Cannabis News
- Thread starter vtac
- Start date
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I doubt it is so much an enemy as confidence he is popular enough to not need to get in the left-wing mud fight just beginning to show who the truest progressive is. He's already looking to the general where legalization is not as popular. He'll sign whatever cannabis bill comes up from a democratic Congress if he is elected. The one who probably has the worst record is Kamala Harris. She was not the friend of users in her prosecutorial history. Nor, was she a supporter of our rights politically during the struggles from decriminalization to legalization/regulation. But, I'm not worried about her either. She's made clear she'll dance for whoever pays the piper and has "evolved" in the issue now that she's not in law enforcement.Biden is really fighting against legalization?
I mean, I'm not much of a Joe Biden fan...but I hadn't realized he was that much of an enemy
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I don't get the impression he is fighting against it at all. He is just not fighting for it, and that is where most of the Dems are, and of course where they all should be.Biden is really fighting against legalization?
I mean, I'm not much of a Joe Biden fan...but I hadn't realized he was that much of an enemy
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
Joe needs to decide if he’s on the boat or not: history doesn’t make a strong argument for him doing so. I thought he was a better than decent VP, because the job plays to his strong suit. Ran into some tape of Joe bullying Elizabeth Warren over bankruptcy legislation - back when he was a senator and she was not. Very much showing his stripes as a lifetime agent of corporate America in that.
In case you don’t know, Joe has represented Delaware in politics, and Delaware has the fewest and least-onerous rules governing incorporation. Virtually every corporation you can think of incorporated in the state of Delaware, “and subject to the laws thereof”. Incorporation is the home industry. In the old days, the founders were highly suspicious of incorporated entities, and EVERY state had stringent laws regulating them...until Rhode Island started allowing railroads - interstate actors - to incorporate without being restricted as to where they could operate or what they could get away with.
Delaware decided they could steal that racket, and they did. States may still regulate entities incorporated in them, but for almost al, even tiny ones, Delaware rules apply outside actual criminal matters
In case you don’t know, Joe has represented Delaware in politics, and Delaware has the fewest and least-onerous rules governing incorporation. Virtually every corporation you can think of incorporated in the state of Delaware, “and subject to the laws thereof”. Incorporation is the home industry. In the old days, the founders were highly suspicious of incorporated entities, and EVERY state had stringent laws regulating them...until Rhode Island started allowing railroads - interstate actors - to incorporate without being restricted as to where they could operate or what they could get away with.
Delaware decided they could steal that racket, and they did. States may still regulate entities incorporated in them, but for almost al, even tiny ones, Delaware rules apply outside actual criminal matters
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
AP Analysis: Legal Pot for All Takes a Toll on Medical Users
2 days ago · ... When states legalize pot for all adults, long-standing medical marijuana programs take a big hit, ... In Oregon, where the medical program shrank the most following recreational legalization
In this April 8, 2019, photo, Roberto Gonzalez, the general manager of Western Oregon Dispensary in Sherwood, Ore., poses for a photo in front of jars of medical marijuana. The dispensary is one of two medical-only marijuana dispensaries left in Oregon. An Associated Press analysis has found existing medical marijuana programs take a hit when states legalize cannabis
2 days ago · ... When states legalize pot for all adults, long-standing medical marijuana programs take a big hit, ... In Oregon, where the medical program shrank the most following recreational legalization
In this April 8, 2019, photo, Roberto Gonzalez, the general manager of Western Oregon Dispensary in Sherwood, Ore., poses for a photo in front of jars of medical marijuana. The dispensary is one of two medical-only marijuana dispensaries left in Oregon. An Associated Press analysis has found existing medical marijuana programs take a hit when states legalize cannabis
grampa_herb
Epstein didn't kill himself
Woman named Marijuana Pepsi refused to change her name — now she’s a doctor
That’s Doctor Marijuana Pepsi to you.
A Wisconsin woman with the real given name Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck earned a doctorate last month, according to a report published Tuesday.
That’s Doctor Marijuana Pepsi to you.
A Wisconsin woman with the real given name Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck earned a doctorate last month, according to a report published Tuesday.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Git ya yo "Thai FUCT" of fine, trademarked, cannabis here! (Except for the fact the USPTO has interpreted scheduled drugs trademarks as having "no lawful use of the mark in commerce." https://www.cannalawblog.com/marijuana-trademarks/ )
For the more lucky FUCTers:
https://reason.com/2019/06/24/facia...l-even-if-they-arent-substantially-overbroad/
I have no idea if such a distinction can be morphed over to cannabis trademarks; but, I know someone is going to use the decision to try.
