Cannabis News

macbill

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Marijuana on the ballot, 9 states to vote on cannabis in November

Voters in five states - California, Nevada, Arizona, Massachusetts and Maine will be deciding whether to legalize Marijuana for recreational use. Voters in Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas and Florida will be considering legalizing medical Cannabis.

If the measures pass, they would join the 29 states and the District of Columbia that already have laws on the books, ,allowing some form of legal pot.
 
macbill

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
The Complicated Connections Between Legal Hydroponics and the Marijuana Black Market

According to market research firm IBISWorld, the hydroponic gardening retail industry has experienced annual growth of 8.2 percent since 2011, generates $654 million in annual revenue, and employs 11,721 people across the country. "Industry revenue is forecast to continue rising over the five years to 2021, as a result of rising popularity of quality organic produce along with increases in the market for both medical and recreational marijuana," their analysis states.
 
looney2nz

looney2nz

Research Geek, Mad Scientist
macbill said:
Court Upholds Ban on Gun Sales to Medical Marijuana Card Holders
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a federal ban on selling guns to medical marijuana card holders doesn't violate the Second Amendment.

Because drunk shooters are more responsible than stoned ones.
Click to expand...

oy vey :( so some poor shmuck who lives in the foothills can't have a shotgun or a magnum to protect their property from bears and mountain lions? this is so idiotic.
 
Baron23

Baron23

Well-Known Member
Please remember, this ruling was by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out of that bastion of 2nd amendment logic and reason, San Fransisco (:bang:)

And I agree with above...quite frankly I would rather have someone baked on MJ with a gun than a drunk.

In any case, its a nonsensical ruling and there is absolutely no provisions in the 2nd amendment to deny this individual right based on what intoxicants you use. They just making this shit up.

Now, if HRC gets elected (yes, she's not as indictable as you may think LOL), she will appoint a liberal to the SCOTUS and they will continue to make up rights and restrictions as they see fit base on their ever so self-righteous judgment of what rules need to be in place for contemporary society...as they see it. sigh.

Back to the 9th Court of Appeals...have you ever noticed that liberals are mostly liberal about taxing people who make money to buy votes from people who don't. But when it comes to "liberal" in the sense of the Government staying the fuck out of our personal business...well, not so much there, tiger. No, in these cases its really important that they impose their view of society on the rest of us.

Before you jump on me, I'm no fan of Trump. But I'm also no fan of the Democrat party's never ending efforts to regulate all aspects of my life...for my own good, of course.

If Scalia lived today, this ruling from the 9th would probably have the life span of a gnat.

Cheers
 
macbill

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Baron23

Baron23

Well-Known Member
macbill said:
Middle-aged parents now more likely to be using marijuana than their teen kids

Smoking weed is often seen as an indulgence reserved for the young and the reckless: kids get high, in the popular imagination, but by and large their parents don’t.

But new federal data show a stunning reversal of that age-old stereotype. Middle-aged Americans are now slightly more likely to use marijuana than their teenage children.
Click to expand...
I saw that article and my only comment is that they really don't have a methodology (that I can tell) to seperate those older folks who are now using MJ and those who used MJ in the past and would feel compelled to lie about it.

I don't really believe that 55-64 y.o. use is up 455%.....rather I think that people are feeling more free to admit it and are more rebellious about the ludicrous laws on MJ that are still in place. Of course, these are my motives and emotions so I might just be projecting all of this. LOL

Thanks for posting the article.
 
KimDracula

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Baron23 said:
Please remember, this ruling was by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out of that bastion of 2nd amendment logic and reason, San Fransisco (:bang:)

And I agree with above...quite frankly I would rather have someone baked on MJ with a gun than a drunk.

In any case, its a nonsensical ruling and there is absolutely no provisions in the 2nd amendment to deny this individual right based on what intoxicants you use. They just making this shit up.

