Cannabis News

looney2nz

looney2nz

Research Geek, Mad Scientist
C No Ego said:
what science? NIDA reefer madness scientists exploring every smoke toxin... maybe if NIDA vaped instead there studies would not end up so Bad
Click to expand...

It was specifically excluded from, I THINK it was the IOM (Institute of Medicine?, I can't remember) report, my brain says like 1999, in the U.S. Wasn't until MUCH later that vaping was referenced. They had the data in 1999, they just refused to include it.
 
florduh

florduh

Well-Known Member
looney2nz said:
It was specifically excluded from, I THINK it was the IOM (Institute of Medicine?, I can't remember) report, my brain says like 1999, in the U.S. Wasn't until MUCH later that vaping was referenced. They had the data in 1999, they just refused to include it.
Click to expand...

This is all ridiculous. Nixon appointed the Shafer Commission in the 70's. They recommended decriminalizing marijuana 40+ years ago, yet we've continued destroying lives over nonsense for all that time. In the intervening years we've learned that the worst long term effect of marijuana is mild gingivitis.

Do we know for a fact that marijuana is perfectly healthy? No. But neither are fucking Oreos and no one gets locked in a cage for possessing them. We DO know for a fact that marijuana should at least be decriminalized at this point. Only idiots and corrupt assholes disagree.
 
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
florduh said:
This is all ridiculous. Nixon appointed the Shafer Commission in the 70's. They recommended decriminalizing marijuana 40+ years ago, yet we've continued destroying lives over nonsense for all that time. In the intervening years we've learned that the worst long term effect of marijuana is mild gingivitis.

Do we know for a fact that marijuana is perfectly healthy? No. But neither are fucking Oreos and no one gets locked in a cage for possessing them. We DO know for a fact that marijuana should at least be decriminalized at this point. Only idiots and corrupt assholes disagree.
Click to expand...
Emotional nonsense.

How many are in a federal cage for mere possession?
https://hightimes.com/culture/federal-cannabis-prisoners/
https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...f-people-in-for-marijuana-possession-19691231

The first step to winning an argument is understanding the other guy's position.

As to idiots and corrupt assholes:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
 
Tranquility,
florduh

florduh

Well-Known Member
OldNewbie said:
How many are in a federal cage for mere possession?
https://hightimes.com/culture/federal-cannabis-prisoners/
https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...f-people-in-for-marijuana-possession-19691231
Click to expand...

If a single person is locked in a cage for possession of marijuana, I'd consider that to be a crime against humanity. We've known marijuana isn't deadly for decades. Oreos are less healthy. What would be an acceptable number of people incarcerated for simple Oreo possession?

OldNewbie said:
The first step to winning an argument is understanding the other guy's position.
Click to expand...

Not if "the other guy's position" has been exposed as unscientific and cruel nonsense.

OldNewbie said:
As to idiots and corrupt assholes:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
Click to expand...

See above. At some point you just need to call a spade a spade.

Also, I'm on a cannabis fan site. I simply assumed we were all against the criminalization of cannabis. Didn't think I was "arguing" with anyone.
 
Last edited:
A

Alexis

Well-Known Member
Okay Im calling this right now. The UK is going to legalize cannabis and it will be very SOON!
Like 2 years and the process will have full momentum, held up by red tape.

I just watched the very interesting, and surrpising TV show on Channel 4 "999 what's your emergency?"

It was a special feature on cannabis in the UK from the police's side.
It was very strange. Apparently almost TOTALLY pro legalisation from the off. The whole thing was clearly orchestrated for the distinct purpose of heavily and quickly warming the British public (who aren't already on board) towards the idea of cannabis legalisation.

Never seen anyhing anywhere near so pro cannabis, from the mainstream angle. A big jump. Like an announcement practically. Seriously, EXACTLY THAT! They just announced it is coming in.