From a related discussion on the decision:
https://reason.com/2019/06/24/congr...trademarks-but-vulgar-or-profane-marks-maybe/
For the more lucky FUCTers:
https://reason.com/2019/06/24/facia...l-even-if-they-arent-substantially-overbroad/
When a statute is challenged as violating the First Amendment on its face (as opposed to just as it was applied to this particular challenger), the Court often asks whether the law is "substantially" overbroad:
In the First Amendment context, … a law may be invalidated as overbroad if "a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
If the law is unconstitutional only as to a relatively modest set of applications, then it's not substantially overbroad, and won't be struck down on its face (though people can still challenge it in those particular applications).
But in today's Iancu v. Brunetti (the case involving the FUCT trademark, and the Lanham Act's provision that "immoral or scandalous" trademarks can't be registered), the Court held that this doesn't apply to viewpoint-based restrictions:
[T]he Government … [argues that the statute may constitutionally be applied] to lewd, sexually explicit, or profane marks … [and] invokes our First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, [asking] us to uphold the statute against facial attack because its unconstitutional applications are not "substantial" relative to "the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
But … this Court has never applied that kind of analysis to a viewpoint-discriminatory law. In Tam, for example, we did not pause to consider whether the disparagement clause might admit some permissible applications (say, to certain libelous speech) before striking it down. The Court's finding of viewpoint bias ended the matter. And similarly, it seems unlikely we would compare permissible and impermissible applications if Congress outright banned "offensive" (or to use some other examples, "divisive" or "subversive") speech. Once we have found that a law "aim at the suppression of" views, why would it matter that Congress could have captured some of the same speech through a viewpoint-neutral statute?
An important holding that could apply to many First Amendment cases that are far removed from Brunetti.
In the First Amendment context, … a law may be invalidated as overbroad if "a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
If the law is unconstitutional only as to a relatively modest set of applications, then it's not substantially overbroad, and won't be struck down on its face (though people can still challenge it in those particular applications).
But in today's Iancu v. Brunetti (the case involving the FUCT trademark, and the Lanham Act's provision that "immoral or scandalous" trademarks can't be registered), the Court held that this doesn't apply to viewpoint-based restrictions:
[T]he Government … [argues that the statute may constitutionally be applied] to lewd, sexually explicit, or profane marks … [and] invokes our First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, [asking] us to uphold the statute against facial attack because its unconstitutional applications are not "substantial" relative to "the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
But … this Court has never applied that kind of analysis to a viewpoint-discriminatory law. In Tam, for example, we did not pause to consider whether the disparagement clause might admit some permissible applications (say, to certain libelous speech) before striking it down. The Court's finding of viewpoint bias ended the matter. And similarly, it seems unlikely we would compare permissible and impermissible applications if Congress outright banned "offensive" (or to use some other examples, "divisive" or "subversive") speech. Once we have found that a law "aim at the suppression of" views, why would it matter that Congress could have captured some of the same speech through a viewpoint-neutral statute?
An important holding that could apply to many First Amendment cases that are far removed from Brunetti.
I have no idea if such a distinction can be morphed over to cannabis trademarks; but, I know someone is going to use the decision to try.
From a related discussion on the decision:
https://reason.com/2019/06/24/congr...trademarks-but-vulgar-or-profane-marks-maybe/
...Here are some samples. The PTO rejected marks conveying approval of drug use (YOU CAN'T SPELL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT THC for pain-relief medication, MARIJUANA COLA and KO KANE for beverages) because it is scandalous to "inappropriately glamoriz[e] drug abuse." But at the same time, the PTO registered marks with such sayings as D.A.R.E. TO RESIST DRUGS AND VIOLENCE and SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE...
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
seaofgreens
My Mind Is Free
San Francisco City Council/Mayor really trying to set a shitty nanny state precedent:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...francisco-poised-to-ban-sales-of-e-cigarettes
Juul should move HQ imo.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...francisco-poised-to-ban-sales-of-e-cigarettes
Juul should move HQ imo.
BigJr48
Well-Known Member
It's Juul's fault that teenage kids are attracted to vaping, not the vaping industry but it seems San Fran wants everyone to start smoking cigs and die of cancer instead of living a healthy lifestyle while vaping.
Chi town here I come!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
I’ve given juice a few runs, and I have to say there’s something about it I don’t like...it’s hard to describe, but over time I start feeling physical sensations I’m unfamiliar with, and when I stop, those feelings fade away.
I tend to stay in pretty good touch with my body after years of yoga and Kung fu, and the physical nature of my professional practice, so when I say unfamiliar, I mean new. I do attribute that to the glycerin and / or propylene glycol and / or other components of the juice. It may not be harmful, but it’s doing *something*...and I want to know what’s its doing before I just say ok.
All well and good, maybe, but we’re essentially talking about teens, and teens are still in the making process. Adolescence kicks of an avalanche of hormonal signaling as levels rise, and the body remakes itself according to the genetic recipe provided by the type, strength, and timing of those signals. It’s no joke to say that this process should be as UNfucked with as possible in order to afford the finished product the best possible chance to function according to it’s recipe.
