Colorado Stores Throw Open Their Doors to Pot Buyers
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I have a feeling there are going to be people who ruin it for everyone else.
Prohibition has failed, failed spectacularly and expensively and there is simply no room to try some sort of half-measure to appease those that think it can still work. These sorts of people simply need to understand that their opinion doesn't matter at all and will be completely discounted, sad to say.
The rest of the West should just go ahead, they're already there.
If it's couched in terms of black/white:pass/fail for keeping it out of other states then it's doomed to fail and the DOJ will come down hard. But Colorado shouldn't be in charge of watching the movement of stuff that's legal to own and sell inside it's jurisdiction. It's duty is to regulate how to own and sell inside the same area. Period. It would, however, be the job of neighbouring states that didn't want it to spill over to maintain their borders appropriately and of course it falls on individual citizens to respect the borders.
Where it differs from guns is, unlike Supreme Court reasoning to the contrary, if there was adequate intrastate supply b/c of the ability to maintain personal plants then interstate exchange shouldn't be much of an issue anymore (obviously that's a gradual process).
I am objecting to reporters and people commenting as if situations regarding cannabis use are novel, for instance some people are saying "what will we do now that there will be stoned to drivers on the streets?" We already have stoned drivers on the streets in every state and have for at least 20 or 30 years, and there have been laws against that in place all around the country as well. Another example, people discussing cannabis exportation from Colorado to neighboring states… That has already been going on and Colorado has had more availability than neighboring states such as Wyoming and Nebraska for a long time, predating the medical situation. It's true that since the medical laws were passed, larger grow operations have been located in Colorado. A couple of years ago a ring with dozens of houses sending 10 pounds at a time all over the country through FedEx was broken up in Denver. I do think this law will further embolden people if you want to grow cannabis for the black market, but on the other hand I sort of think that anyone who wants to do that already is.
It's also worth noting that California has had highly liberalized laws regarding this for years and for some reason that doesn't get much attention. You can go to Norcal and grow dozens of plants on your land and sell them for a large profits legally without anyone batting an eye.
Moderately expensive, legal products like tea or (culinary) mushrooms are sold at markets without much fanfare.
The people in Congress are called "lawmakers." That's the problem right there. Even if society were to reach an ideal 100% perfect state, they'd still need to pass more laws to justify their jobs, so we'd soon be broken again.
On the contrary, I think only unreasonable laws are based on people who ruin it for everybody else. Law banning murder and theft, for example, are reasonable and could exist in a world without murder and theft without effecting anyone. However, laws banning firearms or lock picks are unreasonable, and if implemented in a world without murder and theft would effect many people.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/30/high-prices-f...
...but since marijuana is literally a weed, why wouldn't the price eventually drop to something like that of tea? I mean, tea is harder to grow, process, and ship, and you can get it for 6 dollars a pound. Even the overpriced teavana stuff can go for as little as 40 dollars a pound.
"Medical marijuana" refers to pot sold in such as way as to shield the buyer and seller from criminal liability (by requiring a prescription from a health-care provider). No official or semi-official body is holding this medical marijuana to any standard.
Heading off a potential nit: in the last year or two a new strain of pot much lower in THC and much higher in CDB has arrived on the scene, and some doctors are advising some patients to use that strain, but as far as I know, no one refers to that as medical marijuana.
Actually, marijuana contains about 70 different cannabinoids. Different strains contain different ratios of these cannabinoids, and therefore different strains can be more (or less) effective for treating various ailments. Epileptics may require different strains from people suffering from chronic pain, for example.
For people who have very specific medical needs, it is very helpful to have access to specific strains so that they can consume less and still reap the benefits.
Also, calling the "medical" label a legal shield is bizarre. Medical cannabis is, as others commented, high-grade cannabis useful for treating serious conditions and helping cancer, AIDS, MS patients, etc.
I'm sorry but I don't think you are informed on this topic at all.
ADDED. You seem to have taken my comment as an attack on the ability of people with medical problems to get marajuana, but it was not meant that way -- and in fact, I'm for sick people's having that ability -- though I have not made a deep analysis of the issue (and there is a chance that such a deep analysis would change my mind).
I just do not like to see a word that has been used in one way -- by many journalists and commentators and by the general public -- used in a confusingly different way.
There's still a market for legitimately high grade tea (not Teavana). I'm interested to see what sort of market develops, over time, for legitimately high-grade MJ here in Colorado.
I just checked and I got a box of Bigelow from Food Lion (don't judge). Based on the net weight on the box, it's a little under $35/lb granted it is a small box so buying in bulk would definitely bring that down. So I can't imagine what $6/lb tea would taste like but I'm not sure I can justify $275/lb either.
