|
Applebees Appetizer posted:because there a tons of vendors marketing and selling Hemp oil as CBD and it's bullshit. I assume you are not talking about vendors like this who publish their GC/MS reports, so what are you referring to?
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:I assume you are not talking about vendors like this who publish their GC/MS reports, so what are you referring to? Yes I am. Just because Hemp oil has trace amounts of CBD doesn't mean you should market it as a medical treatment because it's not. 3.22% is basically worthless as a legitimate medical treatment. Hemp is not Cannabis, and you can only get medical grade CBD from Cannabis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Man, this is just a blue-ballin' time of year. -- New Jersey is theoretically going to legalize at some point, but basically has no clue how to go about it and not getting anywhere fast. -- Canada is rolling back the opening of stores by a few months; but is weed itself going to become legal on 1 July, or does even that have to wait until stores open? -- Michigan turned in its ballot initiative signatures for legal weed back in drat *November* but I still haven't seen any updates as to if they found the signatures to have the required number of valids. Does it seriously take Michigan 120 days to spot-check whatever percentage of 360,000 signatures? DC only had to submit like 10% of that but if I recall right the government announced its findings in just a month or two. Note too that this year's poll is putting support for legalization at 61-35, so those are some really fine looking numbers provided the signatures check out and it gets on November's ballot. With the possibility of a Blue Wave in November, this should be pretty much a slam-dunk. I found it pretty interesting too that of the $155,000 donated to anti-cannabis "local" groups in Michigan, $150k came from Smart Approaches to Marijuana (Kevin Sabet's group). In total fairness, the Commission to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol got $300k from MPP, but CRMA at least got funding from more than just one source. Cue Sabet whinging that this is a "David and Goliath" battle driven by monied interests against the hardworking Michiganders who hate the demon weed. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
There is also a push to get question on the ballot in Maryland, but I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be non binding resolution or if it’s for a constitutional amendment
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:There is also a push to get question on the ballot in Maryland, but I’m not sure if it’s supposed to be non binding resolution or if it’s for a constitutional amendment This article in the Baltimore Sun gives a pretty good explanation: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-0228-maryland-marijuana-20180227-story.html Long/short Maryland has no system of ballot initiative or direct voter referendum, so the standard way to get weed legal would be to have a majority of both houses support it (and possibly a veto-proof majority in the senate). Though a constitutional referendum requires a super-majority, it also lets reps pass the buck since an amendment goes to the voters to be ratified. So it gives reps a chance to say "hey, I didn't vote for it, I just voted for the people to vote on it." Plus a constitutional amendment can't be vetoed. So it's both way harder and also way easier, but the other major downside is that whatever they pass as an amendment is really hard to change, so if they set certain amounts for home grows and rules for stores and whatnot, if they later want to adjust that it would take another amendment (which is what happened when the casinos wanted to expand gambling but their foot-in-the-door was already set in stone). I've read some good thinkpieces explaining "it's not as easy as just 50% of voters support so politicians want in", about how much benefit a politician gets from supporting legalization vs waffling. That said, if 60% of Maryland is in support, presumably that means that it's 80% in some districts and 40% in others. And with political splits, that presumably means there are areas where like 90% of Democrats support it, which you think would make it a winning platform point. But again apparently it's not that simple. Anyone know what thinkpiece I'm thinking of, or any other good analysis of where the voter support tipping point is to make weed a slam dunk in a *non*-referendum state, without the pols chickening out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
It's April again, so Wikipedia is doing another 420 Collaboration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cannabis/420_Collaboration If anyone is interested in expanding Wikipedia coverage of cannabis, drop in and check it out. Note this year they're making a particular push to get more images and video, so if you've ever noticed a weed-related Wikipedia page that lacks a good photo, and you happen to have photos of that concept or can make them, that'd be helpful. Among other things, we lack short video snippets for things like using gravity bongs, dabbing, etc. If anyone is interested in taking videos of that (without clearly identifiable faces probably) that could be a really useful addition. They also have some articles where the photos are pretty meh, so for example if you see a photo of hashish and think "I've got a good camera and a chunk of hash and I can do better than that" by all means feel free to sub-in better quality photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