When I started smoking as a kid, I was stealing packs from drugstores ‘cause I wasn’t old enough to buy them. As far as I know, there’s still an age limit for buying tobacco. Given accepted principles of in loco parentis, it is reasonable to classify Jules and such as tobacco equivalents, in terms of risk, until we know much more about the long-term effects of the components on a stable population - not one that’s still under construction.
If SF/CA/etc choose to ban them until they're proven safe, rather than restrict them to 21+, that’s their choice, and both choices are reasonable public-health steps to take.
Why do some call “nanny-state” on actions of government doing their jobs?
I tend to stay in pretty good touch with my body after years of yoga and Kung fu, and the physical nature of my professional practice, so when I say unfamiliar, I mean new. I do attribute that to the glycerin and / or propylene glycol and / or other components of the juice. It may not be harmful, but it’s doing *something*...and I want to know what’s its doing before I just say ok.
All well and good, maybe, but we’re essentially talking about teens, and teens are still in the making process. Adolescence kicks of an avalanche of hormonal signaling as levels rise, and the body remakes itself according to the genetic recipe provided by the type, strength, and timing of those signals. It’s no joke to say that this process should be as UNfucked with as possible in order to afford the finished product the best possible chance to function according to it’s recipe.
When I started smoking as a kid, I was stealing packs from drugstores ‘cause I wasn’t old enough to buy them. As far as I know, there’s still an age limit for buying tobacco. Given accepted principles of in loco parentis, it is reasonable to classify Jules and such as tobacco equivalents, in terms of risk, until we know much more about the long-term effects of the components on a stable population - not one that’s still under construction.
If SF/CA/etc choose to ban them until they're proven safe, rather than restrict them to 21+, that’s their choice, and both choices are reasonable public-health steps to take.
Why do some call “nanny-state” on actions of government doing their jobs?
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
I like this paragraph very much and agree with it completely. Nice.
If only young people understood this and considered it. I certainly wish I had. But it is only looking back that we can possibly see with 20/20.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Do you know what the risk is from eating a Big Mac? What if you're a kid?
I liked and agreed with almost all of the post. But, if the question was real and not rhetorical, I guess it's because government's choice of jobs seems so random to almost think they're favoring goals the bureaucrats rather than the elected officials prefer. (Not that elected officials are smart or anything, it's just they theoretically answer to the people.)
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
The remaining function of the decrepit?
Reminding our juniors they don’t know everything yet?
Reminding our juniors they don’t know everything yet?
Eaze removes in-app purchases following Google ban on marijuana delivery apps
Google changed several policies for the Play Store a month ago, and among them was a new ban on apps selling or facilitating the sale of marijuana. While applications that promote the use of the devil's lettuce is still allowed, the actual sale can't happen inside the app. 'Eaze,' one of the more popular weed delivery apps, has now been updated to comply with the new policy.
When you attempt to buy anything through the app, you are now directed to the company's website to make the actual purchase. In other words, the app is now little more than a product gallery.
Google changed several policies for the Play Store a month ago, and among them was a new ban on apps selling or facilitating the sale of marijuana. While applications that promote the use of the devil's lettuce is still allowed, the actual sale can't happen inside the app. 'Eaze,' one of the more popular weed delivery apps, has now been updated to comply with the new policy.
When you attempt to buy anything through the app, you are now directed to the company's website to make the actual purchase. In other words, the app is now little more than a product gallery.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
This is going to be very interesting to watch. I suspect there is going to have to be a follow on bill to deal with this.
Weed cafes in Illinois? People could be allowed to smoke marijuana (not tobacco) at bars, restaurants under new law.
Legalization includes an exemption to the Smoke-Free Illinois Act ban on indoor smoking, letting cities decide whether to allow on-site use at bars, restaurants, theaters, even new cannabis smoke lounges.
By Tom Schuba Jun 28, 2019, 5:15am CDT
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64145488/Illinois_Legislature.0.jpg)
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, the architect of the law legalizing recreational marijuana, throws her fist in the air on May 31 in celebration of the final votes to legalize recreational marijuana use in Illinois. She says decisions on allowing on-site marijuana consumption at public places are “up to the locals.”
Interesting discussion at this link...
Since 2008, it’s been illegal to smoke indoors at most public places in Illinois. But smoking could once again be allowed at bars, restaurants, coffee shops and other businesses, even new cannabis smoke lounges and weed-friendly movie theaters and concert venues — if local officials approve that.
That’s under a largely overlooked provision of the new Illinois law legalizing recreational marijuana use and sales.