This is my cheap-ass tea by the way: http://www.amazon.com/Bigelow-English-Teatime-Tea-20-Count/d...
Feel free to suggest something that might amount to a 2x-5x price increase rather than 10x.
I might have to try some of this!
Also, the Hacker's Guide to Tea is a great resource: http://www.worldoftea.org/hackers-guide-to-tea/
https://www.davidstea.com/store-locator
$20 for 250g (1lb) of earl grey tea, for example.
If you want to get into puer tea, a good way to do so is to order a few samples from their US site.
It will, plus whatever extra for taxes and regulatory compliance. But it will be the same as with fruit, where what you see in stores are the A-grade products, and the B- and C-grade products get turned into food, beverages, industrial materials, etc.
However, expect the price to drop moderately as legal sales expand and small "mom & pop" grow operations are replaced by more efficient moderate sized operations that are willing to accept the risk and have the cash on hand needed to bootstrap.
You're correct that ultimately marijuana will probably be really cheap, but we have to wait for the rest of the drug enforcement apparatus to become irrelevant.
The result of this is that while you can be doing something for which you cannot be charged by the state, the Federal government has the ability to prosecute you at their discretion. This is where the risk comes in; you are at the mercy of the federal government to continue deciding that they won't enforce the federal laws in those states.
Only two (or three, depending on how you view the legal status in Alaska) have laws that actually create a legal framework surrounding it (ie, "legalized it").
The situation in Colorado is analogous to The Netherlands explicitly declaring something allowed that the EU councils in Brussels have explicitly declared disallowed. One authority claims it's OK, the other claims it's not OK, and the citizen has to choose which authority they trust and/or fear more.
EU law binds countries, not people. If a country does something that goes against EU law (which happens all the freaking time), then you can sue the country in the EU courts to get the country to change the law. The EU isn't able to arrest you. And regardless, it's the national law is the only real law. EU law is just what a country is supposed to do.
[1] There is Europol (European Police Office) which is only for aiding cooperation between national police forces. It has no powers of arrest, and (most tellingly) it only has 800 staff for a population of half a billion people.
I believe it's evident that when you fly a bunch of groups under a single banner successfully for a long time, what starts as a loose, powerless alliance with only administrative activities (as the US was originally conceived) eventually becomes a very strong central power apparatus (as the US has now become).
Maybe it'll be different in Europe where the member states have so much independent history. Everything out here was basically a blank slate before it was annexed by the Union. In the relatively few places where this isn't true, there is much stronger anti-federal sentiment (the South, Hawaii). I guess New England is anomalous regarding anti-federal sentiments because I think it has always thought of itself as the most influential power in federal governance.
The situation in the Netherlands is more complicated. Technically it's still illegal, however it's effectively decriminalised for personal use. Small amounts found on you (less than 5 grams) will not be prosecuted. No more than 5 grams may be sold to one person in one transaction. You must be over 18. 'Coffee shops' should not cause any trouble, drugs may not be advertised and the mayor can order a 'coffee shop' to be shut down.
More recently (2012) these coffee shops have also been ordered to close their doors to foreigners, and there's a proposal to classify very potent (over 15% TCH) marijuana as hard drugs.
Things keep changing so who knows what will happen in the next few years.
And I don't think there is any EU law on illegal drugs like that.
But for the time being, it will be expensive because of risk, ramp times, capital investment, etc.
Yes, but supposedly being able to control the water & nutrients is good for premium quality.
That is really what federalism is.
Democracy is what happens when the citizens of colorado and washington create their own laws to live by.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
A brief use of the Googles turns up:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373545
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24375977
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/mpohbp/asap/abs/mp060...
and many more if you bother to look (also negative impact if you're interested in those!)
Generally you do not do a 'clinical trial' on something that is marked as a schedule 1 substance.
What straw man are you referring to? You implied it had no benefits because it doesn't have clinical trials... It doesn't have clinical trials because it is said to have no benefits (schedule 1)... Circular logic! Magic!
Edit: Quoting parent
First you never mentioned "smoking" in your parent (I quoted it in my earlier reply for reference).
Second 'clinical trials' are a specific thing. In the words of Inigo Montoya, you keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means.
A clinical trial is only done at a specific stage of clinical research or commercial drug development. Clinical trials are an expensive process that must be paid for by the researcher/company looking to market the drug. You may want to read up on what a clinical trial entails before you insist on it being the only useful scientific metric. Clinical trials are also primarily concerned with safety (it is at least 2 of the phases of the trial).
