Keep it legal, and buy it from friends or the weird dude who always wants to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories when you buy a bag from him... stores are retarded
Simple fact, case closed, and end of discussion.
I just want to get my bag and go.... really don't want to sit down and smoke and have him lecture me for an hour.
I still can't figure out why anyone would but from a pot store. People who use it know where to get it and at a price they want to pay. Leave it to the state to fuck this thing up.
I remember talking to a friend who said it should be legalized and have the shit taxed out of it. I said I agreed it should be legal, but why tax the shit out of it? He said something about raising revenue for the state. So basically he didn't have a good answer, just repeating the party line without thinking it through.
A woman asked me to sign the petition to get it on the ballot. In her canned speech she mentioned if it is legal we could keep it out of the hands of kids. I rolled my eyes and asked if we would keep it out of kids hands the same way we do alcohol? She said, no, it would be much tougher to get.
The real answer to all of this is people just want to use it without getting in trouble. Every other reason is bullshit.
Not sure I agree. Warshington's problems with the weed rollout there seem limited to the FS nature of the enabling legislation. Colorado seems to have done legalization far better than Warshington, with the state reaping substantial tax revenues while maintaining reasonable regulation on what remains an intoxicating drug.
What we know so far: According to the state’s department of revenue, the first four months of legal marijuana sales have resulted in $10.8 million in taxes. Approximately $1.9 million of the $40 million that will go to improve Colorado’s schools has been raised so far. There has also been a 5.2% decrease in violent crime since last year at this time in Denver. And, according to the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, by removing criminal penalties for marijuana possession, the state could save anywhere from $12 to $40 million in one year.
For now, Colorado has a simple, vertically integrated medical-marijuana industry where retailers grow and process most of the pot they sell. Colorado will have a flexible limit on the amount of pot that may be grown. Washington, on the other hand, is breaking marijuana production into a three-tiered system that mimics the alcohol industry, where growers sell to processors, processors sell to retailers, and retailers sell to consumers, and the state strictly caps the amount of pot that can be grown.
There are other quirks. Colorado allows small-scale home cultivation. Washington does not. Colorado gave existing medical-marijuana (MMJ) operations first priority for adult-use licenses. Washington didn't, forcing MMJ owners into a license lottery with newcomers who've never grown or sold a single bud.
It also looks like Colorado is handling the financing side of the problem as well:
Colorado lawmakers have approved the world's first banking system designed to accommodate the marijuana industry, The Associated Press reports. After Governor John Hickenlooper signs the bill, it could take effect following approval from the Federal Reserve.
Sales of intoxicants are prime areas where government regulation and involvement should be happening - some people are too young to consent to their use (just like booze), some standards should be in place to ensure public safety and that customers are getting the product they are paying for, and the state has a right to recover external costs.
And here is a key difference between CO and WA:
And with more dispensaries than Starbucks, prices have fallen to the point where you can buy an ounce of solid herb for as little as $150 – half of what it would cost in California.</</i>b>
I still can't figure out why anyone would but from a pot store. People who use it know where to get it and at a price they want to pay. Leave it to the state to fuck this thing up.
I remember talking to a friend who said it should be legalized and have the shit taxed out of it. I said I agreed it should be legal, but why tax the shit out of it? He said something about raising revenue for the state. So basically he didn't have a good answer, just repeating the party line without thinking it through.
A woman asked me to sign the petition to get it on the ballot. In her canned speech she mentioned if it is legal we could keep it out of the hands of kids. I rolled my eyes and asked if we would keep it out of kids hands the same way we do alcohol? She said, no, it would be much tougher to get.
The real answer to all of this is people just want to use it without getting in trouble. Every other reason is bullshit.
Not sure I agree. Warshington's problems with the weed rollout there seem limited to the FS nature of the enabling legislation. Colorado seems to have done legalization far better than Warshington, with the state reaping substantial tax revenues while maintaining reasonable regulation on what remains an intoxicating drug.
