Patterico's Pontifications

That’s my main reaction.

Patterico (39da75) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:05 pm

Freedom bothers you?

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:13 pm

You’d rather your kids — when they smoke a joint one day or have a friend’s half-empty baggie behind the back seat of a car — have their lives ruined by a criminal prosecution and record?

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:15 pm

Way to harsh their mellow, man.

Unix-Jedi (c74c15) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:22 pm

Where would we be without FC’s strawmen? If my daughter gets busted for pot it’s because I’ve failed to teach her not to smoke the s**t. But I have little control over you driving headlong into her, stoned out of your head, while she’s going about lawfully on her business. Marijuana impairs. Making it easier to obtain makes it easier for more irresponsible idiots to be impaired when they should not be.

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:24 pm

Pot had been illegal since 1937, it took nearly thirty years for it to become relevant, Robert Mitchum, had a conviction for pot, he served his time, he went on to be a productive citizen, the culture, made it indispensible, wreaking great damage on Mexico and other places,

narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:26 pm

it’s because I’ve failed to teach her not to smoke the s**t.

It’s because she’s made a different decision, which is not an immoral one, and she should’t have state violence used against her because of it.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:26 pm

Another straw man, but I’ll bite. A lot of countries have loose legal standards about alcohol, but have strong social stigma associated with drunkenness. Will the social norms and mores in the United States prevent chronic, sever stoners?

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:31 pm

When Robert Mitchum first met his wife, he said to her, “Stick with me kid and you’ll be farting through silk…”

Gazzer (74e832) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:31 pm

And they were married for 57 years up to his death.

Gazzer (74e832) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:32 pm

And, yes, it is immoral to be voluntarily chemically impaired if it makes you a danger, or a burden, or even a nuisance, to other people.

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:33 pm

The Republican Party is definitely not the party of freedom. Neither is the Democratic Party. You just like using tyranny in different ways.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:36 pm

now we need to cut the taxes on it

the taxes, they are too high

the government, too greedy

self-discipline is key

happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:37 pm

Marijuana does more permanent harm, more easily, and even the temporary effects last longer.

It does brain damage, particularly to memory (it may require repeated frequent heavy consumption to do that) and it probably put somebody I know then in his late 60s into a wheelchair.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:39 pm

there isn’t a tax on it, pikachu, the French tried to that with Opium, in the late 19th Century, it didn’t work,

narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:41 pm

OT
From bad to worse
http://www.absoluterights.com/mumia-defender-now-at-justice-dept/

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:41 pm

Grow your own, happyfeet.

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:42 pm

yes they tax it in Colorado Mr. narciso there’s a 15% excise tax and also a 10% sales tax

happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:46 pm

Mr. nk I heard it attracts bugs

happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:46 pm

The reason it may do that is (my theory) the liver calls upon certain vitamins or something to get rod of the marijuana, and when there’s not enough of it, body tissdue gets broken down.

The body tissue that gets broken down is what hasn’t been used recently. This may be muscle, or brain cells.

Since marijuana puts people into a stupor, certain brain cells are not being used for a while, and they can get broken down, particularly those associated with memorizing.

This is also probably the reason foer the effect on nausea. Nausea occurs when the liver is called on to process a lot – marijuana forces the breakdown of so much tissue that there is more than enough Vitamin B6 around to prevent nausea. The body on its own will not break dsdown a lot of body tissue to get Vitamin B6. Other things maybe, but not Vitamin B6. It is better to have nausea, which stops a person from eating, and thereby creating more wirk for the liver.

It would be simpler, of course, to take Vitamin B6 for nausea.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:46 pm

That’s my main reaction.

I have mixed emotions about this controversy.

On one hand, I can relate to your gut reaction. But, on the other hand, I also tend to flinch far less about legalized marijuana than I do about the issue of same-sex marriage, which I know you support from a conceptual standpoint.

I guess with the arrival of Obamacare, same-sex marriage and the growing legalization of dope, the left must feel quite good about creating sort of a socio-political hat trick. But when the US becomes more and more like a northern version of Mexico, Venezuela and Greece, I wonder if liberals will sneakily pack their bags and move elsewhere, leaving a mess for others to clean up?

Mark (58ea35) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:49 pm

oh. I just read that the 25% of taxings discussed in #18 is ON TOP OF the normal sales tax of 2.9%

so it’s being taxed at something like 28% or so.

happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:51 pm

The best marijuana in Greece comes from that mountain I showed you with me in a dress. But nobody smoked it in my mother’s time. On the other hand, they grew bootleg tobacco. The government taxed tobacco mercilessly, making it necessary for poor villagers to grow their own. My mother told me stories, from when she was a little girl, how she would hide the tobacco leaves from the gendarmes and how she would roll her father’s cigarettes for him.

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:58 pm

So. Will “Colorado Legal” be priced at a point that the out-the-door price of a lid is the same or competitive with what is sold around the corner on the street?

Is it stoll OK to grow one’s own, or is this going to end up having the narcs reduced to screening for receipts, or something?

gramps, the original (64b8ca) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:04 pm

The fact that you people think the government has the right to use force to stop people from putting something into their body is just chilling.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:06 pm

A doctor friend of mine had a good suggestion. Given that habitual marijuana use destroys the connections between neurons, making a habitual user permanently impaired — long-term marijuana use should be a disqualifying condition for obtaining a driver’s license (and should cause an existing license to be taken away), because for a long-term user, there is no longer any time when he will NOT be under the influence. In other words, since he has become incapable of ever safely operating a car without severe risk to those around him, he should not be allowed to drive one any longer.

If there was a legal framework in place for this, my friend said, he would have no objection to legalizing marijuana. On reflection, I agree with him. Some definition of “long-term use” would obviously need to be worked out, and there should be checks and balances built into any such system (due process would need to be followed)… but it would make me a lot less nervous about driving in Colorado if I knew that stoners couldn’t get driver’s licenses.

Robin Munn (f96b94) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:06 pm

Oops. …is it *still” OK…
Sorry.

gramps, the original (64b8ca) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:06 pm

Crime rates are quite different in different places. People can also be oblivious, or not care about crime in black or nearby neighborhoods.

Any kind of fiscal restraint almost inevitably leads to triage of places. It’s also much harder work reducing crime in high incidence locations.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:10 pm

According to the CBS Evening News, Colorado legal is being sold at about the black market rate.

That’s what you wouild expect, at the start I would guess.

Being legal actually should drive up the price, but then copetition shoold drive it down, and the black market rate then would also fall, and then it just wouldn’t be sold in Colorado.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:15 pm

26. I think he long term effects of markjuana may not impair driving too much, providing somebody learned how to drive before taking too much marijuana.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:17 pm

Patterico’s comment notwithstanding, I think this will be a boon for Colorado tourism. Whether they’re the kind of tourists you want to see is another question. On that note, has anyone been on a small Caribbean island when a big cruise ship docks? Those people are crazy!

David Pittelli (7ad332) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:23 pm

Cannabis has put quite a few people to work during these days of obamanomics. The medical marijuana stocks have been on the uptick lately and will continue to rise. The benefits of cannabis helping cancer patients is in the beginning stages. And continues to improve patients lives. Hey republicans – Weed is here to stay, just like the racist tea-baggers. Ha!

mg (31009b) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:28 pm

Comment by David Pittelli (7ad332) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:23 pm

Some friends are skiing at Vail. I messaged them this: “Just FYI, Illinois’s DUI laws make it illegal to have any trace, repeat ANY TRACE, of a controlled substance in your blood or urine, without a doctor’s prescription, regardless of whether you are impaired by it or not at the time the test is given. Just saying.”

They messaged back that with four kids it was not their thing, and anyway the line at the club was around the block. 😉

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:32 pm

32. Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:28 pm

The benefits of cannabis helping cancer patients is in the beginning stages. And continues to improve patients lives.

IF laws regarding medical research and promotion were rational, nodboy would use this thing.

And I also suspect that Vitamin B6 would handle the problem.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:34 pm

There are arguments against legal marijuana, but it probably should be placed in the same category as steroids.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:36 pm

“The fact that you people think the government has the right to use force to stop people from putting something into their body is just chilling.”

Former Conservative – Eliminate the FDA and institute tort reform. It will reduce medical costs.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:37 pm

Californians not wanting to go to Colorado because of legalized weed is difficult to process.

mg (31009b) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:37 pm

“because for a long-term user, there is no longer any time when he will NOT be under the influence”

Robin Munn – Perma-Fried

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:41 pm

He had to be smoking something:

http://weaselzippers.us/?p=166413

narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:53 pm

Be interesting to see what the effect is on crime of losing the illegality premium.
I gather the cops are running drug dogs through junior high halls. So supply isn’t a problem.
Now that it’s legel, maybe it will lose some of its hipness.

Richard Aubrey (c411da) — 1/2/2014 @ 8:04 pm

One of the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs is that the self-control part of behavior has been usurped by the government, making the standard something like “if you don’t get caught, it’s good.” Same kind of thing happening with the lowering of the blood alcohol levels for DWI. More and more convictions, more and more trying to get away with it. Hopefully Colorado has a Driving while Stoned law.

The idea of self-control has mostly disappeared.

Maybe the legal pot industry will make up for Magpul moving to Texas and Wyoming.

(I was pleasantly surprised a while ago at a restaurant to find my meal was comped because I was the groups’ non-drinking driver.)

htom (412a17) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:20 pm

So, I’m in Boulder visitng some friends aud its all fun because Iv siting my frineds in Boulder. And it its all great bccause ewre watching this tathis thing on TV. And the guys in the whoet uniforms are doing this stuff and the gyus in red are al mad and stuf. But, man,, ddi you every think about how rad its i that the whoel unisrresv is kinda liek an atom and sihit. Hhe. Man ILOVE Clradodo.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:23 pm

Well voting for Hickenlooper didn’t suggest rational behavior, then again they did recall two gun grabbing idiots, so who knows,

narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:25 pm

Was that why you quit your campaign, Ag?

narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:26 pm

whhat you mean i mean yeah wer goking to tacco bll and yeas I coulda meen that prsdneyt, btuy teh htarers cgol gotta ahate you mean. Rgheyt?? Isyst nto myporblme. Imawedn rellay chomo gandg, rihgt? LOVEMEY TEAM. hEY WHwRE are is ri ti it?