Now, if HRC gets elected (yes, she's not as indictable as you may think LOL), she will appoint a liberal to the SCOTUS and they will continue to make up rights and restrictions as they see fit base on their ever so self-righteous judgment of what rules need to be in place for contemporary society...as they see it. sigh.

Back to the 9th Court of Appeals...have you ever noticed that liberals are mostly liberal about taxing people who make money to buy votes from people who don't. But when it comes to "liberal" in the sense of the Government staying the fuck out of our personal business...well, not so much there, tiger. No, in these cases its really important that they impose their view of society on the rest of us.

Before you jump on me, I'm no fan of Trump. But I'm also no fan of the Democrat party's never ending efforts to regulate all aspects of my life...for my own good, of course.

If Scalia lived today, this ruling from the 9th would probably have the life span of a gnat.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Your perception of Liberals is funny. It's not as if there are many meaningful restrictions on the Second Amendment (which always seems more important to Conservatives than the First, strangely). It's also not as though discriminating against cannabis users is a Liberal tenet. I think it would be more fair to keep your criticism regarding what the 9th Circuit has done on this particular decision to those who sit on that bench.

Thankfully, Scalia is dead and gone. The man was a villain.
 
Baron23

Baron23

Well-Known Member
KimDracula said:
Your perception of Liberals is funny. It's not as if there are many meaningful restrictions on the Second Amendment (which always seems more important to Conservatives than the First, strangely). It's also not as though discriminating against cannabis users is a Liberal tenet. I think it would be more fair to keep your criticism regarding what the 9th Circuit has done on this particular decision to those who sit on that bench.

Thankfully, Scalia is dead and gone. The man was a villain.
Click to expand...

I live in DC and have seen Scalia and Bader-Ginsburg on stage together moderated by Nina Trottenberg of NPR.

Scalia and Ginsburg were dear friends for over 40 years and their family vacationed together. Despite their entirely different judicial philosophy's, they had tremendous respect and affection for one another. I don't think that Bader-Ginsburg, a bastion of the liberal wing of SCOTUS, would agree with your characterization of Scalia. Frankly, after having actually listened to him elucidate his judicial philosophy for a couple of hours during this fascinating evening, I don't either. I firmly believe she certainly would take strong exception to your celebration of his death and your characterization of him as "evil".

As to my characterization of liberals, I'm glad you found it humorous. Not enough laughter in the world.

However, I also listen to Bader-Ginsburg that night as she elucidated her judicial philosophy which is premised on the judges of the SCOTUS reinterpreting the constitution to match society as it evolves. That would be the non-elected, in there for life, judges of the SCOTUS. The issue of who makes the decisions was key to Scalias' philosophy and he felt strongly that judges are not policy makers and I agree. I also find a lot of the debate around this funny as people who seem to want to reinterpret the Constitution based on recent temporal events never seem to mention that there is indeed a process to amend that document. It seems many would rather just do an end run...like trying to run gun manufacturers out of business under liability tort law...just for an example.

Now, as to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals....they are known far and wide as the most left circuit in the country (I will not use the word 'liberal' as I find it an inaccurate misappropriation of that word) and I firmly believe that the body of their decision support this view. I again stand by my view that they are making this stuff up and that this circuit is not reflective of the country as a whole and that this decision is a good example of that.

I also do stand by my view that Democrats are in the business of redistributing wealth to buy votes and re-election AND that they advocate positions Federal policy that is equally intrusive in local and personal matters as any other party including the far right. It also seems to me that the Republican party equally panders to the most base instincts of their constituents and advocate equally inappropriate and intrusive policies....just different ones than the other party. They all seem to understand that the electorate in general most often vote for their own personal short term self-interest and being the venial politicians that they are, they all encourage this.

It seems to me that many folks don't object to these kind of Federal policy intrusions into their life as long as that match up with their personal self-interest and views and only get outraged when its their ox that's up for goring. Sad really.

Yep, I'm still happy with my post as made originally.

Have a great day, Kim.
 
