View Full Version : Medical use of Marijuana prohibits possessing firearms & ammo
platoonDaddy
11-19-17, 17:42
Dang, Rheumatologist are having great success prescribing for severe arthritis patients. Didn't realize that was a dis-qualifier.
https://i.imgur.com/oPyF2Ff.jpg
ATF back in 2011: https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download
Averageman
11-19-17, 17:58
I believe there are marijuana based drugs that treat things, but don't get you "high" now.
If it might work for you, you might want to look into it.
I have a friend who is a truck driver who was telling me about it. He suffers from pain due to issues after suffering a near fatal neck injury.
I doubt that would hold up in court of your MJ use was Physician prescribed, as you would not be an unlawful user. Just like the handful of folks in the FDA/Randall program are not unlawful users.
platoonDaddy
11-19-17, 18:03
The letter from ATF in 2011 specifically states the user is prohibited. Note 4th paragraph of: https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download
And Hawaii is giving users of medical marijuana 30 days to surrender firearms.
The letter from ATF in 2011 specifically states the user is prohibited.
Hence why I do not think it would stand up in court for someone with a Physician prescription. Otherwise any person with a narcotic prescription would be prohibited. I know the FDA/Randall people are NOT unlawful users.
With that said, is it prescribable? Not a stoner nor do I live in a stoner state to know.
eta
OK quick call to family member who is doctor and she said if a dr. prescribed it, DEA would yank their license, so it looks like outside of the FDA/Randall program, there are no lawful users.
Sucks for a few people it may actually help, but "medical" MJ is such a HUGE joke. They don't even try to hide it, the local joint mill ran "get legal" ads.
But buying hard liquor and having guns is still cool though right?
I mean. Nothing horrible ever happened due to alcohol.
Dist. Expert 26
11-19-17, 18:49
Only real degenerates use the devil's lettuce. You should consider yourself lucky to not be in prison.
Per the BATFE: its unlawful to use marijuana and own firearms and or ammo PERIOD!! Doesn't matter if the state allows possession or usage prescribed by doctor. All those people who signed up for medicinal marijuana for treating "overall discomfort" will now be rejected.
Per the BATFE: its unlawful to use marijuana and own firearms and or ammo PERIOD!! Doesn't matter if the state allows possession or usage prescribed by doctor. All those people who signed up for medicinal marijuana for treating "overall discomfort" will now be rejected.
This is clearly stated right on the form 4473.
No different than any firearms law, it’s idiotic, but you gotta follow it.
titsonritz
11-19-17, 20:11
Says it right on Form 4473, federal law does not recognize medical marijuana.
What is so hard to understand:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
Technically, alcohol is a depressant. So, TECHNICALLY, if you are an alcoholic, you are addicted to a depressant.
That would be CBD oil...my daughter is on it for her seizures. It is legal in all 50 states, has no THC (non-narcotic) & I 'think' is also used for pain & other symptoms??
I believe there are marijuana based drugs that treat things, but don't get you "high" now.
If it might work for you, you might want to look into it.
I have a friend who is a truck driver who was telling me about it. He suffers from pain due to issues after suffering a near fatal neck injury.
Averageman
11-19-17, 21:54
Yes, that would be it.
Hence why I do not think it would stand up in court for someone with a Physician prescription. Otherwise any person with a narcotic prescription would be prohibited. I know the FDA/Randall people are NOT unlawful users.
With that said, is it prescribable? Not a stoner nor do I live in a stoner state to know.
eta
OK quick call to family member who is doctor and she said if a dr. prescribed it, DEA would yank their license, so it looks like outside of the FDA/Randall program, there are no lawful users.
I think the issue is that MJ is illegal on the federal level.
It's funny medicinal marijuana was brought up. A few months back I had to have another MRI and a nerve conductor test done. After the nerve conductor test the neurologist go's over the results with me and tells me the test shows it's considerable worst then the test I had a few years ago. No surprise there.
Then she asks me if anyone every mentioned anything about medicinal marijuana to me. I kind of snickered and said no. She then said, your type of insurance doesn't cover it. It'd be cheaper for you to buy it on the street then buy it if we prescribed it....which would be no big deal, it's almost legal at this point. My son (16) was with me we looked at each other and were speechless.
We get in the truck and I told my son, you realize she's a neurologist, highly educated. Four years of college, four years of medical school, five or six years of residency training before she got out on her own. And she just told me to buy marijuana on the street. We were baffled. :confused:
For the record, I have no problem with medicinal marijuana or even marijuana (if that's your thing). I couldn't believe she told me to buy it on the street. At this point in my life marijuana isn't going to happen. I'm a little past that stage, YMMV.
NYH1.
Here's why I have some off reservation opinions.
I do not condone crutches nor illegality. That said, there is a segment of this population that doctor shops grey area legally and gets drunk every night. They show up to the job still smelling a bit like drink.
There is no repirting agency for them. Not even a DUI disqualifies you until you get a habitual violator and a felony. Depemding on state that could be five separate DUIs minus a vehicular manslaughter.
Yet there is a demographic of people who want their states to control, tax, and legalize a substance. And now the ATF are wanting to mess with people in yet another vaunt for relevancy.
I personally have never tried it and never really wanted to. I've been trained on it per labs but no.....I was never cool enough to get offered a doobie.
That said there are people trying to legally and above board get a substance safely and properly. They are being punished by having their rights stripped for being out in the open where they could go to a safe and professional dispensary as opposed to some hood on the street putting god knows what in it.
You shouldnt have to choose your rights when they are all yours.
Our problem, as a nation, is that we inject our pet peeves, morality games, and personal religiosity into matters that do not concern us.
I would rather someone say "Hey, I'm depressed. I can't sleep. Life sucks. I just wanna get high, eat pizza and listen to The Cure for a while" and see a doctor who can give them counsel and guide them safely through. Majority of people will do their thing and be done with it.
I'd sooner people do that than drink up vodka and get violent. Guess what? You dont need a script for Vodka. Nor Rum. Nor regular beer.
Cigarettes, and I am guilty here, offer no medicinal benefit past reducing desire to choke someone out or go upside their head. It is carcinogenic and can lead to Emphysema. But you dont need a script.
I think that by being adults for a change and maturely dispelling the "gateway drug" spiel that we can demystify the 2nd most popular drug in America (After alcohol).
I would rather someone with real PTSD or real Depression or real issues be able to toke up and watch cartoons and chill out under a doctor's care than buy liquor and do something destructive.
I think its pretty stupid that we still care about reefer madness when most laws affecting the drug really were drawn up solely to target blacks and mexicans.
I mean Hunter Coulson gets popped with Sched II and a gun and gets Drug Court, Rehab, and Direct Diversion while Daquan Smith gets jammed over a dime bag.
Its all bullshit. The system is bullshit. This is all about disqualifying more people. And nowhere have I seen a kid go from weed to hardcore heroin, but I HAVE seen a lot of alchies who liked theur meth.
Coincidentally a lot of Judges and Lawmakers are heavy drinkers but thats another topic for another day.
Feel free to share how sinsemilla makes Baby Jesus cry or how it is for them faggot beatnik degenerates with their rock music and negro jazz totally shitting on the American flag and ruining Lawrence Welk.
I'm sure such implorations will be just absolutely convincing and irrefutable.
But thats just me.
brushy bill
11-19-17, 23:41
It is really unsurprising for those who wan to eliminate private firearm ownership to pit the person who likes marijuana against the person who does not, the person who likes a drink against the person who does not, etc. Divide & conquer. We help them in their endeavor without intending to do so it seems.
I doubt that would hold up in court of your MJ use was Physician prescribed, as you would not be an unlawful user. Just like the handful of folks in the FDA/Randall program are not unlawful users.
Some canabinoids are legal in some states. ALL canabinoids are illegal at the Federal level and illegal for doctors to prescribe. 4473’s are a Federal document and reflect Federal firearms laws. A physican’s DEA license is also a Federal document and requires adherence to Federal drug laws.
Doctors can’t “prescribe” any canabinoids or derivatives. Some states have “allowed” them to issue an “authorization” so that a patient can purchase it, but an actual “prescription” is based on a license granted to a licensed physician by the DEA. Since since all canabinoids are Schedule 1 drugs (no medical use), they can’t be prescribed. I’m not aware of any doctor that has been prosecuted by the Feds, and no, they don’t automatically pull your DEA license, but it is clear that it violates Federal law, and they could. Personally, I think it would be exceedingly stupid for any physician to put his or her DEA license at risk by authorizing a patient to use a drug that is illegal at the Federal level.
It's also not the subject of the topic. Feel free to start your own thread about it.
But buying hard liquor and having guns is still cool though right?
I mean. Nothing horrible ever happened due to alcohol.
Hence why I do not think it would stand up in court for someone with a Physician prescription. Otherwise any person with a narcotic prescription would be prohibited. I know the FDA/Randall people are NOT unlawful users.
With that said, is it prescribable? Not a stoner nor do I live in a stoner state to know.
eta
OK quick call to family member who is doctor and she said if a dr. prescribed it, DEA would yank their license, so it looks like outside of the FDA/Randall program, there are no lawful users.
To the feds, no there aren't.
Averageman
11-20-17, 07:41
Archaic laws written to support big pharma.
Your human right to use effective medicine to improve your physical/mental health is taking a backseat to making pharmaceutical companies rich.
Archaic laws written to support big pharma.
Your human right to use effective medicine to improve your physical/mental health is taking a backseat to making pharmaceutical companies rich.
One of the more intelligent posts in this thread. It's a racket.
It all comes down to $$$$$$ and people fall for it hard due either to muh Baby Jesus, muh elitism or good ol' fashioned "because we said so".
Archaic laws written to support big pharma.
Your human right to use effective medicine to improve your physical/mental health is taking a backseat to making pharmaceutical companies rich.Maybe, maybe not, but the problem is that medical marijuana has very, very little proof of efficacy of anything in the peer-reviewed medical literature. For responsible doctors, prescribing any medication has to be demonstrated both safe and effective.
Dang, Rheumatologist are having great success prescribing for severe arthritis patients. Didn't realize that was a dis-qualifier.
As far as the feds go, yes. If you check "no" on the 4472 and are using cannabis, legal in your state or not, you have broken the law according to the feds. If you check "yes" you'll get denied. I don't know if there's any state/fed data base where the feds can access the state records of who has a MM card and who does not. Might be state to state. Have to look into that one some more.
It's interesting to note the VA policy on it is, if using MM in a state it's legal, you don't jeopardize your VA benefits, but if you're in a state it's not legal, bad mojo. VA is sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one:
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/medical-marijuana.asp
I believe there are marijuana based drugs that treat things, but don't get you "high" now.
If it might work for you, you might want to look into it.
I have a friend who is a truck driver who was telling me about it. He suffers from pain due to issues after suffering a near fatal neck injury.
There's an ongoing thread covering the topic, which includes various components of cannabis, such as CBD, which is probably what you're referring to if interested:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?173656-Medical-Cannabis-Discussion
Hence why I do not think it would stand up in court for someone with a Physician prescription. Otherwise any person with a narcotic prescription would be prohibited.
To date, not in favor of MM users and 2A Rights:
"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in July 2016, backing the ATF’s policy.
In that case, a medical marijuana cardholder was denied the right to buy a firearm even though she said she didn’t actually use marijuana; the court ruled that she “could acquire firearms and exercise her right to self-defense at any time by surrendering her registry card.”
The plaintiff in that case argued that the ATF letter was intended to “crush the medical marijuana movement,” but the court said if the federal government wanted to do that, all it would have to do is enforce the existing laws.
While she argued that her constitutional rights were being violated, the panel of judges held that she “does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in simultaneously holding a registry card and purchasing a firearm.”
https://www.dcourier.com/news/2017/feb/22/got-mmj-card-you-cant-own-gun/
skywalkrNCSU
11-20-17, 08:54
Maybe, maybe not, but the problem is that medical marijuana has very, very little proof of efficacy of anything in the peer-reviewed medical literature. For responsible doctors, prescribing any medication has to be demonstrated both safe and effective.
Doesn’t help that they leave it as a schedule 1 drug, doesn’t that make it more difficult to study?
Doc Safari
11-20-17, 08:57
But buying hard liquor and having guns is still cool though right?
I mean. Nothing horrible ever happened due to alcohol.
I'm of the opinion that the long-term goal of the gun grabbers is to make use of any drug, legal or not, to prohibit one from possessing firearms. And yes, I do mean that to eventually include some really innocent medications.
I'm exaggerating, I admit, but I foresee some ATF ruling someday that says in effect, "Well, if you take blood pressure meds then your high blood pressure must be due to anger issues, therefore you can't own firearms."
I'm already being careful NEVER to even buy beer with anything other than cash, lest I end up in a database somewhere as someone who consumes alcohol.
I think the issue is that MJ is illegal on the federal level.
Most are illegal. Yet Drs write prescriptions for them everyday and thus you are not "An unlawful user". The issue as I found out from famly member who is Dr, is MJ is a schedule 1 drug and is NOT prescribable. Thus outside of the FDA/Randall program, there are no lawful users.
To the feds, no there aren't.
I think there are less than 4 people still in the FDA/Randall program, and they are only ones who are lawful users of MJ in the US. More of a trivia question than anything else.
Doesn’t help that they leave it as a schedule 1 drug, doesn’t that make it more difficult to study?
I'm sure it does. Not to mention the associated stigma.
Potheads claiming it is "medicine" for everything doesn't help either.
I could walk into one of these joint mills, tell them I have emphysema, and walk out with a "prescription" to smoke pot.
Not
Even
Kidding
Potheads claiming it is "medicine" for everything doesn't help either.
I could walk into one of these joint mills, tell them I have emphysema, and walk out with a "prescription" to smoke pot.
Not
Even
Kidding
In Oregon perhaps. Not that way in FL. Varies by state. FL there's quite a few hoops to jump through you're basic pot head will lose motivation to bother with for the most part and has to have a diagnosis by a doc that's covered under the state MM laws. It's pretty generous, but nothing like what you're describing. Besides, OR legalized recreational marijuana no? So not sure why those who use it just to get stoned would require a MM card and such. In FL, MM is not smoked BTW as you can't get an accurate dose.