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:34 pm

Police have breathalyzers to test alcohol impairment of drivers. Does a test exist for identifying and charging Rocky Mountain High drivers?

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:43 pm

Ag80, forget the Presidency. We’re going to corner the Doritos market.

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:43 pm

You know what’s great? Bill Clinton can go to Colorado and inhale now.

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:46 pm

Urine and blood for sure will give reliable concentrations. And Riverside PD has announced that it has hired a police officer who is a trained expert in determining whether someone is impaired, including from the use of legally prescribed drugs. (Yeah, right. He is trained in giving convincing testimony in court, but you know ….)

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:48 pm

Yeah, “Ma’am, please get out of your car, walk a straight line over here, stare into my flashlight and pee into this cup” should be quite entertaining along the highways and byways of Colorado.

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:54 pm

Sorry, urine does not give reliable concentrations. Blood does.

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:56 pm

“Drug test, officer? Ok. Which drug are we testing?”

nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:58 pm

Hyehyte Im not diong that awhayt you hinthk I am Algoddallagood cayse drnuk nto tkoiEngand bukk u bull cltinton, YEAAH. ANED DREOTTOS YWEAHH. pto Doesnt fect our oruy klike rebeso berw hsut up htaers. Its lal colo. hey a fnuunnym, isaid dclo stead of ccoll, cool, YEAAH DORROTISO!. i REALLY MEAN thta because i live you.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/2/2014 @ 10:04 pm

Hmmm. At least Ag80’s posting (sorta.) We haven’t heard a thing from SPQR. Hope he’s not passed out somewhere.

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/2/2014 @ 10:07 pm

blleb.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/2/2014 @ 10:17 pm

The ski resorts and local sheriffs are having to remind folks that there will be zero tolerance for impaired skiing, and the resorts are imposing hefty fines if a guest smokes in his or her room. It will be interesting to see what unintended consequences this law brings about.

JVW (709bc7) — 1/2/2014 @ 10:24 pm

This may turn out to be a bad idea, but is it a worse idea than criminalization?

Of course, I wouldn’t do it the way Colorado does it: too hard to enforce age limits and nearly impossible to regulate quality and safety.

Better would be to just change the liquor laws to allow a portion of liquor stores to buy a pot license and pull both their licenses if they sell to minors. Bet you they don’t.

I’d also want the pot to be standardized or regulated in some fashion, through a private grading agency, public inspection entity and/or value-added manufacturers (as in tobacco). Otherwise you’ll get everything from bunk to pesticides.

And of course, the taxes.

But I wonder how this is all going to play with the Feds. That has just gotta be dicey.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/2/2014 @ 11:31 pm

Can the Attorney General be sued for not enforcing the law by someone in Colorado who believes they are being damaged? Perhaps a liquor store owner?

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:39 am

Cannabis will solve more issues medically than booze.

mg (31009b) — 1/3/2014 @ 2:47 am

mg, please list the non-palliative medicinal uses of marijuana.

I’ll give you that it’s comforting and it helps with nausea; and that smoking is the second most effective way of introducing it quickly into the body (next to IV injection). The lungs are a blood-rich environment and it’s in your brain within a couple of heartbeats. You tell me the rest.

The only medicinal value of alcohol that is not greatly outweighed by the side effects is external application for the cleansing of wounds, in my opinion.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:28 am

What a complete fiasco.

SPQR (768505) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:31 am

The Reefer Madness needs to end.

Anti-pot folk are the equivalent of the temperance movement that portrays everyone who drinks as a drunken bum puking on his shoes and abusing his family.

Not much thinking going on with their opposition, just knee jerk emoting, snark and Cheech and Chong jokes.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:43 am

“People over 21 can buy weed at the store. OH, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILLLLLDRENNNNN!?1!1!eleventy”

Really?

Quit talking like airhead liberals.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:46 am

SGt Ted–Beyond the jokes which are to be expected, there are some serious questions being asked on this thread and elsewhere about how to ensure public safety and to be able to measure impairment while also assuring the rights of individuals to smoke pot in their homes in Colorado. Do you feel those concerns are being addressed by the pro-pot folks? Or do they really care?

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:50 am

Do you feel those concerns are being addressed by the pro-pot folks? Or do they really care?

For the first few drags, anyway.

SGT Ted, just because some hippie-vote buying slimeball politicians say it’s ok to smoke manure, does not mean that it’s ok to smoke manure. I believe in shaming. I’ll ridicule hookers and pimps and drunks and stoners and bungee jumpers and they can take their YOLO and put it where their sensibilities are.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:05 am

Soros is behind this push, elissa, he’s financed Nadelman’s research, and the referendums

narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:07 am

elissa –

The public safety “concerns” are just thoughtless concern trolling.

Laws are already on the books as far as public impairment goes. Nystagmus tests and other field sobriety tests are valid for pot and have been used by law enforcement to detect marijuana impairment for over 40 years. The idea that there isn’t anything in place to enforce traffic safety on pot use is a big fat lie.

Pot clinics here in CA are not associated with any increase in crime. Opposition to legal pot is primarily base in ignorance and fear and stereotypes of hippies with no jobs.

The ONLY reason that the pot underculture thrives is because it is illegal. But, that won’t change until it is legal nationally. Then, any one farmer in the Imperial Valley could out-grow the entire outlaw pot industry in Northern CA and that economy will collapse and the criminal element that grows for the money will be substantially reduced.

If you oppose the governments controls on personal and public tobacco use as onerous, you should not be advocating the same for legal marijuana, other than that of impairment while driving, just like booze or Rx drugs.

And, just like booze and Rx drugs, people are affected differently by it. Some people get paranoid, some people fall asleep, some people get a simply buzz, some people get the giggles and munchies.

Lazy people smoke pot and do nothing, because they are lazy. The pot didn’t make them lazy, anymore than booze makes someone lazy.

But, really the biggest single reason to repeal pot prohibition is the actual history of lies, racialist fear mongering and corporatist lobbying that led to pot, along with non-psychoactive hemp plants grown for rope production, being outlawed in the first place back in 1937.

It certainly wasn’t outlawed based on any scientific evidence of objective harm or valid public safety concerns.

Reefer Madness lives.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:23 am

Yea, whatever nk.

I stopped listening to moral scolds a while back, as they offer nothing constructive.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:25 am

the cowardly and whorish US government does not have moral standing to ban stuff

think John McCain

happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:26 am

#65 Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:05 am

I was with you until you added bungee jumpers…. What you got against bungee jumping anyway? 😎

Easy Target (804124) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:28 am

I wasn’t going to comment on this thread but then I came across this:

Weed: Been There. Done That.

By DAVID BROOKS
January 2, 2014

…Paul Krugman is off today.

That last line comes after Brooks ends the article but I love it. Paul Krugman is off today so we’ve got Brooks bringing teh high-minded, pretentious stooopid instead.

Anyhoo, this is one of the paragraphs in between.

…But, of course, these are the core questions: Laws profoundly mold culture, so what sort of community do we want our laws to nurture? What sort of individuals and behaviors do our governments want to encourage? I’d say that in healthy societies government wants to subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship. In those societies, government subtly encourages the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned.

Brooks illustrates all that’s wrong with liberalism in this one paragraph. He thinks that in a healthy society it’s what government wants that counts. That government should be molding culture.

It’s completely backward. Culture should shape our laws. In a healthy society, more importantly in a self-governing society, society reining in government is the only way to promote “temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship.” In fact it’s an oxymoron to say that it’s government that should or even can promote self-governing citizenship.

Typical of the liberal elite, air-headed Brooks looks at Obama’s well-creased pants and thinks “he’s one of us.” One of the “us” who deserves to be in charge. The “rule by experts” so favored by the opinion writers at the NYT.

In this article in 2011 he admitted he was an Obama sap. And in the same article he demonstrates he’s still a sap. First by the headline, but it goes downhill from there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

Obama Rejects Obamaism

And Brooks continues to demonstrate he’s a sap in his most recent op-ed. What the sap doesn’t get is that government has no interest in temperate, prudent, self-governing citizens. Government is a special interest, and for this special interest the money lies in promoting dysfunction. Creating wards of the state. Dependents like Julia who can’t get along without government. Everything that’s going on can be traced back to this. The war on religion that the Obama administration is waging on various fronts, but most viciously by the HHS mandate. If religious organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor who care for the elderly in 30 homes across the country are forced from the field then more government clients are created. The war on marriage has been ongoing for decades (the push for gay marriage is the final step). The states have argued that marriage, which is not a creation of government but of society, hearkens back to the day when governments were molded by society (instead of he other way around as Brooks would have it) and reflects the government’s interest in promoting responsible procreation.

Undeniably true. Also irrelevant. The special interest that is government has no interest in promoting responsibility in anything anymore.

What Brooks fails to realize is that we don’t have a healty society precisely because a healthy society doesn’t beg for as much government as Obama and the progressives intend to give us.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:35 am

A bunch of them got together once and beat me up and stole the inner tubes from my bicycle.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:38 am

What Brooks fails to realize is that we don’t have a healty society precisely because a healthy society doesn’t beg for as much government as Obama and the progressives intend to give us.

This is the blind spot that many social conservatives have as well.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:40 am

I have no obligation to construct anything for you, SGT Ted. Just when you piss on my back and tell me it’s raining, I’ll tell you that you have a small weinie.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:41 am

The public safety “concerns” are just thoughtless concern trolling.

Who is arguing like a silly liberal? Dismissing all opposition out of hand is one of Obama’s go-to moves.

JD (5c1832) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:41 am

60.nk- increases appetite in cancer and hiv patients.
more studies are being done on the chemical properties of cannabis, so who knows what the outcome could be.

mg (31009b) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:45 am

Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:35 am

Government is a special interest, and for this special interest the money lies in promoting dysfunction. Creating wards of the state.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

(Looks like the person who formulated is isn’t too admirable. But anyway, t’s gone far beyond him.)

This is not really so much true of “goverment” as of individual parts of government, since nobody runs the whole thing.

