• Do NOT click on any vaporpedia.com links. The domain has been compromised and will attempt to infect your system. See https://fuckcombustion.com/threads/warning-vaporpedia-com-has-been-compromised.54960/.

What do Californians (and the rest) think of AUMA?

Baron23

Well-Known Member
Palm Springs Police to Drivers Who Use:
Oh them poor boys....not only do they look like Rick Moranis in Spaceballs in those enormous helmets, but they have to ride Honda's as well.

spaceballs.jpg


Just no place for a good place for a self-respecting moto-cop anymore! LOL
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
California Governor Wants to Unite Marijuana Laws
Whether one entity can legally grow and sell marijuana at the retail level in California is emerging as one of the biggest conflicts state authorities are wrestling with as they move to streamline regulations and adopt the same rules for medical and recreational pot use.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration released documents this week outlining proposed changes to square the state’s new recreational pot law with its longstanding law on medical marijuana.
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Marijuana Goes Industrial in California
SALINAS, Calif. — This vast and fertile valley is often called the salad bowl of the nation for the countless heads of lettuce growing across its floor. Now California’s marijuana industry is laying claim to a new slogan for the valley: America’s cannabis bucket.
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member

MoltenTiger

Well-Known Member
Palm Springs Police to Drivers Who Use:
That was ... terrible.

I was with my mate last weekend, who has a drug charge post a New Years festival ’15. The cops hunt him down like sharks now, attempting to cherry pick data for big pharma's crappy oral fluid test that is being trialled in my country.
The only people tested with these things are expected positive testers (selected outside festivals/bush doofs) or known drug users/addicts (repeat customers). Even then the accuracy is questionable.
The whole thing reeks of tactical ignorance and corporate agenda and it peeves me to no end.

If you can't convict someone without evidence, fabricating evidence by means of a chemical reaction whilst ignoring other factors like unimpaired driving is surely a breach of authority.
Driving whilst 'hot boxing' should be treated like eating a takeaway meal at the wheel or reading a book, using a phone or any other instance of driving without due care and attention.
It's something that shouldn't be happening, sure, but it's no more of a crime. You need to be a serial offender to be impacted by the other versions, but god forbid you had drugs in your system even though you weren't inebriated, that'll be a court date, your license and international freedom thanks.
Totally unreasonable, and videos like the above just present aptly how out of touch the authorities are with the reality of cannabinoid interaction. Last I checked you can drive on benzos, anaesthetics and with my alcohol tolerance I can legally drive quite drunk...

Just curiously how do they check for a cannabis DUI in the legal American states? Are they only looking for cases of blatant misconduct as in this video or is a trace detection enough to take you down like it is in Aus, even if you're coherent and have no other indication of wrongdoing.
Bit of a triggered rant, but this is a real issue for a lot of unlucky people and is solely pushed by the old-timer corrupt laws surrounding drugs.
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
California is working to avoid a shortage of legalized marijuana, state pot czar says
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...g-to-avoid-shortage-1500492977-htmlstory.html
With Nevada suffering a shortage of legalized marijuana, California’s state pot czar said Wednesday that efforts are being made in her state to make sure sufficient licenses go to farmers, testers and distributors to supply retailers.

Providing temporary, four-month licenses to support some businesses including growers as early as November is planned “so we don’t have a break in the supply chain,” Lori Ajax, chief of the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, said in testimony at a legislative hearing.
 

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
If Sacramento must have a marijuana industry, let’s at least make it fair
We didn’t support Proposition 64 last November, but now that cannabis is legal for adults in California, the Sacramento City Council must ensure that its regulations are equitable for entrepreneurs and strategic enough to kill a thriving black market of illegal grow houses that have popped up all over the city.
 
macbill,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
At http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...oducing-pot-surplus-1501101923-htmlstory.html

It appears California grows 5-12 times the amount of cannabis it consumes. Under the law, exports of legally grown cannabis are not allowed. This problem (aka "Too much pot") is supposed to result in "painful" pressure to reduce crops in the future.

Since I know the law of supply and demand, I don't really see the problem from my perspective. I do anticipate the larger growers forming OPEC-like organizations to limit production and raise prices. It's too bad federal law on such market manipulation would not be used to break up such an organization. Stupid Schedule 1.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/...rugs/wcm/deb49268-a1b4-4f13-b327-d988c09d4425

Convicted pot felons that want to own a legal marijuana business in Oakland will now be prioritized under new, radical permit rules designed to make amends for the United States’ war on drugs.

The city’s new Equity Permit Program calls for 50 per cent of all licenses for medical marijuana facilities to go to Oaklanders imprisoned for a pot offence in the last 10 years, or to residents of six neighbourhoods that police have excessively targeted for drug arrests.​
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Why black market marijuana could remain huge in California

t turns out that a huge portion of the state’s weed is likely to remain on the black market.

That’s because California grows a lot more pot than its residents consume, and Prop. 64 only makes marijuana legal within the state’s borders. It also didn’t give an automatic seal of approval to every cannabis grower. Those who want to sell legally must be licensed by the state and comply with detailed rules that require testing plants, labeling packages and tracking marijuana as it moves from farm to bong.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The black market isn't just confined to the state of CA. A lot of the cannabis is sold to people in illegal states. Where there's money to be made folks are right there to capitalize on it. Isn't it the American way? It could ruin it for legal states with the interstate cannabis black market.

We have a very tight legal market in WA state. We still have a black market where folks are selling to residents in other states.