You may want to reconsider your use of 'clinical trial' in your criticism here.
Edit: Last it seems that you did not even bother to read or comprehend my comment/links before you replied with a comment that attempts to change the subject (smoking vs THC in pill form). That seems like very 'trolly' behavior and I will stop responding if you would not like to actually discuss the subject.
My guess is that people in Colorado tend to be more libertarian. They don't want government interference, and at the same time they don't follow the religious culture in the deep south.
Put together left- and right-wing voters, and you get either statism or libertarianism, and Colorado leans towards libertarianism. Or so my theory goes.
FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol (still baffled the US ever passed alcohol prohibition) or drugs. I'd argue against prohibition on Christian grounds as well as other grounds.
This is your opinion: "FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
This is a fact: "Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
I am not going to defend their beliefs to you; that is a religious discussion that I have absolutely no interest in. I am pointing out that those people do exist.
Realize that the two statements:
"Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
"...there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
are not necessarily contradictory. People can claim to justify what they believe based on something that doesn't in fact support their beliefs. My point that the Bible doesn't support drug prohibition/imprisonment stands.
Edit: I remain baffled how Christians supported alcohol prohibition when Jesus himself provided alcohol for a party.
To them, their religious text do condemn alcohol. Your personal interpretation of the religious texts cannot be taken as fact.
Whether or not they are right is something for you to argue about with other Christians. They think that they are correct just as much as you think that you are correct. Religious bickering, film at '11.
There are people who oppose alcohol for other reasons and who claim the Bible says something other than what it says, but it is nonsense to claim they got their position from the Bible.
There's plenty of evil stupid crazy shit in the Bible, but endorsement of prohibition just isn;t there.
Pro-growers can pretty much maintain the exact "same" plant for generations of plants.
Obviously this doesn't change the DNA "fingerprint" of the graft but it just shows the "seed to customer" tracing is a meaningless regulation.
Some of them are poor slobs. Some of them are organized crime.
Are they just going to try to sell it at a lower price since the police cannot tell where you got it from and might not even care anymore? Tax savings alone radically reduces the price.
Alcohol flows plentifully and relatively cheaply here though although I hear there are speak easies.
So I guess the moral is, if you tax it so much people are paying exorbitant amounts for it, you may end up creating a bootlegger's market, especially if you don't have to cross any national borders with the product.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/nyregion/05loosie.html?pag...
If you have the right (or wrong, depends on how you view it) friends, then booze will be almost always available. Your friend doesn't necessarily need to be old enough to buy the booze, since if she/he has the contacts to yet older friends then you can understand how the buying circulates trough different levels. This way you don't necessarily need more than one middleman to buy vodka at age of 17.
Tobacco gets usually passed on the same way as booze, but at least in case of snus there are usually known groups which adopt the use. For example, hockey players are known to use snus, so there's high chance that you can buy some from them. And you don't need to know more than one hockey player, as the players know which one of their teammates has the stuff and when.
In cases where some known groups have the substances and the interest to sell them, you could consider it as somewhat centralized market. The people who run the market don't likely think it as one, but that's up to the viewer. After all, the way the liquer and tobacco gets spread may seem like there's no market at all.
This is one of the braking factors on tobacco taxes. It applies to any market -- if the taxes are too high, people will cheat the taxes.
Edit: I see the first link by @munin refers to a Virginia-to-NY cig smuggling scheme.
Another anecdote: at my high school there were several people involved in a ring of cigarette carton theft, who would then sell cartons at the school for inflated prices.
I dunno...but, we didn't, as a nation, mourn the end of bootlegging as a career option when alcohol prohibition ended. So, I'm not going to mourn the end of the small-time drug dealer (or the large scale cartel dealers, either).
Criminalize them just for being black?
And as a side question: do private jails exist in Colorado, or is the jail system in state hands?
Most recent stats I found are 2010 http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/2010_Colorado_Quick_Facts.pdf Latinos/as account for 17.1% of the population in Colorado, but 31% of the state prison population. • African-Americans make up 3.8% of Colorado’s population, but represent 19.4% of people in state prison. • Anglos are 74.5% of the state’s population, but only 46% of the prison population CO has private prisons too. I think that's nationwide these days, sadly.
Now bear in mind that pot has been de-facto legal in CO for about 4 years already. The Denver PD (largest city in the state) has been de-emphasizing pot enforcement for several years. There's been greater emphasis on other enforcement areas, like domestic violence and drunk driving.