Personally, having head shops where people can get weed to smoke for personal use as a separate entity from the MM, which comes in standardized doses, of mixtures of actives, prescribed by a doc is fine by me.
I think they (ergo CO, etc) needs to clamp down hard on the edibles and such which contain synthetics and are far more powerful and what are responsible for the big increases in ER visits and such. I hate to use the term "common sense" legislation as we now how abused that can be, but there needs to be a middle ground there.
Potheads claiming it is "medicine" for everything doesn't help either.
I could walk into one of these joint mills, tell them I have emphysema, and walk out with a "prescription" to smoke pot.
Not
Even
Kidding
Yep. I don't do the marijoowandas. But I am amused by the marijuana channel (VICE Channel). The stoners make weed out to be the solution for EVERYTHING. They're even cooking gourmet meals with it.
Besides, OR legalized recreational marijuana no?
Yes. But the card is worth money or a cut of the product from "medical" growers. These growers ostensibly grow only for cardholders, but are almost completely unregulated and grow massive amounts for export on the black market. Growers for the recreational market have at least some oversight and plant numbers tracking to keep them out of the black market.
I know I'm in the greenest part of a green State, my perspective is definitely different, but I think there are hundreds to thousands of pot heads to every one stereotypical MM patient.
I think they (ergo CO, etc) needs to clamp down hard on the edibles and such which contain synthetics and are far more powerful and what are responsible for the big increases in ER visits and such. I hate to use the term "common sense" legislation as we now how abused that can be, but there needs to be a middle ground there.
Just as an FYI, the concentrates used in edibles are NOT synthetic. They are extracted from the plant using a variety of solvent and distillation techniques, but they are natural cannabinoids.
I don't disagree that edibles are responsible for hospitalizations due to consumers not understanding dosing, etc. If you eat an entire brownie that's supposed to be 10 doses, then yeah, you'll probably have to go see the ER. But it's not like they're putting K2 or Spice or whatever in there...
Just as an FYI, the concentrates used in edibles are NOT synthetic. They are extracted from the plant using a variety of solvent and distillation techniques, but they are natural cannabinoids.
I don't disagree that edibles are responsible for hospitalizations due to consumers not understanding dosing, etc. If you eat an entire brownie that's supposed to be 10 doses, then yeah, you'll probably have to go see the ER. But it's not like they're putting K2 or Spice or whatever in there...
I was under the impression some of it was synthetic, but the outcome is the same, in that the potency of the edibles is far beyond what one could get smoking it, and at least in the MM context, it's dosed appropriate to the person's needs. Per usual, abuse vs indicated use. They need to set standards for the edibles as it's like a person buying a six pack of beer with the alc content of Ever Clear.
They need to set standards for the edibles as it's like a person buying a six pack of beer with the alc content of Ever Clear.
I've never heard it put that way, but it's actually not too far off. :-) The gov't doesn't place any limits on alcohol potency however. One could just as easily go into a liquor store and buy Ever Clear not knowing what that really is and drink the whole thing same as they can go to a dispensary and buy a package of edibles and eat an inappropriate dose. The end result is more or less the same. The weed guy would probably be in better shape, though.
CO has been revising edible rules lately, but most of it has been directed at making them less attractive to children. I.e. Cannabis edibles can no longer be child-friendly shapes like bears and worms and there are more strict rules on packaging and labeling. There have been some rumors of rules limiting potency, but none of that has gone very far. I think, in general, cannabis consumers want to be able to choose what potency they want without the gov't setting limits. It's kind of similar to mag capacity rules in that regard in my opinion.
The deal with making edibles less attractive and available to children is definitely a good step, and perhaps more awareness in general is necessary for adults regarding potency and dosing. Especially for tourists and first time users. There are strict limits to public consumption of cannabis in CO, so tourists are more likely to go the edible route. If they don't realize that little cookie is several doses, or that it may take a while before effects kick in, they can get themselves in trouble. Like a freshman at a frat party, but with more being stuck to the floor and less choking to death on your own vomit. ;-)
In the end, I don't care if people use marijuana and if they want super high-test concentrates more power to them.
I've never heard it put that way, but it's actually not too far off. :-) The gov't doesn't place any limits on alcohol potency however. One could just as easily go into a liquor store and buy Ever Clear not knowing what that really is and drink the whole thing same as they can go to a dispensary and buy a package of edibles and eat an inappropriate dose. The end result is more or less the same. The weed guy would probably be in better shape, though.
CO has been revising edible rules lately, but most of it has been directed at making them less attractive to children. I.e. Cannabis edibles can no longer be child-friendly shapes like bears and worms and there are more strict rules on packaging and labeling. There have been some rumors of rules limiting potency, but none of that has gone very far. I think, in general, cannabis consumers want to be able to choose what potency they want without the gov't setting limits. It's kind of similar to mag capacity rules in that regard in my opinion.
The deal with making edibles less attractive and available to children is definitely a good step, and perhaps more awareness in general is necessary for adults regarding potency and dosing. Especially for tourists and first time users. There are strict limits to public consumption of cannabis in CO, so tourists are more likely to go the edible route. If they don't realize that little cookie is several doses, or that it may take a while before effects kick in, they can get themselves in trouble. Like a freshman at a frat party, but with more being stuck to the floor and less choking to death on your own vomit. ;-)
In the end, I don't care if people use marijuana and if they want super high-test concentrates more power to them.
But it does have strict label laws the potency must be listed on the bottle. I'm all for free choice, and not as much interested in limiting potency per se, but making it clear what that potency is, and making sure adults are who buy it etc. A per dose upper limit is also not a bad idea and even some visuals for the intellectually limited types, like simple graphics that 1 cookies = approximately one average sized marijuana cigarette, or similar based on the TCH content.
As usual, informed consumers are what we want, poor personal choices once informed in on the individual.
I'm all for free choice, and not as much interested in limiting potency per se, but making it clear what that potency is, and making sure adults are who buy it etc.
I agree completely! CO is making progress here, but it's a brave new world and there are some growing pains.
I agree completely! CO is making progress here, but it's a brave new world and there are some growing pains.
Bound to happen but per usual, majority of which could have been avoided with the application of some common sense and forethought. Let's make a single Gummie Bear the strength of 10 joints and a slug of bong water and trust people not to leave them out for their kids to find, etc. What could possibly go wrong? Derp... :dirol:
platoonDaddy
11-20-17, 16:52
Hey, Wil & kerplode is CO or FL requiring them to voluntarily surrender their firearms & ammo, as they are in Hawaii?
Hey, Wil & kerplode is CO or FL requiring them to voluntarily surrender their firearms & ammo, as they are in Hawaii?
FL and CO are two of the more gun friendly states. Hawaii is NJ and NYC with palm trees when it comes to guns I recall.
I've never heard it put that way, but it's actually not too far off. :-) The gov't doesn't place any limits on alcohol potency however. One could just as easily go into a liquor store and buy Ever Clear not knowing what that really is and drink the whole thing same as they can go to a dispensary and buy a package of edibles and eat an inappropriate dose. The end result is more or less the same. The weed guy would probably be in better shape, though.
CO has been revising edible rules lately, but most of it has been directed at making them less attractive to children. I.e. Cannabis edibles can no longer be child-friendly shapes like bears and worms and there are more strict rules on packaging and labeling. There have been some rumors of rules limiting potency, but none of that has gone very far. I think, in general, cannabis consumers want to be able to choose what potency they want without the gov't setting limits. It's kind of similar to mag capacity rules in that regard in my opinion.
The deal with making edibles less attractive and available to children is definitely a good step, and perhaps more awareness in general is necessary for adults regarding potency and dosing. Especially for tourists and first time users. There are strict limits to public consumption of cannabis in CO, so tourists are more likely to go the edible route. If they don't realize that little cookie is several doses, or that it may take a while before effects kick in, they can get themselves in trouble. Like a freshman at a frat party, but with more being stuck to the floor and less choking to death on your own vomit. ;-)
In the end, I don't care if people use marijuana and if they want super high-test concentrates more power to them.
This whole discussion is an example of why most doctors view the whole medical marijuana thing with a substantial amount of eye-rolling. It's just too hard to separate any potential medical use from the whole stoner culture. The fervor with which those folks seek any kind of validation just makes the whole thing feel like a social evolution, not valid medical therapy. Legalize recreational use or not...frankly I don't really care. But when the tie-dyed crowd starts preaching the medical benefits, it begins to feel like a desperate means of getting the rest of the camel into the tent. Any medical benefit that has so far been demonstrated falls into such a narrow range of practice that it's going to be really hard to develop broad-based support from physicians for marijuana in any kind of medical role. I can't even begin to imagine what role marijuana or any cannabinoid would play in my practice. And that's a fairly common thread when you talk to your average doctor on the street.
This whole discussion is an example of why most doctors view the whole medical marijuana thing with a substantial amount of eye-rolling. It's just too hard to separate any potential medical use from the whole stoner culture. The fervor with which those folks seek any kind of validation just makes the whole thing feel like a social evolution, not valid medical therapy. Legalize recreational use or not...frankly I don't really care. But when the tie-dyed crowd starts preaching the medical benefits, it begins to feel like a desperate means of getting the rest of the camel into the tent. Any medical benefit that has so far been demonstrated falls into such a narrow range of practice that it's going to be really hard to develop broad-based support from physicians for marijuana in any kind of medical role. I can't even begin to imagine what role marijuana or any cannabinoid would play in my practice. And that's a fairly common thread when you talk to your average doctor on the street.
I think we both agree the only that can happen is with more data. The only way we will get more data is for the feds to change the (ridiculous) schedule I status to III so we can get on with the business of less subjective uses and more objective decisions as to whom is genuinely benefits and who it does not. Nothing else will get us from this bizarre legal in X states, not in Y state, etc. situation we are in now.
Yep. I don't do the marijoowandas. But I am amused by the marijuana channel (VICE Channel). The stoners make weed out to be the solution for EVERYTHING. They're even cooking gourmet meals with it.
Really? Isn't that kind of self-defeating?
This whole discussion is an example of why most doctors view the whole medical marijuana thing with a substantial amount of eye-rolling. It's just too hard to separate any potential medical use from the whole stoner culture. The fervor with which those folks seek any kind of validation just makes the whole thing feel like a social evolution, not valid medical therapy. Legalize recreational use or not...frankly I don't really care. But when the tie-dyed crowd starts preaching the medical benefits, it begins to feel like a desperate means of getting the rest of the camel into the tent. Any medical benefit that has so far been demonstrated falls into such a narrow range of practice that it's going to be really hard to develop broad-based support from physicians for marijuana in any kind of medical role. I can't even begin to imagine what role marijuana or any cannabinoid would play in my practice. And that's a fairly common thread when you talk to your average doctor on the street.
Bingo.
MJ legalization = backdoor gun control. Mind-altering drugs are "soma" in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".
Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk
MJ legalization = backdoor gun control. Mind-altering drugs are "soma" in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".
This post puzzles me. In Brave New World, Soma was initiated by the government to keep the populace distracted from their existence. In the US today, marijuana legalization is being actively sought by the populace, trying to overcome the government's resistance to its broad-based use. Are you proposing that the US government is somehow trying to promote the use of marijuana/soma to distract the US populace from its real agenda...gun control?
This post puzzles me. In Brave New World, Soma was initiated by the government to keep the populace distracted from their existence. In the US today, marijuana legalization is being actively sought by the populace, trying to overcome the government's resistance to its broad-based use. Are you proposing that the US government is somehow trying to promote the use of marijuana/soma to distract the US populace from its real agenda...gun control?Not a distraction, but a tool. Marijuana use disqualifies a person from legally owning guns. It's a convenient package... States legalize marijuana, but the feds still consider it illegal. 4473 is federal, hence, gun control. I made the soma reference to supplement the mind-altering drug legalization agenda as a whole.
PatrioticDisorder
11-21-17, 08:11
This whole discussion is an example of why most doctors view the whole medical marijuana thing with a substantial amount of eye-rolling. It's just too hard to separate any potential medical use from the whole stoner culture. The fervor with which those folks seek any kind of validation just makes the whole thing feel like a social evolution, not valid medical therapy. Legalize recreational use or not...frankly I don't really care. But when the tie-dyed crowd starts preaching the medical benefits, it begins to feel like a desperate means of getting the rest of the camel into the tent. Any medical benefit that has so far been demonstrated falls into such a narrow range of practice that it's going to be really hard to develop broad-based support from physicians for marijuana in any kind of medical role. I can't even begin to imagine what role marijuana or any cannabinoid would play in my practice. And that's a fairly common thread when you talk to your average doctor on the street.
I concur.
I don't gamble, but I'd be willing to bet that most gun owners don't use marijuana.
NYH1.
I really couldnt care less what substance anyone uses, gun owner or otherwise. As long as they aren't robbing 40's and 9's shops, beating their wife or children, killing people or otherwise committing REAL crimes, it's a moot point.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty effing clear.
The war on drugs should be tanked completely. It's caused more harm than good.
Tell folks with siezures and MJ is the only thing that gives them a normal life, or someone with chronic pain that can take a toke and get relief and not be in an opiate haze that MJ has no medical use.
We need more testing and understanding and less extremism on both sides. The "it's got no use" crowd and the "it cures everything" crowd are both wrong and both ignorant.
Hey, Wil & kerplode is CO or FL requiring them to voluntarily surrender their firearms & ammo, as they are in Hawaii?
Not that I am aware of.
This whole discussion is an example of why most doctors view the whole medical marijuana thing with a substantial amount of eye-rolling. It's just too hard to separate any potential medical use from the whole stoner culture. The fervor with which those folks seek any kind of validation just makes the whole thing feel like a social evolution, not valid medical therapy. Legalize recreational use or not...frankly I don't really care. But when the tie-dyed crowd starts preaching the medical benefits, it begins to feel like a desperate means of getting the rest of the camel into the tent. Any medical benefit that has so far been demonstrated falls into such a narrow range of practice that it's going to be really hard to develop broad-based support from physicians for marijuana in any kind of medical role. I can't even begin to imagine what role marijuana or any cannabinoid would play in my practice. And that's a fairly common thread when you talk to your average doctor on the street.