It is also true of unions, educational institutions, professional organizations, well known charities, and we can also say many religious organizations.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:47 am

Comment by SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:46 am

People over 21 can buy weed at the store. OH, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILLLLLDRENNNNN!

Usage rises from about 7.5% to 10%.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:49 am

I agree that it relieves suffering, mg. A broad spectrum of it. That’s what I meant by palliative. And that smoking is a very effective path of administration. I am 100% in favor of that medical use. I believe in alleviating suffering.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:52 am

@67-
“It certainly wasn’t outlawed based on any scientific evidence of objective harm or valid public safety concerns.”

This is the case with a large number of things and behaviors that have been outlawed. Incandescent bulbs, plastic grocery bags and 16 round magazines come immediately to mind.

gramps, the original (64b8ca) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:52 am

58. Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:39 am

Can the Attorney General be sued for not enforcing the law by someone in Colorado who believes they are being damaged? Perhaps a liquor store owner?

I don’t think so. You can’t sue the police for not coming to your help (althouugh you can for causing you to rely on their help) on the grounds there is no tort in the government’s failure to carry out its duties, or something like that.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:53 am

2. Freedom bothers you?

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:13 pm

7.

it’s because I’ve failed to teach her not to smoke the s**t.

It’s because she’s made a different decision, which is not an immoral one, and she should’t have state violence used against her because of it.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:26 pm

25. The fact that you people think the government has the right to use force to stop people from putting something into their body is just chilling.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:06 pm

We shouldn’t forget the libertarian contribution to the rise of the police state. Literally. FC’s thinking goes over big in places like Kali. Where the Correctional Officer’s Union is the largest political force in the state. People who think like FC have turned Kali into an asylum run entirely for the benefit for the keepers.

But then as long as the state recognizes their right to recreational drug use and to scrog like bunny rabbits they won’t notice how small their box has become.

Libertarians also don’t realize when they demand that government get out of x business or y business is that the reason society had their government get into those businesses in the first place is to avoid the lowest common denominator society that is what we are being fundamentally transformed into in this Obamanation. Back in the day when societies molded their governments, and not the other way around.

When you promote dysfunction, which is what libertarians do, then you create people who can’t self govern but must be controlled. And then follows the demand for authoritarian solutions. The thing libertarians claim not to want but inexplicably encourage.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:54 am

Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:45 am

increases appetite in cancer and hiv patients.

I don’t think marijana does that at all.

It’s the forced breakdown of body tissue, specifically protein, caused by the body working to eliminate marijuana marijuana from the body, that does that.

Vitamin B6 would probably work much better for nausea, but federal law does not allow anyone selling vitamins to make any health claims.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:58 am

Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:54 am

Kali. Where the Correctional Officer’s Union is the largest political force in the state. People who think like FC have turned Kali into an asylum run entirely for the benefit for the keepers.

That’s precisely the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:01 am

Sgt Ted–Well, thanks for answering in such a thoughtful and reassuring manner. Annoying moral scolds are not even remotely the issue I asked you to address. It’s dealing with the actual repercussions and unintended consequences of cannabis impaired driving and skiing that many people are concerned about. But you seem to want to ignore it and not want to talk about it and have everybody just shut up and call people names. If it’s not going to be a problem in Colorado (and it may not be) then tell us why you know that. If families in SUVs driving on mountain roads need not be concerned with a sky high driver coming toward them from the opposite direction, tell us why not. If skiers need not be scared that the person racing down right behind them might be high as a kite, how will that be assured? I’m pretty open minded on most things and I’m not a fan of regulations. I know people who have been helped medically with marijuana. Still, as we have seen with other “good intentions” like Obamacare, things need to be, you know, thought though. Has this new legalizing pot law been thought through?

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:02 am

JD,

Allow me then to retract my blanket smear, which I do admit is the equivalent of seeing all pot smokers as Cheech and Chong wastrels and bums.

Other than my snarky mass attribution, I am seeing most of the “public safety concerns” being promoted by people that stand to lose much of their budgets if pot becomes legal. Such as the NAPC.

Back before the Feds coopted the local LE officials by cutting them in on a piece of the action in the 1980s, most of them were OK with the pot industry in their communities. Now, we have the police corrupted by asset seizure laws that were passed to fight the ‘drug war’.

The reason I attribute puclic safety concerns as a form of trolling is that when one applies the current impairment laws to weed, the concerns disappear, as LE has been enforcing impairment laws all through prohibition with no problems. But, suddenly, upon legalization, it’s new problem? Sorry, my BS detector was tripped by my ‘follow the money” circuit.

Anybody truly impaired by pot will fail a field sobriety test used to catch drunks. I am sure they will find a test that will measure actual active THC, as opposed to inactive metabolites from the liver.

And guess what? People that will drive stoned are already driving stoned, or drunk. Or on pills.

No one is seeking to re-outlaw liquor based on people driving under the influence. Trying to justify pot prohibition using the same reasoning just isn’t all that convincing to me.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:03 am

For cases of cancer, it’s actually more important to take a lot of Vitamin B1, as anyone with advanced cancer develops beriberi.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:07 am

77. …and we can also say many religious organizations.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:47 am

Unfortunately, yes. Which is my issue with the US Catholic Church and increasingly Pope Francis.

It’s why I’m sort of ambivalent toward the Catholic Church’s howls of protests over the HHS mandate. As a matter of intellectual integrity I know of course that what the Obama administration is doing is authoritarian and in no way complies with the Constitution. No matter what the courts ultimately rule the Constitution means on the particular day they issue their opinion.

But on the other hand they’ve been walking arm in arm with the authoritarians to promote exactly the kind of redistributive justice that people like Obama have always envisioned. I’m sure Obama was flabbergasted by the USCCB’s reaction to the mandate because the guy who shaped his view of Catholicism is Father Pfleger, just as much a liberation theologian as Rev. Wright.

http://www.latinopost.com/articles/1552/20131129/cardinal-timothy-dolan-says-catholic-church-could-have-been-obamacares-biggest-cheerleader.htm

Cardinal Timothy Dolan Says Catholic Church Could Have Been Obamacare’s ‘Biggest Cheerleader’

Very true. Precisely the problem. They lay down with dogs and were shocked when they got up with fleas.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:07 am

While I could get into all kinds of thing here I’ll put it differently.

My big brother started smoking pot at around age thirteen, when I was eight, and that’s when I started to hate him.

Every so often my parents would come down on him and he would quit. Like clockwork, seven days after he quit, a switch would flip.

He would be smart again.

He could follow a sentence, or a train of thought. He could crack meaningful jokes. He could plan and follow through. He was someone I could easily love.

Then things would get hard, or boring, or he’d be around smokers in whatever band he was in, and he’d start again. He’d get stupid again. And then he was only someone I could love in a general family way.

He got married to a woman with her own problems and a similar, lesser habit. Their kids have neurological problems because of it and get pilled up more and more by the school district until they’re on so many meds the eldest got Tourettes and then diabetes. And they can’t handle it because they can’t think ahead and can’t plan.

My brother went through late stage marijuana addiction, with inability to eat and anxiety attacks. The medications for those didn’t do anything because they didn’t address the problem Finally he got so weak from it that he consented to go into a rehab facility to get clean. Two weeks later, he was smart again.

He started going to Narcotics Anonymous religiously, which helped. He got much better at dealing with his crazy kids., and at navigating the government health care system. He gained back most of the weight he lost when he couldn’t eat and no longer looked lik a Treblinka victim.

It lasted close to a year, then he felt healthy and started again.

luagha (96e528) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:08 am

elissa,

My background is law enforcement. I have thought about this a lot, as well as had to deal with impaired people in public. The stoned ones are the least dangerous in my experience. You completely ignored my answer as to driving concerns and safety enforcement to then dismiss me as just another unthinking pro-pot person.

We have laws on the books for impaired driving. I don’t know anybody that doesn’t drink and drive that will suddenly think that driving while stoned is OK.

My overall point is that the fears are overblown, being mostly driven by the remnants of Reefer Madness and 1980s Drug Warrior public policy and not the merits or facts on the ground.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:11 am

“Dope will get you through times of no health care better than health care will get you through times of no dope.”

– Freewheelin’ Frank

Colonel Haiku (6726b1) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:15 am

Perhaps team republican should endorse state’s rights. The amount of votes laying on the stoner table is more than what’s on the gay,lesbian, transgender table. Besides a large percentage of these stoners are conservative, they just haven’t been made aware of it yet.

mg (31009b) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:21 am

==You completely ignored my answer as to driving concerns and safety enforcement to then dismiss me as just another unthinking pro-pot person.==

I did?

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:21 am

I think culture and government are a bit of chicken and egg. Yes, it is the culture of personal responsibility that is more important than governmental regulations.
But reasonable governmental regulations should encourage doing good and discourage doing bad, at least where doing bad has consequences that impact others in society.
My observational bias is that the only people I ever saw entertained by the “ant races” were stoned.
If watching ant races and using marijuana have a positive correlation, I think it is something we can best do without.
The legal details of how to discourage its use I am not sure of, but encouraging its use is not a good idea.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:23 am

Comment by luagha (96e528) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:08 am

Their kids have neurological problems because of it and get pilled up more and more by the school district until they’re on so many meds the eldest got Tourettes and then diabetes.

Yes, of course. Many pills are far worse than nicotine, not to mention transfats (!?). We are in the dark ages of pharmacology.

People don’t realize that if certain kinds of foods are not good for you, and that actually is true, in fact any kind of food is not good for you, there are pluses and minuses to eating, and that is all the more likely for pills.

And also that the inactive ingredients in pills may matter very much, and so there can be a real difference between brand names and generics.

Ever read the side effects of medicines? It is a hodge podge of unrelated things. The differences in side effects experienced are probably caused by differences in what the people taking the pills were eating and some genetic variance too, but morethe first plus age, which increases nutritional requirements.

Two weeks later, he was smart again.

So he managed to avoid being permanently harmed that much, or so it seemed. Maybe there were sufficient gaps between uses.

Note: it took two weeks to recover from the effects of marijuana. No alcoholic hangover lasts that long.

He started going to Narcotics Anonymous religiously, which helped. He got much better at dealing with his crazy kids., and at navigating the government health care system.

Yes, this is extremely complicated.

