I know one. It worked well.
Ph.D in Pot & the G.H.W. Bush Legacy
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
I did, I eventually started smoking again but I was vaping for around 9 months and had worked down to 0% nicotine in my fluid before the cigarettes called my name.
So he was a "Care Provider" and he gets to cultivate 10 plants for each customer. He could have thousands of plants if he has hundreds of customers
Sounds like the customers might have been patients as well.
Amen to that.
Is that the PC name for potheads now? Patients?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
In order for the liquor black market to be stifled, you need liquor stores. If there were only one or two liquor stores in a whole state, there's little reason for people to venture all the way to one of them, if they can just get their liquor from their local black market liquor dealer. The reason there are no black market liquor dealers is because there are so many liquor stores. And if you don't buy your liquor from a liquor store, the government doesn't get any tax revenue.
In Michigan if you have your pot card it is.
Many states have legalized cannabis for valid medical purposes. Take the link below and click on a state to view its qualifying conditions:
https://www.leafly.com/news/health/...ate?q=medical conditions by state&cat=article
Are there pot heads in Taiwan?
Derf
Well-known member
I'm in Colorado, and while I consider myself conservative, I was mostly for legalizing recreational marijuana, mainly because I think decisions to smoke weed should be up to the person, rather than up to the government. I think I voted against the legalization amendment to our constitution on a couple of grounds--1. that I don't think it should be specifically addressed in the state constitution, and 2. I didn't like the argument that we could collect "sin" taxes from it, mainly because it is hypocritical to enjoy benefit from the thing you are supposedly trying to reduce or eliminate.
So when it passed, I was ok with it, but wary.
Since then, Colorado's pot production has ballooned, of course. I have a friend who works for the Colorado Springs police department. He says that most of the growers are Cubans from Miami, and that most of the growing is done in normal residences. These residences are converted with heavy ventilation equipment and set up with grow lights. There are odors from the production that waft around the neighborhood. They tend to be in fairly well-to-do neighborhoods, although that may have been a misunderstanding on my part from what my friend said. And the people usually aren't good neighbors. The growers are in it for profit, and not for friendliness.
There are probably lots of weed farms out in the rural areas, and my friend wouldn't know about them.
There have been a few cases of murder associated with these grow houses, due to competition, I think.
Homelessness has risen, due to people coming here from other states just for the pot access.
In my opinion, I look forward to the industrialization of the marijuana, as well as the legalization of it in other states. The first would dispense with the neighborhood problems, and the second would mostly dispense with the additional homelessness problem.
In terms of driving while high or intoxicated, I really don't care what the source is, I would just prefer that proper recompense be made for whatever damage is caused, and my preference is that insurance companies (or most of them) would drop people that drive while under the influence, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for continual bad driving decisions by others.
I do know that vehicle-pedestrian deaths have increased dramatically in Co Springs in recent years, as it has in other states, including some that haven't legalized marijuana. But a report by GHSA (Govt Highway Safety Admin) suggests that either smartphones or marijuana might be to blame for much of it:
www.forbes.com
Here's the original report: https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/pedestrians_18.pdf. And here's the one graph they made that compares pot states to non-pot states:
So when it passed, I was ok with it, but wary.
Since then, Colorado's pot production has ballooned, of course. I have a friend who works for the Colorado Springs police department. He says that most of the growers are Cubans from Miami, and that most of the growing is done in normal residences. These residences are converted with heavy ventilation equipment and set up with grow lights. There are odors from the production that waft around the neighborhood. They tend to be in fairly well-to-do neighborhoods, although that may have been a misunderstanding on my part from what my friend said. And the people usually aren't good neighbors. The growers are in it for profit, and not for friendliness.
There are probably lots of weed farms out in the rural areas, and my friend wouldn't know about them.
There have been a few cases of murder associated with these grow houses, due to competition, I think.
Homelessness has risen, due to people coming here from other states just for the pot access.
In my opinion, I look forward to the industrialization of the marijuana, as well as the legalization of it in other states. The first would dispense with the neighborhood problems, and the second would mostly dispense with the additional homelessness problem.
In terms of driving while high or intoxicated, I really don't care what the source is, I would just prefer that proper recompense be made for whatever damage is caused, and my preference is that insurance companies (or most of them) would drop people that drive while under the influence, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for continual bad driving decisions by others.
I do know that vehicle-pedestrian deaths have increased dramatically in Co Springs in recent years, as it has in other states, including some that haven't legalized marijuana. But a report by GHSA (Govt Highway Safety Admin) suggests that either smartphones or marijuana might be to blame for much of it:
www.forbes.com
| The report also explored potential factors that may have contributed to the increase in fatalities, including state legalization of recreational marijuana and the growth in smartphone use. The report emphasized that while there is no confirmed link between the two recent trends and the spike in pedestrian deaths, “it is widely accepted both smartphones and marijuana can impair the attention and judgment necessary to navigate roadways safely behind the wheel and on foot.” |
Here's the original report: https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/pedestrians_18.pdf. And here's the one graph they made that compares pot states to non-pot states:
Yeah. A bunch of them are in trouble for chopping their supplier up.
That's the sort of language used to justify abortion laws.
There's one primary reason people want pot decriminalized, it's so they can be potheads without facing legal repercussions.
That would be true if marijuana did not have any legitimate medical applications.
But that isn't true.
That's not even remotely sensible.
Do Darwinists even contemplate the logic of what they say?
"A" could only be the one primary reason if "B" is not a reason. That is so laughably inane that it's almost reason to suspect you've consumed too much of the sponsor's product.
"A" could only be the one primary reason if "B" is not a reason. That is so laughably inane that it's almost reason to suspect you've consumed too much of the sponsor's product.
One thing you don't seem to understand (among many) is that recreational marijuana and medical marijuana are completely separate issues.
Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Then why in the world would they be opposed to cannabis without the high
https://web.archive.org/web/2012101...marijuana-strain-that-doesnt-make-users-high/
You can argue all you want that people want pot for medical reasons.
But you cannot argue that they do not want to get high, as they opposed to the cannabis that does not produce a high.
Something I've been using as part of my argument.
People should have no problem with making pot available by prescription only as a strictly controlled substance if they don't care about getting high, but they oppose such, and oppose the "high-less" pot.
Then my question to you is this:
At what point does the government (who's responsibility it is to protect the innocent from the criminals) say that a criminal should not be given any more chances to comply with the law?
5th chance?
10th?
50th?
100th?
How consistent and effective is it to say, "this is your last chance" multiple times?
Where is the cut-off point for the criminal who is unwilling to be a productive member of society and who is putting others at risk because of his selfish behavior?
AND YET, most of the people who claim they advocate for pot to be legal just for medical reasons are opposed to it.
https://web.archive.org/web/2012101...marijuana-strain-that-doesnt-make-users-high/
Because wine is a common household alcoholic beverage that is readily available to most people.
Something readily available vs something that the common person would have no idea on how to acquire...
Right.
lain:
Recreational marijuana is now legal in 10 states, but medical marijuana is legal in 33. So clearly there are lots of people who favor medical but oppose recreational. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.