I won't disagree that many medical patients are simply seeking a legal source to get high, or in the case of CO, increased possession limits and no taxes on purchases. A neurologist my wife sees finds it to be quite useful in managing symptoms in his seizure and MS patients, however. We stayed with conventional pharma for my wife, but according to him, he sees a marked improvement in many of these patient's daily lives with cannabis.
In the end, the truth lies somewhere in between "no medical use" and "cure-all". Like Will says, the only way we'll ever really know is change the scheduling so it can be studied properly. IMO, at this point, there is more than enough evidence that it's effective for managing seizure disorders to justify it coming off of schedule I.
This whole discussion is an example of why most doctors view the whole medical marijuana thing with a substantial amount of eye-rolling. It's just too hard to separate any potential medical use from the whole stoner culture. The fervor with which those folks seek any kind of validation just makes the whole thing feel like a social evolution, not valid medical therapy. Legalize recreational use or not...frankly I don't really care. But when the tie-dyed crowd starts preaching the medical benefits, it begins to feel like a desperate means of getting the rest of the camel into the tent. Any medical benefit that has so far been demonstrated falls into such a narrow range of practice that it's going to be really hard to develop broad-based support from physicians for marijuana in any kind of medical role. I can't even begin to imagine what role marijuana or any cannabinoid would play in my practice. And that's a fairly common thread when you talk to your average doctor on the street.
Spot on.
Archaic laws written to support big pharma.
Your human right to use effective medicine to improve your physical/mental health is taking a backseat to making pharmaceutical companies rich.
There you have it. That's what it all boils down to.
There you have it. That's what it all boils down to.
I don't think that's all it boils down to, but it's an ingredient in the pot sure.
Averageman
11-21-17, 17:21
I think there are things in this life that are for me and others that aren't.
I do believe these are however choices to be made by individuals, these individuals shouldn't be encumbered by legislation passed by a Federal Government thousands of miles away.
We've. Seen numerous examples over the last couple of weeks of Politicians caught in sex scandals, I've yet to see one of these guys who legislate my behavior take any responsibility for their own bad behavior that directly involved hurting someone else.
So I've got a unique idea, let's be responsible for our own choices and behaviors and to hell with a giant monster of a Federal Government who can't regulate it's Leadership, but wants to tell you how to live.
If this was about your Colt 6920 instead of pot, you guys would understand this, but some of you don't, or won't. The freedom to make that choice, guns, weed, your Religion, who you vote for is about the basic freedoms and choice's we were meant to be able to make individually.
I have more respect for a bunch of stinky tie dyed pot head hippies than I do for those who would legislate my freedom of choice away.
I hope you never have to see a loved one die in prolonged agony due to cancer while you live in a State that won't allow even the smallest relief from that pain that marijuana might provide.
Dist. Expert 26
11-21-17, 17:48
I don't think that's all it boils down to, but it's an ingredient in the pot sure.
There's also the points that Uncle Sam wants his dime and a large portion of our country thinks it's a good thing to legislate morality.
I think there are things in this life that are for me and others that aren't.
I do believe these are however choices to be made by individuals, these individuals shouldn't be encumbered by legislation passed by a Federal Government thousands of miles away.
We've. Seen numerous examples over the last couple of weeks of Politicians caught in sex scandals, I've yet to see one of these guys who legislate my behavior take any responsibility for their own bad behavior that directly involved hurting someone else.
So I've got a unique idea, let's be responsible for our own choices and behaviors and to hell with a giant monster of a Federal Government who can't regulate it's Leadership, but wants to tell you how to live.
If this was about your Colt 6920 instead of pot, you guys would understand this, but some of you don't, or won't. The freedom to make that choice, guns, weed, your Religion, who you vote for is about the basic freedoms and choice's we were meant to be able to make individually.
I have more respect for a bunch of stinky tie dyed pot head hippies than I do for those who would legislate my freedom of choice away.
I hope you never have to see a loved one die in prolonged agony due to cancer while you live in a State that won't allow even the smallest relief from that pain that marijuana might provide.
I agree with your entire post and especially the bold print part.
Not a distraction, but a tool. Marijuana use disqualifies a person from legally owning guns. It's a convenient package... States legalize marijuana, but the feds still consider it illegal. 4473 is federal, hence, gun control. I made the soma reference to supplement the mind-altering drug legalization agenda as a whole.
People are gonna smoke weed whether it is legal or not. They are disqualified even if it is illegal.
The only conspiracy here (and it's really not one) is that weed was demonized and made illegal to target blacks and to line the pockets of non hemp crop growers. Now it's legalization is being fought to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical, booze and tobacco industries.
Dist. Expert 26
11-21-17, 20:49
People are gonna smoke weed whether it is legal or not. They are disqualified even if it is illegal.
The only conspiracy here (and it's really not one) is that weed was demonized and made illegal to target blacks and to line the pockets of non hemp crop growers. Now it's legalization is being fought to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical, booze and tobacco industries.
And oh what a conspiracy it is.
I had a health class this past semester, and if you read the textbook with no prior knowledge you would think that marijuana is every bit as dangerous and harmful as cocaine or heroin. There wasn't a single mention of medicinal uses, benefits of cannabis oil, derivatives without THC, etc.
Pot farmers aren't going to line the pockets of Congress. Big pharma does, thus their agenda gets pushed.
A lot of pot farmers also don't pay taxes, or follow the "Man's" rules like zoning and water rights and selling on the black market.
I bet most of you don't have trimmigrant camps popping up around your community, looking like district 9, or have regular butane extraction lab explosions. Murders, shootings, home invasions all related to the drug trade? Are your insurance rates going up because of MJ impaired driving rates?
Medical and recreational pot isn't the devil, but it ain't all rainbows and unicorns either.
Averageman
11-21-17, 22:54
A lot of pot farmers also don't pay taxes, or follow the "Man's" rules like zoning and water rights and selling on the black market.
I bet most of you don't have trimmigrant camps popping up around your community, looking like district 9, or have regular butane extraction lab explosions. Murders, shootings, home invasions all related to the drug trade? Are your insurance rates going up because of MJ impaired driving rates?
Medical and recreational pot isn't the devil, but it ain't all rainbows and unicorns either.
You mean the same results we had when we prohibited the production and consumption of alcohol and the bootleggers took over?
You can't regulate irresponsible and criminal people in to good citizens.You can't tax, legislate or force Charlie Manson to buy health insurance and expect him to become Ward Cleaver next week. It isn't going to work.
If we outlawed the manufacturer and sales of firearms, the next thing the liberals would be angry about would be people blowing up thier houses making gunpowder in thier garages.
And when it comes to insurance rates, when have insurance companies sucked up the cost of the risky business they are in and not passed it on to the consumer?
I don't think my rates have ever gone down no matter that I haven't had a ticket or a claim on my homeowner's policy in years. The Insurance Industry is a big part of the problem.
So what are these people getting if the doctors are not actually prescribing MJ. If it's Fed Illegal Class1 or whatever it's called. What are people in say DC doing? Don't the stores have to have some sort of prescription to dispense it?
I know with that little girl here in VA that was having seizures they said look we tried it and her quality of life was dramatically changed for the better. But that was that CBT oil. So the Gov changes teh rules and says ok you can use it no big deal. Now my understanding was, they were still buying it on their own and the State of VA simply turns a blind eye. If you get it, knock yourself out but be aware it's still Federally illegal if your next door neighbor happens to work for DEA. So basically everyone keeps quiet and goes about their own business. Easy to understand and actually a legit medical use. I mean she went from multiple seizures a day to like one a week or something. Not a subtle thing.
But how is the guy in DC with a pain in his knee buying MJ if the doctors can't prescribe it. Or is that simply a situation where again everyone turns a blind eye and the doctor is willing to risk his license. If I were a doctor I would say screw that but I'm sure there are doctors out there that don't care for one reason or another.
I get the Colorado thing. They can do it for fun. Easy no brainer, just don't light up in front of the FBI building. Same with taxes, I read somewhere the other day there are going to be some serious taxes and already the "pharmacy" price is higher than the street price.
It seems like this whole MJ thing is a bit of a farce and if it's ever to truly function as a real thing it will have to come off the Schedule 1 system. The Feds will have to cut it loose. In fact Trump should line that one up for 2020. Every little bit helps.
I just don't get the whole system. It seems like the typical bubble and a short lived one at that.
platoonDaddy
11-22-17, 06:41
So what are these people getting if the doctors are not actually prescribing MJ. If it's Fed Illegal Class1 or whatever it's called. What are people in say DC doing? Don't the stores have to have some sort of prescription to dispense it?
But how is the guy in DC with a pain in his knee buying MJ if the doctors can't prescribe it. Or is that simply a situation where again everyone turns a blind eye and the doctor is willing to risk his license. If I were a doctor I would say screw that but I'm sure there are doctors out there that don't care for one reason or another.
Interesting questions about DC and doctors prescribing. As stated earlier, my friends Rheumatologist practices in DC & MD. He told Bob that he has great success prescribing medical marijuana with suffers of severe pain in DC. Even though the FDA hasn't approved it as a treatment, he advised Bob when it becomes legal in MD, he will prescribe for him.
The Feds turn a blind eye. Various states have passed legislation that provides for the distribution and sale of some forms of marijuana. Doctors can’t “prescribe” it under their prescriptive authority granted by the DEA because it is schedule 1. However, some states now have provisions that some doctors (you have to apply to the state) are allowed to “authorize” patients to use some form of cannabinoid (different states allow different preparations).
In the meantime, prescribing marijuana is a violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Technically, “authorizing” a patient to use marijuana, even if legal by state law, is “facilitating distribution” and puts a doctor at risk for fines of $250,000 - $1 million, and up to 5 years in jail. Even if the Feds don’t prosecute, they can decide to pull a doctor’s DEA license to prescribe medication on an administrative basis, or more likely administratively decide not to renew it (they have to be renewed ever three years). Envision the sometimes-whimsical actions by various BATFE NFA Examiners when you send them your Form 1 or Form 4 for approval - maybe they approve, maybe not. Among other things, they will look at the laws for that NFA weapon in your state before approving your Form 1 or Form 4. Now translate that to a similar government bureaucratic functionary at the DEA reviewing my every-three-year DEA license renewal. Let’s just say that, with my application on his desk, he looks at my state’s marijuana laws then looks at the public database of state-authorized marijuana doctors and I’m on it. I am violating the Controlled Substances Act. What does he do next....? Today, he just shrugs and moves on to the next application because his boss or someone higher has told him “we’re letting these things slide. For now”. What about tomorrow....?
If I “distribute” marijuana, or facilitate its distribution, I’m violating the Controlled Substances Act. My career is on the line...maybe fines/jail. I admire a doctor who is so committed to his patients that he/she is willing to take that risk but there is little or no peer-reviewed literature to support the notion that any cannabinoid will succeed when Federally legal, FDA-approved medications fail, so “authorizing” a patient to use marijuana, IMHO, is exceedingly stupid. Yes, you’ve all heard anecdotes about this little girl with intractable seizures or that guy with knee pain, but you all want science behind medical decisions, not guesses, intuition, and anecdotes. Doctors don’t practice medicine based on anecdotes. Medical decision-making is based on evidence these days. That’s how you want it. Trust me...I’m a doctor.;)
If I “distribute” marijuana, or facilitate its distribution, I’m violating the Controlled Substances Act. My career is on the line...maybe fines/jail. I admire a doctor who is so committed to his patients that he/she is willing to take that risk but there is little or no peer-reviewed literature to support the notion that any cannabinoid will succeed when Federally legal, FDA-approved medications fail, so “authorizing” a patient to use marijuana, IMHO, is exceedingly stupid. Yes, you’ve all heard anecdotes about this little girl with intractable seizures or that guy with knee pain, but you all want science behind medical decisions, not guesses, intuition, and anecdotes. Doctors don’t practice medicine based on anecdotes. Medical decision-making is based on evidence these days. That’s how you want it. Trust me...I’m a doctor.;)
Again; bingo. There is a good push in UT for medical marijuana. Recent polling has shown overwhelming support in the state; I believe it was approx. 64%. Being widely discussed. UT will eventually go legal medical if nothing else.
Neither my wife or any other MD in the office will be prescribing; PERIOD, for the above reasoning.
I'm just wondering if the feds will eventually throw in the towel if the states continue the trend...I read an article some time ago that mentioned the tax revenue from dope in CO had exceeded what they got from booze?? I find that difficult to believe but if factual I would think they would want to come to the dance eventually. It's always about the $$$ & don't think for one minute DC is holding it's current line in the sand based on any sort of moral fiber.
I'm just wondering if the feds will eventually throw in the towel if the states continue the trend...I read an article some time ago that mentioned the tax revenue from dope in CO had exceeded what they got from booze?? I find that difficult to believe but if factual I would think they would want to come to the dance eventually. It's always about the $$$ & don't think for one minute DC is holding it's current line in the sand based on any sort of moral fiber.
See the post below by Todd K. He relates a huge problem, and getting bigger in many areas. I do a lot of mountain biking and follow the various forums. Particularly on the front range of Colorado, these homeless/meth-head/tweaker "camps" are getting to be huge problem since marijuana legalization for people wanting to get out into the back country and National Forests. Assaults, even murders of non-involved citizens as well as a variety of other crimes are getting increasingly common surrrounding those lawless "District 9" enclaves. Welcome to the land of the Rocky Mountain High. Colorado's approach to marijuana is proving to be a fascinating social experiment, and not in a fun kind of way. I think the Feds should stand pat for the time being while Colorado and similar "enlightened" states demonstrate for us the consequences of allowing marijuana for all.
A lot of pot farmers also don't pay taxes, or follow the "Man's" rules like zoning and water rights and selling on the black market.
I bet most of you don't have trimmigrant camps popping up around your community, looking like district 9, or have regular butane extraction lab explosions. Murders, shootings, home invasions all related to the drug trade? Are your insurance rates going up because of MJ impaired driving rates?
Medical and recreational pot isn't the devil, but it ain't all rainbows and unicorns either.