*"The American criminal justice system is rife with racial disparities such a these, according to a report from the Human Rights Watch. But the fight against methamphetamine in Iowa in recent years is thought to be behind a spike in the number of whites imprisoned on drug charges and a decrease in blacks imprisoned on drug offenses, according to the report.“It suggests that law enforcement was increasing its attention to meth and less to other types of drugs … Meth is a ‘by whites, for whites’ drug,’” said Jamie Fellner, senior counsel and author of the report, titled “Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States.”"
http://iowaindependent.com/2431/meth-arrests-likely-behind-l...
Knock it off with your uninformed race-bating.
And this is unacceptable for a self-named "world leader".
I'm aware of some small scale studies which have shown promise for diseases such as IBD (Crohn's/ulcerative colitis). How it stands presently some sections of society (global) suffer unnecessarily.
I'm lead to believe that some substances in cannabis are neuroprotective; This contrasts to something like alcohol, which causes neurological damage.
And from what I've read, it can also inhibit angiogenesis within tumours. Thus, may be legitimately useful against cancer.
It's hard for me to make assertions with sources, as this is merely what I've read over the years. It simply hasn't been worth the time to investigate further, given its legal status. But from what I can gather, outlawing of a drug with low toxicity and potential medical benefit is an absolute travesty for humanity! It's tantamount to low-grade torture by the state on people who have an illness that can be, to some degree, ameliorated. There also seems to be a pandering to special interests (alcohol, tobacco, and the prison industry). And a disregard for people's freedom.
Some may not like the idea of Cannabis being legal, but if it becomes a substitute for alcohol and tobacco, it could turn out to be a health boon (given its low toxicity). Not to mention the saving of lives via a reduction in organised crime.
It's a shame this didn't happen earlier, and in more places!
Inhaling burning plant matter is still bad for you. There are alternate means of ingesting the compounds in Marijuana though.
Not true, except for long term extremely heavy drinking.
Moderate alcohol consumption is neuroprotective.
They don't know what the proper incidence of usage is. Meanwhile, we all need to know why some people become addicts and others don't
Very few words will be devoted to that aspect of it, and those corporate media articles that do discuss it will speak negatively of it.
And because the media will not bring it up much, neither will comments online do so.
Well, except for my comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_...
(They both have direct and indirect initiative statutes, but plenty of other states have one or the other (with more states having the direct initiative, which is probably closest to your "citizens of those states are able to create their own laws"))
I already know the answers to all of these questions, but it will interesting to see it become a provable, statistical reality.
This (OP) is one of the funniest HN submissions I've ever seen for comments. What does this have to do with HN?
And there's some people already ruining it. I believe Amsterdam had this same problem. Drug tourism is not something cities want for many obvious reasons.
Cities love to have tourists come, spend money, use hotels, etc
This is a jingoistic view of "drug users" that really needs to die. Marijuana "users" are normal people -- with a slim majority supporting marijuana legalization and a significant fraction of that openly admitting marijuana use, the old stoner/loser stereotype is hopefully on its last legs. Paul Bucheit's comment above is really right on the nose.
Most places already allow bars, so this is something they have to deal with anyway.
I think wine country is a pretty good analogy.
>> She said that she suffered from seizures and fibromyalgia, and her husband from post-traumatic stress, but that the couple had not been able to get medical marijuana at home. “We’re thinking about moving here because of it,” she said.
Maybe they're just making up excuses, but doesn't sound like these are a couple of 20 year olds just looking to get high in the middle of the day.
I have a MMJ card in CA because it helps with some nerve pain I have. Half the time I use it it's a tiny amount to get me through the next couple hours (placebo or not it works well especially for the trivial cost) and half the time it's to get so high at night that I stop caring about it and hopefully get at least a few hours of uninterrupted sleep in. The benefits of the latter are severely underrated when you deal with chronic pain.
Not to mention I have no idea why society has a double standard with casual marijuana use especially given the use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, prescription drug abuse, and more out there. I'm trying to drink less alcohol as part of my weight loss plan for my wedding and it really shocked me to realize that people around me easily kill a bottle of wine per person at a single dinner on top of drinking cocktails, beer and straight liquor... and that my restraining myself to 1-2 alcoholic drinks a week is crazy in comparison. Some of my friends persistently bother me for Adderall that I never give away because I barely have enough of for myself. Et cetera. Weed is pretty harmless in comparison I would think.
It was dead simple to get a red card - go into one of the many shops advertising an on site doc, complain of chronic back pain (or PTSD if a veteran), and there you go. The hardest problem was finding a shop taking new patients, as the MMJ law capped the number of patients per provider.