What we know so far: According to the state’s department of revenue, the first four months of legal marijuana sales have resulted in $10.8 million in taxes. Approximately $1.9 million of the $40 million that will go to improve Colorado’s schools has been raised so far. There has also been a 5.2% decrease in violent crime since last year at this time in Denver. And, according to the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, by removing criminal penalties for marijuana possession, the state could save anywhere from $12 to $40 million in one year.
For now, Colorado has a simple, vertically integrated medical-marijuana industry where retailers grow and process most of the pot they sell. Colorado will have a flexible limit on the amount of pot that may be grown. Washington, on the other hand, is breaking marijuana production into a three-tiered system that mimics the alcohol industry, where growers sell to processors, processors sell to retailers, and retailers sell to consumers, and the state strictly caps the amount of pot that can be grown.
There are other quirks. Colorado allows small-scale home cultivation. Washington does not. Colorado gave existing medical-marijuana (MMJ) operations first priority for adult-use licenses. Washington didn't, forcing MMJ owners into a license lottery with newcomers who've never grown or sold a single bud.
It also looks like Colorado is handling the financing side of the problem as well:
Colorado lawmakers have approved the world's first banking system designed to accommodate the marijuana industry, The Associated Press reports. After Governor John Hickenlooper signs the bill, it could take effect following approval from the Federal Reserve.
Sales of intoxicants are prime areas where government regulation and involvement should be happening - some people are too young to consent to their use (just like booze), some standards should be in place to ensure public safety and that customers are getting the product they are paying for, and the state has a right to recover external costs.
And here is a key difference between CO and WA:
And with more dispensaries than Starbucks, prices have fallen to the point where you can buy an ounce of solid herb for as little as $150 – half of what it would cost in California.</</i>b>
I take it that you meant that "the state" or any government would fuck up legalization, but it seems that Colorado has done a fantastic job.
Also, I think that "legalize and tax it" is a legitimate argument for a discretionary good like pot. We have lots of sin taxes on tobacco and booze and the lottery which is kind of a stupid tax. In Oregon the lottery runs some low-end gambling which also brings in a fair bit of case to the state government.
And to the extent that use of booze, pot, and tobacco have negative public externalities (health, addiction, crime) these taxes can be used to mitigate the negative effects. Harm reduction is good policy.
You can buy in grams or quarters or whatever, who cares. Just call a delivery service, about the same price as black market. Weed stores will be epic failure as long as they're over regulated and 3x price of medical/delivery weed.
I think you are right, but you have to consider the older, square people who don't mind paying higher prices because they feel safer going to a regulated weed store.
My parents are friends with a fmr. teacher who gets it on a regular basis. He's been doing that for years. He's probably around 65-70 I'm guessing. Like I've been saying (elsewhere) for the past week or so, it's extremely easy to get it from someone up there. Throw a fucking rock and you can find someone, or they'll know someone. I hate to agree with the 780 HH Libertarians on this one, but WA is f****** it up.
I take it that you meant that "the state" or any government would fuck up legalization, but it seems that Colorado has done a fantastic job.
Also, I think that "legalize and tax it" is a legitimate argument for a discretionary good like pot. We have lots of sin taxes on tobacco and booze and the lottery which is kind of a stupid tax. In Oregon the lottery runs some low-end gambling which also brings in a fair bit of case to the state government.
And to the extent that use of booze, pot, and tobacco have negative public externalities (health, addiction, crime) these taxes can be used to mitigate the negative effects. Harm reduction is good policy.
I think legalize it (all drugs) is as far as you need to go. I would challenge the notion that the taxes mitigate the negative externalizes in any meaningful way. They usually disappear into the general fund. And if they don't initially, they eventually will....It's just another way to shake down people for cash and sugar coat it in a way people will go along with it. And in these cases, it disproportionately hits the poor and/or stupid.
I would agree that taxes on alcohol and tobacco lower demand which would in turn decrease how these products affect peoples lives. But I would also argue that the cost to the public by individuals using alcohol and tobacco are small overall and most of the costs are carried by the individual, not the public.
Marijuana is much easier to grow and use in private than tobacco and alcohol so while the high tax rates may reduce the demand at the retail store, there will still be a ton of pot consumed outside of this tax system.
Colorado is doing a better job the Washington, which is taxing at a rate of about 29% vs. 44% for WA, but the benefits of legalization would be more fully felt without the high so called "sin tax" that we seem to be able to justify in our brainwashed minds.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Comments
Not sure I agree. Warshington's problems with the weed rollout there seem limited to the FS nature of the enabling legislation. Colorado seems to have done legalization far better than Warshington, with the state reaping substantial tax revenues while maintaining reasonable regulation on what remains an intoxicating drug. http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2014/06/marijuana-legalization-colorado-six-month-status-report http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-marijuana-experiment-a-tale-of-two-drug-wars-20140103#ixzz375m2CO7Q
It also looks like Colorado is handling the financing side of the problem as well: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/colorado-marijuana-industry-gets-new-banking-system-20140508#ixzz375mx77Ck
Sales of intoxicants are prime areas where government regulation and involvement should be happening - some people are too young to consent to their use (just like booze), some standards should be in place to ensure public safety and that customers are getting the product they are paying for, and the state has a right to recover external costs.
And here is a key difference between CO and WA: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/too-high-to-fail-inside-denvers-weed-boom-20130605#ixzz375o7iJlq
It also looks like Colorado is handling the financing side of the problem as well: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/colorado-marijuana-industry-gets-new-banking-system-20140508#ixzz375mx77Ck
Sales of intoxicants are prime areas where government regulation and involvement should be happening - some people are too young to consent to their use (just like booze), some standards should be in place to ensure public safety and that customers are getting the product they are paying for, and the state has a right to recover external costs.
And here is a key difference between CO and WA: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/too-high-to-fail-inside-denvers-weed-boom-20130605#ixzz375o7iJlq
What don't you agree with?
Irregardless of everything else, in the near future I'll be able to walk into a store and buy weed that is pure, identifiable and labelled. Legally.
I don't really give a fuck if it's 2x the "street" price.
Also, I think that "legalize and tax it" is a legitimate argument for a discretionary good like pot. We have lots of sin taxes on tobacco and booze and the lottery which is kind of a stupid tax. In Oregon the lottery runs some low-end gambling which also brings in a fair bit of case to the state government.
And to the extent that use of booze, pot, and tobacco have negative public externalities (health, addiction, crime) these taxes can be used to mitigate the negative effects. Harm reduction is good policy.
Also, I think that "legalize and tax it" is a legitimate argument for a discretionary good like pot. We have lots of sin taxes on tobacco and booze and the lottery which is kind of a stupid tax. In Oregon the lottery runs some low-end gambling which also brings in a fair bit of case to the state government.
And to the extent that use of booze, pot, and tobacco have negative public externalities (health, addiction, crime) these taxes can be used to mitigate the negative effects. Harm reduction is good policy.
I think legalize it (all drugs) is as far as you need to go. I would challenge the notion that the taxes mitigate the negative externalizes in any meaningful way. They usually disappear into the general fund. And if they don't initially, they eventually will....It's just another way to shake down people for cash and sugar coat it in a way people will go along with it. And in these cases, it disproportionately hits the poor and/or stupid.
I would agree that taxes on alcohol and tobacco lower demand which would in turn decrease how these products affect peoples lives. But I would also argue that the cost to the public by individuals using alcohol and tobacco are small overall and most of the costs are carried by the individual, not the public.
Marijuana is much easier to grow and use in private than tobacco and alcohol so while the high tax rates may reduce the demand at the retail store, there will still be a ton of pot consumed outside of this tax system.
Colorado is doing a better job the Washington, which is taxing at a rate of about 29% vs. 44% for WA, but the benefits of legalization would be more fully felt without the high so called "sin tax" that we seem to be able to justify in our brainwashed minds.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/I-502/I-502_Draft_Rule_Summary_IIIX_02-27-14.pdf
LOL
The question is, do we need a better fucking reason than that?
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/pot/2014/07/11/wheres-the-weed-the-morning-report-for-july-11/