The law legalizing the recreational use of marijuana beginning Jan. 1 provides an exemption to the Smoke-Free Illinois Act that banned smoking at workplaces and most public places because of the health threat of secondhand smoke. A similar exemption already was in place for cigar lounges.
That means smoking once again could become commonplace at public places in Illinois, according to the law’s chief sponsor — but only of marijuana, not tobacco, which remains largely banned at workplaces and businesses.
Surprised to hear that, health advocates say allowing more smoking of any kind in indoor public places is a bad idea.
“This is a step backwards for the health of the people of Illinois,” says Kathy Drea, head of advocacy for the American Lung Association in Illinois.
Joel Africk, president and chief executive of the Respiratory Health Association, a Chicago advocacy group, says “it is critical for everyone’s safety and well-being — especially those living with lung diseases — that the state maintains the protections outlined in existing smoke-free and clean air acts.”
State Sen. Steve McClure, R-Jacksonville, one of only six conservatives who voted to legalize cannabis, says he thought the law lets local governments allow consumption only at state-licensed cannabis facilities.
“If [the sponsors] had told me that you can smoke cannabis in public places — including bars, restaurants, etcetera — I would’ve definitely voted no,” says McClure, noting that his mother died of lung cancer from secondhand smoke. “They should’ve made that intent clear to everyone.”
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16684822/McClure.jpg)
Downstate Sen. Steve McClure, whose mother died of lung cancer from secondhand smoke: “If [the sponsors] had told me that you can smoke cannabis in public places — including bars, restaurants, etcetera — I would’ve definitely voted no.”
Under the new law, weed use also could be allowed, at the places where marijuana is grown and sold — the state-licensed cannabis cultivation centers and dispensaries — if local authorities approve.
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, the architect of the law legalizing recreational marijuana, says she and her colleagues in Springfield decided that social consumption of marijuana would be allowed but that the state wouldn’t license that, leaving it up to local officials.
She says it “felt like it made the most sense for them to be able to figure that out as it suits their communities. It’s really about licensing social consumption spaces, and that’s left very open for locals to determine what they want that to look like.”
Cassidy says the law allows local governments to determine whether to grant on-site consumption licenses to existing businesses as well as to new, standalone establishments that could function like hookah bars. If municipal officials want it, they could allow, for instance, movie patrons to light up in theaters.
They also could choose instead to limit consumption to vapes and edibles but not allow smoking, according to Cassidy.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s office won’t say whether she plans to push to allow those sorts of businesses in Chicago or discuss how the licensing process will work, only that city officials will be working “to ensure this legislation is not only rolled out safely and equitably throughout Chicago but also enhances our local economy and community businesses while prioritizing public safety.”
Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an advocacy group based in Virginia that opposes marijuana legalization efforts nationwide, says he expects to see “huge local community pushback” once people realize how far Illinois’ law goes.
“If you told public health advocates 10 years ago that, in 10 years, we’re gonna have any exemptions” to the ban on indoor smoking in public places, “you’d get laughed out of the building,” Sabet says. “They went way too far on this bill.”
Dan Linn, executive director of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says he expects that Illinois legislators probably will end up looking at public pot use again at some point.
“After a few years, when the tolerance level towards cannabis consumption in general is a little more accepting, you might be able to find the General Assembly having enough votes to pass something that does have a specific license that the state would be awarding to these types of businesses,” Linn says.
Elsewhere, Colorado plans to begin granting public consumption licenses to hospitality establishments that will require local approval, and some of those places also will be able to sell the drug, according to Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project.
In California, a legislative proposal would allow for state-licensed cannabis cafes and lounges. Alaska recently agreed to allow municipalities to approve these types of businesses. Nevada plans to allow local governments to grant social consumption licenses.
Weed cafes in Illinois? People could be allowed to smoke marijuana (not tobacco) at bars, restaurants under new law.
Legalization includes an exemption to the Smoke-Free Illinois Act ban on indoor smoking, letting cities decide whether to allow on-site use at bars, restaurants, theaters, even new cannabis smoke lounges.
By Tom Schuba Jun 28, 2019, 5:15am CDT
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, the architect of the law legalizing recreational marijuana, throws her fist in the air on May 31 in celebration of the final votes to legalize recreational marijuana use in Illinois. She says decisions on allowing on-site marijuana consumption at public places are “up to the locals.”
Interesting discussion at this link...
Since 2008, it’s been illegal to smoke indoors at most public places in Illinois. But smoking could once again be allowed at bars, restaurants, coffee shops and other businesses, even new cannabis smoke lounges and weed-friendly movie theaters and concert venues — if local officials approve that.
That’s under a largely overlooked provision of the new Illinois law legalizing recreational marijuana use and sales.
The law legalizing the recreational use of marijuana beginning Jan. 1 provides an exemption to the Smoke-Free Illinois Act that banned smoking at workplaces and most public places because of the health threat of secondhand smoke. A similar exemption already was in place for cigar lounges.
