They will also require semen, stool and blood samples. Your last 6 paystubs, your finger prints and your first daughter's virginity.
ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
- Thread starter JJScorpio
- Start date
- Status
They will also require semen, stool and blood samples. Your last 6 paystubs, your finger prints and your first daughter's virginity.
R
rick shaw
The scariest thing is this important election will probably be decided by less then 70 percent of eligible voters.
localhero
Member
rick,
theres no such thing as 100% of eligible voters voting. 70% seems really high. FUCK cooley. oh man could you imagine cooley and whitman? regardless of where you land on 19, those two need to go. ahh all these crappy things in the future. heres the song to go with this election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEQtkLNTmRs
theres no such thing as 100% of eligible voters voting. 70% seems really high. FUCK cooley. oh man could you imagine cooley and whitman? regardless of where you land on 19, those two need to go. ahh all these crappy things in the future. heres the song to go with this election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEQtkLNTmRs
WOW you guys taking a break lol 
lol, you're kiddin' right? ...you don't really believe this
shit do ya? ...what are they gonna do, a house to house?
i mean come on, my garden has been running steady
for nigh on 3 years now and not once have i had an
inspector come by to make sure i'm up to code, lol.
truth is, i'd bet there are those here who've had their
gardens going many years more than me who've not
been inspected either, lol.
for real, if you don't tell them you are one of those
who have a garden, how will they know to come and
inspect?
and if you get popped for something else and they find
your garden, what the fuck they gonna do, shut you down, lol?
fact is, my house has NEVER been searched by LEO, not
once in over 50 years of life, so i ask you again, do you
really believe this shit, lol?
peace, SOG
Can you quote the section of the bill that mentions inspectors, ordinances, codes or firey hoops?
I only ask because I have read the Prop like 3 times and I missed all that stuff each time.
Ain't no code, homie. Post it up.
You're just blowing smoke, right? You haven't read a single thing in the Prop or elsewhere that suggests that this will happen. If you have, post it up. With links. Thanks.
right now it is the states job to prove you are guilty when dealing with canabis. if that law passed it would be your job to prove yourself innocent. thats because laws on tax evasion work differently to laws on criminal acts. thats why they want to attach tax to it. it makes prsecutions easier.
BigBudBill
Member
stink.whistler
Member
mule420
Member
It's coming to Colorado in 2012... Like it or not it's rolling 
Mods please delete this if you feel it's off track 
Gene Davis, DDN Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Although many issues separate the Democrat and Republican candidates running for State House District 2, the contenders agree on one thing Ń marijuana should be legal for adults.
Having Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, and Doc Miller, his Republican opponent in the upcoming election, both publicly support the decriminalization of marijuana has some activists giddy about the changes in public opinion towards the drug.
“I think it’s a good sign that marijuana reform is becoming a widely accepted position,” said Mason Tvert of Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), a group that points out the ways they perceive marijuana to be less harmful than alcohol. “We see Democrats and Republicans not only both voicing public support for reforming marijuana laws, but in some sense often vying to see who can support them more.”
Ferrandino, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said legalizing marijuana would help the state’s pocketbook, which is facing an additional $75 million shortfall next budget year and a potential $1 billion shortfall the following year. 9News reported this week that the city of Denver collected more than $1 million in sales tax revenue from medical marijuana from December-April.
“If you legalize it and you tax it, you’re going to increase the amount of revenue to the state,” Ferrandino said. Miller, a lawyer challenging Ferrandino for his House District 2 seat, added that legalizing marijuana would result in fewer people in jail, less money spent by the state, and allow him as an attorney to “stop fishing them out one at a time.”
“My solution to the drug war is to do like we did with prohibition when we realized that didn’t work Ń legalize marijuana,” he said.
Denver Police officers are trained to recognize when someone is driving and under the influence of drugs. Officers can also call over a “Drug Recognition Expert” police officer to conduct tests and further identify the signs of someone driving under the influence of drugs.
However, police officers don’t have a device like a Breathalyzer that can determine on scene whether someone is definitively on drugs. DPD Spokesman Sonny Jackson said that the police department isn’t made up of scientists or inventors who could invent such a device, so they must rely on their training.
Jeremy Rosenthal, an attorney who specializes in DUI cases, said it’s very tough for cops and the state to prove in court that a person was driving under the influence of drugs because there is no near-foolproof test like a Breathalyzer.
“They usually only win those cases when the cop actually sees the person smoking,” he said.
Rosenthal added that he has seen more clients who are charged with driving under the influence of drugs since the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Because the Denver Police Department doesn’t have a separate ticket for driving under the influence of marijuana, it’s impossible to say how many people have been arrested or cited for it, Jackson said.
However, recent polling shows that nearly half of Coloradans support the legalization of marijuana, and as U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said earlier this year, having multiple lawmakers publicly talk about legalizing marijuana would have been unheard of only 10 years ago.