He gained back most of the weight he lost when he couldn’t eat and no longer looked lik a Treblinka victim.

Not Treblinka. In Treblinka almost all people were killed except those used to process the dead, or whom the S.S. kept for their own benefit, against orders. There were some survivors, but because of a revolt and escape.

You mean Auschwitz, were about ne quarter of the people sent there were (temporarily) kept alive for labor.

It lasted close to a year, then he felt healthy and started again.

he had eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and knew what being stoned felt like, and liked it?? Did it help his emotions?

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:24 am

elissa, how’s that puppy training going?

Does your dog think it has a natural right not to be swatted with a newspaper and called “bad dog” when it poops on the carpet?

Does it think you should pat it and say “good boy” when it poops on the carpet?

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:28 am

Then, any one farmer in the Imperial Valley could out-grow the entire outlaw pot industry in Northern CA and that economy will collapse and the criminal element that grows for the money will be substantially reduced.

That’s a common argument regarding drug legalization, but I think it falls apart under closer scrutiny.

While the criminal element associated with marijuana growing might be reduced, the criminal element as a whole will not. Just look at what happened in the US during and after Prohibition. The gangs which had flourished by bootlegging alcohol still flourished after alcohol was legalized; they just refocused their business.

Don’t think for one second that the criminals growing pot for a living will stop being criminals, or that criminality in general will be reduced.

Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:33 am

Yea, you did. You claim that impaired driving is not being addressed, so I addressed it by stating that LE ALREADY enforces impaired driving laws, which are not restricted to alcohol use, that have been used by LE since prohibition to detect and arrest impaired drivers, regardless of the substance abused.

You then say to me: “It’s dealing with the actual repercussions and unintended consequences of cannabis impaired driving and skiing that many people are concerned about. But you seem to want to ignore it and not want to talk about it and have everybody just shut up and call people names.”

Which to me means you did not read what I wrote about our existing laws and how I think they will work just fine in detecting impaired drivers.

The fears are overblown is my opinion. It is time to end Prohibition 2.0 where pot is concerned.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:34 am

Of course the criminals will still exist. They just won’t be using outlaw pot to make scads of money. They will quit growing in our State and national Forests. They will go back to coke and smack to make a buck.

Pot is so easily grown that the only way the criminal element will be able to continue to make big money is if they succeed in getting government to regulate it so heavily that the black market will continue to thrive. My bet is that progressives will enable just that with their “sin” taxation models pioneered on tobacco and booze.

SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:42 am

SGT Ted to elissa: you completely ignored my answer as to driving concerns and safety enforcement.

His answer was that they enforce the law against driving impaired by drugs already.

A possible counter, is that with marijuana legal, more people might use it more often.

He also didn’t explain how they enforce it, but I think if somebody causes an accident, they test not only for alcohol but for illegal substances.

They can also sometimes check for the presence of illegal drugs in the car – if they are also checking for a gun – but now that won be illegal in Colorado if it’s marijuana..

If someone kills someone, but was merely speeding or tired, and does not flee from the scene of the accident, there is often no penalty, except maybe higher insurance rates, or points on your license (if speeding)

If, on the other hand, someone had some substance in his blood, then it is attributed to that substance, and may be a crime..

MADD got the definition of drunk driving dropped to .08 from .10 even though real dangers only start to happen at about .16. So many people maybe get stopped for DWI who aren’t really posing a hazard, or too much of an additional hazard. People who pose a real hazard get into accidents.

I don’t know that Colorado has established an unsafe level of marijuana, but there may perhaps be a sitation when nothing detectable remains in the blood but impairment remains.

luagha said for two weeks (probably the time needed to regrow brain cells or connections between them) but marijuana is gone from the bod afer 2 or 3 days.

The effects of alcohol mostly go away with the alcohol, except for a hangover and delirium tremens, and even that goes away faster. Except, of course when there is permanent harm to memory.

There are two effects from drunk driving. Not only do people have less ability, some of them are also more likely to do stupid things while driving.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:42 am

Comment by SGT Ted (afb1af) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:42 am

They will go back to coke and smack to make a buck.

There are still enough states where it remains illegal. They can also increase smuggling of people across the Mexican border. Obama and Congress are creating plenty of business.

It’s the locals who will have to find some substitute source income – but they maybe can work in a store and sell it legally.

Pot is so easily grown that the only way the criminal element will be able to continue to make big money is if they succeed in getting government to regulate it so heavily that the black market will continue to thrive. My bet is that progressives will enable just that with their “sin” taxation models pioneered on tobacco and booze.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:45 am

The criminals will not give up easily. Remember the first pot festival in Denver last year? Thugs showed up and shot several people.

Other towns besides Denver are taking it slow. Apparently they still have the right to limit pot sales in their jurisdiction. But it’s coming.

Thank goodness we still have federalism. We are all watching this laboratory of democracy. Let’s hope it doesn’t go up in smoke. 🙂

Patricia (be0117) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:48 am

Of course the criminals will still exist. They just won’t be using outlaw pot to make scads of money.

It’s a distinction without a difference. They’ll still exist, and still make scads of money, but they won’t be growing pot. Not exactly a major victory for crime prevention. And, as Sammy has pointed out, there will still be a black market for pot.

Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:49 am

The last paragraph in 101 is not mine.

The black market will probably be much smaller in Colorado. Even college campuses, and in high schools, the original source will probably be legal.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:50 am

Meyer Lansky and others were not able to compete with legal liquor.

So, in many cases, they started doing worse things.

Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:52 am

@100– Thank you Sammy. That was a very, very good post– you identified where more facts would be helpful and you got to the heart of what many people want actual information about, not just someone’s personal opinion.

elissa (fb9ae9) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:54 am

I couldn’t reliably spell Auschwitz while on my phone where I couldn’t look it up, Sammy, sorry. You got what I meant.

I can’t know how smart my brother would be now if he had never smoked marijuana.

I do know that when he was young, the secondary impairment lasted seven days and now that he’s older, it lasts longer than that.

And as for why he went back to it? He’s addicted.

I only have a theory, and that is that marijuana keeps you from being able to think about the future. The future is rough, after all. And his doesn’t have much bright in it; what with a crazy wife and crazy kids with all kinds of problems.

Even though he’s much better at dealing with the future when he’s clean, he doesn’t have to think about it when he’s using. It all goes away.

luagha (5cbe06) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:00 am

@106. SGT Ted would be correct that this is a matter of no consequence if the new law did not increase the usage, or maybe overusage, of marijuana at all. then whatever you would speculate could happen is happening now anyway.

About Colorado establishing an intoxication level for mariijuana I found this:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/colorado-lawmakers-pass-hb-1325-setting-marijuana-driving-limit (May 7, 2013)

…That bill says drivers with 5 nanograms or more of THC per milliliter of blood would be considered impaired to drive. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

The level of intoxication would be determined by a blood test.

The driving bill has failed at least five times in the past. The bill has been fiercely debated because of questions over whether THC blood tests are a fair gauge of impairment.

The bill now goes to Governor John Hickenlooper for final approval. A spokesperson for the governor said Hickenlooper will sign the bill.

There is indeed probably a problem with using THC levels as a measure of impairment.

The artivcle says, the AP says that Nevada and Ohio have a 2 nanogram THC limit for driving.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:03 am

Other links:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

Duration of Effects: Effects from smoking cannabis products are felt within minutes and reach their peak in 10-30 minutes. Typical marijuana smokers experience a high that lasts approximately 2 hours. Most behavioral and physiological effects return to baseline levels within 3-5 hours after drug use, although some investigators have demonstrated residual effects in specific behaviors up to 24 hours, such as complex divided attention tasks. Psychomotor impairment can persist after the perceived high has dissipated.

In long term users, even after periods of abstinence, selective attention (ability to filter out irrelevant information) has been shown to be adversely affected with increasing duration of use, and speed of information processing has been shown to be impaired with increasing frequency of use.

So now what?

This link explores whether a judgement of impairment is related to THC levels. There is a correlation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16854704

These people propose that the same standards used for prescription drugs apply. They also claim that the intoxicating effects wear off long before THC levels go down, especially in regular users. Maybe it also depends on how you define intoxication. It may not all be motor skills.

They also say you don’t begin to see a statistical correelation with accidents till 5-10:
(by the way, what is that level when it comes to alcohol?) They also claim that the laws against drugged driving have no effect on traffic fatalities, and indeed they shouldn’t, until and unless people actually avoid doing both at the same time because of the law.

http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/DUID-and-MMJ.pdf

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:14 am

omg I’m so hungry

hey look

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-del-taco-turkey-tacos-20140102,0,5100383.story#axzz2pMLflHqS

only 150 calories????

wowsers!

I’m in. Can I borrow your car?

happyfeet (c60db2) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:17 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/automobiles/redefining-under-the-influence.html?_r=0

….a Seattle TV station, KIRO, had three volunteers smoke marijuana before driving.

They started out well enough, even after each far exceeded the state’s five-nanogram limit. Predictably, the more they smoked, the worse they drove….Even with its five nanogram standard, the law has some flexibility, letting defendants present evidence that they were not too impaired to drive even when their THC levels exceeded the statutory level.

Paul Armentano, deputy director of Norml, said: “The problem is that marijuana is not metabolized and absorbed by the body in the same way alcohol is.” so they shouldn’t have a magic number.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:18 am

Comment by luagha (5cbe06) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:00 am

can’t know how smart my brother would be now if he had never smoked marijuana.

I know someone – she told me years ago how smart her sister used to be – then she got incolved with alcohol and drugs. She is on disability.

She was separated from her husband, but not legally, then when he got lung cancer he went back to live with her, but Social Security assumed he’d been living with her all that time and would not accept any kind of evidence that he was not, and they assumed an overpayment of SSI, and took away some amount per month.

I do know that when he was young, the secondary impairment lasted seven days and now that he’s older, it lasts longer than that.

The question is how much is permanent.

And as for why he went back to it? He’s addicted.

That’s not an explanation, that’s a word or a tautology. Addicted usually means you can’t live without it without experiencing bad effects.

I only have a theory, and that is that marijuana keeps you from being able to think about the future.

I think it probably keeps you from being able to think AT ALL. But you could say the future, since it prevents concentrated thought.