That means smoking once again could become commonplace at public places in Illinois, according to the law’s chief sponsor — but only of marijuana, not tobacco, which remains largely banned at workplaces and businesses.
Surprised to hear that, health advocates say allowing more smoking of any kind in indoor public places is a bad idea.
“This is a step backwards for the health of the people of Illinois,” says Kathy Drea, head of advocacy for the American Lung Association in Illinois.
Joel Africk, president and chief executive of the Respiratory Health Association, a Chicago advocacy group, says “it is critical for everyone’s safety and well-being — especially those living with lung diseases — that the state maintains the protections outlined in existing smoke-free and clean air acts.”
State Sen. Steve McClure, R-Jacksonville, one of only six conservatives who voted to legalize cannabis, says he thought the law lets local governments allow consumption only at state-licensed cannabis facilities.
“If [the sponsors] had told me that you can smoke cannabis in public places — including bars, restaurants, etcetera — I would’ve definitely voted no,” says McClure, noting that his mother died of lung cancer from secondhand smoke. “They should’ve made that intent clear to everyone.”
Downstate Sen. Steve McClure, whose mother died of lung cancer from secondhand smoke: “If [the sponsors] had told me that you can smoke cannabis in public places — including bars, restaurants, etcetera — I would’ve definitely voted no.”
Under the new law, weed use also could be allowed, at the places where marijuana is grown and sold — the state-licensed cannabis cultivation centers and dispensaries — if local authorities approve.
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, the architect of the law legalizing recreational marijuana, says she and her colleagues in Springfield decided that social consumption of marijuana would be allowed but that the state wouldn’t license that, leaving it up to local officials.
She says it “felt like it made the most sense for them to be able to figure that out as it suits their communities. It’s really about licensing social consumption spaces, and that’s left very open for locals to determine what they want that to look like.”
Cassidy says the law allows local governments to determine whether to grant on-site consumption licenses to existing businesses as well as to new, standalone establishments that could function like hookah bars. If municipal officials want it, they could allow, for instance, movie patrons to light up in theaters.
They also could choose instead to limit consumption to vapes and edibles but not allow smoking, according to Cassidy.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s office won’t say whether she plans to push to allow those sorts of businesses in Chicago or discuss how the licensing process will work, only that city officials will be working “to ensure this legislation is not only rolled out safely and equitably throughout Chicago but also enhances our local economy and community businesses while prioritizing public safety.”
Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an advocacy group based in Virginia that opposes marijuana legalization efforts nationwide, says he expects to see “huge local community pushback” once people realize how far Illinois’ law goes.
“If you told public health advocates 10 years ago that, in 10 years, we’re gonna have any exemptions” to the ban on indoor smoking in public places, “you’d get laughed out of the building,” Sabet says. “They went way too far on this bill.”
Dan Linn, executive director of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says he expects that Illinois legislators probably will end up looking at public pot use again at some point.
“After a few years, when the tolerance level towards cannabis consumption in general is a little more accepting, you might be able to find the General Assembly having enough votes to pass something that does have a specific license that the state would be awarding to these types of businesses,” Linn says.
Elsewhere, Colorado plans to begin granting public consumption licenses to hospitality establishments that will require local approval, and some of those places also will be able to sell the drug, according to Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project.
In California, a legislative proposal would allow for state-licensed cannabis cafes and lounges. Alaska recently agreed to allow municipalities to approve these types of businesses. Nevada plans to allow local governments to grant social consumption licenses.
MinnBobber
Well-Known Member
Minnesota adds Alzheimer's to their Medical Cannabis Program.
https://hightimes.com/news/minnesota-alzheimers-patients-can-now-register-medical-marijuana/
The hard work paid off on that condition BUT others were rejected, like arthritis, opioid use disorder, panic and traumatic brain injury. Sad that these were not added but baby step forward.
Data says about 97,000 patients in MN with Altzeimer's------yikes!
Some animal studies have shown great benefits for cannabis use on memory loss, even reversing the memory loss.
And why are animal studies so valuable? Because the cannabis acts on their Endocannabinoid System (ECS), similar to
how it acts on our ECS. It tunes up your ECS, to better fight disease and reach homeostasis.
Too bad our MN Medical Program has obscene/insane prices as most cannot afford the program, even if they have a
qualifying condition
https://hightimes.com/news/minnesota-alzheimers-patients-can-now-register-medical-marijuana/
The hard work paid off on that condition BUT others were rejected, like arthritis, opioid use disorder, panic and traumatic brain injury. Sad that these were not added but baby step forward.
Data says about 97,000 patients in MN with Altzeimer's------yikes!
Some animal studies have shown great benefits for cannabis use on memory loss, even reversing the memory loss.