“The time for debate and discussion has definitely come,” said Ferrandino.
http://thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=8969
Mods please delete this if you feel it's off track Gene Davis, DDN Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Although many issues separate the Democrat and Republican candidates running for State House District 2, the contenders agree on one thing Ń marijuana should be legal for adults.
Having Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, and Doc Miller, his Republican opponent in the upcoming election, both publicly support the decriminalization of marijuana has some activists giddy about the changes in public opinion towards the drug.
“I think it’s a good sign that marijuana reform is becoming a widely accepted position,” said Mason Tvert of Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), a group that points out the ways they perceive marijuana to be less harmful than alcohol. “We see Democrats and Republicans not only both voicing public support for reforming marijuana laws, but in some sense often vying to see who can support them more.”
Ferrandino, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said legalizing marijuana would help the state’s pocketbook, which is facing an additional $75 million shortfall next budget year and a potential $1 billion shortfall the following year. 9News reported this week that the city of Denver collected more than $1 million in sales tax revenue from medical marijuana from December-April.
“If you legalize it and you tax it, you’re going to increase the amount of revenue to the state,” Ferrandino said. Miller, a lawyer challenging Ferrandino for his House District 2 seat, added that legalizing marijuana would result in fewer people in jail, less money spent by the state, and allow him as an attorney to “stop fishing them out one at a time.”
“My solution to the drug war is to do like we did with prohibition when we realized that didn’t work Ń legalize marijuana,” he said.
A regulated environment
Although he supports the legalization of marijuana, Ferrandino said the industry would have to be regulated in order to avoid a “wild, wild West” type of environment. He believes the biggest hurdle to legalization is making sure that police officers could definitively tell whether someone was driving under the influence of marijuana.Denver Police officers are trained to recognize when someone is driving and under the influence of drugs. Officers can also call over a “Drug Recognition Expert” police officer to conduct tests and further identify the signs of someone driving under the influence of drugs.
However, police officers don’t have a device like a Breathalyzer that can determine on scene whether someone is definitively on drugs. DPD Spokesman Sonny Jackson said that the police department isn’t made up of scientists or inventors who could invent such a device, so they must rely on their training.
Jeremy Rosenthal, an attorney who specializes in DUI cases, said it’s very tough for cops and the state to prove in court that a person was driving under the influence of drugs because there is no near-foolproof test like a Breathalyzer.
“They usually only win those cases when the cop actually sees the person smoking,” he said.
Rosenthal added that he has seen more clients who are charged with driving under the influence of drugs since the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Because the Denver Police Department doesn’t have a separate ticket for driving under the influence of marijuana, it’s impossible to say how many people have been arrested or cited for it, Jackson said.
Public support
Ferrandino believes the path to marijuana legalization must go through the voters. Tvert, who originally considered putting an initiative on this year’s ballot asking voters to legalize marijuana, will likely wait until 2012 to bring the measure forward because of funding issues.However, recent polling shows that nearly half of Coloradans support the legalization of marijuana, and as U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said earlier this year, having multiple lawmakers publicly talk about legalizing marijuana would have been unheard of only 10 years ago.
“The time for debate and discussion has definitely come,” said Ferrandino.
http://thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=8969
BigBudBill
Member
We are approaching the "tipping point". Here's your signs:
“We see Democrats and Republicans not only both voicing public support for reforming marijuana laws, but in some sense often vying to see who can support them more.”
"“The time for debate and discussion has definitely come,” said Ferrandino."
“We see Democrats and Republicans not only both voicing public support for reforming marijuana laws, but in some sense often vying to see who can support them more.”
"“The time for debate and discussion has definitely come,” said Ferrandino."
BigBudBill
Member
yeah like that's not been happening up there for 40 years
Interesting read...
Source: Atlantic Monthly, The (US)
Author: Mark Kleiman
AGAINST COMMERCIAL CANNABIS
Two items on my list of drug-policy reforms drew the most flak in comments: the abolition of the minimum legal drinking age and the non-commercial legalization of cannabis.
Note that the drinking-age idea was paired with a tenfold increase in alcohol taxes to about a dollar a drink, roughly doubling the retail price of alcohol. That, plus a zero-tolerance policy on drinking and driving for teenagers, would get you most of the benefits of the current 21-year-old MLDA ( and lots of benefits the MLDA can't provide ) without making tens of millions of teenagers into scofflaws. It's a good general principle that a law that's widely broken is a bad law, and 90% of American 18-year-olds have sampled alcohol, despite the laws against it.
On the cannabis front, my plea is for a "grow-your-own" policy: consumers would be allowed to cultivate pot for their own use, to give it away, or to join small consumer-owned co-ops to produce the stuff for them. No commercial sales.