Turns out Patrick Kennedy isn't the only Kennedy with bad opinions:quote:JOE KENNEDY III: So this one, um, this one’s a tough one for me. My views are not do not exactly line up with my own state and it’s something I’m struggling with. I think, look, there’s—when it comes to legalization of marijuana, if that’s something that society has decided that we want to do, fine. I think we’ve got to be really careful about what exactly that means and how we do it. So, we decriminalized it when I was in the court system, when I was trying cases, or shortly thereafter, if I remember the years right, in Massachusetts. When we decriminalized it it actually had a pretty big consequence for the way that Massachusetts prosecutors went about trying cases in terms of—because an odor of marijuana was, at last initially, because marijuana was an illegal substance, if you smelled it in a car, you could search a car. When it became decriminalized you couldn’t do that. So that was the way that we hadn’t—the base case that prosecutors used to search cars for under cover contraband, guns, knives, a whole bunch of other stuff, all of that got thrown out the window. That’s not to say that’s right or wrong, but that is to say that when that went through a public referendum, which is how that law was passed, I don't think anybody had much though to you’re actually gonna change one of the foundational principles for law enforcement that we use in our court system. https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/03/30/25976878/the-great-white-nope-joe-kennedy-iii-disqualifies-himself
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Turns out Patrick Kennedy isn't the only Kennedy with bad opinions: Pretend I made a tasteless joke about 1960s retro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
The year is 2018 and individuals can still get away with calling cannabis a gateway drug to heroin: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5763679871001/#sp=show-clips
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
I've theorized about this in the past, but I don't recall having seen specific admitted cases of this: The GOP in Michigan is considering trying to rush through Legalization to keep it *off* the ballot, because it might boost voter turnout by as much as 2% which could impact tight GOP races: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-lawmakers-consider-legalizing-medical-marijuana-before-november-ballot This is pretty drat hilarious: the GOP is in a bind because everyone is pretty sure legalization is going to pass in November anyway, but they might have to piss off part of their voter base if they want to jump *ahead* of the Democrats and push is as a anti-GOTV strategy. You do have to wonder if these people ever have personal flashes of insight where they wonder "wait, why am I trying to *depress* the vote if my party is right?" This makes me curious for 2020: are you going to have Dems in ballot states deliberately impeding legislative solutions for the year, in order to keep weed on the ballot and drive turnout? I also would've said that 2016 would be the first year that politicians really had to weight in on legalization, but other than some chatter in the GOP primaries, Clinton and Trump largely ducked the issue. I'd like to imagine that 2020 will be different and it will be an unavoidable political issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Wouldn't they have a better chance of passing as part of a regular election? That seems like reason enough for proponents to hold off on any legislation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Wouldn't they have a better chance of passing as part of a regular election? That seems like reason enough for proponents to hold off on any legislation. Meaning not a midterm? Probably, but that involves waiting another two years, and Michigan was *supposed* to have voted in 2016 but got accidentally blocked on technical grounds, so this is a make-up election as it is. Plus it's polling so well in MI that backers are comfortable taking the shot even on a smaller election. Speaking of which, I am mightily curious as to who's going to have legalization on the 2020 ballot. Florida looks to be a pretty good guess, and I could imagine Arizona, Montana, and Ohio, and Florida among others. Bear in mind that only so many states have ballot initiatives, so even if we consistently have states approve it by popular vote, in a few election cycles we're going to run out of states where both reefer is popular and they have initiatives. That's why tiny Vermont is so significant, being the first state to legalize solely through its legislature. Posting a map again just to show how in the East and South, we can't depend on ballot initiatives to keep this moving. Note that initiative states already have a significant overlap with weed states, but Idaho and Wyoming aren't legalizing anytime soon so we're honestly just a few cycles away from hitting the wall and having to press forward legislatively. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Huh, I wasn't tracking this closely but this could be huge. Apparently in Illinois there's talk of putting weed on the ballot for 2018. Guess a lot of states have a way more efficient process than Michigan where this is taking years. Just from this March, the Illinois Senate is strongly considering putting a *non-binding* resolution on the November ballot to legalize weed. It would still require the legislature to actually take action after that, nothing automatic, but it would prove a mandate and provide political top-cover. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-illinois-legislature-marijuana-20180301-story.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 09:53