And why are animal studies so valuable? Because the cannabis acts on their Endocannabinoid System (ECS), similar to
how it acts on our ECS. It tunes up your ECS, to better fight disease and reach homeostasis.
Too bad our MN Medical Program has obscene/insane prices as most cannot afford the program, even if they have a
qualifying condition
YaMon
Vaping since 2010
Let Kirsten Gillibrand know how you feel https://kirstengillibrand.formstack.com/forms/ml_poll
You can donate at the end or just hit submit.
You can donate at the end or just hit submit.
Adobewan
Well-Known Member
Thanks @YaMon , I appreciate being able to speak directly to potential leaders about this but she should be letting us know that, after having reviewed the science, she plans fight for legalization, as opposed to surveying us to gauge the wind.
Is she going to lead or follow?
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
In states where marijuana is legal, licensed dispensaries are pushing out drug dealers
Published: July 9, 2019 2:46 p.m. ET
More than half — 61% — of Americans now believe marijuana should be legal
Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images
In June, Illinois became the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana. The law will take effect on January 1, 2020.
By
JamesWellemeyer
In states where recreational marijuana use has been legalized, teens are less likely to smoke it, says a new study published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Other recent studies have come to similar conclusions.
Licensed dispensaries are replacing drug dealers in these states, making it harder for teenagers who aren’t of legal age to get their hands on cannabis. However, the study did not find a decrease in teen use when only medical marijuana was legalized.
“Licensed dispensaries require proof of age,” the JAMA study authors wrote. Drug dealers generally do not ID their customers.
Don’t miss: What a 30-day break from smoking marijuana does to your brain
The researchers determined the results with data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey between 1993 and 2017. Washington, D.C. and 27 states provided data on teen use before and after changes to medical marijuana laws. Seven states contributed data before and after recreational marijuana laws changed. More than 1 million high school students were included in the study.
11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes
In June, Illinois became the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana. The law will take effect on January 1, 2020.
Illinois follows California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Colorado, Washington state, Oregon, Alaska, Vermont, Michigan, and the District of Columbia in having legalized some form recreational marijuana.
Nearly all of the presidential Democratic candidates support removing marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances.
Thirty-three states and D.C. allow medical marijuana use. And the number of states where weed is legal is likely to rise in the near future. In fact, many 2020 Democratic candidates are discussing the issue.
Nearly all of the presidential Democratic candidates support removing marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances.
Cory Booker, a senator from New Jersey and one of the 2020 candidates for the Democratic nomination, reintroduced the Marijuana Justice Act this February. The act, originally introduced in 2017, would legalize marijuana in every state and expunge federal convictions of those have been arrested for marijuana use.
Don’t miss: The No. 1 reason adults support legalizing marijuana (it’s not to get high)
Other 2020 candidates, including senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, are backing the bill.
Joe Biden, the former vice president who is leading the 2020 Democratic field, said in May that “nobody should be in jail for smoking marijuana.” He supports decriminalizing the drug but not legalizing its use entirely.
More than half — 61% — of Americans now believe marijuana should be legal, according to the 2018 General Social Survey. This includes a majority of Republicans.
Teen marijuana use has dropped recently, but remains steady
In 2016, the percentage of 8th and 10th graders who reported using marijuana at least once in the past year hit its lowest point in two decades, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The usage rate remained approximately the same between 2016 and 2018.
In 2018, nearly 40% of high school seniors reported having used marijuana in the past year, and just under 6% said they use it every day.
In 2018, nearly 40% of high school seniors reported having used marijuana in the past year, and just under 6% said they use it every day.
Daily marijuana use is higher than daily cigarette use for teens. Vaping among high school students rose significantly between 2017 and 2018, but the most popular vaping devices among teens — like Juul — do not have marijuana in their e-liquids.
Published: July 9, 2019 2:46 p.m. ET
More than half — 61% — of Americans now believe marijuana should be legal
In June, Illinois became the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana. The law will take effect on January 1, 2020.
By
JamesWellemeyer
In states where recreational marijuana use has been legalized, teens are less likely to smoke it, says a new study published in JAMA Pediatrics.
Other recent studies have come to similar conclusions.
Licensed dispensaries are replacing drug dealers in these states, making it harder for teenagers who aren’t of legal age to get their hands on cannabis. However, the study did not find a decrease in teen use when only medical marijuana was legalized.
“Licensed dispensaries require proof of age,” the JAMA study authors wrote. Drug dealers generally do not ID their customers.
Don’t miss: What a 30-day break from smoking marijuana does to your brain
The researchers determined the results with data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey between 1993 and 2017. Washington, D.C. and 27 states provided data on teen use before and after changes to medical marijuana laws. Seven states contributed data before and after recreational marijuana laws changed. More than 1 million high school students were included in the study.