... so “authorizing” a patient to use marijuana, IMHO, is exceedingly stupid.
Oh, I agree. I get the "authorize" situation now though. I suppose t's sort of like saying, sure I approve of my patient taking certain OTC meds but with more specific weight. I would think their Malpractice / E&O insurance would have a thing or two to say about that.
If I were a doctor you couldn't afford to pay me because I would want whatever the highest possible fine was and enough left over to retire on when they took my license.
I'm sure there is a lot I don't understand about it all but I think it should be recreationally legalized nationwide. Just like homebrew beer. Let people grow 5 plants or whatever. Trade/share but not sell it. Then the high brow crowd could breed the fancy stuff and run taxed stores and the medical crowd could do their thing with perhaps even more oversight. I just think the 'thrill of the hunt' needs to be removed and very likely society after the initial novelty wears off would just use it like they do coffee or alcohol. But if Republicans let the Dems be the party to "free the sweet leaf" I think they are going to live to regret it. IMO, the light at the end of the tunnel is headed this way so we might as well clear the tracks
This Republican is getting out in front but what is not mentioned here in the article ---
Norment said his bill, which is being drafted, would make first-time marijuana possession a civil offense punishable by a fine, mandatory education and a driver’s license suspension. Taking someone's drivers license is about one of the worse non-jail punishments you can give them.
I'm not real clear on this Norment guy but I seem to recall he had some issues a few years back. Maybe some things of a RINO nature and James City, his area, is right outside Williamsburg(Blue) where he works. So I wonder how genuine his efforts are.
http://wtvr.com/2017/11/03/holmberg-decriminalize-marijuana-in-virginia-legalization-inevitable/
I think Trumps 2020 trademark slogan should be Peace and Quiet. The logo will will be a suppressor with a pot leaf sticking out of the muzzle.
2020 - MAGA - The Peace and Quiet tour. Decriminalize suppressors and pot by removing them from Federal control.
If you read the Nixon / Shafer Commission stuff it sounds horrible. Jeff Sessions is holding up the show as well. I think it's a bad move for Republicans. No way this train is turning around now. Trump has a chance to keep it out of the hands of Dems and get some crossover 2020 votes which may also give us some down stream wins. Otherwise I think we loose it all in 2020. Everything... I think it will all be Blue.
...and again... anyone and everyone that wants MJ already has it and has had it for at least 50 years.
I'm sure there is a lot I don't understand about it all but I think it should be recreationally legalized nationwide. Just like homebrew beer. Let people grow 5 plants or whatever. Trade/share but not sell it. Then the high brow crowd could breed the fancy stuff and run taxed stores and the medical crowd could do their thing with perhaps even more oversight. I just think the 'thrill of the hunt' needs to be removed and very likely society after the initial novelty wears off would just use it like they do coffee or alcohol. But if Republicans let the Dems be the party to "free the sweet leaf" I think they are going to live to regret it. IMO, the light at the end of the tunnel is headed this way so we might as well clear the tracks.
Yeah, I'm OK with recreational legalization. The way I see it...if the studies and anecdotes about negative effects on motivation (https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+use+motivation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab) are true, it only provides a societal advantage to those of us, like my family and me, that don't use it. If not true, then legalization doesn't affect me at all.
Yeah, I'm OK with recreational legalization. The way I see it...if the studies and anecdotes about negative effects on motivation (https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+use+motivation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab) are true, it only provides a societal advantage to those of us, like my family and me, that don't use it. If not true, then legalization doesn't affect me at all.
Considering what it does to appetite, may just increase your work load. :cool:
You mean the same results we had when we prohibited the production and consumption of alcohol and the bootleggers took over?
Recreational pot is legal in my State, that was the point of my post. Legalization did not fix everything. In fact I don't think it has improved anything the pro pot side claimed when we voted on it.
Treat it like alcohol they said... apparently, like you, they don't know how much regulation and compliance are involved in alcohol production. Tax is paid up front on production, with strict tracking of production. This makes it very hard and not worth it to sneak barrels out the back door.
The tax money has been pretty minimal.
It increased, not decreased the black market.
It increased crime in my area.
There is an increase in impaired driving. This is why car insurance is going up.
The State rules require a grow to be fenced. My County is working on a ordinance that would prohibit fences of plastic sheeting, haybales, and stacked junk cars.
Yeah, I'm OK with recreational legalization. The way I see it...if the studies and anecdotes about negative effects on motivation (https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+use+motivation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab) are true, it only provides a societal advantage to those of us, like my family and me, that don't use it. If not true, then legalization doesn't affect me at all.
I know someone that had ... <sp>naso-pharengal ?? cancer. He got radiated pretty bad. Older than me but smoked all his life. Ciggs and pot. He tells me now he takes a "hit or two" before dinner and before bedtime. He has no taste and no desire to eat so it gives him a bit of an appetite. I said, so you don't smoke during the day. His answer was.. oh hell no. If I took a hit during the day I would just sit in the chair and look at tv. He really likes to be outside working on his property. I have been to Jamaica and in the middle of the day you might be around a bunch of people trying to get in some sort of shaded area then all of a sudden it gets kinda quiet. You look around and everyone is stretched out with a spliff. If you read about our laws and what people were saying about Mexicans back then with regard to MJ I have to wonder was there more to the Siesta than we read in the school books.
So I think the lack of motivation is probably true but at the same time. I can remember countless times that maybe it's a weekend or holiday or something and in the middle of the day someone says "hey you want a beer" Then very often several people will just say nah, it's too early, it just makes me sleepy if I drink in the day time.
I think sometimes people try to study things to death. The bottom line is it's been in use daily for ages. So whatever happens it's probably been happening and it basically became our collective way of life. You know, maybe that's why some people became doctors and some became artists. A writer for instance might benefit from what is seen as demotivation.
I'm not convinced there will be any major change in our society with recreational legalization. Same with suppressors or SBRs for that matter. Legalizing all that stuff would simply lift a big cloud off of a lot of people and restore a little faith in 'governed freedom'.
We've been living this stuff for decades legal or not. Whatever would happen has already happened. We're still kicking. The .gov needs to give all this stuff back to the people as the God given right it is.
Again I just see this as a huge possibility for Trump because it sort of already has been decided by citizens. These are two big no-brainer type issues that two good sized segments of America want. I just think he should own it while he can. The MJ is going to happen. Suppressors...??... not if the Dems get control.
Recreational pot is legal in my State, that was the point of my post. Legalization did not fix everything. In fact I don't think it has improved anything the pro pot side claimed when we voted on it.
Treat it like alcohol they said... apparently, like you, they don't know how much regulation and compliance are involved in alcohol production. Tax is paid up front on production, with strict tracking of production. This makes it very hard and not worth it to sneak barrels out the back door.
The tax money has been pretty minimal.
It increased, not decreased the black market.
It increased crime in my area.
There is an increase in impaired driving. This is why car insurance is going up.
The State rules require a grow to be fenced. My County is working on a ordinance that would prohibit fences of plastic sheeting, haybales, and stacked junk cars.
Well, we do know that what was happening before was not working and was not generating any money at all. You are a sample size of one.
At one time there were stories going around that the big tobacco companies had their ducks in a row as far as production and advertising for when MJ was legalized.
My thought is that if MJ was legalized nationally the ready availability would quickly drive most of the 'District 9' operations out of existence.
I don't smoke and pretty much don't drink, so I'm just going to sit back and watch the fun.
I wonder what a pack of 'Marlboro Gold Doobies' will run?
WickedWillis
11-22-17, 11:32
At one time there were stories going around that the big tobacco companies had their ducks in a row as far as production and advertising for when MJ was legalized.
My thought is that if MJ was legalized nationally the ready availability would quickly drive most of the 'District 9' operations out of existence.
I don't smoke and pretty much don't drink, so I'm just going to sit back and watch the fun.
I wonder what a pack of 'Marlboro Gold Doobies' will run?
Becoming commercialized on that level will most likely lead to garbage product full of pesticides and chemicals, and negate the positives of marijuana over alcohol or tobacco. Some company is going to do it one day if it does become legalized naturally though. Be the amazon of weed.
There is an increase in impaired driving. This is why car insurance is going up.
The State rules require a grow to be fenced.
Is there any data on out of State driving? I was wondering if these are recreational vacationers. I just can't help think that things would change once the novelty wears off. You know it's like Vegas or Mardi Gras. Whenever there is a special allure attached you know things will happen outside the norm. If it were commonplace and nationwide I just believe the novelty would fade.
Why the fence? Potato vines are toxic. Oleander too. Why does a personal garden need to be fenced? Or is that commercial? I think CO can grow 5 plants at home.
I'm not convinced there will be any major change in our society with recreational legalization.
Yeah, who knows? I'm pretty indifferent...I figure I can't lose. Worst case...no effect on national motivation nor on my life. Best case...turning America into Jamaica will likely represent opportunity for those who remain ambitious and motivated.
Hey, just a dose of reality from the front lines. Sorry if goes against anyone's ideas of the utopia it "should" be. And I have about the same opinion as Hmac on legalizing recreational.
Fences. If we can agree that even if legal we should limit minors access, a fence seems reasonable. The same way it would be irresponsible to leave a keg in your front lawn.
Pesticides, this is a good one. We had a shortage of product in the pot shops when pesticide testing was started. And this was the licenced recreational growers that were aware of the testing requirement, how much do you think is on the medical that isn't tested?
Pot grown today and especially stuff like extract are not what people smoked 50 years ago.
I don't know any potheads who think they shouldn't drive high. I don't think it's pot tourists.
WickedWillis
11-22-17, 13:09
Hey, just a dose of reality from the front lines. Sorry if goes against anyone's ideas of the utopia it "should" be. And I have about the same opinion as Hmac on legalizing recreational.
Did you ever hear about the tactic the Washington liquor corporations did before weed was legalized? They had radio ads, and called voters telling of how DUI's went up significantly in states where weed was legalized. Mostly scare tactics, but it's definitely hypocritical coming from alcohol distributors worried about their bottom line. Same with anyone who takes checks for writing prescriptions. It can't be an unbiased viewpoint
Fences. If we can agree that even if legal we should limit minors access, a fence seems reasonable. The same way it would be irresponsible to leave a keg in your front lawn.
Yes this is a very important point, I agree.
Pesticides, this is a good one. We had a shortage of product in the pot shops when pesticide testing was started. And this was the licenced recreational growers that were aware of the testing requirement, how much do you think is on the medical that isn't tested?
Why would the medical not be tested or scrutinized more than rec being the more potent of the two?
Pot grown today and especially stuff like extract are not what people smoked 50 years ago.
Most definitely agree with this.
I don't know any potheads who think they shouldn't drive high. I don't think it's pot tourists.
I know of none that think driving high is a smart choice, or actively do it. Most are too paranoid to do so.
You are in a state, like Washington, that tends to be a rural conservative majority ran by a liberal chunk of population on one side of the state. Unlike Washington though, Oregon seems to back off firearms scrutiny and bans more because they know about the rural majority. I was born in Portland. Got out when I was around 10, just about when the Californians started taking everything over.
Best case...turning America into Jamaica will likely represent opportunity for those who remain ambitious and motivated.
Ha! yeah, no kidding, that place is something else when it comes to getting work done. We might even be able to cut our hours in half and double our prices and still come out ahead of the competition.
Fences. If we can agree that even if legal we should limit minors access, a fence seems reasonable. The same way it would be irresponsible to leave a keg in your front lawn.
--------------
Ok, now actually I had not thought of that. I guess that does make sense.
Well, we do know that what was happening before was not working and was not generating any money at all. You are a sample size of one.
And some sources don't appear to agree:
"Some key takeaways since the landmark law took effect:
Oregonians have embraced the industry, at least with their wallets.
Oregon has collected $14.9 million in tax revenues from the sales of recreational marijuana since January - translating into an estimated $60 million in sales.
Marijuana sales are taxed at 25 percent, though medical marijuana remains untaxed. The revenue has far outpaced state economists' expectations and that doesn't include the recently expanded sales of spendier edibles and concentrates."
http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2016/06/oregon_marks_1_year_anniversar.html
I have no doubts how some states have approached it will need adjustments to their regs, and there will be an uptick on some negative behaviors. etc for a time. Per usual, pros/cons will exist and legalization not panacea. Personally, I think best way to approach it would be Fed to make it schedule III, fund studies via the NIH to see what the benefits are and for whom, and that schedule would also encourage research by others, offer MM, then move toward full legalization. The major reasons for many of the cons is again due to the schedule and the pissing match between states and Feds on that issue.
WickedWillis
11-22-17, 14:10
And some sources don't appear to agree:
"Some key takeaways since the landmark law took effect:
Oregonians have embraced the industry, at least with their wallets.
Oregon has collected $14.9 million in tax revenues from the sales of recreational marijuana since January - translating into an estimated $60 million in sales.
Marijuana sales are taxed at 25 percent, though medical marijuana remains untaxed. The revenue has far outpaced state economists' expectations and that doesn't include the recently expanded sales of spendier edibles and concentrates."
http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2016/06/oregon_marks_1_year_anniversar.html
I have no doubts how some states have approached it will need adjustments to their regs, and there will be an uptick on some negative behaviors. etc for a time. Per usual, pros/cons will exist and legalization not panacea. Personally, I think best way to approach it would be Fed to make it schedule III, fund studies via the NIH to see what the benefits are and for whom, and that schedule would also encourage research by others, offer MM, then move toward full legalization. The major reasons for many of the cons is again due to the schedule and the pissing match between states and Feds on that issue.
It's not common that an industry is generated overnight with an instant customer base is making multiple millions in taxes. That will be huge appeal to many states on the fence about putting it on the ballot.
It's not common that an industry is generated overnight with an instant customer base is making multiple millions in taxes. That will be huge appeal to many states on the fence about putting it on the ballot.
Why not, they did it with gambling and the lottery - same deal.
So how do you guys feel about legalized prostitution?