|
|
|
NORML in florida tried to get a recreational petition on the ballot this year but was unable to get enough signatures. Florida (outside of the legislature) has become very accepting of pot, but I still don’t see full recreational yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Completely as expected, Rhode Island and Connecticut are getting nervous now because Massachusetts is about to legalize weed and everyone realizes that folks are just going to drive next door to buy it, so the neighboring states will get any negatives associated with weed use (mainly intoxicated driving) and zero of the actual financial benefits. Connecticut already decriminalized too so even if they catch you coming back across, you're just getting a citation. I crunched the numbers earlier in the thread, but iirc even from the furthest point in RI it's only 30 minutes to the MA border, and it's 20-some minutes from Hartford to the MA border. Neat article about how the Attelboro is gearing up, since it's a MA town that will have legal weed but is practically a suburb of Providence: http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20180407/legal-pot-hot-spot-attleboro-embraces-its-place-on-ri-state-line RI and CT are basically both edging at this point, but both failed to legalize weed last year mostly due to cop organizations and the "addiction recovery community". So busybodies, basically. http://ripr.org/post/ri-ct-lawmakers-consider-legalizing-marijuana-deadline-looms#stream/0 By this summer, New Hampshire is really going to be in a pinch, surrounded on all sides (even Canada) by legal weed. I hosed around with a map a little just for kicks trying to find the remotest area of NH, and even if you're buried way the gently caress in Hillsboro and nowhere near a major road, it's still an hour trip to VT or ME. I realize VT has no commercial sales, but on general principle, and even if you're right up on the VT border it's *still* not that far to drive to ME or MA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
The gap between Washington legalizing and Oregon legalizing gives a really interesting look at interstate diversion. Prior to OR legalizing, it was estimated that 11.9% of WA reefer left the state, and once OR legalized that dropped to 7.5%. https://phys.org/news/2017-09-oregon-marijuana-legalization-prompted-big.html A different study I read said there were *massive* drops, like 40%, in weed sales along the WA-OR border once OR legalized too, while weed sales remained identical on the Idaho and British Columbia borders. East Coast is a whole different shebang in terms of travel times though, and you're also adjoining states which, while not legal, are way looser on punishing possession than places like Nebraska or Idaho. Barring federal intervention, I think we can expect to see a "domino effect" on the East Coast, where the states bordering legal states just give up and legalize, pushing the window to their own further neighbors. This could pretty much hit Delaware and Maryland before the trend slows down, probably in the next five years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:Yes I am. Just because Hemp oil has trace amounts of CBD doesn't mean you should market it as a medical treatment because it's not. 3.22% is basically worthless as a legitimate medical treatment. I am confused why you think this, and what you think the difference is. Hemp is cannabis, it's the same species of plant (relevant link). The high end "hemp" I can get around here looks like manicured marijuana, and several farmers have told me that even with careful breeding the end product is sometimes "too hot" to sell once tested (meaning, the THC content is > than the 0.3% hemp is allowed to contain). Ultimately the ratio of the various cannabinnoids to each other is what matters, because if you want you can make shatter from CBD buds and approach the same ~90% cannabinnoid content that high end shatter does. (This is Phytodabs entire business model). "Trace amounts" is sort of a strange statement, too -- lots of the CBD flower being marketed now is >10% CBD -- and that's just unprocessed buds, prior to any extraction into flower. (Example GC/MS). That's a hell of a lot more CBD than most recreational marijuana contains. I think this is all the wild west right now, and there are definitely a lot of lovely or sketchy CBD products on the market, but I believe that either we are not communicating clearly, or you are misunderstanding something. With the exception of the old CWBotanials Web tinctures (which likely were 'too hot'), I haven't had an experience of getting particularly intoxicated off of a CBD tincture product, but the high-end of the hemp-derived products absolutely obliterate my insomnia and mitigate some of my joint and back problems. Grocery stores have for years sold "hemp seed oil", which is a different animal entirely and has essentially no CBD/THC/etc in it; I would imagine that would not have any of these benefits. Left to right in this picture is decent pot, decent hemp ("CBD flower") bud, and then shittier/cheaper/less manicured hemp. It's all cannabis. 
Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
I've been perusing SAM's Twitter, and I'm always impressed by their attempts to put a positive spin on anything at all:quote:@learnaboutsam Yes, an entire state saying "sure, whatever, go ahead and grow and smoke weed, we're cool with it now" is a staggering blow to the potheads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I've been perusing SAM's Twitter, and I'm always impressed by their attempts to put a positive spin on anything at all: Surely throngs of morally upright silent majority Vermonters will come out off the woodwork and pressure the legislature to ban weed forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
I had missed this, but apparently the FDA is seeking public comment on international cannabis scheduling. Norml has a link on their site to send them a form letter with your name and address on it, you can get that here: http://norml.org/action-center/item/take-action-fda-seeking-comment-on-the-international-scheduling-of-cannabis There is also a web form at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2018-N-1072-0001 you can use for submitting feedback. Frabba fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I've been perusing SAM's Twitter, and I'm always impressed by their attempts to put a positive spin on anything at all: Haha, hilarious. As a Vermonter, I think the law is silly because what we should be doing is tax/sale to be the East Coast Colorado (MA has the weed but not the glades) -- and I hope that happens over the next few years. I am hard pressed to see how "grow all the weed you want, given a slightly silly limit on number of plants, and give as much as you want away" is "the end of legalization in the state". I'm looking forward to everyone having enough weed to just give away to people who don't want to grow it, and at least in the narrow demographics of users I interact with, that's absolutely going to happen. It's gonna be a green summer and fall here. ProperGanderPusher posted:Surely throngs of morally upright silent majority Vermonters will come out off the woodwork and pressure the legislature to ban weed forever. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
John Boehner, welcome to the resistance!!quote:former anti-weed crusader joins cannabis company board lmao This news has convinced my cynical heart that nationwide legalization is inevitable. If a ghoul like Boehner is on board, surely the walls must be falling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
friendly 2 da void posted:John Boehner, welcome to the resistance!! Gonna be fun watching the weed business turn into a ghoulish giant like big tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Gonna be fun watching the weed business turn into a ghoulish giant like big tobacco. If it drives the price per gram down to a commensurate level with tobacco then I think I might be okay with this. bango skank fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Gonna be fun watching the weed business turn into a ghoulish giant like big tobacco. What's actually stopping the tobacco companies from just snapping up a bunch of weed companies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:What's actually stopping the tobacco companies from just snapping up a bunch of weed companies? Licenses to produce and sell are like liquor licenses. Generally the state won't just issue infinity licenses to a big company, part of the mandate for these government boards is fairness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:What's actually stopping the tobacco companies from just snapping up a bunch of weed companies? They're all national if not multi-national companies and it's pretty dangerous for them to buy things out while its still illegal federally, let alone in the other countries where they operate. If federal legalization happens, or even majority of the major states, they'll sweep in and start buying places up. But it's just not good business for them to do it now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:What's actually stopping the tobacco companies from just snapping up a bunch of weed companies? This is *exactly* the kind of poo poo SAM should be all over if they genuinely cared about what they say they care about, instead of being the designated roadblock and "just asking questions" go-to talking head whenever anyone is trying to add "balance" to a weed story. For example, Maine's pending legislation for weed stores (which is months behind schedule due to governor veto) says that people have to have lived in the state four years prior to getting a commercial license. Even DCMJ (the DC weed activist group with all the cool pranks) supports that to prevent "cannabis carpetbaggers") but