Edit
As long as there is illegal cannabis there's going to be a black market. The states want to make money off the taxes so the prices are high in legal states which attributes to the instate black market.

My brother, he lives in WA state as well just paid a friend $90 for a full oz. Most state stores, its more than double that price for an oz. He's retired and on a fixed income and can't afford the prices. He has a medical cannabis card too. He only saves the 8% sales tax. That BS causes a black market! I hope CA can do things differently. It seems like our state lawmakers get too greedy. People get involved locally with cannabis laws and legislation. Talk is easy, taking action is a lot harder.

We're still waiting on clones and seeds for patients the law was passed in 2012. That also creates a black market! Let's get real.
 
Last edited:

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
CA seems to use about 2.5 million pounds of cannabis a year. They grow about 13.5 million pounds a year.

When legalization was being debated, it was small growers who, along with the prohibitionists, were against the Proposition. This is why. Since the law requires no interstate transport/transfer of cannabis, what is going to happen to the other 11 million pounds?

We can argue about the specific numbers if we like. But, I suspect the estimates are reasonably accurate. Maybe not to some decimal places, but generally correct. In the near term, good times for CA users as the sheer amount of product is destined to bring down the cost. How long that lasts is the question.

The state in its ever-growing demand for other people's money, is going to put in resources to assure things are well taxed in the cannabis industry. They will squeeze the pig (aka cannabis users) until taxation is at the maximum. The squeals will be ignored because they are from cannabis users after all. The squeezing scheme is centered around growers being licensed.

To squeeze the user, the State must control the spice. They will do that by strict growing regulations that will decrease the amount of the product available. Many won't see this as a problem as the market developed to this point illegally before, so why won't it maintain the high production illegally under the new law?

That is the change some are not considering. Before, pot was fought by drug warriors without motivated support by the bulk of the populace. Popular? Maybe, depending on how we push the question. Now, it will be about money. The government is very good at getting money. The fight against illegal grows will no longer be to protect the morals of marijuana users and to "think of the children" and prevent them from getting "hooked". The fight will be for, clean rivers, educated populace, taking a village and all the good things we choose to do together. (In reality, the money will probably go to the choo-choo and to pay pension obligations.)

In other words, the conversation will change from the illegal grower being bad to the illegal grower hurting all of us. I think the fears of smaller growers was correct in the run-up to legalization. It will be interesting to see how the "problem" of too much pot will resolve itself.
 

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
CA seems to use about 2.5 million pounds of cannabis a year. They grow about 13.5 million pounds a year.

Where are you getting these numbers? I'd love to see a source for how these statistics were actually obtained, seems like make believe to me. How would you measure something that is largely being unaccounted for without just completely guessing?
 
invertedisdead,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Where are you getting these numbers? I'd love to see a source for how these statistics were actually obtained, seems like make believe to me. How would you measure something that is largely being unaccounted for without just completely guessing?
Obviously, no one knows the actual amounts.

But, there are lots of statistical relationships that indicate the size of a market and how much vegetation is being made. If we use the article's 13.5 million pound number we would take the United Nations World Drug Report ( https://www.unodc.org/wdr2017/index.html ) and see in the methodology of how they derive their numbers. Part of that indicates law enforcement seizes 10-20% of illegal grows. If we assume a number that will result in a lower total (20%) and divide the amount of seizures in a year by it, we come up with a statistical estimate over the total amounts. Other news media, federal and state agencies and businesses who want to know the number may use different methodologies and they seem to come to similar conclusions. Not exactly, but similar. If we need to know how many ounces, exactly, hit the market, we would need some type of counting system. Otherwise, it is all an estimate based on established methodology and sources.

Just like most any grand number we use is estimated. There are few counts once we get to numbers that high. Even counts are only theoretically counts as there are always problems that have us rely on statistics. (As in voting.)

After that, what is your real concern? Do you doubt the numbers? Why? Who profits from inflating/deflating them at this time?
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member

More good news from the article:
“We are developing a formal complaint system that will allow anyone to report illegal grows or other concerns, and then we will forward those potential issues to the appropriate (law enforcement) agencies,” said Rebecca Forée, a spokeswoman for the state’s cannabis cultivation licensing office within the Department of Food and Agriculture.​

What a beautiful thing--setting up a program to have people inform on each other when they think someone else is not paying enough in taxes.
 

invertedisdead

PHASE3
Manufacturer
After that, what is your real concern? Do you doubt the numbers? Why? Who profits from inflating/deflating them at this time?

Of course I doubt the numbers. These are the same economists that let certain influential companies steal all the water and then claim we have a drought. The FDA has always used inflated numbers to create perceived problems. This article sets the impression that California is some cannabis kingpin running a giant export operation, responsible for flooding illegal states with cannabis, which makes it look like we have a huge problem. The FDA then uses these inflated calculations to then create things like "Marijuana Enforcement Agencies" and various other control systems instead of just letting us grow a plant like they let us do with tomatoes or almonds. We are (allegedly) growing almost 14 million pounds, yet it costs $300 an oz or $80 a gram for good hydrocarbon extracts in Southern California collectives. Sounds like De Beers then. All the growers I know are struggling just to keep up with local demand, let alone having 500% excess to be able to export. If anybody is exporting to grey states it's likely Colorado from their acessible centralized location, whereas the whole west coast is essentially legal from CA to Canada.
 
invertedisdead,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
Top Bottom