11 states have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes
In June, Illinois became the 11th state to legalize recreational marijuana. The law will take effect on January 1, 2020.
Illinois follows California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Colorado, Washington state, Oregon, Alaska, Vermont, Michigan, and the District of Columbia in having legalized some form recreational marijuana.
Nearly all of the presidential Democratic candidates support removing marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances.
Thirty-three states and D.C. allow medical marijuana use. And the number of states where weed is legal is likely to rise in the near future. In fact, many 2020 Democratic candidates are discussing the issue.
Nearly all of the presidential Democratic candidates support removing marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances.
Cory Booker, a senator from New Jersey and one of the 2020 candidates for the Democratic nomination, reintroduced the Marijuana Justice Act this February. The act, originally introduced in 2017, would legalize marijuana in every state and expunge federal convictions of those have been arrested for marijuana use.
Don’t miss: The No. 1 reason adults support legalizing marijuana (it’s not to get high)
Other 2020 candidates, including senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, are backing the bill.
Joe Biden, the former vice president who is leading the 2020 Democratic field, said in May that “nobody should be in jail for smoking marijuana.” He supports decriminalizing the drug but not legalizing its use entirely.
More than half — 61% — of Americans now believe marijuana should be legal, according to the 2018 General Social Survey. This includes a majority of Republicans.
Teen marijuana use has dropped recently, but remains steady
In 2016, the percentage of 8th and 10th graders who reported using marijuana at least once in the past year hit its lowest point in two decades, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The usage rate remained approximately the same between 2016 and 2018.
In 2018, nearly 40% of high school seniors reported having used marijuana in the past year, and just under 6% said they use it every day.
In 2018, nearly 40% of high school seniors reported having used marijuana in the past year, and just under 6% said they use it every day.
Daily marijuana use is higher than daily cigarette use for teens. Vaping among high school students rose significantly between 2017 and 2018, but the most popular vaping devices among teens — like Juul — do not have marijuana in their e-liquids.
YaMon
Vaping since 2010
She’s going to play the game similarly to other representatives and cow toe to whatever floats her boat, Rolls Royce or mansion.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I put it here rather than in the California section as it might apply to federal prosecutions overall. A cannabis company is under federal indictment. Why? They illegally dumped (allegedly) 28 55-gallon drums of used ethanol that was used in the concentrate making.
The indictment listed all the proper CA licenses and what the precursor to the dumped contraband was used for. There were *NO* charges related to cannabis itself. (Just the illegal dumping of the chemical.)
An odd legality mentioned has to do with CA licensing requirements to, basically, follow all the laws and not endanger the community. It could have been argued, the company was *NOT* following the law due to the dumping that endangered the community. Thus, any potential protections for following a state's laws on cannabis licensing would not have been useful. Not that the feds would have been legally bound by that theory of legality, they can enforce federal law. The U.S. Attorney's office decided not to--which seems like the feds are not looking to crack down on state legal.
https://www.cannalawblog.com/u-s-in...-waste-dumping-but-not-for-cannabis-activity/
The indictment listed all the proper CA licenses and what the precursor to the dumped contraband was used for. There were *NO* charges related to cannabis itself. (Just the illegal dumping of the chemical.)
An odd legality mentioned has to do with CA licensing requirements to, basically, follow all the laws and not endanger the community. It could have been argued, the company was *NOT* following the law due to the dumping that endangered the community. Thus, any potential protections for following a state's laws on cannabis licensing would not have been useful. Not that the feds would have been legally bound by that theory of legality, they can enforce federal law. The U.S. Attorney's office decided not to--which seems like the feds are not looking to crack down on state legal.
https://www.cannalawblog.com/u-s-in...-waste-dumping-but-not-for-cannabis-activity/
Last month, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California indicted a San Diego cannabis manufacturer for dumping hazardous waste in violation of federal law. The defendants are alleged to have arranged for an unlicensed garbage hauler to unlawfully dump at various locations twenty-eight 55-gallon barrels of waste ethanol used in volatile extraction of cannabis oils, a process that is permitted under state and local law with proper licenses and permits. The defendants allegedly paid the hauler in cash what amounted to about half of what it would have cost to lawfully dispose of the material. California law strictly controls hazardous waste management and disposal practices by cannabis licensees, including manufacturers such as the defendants here.
While the charged conduct described in this case is extremely serious, the most notable part of the indictment is what’s missing: any mention whatsoever of the Controlled Substances Act or other federal law pertaining to the illegality of defendants’ cannabis business. Indeed, the indictment expressly alleges that the charged defendant “was engaged in the business of extracting oils from cannabis,” and the California Department of Public Health’s online license search tool indicates that the business appeared to have both local and state approval to conduct the extraction activities. In other words, despite the parties all but stipulating to the fact that the defendant company was engaged in federally illegal cannabis activity, the federal government decided not to charge anyone for that conduct, and instead focused only on the violation of hazardous waste laws.
