420 Policies and Laws

[Zimobog]

I prefer that cannibis would be completely unregulated. Hard for me to get excited about cannibis being treated like tobacco or booze. I'm glad people won't be put in jail just for posession of it but government regulated, licensing for posession, and growers permits ain't no kinda freedom.
Government sees this as just another form of revenue to be tapped and plenty of people are still going to get in trouble for it. It will be like moonshiners all over again.
Enjoy your pretend freedom.

[Bigblue1]

I rarely smoke but when I do I smoke crow's brand Bud!

[BadAxe]

I prefer that cannibis would be completely unregulated. Hard for me to get excited about cannibis being treated like tobacco or booze. I'm glad people won't be put in jail just for posession of it but government regulated, licensing for posession, and growers permits ain't no kinda freedom.
Government sees this as just another form of revenue to be tapped and plenty of people are still going to get in trouble for it. It will be like moonshiners all over again.
Enjoy your pretend freedom.

Not sure why you look at it as a bad thing. It will be gov't regulated as far as taxes go. The growers will not be gov't employees trying to make weak shitty weed for people. It will be very good growers supplying the dispensaries, with lots of varieties. It will also mean they will not be on the search for small time home growers. So just grow what you want in your house, and you can have whatever you want. Nah, even the gov't making it legal for the wrong reasons, is still a reason to celebrate, not pout. You say its pretend freedom. Well what"real" freedom do we have in this country, or this world, other then the freedom to breath? Its all pretend freedom.

People grow their own tobacco, people make their own beer, and alcohol. So you don't like the gov't regulated weed? Grow your own.

[truthwolf1]

I was reading somewhere that this all would lead to big corporate taking over and using their monetary power to create laws/regulations etc.. to take over or eventually push out the smaller grow ops. You of course would still have the home grower and his special strain etc.. but most people will end up buying the Marlboro or Camel Kush at Walmart.

[BadAxe]

I was reading somewhere that this all would lead to big corporate taking over and using their monetary power to create laws/regulations etc.. to take over or eventually push out the smaller grow ops. You of course would still have the home grower and his special strain etc.. but most people will end up buying the Marlboro or Camel Kush at Walmart.

Well i have not heard anything about that. I hope its not true. They have not attempted anything like that at all in the medicinal states, and there has been no talk of anything like that in the 2 recreational states, so I don't see a pattern going in that direction. And hopefully it stays that way.

[Crow]

[Crow]

I rarely smoke but when I do I smoke crow's brand Bud!

So that's why my stash is light...****'s sakes..!

[Zimobog]

Badaxe, whats this about "grow your own"? According to Crow's sig there, the next step of the law is "producer's licenses". I bet folks who grow without will be going to jail.

Why would someone need a license to do something thats legal? Answer: because its not legal.

I support full legalization without government interference at all.

[Crow]

Badaxe, whats this about "grow your own"? According to Crow's sig there, the next step of the law is "producer's licenses".

My signature is referring to the establishment of the state's cannabis marketplace. You would need to be licenced only if you intend to sell your product. This is no different than a microbrewery going through the licencing process in order to sell their beer.

'Personal cultivation for recreation' is still being hashed out, but if you are a medical cannabis user; you are still allowed to grow up to 15 plants (and possess up to 24 ounces).

I bet folks who grow without will be going to jail.

If the person's intent is cultivation for profit, and not for personal use; then yes (because they did not go through the licencing process, and they are selling their product underground).

The best comparison to this would be the moonshiners (e.g. Snusdog) in the Southern US.

As for personal cultivation: as I said before, it's still being hashed out. We will most likely mirror what Colorado has: 6 plants (which coincidentally, was the exact number of plants I proposed during I-502's draft).

That aside, our law enforcement realise that they have better things to do than to **** around with cannabis consumers. Even if one were to cultivate personal amounts today, I doubt there would be any consequences (unless you're one that likes to flaunt).

[Crow]

I forgot to post this one............. Better late than never!

From yesterday............

‘Respect State Marijuana Laws Act’ Introduced In Congress

United States Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), along with a bipartisan coalition of three Republicans (Reps. Rohrabacher, Rep. Justin Amash [R-MI], and Don Young [R-AK]) and three Democrats (Reps. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR], Steve Cohen [D-TN] and Jared Polis [D-CO]) today introduced House Bill 1523: the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act.

The measure would amend the federal Controlled Substances Act to exempt from federal prosecution individuals and businesses, including marijuana dispensaries and/or retail outlets, who comply with state marijuana laws.

“This bipartisan bill represents a common-sense approach that establishes federal government respect for all states’ marijuana laws,” Rohrabacher said in a news release. “It does so by keeping the federal government out of the business of criminalizing marijuana activities in states that don’t want it to be criminal.”

The proposal is one of several marijuana law reform bills now pending before the United States Congress, including House Resolution 499: The Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013, House Bill 689: the States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, and Senate Bill 359: the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013.