"Why not?" demanded several outraged commenters. Why allow use but not sale?
Two words provide the gist of the answer: marketing and lobbying. A legal cannabis industry, like the legal beer industry, the legal tobacco industry, the legal fast-food and junk-food industries, and the legal gambling industry, would do everything in its power to expand its sales, including taking political action to weaken whatever regulations and minimize whatever taxes were imposed.
Well, again, why not? What's wrong with persuading someone to engage in what would be a perfectly lawful behavior?
Nothing, if the behavior is harmless as well as lawful. Everything, if the behavior predictably inflicts harm on the person being persuaded.
But cannabis use ( like drinking, eating, and gambling ) is harmless to most of the people who engage in it. Is it wrong to suggest that someone start a potentially benign activity simply because it might turn into a bad habit?
Might. "Aye, there's the rub." To the consumer, developing a bad habit is bad news. To the marketing executive, it's the whole point of the exercise. For any potentially addictive commodity or activity, the minority that gets stuck with a bad habit consumes the majority of the product. So the entire marketing effort is devoted to cultivating and maintaining the people whose use is a problem to them and a gold mine to the industry.
Take alcohol, for example. Divide the population into deciles by annual drinking volume. The top decile starts at four drinks a day, averaged year-round. That group consumes half of all the alcohol sold. The next decile does from two to four drinks a day. Those folks sop up the next thirty percent. Casual drinkers - people who have two drinks a day or less - take up only 20% of the total volume. The booze companies cannot afford to have their customers "drink in moderation."
The relationship is obvious once you think about it. One of what the beer commercials of my youth called "real beer drinkers - people who drink a case or more of beer a week" is worth two dozen people who only consume a drink a week, which is roughly the national median.
Not everyone in those top two deciles has a diagnosable drinking problem; you could have four drinks every day and never be actively drunk. But that's not the typical pattern. Most of those folks have an alcohol abuse disorder. And they're the target market. "An innkeeper loves a drunkard," says the Yiddish proverb, "except as a son-in-law."
Since the alcoholic beverage industries are as dependent on alcohol abuse as a chronic drunk is on his wake-up drink, they fiercely resist any effective policies for curtailing it, starting with higher taxes. ( Contrary to myth, taxation takes most of its bit out of heavy drinking rather than casual drinking, because alcohol is a much bigger budget item for heavy drinkers. ) Would it be technologically possible to have package clerks and bartenders check customers against a list of people who had lost their legal drinking privileges as a result of a criminal conviction for drunk driving or drunken assault? Sure it would. Would the industry hold still for it? No way.
So the prospect of a legal cannabis industry working hard to produce as many chronic stoners as possible, and fighting hard against any sort of effective regulation, fills me with fear. I don't believe that the actual tobacco companies would enter the cannabis market, but I don't doubt that the cannabis companies that would emerge from full commercial legalization would have all of morals the tobacco outfits morals, and a less tainted product to sell.
The rate of problem use among cannabis users is lower than the rate of problem drinking among drinkers ( lifetime risk of about 10% v. lifetime risk of at least 15% ) but that's under conditions of illegality and high price. The risks of chronic heavy cannabis use aren't as dramatic as the risks of chronic heavy drinking - the stuff doesn't kill neurons or rot your liver, and generates less crazy behavior than beer - but that doesn't make those risks negligible. Ask any parent whose fifteen-year-old has decided that cannabis is more fun than geometry. Of the 10% of cannabis smokers who become heavy daily smokers for a while, the median duration of the first spell of heavy use ( not counting the risks of relapse ) is 44 months. That's not a small chunk to take out a lifetime, especially a young lifetime.
Cannabis isn't harmful enough to be worth banning. But that doesn't mean that it's safe to give America's marketing geniuses a new vice to peddle.
Source: Atlantic Monthly, The (US)
Author: Mark Kleiman
AGAINST COMMERCIAL CANNABIS
Two items on my list of drug-policy reforms drew the most flak in comments: the abolition of the minimum legal drinking age and the non-commercial legalization of cannabis.
Note that the drinking-age idea was paired with a tenfold increase in alcohol taxes to about a dollar a drink, roughly doubling the retail price of alcohol. That, plus a zero-tolerance policy on drinking and driving for teenagers, would get you most of the benefits of the current 21-year-old MLDA ( and lots of benefits the MLDA can't provide ) without making tens of millions of teenagers into scofflaws. It's a good general principle that a law that's widely broken is a bad law, and 90% of American 18-year-olds have sampled alcohol, despite the laws against it.
On the cannabis front, my plea is for a "grow-your-own" policy: consumers would be allowed to cultivate pot for their own use, to give it away, or to join small consumer-owned co-ops to produce the stuff for them. No commercial sales.
"Why not?" demanded several outraged commenters. Why allow use but not sale?