The future is rough, after all. And his doesn’t have much bright in it; what with a crazy wife and crazy kids with all kinds of problems.

Even though he’s much better at dealing with the future when he’s clean, he doesn’t have to think about it when he’s using. It all goes away.

That could be it.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:31 am

In 112 – it was her husband who gave her many drugs or whatever.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:32 am

To clearly demonstrate a person is impaired by a substance, one would have to do a battery of psych and psychomotor performance tests without the substance and then with the substance at a specified level.
That is not a workable standard on a population basis, so something needs to be decided upon that is relatively easier to measure and has a “good enough” correlation to actual impairment to be useful.
The “relative ease to measure” and “good enough” correlation are somewhat subjective judgments (based on objective data, but still in the end it is the role of legislators to decide what will go into law).

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:33 am

He can think about some things, Sammy. For example, he put a lot of effort into finding parts and fixing up an old used car in the time before the rehab. My dad saw it as very positive, the way he was so industrious about it, and they way it would allow him to look for work and so on.

But when he was clean, he admitted to my father that what drove him to work so hard is that it would allow him to drive to where he could get more marijuana.

Addiction is a tautology. I’m addicted to computers, caffiene, roleplaying games, martial arts. I understand what an addictive personality is. I like what I like and when I like something I want more and more of it. The question is realizing what it does to you and when to stop. If you can’t stop you can get hurt. And if the addition is damaging, you can get hurt fast.

luagha (5cbe06) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:57 am

there’s no more candy cause i ate it all

happyfeet (c60db2) — 1/3/2014 @ 11:40 am

115. Comment by luagha (5cbe06) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:57 am

He can think about some things, Sammy. For example, he put a lot of effort into finding parts and fixing up an old used car in the time before the rehab.

But that’s actually really not complicated, to somebody familiar with cars. You can deal with things one thing at a time.

Marijuana most interferes with semi-short term memory.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 11:44 am

I’m curious; do people think the only consequence of legalizing pot we need to concern ourselves with is impaired driving?

Steve57 (c9c4e5) — 1/3/2014 @ 11:44 am

Add to that impaired flying, and other mischief thar arise from impairment, (use your imagination) the guy who ate the the other guy’s face was not on bathsalt, but pot as it turned out,

narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:02 pm

Impaired driving concerns people who never would know anybody who smokes marijuana – it’s like second smoke with tobacco. It becomes an issue.

.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:03 pm

What else, Steve57?

After all, we are talking about heroes fighting for our freedoms, those sacred liberties esconced in Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the wall of the third stall of the men’s room at Vinnie’s Bar & Barbecue, who every time they stoke their bong with legal marijuana strike a blow against the Mexican drug cartels and an oppressive, militarized, police state.

It’s not like they’re dopers — hedonistic, self-indulgent, novelty-seeking libertines for whom all the thousands of leisure activities available in the richest, fattest, most secure, and most country in history are not enough to keep them distracted and amused.

We should all salute these true descendants of George Washington and the pioneers, and invite them to our homes and let them pet our dogs.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:05 pm

But then, E-cigarettes don’t create any second smoke. Yet some people are against them.

>

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:06 pm

*and most spoiled country in history*

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:06 pm

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579298593593204388 (the wrong Argument for Drug Legakization) [high black incarceration rates, which is not being driven by drug laws]

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/3/2014 @ 12:49 pm

At least the pot-heads won’t be taking pot-shots at each other with Magpul’s high-capacity magazines.

Jobs leave, MJ sales soar!

askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/3/2014 @ 1:14 pm

I think driving is one clear immediate effect on others in society, hence the easiest argued.
One can talk about lost productivity at work, lack of involvement parenting, lots of things which would be a negative ripple effect,
but we don’t make everything illegal that has a negative ripple effect, like having children before graduating high school;
I think it’s pretty easy to say, “Even if you want the right to mess up your own life, give a reason for your employer to fire you, and set a bad example for your children, we aren’t going to let you kill other people with your car.”

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/3/2014 @ 1:33 pm

I’ve smoked my share of pot, and probably someone else’s share. But not for some time now. My observation is that the stereotype of the brain-addled long-term constant pot smoker (LTCPS) who can’t seem to get off the couch is fairly accurate. Not all pot smokers are LTCPS, of course, but those that are pretty dissipated.

As a political scheme, however, this doesn’t really work since 1) LTCPS are also long-term unemployed, and 2) they usually don’t have the motivation to vote. Maybe tomorrow.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 2:18 pm

But then, E-cigarettes don’t create any second smoke. Yet some people are against them.

They’d be against virtual cigarettes on the internet, too.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 2:21 pm

BTW, I expect Colorado to crack down on tobacco use so that there will be places where pot is OK and tobacco banned, such as apartment buildings.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 2:24 pm

In the real versus exaggerated harm department:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/10/the-fukushima-radiation-leak-is-equal-to-76-million-bananas/

narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 2:30 pm

Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda retakes Fallujah. Words fail me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/al-qaeda-fighters-take-fallujah-as-iraqi-army-attacks.html

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 3:17 pm

126. I think driving is one clear immediate effect on others in society, hence the easiest argued.
One can talk about lost productivity at work, lack of involvement parenting, lots of things which would be a negative ripple effect,
but we don’t make everything illegal that has a negative ripple effect, like having children before graduating high school;
I think it’s pretty easy to say, “Even if you want the right to mess up your own life, give a reason for your employer to fire you, and set a bad example for your children, we aren’t going to let you kill other people with your car.”

Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/3/2014 @ 1:33 pm

We aren’t? How do you propose we stop them? We have laws against impaired driving, and there are criminal penalties for doing so. In reality in full it would read, “…we aren’t going to let you kill other people with your car without paying a very heavy price.”

In this case the cost is borne by the individual and the penalty is a criminal penalty.

Who bears the cost in other circumstances?
For instance these laws open up businesses to entirely new forms of liability. In many industries the businesses have clear authority to terminate employees who use state-legalized marijuana. For instance, if you work in an industry that requires people to have a commercial drivers license then that falls under federal control. And DoT rules are clear, no driver can report to work or remain at work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Since THC builds up in the system, if someone is a heavy user there will come a time when they are never going to be clean enough to work. If you have to compete for federal contracts, same thing.

Many places are drug free workplaces. Not quite so many, but still a lot, have pre-employment drug tests. Fewer still are those that have random post-employment drug tests. Most post-employment drug testing occurs as post-accident testing. Still…

http://www.insure.com/articles/businessinsurance/pot-smoking-co-workers.html

The rights of your pot-smoking co-workers

The Teamsters have vowed to stand up for “worker’s rights” against business on the issue of legalized marijuana.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 3:57 pm

And California, led the way, facepalm

In news of other situations deemed safe;

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/01/report_ex-guantanamo.php

narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 4:12 pm

I’m afraid to look. I haven’t posted anything here lately have I?

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/3/2014 @ 4:52 pm

We want to know more about that girl and the donkey and the dwarf, Ag80.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 5:18 pm

lets leave Lovie, Sam the Sham & teh chimperor out of this please…

redc1c4 (abd49e) — 1/3/2014 @ 5:30 pm

Uh oh.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/3/2014 @ 5:56 pm

My observation is that the stereotype of the brain-addled long-term constant pot smoker (LTCPS) who can’t seem to get off the couch is fairly accurate.

Which means if such a person becomes a burden on society, then his drug use won’t necessarily be a so-called victimless crime.

In the long run, I don’t know what has the most potential to make this country even more flaky or socially, culturally sloppy/lazy: Legalization of dope use or the fey kissing up to the rainbow-flag agenda, where even chaplains in the US military aren’t allowed to frown upon the idea of two guys getting hitched.

The way things are going, we’re going to get both in stereo surround-sound.

Lucky us. And props and kudos to Nidal Hasan.

Mark (58ea35) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:29 pm

Let’s face it. The fact that pot has been illegal, and is still illegal in virtually every state, has not stopped people from smoking it, and driving while impaired.

People who wait until pot is legal to smoke it would be precisely the kind who would exercise more care to avoid driving while impaired.

norcal (63dda0) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:31 pm

Hmmm,
Steve57, I feel like you are trying to shoot a messenger that agrees with you.
You asked if pot-impaired driving was the only consequence of legalized pot that we were concerned about.
I said no, but that impaired driving seemed to be a pretty easy argument to make as a major point of argument, that one can go libertarian and say people can do what they want with their own bodies and all, but the fact is that when one person’s “freedom” results in harm to others then a limit has been crossed.
I think it should have been clear that when I said, “We aren’t going to let you”, I meant we would try to prevent it by providing consequences to discourage it happening.
In other words, keeping it illegal and additional penalties for driving while impaired is “not letting it happen”, as opposed to making it legal and inviting people to use it, including use before and while driving.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:46 pm

Let’s face it. The fact that pot has been illegal, and is still illegal in virtually every state, has not stopped people from smoking it, and driving while impaired.

Or driving while smoking it, for that matter.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 6:59 pm

With a baby in the car and the windows closed.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:00 pm

Kevin’s plan for enforcing good behavior:

Everyone who wants to buy pot has to get an ID card saying they are allowed to buy pot, with their name and picture and everything. If they get caught driving under the influence, or with pot smoke coming out the windows, etc, they lose the card forever. Sure they can buy black-market pot, but how much of a black market will there be when pot is legal? About as much as black market Scotch, I think.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:03 pm

But that people will violate a law is not a reason to repeal it.

nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:04 pm

R.I.P. Phil Everly

Icy (4506f1) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:22 pm

the way, the precedent went down, did not inspire confidence in any aspect of Colorado authority,

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gang-member-arrested-colorado-prison-chiefs-murder/story?id=18886953

narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:24 pm

Only one way, you reach this level of inanity;

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/five-economic-reforms-millennials-should-be-fighting-for-20140103

narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:34 pm

Under the table weed is cheaper… wake and bake!

steveg (794291) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:35 pm

R.I.P. William Overstreet Jr.

http://allamericanblogger.com/26214/an-all-american-falls-wwii-ace-who-flew-through-legs-of-eiffel-tower-dies/

Via Ace (fitting in this case).