It waa quite some way into the programme when they switched the propaganda to the dealers. Who :lol: "might be importing immigrant workers from China locked up to run these grow factories, threatened with violence....":rofl:

They actually dropped that shit in there. Spoken by a true Poilcemen.
Then it swung quickly to the profit we stand to make by taxing it.
It fell a bit flat after the punchline, following the build up.

But then most concerningly for me, they put major and prolongued emphasis on how "Skunk" is the demon and "should be class A".

Repetitive remarks about the differentitation between yesteryears' cannabis and that of today.

They have some crafty angle up their sleeve here, trsut me. So, they clearly plan to make "Skunk" mega illegal, demon juice.

HOW is that gonna work?:hmm: I honestly cannot guess exactly what their plan is for regulation.
My mind is whirring. I can see them insisting on total control of supply (legal) of specific strains (Monsanto eventually??).

What does "Skunk" encompass anyhow? 20%+ THC? If so, then most top strains would be class A, and some sort of class cannabis will make Britain rich??

Okay, too high to think it through. Just shocked at this suddenness and blatantness.

Maybe somebody saw it. I SWEAR Im not reading this wrong. It's on the doorstep.
Im sure some of you very intelligent gentle men and women here would have some insight on this.
 
A

Alexis

Well-Known Member
Okay good folks, had some time to think now and I believe I have figured it out and seen the obvious:
I just could not get my head around this strange emphasis on how Skunk is so bad, the Demon, the REAL problem with weed. Or the "actual" problem after all, not the less potent strains of the past before stupid man's meddling.

They kept on emphasising it. How Skunk should be class A etc. For the life of me I just could not see how they could possibly expect to differentiate between different strains and levels of potency so that some are legal and some are not, possibly due to be even more illegal than they are now.

But now I know what they are up to with this odd rhetoric. Plain and simple- they are in a panic now about their image and credibility. The government's of the world are becoming seriously worried about losing their credibility with the naive and dumb people who do still trust them.

I mean it's obvious really they have been telling us since ever that cannabis is a dreadfully bad thing locking us up and destroying lives over it.
They have dug there heels hard into the mud in recent years in stern opposition to Global legalising trends. And now suddenly they are going to completely reverse that telling us this is the best thing for our health and the future of our country financially and how they will now make loads of money from it and it will solve lots of our problems.

Ahem...Mixed messages? Contradictions? Incongruities?:nod:

So their ploy is clear, and this was stage 1 propaganda to minimise damage to their image. So they are like liers caught out, coming up with a pathetic cock and bull story that doesn't add up, and has no longevity.

They will now make out-


:evil: "We WERE right to criminalise cannabis. It IS a harmful drug. There is evidence of this.
But what we didn't understand and which we have only just now come to realise is that not all cannabis strains are equal in terms of how harmful or beneficial they are.
And now we have discovered that it is the more modern higher potency skunk variety which is responsible for the undisputed damaged cannabis wreaks on people and lives.

You can still trust us and everything we tell you that you can and cannot do and what is good and bad for your health we want the best for you we just made an honest mistake here. We are not hypocrites and Liars who are simply protecting our own interests.":evil:


I hope you catch my drift. I am pretty certain this is excatly what it is all about, demonising skunk etc.

What do you guys think? Love to hear some thoughts on this. This is BIG. Its finally going to happen. Im not getting excited or taking anything for granted. Just hoping for the best outcome. Moving in the right direction though at last.:)
 
Last edited:
GetLeft

GetLeft

Well-Known Member
Today from the U.S Supreme Court:

"The Supreme Court ruling Monday opened the door for states ... to legalize [fill in the blank], an action that is expected to lead to billions of dollars moving from illegal [fill in the blank] to new or expanded legal operations."

Yes! If finally happened!!

Wait, ...
 
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
GetLeft said:
Today from the U.S Supreme Court:

"The Supreme Court ruling Monday opened the door for states ... to legalize [fill in the blank], an action that is expected to lead to billions of dollars moving from illegal [fill in the blank] to new or expanded legal operations."

Yes! If finally happened!!