Source

-------------

Brookings Institute: Marijuana Policy and Presidential Leadership: How to Avoid a Federal-State Train Wreck

As previewed last week on NORML’s blog, the Brookings Institute is convening a cannabis policy forum on Monday, April 15.

In advance of the symposium, Brookings has released a comprehensive legal review and critical analysis of the current national and state laws that prohibit cannabis use, cultivation and sales.

Excerpts from the Brookings’ press release and description of the issues tackled by Brookings scholar and noted legal writer and commentator Stuart Taylor, Jr. are found below.

Mr. Taylor’s thoughtful and dynamic analysis and policy recommendations are here.

Of equal value and incredibly informative are two accompanying appendixes:

Appendix One: The Obama Administration’s Approach To Medical Marijuana: A Study In Chaos

Appendix Two: Conflicts Of Laws: A Quick Orientation to Marijuana Laws At The Federal Level and CO and WA

Stuart Taylor, Jr. examines how the federal government and the eighteen states (plus the District of Columbia) that have partially legalized medical or recreational marijuana or both since 1996 can be true to their respective laws, and can agree on how to enforce them wisely while avoiding federal-state clashes that would increase confusion and harm communities and consumers.


* * *

This paper seeks to persuade even people who think legalization is a bad idea that the best way to serve the federal interest in protecting public health and safety is not for the federal government to seek an end to state legalization. To the contrary, Taylor asserts, a federal crackdown would backfire by producing an atomized, anarchic, state-legalized but unregulated marijuana market that federal drug enforcers could neither contain nor force the states to contain.

Source (Continued)

[Crow]

[BadAxe]

Badaxe, whats this about "grow your own"? According to Crow's sig there, the next step of the law is "producer's licenses". I bet folks who grow without will be going to jail.

Why would someone need a license to do something thats legal? Answer: because its not legal.

I support full legalization without government interference at all.

I would support that as well, but you know as well as I do, that won't happen. They gov't wants their piece of the pie. But, yes, I stated grow your own. People make their own alcohol in places its not legal. Hell, people here grow their own tobacco without paying the tax when they harvest it. And people will grow their own weed. Its not hard to have a tiny setup that grows plenty of herb for personal use. And they aren't looking for a single light grow. I won't get into details, but I have years and years of experience to fall back on on that statement. Turn a whole floor of your house into a grow room and have your electricity bill go industrial on you, yea, you might get caught. Keep your grow private (first rule of fight club applies here), and small, and there is no chance you get busted. All I am saying is that there are options out there if you don't like that you are paying taxes on weed, or you fear they will regulate the potency, or other reasons. All I know is legal/illegal has absolutely no bearing on how I get my weed, it never has, and it never will. It has never made a difference.

[Zimobog]

I would support that as well, but you know as well as I do, that won't happen. They gov't wants their piece of the pie. But, yes, I stated grow your own. People make their own alcohol in places its not legal. Hell, people here grow their own tobacco without paying the tax when they harvest it. And people will grow their own weed. Its not hard to have a tiny setup that grows plenty of herb for personal use. And they aren't looking for a single light grow. I won't get into details, but I have years and years of experience to fall back on on that statement. Turn a whole floor of your house into a grow room and have your electricity bill go industrial on you, yea, you might get caught. Keep your grow private (first rule of fight club applies here), and small, and there is no chance you get busted. All I am saying is that there are options out there if you don't like that you are paying taxes on weed, or you fear they will regulate the potency, or other reasons. All I know is legal/illegal has absolutely no bearing on how I get my weed, it never has, and it never will. It has never made a difference.

Well in the age of LED lighting and stuff one might not have such a crazy light bill but I don't really want to get into talking about growing either.

I guess what I mean is I live in a state that has had limited decriminalization of marijuana for years. We can 1/4 lb in our houses or a certain number of plants etc. What I think the goal of those of us who believe in this freedom should be is total, absolute, 100% legality with no strings attached. It is the only way to circumvent the effects of the blackmarket and insure that people won't be rotting in a gulag for doing something that should be totally allowed.

This sort of half-legal status won't eliminate the criminals trafficking, it won't stop the drug war, and it won't stop human beings from going to jail. That is the goal, right? No more Drug War?

It's just disappointing to read about those Cascadian supporters clamoring for regualtion and licsensing instead of for freedom, beggining for the State Liqour board to come along and tell them how pot should be sold, grown, and regulated.

[Crow]

It's just disappointing to read about those Cascadian supporters clamoring for regualtion and licsensing instead of for freedom, beggining for the State Liqour board to come along and tell them how pot should be sold, grown, and regulated.

Now you're just breaking my heart..........................

I'm only joking. You're entitled to your own opinion.











............. Oh, and feel free to talk about growing. This is a cannabis thread after all.

[Crow]

I'll put this up for shits and giggles...

From 24. January -- Seattle, Washington