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:16 pm

RIP, George Goodman, ‘Adam Smith’ 83,

narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 8:19 pm

MD in Philly @140, sorry I made you feel that way. It wasn’t my intent.

I agree with the fact that impaired driving is the easiest point to argue. That being the case, I was just trying to point out that there are very real, tangible damages that users of legalized marijuana can cause where third parties have to bear the cost. Not the user. Liability is a major concern for businesses that operate in states that legalize pot. Particularly medical marijuana, which given how easy it is to get a medical marijuana card in a lot of locales is just basically sanctioning it for recreational use, let’s face it. In the first year after Arizona legalized medical marijuana, the state health department received over 19,000 applications for a medical marijuana card. They turned down a whopping 8 requests.

Speaking of Arizona, that and certainly some other states actually make it illegal for an employer to terminate an employee who uses medical marijuana. If they fail a drug test but have a medical marijuana card, or you just find out they have the card you can’t treat them any differently than any other employee. No employer or any other private property owner is required accomodate these users. But that doesn’t mean that I won’t have a reason to be concerned about what condition such an employee is in when they show up in at the start of their shift or after a meal break. Which is another area where the libertarian argument falls flat. Whose business is it what someone puts in their body on their own time? Mine, just as much as if they decided to go to a bar and do a couple of shots on their lunch hour. The only difference is I could fire an employee for coming to work after drinking, even if they’re not obviously impaired. If I were in Arizona (and no doubt other states; I haven’t really done much research) I can’t fire an employee for coming to work after taking their “medicine.” Unless they are obviously impaired.

Which isn’t much of a guide. People can build up remarkable tolerance. I’ve known people who could be absolutely plastered and you’d never know. Just as I’ve known potheads (I wouldn’t have lasted 20 years of random drug testing in the Navy if Mary Jane was my cup of tea but I grew up on the outskirts of a university town) who could be high as a kite and you’d never know. In fact, if you got to observe them over time you’d discover if they were acting normally, that meant they were high. Because if they hadn’t smoked they were irritable as hell.

Which exposes business owners to extraordinary liability. The “safety sensitive” exemptions these laws provide may save you from having to put them in positions where they operate machinery or handle food, but there are lots of areas where an impaired employee can really harm you in terms of creating an unsafe work environment for other employees or causing harm to your customers. Since Target has been in the news, let’s say mishandling confidential customer information.

Then of course they can claim you improperly discriminated against them because they have a medical marijuana card if you do fire them for being impaired.

I actually agree with you about the libertarian argument. It isn’t really well thought out. It’s not as easy an argument to make, but putting employers and their fellow employees, not to mention customers, at risk is another area where it isn’t just the individual’s harmless choice about what to put in one’s own body. It’s hardly libertarian, is it, to force employers to keep such employees despite the risk. But that’s the solution some states have chosen to prevent employers from simply firing people wholesale for using a drug that remains illegal under federal law. Thus forcing employers to take the risk of the employees drug use. And no doubt other states will jump on the bandwagon. The unions are definitely eager to do so.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 9:40 pm

Yeah, there are states besides Arizona that provide for some kinds of civil protection against being terminated. Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, and Rhode Island.

In the other states that have legalized pot, they courts have ruled that their marijuana laws only protect users from criminal penalties.

But this will be the next frontier in pot legalization, sure enough.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/3/2014 @ 9:49 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Steve57; we do mostly agree.
Yes, it is a heck of a position if you are an employer forced to allow workers to be stoned and at the same time held liable for mistakes such employees make.

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/3/2014 @ 7:34 pm
Life in the US is by no means perfect, but some times I think it is too good and people think it should be even easier than it is.
I don’t know who started the idea that a person making fries at McDonald’s should make a wage that was the equivalent of a “career”. I thought the way to do that was to work your way through assistant manager and manager.
Of course, wanting people to give you stuff while you smoke your pot kind of goes together.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/3/2014 @ 10:46 pm

Only one way, you reach this level of inanity

I lost 2 IQ points reading that.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 11:44 pm

It’s hardly libertarian, is it, to force employers to keep such employees despite the risk.

Nor would a libertarian suggest such. Idiot states that pass laws protecting poor employees deserve what they get and they do just as badly with other factors. I think in California, Hooters would have to hire a cross-dressing guy with a boob job, for example. And while a libertarian might say that any guy has the right to get a boob job, they will never say that anyone else has to associate with them. Before or after.

The problems with legal marijuana aren’t hard to find, but somehow I don’t think you’ve found them.

Driving under the influence isn’t much different legal or illegal. Nor is the problem of being loaded in other improper situations.

What is different is that marijuana is an addictive substance and you are adding it to the mix, while claiming that it’s just recreational. For some it may be, but to others it will be The Answer to Life’s Problems. And while addiction is the addicts problem to some extent (health wealth, jobs, liability, etc), there are always collateral damage and external costs to addiction. Families are hurt, kids suffer, and the public picks up the tab. This happens now with other legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco) and it will just happen more with more people. It is always the external damage that drives societies to ban these things in the first place.

The real question is this: there are also problems with criminalization of drugs, lives are also ruined, kids also suffer, jobs are also lost, etc. Is legalization worse or better or hard to say? Be interesting to find out, and I’m happy to see them find out someplace else.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/4/2014 @ 12:04 am

I wonder how much reefer is smoked in d.c.?
Team republican has lost it’s memory.
The democrats tell lie after lie.
Smokin.

mg (31009b) — 1/4/2014 @ 12:20 am

Not so fast, on the brief instance of sanity;

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367491/new-yorks-fact-free-gun-ruling-john-r-lott-jr

narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 6:44 am

After reading that Rolling Stone article, I am completely reassured that our institutes of higher learning are doing the best possible job of preparing millenials for the trials and tribulations of the real world.

Icy (4506f1) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:12 am

155. It’s hardly libertarian, is it, to force employers to keep such employees despite the risk.

Nor would a libertarian suggest such. … And while a libertarian might say that any guy has the right to get a boob job, they will never say that anyone else has to associate with them. Before or after.

This assumes a consistency of thought or a courage of conviction that you simply don’t find in real life. The same libertarians who push for drug legalization also demand to be protected from the consequences of their choices.

The problems with legal marijuana aren’t hard to find, but somehow I don’t think you’ve found them.

Driving under the influence isn’t much different legal or illegal. Nor is the problem of being loaded in other improper situations.

I think if you scroll up and read my other comments you’ll see I discussed the other issues you touched on later in your comment. Which is why I wrote in #82:

We shouldn’t forget the libertarian contribution to the rise of the police state. Literally. FC’s thinking goes over big in places like Kali. Where the Correctional Officer’s Union is the largest political force in the state. People who think like FC have turned Kali into an asylum run entirely for the benefit for the keepers.

…When you promote dysfunction, which is what libertarians do, then you create people who can’t self govern but must be controlled. And then follows the demand for authoritarian solutions. The thing libertarians claim not to want but inexplicably encourage.

As far as driving while impaired goes, I agree with you that it’s a non-issue. But it appears some people require some sort of direct, tangible link between legal marijuana use some sort of injury to a third party. Which is why I think this thread went off into cul-de-sac of impaired driving. I discussed employer liability only as an attempt to meet the threshold of showing a direct, legally enforceable link between legal marijuana use (specifically medical marijuana) on one hand and impact on a third party on another.

I think the mere fact that Employement Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) even exists is sufficient to demonstrate that. It didn’t used to cover medical marijuana use, but now it does. In #132 I linked to an insurance site article on the subject which advised:

“I recommend it if you’re in a state that has medical marijuana approved. Carry the coverage, and let the carrier make the determination. You might get your defense covered,” Brickman says.

So now in addition to carrying business liability insurance to cover your other risks, such as damages caused to your customers when your impaired employee screws up, you really have to carry EPLI if you’re in one of the six states that protect your impaired employee if you don’t dot all your i’s or cross all your t’s if you try to fire him or her before the individual screws up. And I expect that list to grow; kali actually got such a bill out of the assembly and to the governor’s desk, but that was when the governor was Schwarzenegger and he vetoed it. I expect it will pass eventually, not just there but in other states.

But I didn’t intend it to be a full accounting of the problems of legalizing marijuana.

…The real question is this: there are also problems with criminalization of drugs, lives are also ruined, kids also suffer, jobs are also lost, etc. Is legalization worse or better or hard to say? Be interesting to find out, and I’m happy to see them find out someplace else.

Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/4/2014 @ 12:04 am

Yes, there are no solutions, only trade offs. Which is why I can’t be so optimistic about learning anything from a cost benefit analysis of criminalization vs. decriminalization in our current environment. For a host of reasons. Primarily because the left is ideologically committed to the premise that there are solutions if only people care enough (caring being defined as embracing their ideology, which frees them to be a-holes and condescending jerks as individuals). Since there can be nothing wrong with their solutions, such as Obamacare, when they don’t work they go look for the saboteurs. You’ll find the same thing in every totalitarian society. In the USSR they blamed the wreckers and the hoarders and the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie profiteers when their perfect plans didn’t pan out. Now it’s the right wing who, as far as I can tell, can sabotage Obamacare simply by hoping it will fail.

Hardly an atmosphere for following the evidence where it leads, is it?

Second, we experimented with this before. We experiment not just someplace else, but sometime else. Marijuana wasn’t even illegal until the 1930s. The progressives (again looking for saboteurs) will tell you that Pot was outlawed due to racism alone.

Since we as a nation can’t learn the lessons of the present, we certainly can’t be expected to learn the lessons of the past. Given our rapidly shortening attention spans I expect what was dim history to shorten from 60 years (kali legalized pot in the mid 90s) to twenty or ten. Personally I would think you should only have to beat your head with a shovel once (if necessary) to learn not to do it again. But I find myself surrounded by social engineers who need to relearn that lesson over and over again.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 1:47 pm

My main concern with legalized marijuana is the disinformation out there about how this is a harmless drug. Someone I care about has a greatly diminished mental capacity as a result of abusing this drug. That’s not my opinion… it’s the determination of medical professionals (albeit it’s also obvious).

If adults make a decision that the happiness they get from smoking pot is the way they want to go, I would prefer the government not interfere, but I also know a lot of the people making that decision are not adults and are not making an informed decision at all.

