Let’s do this thing. This is our time.

      Well-liked Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    • kaptinemo

      This keeps up, gonna dig up my ol’ ‘steel pot’ again; those frakkin’ bricks hurt. (Hard-headed Scots-Irish, Mum always said I ‘came by it honest’)

      Bonk! Ow! Damn!

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • what sound does the Ganja Freedom Train make?

      Choom Choom! Choom Choom!

      Well-liked Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  • claygooding

    More labs:

    State Legislators in Rhode Island and Maine Are Announcing Marijuana Legalization Bills Tomorrow

    We need more than just 2 labs giving Klieman and friends better odds that at least one will fail.
    And let the dance start,,ring up a couple more million on the ONDCP budget adjustment.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  • claygooding

    the Speak Easy blog has a good article,,link on side of page,,,Calderon is calling for re-evaluation of the war on drug trafficking because WA and CO legalized,,,Mexico wants in on the ground floor in legal import and export of cannabis,,,while many “connoisseurs” claim they would never smoke Mexican weed,,the only ones that can be certain they aren’t smoking cartel weed are the people growing their own because they have just as qualified and more growers than the US,,capable of learning growing practices and tricks from the internet just as we do.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      Looked like a sneaky snake survey to find out how educated America is about this issue,,,tracking and scoring all respondents gives them some idea of the depth Americans have studied this issue,,especially coming from Christian Monitor

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • GummedInSpace

    Households will be allowed to have up to six plants, or as much as 480 grams (about 17 ounces) of marijuana, the bill presented for discussion by the congressional committee showed.

    uruguay-marijuana-growthetruth

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • claygooding

      Its too bad WA didn’t use it’s knowledgeable growers as their producers of legalized pot,,,it would have kept them from losing their income and allowed them to do what they love as their work.

      This government is trying to keep it’s people working on growing marijuana instead of setting it up for big industry to take it away from the people. That is the kind of thinking that needs pushing forward in the next states attempt at legalization

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • darkcycle

        Don’t be so quick, Clay. The State has yet to set policies and procedures for producers. They could award a few large companies with no experience cultivating pot the contract. OR, they might make the process accessible to the smaller growers to supply local stores. The fees are not unaffordable, the initial license will be $250 dollars, and $1000 dollars a year there after.
        We don’t know yet, but there’s a lot of different ways they can handle it. All we have so far is a directive that they set the whole thing up. There’s a lot of “how” to be decided.
        I can tell you this, as soon as I know what the process is, I’m in. I’ll fork my $250 and make an application no maatter what. And I can tell you, I’m not alone. There will be a lot of pressure on the WSLCB both ways…but they are a bureaucracy which just had their main concession forcibly removed from them (alcohol used to be sold in State stores, not anymore). If you were a frightened bureaucrat, how would you do it? A coupla easilly managed big producers, or so many small ones you will need regular budget increases to see after them?

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Duncan20903

          .
          .

          Well there’s a dictionary picture example of irony. In the 1930s the prohibasites of that day were in fear of their professional lives because but they are a bureaucracy which just had their main concession forcibly removed from them. (Drinking alcohol used to be sold in back alleys and speakeasys but no more!) So they set their sights on criminalizing cannabis so they could keep their jobs.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • darkcycle

          It’s not irony, it’s not even unexpected behavior. It’s human instinct. They are favorite sons, and do not want their “rice bowls broken”. That expression dates back a thousand or years or more and was coined to describe the very thing we’re talking about.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • ezrydn

    “Test your knowledge” says “what do you know about marijuana,” yet tests on statistics. WTF?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  • darkcycle

    Well, the sheriff in Spokane County was all hot to continue to prosecute possession cases because of the “State Sales” provision. But his lawyers told him “No, you Can’t”. Seems those clever potheads took away the laws used to do that. Seems they also made it impossible to prosecute somebody for unlicensed pot:
    http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/nov/14/spokane-county-reverses-pot-now-legal/

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      They are such limited creatures. Any public policy other than absolute prohibition confuses and befuddles them.

      BTW one of the chiefs of police of a city in Michigan where they voted to decriminalized our protagonist last week stated that he didn’t care, he was just going use Federal law to charge them. This is almost as stupid as the people who can’t find Canada on a label free map. Shouldn’t a chief of police have a working understanding of the basic fundamentals of law enforcement?

      C’mon Chief, when was the last time that one of your keystone cops filed Federal charges? Ummm Chief? Please feel free to investigate that question back to the start of time if you need to.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • darkcycle

    Anybody want to crow about how Allison Holcomb was a prohibitionist and/or corporate tool? Or maybe about how she’s stupid for writing the law that way?
    I think we’ll be pleasantly surprised.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • darkcycle

      Apparently the magic words if you are asked “So, where’d you get it?” are: “I don’t recall.”
      Gee, I guess marijuana CAN affect your short term memory after all. Who knew?

      Well-liked Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      • claygooding

        I still like my first suggested answer better; I bought it from the governor.”

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • Duncan20903

          .
          .

          I was going to suggest “the evidence clerk at your HQ building”.

          I just wonder if we’ll be able to get the job done before the end of the world next month.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0