Oregon's budget is almost 10 Billion a year. 15 million is not exactly a huge number in that context. And that doesn't count the money needed for an agency to track and regulate all these grows. If we are actually going to move toward reducing the black market. Right now there is very little oversight or inspection, and even less for the medical grows.
skywalkrNCSU
11-22-17, 15:18
Oregon's budget is almost 10 Billion a year. 15 million is not exactly a huge number in that context. And that doesn't count the money needed for an agency to track and regulate all these grows. If we are actually going to move toward reducing the black market. Right now there is very little oversight or inspection, and even less for the medical grows.
What about all the money saved by not having to police, arrest, and jail a bunch of people?
WickedWillis
11-22-17, 15:18
Why not, they did it with gambling and the lottery - same deal.
So how do you guys feel about legalized prostitution?
It's not a common you open a new billion dollar industry and instantly have significant tax dollars. If it happens more frequently, I'm just out of the loop on what those industries are.
Yes prostitution should be legal. Regulate it, health inspections, welfare checks, etc.
Oregon's budget is almost 10 Billion a year. 15 million is not exactly a huge number in that context. And that doesn't count the money needed for an agency to track and regulate all these grows. If we are actually going to move toward reducing the black market. Right now there is very little oversight or inspection, and even less for the medical grows. Same goes for Alaska. Marijuana taxes collected annually don't replace ONE DAY of taxes the oil companies pay. We haven't even fired up any sort of real enforcement or auditing. The growers that are growing legally now are the same guys that were doing it illegally a few years ago and never got caught. The legal pot they grow goes to tourists and first timers. There is no way I can believe they stopped supplying their previous black market customers. Right now in Alaska it's just too easy to cheat the system. My business is making money off supplying building materials to growers and retailers, so I'm not totally against the industry.
What about all the money saved by not having to police, arrest, and jail a bunch of people? I think Oregon was a lot like Alaska. No real number of people were going to jail or being hassled by cops in the last decade. They've been too busy busting meth and heroine operations. If you got busted with a grow operation in Alaska, or popped for possession, in the years before legalization, you did something else to piss off The Man.
Pot was legal in Alaska for adults when I was in high school. We still drank WAY more than we smoked weed. Pot was more expensive than beer, so their was that as well. Legalization in Alaska hasn't really changed anything where I lived.
Why not, they did it with gambling and the lottery - same deal.
So how do you guys feel about legalized prostitution?
I'm all for it. What consenting adults do between them for $ or not, none of my business, or the states. Never understood how it was the gubments biz in the first place.
Oregon's budget is almost 10 Billion a year. 15 million is not exactly a huge number in that context. And that doesn't count the money needed for an agency to track and regulate all these grows. If we are actually going to move toward reducing the black market. Right now there is very little oversight or inspection, and even less for the medical grows.
And yet, it exceeded expectations, so that aspect apparently a success. Hopefully they get their act together the lack of needed oversight to make it work for all concerned.
WickedWillis
11-22-17, 17:21
I'm all for it. What consenting adults do between them for $ or not, none of my business, or the states. Never understood how it was the gubments biz in the first place.
Always more eloquently put than I can manage Will
What about all the money saved by not having to police, arrest, and jail a bunch of people?
I believe Oregon was one of the first State's to decriminalize possession. Decades ago.
If you got caught with a bit of weed you might get a ticket. Dealing is still illegal, so more than a personal amount still gets you arrested.
Next pot myth?
I'm all for it. What consenting adults do between them for $ or not, none of my business, or the states. Never understood how it was the gubments biz in the first place.
My feeling is that it was a result of religious mores influencing government.
I am torn. By religious belief I'm against it. On the other hand, I think that ultimately legalization would lead to less victimization of women caught up in the lifestyle and perhaps even a drop in sex crimes.
skywalkrNCSU
11-23-17, 08:40
I believe Oregon was one of the first State's to decriminalize possession. Decades ago.
If you got caught with a bit of weed you might get a ticket. Dealing is still illegal, so more than a personal amount still gets you arrested.
Next pot myth?
It’s not a myth in a lot of the country and doesn’t decriminalization kinda prove the point? Forget the fact that decriminalization is an absurd notion in a nation of laws.
Averageman
11-23-17, 16:04
My feeling is that it was a result of religious mores influencing government.
I am torn. By religious belief I'm against it. On the other hand, I think that ultimately legalization would lead to less victimization of women caught up in the lifestyle and perhaps even a drop in sex crimes.
I grew up in a small town in SE Arizona.
I was told that before the 1960s it was a Mexican thing. They grew it, smoked it and we're left alone about it. Cops didn't get involved and no one cared.
There has been a lot written about the whole issue of how it got banned, some say W.R. Hearst was trying to unload a bunch of lumber to the pulp mills for paper. Having cornered the market on payed off Politicians and Newspapers it didn't take long to remove hemp from the market place as an alternative to wood pulp.
I really could care less at the moment.
Years ago though I had a little Sister die from cancer. She couldn't keep food down, had no appetite and was cooked through from radiation trying to treat the cancer.
That's a shit shit way to die at seventeen.
If some weed would have eased the nausea, made her have an appetite or just given her a reason to smile for a minute.
Morality is a personal thing just don't hurt anyone else and go about taking care of your own business. These laws look pretty stupid from my point of view.
Well this should be interesting......
Richmond, VA Deputy is at her home in nearby Chesterfield County. Goes to her closet to get something and suddenly gets a really bad migraine...... except it wasn't a migraine... it was a bullet to the head.
Seems her next door neighbor was cleaning his gun. He has been charged with accidentally shooting her and possession of marijuana. Marijuana is not legal in Richmond or Chesterfield.
So it will be interesting to see where this guy got his gun and if he lied on a 4473 to do so. I've got a bad "gun show loophole" feeling about this one. Anything around here that is not store bought gets the "loophole" treatment if it gets tied to a crime.
However, on the side... let's just say that because she forgives him and it is found to truly have been an accident and let's just say that he only had one joint in his entire dwelling.
It seems like the whole marijuana thing has now really complicated things. To the extent that for the courts to ensure public safety this guy may need to have a felony conviction.
Curious how you guys see it. Just for the basic rules. In VA we have store sales with the 4473 questions. We also have private sales with no questions asked if you choose not to ask them. We have private sales where you can do a State Police check if you want ( that may be gun show only ). So those are the rules.
Let's assume he was obviously using MJ at the time by admission. IOW his story is yes, I was high and accidentally shot her through the wall. How would you process this crime and protect citizens so he couldn't do it again with respect to existing Fed 4473 laws ( no MJ use ) .. and we'll say the lady will not press charges if that matters to you. Just forget the jury. You decide the case and your goal is uphold existing laws and protect the citizenry with those existing laws after his trial with you. Also assume he has no criminal record.
I honestly see no solution except to find him guilty of some felony by some means.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/36908917/deputy-in-a-blink-of-an-eye-my-whole-life-changed
sidenote:
Virginia Marijuana Possession Charge – 1st Offense
No matter how much you have on you, if you are charged with possession of marijuana and it is your first offense, you will face misdemeanor charges. This first offense misdemeanor charge carries a potential 30 days in jail and $500 in fines.
I grew up in a small town in SE Arizona.
I was told that before the 1960s it was a Mexican thing. They grew it, smoked it and we're left alone about it. Cops didn't get involved and no one cared.
There has been a lot written about the whole issue of how it got banned, some say W.R. Hearst was trying to unload a bunch of lumber to the pulp mills for paper. Having cornered the market on payed off Politicians and Newspapers it didn't take long to remove hemp from the market place as an alternative to wood pulp.
I really could care less at the moment.
Years ago though I had a little Sister die from cancer. She couldn't keep food down, had no appetite and was cooked through from radiation trying to treat the cancer.
That's a shit shit way to die at seventeen.
If some weed would have eased the nausea, made her have an appetite or just given her a reason to smile for a minute.
Morality is a personal thing just don't hurt anyone else and go about taking care of your own business. These laws look pretty stupid from my point of view.
I am sorry for your loss, my dad passed from cancer in 1971, at age 37, I was 17. I wouldn't wish the suffering my dad went through on anyone.
I have no problem with legalizing MJ for either medical or recreational use, although the recreational aspect WILL cause societal problems, just as alcohol causes problems.
The comments you quoted were regarding prostitution, not MJ. No big deal.
Early on in this thread the alcohol thing was brought up. US Code doesn't define alcohol as a controlled substance. Some states use the language to the effect of "habitually drugged or intoxicated," as to describe a potential mechanism of illegal possession, but as carry laws have changed those have been relaxed, at least in my state, to require the possessor to handle the firearm in a reckless manner while intoxicated.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
Oregon has collected $14.9 million in tax revenues from the sales of recreational marijuana since January - translating into an estimated $60 million in sales.
As a comparison, CO marijuana tax revenue for Jan to Oct 2017 was $205 Million. For 2016, total sales topped $1.3 Billion.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data
As a comparison, CO marijuana tax revenue for Jan to Oct 2017 was $205 Million. For 2016, total sales topped $1.3 Billion.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data
My response was not to compare or deny the tax revenue generated was sufficient or comparative to others, only to point it has actually exceeded expectations. What didn't (apparently) happen, was an expectation of much greater revenue that didn't happen. Apparently they actually generated more than they expected. That is my only point.
Apparently they actually generated more than they expected. That is my only point.
Yeah, I think all regions demand outweighed expectations.... and I think the .gov is scrambling to figure ways to tax the life out of it but the latter is sort of par for the course.
Yeah, I think all regions demand outweighed expectations.... and I think the .gov is scrambling to figure ways to tax the life out of it but the latter is sort of par for the course.
I got no problem with the government taxing the life out of it IF the revenue is earmarked for costs directly associated with legalization such as enforcement, rehab programs, etc. I even have no problem with some of it going to fund education. Roads and bridges, new buildings, welfare, not so much.
Dist. Expert 26
11-24-17, 15:05
I got no problem with the government taxing the life out of it IF the revenue is earmarked for costs directly associated with legalization such as enforcement, rehab programs, etc. I even have no problem with some of it going to fund education. Roads and bridges, new buildings, welfare, not so much.
Taxation is theft.
Just because you may not wish to partake in this product doesn't mean that the same logic couldn't be applied to something you regularly purchase. Ammunition comes to mind.
Taxation is theft.
Mindless dogma. Tell me how you can run the country without some form of taxation. Voluntary donations?
Just because you may not wish to partake in this product doesn't mean that the same logic couldn't be applied to something you regularly purchase. Ammunition comes to mind.
Whether I choose to partake of the product is ad rem. I simply recognize that there are societal costs associated with activities such as smoking (cigarettes or marijuana) or recreational drug usage (alcohol, mj, etc.).
Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to tax the products to defray those costs so as not to unnecessarily burden those who choose abstinence. I'm sure in your Utopia there will be a magic bunny that shits the funds to pay these expenses.
Taxation is theft.
Just because you may not wish to partake in this product doesn't mean that the same logic couldn't be applied to something you regularly purchase. Ammunition comes to mind.
As Libertarian as I am, can't agree with that. Some taxation is theft and or not justified, but you'll also have no functioning society without any taxation. Anarchists are about the only one who don't favor a functioning society.
Funny. Nobody talked about except taxes when they were saying, "like pot should be treated just like alcohol maaannnn"...
IF the revenue is earmarked for costs directly associated with legalization such as enforcement, rehab programs, etc.
I have no issue with that. However I've also lost a lot of faith in the .gov to collect and utilize taxes responsibly.
5.56 Bonded SP
11-24-17, 18:12
However I've also lost a lot of faith in the .gov to collect and utilize taxes responsibly.
This.
Canada taxation vs USA taxation ( with no Fed tax )
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/10/investing/canada-cannabis-weed-tax-stocks/index.html
Again, if this were something that had not already been part of our society for 60 years I might think, wow, ok, we need to tax it at over 50% to account for all the social changes. But this is happening because the changes have been in place for so long. MJ use is ubiquitous and has been for ages.
I would have thought that with all the research and prep the industry had done that they would have sat down with .gov and said, ok, we figure you will need to take "x". But it sort of looks like .gov has sat back in their chair and said holy smokes, we can get rich off this, who wants some of the action? .. and of course all of .gov says "me".
Dist. Expert 26
11-24-17, 20:49
Mindless dogma. Tell me how you can run the country without some form of taxation. Voluntary donations?
Just because you may not wish to partake in this product doesn't mean that the same logic couldn't be applied to something you regularly purchase. Ammunition comes to mind.
Whether I choose to partake of the product is ad rem. I simply recognize that there are societal costs associated with activities such as smoking (cigarettes or marijuana) or recreational drug usage (alcohol, mj, etc.).
Therefore, it isn't unreasonable to tax the products to defray those costs so as not to unnecessarily burden those who choose abstinence. I'm sure in your Utopia there will be a magic bunny that shits the funds to pay these expenses.
You could make the exact same arguments about firearms. A tax on ammunition could be used to provide financial relief and assistance to victims of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence.
See what I did there?
Promoting what equates to a sin tax on marijuana is a line of reasoning that can easily be flipped to favor an entirely different agenda.
Why tax it at all? People that smoke grass now already do it. People who don't probably won't. Nothing would really change except police could stop having to worry about it.
It's like you don't even know you are paying excise tax on firearms and ammo. Or alcohol.
You could make the exact same arguments about firearms. A tax on ammunition could be used to provide financial relief and assistance to victims of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence.
See what I did there?
Promoting what equates to a sin tax on marijuana is a line of reasoning that can easily be flipped to favor an entirely different agenda.
Why tax it at all? People that smoke grass now already do it. People who don't probably won't. Nothing would really change except police could stop having to worry about it.
Once I retired and had to start buying my own ammo, there was this funny thing called FAET that got added onto the price. It's there. I believe it is 11% ammo, 11% rifles, 10% pistols.
All FAET collected by TTB goes directly to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Bureau in The Department of the Interior.
The money from the tax, which was first implemented in 1937 after Congress decided to pass the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, is disseminated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to each State government for Wildlife Restoration which includes such things as:
Habitat Restoration
Hunter Education
Wildlife Management
Wildlife Research
Shooting Ranges
According to the Department of the Treasury, in 2013 there was over 875 million in revenue from these taxes - way up due to Sandy Hook.