I would want a significant portion of the tax revenue to go to informing the public about marijuana. Not with dramatic acting in cool infomercials, but straight forward information presented dryly. If someone chooses to reject that information then as long as they alone suffer the consequences I think it’s just a matter of freedom.

As far as criminalization of drug use, personally I think anyone selling drugs to kids should be given an automatic lifetime prison sentence, as what they are doing shows tremendous indifference, nearly malice, to human life. I do not understand the objection to medical use of marijuana or any other substance, so long as the prescription is the legitimate best judgment of a doctor as medicine. In between those extremes are possession and confiscation of property, and there are good arguments for many different approaches. I would like to see the various states have different approaches so we can both vote with our feet and see what really does work best.

My other concern is driving under the influence. I don’t see why this happens so much with various drugs. We have a culture that doesn’t take enough responsibility, and makes mistakes that have enormous consequences for others but obtain minimal or no benefit for anyone. If you use drugs (alcohol or pot included) and drive you should never be permitted to drive again, and you should go to jail.

Dustin (303dca) — 1/4/2014 @ 3:30 pm

I would want a significant portion of the tax revenue to go to informing the public about marijuana.

Back in the 90’s, a big deal was made out of the social costs of tobacco smoking — principally added medical costs to the state — and a lawsuit imposed what was effectively a tax on smokers.

Los Angeles took their portion of the tax money and fixed some sidewalks with it. The crocodile tears about the plight of the poor sick smokers vanished right after the settlement was signed.

I expect taxes on pot to be used as judiciously.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:16 pm

Steve–

The same libertarians who push for drug legalization also demand to be protected from the consequences of their choices.
I beg to differ. “Libertarians” who want the state to protect them are pretty confused people. FC is not a libertarian, he simply abjures state control in a few instances that suit him. He is a liberal who has some odd liberty-based quirks.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:29 pm

Dustin,

As I’ve said before, I would not allow these co-ops or other distribution entities to exist. Pot sales should be through a subset of liquor stores, where the whole liquor license is subject to revocation for illegal sales. These co-ops have no real skin in the game and are operated by people whose attention to laws and rules is historically poor.

Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:34 pm

Off topic but somebody said something already.

131. Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/3/2014 @ 3:17 pm

Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda retakes Fallujah. Words fail me.

This made the ABC Evening News tonight (January 4) Martha Raddatz came into the studio – and she usually doesn’t work weekends. The Obama Administration is really worried. The State Department issued a statement, and ABC may have thought maybe something more was coming.

There actually is a little bit more:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129147

American warplanes and artillery launched a thunderous attack on at least two positions believed to be held by Sunni insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah — part of a new U.S. military plan to target insurgents aggressively without staging an all-out attack on the city.

This looks like “an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort” to quote what Secretary oof State John Kerry said one time.

Here’s more:

A senior military official told ABC NEWS before the bombing started that the military would “soon” begin a “low-key campaign to reduce the opposition.” The official said the plan was for “night operations” using position-guided munitions, AC-130 gunships and snipers. “We’ll respond to cease-fire violations at the time and place of our choosing,” the official said.

This military plan also involves psychological operations. Just before the bombing began tonight, there were two broadcasts in Arabic — one apparently aimed at spooking the insurgents, the other possibly meant to help civilians.

TV network pool reporter Karl Penhaul, on assignment in Fallujah, provided a translation of the messages he heard for a number of U.S. media outlets. News operations are pooling their resources due to the continuing danger they face on the ground.

“One of the messages earlier was calling on the insurgents to come out and fight and then there was a tape recording of laughing,” Penhaul said. “This later tape recording we heard being played … could have been a warning to the civilian population that coalition activity may be imminent.”

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:04 pm

ISIS – The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – which is what al Qaeda calls itself there – has also taken a lot of territory in Syria, and the other anti-Assad groups are now almost openly at war with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/world/middleeast/qaeda-insurgents-in-syria.html?_r=0

Antigovernment activists in the Aleppo area said that fighting had broken out near the Idlib Province town of Atareb, west of Aleppo, pitting members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, a powerful Qaeda affiliate that includes foreign fighters, against an array of seven homegrown Syrian rebel groups. The rebels call themselves the Mujahedeen Army, and they resent what they see as the affiliate’s hijacking of their struggle, now nearly three years old, to depose President Bashar al-Assad.

The Mujahedeen Army also issued a statement in Arabic on Facebook essentially announcing that it now considered the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria an enemy.

“We, the Mujahedeen Army, declare that we will defend ourselves, our honor, properties and land and we declare the fight against the ISIS organization, the unjust to God’s law, until it dissolves its formation and its members join other military formations or abandon their arms and leave Syria,” the statement read.

I said there was going to be a second round, and you had to plan on it. It looks like the second round is starting before the first one is over and theer may not be a victory over Assad at all. In which case we may see a 10-year non-aggression pact between Iran and Syria on one side and the Islamic State of Iraq aand Syria on the other, unless maybe Saudi Arabia arranges for Lebanon to invade Syria.

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:05 pm

South Sudan is also falling apart:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/politics/us-is-facing-hard-choices-in-south-sudan.html?pagewanted=all

The cause is really very simple: They made an unsopund peace agreement. It’s starting to turn into mass murder and genocide, probably because there are all these foreign powers involved, and they know there will probably eventually be an honest election, so the only way to cheat is to kill voters in advance of the election!

Or, if there is a partition, the money each portion of South Sudan gets will probably be proportionately divided by population.

The first time this sort of thing happened was in the Ballkans before World War I, when international boundaries might depend on a count of different ethnic groups, or a vote..

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:11 pm

160. Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 1/4/2014 @ 3:30 pm

My main concern with legalized marijuana is the disinformation out there about how this is a harmless drug.

That’s why it would be pretty hard for the government, or even a nonprofit anti-drug group, to run an educational campaign about this.

Usually, this can only happen when there is an almost universal, or least not widely openly disputed, consensus about the facts.

It really would have to be an almost political group, and then if they made any questionable assertion, or even some non-questionable assertions, there’d be a whole counter campaign against them. And some medical authorities cited in any ads might want to get out of the kitchen.

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:16 pm

Another outfit, that has been active in the region,

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/01/saudi_emir_of_abdullah_azzam_b.php

narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:33 pm

I moved an hour away from my friends, equidistant from work, at 24 to take the pot away from the dope.

Life is too short for wasted years.

Legalized gambling, legalized pot, legalized illegals all for the almighty tax dollar.

Mr. Ryan, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:38 pm

about what we expected;

http://weaselzippers.us/?p=166637

narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 6:37 pm

Los Angeles took their portion of the tax money and fixed some sidewalks with it. The crocodile tears about the plight of the poor sick smokers vanished right after the settlement was signed.

I expect taxes on pot to be used as judiciously.
Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/4/2014

Of course you are correct about that. But look at cigarette information awareness. In a relatively short amount of time, smoking tobacco went from being understood as healthy to being understood for its real risks to pregnant women and to your lungs and heart. We barely even need a public awareness campaign for cigs, so we constantly see attempts to up the ante into shocking smokers.

All I am asking for is adults making informed decisions, so if a smoker knows it causes lung cancer, etc, then I respect their decision. For me that wasn’t about preventing smoking. It was about giving people a reasonable opportunity to be responsible for themselves.

Dustin (7d0abd) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:16 pm

162. …I beg to differ. “Libertarians” who want the state to protect them are pretty confused people. FC is not a libertarian, he simply abjures state control in a few instances that suit him. He is a liberal who has some odd liberty-based quirks.

Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:29 pm

Perhaps, Kevin, but there are lots of them. I wasn’t just talking about FC.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. The political spectrum is full of confused people.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/28/californian-i-was-all-obamacare-until-i-got-bill/

California residents are rebelling a bit against Obamacare, with thousands shocked by the sticker price and rethinking their support, saying that what seemed wonderful in principle is not translating so well into reality.

As Pam Kehaly, the president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, reported, she received a letter from one woman who saw her insurance rates rise by 50 percent due to Obamacare.

“She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,’ ” Ms. Kehaly said, in the Los Angeles Times.

“When I supported the redistribution of wealth, I never realized it was my wealth that was going to be redistributed,” sez shocked liberal Californian.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20140102/NEWS/301020015/Governors-plead-ethanol-mandate

Governors plead for ethanol mandate

In a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the governors urged the Obama administration to increase the biodiesel volume level to reflect current production levels, modify the cellulosic target to match production expectations and bring the overall renewable fuels target back in line with what Congress initially required.

…“If the EPA’s currently proposed rule becomes final, the negative impact would be disproportionately felt by rural America,” the governors said in the Dec. 20 letter. “We urge your administration to use its regulatory authority in a manner that both supports a growing renewable fuels industry and meets the statutory requirement of the law.”

The letter was signed by Republicans Daugaard of South Dakota, Dave Heineman of Nebraska, Terry Branstad of Iowa, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota, along with Democrat Mark Dayton of Minnesota.

“When I supported ending subsidies to business, I never realized it was going to be subsidies to agribusiness in may state that were going to be ended,” sez shocked Midwestern corn-growing state GOP governors.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/29/21677470-ny-cardinal-dolan-catholic-church-couldve-been-cheerleader-for-obamacare?lite

Dolan, one of the most influential Catholic leaders in the U.S. who just wrapped up a term as chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, lamented some of the elements of President Barack Obama’s health care law that caused the Catholic Church to stop short of embracing the law.

“We’ve been asking for reform in healthcare for a long time. So we were kind of an early supporter in this,” Dolan said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” set to air on Sunday. “Where we started bristling and saying, ‘Uh-oh, first of all this isn’t comprehensive, because it’s excluding the undocumented immigrant and it’s excluding the unborn baby,’ so we began to bristle at that.”

“When I supported the coercive redistribution of wealth to support my goals, I never realized that my Church would be coerced to support the goals of other groups that also formed the cheerleading squad for Obamacare,” sez shocked Catholic Archbishop.

Does it really shock you that lots and lots of libertarians are no more pure than other people, who also don’t feel a duty to act on a stated principle if by doing so the principle leads to a negative outcome for them personally?

