CA to Legalize Marijuana (fence, high school, rating, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anybody would buy it. They would want it all natural. Naturally tobacco has nicotine so there is no way around the physically addictive substance. Marijuana naturally does not have anything physically addictive about it.
MJ is usually just MJ, but sometimes there are additives (PCP is one example, I believe) that are popular in certain groups of users. Not necessarily an argument against legalization--just throwing it out there as info to know.
MJ is usually just MJ, but sometimes there are additives (PCP is one example, I believe) that are popular in certain groups of users. Not necessarily an argument against legalization--just throwing it out there as info to know.
Don't be silly. 99.999 percent of pot is just pot. Adding anything just costs extra.
I just saw a special on CNBC regarding the enormous problem CA has with illegal growing operations in state parks and national forests. They note the enormous expansion in the drug cartel industry. They also note the south of the border relationship with pot growers as well.
I just saw a special on CNBC regarding the enormous problem CA has with illegal growing operations in state parks and national forests. They note the enormous expansion in the drug cartel industry. They also note the south of the border relationship with pot growers as well.
So legalize it and take the black market out. Remember what happen to all the gangster bootleggers during the 20's era of prohibition, once alcohol was legal again, they were out of business.
unfortunately you are wrong. pot is an illegal drug at the federal level, so although CA might make it legal, the feds still have the right to charge you in federal court for possession/sales. remember last year when the feds came in an confiscated all the weed at the dispensaries in LA and how pissed the city was about it? although they had the right to be pissed, they're power is trumped by the feds, so there is really nothing they can do about it. the one glimmer of sunshine in all of this is that obama is a pretty liberal guy and would probably keep the feds out of CA if we chose to completely legalize pot.
The perception in general is that Obama doesn't care if states care to legalize as he thinks they have the right to do that if they so choose. Obama's drug czar is the former Seattle police chief who refused to raid medical marijuana dispensaries there despite federal law and accepted Washington state law on the matter. I doubt the feds would make a big deal under the current administration.
cigarette smoking is practically banned everywhere in CA outside of people's homes, so I'd imagine it wouldn't be any different with weed.
Pshh. It's banned in places that really don't matter in the long run, because you're not in those places for an extended period, IMO.
Planes: Should be banned, yes. Keep this.
Restaurants: I'd rather have a smoking (with ventilation) and non-smoking (with isolation) segregation than to bar it altogether. If they want to smoke let them, as long as I can't smell it. I'm not in the bar/restaurant long enough to justify banning it here.
While Driving: Don't ban it...just force people to (A) use the ashtray provided to them instead of dropping change in there; (B) keep your windows rolled UP and use the A/C instead; and (C) stop flicking cigarettes out the window. Violations should be points on the record.
In Workplaces: Should be banned, yes. Keep this. In fact, I think they should be forced to somehow freshen before they re-enter the building too, so the linger smell isn't there.
Anyway, to the thread, legalizing it is a bad idea. As to why they'd buy instead of grow, the problem with some of the bought stuff is the impurities, either intentionally or accidentally introduced. They'd warn people of the dangers of those vs. controlled distribution, same way they do with anything else consumed by the human body. It's a bad idea though, because no matter how much money they think it will bring in, we need to identify the true health risks associated with its use. We need to understand exactly what weed does to our bodies, document it, study and teach it, before we go and open up that Pandora's Box. Failure to do so may have catastrophic results a decade or so from now.
We need to understand exactly what weed does to our bodies, document it, study and teach it, before we go and open up that Pandora's Box. Failure to do so may have catastrophic results a decade or so from now.
We do know. At least the neuroscience is clear. The physiologic impact is not, but I would wager it would not be much different than smoking cigarettes.
In our brains, we have a receptor called the CB-1 receptor. A naturally occuring neorutransmistter in your brain binds to the CB-1 recepter, it is called anandamide. THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, is an agonist (looks the same as anandamide) and works the same was as anandamide. The research is out there. You just have to look and have a basic understanding of neuroscience.
The Gubinator has already said he will terminate the bill so it doesn't really matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.