As far as people who don't smoke MJ probably won't once it is legalized...yeah right. You and I both know there are stoners who quit because they rose to responsible positions and couldn't afford an arrest on their record. Way I figure is, once it's legal, 90% of the folks stupid enough to smoke cigarettes, are going to try MJ, at least once.
Way I figure is, once it's legal, 90% of the folks stupid enough to smoke cigarettes, are going to try MJ, at least once.
There will probably be a novelty period but have we seen an increase in drunk driving and alcohol related crimes due to the proliferation of micro-breweries and boutique distilleries? Those things are popping up like wild flowers. In fact someone was talking to me about some of the new ones here on thanksgiving dinner but I couldn't hear everything that was being said. apparently there is one that you can bring your dog and people bring their kids. i don't know if it has an outdoor area or what but if our society changes over the years to one of a more responsible consumption I don't see why crime activity couldn't actually decrease.
I think there could be a considerable difference in the way society handles itself between say a generation that was drinking because they were all broke and the world was at war to a society that likes to enjoy a responsible pleasant community activity. I honestly don't know but I wouldn't necessarily doubt it could happen.
What is it like in CO? Are people just getting stoned out of their minds? I've never actually talked to anyone about it but I assume it would be on the news if that were the case.
I'm sure something is and will go wrong, but what does the long haul bring. That's all that really matters. Past performance under controlled illegal conditions is not necessarily what the future will bring. Everything about our society is changing and that aspect will too.
are going to try MJ, at least once.
They might still be risking losing their job. I don't know how that's going to work. Will employers still be able to drug test people? Obviously if you are an athlete they can. I don't know how that's going to work. Pretty sure the entire medical profession checks randomly and I know IT contractors can/will.
Dist. Expert 26
11-25-17, 04:34
Once I retired and had to start buying my own ammo, there was this funny thing called FAET that got added onto the price. It's there. I believe it is 11% ammo, 11% rifles, 10% pistols.
All FAET collected by TTB goes directly to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Bureau in The Department of the Interior.
The money from the tax, which was first implemented in 1937 after Congress decided to pass the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, is disseminated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to each State government for Wildlife Restoration which includes such things as:
Habitat Restoration
Hunter Education
Wildlife Management
Wildlife Research
Shooting Ranges
According to the Department of the Treasury, in 2013 there was over 875 million in revenue from these taxes - way up due to Sandy Hook.
As far as people who don't smoke MJ probably won't once it is legalized...yeah right. You and I both know there are stoners who quit because they rose to responsible positions and couldn't afford an arrest on their record. Way I figure is, once it's legal, 90% of the folks stupid enough to smoke cigarettes, are going to try MJ, at least once.
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of such taxes to deal with the "societal cost" of firearms ownership, correct? I would love to pay 10% less for ammo, but that's just me.
Most people I know that don't smoke abstain not for fear of legal issues, which won't arise unless you're a complete idiot, but because they get drug tested at work. That wouldn't change. Companies are still free to mandate that their employees are drug free. And so what if people try it? The only financial impact will be a boost to pizza and Chinese restaurants.
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of such taxes to deal with the "societal cost" of firearms ownership, correct? I would love to pay 10% less for ammo, but that's just me.
Most people I know that don't smoke abstain not for fear of legal issues, which won't arise unless you're a complete idiot, but because they get drug tested at work. That wouldn't change. Companies are still free to mandate that their employees are drug free. And so what if people try it? The only financial impact will be a boost to pizza and Chinese restaurants.
Key point. Test positive for THC during pre-employment drug testing, or routine drug testing at work, and you could have a problem. But, the trend among Colorado employers is to stop testing for marijuana and derivatives. Only about 62% of Colorado companies are pre-employment testing for marijuana, down from 77% in 2014
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/03/colorado-business-pot-drug-tests/
https://www.npr.org/2017/07/08/536125097/colorado-employers-rethinking-drug-testing
This whole discussion is an example of why most doctors view the whole medical marijuana thing with a substantial amount of eye-rolling.
...........
I can't even begin to imagine what role marijuana or any cannabinoid would play in my practice. And that's a fairly common thread when you talk to your average doctor on the street.
First time ever, today I just operated on a patient that has a “marijuana card” (chronic pain). Patient takes 5 doses a day (!) I wrote post-op orders allowing to “take own home medications”, but had to make it clear to the patient that there wasn’t any way we could provide a new MJ prescription. It’s a problem for this patient. Medical marijuana has been legal in Minnesota since July 2015, but there are exactly three “providers” (two doctors and one nurse practitioner) in the entire state that can legally authorize it. All in the Twin Cities. They typically charge $275 for the initial “authorization” (20 doses) and $175 for refills....cash on the barrel head.
Medical marijuana isn’t a hot topic among physicians in Minnesota.-
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of such taxes to deal with the "societal cost" of firearms ownership, correct? I would love to pay 10% less for ammo, but that's just me.
And I would love to pay less for a bottle of Scotch. Luxury taxes have been a thing from the beginning of the US. Why should it change now, and why just for pot?
I don't care about the societal cost, but the direct cost of oversight. I live in a poor rural County. We have a minimal Sheriff Department. The State has not provided any real oversight, crime around illegal grows and black market drug dealing are a big drain on resources. Pot users, not me should have to pay for that.
Dist. Expert 26
11-25-17, 11:37
And I would love to pay less for a bottle of Scotch. Luxury taxes have been a thing from the beginning of the US. Why should it change now, and why just for pot?
I don't care about the societal cost, but the direct cost of oversight. I live in a poor rural County. We have a minimal Sheriff Department. The State has not provided any real oversight, crime around illegal grows and black market drug dealing are a big drain on resources. Pot users, not me should have to pay for that.
I disagree with the entire premise. We already pay sales tax, why isn't that enough? Perhaps if so much tax revenue is necessary we should cut back government programs to a more sustainable level.
Remove the stigma from marijuana and your issue disappears. Black market pot deals aren't really an issue law enforcement should be worrying about. Meth, heroin, pills, etc are where the focus should be.
Everyone in this thread positing this "cost to society" rhetoric is aware that prescription drugs cause more deaths and a greater "cost to society" than all all other illicit drugs combined?!?!
One only needs to go back to the merit and intent of the founding of this country to realize that the fed gov has no business in legislating against our rights.
I've already posted it once but it needs repeated.
"The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" -That's about as succinct and concise as it gets. When you include the preamble and the federalist and anti federalist papers, it's more than clear that our government is WAY beyond its intended limits.
We should NEVER allow a Right to be taken or legislated into a permission- for ANY reason.
This country is full of pussies who only care about THEIR permissions- oh wait I mean freedom and don't truly understand what real Liberty is. Willing to throw anyone else under the bus.
Dist. Expert 26
11-25-17, 14:16
Everyone in this thread positing this "cost to society" rhetoric is aware that prescription drugs cause more deaths and a greater "cost to society" than all all other illicit drugs combined?!?!
One only needs to go back to the merit and intent of the founding of this country to realize that the fed gov has no business in legislating against our rights.
I've already posted it once but it needs repeated.
"The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" -That's about as succinct and concise as it gets. When you include the preamble and the federalist and anti federalist papers, it's more than clear that our government is WAY beyond its intended limits.
We should NEVER allow a Right to be taken or legislated into a permission- for ANY reason.
This country is full of pussies who only care about THEIR permissions- oh wait I mean freedom and don't truly understand what real Liberty is. Willing to throw anyone else under the bus.
Very well said.
I've already posted it once but it needs repeated.
"The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" -That's about as succinct and concise as it gets. When you include the preamble and the federalist and anti federalist papers, it's more than clear that our government is WAY beyond its intended limits.
We should NEVER allow a Right to be taken or legislated into a permission- for ANY reason.
This country is full of pussies who only care about THEIR permissions- oh wait I mean freedom and don't truly understand what real Liberty is. Willing to throw anyone else under the bus.
OTOH, the country is full of legislators that are inclined to, well...legislate, and Supreme Court Justices who have a slightly different take on the Constitution than you do.
I’m sorry if it missed it in your previous posts, but what’s your proposal for not allowing our rights to be infringed?
There is no Federal sales tax. Tariff and excise were the first taxes this country had, to say we are taxed too much and the government is too big because of those taxes is ignoring the history of taxation in the US. Luxury taxes are self imposed and self limiting, because they are not necessities someone can decide not to buy taxed items or if they are taxed to highly most won't buy them.
Alcohol is legal, but taxed and regulated. Why should pot be different?
Well here is a new one I did not know. While MJ is illegal in all 50 states, it is also illegal for Fed prosecutors to prosecute in the states where it is legal:
The text of the Rohrabacher-Farr (also known as Rohrabacher-Blumenauer) Act, which blocked the U.S. Department of Justice from spending any money to prosecute medical marijuana in states where it's legal. It expires December 8, 2017 unless renewed as part of the H.R. 2029 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
Of course this does not explain the lack of prosecutions for recreational MJ.
Well here is a new one I did not know. While MJ is illegal in all 50 states, it is also illegal for Fed prosecutors to prosecute in the states where it is legal:
The text of the Rohrabacher-Farr (also known as Rohrabacher-Blumenauer) Act, which blocked the U.S. Department of Justice from spending any money to prosecute medical marijuana in states where it's legal. It expires December 8, 2017 unless renewed as part of the H.R. 2029 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
Of course this does not explain the lack of prosecutions for recreational MJ.
Like firearms nullification laws, when push comes to shove, Rohrabacher-Farr will likely be declared unconstitutional based on the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. Laws made under the US Constitution, as in Federal Legislation, are the Supreme Law of the Land.
(Article VI, Clause 2) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Dist. Expert 26
11-25-17, 14:58
There is no Federal sales tax. Tariff and excise were the first taxes this country had, to say we are taxed too much and the government is too big because of those taxes is ignoring the history of taxation in the US. Luxury taxes are self imposed and self limiting, because they are not necessities someone can decide not to buy taxed items or if they are taxed to highly most won't buy them.
Alcohol is legal, but taxed and regulated. Why should pot be different?
So you're ok with our incredibly corrupt elected leaders arbitrarily deciding what you as a consumer should spend your money on? Because that's the entire idea behind taxing some products at a different rate than others.
Alcohol shouldn't be taxed or regulated on a federal level outside of FDA health regulations. States are perfectly capable of regulating the sale and manufacture of alcohol as they see fit. The same applies to marijuana.
Like firearms nullification laws, when push comes to shove, Rohrabacher-Farr will likely be declared unconstitutional based on the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. Laws made under the US Constitution, as in Federal Legislation, are the Supreme Law of the Land.
Rohrabacher-Farr is an existing Fed Law, there is no Supremacy issue.
This is why feds do not enforce MJ laws in medical MJ, states, something I did not know, I always though it was Obama telling them not to, like DACA.
Rohrabacher-Farr is an existing Fed Law, there is no Supremacy issue.
This is why feds do not enforce MJ laws in medical MJ, states, something I did not know, I always though it was Obama telling them not to, like DACA.
Beg pardon for the confusion. I was thinking it was a state initiative. Carry on.
Beg pardon for the confusion. I was thinking it was a state initiative. Carry on.
OK here is rest of story. Rohrabacher-Farr is set to expire December 8, at and if not renewed, DOJ can enforce MJ laws December 9. Now if you own a big-ass pot farm in Colorado, etc., or are setup selling MJ in the local mall, you better set your alarm for 0400 and leave door unlocked, on December 9, as consensus is Sessions, a known MJ opposer, even for medical MJ, is gonna come a knockin....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeff-sessions-plans-end-medical-125002397.html
OTOH, the country is full of legislators that are inclined to, well...legislate, and Supreme Court Justices who have a slightly different take on the Constitution than you do.
I’m sorry if it missed it in your previous posts, but what’s your proposal for not allowing our rights to be infringed?
My proposal is to not allow our rights to be infringed. It's through our actions as a society. When we follow unconstitutional laws, we give them legitimacy and allow the usurpation of our rights.
If everyone who believed in the 2A actually stood for what it is and what the entire idea of a natural born Right is in general, stood up to those enforceing unconstitutional laws and didn't follow them- if they think they can lock up 100's of millions of us for doing what is just and right- let them try and we will see what happens.
We should absolutely NOT just give in because it is easier, "safer" and more "comfortable" to be complacent than to do what is right and what is our Right by the very nature of our being.
If everyone decided to not comply. We'd have our rights.
This is easier said than done and understandably folks comply with unconstitutional bullshit every day. I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't. Liberty is worth the danger, worth the pain and sacrifice. Without them; America-the greatest country built on the most virtuous ideals in the known history of our planet- wouldn't exist.
Following an unjust and unconstitutional law is wrong.
As to SCOTUS- they were never granted the power of Cobsitutional review of the BOR. They usurped it. Again, we should not follow unjust and unconstitutional rulings by SCOTUS justices.
Too many people have forgotten that the power of the Government flows from the governed, which is the basis for the formation of our Nation.
We need to be the virtuous and daring people for which this Nation was created by and for- otherwise it's already lost.
OK here is rest of story. Rohrabacher-Farr is set to expire December 8, at and if not renewed, DOJ can enforce MJ laws December 9. Now if you own a big-ass pot farm in Colorado, etc., or are setup selling MJ in the local mall, you better set your alarm for 0400 and leave door unlocked, on December 9, as consensus is Sessions, a known MJ opposer, even for medical MJ, is gonna come a knockin....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeff-sessions-plans-end-medical-125002397.html
This is something that worries many in the pot Biz. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
I'd prefer states rights to prevail over federal authority.
OK here is rest of story. Rohrabacher-Farr is set to expire December 8, at and if not renewed, DOJ can enforce MJ laws December 9. Now if you own a big-ass pot farm in Colorado, etc., or are setup selling MJ in the local mall, you better set your alarm for 0400 and leave door unlocked, on December 9, as consensus is Sessions, a known MJ opposer, even for medical MJ, is gonna come a knockin....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeff-sessions-plans-end-medical-125002397.html
Got it. I'm on track now. That will be interesting, assuming there isn't a vote to extend it.
OK here is rest of story. Rohrabacher-Farr is set to expire December 8, at and if not renewed, DOJ can enforce MJ laws December 9. Now if you own a big-ass pot farm in Colorado, etc., or are setup selling MJ in the local mall, you better set your alarm for 0400 and leave door unlocked, on December 9, as consensus is Sessions, a known MJ opposer, even for medical MJ, is gonna come a knockin....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeff-sessions-plans-end-medical-125002397.html
You don't think Trump has something up his sleeve in a good cop, bad cop kinda way do you? I mean he doesn't exactly like Sessions. It sounds like something he would do. Could he write an over riding EO? I just think Sessions would be an idiot to shut everything down but not so sure he wouldn't do it. That really puts a whole different spin on things.
Also what exactly is involved in getting MJ off that Sched. III list?
I always thought the "don't enforce" was an Obama / Holder deal. I didn't realize there was a law. In fact I dodn't think Obama and Holder actually liked laws.
BuzzinSATX
11-25-17, 20:14
Archaic laws written to support big pharma.
Your human right to use effective medicine to improve your physical/mental health is taking a backseat to making pharmaceutical companies rich.
This is true on so many more levels and subjects than 99% of Americans think. Big pharma is big business.
I do not condone people using firearms on MJ any more than people on booze using firearms, but that should not mean folks have to turn in their firearms if they are using or in possession of either.
[QUOTE=Dist. Expert 26;2566399]So, just to be clear, you're in favor of such taxes to deal with the "societal cost" of firearms ownership, correct? I would love to pay 10% less for ammo, but that's just me. [\QUOTE]
Smoking pot isn’t a right, weapon ownership is. That being said, I’m okay with the current tax on firearms and ammo because it is earmarked for things the government provides that I enjoy.
[QUOTE=Dist. Expert 26;2566399]So, just to be clear, you're in favor of such taxes to deal with the "societal cost" of firearms ownership, correct? I would love to pay 10% less for ammo, but that's just me. [\QUOTE]
Smoking pot isn’t a right,
The .gov does not hand down rights, it attaches penalties to them. The 2A is simply one that .gov HAS NO RIGHT to infringe upon. If given the power they can infringe on others such as smoking.
Smoking pot is .gov controlled right.
So, just to be clear, you're in favor of such taxes to deal with the "societal cost" of firearms ownership, correct? I would love to pay 10% less for ammo, but that's just me.
Sure, I'd like to pay no taxes. But the reality is that we need money to run the country. Waay back in 1937 the primary purpose of firearms ownership was not to do 'serious training' but rather to hunt. So what better way to help defray the expenses of wildlife management. Times change, maybe the tax needs to be rethought.
And so what if people try it? The only financial impact will be a boost to pizza and Chinese restaurants.
Yep, just the way it has worked with alcohol.
Dist. Expert 26
11-26-17, 08:38
Sure, I'd like to pay no taxes. But the reality is that we need money to run the country. Waay back in 1937 the primary purpose of firearms ownership was not to do 'serious training' but rather to hunt. So what better way to help defray the expenses of wildlife management. Times change, maybe the tax needs to be rethought.
Yep, just the way it has worked with alcohol.
Or, maybe, we could get rid of a few useless government agencies/programs and render the tax unnecessary. Crazy, I know, but I like to think outside the box.
Alcohol and marijuana are not equivalent in their effects. There's no logical basis for that argument.
Legalize Everything and let God sort it out
Kind of hard for me to understand why this surprises anyone who has filled a 4473.
Or, maybe, we could get rid of a few useless government agencies/programs and render the tax unnecessary. Crazy, I know, but I like to think outside the box.
I'm not as sure as you are about getting rid of agencies/programs, I am down with curtailing some of their authority in some cases. And I reckon, truth be known, you don't want to get rid of the ones that benefit you and your interests.
I don't think you are outside of the box, I think you are typical of a 25 year-old college student, who thinks they know everything.
Alcohol and marijuana are not equivalent in their effects. There's no logical basis for that argument.
Hopefully, at some point during your collegiate career, your professors will strive to keep you on point context-wise. I was not talking about the effects of alcohol or MJ, I was talking about taxes to defray the societal costs.
Legalization of any drug for recreational use - alcohol included - WILL come with increased societal costs. Taxes on the substances help defray those costs.
Dist. Expert 26
11-26-17, 17:44
I'm not as sure as you are about getting rid of agencies/programs, I am down with curtailing some of their authority in some cases. And I reckon, truth be known, you don't want to get rid of the ones that benefit you and your interests.
I don't think you are outside of the box, I think you are typical of the self-absorbed folks who have run this country into the ground. All about you and your well being with little or no regard for the rights or welfare of others.
Hopefully, at some point during your collegiate career, your professors will strive to keep you on point context-wise. I was not talking about the effects of alcohol or MJ, I was talking about taxes to defray the societal costs.
Legalization of any drug for recreational use - alcohol included - WILL come with increased societal costs. Taxes on the substances help defray those costs.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that viewpoints different than your own aren't inherently flawed? I accept no form of government assistance with anything other than the GI bill, if you want to call that assistance. Thus, I am in favor of cutting every aspect of the federal government.
Where in what I said did you get my well being as the primary goal? I'm in favor of smaller government so that my son's generation, and those beyond, will have some semblance of freedom rather than an Orwellian nightmare. If anyone is self centered it would be those who oppose making said cuts because it would negativity impact them in the present.
The baby boomer generation comes to mind here, but the same logic applies to older people so convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority that they're willing to sacrifice the future of our country rather than accept change.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The "societal costs" of marijuana are not equivalent to alcohol. One cannot overdose on marijuana. I've yet to encounter an individual who got high and decided to kill an ex girlfriend. Driving high is by no means safe, but I would argue that it is less hazardous than driving drunk (this comes from personal observations only, not statistics). And while marijuana may be habit forming for some, the medical effects of such a habit pale in comparison to alcoholism. As such, I would argue that taxes beyond normal sales tax are unnecessary.
Was that in context enough for you?
Averageman
11-27-17, 08:33
[QUOTE=Kyohte;2566757]
The .gov does not hand down rights, it attaches penalties to them. The 2A is simply one that .gov HAS NO RIGHT to infringe upon. If given the power they can infringe on others such as smoking.
Smoking pot is .gov controlled right.
You have a right to be left alone and the .gov has a constitutional obligation to do so.
The "Whiskey Rebellion" was a giant loss for freedom.
If they can't regulate it in order to tax it, they look for another way to make money off of it. Big Pharma was willing to pony up to keep it under wraps.
Alcohol and marijuana are not equivalent in their effects. There's no logical basis for that argument.
Well that is how it was sold to the voters here. That, tax revenue, and eliminating the black market. So far none of those have come true.
Your argument doesn't hold up, because as long as it's easy to sell on the black market pot growers are not going to pay income or sales tax either.
In general I agree on a smaller government and less taxes. Starting by not reducing government and making pot a free for all is not something I agree with.
Well that is how it was sold to the voters here. That, tax revenue, and eliminating the black market. So far none of those have come true.
Your argument doesn't hold up, because as long as it's easy to sell on the black market pot growers are not going to pay income or sales tax either.
In general I agree on a smaller government and less taxes. Starting by not reducing government and making pot a free for all is not something I agree with.
Meh, it has not happened, again, due to the fed status and remaining states it's not legal. The current status has however impacted an important area of the black market:
"according to the U.S. Border Patrol. The agency's marijuana seizures dropped by almost half between 2011 and 2016, falling from 2.5 million pounds to 1.3 million pounds"
The current black market aspect are growers in legal states shipping to illegal states, which should surprise no one. As long as this patch work of laws/states exists, that's what will continue to happen. In terms of cartels and such, that number will trickle to statistical zero should the fed schedule finally change to something rational at least.
Most of what's been "sold" to voters is coming true, and there will be plenty of bumps along that road as long as the state/fed cluster F remains as it is and until logical regs and oversight put in place, which will also happen. Some states are doing a much better job of it than others it appears...
Why is it so hard for you to accept that viewpoints different than your own aren't inherently flawed? I accept no form of government assistance with anything other than the GI bill, if you want to call that assistance. Thus, I am in favor of cutting every aspect of the federal government.
Well, in your case, as I mentioned earlier the whole absolutist 'taxation is theft' mantra was kind of a tip off, to me at least, that your viewpoint was inherently flawed. I'm a Christian, if you are not, then I believe your belief system is inherently flawed. That doesn't mean I don't think you are entitled to your viewpoint and doesn't mean that I don't listen to what you say. It also doesn't mean that I wish you ill. It just means I don't agree and, if at all appropriate, will try to win you to my side. Too often on the internet this devolves to each side taking shots at the other.
Take the GI Bill for example. I used every bit of mine, so we have that in common. All those taxpayers paid my way through college. As a result, I'm pretty much okay with paying some taxes so you have the same opportunity. Like everyone, I would like those taxes to be as low as possible, but I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, in order to get those low taxes. It is not a perfect system, we should work to make it better, but it is what we have.
I am in favor of cutting/curtailing every unnecessary aspect of the federal government. Some regulation is needed to make sure the interests of ALL are represented. To me your statements make it seem as if you would, as I mentioned earlier, throw the baby out with the bath water.
As an aside, I am for either a federal sales tax or a flat tax. Under the federal sales tax model, I would hope that all of the federal excise taxes would go away.
Where in what I said did you get my well being as the primary goal? I'm in favor of smaller government so that my son's generation, and those beyond, will have some semblance of freedom rather than an Orwellian nightmare. If anyone is self centered it would be those who oppose making said cuts because it would negativity impact them in the present.
The baby boomer generation comes to mind here, but the same logic applies to older people so convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority that they're willing to sacrifice the future of our country rather than accept change.
We are in agreement as to end goals. I don't think gutting government services while at the same time reducing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans is a workable fix. Many will use Reaganomics as a shining example of what works. They seem to ignore the end results of the Reagan Era - larger government, ginormous national debt. I guess for them it depends on whether you are buying or selling.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The "societal costs" of marijuana are not equivalent to alcohol. One cannot overdose on marijuana. I've yet to encounter an individual who got high and decided to kill an ex girlfriend. Driving high is by no means safe, but I would argue that it is less hazardous than driving drunk (this comes from personal observations only, not statistics). And while marijuana may be habit forming for some, the medical effects of such a habit pale in comparison to alcoholism. As such, I would argue that taxes beyond normal sales tax are unnecessary.
There you go - an opening statement, just like in debate.
I would take exception to the statement 'the societal costs of marijuana are not equivalent to alcohol' simply because we do not have data on the costs of widespread legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. I do not believe that I posited the societal costs would be the same, or greater, just that there would be increased societal costs.
My experience with drugs, alcohol, and driving is different than yours. I was a police officer and an academy instructor for 40 years. For the last 15 of those years, one of my duties was instructing DUI detection and standardized field sobriety testing. Even though I hesitate to say driving while buzzed is less dangerous to the public than driving while drunk, there is some evidence to support that conclusion.
Perhaps two of the biggest factors driving such conclusions are the drivers degree of risk taking and perception of impairment. Alcohol decreases inhibitions, leading to increased risk taking at levels below .08 BAC. Additionally folks consistently underestimate/deny their level of impairment when drinking alcohol. In contrast MJ users generally overestimate their level of impairment, leading to decreased risk taking. However, both drugs impair the ability to divide attention among the simultaneous mental and physical tasks associated with driving.
The real problems come when you have an impaired driver who has been both smoking and drinking.
Bottom line is, yes, I agree, there will likely lees costs due to buzzed drivers, but there will be costs.
Was that in context enough for you?
Yep. Two thumbs up.
Dist. Expert 26
11-27-17, 12:33
Well that is how it was sold to the voters here. That, tax revenue, and eliminating the black market. So far none of those have come true.
Your argument doesn't hold up, because as long as it's easy to sell on the black market pot growers are not going to pay income or sales tax either.
In general I agree on a smaller government and less taxes. Starting by not reducing government and making pot a free for all is not something I agree with.
Here's the thing though- it's already sold on the black market. That will likely never change. People still drink moonshine despite the fact that you can buy corn liquor at every ABC (at least here). Sometimes the fact that it's illegal is a draw in itself.
Some people will pay taxes though, and that tax money can be used in place of increasing deficits and to assist law enforcement in dealing with methamphetamine, opiates, illegal prescription meds, etc. Colorado has taken in over $500 million since recreational marijuana was legalized there in 2014. That's not an insignificant amount.
I've never met one person who used marijuana that had their shit together.
Always the following:
1. Can't hold a job
2. Can't manage money
3. Can't raise their family correctly
4. Property in a state of disrepair
Or some combination of the above.
Dist. Expert 26
11-27-17, 12:48
I've never met one person who used marijuana that had their shit together.
I personally know a design engineer at Chrysler, a career machinist and a very successful business owner who all use marijuana, albeit for different reasons. This is a case where correlation doesn't equal causation.
I've never met one person who used marijuana that had their shit together.
I'll bet you have, you just didn't know it.
I knew a guy in high school who was a stoner. Nicest guy in the world and one of the smartest kids in school. He went on to be an engineer, then a phd, then a professor. I doubt he quit.
I leave out the local business owners that I either know or suspect smoke the whacky weed.
I personally know a design engineer at Chrysler, a career machinist and a very successful business owner who all use marijuana, albeit for different reasons. This is a case where correlation doesn't equal causation.
Clearly, this man never amounted to much....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Em5kbmRXg
Dist. Expert 26
11-27-17, 13:52
Clearly, this man never amounted to much....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Em5kbmRXg
That Michael Phelps guy never did either.
I've never met one person who used marijuana that had their shit together.
Always the following:
1. Can't hold a job
2. Can't manage money
3. Can't raise their family correctly
4. Property in a state of disrepair
Or some combination of the above.
You'd be surprised at the amount of people you have no idea that smoke pot and are very successful. Doctors, lawyer, professors, teachers, engineers, stock brokers, business owners of all types it go's on and on. They do it and are smart enough to not let others know about it.
NYH1.
My problem is with false promises and poor implementation. Most of the problems start and end with the joke of "medical" in my State.
Leaving the under regulated "medical" in place should have been easy to see as a likely problem. Nothing will end all black market activity, but the problem here is way bigger than any remaining moonshiners.
It would be like having no regulation or inspection of Jack Daniels, why wouldn't they sneak a bunch out the back door?
Averageman
11-27-17, 17:41
My problem is with false promises and poor implementation. Most of the problems start and end with the joke of "medical" in my State.
Leaving the under regulated "medical" in place should have been easy to see as a likely problem. Nothing will end all black market activity, but the problem here is way bigger than any remaining moonshiners.
It would be like having no regulation or inspection of Jack Daniels, why wouldn't they sneak a bunch out the back door?
It's interesting that you mention Jack Daniels because you can distill your own alcohol, it's just can't be be for your consumption;
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=64d447befaa84e81e402e173836f8924&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title27/27cfrv1_02.tplhttp:// (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?
SID=64d447befaa84e81e402e173836f8924&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title27/27cfrv1_02.tplhttp://)
Ironic isn't it.
So you can grow the corn, you can purchase all of the products to make the alcohol, you can own the still and you can make the alcohol and pour it in your lawn mower to use as fuel to cut the grass, but it would be illegal to drink it.
What it comes down to is, well again the Federal Government getting "their" cut. You see you can buy a distillers licence, but it will cost you just as much as the people at Jack Daniels or Jim Beam pay. Want to bet they've priced you out of that game?
You can thank our founding red headed step child Hamilton for that. He made sure Federal Troops went out to the Frontier to collect revenue from Farmers who made whiskey and thus we had a rebellion.
I have a unique idea, lets put growing and smoking weed and distilling alcohol in the same category and call it one of our pursuits of happiness. After all, if you're going to have a vice, shouldn't it be Your Business ?
If you are not harming anyone but your yourself and you are not a burden to anyone but yourself, why should it be anyone's business but your own?
So as soon as big Pharma or big Tobacco figure the time is right, they will licence and regulate you out of the picture and sell it and profit hand over fist.
If you believe this was the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution, well, you're kind of a chump.
I am fine with regulation and tax on alcohol. Personal quantities should be legal to make, and the cost of regulation should not stifle smaller start-ups. I don't think the Federal tax is oppressive, but some State's are.
Regulation does a reasonable job of keeping it from minors. No it's not perfect, we probably all had a beer before 21 but access was mainly in the older teens and not the younger teens. And more likely beer than liquor. I could not have drank regularly in high school, but I could have smoked pot every day.
I would be pretty ok with pot being legal if it was controlled as alcohol. Right now, in my State it is not.
Dist. Expert 26
11-28-17, 10:21
I am fine with regulation and tax on alcohol. Personal quantities should be legal to make, and the cost of regulation should not stifle smaller start-ups. I don't think the Federal tax is oppressive, but some State's are.
Regulation does a reasonable job of keeping it from minors. No it's not perfect, we probably all had a beer before 21 but access was mainly in the older teens and not the younger teens. And more likely beer than liquor. I could not have drank regularly in high school, but I could have smoked pot every day.
I would be pretty ok with pot being legal if it was controlled as alcohol. Right now, in my State it is not.
Regulation isn't about safety or even morals. It's about the government getting their dime out of the deal while protecting the interests of their campaign donors.
If I want to grow weed or distill liquor for my own personal consumption, why should the government have anything to do with that? The fact that we've gotten to the point where we accept that level of intrusion in our personal lives is incredibly sad.
Averageman
11-28-17, 10:54
Regulation isn't about safety or even morals. It's about the government getting their dime out of the deal while protecting the interests of their campaign donors.
If I want to grow weed or distill liquor for my own personal consumption, why should the government have anything to do with that? The fact that we've gotten to the point where we accept that level of intrusion in our personal lives is incredibly sad.
Bravo Sir, that is a fine explanation of how personal freedoms were usurped.
Please bear in mind that some tax dollars pay for roads, defense and to keep our border secure, but other tax dollars, as we have recently learned go to pay off Women who've been sexually assaulted by our Legislators.
I think we can agree that personal freedoms are balanced by personal responsibility. That you could and should exercise these freedoms with respect is a given.
Dist. Expert 26
11-28-17, 11:04
Bravo Sir, that is a fine explanation of how personal freedoms were usurped.
Please bear in mind that some tax dollars pay for roads, defense and to keep our border secure, but other tax dollars, as we have recently learned go to pay off Women who've been sexually assaulted by our Legislators.
I think we can agree that personal freedoms are balanced by personal responsibility. That you could and should exercise these freedoms with respect is a given.
I'm not an anarchist; I fully recognize that SOME taxes are necessary to keep this show on the road. I do feel that we've long since passed that point.
The issue is that the government, and it would seem a good percentage of the population, doesn't believe in individual responsibility. They would rather have every aspect of our lives controlled and regulated with the idea that doing so somehow prevents bad things from happening.
Regulation isn't about safety or even morals. It's about the government getting their dime out of the deal while protecting the interests of their campaign donors.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that viewpoints different than your own aren't inherently flawed? :cool: I believe there is more to it than the motives you put forth, although I do agree with your premise.
The taxation aspect did play an important role in funding the civil war, and in running the government: https://taxfoundation.org/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-prohibition-and-also-led-its-repeal/ So we are in agreement on that aspect.
However, I believe the other aspect of regulation in this case is for the public welfare. Age restrictions on the sale of alcohol have been in place for over 200 years. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my 12 year-old using his paper route money to buy booze. If there weren't age restrictions some merchants would sell to anyone old enough to put money on the counter.
Another aspect of regulation is ensuring a safe supply. I, for one, like the idea that I am able to break the seal on a bottle and drink with the assurance that I won't go blind because of methanol in my booze.
So, yeah, it takes money to ensure all of those things, an excise tax on the product serves as a user fee to lessen the burden of those who do not partake.
Beyond that it is unjust to 'punish' the user of any product which has an excise tax attached by jacking the excise tax beyond what is needed to ensure product safety and restriction on use in order to fund other governmental activities.
If I want to grow weed or distill liquor for my own personal consumption, why should the government have anything to do with that? The fact that we've gotten to the point where we accept that level of intrusion in our personal lives is incredibly sad.
Aside from the fact that MJ is illegal in the majority of states, I agree that the government should step out of the process. Is there any oversight on home brewing equipment?
Dist. Expert 26
11-28-17, 11:29
Why is it so hard for you to accept that viewpoints different than your own aren't inherently flawed? :cool: I believe there is more to it than the motives you put forth, although I do agree with your premise.
The taxation aspect did play an important role in funding the civil war, and in running the government: https://taxfoundation.org/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-prohibition-and-also-led-its-repeal/ So we are in agreement on that aspect.
However, I believe the other aspect of regulation in this case is for the public welfare. Age restrictions on the sale of alcohol have been in place for over 200 years. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my 12 year-old using his paper route money to buy booze. If there weren't age restrictions some merchants would sell to anyone old enough to put money on the counter.
Another aspect of regulation is ensuring a safe supply. I, for one, like the idea that I am able to break the seal on a bottle and drink with the assurance that I won't go blind because of methanol in my booze.
So, yeah, it takes money to ensure all of those things, an excise tax on the product serves as a user fee to lessen the burden of those who do not partake.
Beyond that it is unjust to 'punish' the user of any product which has an excise tax attached by jacking the excise tax beyond what is needed to ensure product safety and restriction on use.
Aside from the fact that MJ is illegal in the majority of states, I agree that the government should step out of the process. Is there any oversight on home brewing equipment?
I suppose I should use a more narrow brush.
Regulation in the form of taxes, incredibly stringent requirements for manufacturers, licensing fees, etc are made in the interest of money and large corporations. A perfect example would be ABC stores. There's no legitimate reason grocery stores can't sell liquor along with beer and wine.
I have no issue with quality control or restrictions on minors. However I would argue that the former can be overseen by the FDA and the latter by local law enforcement. Sales tax on alcohol should be more than sufficient to cover both.
I believe that MJ should be completely unregulated for personal use in every state. Whether or not it's legal for sale can be decided by individual states.
As to distilling alcohol (brewing is legal in most states to my knowledge), I believe it's illegal across the board if said liquor is for personal consumption. In NC one can be charged for possession of mash and distilling equipment.
I'm not an anarchist; I fully recognize that SOME taxes are necessary to keep this show on the road. I do feel that we've long since passed that point.
Agreed. So lets talk about solutions. WE are now sitting on a national debt of over 20 trillion dollars. I don't see a way out of the mess that involves cutting anyone's taxes. Certainly not taxes for corporations or CEO's who could give a fvck less about our national debt. What is the answer?
There's no legitimate reason grocery stores can't sell liquor along with beer and wine.
As to distilling alcohol (brewing is legal in most states to my knowledge), I believe it's illegal across the board if said liquor is for personal consumption. In NC one can be charged for possession of mash and distilling equipment.
I have no interest in brewing or distilling, did not know that.
The sales of liquor in grocery stores is kind of a sore subject.
There is a big push to do that locally. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't really create any new jobs, rather it merely increases profit for the grocery and convenience stores.
The impact of the legislation on the private liquor stores will be devastating. Most of them will, no doubt go under. The jobs lost won't be absorbed by the grocery and convenience stores.
My feeling is that, overall, it will hurt rather than help the local economy.
I realize that you are in a different system with state run ABC stores.
Dist. Expert 26
11-28-17, 11:51
Agreed. So lets talk about solutions. WE are now sitting on a national debt of over 20 trillion dollars. I don't see a way out of the mess that involves cutting anyone's taxes. Certainly not taxes for corporations or CEO's who could give a fvck less about our national debt. What is the answer?
To pay off $20+ trillion in debt? Honestly I have no idea, short of starting and winning WW3.
To even begin to pay that down we would have to drastically cut every single federal agency, including the military. Such cuts would likely cause civil unrest on a level equivalent to post Katrina New Orleans.
For me, the debt isn't really a concern. The global economy is so dependent on the United States, at least for the moment, that nobody will try to collect on what we owe them.
I'm more worried about following the UK on the path to becoming a police state.
So as soon as big Pharma or big Tobacco figure the time is right, they will licence and regulate you out of the picture and sell it and profit hand over fist.
If you believe this was the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution, well, you're kind of a chump.
Only thing holding mega biz from jumping in full throttle is the fed schedule. They have every intention of owning that industry:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/04/tobacco-giants-eye-lucrative-50-billion-marijuana-market/
Like booz, etc, for better or worse, the current bumps will smooth out and gubment gets it's $, will be owned by big biz, and back to biz as usual, with it's pros/cons. There's essentially zero black market for booze for a reason. I have no doubt on the local level, those "bumps" are a real PITA, but that's in large part the feds doubling down on the (failed by any metrics) "war on drugs" BS and having states go it alone.
Assuming the gubment supposed to be a reflection of the wishes of the majority of people - within the framework of the Const - maybe they need to actually pay attention to how most feel on this issue:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx
Averageman
11-28-17, 12:42
If tomorrow someone wrote a check to pay off the National debt, would you trust our government to use that money wisely?
As soon as I became a bit more educated about these things I came to the conclusion that I couldn't trust Politicians to be fiscally responsable with any of the money I send them.
We send a billion or so dollars out in farm subsidies, these dollars don't go to Ma and Pa Farmer operations, they go to Giant Corporations. These Mega Farm Corporations send millions back to get their Reps reelected.
That's just one example of how they misuse our tax dollars, there are many more schemes and rackets available to them.
Until these are exposed and we get term limits, it's a rigged system and they are stealing those tax dollars with impunity.
So please, don't tell me we can raise taxes and fix this problem.
Regulation...
If I want to grow weed or distill liquor for my own personal consumption, why should the government have anything to do with that? The fact that we've gotten to the point where we accept that level of intrusion in our personal lives is incredibly sad.
Yes, regulation is often excessive or designed by the big guys to keep competition down. Keeping an age limit is contrary to the big guys making more money, so obviously there is some safety or morals at work.
I said regulation should be limited and making for personal use allowed, and pot should be the same if made legal.
Excise taxes were the first taxes raised by a bunch of guys that just got done fighting a war over taxes. I live in a State with no sales tax, and I can't think of a bigger intrusion that you accept than the State getting to dig in your pocket every time you buy something.
Dist. Expert 26
11-28-17, 15:10
Yes, regulation is often excessive or designed by the big guys to keep competition down. Keeping an age limit is contrary to the big guys making more money, so obviously there is some safety or morals at work.
I said regulation should be limited and making for personal use allowed, and pot should be the same if made legal.
Excise taxes were the first taxes raised by a bunch of guys that just got done fighting a war over taxes. I live in a State with no sales tax, and I can't think of a bigger intrusion that you accept than the State getting to dig in your pocket every time you buy something.
Unfortunately as long as we want a government there will be some form of taxation. This is unavoidable. You may not pay sales tax, but that money is undoubtedly recouped elsewhere.
Paying sales tax is hardly equivalent to being told what you're allowed to consume and what you can and cannot do on your private property.
Yes, regulation is often excessive or designed by the big guys to keep competition down. Keeping an age limit is contrary to the big guys making more money, so obviously there is some safety or morals at work.
I said regulation should be limited and making for personal use allowed, and pot should be the same if made legal.
Excise taxes were the first taxes raised by a bunch of guys that just got done fighting a war over taxes. I live in a State with no sales tax, and I can't think of a bigger intrusion that you accept than the State getting to dig in your pocket every time you buy something. I think property tax is a far bigger evil than sales tax. The government gets to arbitrarily decide how much my personal property is worth and then decides how much they are going to tax me on it. If I don't pay they take away my home, my damn castle. I get to pay RENT on the house I supposedly own. At least with sales tax I get to decide how much I am going to spend and have a choice in the matter.
I think property tax is a far bigger evil than sales tax. The government gets to arbitrarily decide how much my personal property is worth and then decides how much they are going to tax me on it. If I don't pay they take away my home, my damn castle. I get to pay RENT on the house I supposedly own. At least with sales tax I get to decide how much I am going to spend and have a choice in the matter.
And that's the rub...
With a sales tax system, you're only taxed when you spend. You can be independent of much of those taxes if you choose (not saying it's easy, saying that it's possible). With property taxes, you're taxed simply for living. You don't need to own. Renters are generally paying their landlords taxes for them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.