The_Franz posted:Montana just passed a ballot measure to ban medical marijuana by a fairly decent margin. Don't hold your breath. I mean it's lovely how they restricted the first law, but it's still better than most states and not really a "ban". quote:INITIATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 124
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
Let's not forget we have and reelected this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFgrB2Wmh5s We have strong supporters at the federal level to help us fight the ensuing battle. I am pretty happy to be a ColoRADoan this morning, and I haven't smoked weed in 15 years  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
When will the rest of the US join along? Why doesn't my state, Minnesota, have it legalized yet? The midwest never get's any of these cool laws. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:^^^ e: there's also arguments for medical uses of MDMA (psychiatric) and heroin (pain management in terminal patients). But one thing at a time. MDMA may soon become the first drug to go through the FDA certification process paid for by a non-profit: http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/ I believe they're currently on phase 3 human trials. In other words, MDMA will probably be available for prescription long before anything changes for marijuana on the national level. On topic though, here's hoping Obama (and Holder) steps back from his gung-ho enforcement of the war on drugs and returns to his 2008 rhetoric. I'm not holding my breath though. There's a chance he could stop moving right on everything and move back to the left... right guys?  Edit: \/ \/ Mr.48 posted:Pretty sure that was Meth. Wikipedia posted:From 1898 through to 1910, diacetylmorphine was marketed under the trademark name Heroin as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant. Bayer marketed the drug as a cure for morphine addiction before it was discovered that it rapidly metabolizes into morphine. As such, diacetylmorphine is in essence a quicker-acting form of morphine. The company was embarrassed by the new finding, which became a historic blunder for Bayer.[60] SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Heroin was patented and marketed by Bayer as a non-addictive cough suppressant. Pretty sure that was Meth. Edit: nvm, you're right. Got them mixed up because meth was also originally marketed for asthma as a cough suppressant. Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
You could get a prescription for methamphetamine, take it to a pharmacy, and get it filled right now. It's available as Desoxyn, produced by Abbott. Prescribers seem to like Adderall (dextroamphetamine and amphetamine) for adults and Vyvanse (lisdexamphetamine) for children, although for children you tend to see non-stimulant Strattera (atomoxetine), guanfacine or clonidine more frequently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Is there a clear explanation for why Obama walked back and continues to pursue this issue? I simply don't buy that he was worried about being painted as soft on crime.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
312 posted:Is there a clear explanation for why Obama walked back and continues to pursue this issue? I simply don't buy that he was worried about being painted as soft on crime. No serious politician will touch marijuana because they would never be elected into any office. This might be changing, but from a presidential standpoint it's political suicide. Absolutely no clue what you mean by "walked back" and "continues to persue this issue" because he has literally said nothing about marijuana rescheduling or legality with the exception of telling the DEA to ignore marijuana (an order that they ignored)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 20:50
|
|
quote:As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said the federal government should not raid medical marijuana users and caregivers. Three months after Obama was inaugurated, his attorney general announced that it would be the administration's official policy. Although California was the first state to decriminalize marijuana for medical use in 1996, it remains a federal crime to possess or sell it. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/feds-cracking-down-on-california-medical-marijuana-dispensaries.html I guess I have not heard anything recently, so "continuing" was inaccurate.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
ejstheman posted:Two 25% taxes are an insignificant expense, compared to the combined margins of the dozen back-market operators that touch your weed on its way to you now. I mean, take some other dried plant that isn't illegal (not saffron; something that can be grown locally and is equally easy to process) and look at how much it costs, and then add 50% to that number. That's slightly lower than the equilibrium price of weed under the new regime. I bet it still isn't nearly as expensive as weed is now. I wish this stupid "tax the gently caress out of it" meme would go away. lol you had to go through a dozen actors to get your weed? If you exert the barest of effort you can establish a connect 1-2 hands removed if not straight off the vine. Further, black market taxation is not equal. The smaller the quantity the higher the taxation, the higher the quantity the lower the taxation. hobbesmaster posted:Tobacco would be a better dried plant to look at, when you buy tobacco most of the money you pay for it is going to the government. I'm genuinely interested if you have any data we can look at. I don't dismiss your claim but the 25% at every level sounds like a lot of taxation. I'm having trouble finding information on agriculture taxation/charge rates (except for saffron which you mentioned previously). I've never grown marijuana but it seems like a really easy thing to do if you have the right equipment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:28
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:lol you had to go through a dozen actors to get your weed? If you exert the barest of effort you can establish a connect 1-2 hands removed if not straight off the vine. Further, black market taxation is not equal. The smaller the quantity the higher the taxation, the higher the quantity the lower the taxation. I'm not directly knowledgeable here, but this seems a little extreme. 12 might be hyperbole but what the average college stoner gets passes a lot of hands. (bare effort stoner joke here). The taxation being lower on larger quantities is a simple consequence of everyone in the chain making a living. It's not a black market thing, this is true in basically every industry. Home depot pays less per nut than Joe Bobs Hardware. quote:I'm genuinely interested if you have any data we can look at. I don't dismiss your claim but the 25% at every level sounds like a lot of taxation. I'm having trouble finding information on agriculture taxation/charge rates (except for saffron which you mentioned previously). I've never grown marijuana but it seems like a really easy thing to do if you have the right equipment. Unfortunately I don't have data, and to be honest there might not be a source of data that is reliable enough to draw firm conclusions from anyway. I'd give a rough estimate and say if people paid (say) $100 right now for a whatever of weed at street price. It could be profitably grown by large grow ops and taxed at 100% and still come out cheaper. 312 fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:lol you had to go through a dozen actors to get your weed? If you exert the barest of effort you can establish a connect 1-2 hands removed if not straight off the vine. Further, black market taxation is not equal. The smaller the quantity the higher the taxation, the higher the quantity the lower the taxation. Most imported weed probably has a distribution model like this: Growers in Mexico -> Processors and packagers -> Distribution network in Mexico -> Smugglers for border crossing -> Distribution network in America -> Wholesalers -> Repackagers and resellers directly serving consumers. For domestically produced weed you're probably only going to eliminate the smugglers and foreign distribution steps, so you're looking at 7 steps for imported production and 5 steps for domestic production. It's going to vary depending on where you are, of course. Living in Northern California, I'm going to have more direct access to production because there's a lot of stuff like this, this and this all over the place (if you're tempted to try to visit these places I'd strongly recommend you don't, you'll likely encounter 4 or 5 unfriendly dudes with AR15s). Most growers I know try to avoid direct-to-consumer sales not because of increased exposure to criminal charges, but because of the risk of violent burglaries if word gets out. Spoondick fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:lol you had to go through a dozen actors to get your weed? If you exert the barest of effort you can establish a connect 1-2 hands removed if not straight off the vine. Further, black market taxation is not equal. The smaller the quantity the higher the taxation, the higher the quantity the lower the taxation. Just for shits and giggles, here is a calculation with the assumption that the store is competing with the black market at $50/8th no, I don't care what you pay, just follow along Retail price at $50/8th, with 25% markup and 25% tax gives a whole-sale cost of $33/8th or $264/oz. Assuming 25%/25% again, the whole sale cost is $176/oz or $2,816/lb. Assuming 25%/25%, that would be a grower sale price of $1,877/lb. I'm leaving a lot of room for generous markups I think; stuff I've read indicates grocery markups are 5%-25% so I went with the high end. I think it would be pretty trivial to produce weed at $1.5k per pound in an industrial farming setup where you weren't worried about getting busted, etc. I think taxes+profit margin should be pretty competitive with the black market, even with taxes as high as they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Just for shits and giggles, here is a calculation with the assumption that the store is competing with the black market at $50/8th no, I don't care what you pay, just follow along Nice, nice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz_NsdHYmnw
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Colorado voted against this in 2006, 59 to 40. I am surprised public opinion changed so drastically in 6 years This law was well written and that one wasn't. Also running a ballot measure that increases income for the state during financial iffy times using revenue from something that MANY people perceive as a vice that they don't partake of was strategically perfect. We have it now, let's see if we can keep it. I'm really torn about going to a dispensary today though. I spent the evening with my city counselor and her husband who's a county commissioner and we talked about implementing the law for quite a while. The city already has a panel of experts in place to set a THC limit for intoxication because the law points at local control. This will be screwed up all over the place because Colorado ALWAYS starts with local control and then magically discovers that people can travel from one local to another and THEN passes a law regulating everything equally. The other problem is the tax provision. We have TABOR which says that all tax changes must pass a vote by the people. This measure creates the requirement of a tax so that part will play out in the courts. Someone probably has a brief written already against implementing the tax and someone else already has a repeal amendment written for 2013 based solely on the inability of the state to implement dope sales BECAUSE there wasn't a parallel bill creating the tax. Like I said; I hope we can keep this law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I am not even kind of a lawyer After looking at the text of the Colorado amendment it seems much less restrictive than what you guys are talking about in Washington. I don't see anything on first glance that would prevent 7-11 from also carrying weed, for example. I guess the big loophole is the section about how the state must develop any further regulations it deems necessary to implement the bill and license vendors, so long as the regulations don't actually prevent marijuana from being sold. Seems like any number of further restrictions could fall out from that section. ChlamydiaJones posted:The other problem is the tax provision. We have TABOR which says that all tax changes must pass a vote by the people. This measure creates the requirement of a tax so that part will play out in the courts. Someone probably has a brief written already against implementing the tax and someone else already has a repeal amendment written for 2013 based solely on the inability of the state to implement dope sales BECAUSE there wasn't a parallel bill creating the tax. Like I said; I hope we can keep this law. Very interesting point, thanks for the post. Do you think it's a legally sound argument that in voting for this amendment, the voters implicitly approved of the tax as well? I already think TABOR is terrible, terrible policy and it would suck to have this whole thing get overturned by it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Disclaimer: I am not even kind of a lawyer They way it's been read is that the medical dispensaries will probably be chosen to sell but that's still a year off since the feds have been asked to comment officially on enforcement and Obama was essentially silent on it during the election. The governor of the state made his money selling alcohol and opposes it but acknowledges that it is the law of the land, we think he's just hoping it doesn't happen under his watch which nobody really understands. Now it's in the hands of the lawyers - as far as taxation, apparently that won't happen until the next election since TABOR is interpreted as NO new taxes without voter approval implying that sale could be implemented but not taxed.....yet. Or something. This was strategic since running several ballot measures could have killed them all and running one answered a very clear question; Colorado likes local control and doesn't really have a problem with dope. The way the MM laws are written I could go to a dispensary, complain of back problem to an on site doctor and receive a card (I believe there is no waiting period but I don't KNOW that) then buy my pot right then. So really pot is legal in Colorado, this law just states the fact unambiguously. Also they CAN and actually have to implement another aspect which is the possession part (not that it was enforced much anymore anyway), as of the signing by the governor which must occur in 30 days, you can possess. That part is done. Oh yeah, there are words there about having a weight OR a number of plants and I look forward to setting aside a pot growing plot! I have to say that I've yet to talk to a politician at the local level who isn't ALL happy about the revenue prospects. My real interest is in the public health aspects of getting pot offenders out of prison and back into life and I think that this is a GREAT step in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:I have to say that I've yet to talk to a politician at the local level who isn't ALL happy about the revenue prospects. My real interest is in the public health aspects of getting pot offenders out of prison and back into life and I think that this is a GREAT step in that direction. That's my main reason for supporting the amendment (I live in Colorado, too ) I don't even use marijuana myself but I think it's ridiculous that such a huge number of people are rotting in prison for possessing a harmless recreational substance. You'd be hard pressed to find someone whose life has been ruined by weed itself rather than the fact that it's illegal, which is better than you can say about a lot of things that ARE legal.And that makes a lot of sense about how they're tiptoeing around TABOR. Once the decriminalization is in place, no one's going to vote down $40 million for school construction the next time around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Clearly, a big win for marijuana advocates. While essentially void due to Federal Law it's incredible to see such an enormous change in public opinion. That said - there is no protection for marijuana users when it comes to employment drug testing. It doesn't matter if you have a medical marijuana card or you're a legal user in your state. You have no rights. Am I largely missing something? What the hell were the creators of the Colorado and Washington bills thinking? How many people work at corporations that drug test? This - is an enormous let down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Clearly, a big win for marijuana advocates. While essentially void due to Federal Law it's incredible to see such an enormous change in public opinion. A let down how? You make it sound like a bill that forces companies to hire stoners had a chance when that doesn't seem to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with companies drug testing for marijuana even if it is legal as long as they are open about it and you are not penalized for past usage. There are places that are tobacco free and drug test for nicotine but they dont disqualify you for being a past smoker as long as you are not during their employ. In the end I think it comes down to cost. Most companies are only drug free because of the tax breaks Regan gave them. If there is no incentive to test for it then it would be the same as restricting alcohol usage. Drug testing is expensive and that is usually a cost the company has to eat.
DrPlump fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
e: nevermind
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:A let down how? You make it sound like a bill that forces companies to hire stoners had a chance when that doesn't seem to be the case. What major corporation is going to openly hire someone who uses marijuana legal or not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What major corporation is going to openly hire someone who uses marijuana legal or not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What major corporation is going to openly hire someone who uses marijuana legal or not? No one in Los Angeles really cares. I suppose if you're in the midwest or something but it's not really a big deal on the coasts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
FuSchnick posted:I know an awful lot of pot smokers at Microsoft. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What major corporation is going to openly hire someone who uses marijuana legal or not? Where do you live/work? In the software industry, especially out west, no one gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:In the end I think it comes down to cost. Most companies are only drug free because of the tax breaks Regan gave them. If there is no incentive to test for it then it would be the same as restricting alcohol usage. Drug testing is expensive and that is usually a cost the company has to eat. This is a short-sighted argument. What if technological improvements make drug tests cheap? It's morally repellent. Employers shouldn't have that kind of power over your personal life. The only possible justification is prevention of actual impairment in sensitive positions like surgeon, machine operator, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
SO since legalization passed and marijuana will be legal to own and purchase starting December 6th, but there won't be any state run stores going yet, will it be legal to buy it from a medical marijuana dispensary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Zen Punk posted:This is a short-sighted argument. What if technological improvements make drug tests cheap? Exactly. I know there's a pre-employement Drug Screening at Microsoft (it's moot if they don't test after the fact) and there's hundreds of thousands that work for various vendors - they do test and I've worked for one. Now, this isn't a an exception but are you guys serious? If I apply at Vmware, Cisco, Intel or whatever big name IT Consulting Company there's no drug testing at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Exactly. Anecdote: IT companies and the IT departments of non-IT companies don't test. I have never encountered an exception to this and most of my jobs in the past decade have been in the Midwest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I know there's a pre-employement Drug Screening at Microsoft I am roughly 100% sure that Microsoft has never drug tested me. Edit: It's a big company, so I don't know what they do with everybody, but I would be surprised if it was a normal thing. tk fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
My company doesn't test, and it's a pretty big one. I think once you get above jobs with close customer contact and safety concerns, the amount of drug testing drops off. Although our chairperson is a huge bud proponent, so that helps 
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:I think once you get above jobs with close customer contact and safety concerns, the amount of drug testing drops off. I got tested pushing carts at a Home Depot. I did not get tested to teach highschool or work with peoples' social security information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:I got tested pushing carts at a Home Depot. I did not get tested to teach highschool or work with peoples' social security information. Right. It's not about safety or any other rational concern, it's about adding another dollop of humiliation for those at the bottom of the social order. It's common in minimum wage and high-turnover jobs, uncommon in jobs with more pay and respect or prestige.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
What I mean is that there's more exposure to liability for a company if you work with the public and you're stoned and let a pile of carts plow into someone's kid. Their insurance can deny their claim or they can get super sued. Accidents are fine, but accidents with stoned employees where insurance claims can be denied can royally gently caress them over. Believe me in that I understand the beshitted classist aspect of it as well, but I don't think the stated reasons for liability are entirely bullshit. Loving Life Partner fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What major corporation is going to openly hire someone who uses marijuana legal or not? None? What bill to legalize marijuana is going to pass if it has a clause that makes weed smoking a protected class?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:What I mean is that there's more exposure to liability for a company if you work with the public and you're stoned and let a pile of carts plow into someone's kid. Their insurance can deny their claim or they can get super sued. Accidents are fine, but accidents with stoned employees where insurance claims can be denied can royally gently caress them over. Why is the liability of a stoned cart-pusher more important than any other profession? Why doesn't anybody care about the programmer working on HIPPA-compliant hospital software or the accountant dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of investments? Their errors can affect far more than a runaway cart stack. The whole drug testing system is bullshit anyway. If you work 8 hours a day totally sober, but smoke 1 joint after work to fall asleep, you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Why is the liability of a stoned cart-pusher more important than any other profession? Why doesn't anybody care about the programmer working on HIPPA-compliant hospital software or the accountant dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of investments? Their errors can affect far more than a runaway cart stack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
It also generally takes more effort to fill office jobs compared to retail and whatnot. If your cashier of choice fails the drug screen, no big deal you can find one thats just as effective easily. If you're looking for a spanish speaking cobol programmer who knows the niche restaurant database industry its somewhat more annoying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 15:21
|
|