Two words provide the gist of the answer: marketing and lobbying. A legal cannabis industry, like the legal beer industry, the legal tobacco industry, the legal fast-food and junk-food industries, and the legal gambling industry, would do everything in its power to expand its sales, including taking political action to weaken whatever regulations and minimize whatever taxes were imposed.
Well, again, why not? What's wrong with persuading someone to engage in what would be a perfectly lawful behavior?
Nothing, if the behavior is harmless as well as lawful. Everything, if the behavior predictably inflicts harm on the person being persuaded.
But cannabis use ( like drinking, eating, and gambling ) is harmless to most of the people who engage in it. Is it wrong to suggest that someone start a potentially benign activity simply because it might turn into a bad habit?
Might. "Aye, there's the rub." To the consumer, developing a bad habit is bad news. To the marketing executive, it's the whole point of the exercise. For any potentially addictive commodity or activity, the minority that gets stuck with a bad habit consumes the majority of the product. So the entire marketing effort is devoted to cultivating and maintaining the people whose use is a problem to them and a gold mine to the industry.
Take alcohol, for example. Divide the population into deciles by annual drinking volume. The top decile starts at four drinks a day, averaged year-round. That group consumes half of all the alcohol sold. The next decile does from two to four drinks a day. Those folks sop up the next thirty percent. Casual drinkers - people who have two drinks a day or less - take up only 20% of the total volume. The booze companies cannot afford to have their customers "drink in moderation."
The relationship is obvious once you think about it. One of what the beer commercials of my youth called "real beer drinkers - people who drink a case or more of beer a week" is worth two dozen people who only consume a drink a week, which is roughly the national median.
Not everyone in those top two deciles has a diagnosable drinking problem; you could have four drinks every day and never be actively drunk. But that's not the typical pattern. Most of those folks have an alcohol abuse disorder. And they're the target market. "An innkeeper loves a drunkard," says the Yiddish proverb, "except as a son-in-law."
Since the alcoholic beverage industries are as dependent on alcohol abuse as a chronic drunk is on his wake-up drink, they fiercely resist any effective policies for curtailing it, starting with higher taxes. ( Contrary to myth, taxation takes most of its bit out of heavy drinking rather than casual drinking, because alcohol is a much bigger budget item for heavy drinkers. ) Would it be technologically possible to have package clerks and bartenders check customers against a list of people who had lost their legal drinking privileges as a result of a criminal conviction for drunk driving or drunken assault? Sure it would. Would the industry hold still for it? No way.
So the prospect of a legal cannabis industry working hard to produce as many chronic stoners as possible, and fighting hard against any sort of effective regulation, fills me with fear. I don't believe that the actual tobacco companies would enter the cannabis market, but I don't doubt that the cannabis companies that would emerge from full commercial legalization would have all of morals the tobacco outfits morals, and a less tainted product to sell.
The rate of problem use among cannabis users is lower than the rate of problem drinking among drinkers ( lifetime risk of about 10% v. lifetime risk of at least 15% ) but that's under conditions of illegality and high price. The risks of chronic heavy cannabis use aren't as dramatic as the risks of chronic heavy drinking - the stuff doesn't kill neurons or rot your liver, and generates less crazy behavior than beer - but that doesn't make those risks negligible. Ask any parent whose fifteen-year-old has decided that cannabis is more fun than geometry. Of the 10% of cannabis smokers who become heavy daily smokers for a while, the median duration of the first spell of heavy use ( not counting the risks of relapse ) is 44 months. That's not a small chunk to take out a lifetime, especially a young lifetime.
Cannabis isn't harmful enough to be worth banning. But that doesn't mean that it's safe to give America's marketing geniuses a new vice to peddle.
go fuck yourself plz....
there are lots of ways to get a medical rec that don't include "hiding behind sick people"
i have mine for insomnia.
suck it.
yea, but do you 'medicate' in the morning?
S
Serrated Edges
Big business is going to take over, no matter what we do about it...sorry to tell you. It will be like tobacco soon, no more strains. It will be legal to grow, but you will have to pay up the ass in fines, permits, fees, and taxes, so only big business can grow.
You know that the IRS can fine you and imprison you for growing tobacco and not claiming it on your taxes? The very same thing will happen, and the only thing you can do to stop it is to fly a plane into an IRS building...
You know that the IRS can fine you and imprison you for growing tobacco and not claiming it on your taxes? The very same thing will happen, and the only thing you can do to stop it is to fly a plane into an IRS building...
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
question for sam the skunkman on the original haze- Latest: mexcurandero420
-
Blowfish F2s from Three Little Birds Recently Popped
- Latest: Tynehead Tom
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
question for sam the skunkman on the original haze
- Latest: mexcurandero420
-
Blowfish F2s from Three Little Birds Recently Popped
- Latest: Tynehead Tom
-
-