Wait, ...
Click to expand...
On a theory level, it actually is good news. The second link is the actual decision while the first gives a much better (Than ESPN's) description over the differing legal principles involved and how they interact.

https://www.leafly.com/news/politic...uling-just-gave-cannabis-legalization-a-boost

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
 
GetLeft

GetLeft

Well-Known Member
Great leafly link; thanks.
Yes there are significant ramifications to this ruling. From a very limited perspective, sure, the ruling looks good vis a vis federal mj prohibition. Not that it really is though since most states are likely to take care of mj matters before the fed gets around to it.

The court might have its nose a little deeper into the soil on this one than mj matters. And that’s a tad nervous-making. There are some things that some of us might prefer the fed to oversee rather than the state...

:peace:
 
C No Ego

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
Alexis said:
Okay good folks, had some time to think now and I believe I have figured it out and seen the obvious:
I just could not get my head around this strange emphasis on how Skunk is so bad, the Demon, the REAL problem with weed. Or the "actual" problem after all, not the less potent strains of the past before stupid man's meddling.

They kept on emphasising it. How Skunk should be class A etc. For the life of me I just could not see how they could possibly expect to differentiate between different strains and levels of potency so that some are legal and some are not, possibly due to be even more illegal than they are now.

But now I know what they are up to with this odd rhetoric. Plain and simple- they are in a panic now about their image and credibility. The government's of the world are becoming seriously worried about losing their credibility with the naive and dumb people who do still trust them.

I mean it's obvious really they have been telling us since ever that cannabis is a dreadfully bad thing locking us up and destroying lives over it.
They have dug there heels hard into the mud in recent years in stern opposition to Global legalising trends. And now suddenly they are going to completely reverse that telling us this is the best thing for our health and the future of our country financially and how they will now make loads of money from it and it will solve lots of our problems.

Ahem...Mixed messages? Contradictions? Incongruities?:nod:

So their ploy is clear, and this was stage 1 propaganda to minimise damage to their image. So they are like liers caught out, coming up with a pathetic cock and bull story that doesn't add up, and has no longevity.

They will now make out-


:evil: "We WERE right to criminalise cannabis. It IS a harmful drug. There is evidence of this.
But what we didn't understand and which we have only just now come to realise is that not all cannabis strains are equal in terms of how harmful or beneficial they are.
And now we have discovered that it is the more modern higher potency skunk variety which is responsible for the undisputed damaged cannabis wreaks on people and lives.

You can still trust us and everything we tell you that you can and cannot do and what is good and bad for your health we want the best for you we just made an honest mistake here. We are not hypocrites and Liars who are simply protecting our own interests.":evil:


I hope you catch my drift. I am pretty certain this is excatly what it is all about, demonising skunk etc.

What do you guys think? Love to hear some thoughts on this. This is BIG. Its finally going to happen. Im not getting excited or taking anything for granted. Just hoping for the best outcome. Moving in the right direction though at last.:)
Click to expand...

people questioning why cannabis was illegal and banned has led to other questions... the moral break down of acceptance or not of a ( who's your daddy) type authoritative figure who have been lying just to serve a purpose while honest people seek truth. honest people just turn elsewhere for that truth... now it's blatantly obvious that cannabis has been demonized for political reasons plain and simple
 
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
GetLeft said:
The court might have its nose a little deeper into the soil on this one than mj matters. And that’s a tad nervous-making. There are some things that some of us might prefer the fed to oversee rather than the state...
Click to expand...
THAT is the political dimension in all of this. Who is in charge? The federal government or the states? I like federalism and the concept of each state being a laboratory of democracy. However, I have little patience for those who pick and choose which is or should be preeminent based upon if they agree or disagree with the results in that particular instance. Instead, if we get the process right, it should guide us to the best solutions in most cases.

This case isn't quite that distinction. While federalism and anti-commandeering are related, they are not exactly the same thing. I think most agree the feds have some purview over drugs in the country. The states cannot overcome that with a federalism argument without really messing up huge bodies of law and practice for all drugs, supplements and any other pills, potions or powders consumed by us. But, this case tells the laboratories (aka states) they don't have to assist the feds with any fool idea they happen to come up with.
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: macbill
florduh

florduh

Well-Known Member
Didn't this ruling basically end any ambitions by the Feds to crackdown on Legalized States?

Any move against them would result in multiple lawsuits, bolstered by a 7-2 SCOTUS decision.
 
florduh,
  • Like
Reactions: macbill
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
florduh said:
Didn't this ruling basically end any ambitions by the Feds to crackdown on Legalized States?

Any move against them would result in multiple lawsuits, bolstered by a 7-2 SCOTUS decision.
Click to expand...
Only if the "crackdown" requires assistance from the state. The case did not challenge federal supremacy as it acknowledged the feds could make laws in regards to online betting. But, they could not force the state to help them enforce that law.

The actual case had an extremely long and fact sensitive discussion on how in this case, the action had to be allowed due to commandeering. I didn't find the argument there that persuasive. (That commandeering took place.) Even though I like the black letter law reinforcement of the 10th amendment in the holding AND the expansive determination of what commandeering could be, it would depend on the form of any crackdown to know if it would even remotely apply.

If the goal is to stop feds in black helicopters from rappelling down a line and burn the marijuana fields, the decision probably won't help much. If the goal is to stop the feds from demanding the state turn over its medical use database, the case should prevent that--absent agreement from the state.
 
florduh

florduh

Well-Known Member
@OldNewbie Thank you for clarifying. I think this is still modestly good news.

But you bring up a good point. The Feds don't have enough "black helicopters" to storm every dispensary in the country. That would require local and State assistance. It sounds like this decision helps prevent that.

However, the "crackdown" would likely just be a memo issued by the Justice Dept. The mere threat of strict enforcement could decimate the "legal" industry. So we still need new legislation from Congress to completely resolve this.
 
BabyFacedFinster

BabyFacedFinster

Anything worth doing, is worth overdoing.
Tranquility

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
One problem in the industry is that many of the principals come from a place where following the law was not the first priority. Casual compliance can sometimes lead to problems in completely unexpected areas.

https://mjbizdaily.com/lawsuit-lead...broke-federal-law-with-illegal-text-messages/

One of the biggest facilitators of marijuana deliveries in California faces a possible class-action lawsuit that one Bay Area attorney says could threaten the company’s existence.

Farrah Williams, of San Diego, filed suit against San Francisco-based Eaze Solutions on May 2, alleging the delivery business violated federal law by spamming her and other customers with unsolicited text-message marketing.

Eaze is a technology company that is not licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activity but, rather, contends it acts as an intermediary by taking orders online from customers and facilitating deliveries from retail partners.

The firm operates in more than 100 cities in California and has reached over 300,000 customers since its founding in 2014, according to the lawsuit.

The company has raised $52 million – much of that through venture capital financing – and turned itself into a cannabis industry force.
But Eaze’s status could be jeopardized if Williams’ lawsuit succeeds – although success isn’t a sure bet.

The case also could have wide-ranging ramifications for an industry whose marketing avenues already are limited and heavily scrutinized.

“The reality is that (Eaze) ‘growth hacked’ its way to the top of the pot delivery business – specifically, by relentlessly bombarding existing and prospective customers with text messages and other digital spam … without anyone’s permission,” the suit alleges...​
 
grampa_herb

grampa_herb

Epstein didn't kill himself
OldNewbie said:
One problem in the industry is that many of the principals come from a place where following the law was not the first priority. Casual compliance can sometimes lead to problems in completely unexpected areas.
Click to expand...

So true. Many of us do not have respect for the law because of our experiences with the law. A tiger doesn't change its stripes easily.

The law sez my dispensary cannot reuse CO2 oil syringe containers for fear of marijuana residue, so....
b0Tv32u.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom