Cannabis News


Well-Known Member
1 in 20 older Americans smoke pot regularly, survey finds
Marijuana use is on the rise among older Americans, with one in 20 saying they had used within the previous month, according to a new study.

Amazing that less than 10% of 55+ guys and less than 4% of such women use the weed in all it myriad forms. They make it sound a bit frightening to use as an elder. Personally I'm 72 and a serious daily user. Its not one of my problems! Au contraire.
1 in 20 , using once in last month is surprisingly low imo.
I would have guessed 1 in 5 or even 1 in 4.


Agent Provocateur
NEWS BRIEFSynthetic cannabinoid partnership devolves into $881 million lawsuit
Published 8 hours ago

(This story has been updated with comments from Amyris.)

A cannabis research and development deal hailed just last March as a $300 million partnership has morphed into a nearly $1 billion court battle.

New York-based Lavvan filed an $881 million suit against its partner, California-headquartered Amyris, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and patent infringement.

According to a news release, Lavvan specifically accused the company of stealing secrets to synthetic cannabinoids such as CBG.

The two companies entered into a research, collaboration and license agreement in March 2019, but Lavvan contends in its lawsuit that Amyris broke the terms of the deal and said it had no other recourse but to file suit.

“Rather than fulfill its obligations to Lavvan under the agreement, Amyris has decided to transform from partner to direct competitor, in flagrant violation of Lavvan’s rights,” CEO Neil Closner said in the release.

In a statement released Thursday morning, Amyris CEO John Melo said the company was “disappointed” that Lavvan had chosen to take the disagreement to court.

“Amyris has not breached the … agreement with Lavvan, and we will continue to operate in accordance with its terms,” Melo said.

“We will pursue our legal rights to the fullest extent possible, including a vigorous defense against any assertions made by Lavvan.”

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

Amyris trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol AMRS. Lavvan is a privately held company.



Agent Provocateur
Nebraska high court kills 2020 medical marijuana initiative
Max Savage LevensonSeptember 10, 2020
Share Print
Image Test

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that a medical marijuana initiative violates the state's election rules, thereby knocking it off the Nov. 3, 2020, statewide ballot. (Michał Chodyra/iStock)

In a crushing blow to patients across Nebraska, the state’s supreme court today issued a ruling that will effectively knock the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Constitutional Amendment, the voter initiative to legalize medical cannabis, off the Nov. 3 ballot.

The court’s ruling came after legalization opponents argued that the initiative “causes confusion” and violates a state law that limits any initiative to a single issue. Using medical marijuana and producing it for sale, they argued, are two separate issues.

“We are absolutely devastated by the Supreme Court ruling.”
– Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana
The high court justices agreed, siding with Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner (R), who filed the lawsuit challenging the initiative.

The decision marks the end of an otherwise triumphant campaign that garnered overwhelming support across the Cornhusker State.

Medical marijuana advocates were shocked and angered by the decision.

“Our opponents are cowards,” said Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, in a statement. “This is an outrageous and deeply flawed decision by a group of activist judges. This ruling means that sick and suffering medical marijuana patients, including veterans, will continue to be criminals in Nebraska when they try to live healthier lives.”

At issue: the ‘single-subject’ rule
Wagner and his lawyer, Mark Fahleson, the former chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party, made the case that the medical marijuana initiative violated the state’s ‘single-subject’ rule, which requires any ballot measures to adhere to a single subject.

“Our opponents are cowards.”
– Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project
Prior to the court’s decision, Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) had certified the measure, implying that using and producing medical cannabis were in fact a single subject. He referred to his decision, however, as a “close call.”

In their ruling, the court majority sided with Wagner, writing that “[the initiative’s] general subject and various other provisions lack any natural and necessary connection with each other. We agree.”

Dissenting judges call bullshit
In their dissenting opinion, Justices Jonathan Papik and Lindsey Miller-Lerman began by stating the obvious: You can’t consume cannabis if you don’t have any to consume.

“A right of individuals to use cannabis for medicinal purposes is meaningful only if individuals can access cannabis,” Judge Papik wrote. “Some means of access is naturally and necessarily related to use.”

But Papik and Miller-Lerman didn’t stop there. They went on to argue that overturning the initiative threatened the foundational role of the people’s voice in shaping democracy—in this case the nearly 200,000 Nebraskans from across the state who signed in favor of putting the initiative on the ballot, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

“I am concerned that today’s decision has squeezed the concept of single subject…such that the people’s right to initiative has been diminished,” Papik wrote.

Activists look to the 2021 legislative session
The court’s decision triggered an immediate outpouring of grief and anger among activists and supporters.

“Like all of you, we are absolutely devastated by the Supreme Court ruling,” leaders of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana wrote on their Facebook page.

Yet the campaign also hinted at a potential path forward in a separate post. State Senator Anna Wishart (D), a co-sponsor of the initiative, may craft new legislation when the legislature returns in January if she is re-elected this November.

“This fight is not over,” wrote officials at Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana. “Nothing changes the fact that an overwhelming majority of Nebraskans stand with the patients and families who deserve compassion and safe access to medical cannabis.


International Man of Misanthropy
Staff member
States plow forward with pot, with or without Congress

Roughly 1 in 3 Americans could have access to legal recreational marijuana if voters approve state ballot initiatives this November.

While a planned House vote on legalizing weed at the federal level is scheduled for later this month, the real action remains in the states. That’s because even if the House measure passes, there’s zero chance the Republican-controlled Senate will take up the bill, which would eliminate federal criminal penalties and erase some past marijuana convictions.

The biggest stakes are in New Jersey and Arizona, where polling suggests voters will back recreational sales.


Agent Provocateur
Weed falling from the sky! 2020 is finally looking up
Bruce BarcottSeptember 3, 2020
Share Print
Image Test

An Israeli legalization group dropped packets of cannabis from a drone to give the nation a little cheer during a rough year. (AdobeStock)

In a blessed bit of good news delivered this morning, apparently cannabis is falling from the sky in Tel Aviv.

Reuters and local news outlets have reported that a drone dropped packets of green leafy material from the airspace over Rabin Square, a prominent gathering spot in the Israeli city, on Thursday afternoon.

‘The time has come’
It’s unclear whether the plastic packets of weed contained actual marijuana—but the symbolism and purpose was clear. “The time has come,” said the Green Drone pro-legalization group on its website. “Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s the Green Drone sending you free cannabis from the skies.”

A report on Inquisitr said: “One of the men, identified only as ‘Mr. K,’ had previously said that it was his patriotic duty to rain down cannabis on the country, considering the bad mood that Israel has been in of-late.”

‘A dangerous drug.’ Really?
Tel Aviv police said they arrested two men who operated the drone. In a statement, law enforcement officials said they suspected the baggies contained “a dangerous drug.”

That’s a curious statement, because cannabis is a far less dangerous drug than alcohol or tobacco. So maybe it wasn’t cannabis.

The drop proved to be quite popular with passersby. Says Reuters: “Footage showed people walking through busy traffic to pick up packets that had fallen on a road.”

A preview of things to come
In possibly related news, Amazon obtained F.A.A. approval earlier this week to begin drone delivery of packages to customers. David Carbon, vice president of Prime Air, said in a statement that Amazon would “continue to develop and refine our technology to fully integrate delivery drones into the airspace, and work closely with the F.A.A. and other regulators around the world to realize our vision of 30-minute delivery.”

Other regulators “around the world.” You picking up what I’m laying down here?

Weed delivery by drone is coming. Tel Aviv just enjoyed a tiny little taste.

C No Ego

Well-Known Member


International Man of Misanthropy
Staff member


International Man of Misanthropy
Staff member
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Barbara Lee warn moderate Democrats against delaying marijuana reform bill

Progressive House Democrats, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Barbara Lee, warned their more moderate congressional colleagues Wednesday against delaying a vote on a marijuana reform bill that enjoys growing bipartisan support.

House punts marijuana vote
Marijuana legalization will not get a floor vote in the House until after Election Day, a House Democratic member and several Democratic aides said Thursday.

The MORE Act would remove federal penalties for marijuana, erase some criminal records and create grant programs for people affected by the War on Drugs. House leaders had said earlier this month the bill would come to a vote the week of Sept. 21. Over the last few days, however, they raised pushing it to later in the year to concentrate on getting a coronavirus deal done before the election.
Last edited:


unbearably light in the being....
Well...okay. I can see the point of that. Holding the senate’s face to the fire on Covid before the election may help flip the senate...and gods know we NEED to flip the senate. A veto-proof majority in both chambers, if you please.

I still say, removal of cannabis from the Schedule ought to be accompanied by vacating state and local laws re: cannabis - even it only applies to laws and penalties created since the Schedule was created...although I absolutely believe it ought to apply to any and all such laws and penalties since Prohibition was first enacted federally. Many of the swine opposing the descheduling are the same swine that invested heavily in for-profit prisons and are currently profiting from the coronavirus shitfest


Well-Known Member
Over the last few days, however, they raised pushing it to later in the year to concentrate on getting a coronavirus deal done before the election.
It's a vote. On a completed bill. That is not going to get a veto proof majority no matter who joins on. How much time would a vote take?

It is total BS there is not enough time for this. If the bill was unfinished or there was a need to get a few more people on board, maybe. That is not the case here.

The Democrats talk a great game in getting cannabis legal. However, when they do it, they don't remove laws but add on more. I think CA was great as a medical state. As a recreational one, it is less great. The regulations to make sure the state gets its "cut" are what make it less.

While the Dems are saying they are the friends of the cannabis consumer, when they do get all on board and someday pass a bill that may actually become law, there is zero chance there won't be some revenue mechanism attached.
  • Like
Reactions: Shrike


International Man of Misanthropy
Staff member
Politicians on either side are acting like the wishy-washy elected folk they are, willing to put off until tomorrow on what they could easily do today. Who's surprised? I'm glad I live in Washington State. I don't know how we did it, but I pay far less than I did in 1980 for quality tested (not pesticides) cannabis. I used to listen with such envy to the Dopefiend Podcast as they'd try different strains. Now I'm there. I'm as happy as a potted clam.


Flower Potted, Maxed & Rio'd
Politicians make NO decisions without always pondering two questions:

1. What's in it for me (Riches/Power)?
2. How will this help further or hinder my reelection chances?

How it may enrich the lives of their constituents isn't even a fucking afterthought...

As I've said before...FUCK'EM All! :nod::bang:


Agent Provocateur
I don't trust any politician. Why isn't legalization on the democratic platform ? If they are so pro weed. Biden and Harris have both been anti cannabis crusaders and now all of a sudden they are "rethinking" their position on cannabis ? Whatever is more politically expedient for them. I don't want to get started on the republican party. The party that was suppose to champion individual freedoms. JAJAJA . Like I said I don't trust politicians period. :rofl: I never thought about term limits until now. We need to get rid of the lifelong politicians and do nothing two party system.


Well-Known Member what y’all want to replace it with - and HOW are you going to replace it?

serious question
It's clear a certain segment of the population want to tear down the structure because they believe it is inherently bad. For them, replacement is through revolution.

Some, such as myself, would prefer people recognize the reality that government is power. Power is always going to be used to benefit those who wield it. The only way to limit that reality is to limit government. The Constitution gave us a good guide on how to do that.

We don't need to "replace" so much as return to a limited constitutional government.



unbearably light in the being....
I quite agree - but that’s on us to not fall for the “patriotic” marketing & keep our eyes on the prize, you might say.


Well-Known Member
Having got wiped out in the Bush recession, I am very thankful that I had Social Security to fall back on. I'm poor but it gives me some basic income in my declining years (after I contributed to it for many years). I guess if you are young you have very little appreciation for how important it is to have some backstop for the period when you are getting too old to work. I am also able to get healthcare through Medicare at a reasonable cost. Social Security, Medicare, guess why we have those? Progressive politicians. I lived in southern California as a boy. In those days we had terrible smog. During my boyhood standards were worked out and applied to vehicles and gasoline. That brown photo-chemical smog in L.A. is no longer world famous. Guess who made that possible? It wasn't corporations and it wasn't churches. Wasn't charities and it wasn't volunteers. It absolutely was not people "doing for self". It was good government.

Much as I am concerned about cannabis and its legal status, the issue pales into insignificance next to some really big, important things that are going on in the world today. If your only issue, the single litmus test you apply to all politicians, is the cannabis issue, you are overlooking some things that could affect your future in very important ways. For example (and this is just one, I could provide dozens), are you going to vote for someone who acknowledges the peer-reviewed science which tells us that human-caused global warming is a threat to us? Or the other guy? (or are you going to whine that nothing matters, not bother to vote and let others of a strong opinion decide for you?) I just had to evacuate with my dog the other day from a shitstorm of a fire in Oregon. It stopped about 2 miles from my house. This stuff is no joke to me. Marijuana is important to me but maybe it's less important than getting burned up or leaving a habitable world to my offspring.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Some, such as myself, would prefer people recognize the reality that government is power. Power is always going to be used to benefit those who wield it. The only way to limit that reality is to limit government. The Constitution gave us a good guide on how to do that.
I disagree with the bold part of your statement. If the only way to limit the reality in which power benefits those who wield it is to limit government, that implies that government is the only place where power concentrates. However, should we limit government power, there's other hierarchical structures still in place. These structures benefit from limiting government power, as this removes the limits government currently puts on these structures. The hierarchical structure I'm most worried about becoming the next monster after government has been dealt with, is that of big business. Even now their influence on government and policy, or even on seemingly objective institutions such as education, is noticeable to say the least. Without the government controlling them, and in the hands of a vastly wealthy and powerful elite, there's nothing standing in the way of unrestricted exploitation of workers and the environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% anti government. But getting rid of a hierarchy under a government to see it replaced with a hierarchy under big business hardly seems like an improvement. The limiting of the power of government doesn't benefit the people as long as the power of the wealthy is unrestricted.
Top Bottom