I've seen no indication that SAM had diddly-squat to do with that. If SAM did what is says it wants to do, it'd be at the *forefront* of groups calling for Decrim, since SAM allegedly wants a treatment-based non-punitive drug approach. I imagine a ton of politician, especially in Texas where I worked on the decrim/med campaign, would *love* to have an anti-weed group there lobbying to say "no seriously we hate weed, but this is the right way to fight it." That would give them all kinds of top-cover to build a consensus and sell Decrim as not being a step towards legal, but being a neutral and bipartisan way to cut crime and address addiction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen SAM actually working that poo poo in conjunction with NORML and MPP. Similarly, SAM's *entire slogan* is "preventing another Big Tobacco". Well, get on that poo poo! If SAM showed up at a statehouse and said "okay fine you're set on legalizing weed, but here's our strategy paper on making sure that profits stay in your state and that individual weed dealers don't start dominating the market" I bet politicians would love that poo poo as an easy packaged "I have grave concerns about weed so demand XYZ" kind of response. To conclude, SAM is emphatically not a land of contrasts, but is basically a professional concern-trolling NGO founded by an ex-Congressman who literally and without exaggeration crashed his car into a Capitol Building barrier while whacked out on opioids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
On the subject of big tobacco, Discendo Vox mentioned in the Trump thread how he hopes that even as legalization goes forward, that he hopes it will remain a Scheduled substance, if not Schedule I then on some other level. His primary concern was that putting responsibility over cannabis safety under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would actually be a pretty bad regulatory system, because the ATF is badly designed. While he didn't go into detail, he suggested the ATF is subject to regulatory capture by the tobacco industry and tends to be overly deferential to the interests of big business to the detriment of consumer safety. It seems like a no brainer to keep the FDA in charge of regulating marijuana, however this line of reasoning opens up a big can of worms. The Scheduling system strictly regulates drugs based on potential for harm and medical value, it makes no allowance for recreation as a legitimate use of any substance. Keeping cannabis on the scheduling system, but ALSO legalizing it for recreational use, will necessarily mean radically changing what scheduling means. If you can go to a local dispensary and legally buy a Schedule I drug with a high potential for abuse and no legitimate use (according to the FDA), what does the scheduling actually mean? I think everyone here probably agrees marijuana should be regulated. However how should we do it? Is the ATF the best choice? How do we minimize the ability of the industry to become predatory, like the tobacco industry? In my opinion the scheduling system should be reformed to accommodate recreation as a legitimate use case, and alcohol and tobacco should be placed within the same regulatory framework. We shouldn't be carving out weird and incoherent regulatory exceptions for every substance that we decide is okay to have fun with, rather we should establish a general system that can coherently apply good consistent policy. The big upside of this reform is that by establishing general regulations for recreation use, we can apply it forward to any other substance. Ultimately this seems like the most forward and effective means of dismantling the punitive system of criminal punishment that has resulted from the drug war, and minimizing harm as the public is exposed to present and future drugs regardless of how dangerous they may be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
I think even the right-wing side of the equation can get behind not giving more power to the guys who royally dicked up Ruby Ridge and Waco.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Right now every state has its own system which is a little bit different and as far as I'm aware, independent of any other bureaucratic systems for controlling alcohol or tobacco. That just seems inefficient to me, and it may also be vulnerable to regulatory capture by big industry. If we can get legalization on a federal scale, how are we going to regulate? It's really a great luxury to even feel like we have this problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
I'm okay with weed staying scheduled if they make a schedule for "Drugs that can be sold for any purpose but must come with literature accurately describing their effects."
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
I would not be at all surprised if future legalizing states add in restrictions that current states don't. It's pretty much a given. Among other things, I'm honestly surprised how dumb people are about packaging. If the weed industry doesn't get smarter about self-regulating, they're eventually going to be slammed with legislation and/or lawsuits for not clearly labeling edibles and whatnot. If your chocolate bar doesn't have a big green pot leaf on it, it's just a matter of time before someone pounds a few and plows their car into a preschool and tries to argue the company is liable because they look just like artisanal chocolate bars. Weed gummies are another blatant own-goal. You've got SAM and other folks screaming that your product can be confused with children's candy; how loving hard is it to just make molds that are shaped like pot leaves so you can say "it's immediately visible to any informed consumer that this contains THC/CBD"? Are weed users really going to be that upset if their gummies aren't shaped like bears? The other blindingly dumb one, and you'd really think that the lawyers these companies presumably have on retainer should be telling them this, but I'm pretty sure you can't claim Fair Use for making a weed candy bar that parodies an existing product. Fair Use is a really good argument if you're making punny bumper stickers or an album cover that mocks the Snickers label, but I'm pretty sure you can't make a different kind of candy bar, use someone else's IP, and claim a parody exemption. I'm both glad to see that Hershey's is suing people who parody their labels for THC edibles, and also that Hershey's is content to immediately back down if people are willing to change the labels to something that doesn't violate trademark. To an outsider, all these things seem really obvious errors where you'd think someone smart in the room would say "hey, we really should make sure our approach is hard to attack just to save on legal fees and not tempt regulators" yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:I am confused why you think this, and what you think the difference is. https://honestmarijuana.com/hemp-oil-vs-cbd-oil/?age-verified=38806ca48b
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
So apparently Cory Gardner reached some sort of "deal" with Trump concerning federal intervention in states that have legalized marijuana in the wake of the Cole Memorandum's revocation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...m=.1a1b723e7875 quote:
Obviously Trump's word isn't worth poo poo, but I am interested in seeing some sort of federal legislation getting some traction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
1. As stated Trump's word means fuckall. 2. A federalism based bill on states rights is going to end up basically being a way for republicans to roll back every civil rights law passed in the last hundred years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
therobit posted:1. As stated Trump's word means fuckall. I don't disagree, but I'm wondering if it's likely that an actual bill could make it out of the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
You may recall that Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD) was one of the loudest voices against Legalization in DC, to the point of threatening the mayor with arrest if she moved forward with it. He and his colleagues ended up settling for tampering with the Cromnibus bill to add a rider saying "P.S. DC isn't allowed to spend any of their budget on anything to do with legalizing weed." DC got around that partially by arguing the Legal vote was "self-enacting" and they weren't spending any budget money post-Cromnibus, which is why DC has that famously weird gray area where you can grow/gift/consume weed but can't sell it. Andy Harris really pissed of DC rights advocates in general, and repeatedly needled them with comments like "if you want to be able to vote, move to a state." Adam Eidinger, the "political gadfly" who is basically the single guy who spearheaded DC weed, took Harris up on his offer and moved to the Eastern Shore of Maryland (Harris' district) solely to mess with him in the upcoming election. He's backing the Dem candidate in November's race (though the district has been Red for a while) and is coordinating a voter drive to sign up 10,000 people. Harris is one of the people keeping "no weed sales in DC" in the rider as the Budget rolls over year after year, so while it's unlikely he'll be booted this election, whenever he goes that will limit support for the rider. And until then DC is going to keep doing the "give me $20 and I promise nothing but you can expect to be happy you did" to get around rules against weed sales. And/or the ever popular "pay $50 to attend this party, and wouldn't you know it we have a bunch of free weed here." https://www.thecannabist.co/2018/04/10/marijuana-advocate-adam-eidinger-maryland-congressman-andy-harris/103295/
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Was DC the place where they had dudes who you would give money to on the street and then later down the street a different guy would come by on a bike or something to give you some weed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:https://honestmarijuana.com/hemp-oil-vs-cbd-oil/?age-verified=38806ca48b Alright, yes, so you are confusing 'hemp seed oil' with 'hemp products'. Right from your own link... quote:Hemp oil is produced from the seeds of the hemp plant, much like oils derived from olives, almonds, and coconuts. CBD is produced from the flowers, leaves, and stalks of the Cannabis sativa plant. The products I am talking about (including the one I linked to a GC/MS of) are made from the "flowers, leaves and stalks of the cannabis sativa plant". I am not talking about "hemp seed oil". Yeah, that's a thing that you can buy in the grocery store, but it's not what anyone is talking about here, until you brought it up. In fact, a lot of what I get is just buds, stalks and leaves be damned since they're garbage for anything other than cooking/extracts. https://www.greenmountaincbd.com/ https://upstateelevator.com/ https://www.cwhemp.com/ https://cbdhemp.direct/ These are all companies selling 50-state legal products which contain as much CBD as products available in legal states do, they just don't have much THC in them. They are all made from the "flowers, leaves and stalks of the Cannabis sativa plant".The idea that you can't get products with pharmacologically significant amounts of CBD in them outside of legalized states, is just wrong. I totally agree that no one should try to pass off "hemp seed oil" as a medicinal product, but as far as I can tell, you're the only person making the claim that people are. Maybe that's happening in shittier states? I remain curious where your misconception is coming from. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 00:41
|
|