Federal enforcement against state-licensed cannabis operators has come a long way in the past decade, from active enforcement to the 2013 Cole Memo to its rescission and the selective enforcement actions that have followed—the instant case falling within the latter category. Likewise, federal courts have continued to refine their legal analysis when it comes to the commercial cannabis industry, finding more and more frequently that commercial contracts involving cannabis businesses will be enforced, particularly if doing so will not force a party to actively violate the Controlled Substances Act.
The current case is consistent with other federal enforcement activity (or lack thereof) against cannabis businesses in California in recent months. Even though the defendant entity apparently held state and local approvals for its cannabis manufacturing activity, it was allegedly violating the terms of those approvals by engaging in illegal dumping of hazardous waste and thereby jeopardizing the health of the community. Similar to the federal government’s team efforts with California authorities last summer to target illegal cannabis grows on public land, the current case targets alleged activity that would be illegal under any state’s law and would trigger environmental concerns, even though enforcement of hazardous waste laws against cannabis operators was not a stated concern of the Cole Memo.
So what does this case mean for cannabis operators when it comes to future federal enforcement activity? No one can say for sure, so long as commercial cannabis activity remains illegal under federal law. But from past and current observations, it seems that federal enforcement resources are largely being directed towards cannabis activity that implicates one or more Cole Memo priorities, and most notably activities that involve organized crime and environmental concerns. It does not seem that federal enforcement activity is being or will imminently be directed towards commercial cannabis operations that are in compliance with state and local law (and federal laws other than those that prohibit cannabis), hold valid permits and licenses, and are generally behaving as good members of the community. And that is very good news.
While the charged conduct described in this case is extremely serious, the most notable part of the indictment is what’s missing: any mention whatsoever of the Controlled Substances Act or other federal law pertaining to the illegality of defendants’ cannabis business. Indeed, the indictment expressly alleges that the charged defendant “was engaged in the business of extracting oils from cannabis,” and the California Department of Public Health’s online license search tool indicates that the business appeared to have both local and state approval to conduct the extraction activities. In other words, despite the parties all but stipulating to the fact that the defendant company was engaged in federally illegal cannabis activity, the federal government decided not to charge anyone for that conduct, and instead focused only on the violation of hazardous waste laws.
Federal enforcement against state-licensed cannabis operators has come a long way in the past decade, from active enforcement to the 2013 Cole Memo to its rescission and the selective enforcement actions that have followed—the instant case falling within the latter category. Likewise, federal courts have continued to refine their legal analysis when it comes to the commercial cannabis industry, finding more and more frequently that commercial contracts involving cannabis businesses will be enforced, particularly if doing so will not force a party to actively violate the Controlled Substances Act.
The current case is consistent with other federal enforcement activity (or lack thereof) against cannabis businesses in California in recent months. Even though the defendant entity apparently held state and local approvals for its cannabis manufacturing activity, it was allegedly violating the terms of those approvals by engaging in illegal dumping of hazardous waste and thereby jeopardizing the health of the community. Similar to the federal government’s team efforts with California authorities last summer to target illegal cannabis grows on public land, the current case targets alleged activity that would be illegal under any state’s law and would trigger environmental concerns, even though enforcement of hazardous waste laws against cannabis operators was not a stated concern of the Cole Memo.
So what does this case mean for cannabis operators when it comes to future federal enforcement activity? No one can say for sure, so long as commercial cannabis activity remains illegal under federal law. But from past and current observations, it seems that federal enforcement resources are largely being directed towards cannabis activity that implicates one or more Cole Memo priorities, and most notably activities that involve organized crime and environmental concerns. It does not seem that federal enforcement activity is being or will imminently be directed towards commercial cannabis operations that are in compliance with state and local law (and federal laws other than those that prohibit cannabis), hold valid permits and licenses, and are generally behaving as good members of the community. And that is very good news.
How Legal Marijuana Is Helping the Black Market
“You’re never going to eliminate [the illicit market] until most of the states are legal,” says Adam Smith of the Craft Cannabis Alliance, a group in Oregon advocating for small cannabis farmers. “As long as half the country still can’t get it legally, there’s a market for it illegally.”
“You’re never going to eliminate [the illicit market] until most of the states are legal,” says Adam Smith of the Craft Cannabis Alliance, a group in Oregon advocating for small cannabis farmers. “As long as half the country still can’t get it legally, there’s a market for it illegally.”
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
I haven’t dived in to her ideas, but if she’s pro *regularization*, then it’s good that she wants her ducts and facts in the appropriate rows...she’ll need it if she plans to push beyond “legalization”