Last edited:
KimDracula

KimDracula

Well-Known Member
Republicans are in the business of redistributing wealth to the already wealthy, attacking voting rights, women's rights, minority rights, scapegoating immigrants, enshrining Christian dominion in the US, allowing discrimination by the religious, ignoring science and the reality of climate change, etc. etc.

You're still making me laugh. What kind of intrusions are you talking about again? The absolute (vague) horror of ... REGULATIONS? Or is it the ubiquitous Republican straw-man: the Dems are coming for your guns after they repeal the Second Amendment?

The Constitution is a living document that has always had to be interpreted. I know Scalia claimed otherwise and purported to be a strict constructionist but he only was when it was convenient for his discriminatory and bigoted views.
 
cybrguy

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Baron23 said:
don't really believe that 55-64 y.o. use is up 455%.....rather I think that people are feeling more free to admit it and are more rebellious about the ludicrous laws on MJ that are still in place. Of course, these are my motives and emotions so I might just be projecting all of this. LOL
Click to expand...
I actually know at least 5 or 6 folks myself who smoked pot in their younger years but stopped when they started having a family, only to return to smoking after the kids left their teenage years. So, I think, a LOT of folks who did and stopped are coming back.

Especially with legalization, tho, while only a partial driver, it is a factor for some. :)
 
Baron23

Baron23

Well-Known Member
CuckFumbustion said:
Backdoor Disarmament? Feds Propose "Banning Sale Of Firearms To Medical Marijuana Card Holders"

Court Upholds Ban on Gun Sales to Medical Marijuana Card Holders

US Court Upholds Ban on Gun Sales to Marijuana Card Holders

The Absurd Reason Medical Marijuana Users Are Banned From Buying Guns
Click to expand...
Ah...yep.

Below is a quote from one of these articles that is a clear, elegant and beautiful summary of my view of this ruling. That and my view that this ruling is just a another dishonest back door attack on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution by gun ownership opponents:

NORML responded to the ruling with this statement from deputy director Paul Armentano:

There is no credible justification for a "marijuana exception" to the U.S. Constitution. Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as do other citizens. It is incumbent that members of Congress act swiftly to amend cannabis’ criminal status in a way that comports with both public and scientific opinion, as well as its rapidly changing legal status under state laws.​
 
BD9

BD9

Well-Known Member
Unfortunate decision for Michigan.

Michigan Supreme Court: Marijuana legalization will not be on the ballot in November
http://wsbt.com/news/local/michigan...ization-will-not-be-on-the-ballot-in-november
The state appeals court and the Michigan Supreme Court each turned down appeals.

A group trying to legalize recreational marijuana submitted 354-thousand signatures to get it on the ballot.

But the Board of State Canvassers said more than 200-thousand were not valid.

That left the group short of enough names.

 
macbill

macbill

Oh No! Mr macbill!!
Staff member
Fentanyl-Maker Donates to Anti-Marijuana Legalization Campaign
A drug company that produces fentanyl, a potent painkiller at least 50 times stronger than morphine, donated $500,000 to a campaign fighting marijuana legalization in Arizona, campaign finance records show. To some legalization advocates, the contribution represents a conflict of interest.

"Accepting this money undermines everything that marijuana prohibitionists say about their desire to protect public health," Marijuana Majority founder Tom Angell told ATTN:. "It's difficult to understand how people who profit from selling a drug like fentanyl can keep a straight face while arguing that marijuana is just too dangerous to legalize."

======================================================
Stanford engineers develop roadside marijuana test
A team led by Stanford professor Shan Wang created a portable device able to detect THC molecules in saliva.


======================================================
Arizona’s governor asked voters to fact-check whether pot is safer than alcohol. So we did.
Arizona is one of five states with marijuana legalization on the ballot this fall, and the state's Republican governor, Doug Ducey, is not happy about it.

Ducey urged voters last week to reject legalization, saying it would exacerbate the state's existing opioid problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom