|
Rigged Death Trap posted:You must be joking. In addition when these barriers are gone, if you are smoking actual bud you are probably doing it wrong by avoiding concentrates, which will give you a more consistent dose.
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:It certainly is the price drop they're worried about. There were stickers and signs all around certain Northern Cali towns saying "Save our Economy, NO on 19!". Growing pot is just like growing any other cash crop, there is nothing so special and energy intensive about it that it should cost $150/oz. This poo poo isn't saffron or vanilla, its a weed that produces a substantial amount of fruit and can be grown pretty much anywhere. That cost reflects the risks that still exist in production from law enforcement and thieves, as well as other business related issues such as not having access to banks, loans or traditional distribution. Legalization would remove those issues. Just to elaborate on the point about vanilla bean and saffron in case there was someone who doesn't have detailed information about it and why it would have a major bearing on this debate. Vanilla beans come from a tropical orchid. When this orchid blooms you have a 12 hour window to pollinate it by hand or the bloom will wilt and you get nothing.Each bloom gets you one bean. So vanilla operations need people to go and inspect every vine on the plantation for blooms and hand pollinate them every day, in addition to all the cost associated with keeping out pests, harvesting the bean and shipping from the tropics to non-tropical areas. I can buy decent quality vanilla beans for $25 for 1/4 of a pound and that's just with a cursory look online. Saffron is even more involved and much more expensive. They are the stigma of a species of flower. Each flower will produce three small threads of saffron, which need to be picked by hand. It takes 50,000 flowers to get one pound of saffron threads, the equivalent to .714 hectares of land. It takes roughly 40 hours of labor to harvest two to three pounds of saffron thread. And that's just to harvest, it doesn't include the amount of labor required to plant and maintain the crop till harvest time. On top of this saffron needs large amounts of irrigation and direct sunlight, limiting it's production to areas with high rainfall during growing season and properly angled slopes to provide the most direct sunlight. In bulk you can get a pound of saffron for about $500 for the really cheap stuff and $1,500 for more of a medium quality. The best quality can cost as much as $50,000 a pound, but this is kind of inflated by rich people waving their dicks around, in much the same way as caviar. I have to admit I can't give the final bit of perspective on this because I've never purchase marijuana, legal or otherwise, so I can't say anything about the going rate or how it compares to these two crops right now. But it would boggle my mind if the costs associated with labor and time was significantly more then vanilla or approached anything near any of the grades of saffron. And the light and chemical factors that go into growing good pot seem like something that can be handled in many ways by automation and since it indoor you have the trade offs that you can't have quite reach the scale of outdoor crops, but you can grow pretty much anywhere since you don't have to worry about rainfall, temperature and soil content. I've visited massive fish farms that have to constantly fiddle with water temp, oxygen content, pH and the like and I can't imagine the factors related to indoor growing are that much more complex. Big Agra is very good at maximizing efficiency and lowering costs, even in things that are hard to grow or come in various grades of quality and it's hard for me to believe that large scale criminal operations and small scale boutique operations have reached the price floor for the crop.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
For good reasons we probably cannot discuss specific prices for weed but it is true that we are no where near the price floor because the price is artificially inflated to cover the risks taken at each level of the black market. In order to take on these risks people need some cash, drugs and love to go with it. When these risks are removed it changes the system entirely. Now here is the thing about that though: Medical places end up offering prices both lower and higher than the black market. These are quasi legal places, with the disagreement at state and federal levels so there are still risks associated with medical places. Certain types of champagne and such are probably priced higher than they need to be so it is not like all weed will be super cheap.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You obviously don't know anything about cannabis production. Good cannabis is grown indoors under artificial lighting using hydroponic or partially hydroponic methods, using relatively exotic fertilizer mixes, often in an atmosphere enriched with CO2. That's not even touching other important characteristics that reduce yield, like plant sexing, curing, mold, etc. Treat it like a weed and it will give you product that looks, smells, and feels like it came from a weed. If you buy some produce from the story it's not the result of some farmer just tossing some seeds on the ground and maybe hosing it from time to time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:If you buy some produce from the story it's not the result of some farmer just tossing some seeds on the ground and maybe hosing it from time to time. And it's almost certainly not grown under artificial illumination, either.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:And it's almost certainly not grown under artificial illumination, either. Well that's another reason why legal weed will be cheaper.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Well that's another reason why legal weed will be cheaper. Kinda? From what I understand to get the best result you want to use grow lights regardless. But being indoors seriously cuts down on pests and disease, so again there are things that balance out the costs related to growing to indoors.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You obviously don't know anything about cannabis production. Good cannabis is grown indoors under artificial lighting using hydroponic or partially hydroponic methods, using relatively exotic fertilizer mixes, often in an atmosphere enriched with CO2. That's not even touching other important characteristics that reduce yield, like plant sexing, curing, mold, etc. Treat it like a weed and it will give you product that looks, smells, and feels like it came from a weed. No, not all good pot is grown indoors. Have you ever been to Northern California? Because, if so, you would know that there are huge swaths of Mendocino county that are used for large outdoor grows. I know, because I've personally been there and seen them. They still do a good amount of tweaking out on the plant, but they are geared toward production and can produce a lot. Growing pot is like growing just about any other crop - it takes a certain amount of care and knowledge to make good stuff consistently but it isn't anything super hard or unbelievably labor intensive. It really is kind of funny when pot heads look at a hydroponic setup and think "wow, this poo poo is crazy complicated! no wonder weed costs so much!" but then never consider that the hydroponic hothouse tomatoes at the fancy organic market are like $5 a pound. Its loving farming and the only thing keeping the price as high as it is is prohibition.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
The best weed will always be grown indoors, simply because growing outdoors has too many variables out of your control e.g. overcast skies, heavy rains, some rear end in a top hat a couple miles over who has a male plant that the wind introduced to your cash crop, etc. The comparison to the price of "expensive" tomatoes is a little dishonest, as 1 tomato plant will be ready to harvest in about half the time of a marijuana plant, and the harvest will weigh much more per plant. A good sized cannabis plant will give you 5 ounces of sellable product, while a tomato plant will give you like a pound at a time. (Of course a massive towering outdoor plant can pull in over a pound, but there's extra risks & diminishing returns for most people) There are some semi-fixed costs that come with growing marijuana (or anything) that have to be accounted for, such as electricity and nutrients. You're always going to be spending money to grow, as well as the cost of your time, so there will definitely be a price floor. Without some serious nationwide federal changes so that serious production can begin, I don't see the price going much lower than whatever colorado/washington eventually settles at.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
Yeah, I lived in Arcata. Outdoor cannabis consistently sells at a lower price and is consistently lower quality, you'd know this if you were actually knowledgeable about the subject instead of just assuming I'm some craaaazy pothead.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
What's the deal with Massachusetts' medical marijuana? Is it going to be super restrictive like in other states where you basically need to have cancer or terminal illness?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, I lived in Arcata. Outdoor cannabis consistently sells at a lower price and is consistently lower quality, you'd know this if you were actually knowledgeable about the subject instead of just assuming I'm some craaaazy pothead. Yes, I'm aware of that which I was trying to infer when I said outdoor grows were geared toward production. I wasn't clear on that, obviously. But we're talking about prices. The best tomatoes are grown indoors as well and yet they manage to keep prices much, much lower while using similar techniques. As RichieWok pointed out its not a 1 to 1 analogy but it's a useful comparison and there is no way that the differences between growing indoor tomatoes and indoor pot would, all else being equal, result in prices being a couple of orders of magnitude different. The other point is that not all pot is indoor and most people I've known aren't pot snobs turning their nose up at anything but the sweetest kush. If weed gets fully legalized at some point there will most definitely be a Budweiser of bud that will be cheap and effective and sell like crazy. There will almost assuredly be high-grade and much more expensive pot as well, just as there is high-grade, expensive wines and beers. That stuff may even stay at current prices, not because of reasons pertaining to production, but because of marketing. No matter what the specifics, you'd have to be crazy to think that lifting prohibition wouldn't have a huge effect on the price of marijuana as a commodity. Being able to openly produce, transport, get business loans, have greater access to industrial equipment and supplies on credit, acquire land or warehouse space, open legitimate storefronts that any adult can walk into, advertise, etc. would all serve to put pressure downward on prices, just like any other business. And that's without mentioning all of the people who would get involved with the legal stigma removed. It's weird because I've had this same conversation with people in Norcal who think there is something special about the weed economy apart from it's quasi legal status. I've heard the argument so many times that weed is some super special plant that requires near mystical abilities to grow properly and somehow if it were legal no corporation would ever be able to grasp its intricacies. I've usually chalked it up to the almost libertarian levels of bootstrappy entitlement and wannabe outlaw culture that grows up around the easy money of the pot industry. Some dude who's run a trim scene puts together the money to buy a plot / build a grow room and start his own grow op suddenly thinks he's the hippy Al Capone when the money starts rolling in. Of course its because of his incredible skills at growing pot and has nothing to do with the massive markup that accompanies selling contraband. 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:No matter what the specifics, you'd have to be crazy to think that lifting prohibition wouldn't have a huge effect on the price of marijuana as a commodity. Being able to ... get business loans ... I'm not so sure that, at least until things become extremely certain, banks are going to be giving business loans. I've heard a lot of stuff from medical marijuana folks that they have trouble finding office space, paying for things, bank accounts all kinds of stuff because a lot of banks and other businesses just don't want to deal with something that may be a grey area, especially national banks that do business in multiple states. This is just what I've heard on the radio, but most of the people currently in medical marijuana in WA are dealing in mostly cash.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Reason posted:I'm not so sure that, at least until things become extremely certain, banks are going to be giving business loans. I've heard a lot of stuff from medical marijuana folks that they have trouble finding office space, paying for things, bank accounts all kinds of stuff because a lot of banks and other businesses just don't want to deal with something that may be a grey area, especially national banks that do business in multiple states. This is just what I've heard on the radio, but most of the people currently in medical marijuana in WA are dealing in mostly cash. That's exactly why national legalization would bring down the price. The only reason (or at least the only major reason) the banks aren't handling that business now is the fear the feds will charge them with a crime. If the prohibition was removed nationally then it's no longer a concern and the banks can go hog-wild.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
cafel posted:That's exactly why national legalization would bring down the price. The only reason (or at least the only major reason) the banks aren't handling that business now is the fear the feds will charge them with a crime. If the prohibition was removed nationally then it's no longer a concern and the banks can go hog-wild. Right, exactly. State legalization measures and medpot initiatives aren't really legalization, they are more like official non-enforcement of prohibition. I realize that's a bit of a simplification but its the overall effect. Real legalization would be descheduling pot completely on the federal level (or, ideally, shitcanning the entire CSA) and that is what I've been talking about wrt price. Banks, corporations, the SBA, etc won't get involved as long as pot is illegal nationally, even if all 50 states passed legalization measures. But even localized, piecemeal legalization will lead to some price drops, just from increased competition and supply if nothing else. And maybe for this scenario Radbot is right and this is as far as it can drop in this particular, local, quasi-legal environment. I don't think so because it seems to me that weed keeps getting cheaper here in Oregon, but I suppose its hard to say until the WA and CO propositions get fully implemented and have been around a while.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Am I the only one that sees 20+ replies in this thread and fears the worst?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
I think that it will basically come down to a State right vs. Federal Mandate Which in 2009-2010 thirty eight states have introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; Nine states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution. Which boils down to if enough states want marijuana to be legal, the federal government will eventually have to cave in, or risk massive amounts of headache as soon the only people who would be enforcing any law with it would the DEA, which would over burden that organization horribly and kill it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Yeah... the whole states rights thing was settled about 150 years ago. The states have very limited rights, and in regard to legalizing marijuana, they would very likely lose in court. But Obama knows that suing/doing anything so will piss off his base, and the libertarian wing of the Republicans is keeping them from attacking this. So the Feds are staying quiet. For now.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
felidane posted:Which boils down to if enough states want marijuana to be legal, the federal government will eventually have to cave in, or risk massive amounts of headache as soon the only people who would be enforcing any law with it would the DEA, which would over burden that organization horribly and kill it. Uh, the federal government has rightly chosen the headache pretty drat consistently.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Uh, the federal government has rightly chosen the headache pretty drat consistently. I'm not sure what you mean by rightly, if you actually think that the war on drugs, and marijuana specifically, was a GOOD thing or if you mean something else. Regardless, the actions of the federal government and the DEA specifically have a lot to do with public opinion. As public opinion shifts in the direction of legalized marijuana, persecuting and prosecuting pot users will become less attractive to the DEA because they are an arm of the federal government who are, in theory at least, accountable to the people. What I'm saying is that the difference between them choosing the headache then and them choosing it now is that then it was a popular choice and now it is much less so.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
Play posted:I'm not sure what you mean by rightly, if you actually think that the war on drugs, and marijuana specifically, was a GOOD thing or if you mean something else. Regardless, the actions of the federal government and the DEA specifically have a lot to do with public opinion. As public opinion shifts in the direction of legalized marijuana, persecuting and prosecuting pot users will become less attractive to the DEA because they are an arm of the federal government who are, in theory at least, accountable to the people. What I'm saying is that the difference between them choosing the headache then and them choosing it now is that then it was a popular choice and now it is much less so. Don't want to speak for the poster, but I'm guessing 'rightly' has to do more with the states rights issue then the war on drugs being the right call. I'm always uncomfortable with the states rights rhetoric because the only other times I hear it are when southern states lament their hands are tied in oppressing minorities and that how they were totally justified in fighting the Civil War. I like to think about how we can shift the federal governments position through promoting good national policy rather the how we can break their backs and free the states.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
cafel posted:Don't want to speak for the poster, but I'm guessing 'rightly' has to do more with the states rights issue then the war on drugs being the right call. I'm always uncomfortable with the states rights rhetoric because the only other times I hear it are when southern states lament their hands are tied in oppressing minorities and that how they were totally justified in fighting the Civil War. I like to think about how we can shift the federal governments position through promoting good national policy rather the how we can break their backs and free the states. This is most likely why he said rightly yes. I know that the war on drugs/access to marijuana is a very personal issue for some posters, but the Federal Government is totally right to fight states when they pass state laws to overrule federal laws, because the states have a history of making really really really lovely decisions when they've done that. Gonzales v. Raich, for a relevant example, didn't just give congress the authority to overrule a state on the criminalization of medical marijuana, they gave congress the authority to regulate commerce done within certain classes of activity that affect all states. This was used as one of the arguments in favor of the ACA when it went to the supreme court (it was quashed because the individual mandate was regulating activity not done, but still). If the federal government doesn't attempt to enforce its own laws, and not let states interfere, it has a weaker position in the future when it might need to enforce related laws for something that is an abrogation of rights and liberties by a state. Choosing the headache of a Supreme Court case is often worth the trouble, since it will spare many more headaches down the road. That said, there are 2 obvious reasons that Obama is letting this slide. The first is obviously political bases, but the second is also that its likely going to be at least 15 years before a court would be willing to overturn the precedent in Gonzales. If Obama cares about decriminalization of Marijuana (looking out for his choom gang bros), its going to be easier to push through congress once the tide turns in favor of it, than to do it by a citizen winning in the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Washington's Liquor Control Board just released their draft rules for Licensing and restrictions. It is full of lots of requirements and doubtless some people are going to find reasons to be mad about it. It is all worth it though because it includes this:  That should be our new state flag.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Supreme court of California recently ruled (basically) that cities can dictate their own rules regarding storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. It's been a very sad week for many users as we've seen dozens of storefronts lay off staff and close down. http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/marijuana-38962-collective-valley.html is an article with a decent (for the VV daily press) interview with one of the shop owners I've met and dealt with. Those folks from Trojan Wellness really are some old women handing out medicine, not gangbangers making a quick buck. It predates the supreme court ruling by a week or so, but I found it an interesting read. http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/plead-40374-valley-advocates.html The second article deals with the aftermath of the ruling and again features and interview with one of the managers of Trojan Wellness. I'm a fan of cultivating your own produce or buying locally from friends, but not everyone is so well connected and a few people literally don't know where to go to get their medicine.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Supreme court of California recently ruled (basically) that cities can dictate their own rules regarding storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. It's been a very sad week for many users as we've seen dozens of storefronts lay off staff and close down.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:It is all worth it though because it includes this:
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021001053_potrulesxml.htmlquote:Pot growing, sales, use: State proposes 46 pages of rules
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
That looks like a pretty great first step. No hash is kind of weird but whatever, if that's the main thing they messed up on then I'm cool with it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021001053_potrulesxml.html I doubt the greenhouse requirement will be dropped. One of the largest concerns that the LCB has repeatedly raised over 502 is the possibility of people stealing from the grow operations. While its cute to say "oh the free market will take care of that" we know pretty well from other grey markets that it won't. And you can bet the LCB doesn't want to have to personally police every single loving grow op in the state to make sure they aren't just letting whatever happen. The restriction against hash is bizarre, and my only guess as to why is that it is slightly more easy to smuggle than the forms of marijuana they've allowed. They don't really care about potency, in facct the document is pretty lackadaisical about it, they care about resale to other states. Its worth persuing the draft they've filed, because that Seattle Times piece is a little short. They've got a points system on the background check, with some expirations, and the total points is subject to change. Right now a felony in the last 10 years would put you riht past their proposed points limit, but they might amend that. The most restrictive thing in it is honestly the location limitation. Not only does it include what we knew it would (schools and places where children are) it also includes public parks and transit stations. It's only 1000 feet, but their definition of transit station could easily cause problems if you wanted to open a shop in any major part of Seattle.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
I know someone who exclusively smokes hash oil, here in WA. Since they're allowing it in edibles, it's not going to be impossible to find either. Quite the bonehead move.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:I know someone who exclusively smokes hash oil, here in WA. Since they're allowing it in edibles, it's not going to be impossible to find either. Quite the bonehead move. The most boneheaded thing about this move is that the feds have already released a warning about people blowing up their apartments and homes trying to make hash oil with butane. Seems like something that deserves to be regulated.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I doubt the greenhouse requirement will be dropped. One of the largest concerns that the LCB has repeatedly raised over 502 is the possibility of people stealing from the grow operations. While its cute to say "oh the free market will take care of that" we know pretty well from other grey markets that it won't. And you can bet the LCB doesn't want to have to personally police every single loving grow op in the state to make sure they aren't just letting whatever happen. I mean, before the "park and transit station" restriction, there weren't very many places in Seattle where you could have a retail location. Map from The Stranger:  This is likely to virtually eliminate the retail locations outside of the industrial section of town. They should really reduce the radius restriction to something more reasonable, like 500 feet.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:The most boneheaded thing about this move is that the feds have already released a warning about people blowing up their apartments and homes trying to make hash oil with butane. Seems like something that deserves to be regulated. So I did a little digging. It is very important to remember that the Washington Liquor Control Board are basically run by Ron Swanson and don't want to be doing any of this. As such they are not going to go above and beyond (except for with that logo apparently), they are going to do what the law requires them to, and call it a day. With that in mind, there are two potential reasons that hash oil cannot be sold. The first is a technicality: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5524-S.SL.pdf This is what Washington's general drug code looks like post-I502. Lets look specifically at the definitions section: quote:(s) "Marijuana" or "marihuana" means all parts of the plant You see the gap? The State liquor control board can license someone to sell infused product, or marijuana, but the working definition for those two products excludes hash oil from each. There is a decent chance this could be fixed if there is a demand, since it would only require a tiny definition amendment. There is, however, a chance that this is by design. The definitions do specifically point out that stores are not supposed to be manufacturing marijuana infused edibles, and that that is the job of the processor (yaay Oregon style job creation). By allowing stores to sell hash oil, they'd be cutting into the primary function of Marijuana processors. Thanatosian posted:"Only" 1000 feet is pretty ridiculous; a thousand feet is a fifth of a mile. I don't disagree, at least for transit centers. I think that language is identical to the Medical marijuana rule we had/have, and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of medical dispensaries in Seattle at the moment. Then again there's a chance they've got most of the space and won't do the switchover. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
First fully legal marijuana framework in the world. http://kdvr.com/2013/05/28/hickenlooper-set-to-sign-bills-regulating-taxing-legal-marijuana-in-colorado/ quote:DENVER — Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper made history Tuesday morning by signing several bills concerning the implementation of legal marijuana into law. The Feds have basically been totally quiet on this, and now I think we've passed the point of no return. This is going to happen, weed will be legal for all adults to buy and will be taxed. Does anybody have any opinions on Obama doing something either for or against CO and WA or the DEA on its own? Will they just leave it for the next president? I actually had expected a large negative response to CO and WA from somebody in the federal government but it doesn't seem to be happening. Hell, the UN seems more concerned than the feds!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
The UN is concerned? Why? And 30% tax rate seems slightly on the high side, but I suspect that for the chance to go legal, people will pay it and not run to the black market.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
The AG has said that he will come up with a response to states legalizing very soon. Or that's what he said 4 months ago...
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:The UN is concerned? Why? http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020487915_apcolegalizingmarijuanaun2ndldwritethru.html We aren't holding ourselves to the treaties we forced on everyone else 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:The UN is concerned? Why?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:First fully legal marijuana framework in the world. Maybe he'll do like Clinton did and pardon a fuckton of people on his way out, but instead of pardoning white collar criminals that he was friends with he'll let out all the people in jail for nothing more than possessing a plant. :straightface:
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Maybe he'll do like Clinton did and pardon a fuckton of people on his way out, but instead of pardoning white collar criminals that he was friends with he'll let out all the people in jail for nothing more than possessing a plant. :straightface:
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:43
|
|