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:46 pm

Carp, we’re getting stuck with part of the bill;

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/rescued-antarctic-passengers-resume-journey-home-21418334

narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:50 pm

That was never in doubt, narciso.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 9:01 pm

problem with biodiesel, besides raising the price of our food, that’s just a bonus, corrode engines over time?

narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 9:04 pm

“She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,’ ” Ms. Kehaly said, in the Los Angeles Times.

Merely another example — among many — of the dynamics and phenomenon of “limousine liberalism.”

Mark (58ea35) — 1/4/2014 @ 9:10 pm

I guess I should add that one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of “limousine liberalism,” or the two-faced, hypocritical nature of left-leaning sentiments.

Mark (58ea35) — 1/4/2014 @ 9:12 pm

Bring back teh egg in a frying pan commercials.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2014 @ 10:50 pm

She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,’ ” Ms. Kehaly said, in the Los Angeles Times.

Yup. People love their free stuff. The political end game couldn’t be more clear. It’s just difficult to push us straight on over to such a huge entitlement as single payer, so better create the idea that people are entitled to it, and that the current manmade disaster needs to be fixed, and we’re likely to get there.

Thanks in no small part to everyone on both sides of the aisle who acted like this issue was any business of the federal government.

Dustin (7d0abd) — 1/4/2014 @ 11:49 pm

schemes like those, don’t occur to sober people;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/2014_lets_change_the_climate.html

narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2014 @ 4:57 am

Goovernor Cuomo may (can he do this?) legalize medical marijuana and announce it at his State of the State message on Wednesday.

It will be very limited. Only 20 hospitals will be able to dispense it, and only with a doctor’s prescription, to treat cancer or glaucoma, or something else where there is supposed to be a medical use for it. (according to standards supposed to be set by the New York State Department of Health)

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/5/2014 @ 7:23 am

180. Professor Turney:

To do something positive about climate change, I helped set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.

Couldn’t he do that by planting carrots, or corn, or potatoes or flowers?

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/5/2014 @ 7:27 am

Heh! Illinois passed a rule for medical marijuana that before a doctor can issue a prescription he must have been seeing the patient for three months. Well, an enterprising lady from a neighboring state (a cold one that already has medical marijuana) opened a doctor’s office in Uptown a/k/a Doper Central and advertised shared space for “doctors” who might want to see new “patients” there, say for an hour or two a week, three months before the law was to go into effect. Where there’s a wallet, there’s a way.

nk (dbc370) — 1/5/2014 @ 7:31 am

The dispensaries are running out of smoke.
One store sold 87,000.00 in one day.
Capitalist’s at work. Stupid stoners.

mg (31009b) — 1/5/2014 @ 9:54 am

182. 180. Professor Turney:

To do something positive about climate change, I helped set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.

Couldn’t he do that by planting carrots, or corn, or potatoes or flowers?

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/5/2014 @ 7:27 am

It’s remarkable, isn’t it? You could read or watch the MFM all the live long day and never know that Prof. Chris Turney has a financial stake in finding evidence of AGW whenever he looks for it.

Which is why he took 22 (I believe that’s the number) paying tourists at $8k a pop (total $176K) along on his “scientific expedition” to search for evidence of AGW.

And lo and behold he found it! It surround his rent-a-boat and wouldn’t let it go.

The Aussie, Chinese, and now US governments need to charge this guy the full freight for his rescue because he is A) a charlatan and B) was running a commercial enterprise. He wasn’t there just for the science, as he claims. He was making an infomercial for his Carbonscape scheme.

Of course, there’s a lot the MFM, particularly the US MFM, isn’t going to tell you about Chris Turney. As Tim Blair blogging at the Australian Telegraph kindly informs us:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/stuck_dynasty/

STUCK DYNASTY

Tim Blair
Saturday, January 04, 2014 (3:09pm)

Chris Turney, patriarch of Antarctica’s stuck dynasty – he was joined on his ice-surrounded global warming adventure by wife Annette and children Kara and Robert – is now free:

“It’s 100 percent we’re off!” Chris Turney, a professor and a leader of the scientific expedition, said on Twitter with a link to a video of the Snow Eagle landing.

The New York Times declines to give Turney his full, hilarious title: professor of climate change. It’s become an inconvenience, you might say. As for his “100 percent!” exultation, you’d think events of the past week might have taught Turney a thing or two about faith and certainty.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, if you want to be uninformed don’t read the newspapers. If you want to be misinformed, read the NYT.

Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/5/2014 @ 1:07 pm

Surprise, surprise, sigh;

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=63397

narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2014 @ 2:21 pm

Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/5/2014 @ 1:07 pm

To paraphrase Mark Twain, if you want to be uninformed don’t read the newspapers. If you want to be misinformed, read the NYT

It’s really more uninformed than misinformed (except the misinformation that comes from not knowing “the rest of the story.”)

The New York Times sanitizes the news, and not just bad words, where it truly lives up to its 1896 slogan of “Fit to Print.”.

Anything that might reflect badly on any person, if the facts are not certain, or it’s not completely relevant to something greater; and anything that might cause people to think more than is relevant in terms of race or religion in the opinion of the Times, is left out.

Its obituaries never mention anyone’s religion, unless that was essential to their life story, but it always mentions any books they wrote, and their marriages and survivors.

On Saturday, both the New York Daily News and the New York Post had a front page story about the outative Spaker of the City Council, having probably arranged to have a voodoo symbol (a severed rooster’s head) painted on the wall of her primary oppponent’s building right under her apartment, but the New York Times had nothing.

Instead it had another scandal about her about her being for a zoning change and a campiaign contribution. You have to read deep into the story to discover the real villain in the piece is Local 1199 – the hospital worker’s union.

And both today and yesterday (today on the front page) theNew York Daily News and the New York Post had a story about the abduction, later discoverd to be murder – and I’ll sanitize the details here – while the New York Times had nothing, possibly because they were unsure of many facts. The abduction and killing is pretty clear – exactly what was going on with his busineeses is not clear.

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/5/2014 @ 3:58 pm

The New York Times revealed where Governor Cuomo got his authority to legalize some uses of marijuana.

It turns out there is a New York State law, hiding in plain sight since 1980, that allows for the use of controlled substances in “cancer patients, glaucoma patients, and patients afflicted with othwer diseases as such diseases are approved by the commissioner.”

It is called the Antonio G. Olivieri Controlled Substance Therapeutic Research Program.

And this is exactly what Cuomo is doing. It’s even called a test program, and it applies to treatment only for diseases where people face death, or a loss of a sense.

Antonio G. Olivieri (whose name sounds familiar to me) was New York City Council member and later a New York State Assemblyman who had a brain tumor, and used marijuana to overcome some of the effects of chemotherapy.

(as I have said, I suspect Votamin B6 would also work, and the marijuana only works because clearing it from the body often causes a breakdown of brain or muscle tissue – anything that’s not being used – that also releases Vitamin B6 and/or some other compounds)

He died in 1980 at the age of 39, but lobbied for this law, and it was passed wither to make him happy, or in memorium – and then ignored for a third of a century.

My guess would be, the problem was this conflicted with federal law.

Now President Obama and attorney general Eric Holder have quite officially declared this doesn’t matter.

Congress might now rather readily limit federal laws on marijuana only to what is in violation of state laws – but I guess they think, why bother?

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/5/2014 @ 4:13 pm

Just like the Che loving incoming City Council head, Viverito, the Maoist Chin, and Mrs, Charles Barron,
it’s like the Star Wars bar scene, no sensible rule can come from them,

narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2014 @ 4:16 pm

187. re a story misisng from the New York Times:

This will give half a clue as to what this was about:

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2014/01/05/agudath-israel-condemns-ny-posts-lack-of-basic-human-dignity/

Yelp reviews described him as a slumlord or as the epitome of one. He may have engaged in what looks like attempted bankruptcy fraud. He didn’t pay vendors, or paid them with checks that bounced. He pocketed 4 months rent security from people who were evicted because it violated building codes and never gave it back. When abducted he was either carrying $4,000 in cash, or a $4,000 check for a plumber.

He also liberally distributed money, and sometimes loaned it at 30% interest.

But he didn’t have so many enemies that anybody could have killed him. It was reported that he had borroweed money from a certain loanshark. It was also reported that he had been threatened – and was calling people to raise $100,000. And he had finally gotten it, but didn’t have a chance to use it.

His being murdered probably wipes out all his sins.

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/5/2014 @ 5:09 pm

Well what do you know?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/05/nyt-obama-exempts-obamacare-fraud-prosecutions

narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2014 @ 5:17 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/health/access-to-health-care-may-increase-er-visits-study-suggests.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all
Supporters of President Obama’s health care law had predicted that expanding insurance coverage for the poor would reduce costly emergency room visits because people would go to primary care doctors instead. But a rigorous new experiment in Oregon has raised questions about that assumption, finding that newly insured people actually went to the emergency room a good deal more often..

Giiving people insurance, doesn’t give them doctors they know. Another claim from a stidy in Massachusetts is that after several years there is a decline in emergency room visits.

Then here is the claim the whole focus on emergency room visists is misplaced anyway. And hat a lot of the recent growth in emergency department use has been among the privately insured people, not the uninsured – that insurers often recommend going to the emergency room for quick specialty care. (because they are not in their network, or booked up?. It’s also a way too get admitted to a hospital, and maybe being insured might increase the chances of trying that)

Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/5/2014 @ 7:10 pm

it goes without saying that x% of murder victims more or less deserved it

perhaps the CDC might could fund a study?

chop chop

happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/5/2014 @ 7:24 pm

it goes without saying that x% of murder victims more or less deserved it

You’re a ray from the Star of Bethlehem these days. Are you on a diet again?

I can think of Jeffery Dahmer. Anybody else?

nk (dbc370) — 1/5/2014 @ 8:31 pm

195-nk, what about Ed Gein?

mg (31009b) — 1/5/2014 @ 10:59 pm

Re all the commenters who are so concerned about driving under the influence of pot, to the best of my knowledge, there is no actual evidence that it does impair driving ability. It’s just speculation. As I understand it there has been almost no research into the question, because it’s so difficult to do such research legally, but what little research has been done has found the opposite, that it slightly improves driving. Now of course further research might overturn that finding, and I hope it gets done, but for now at least, if my information is correct, the concern about driving has no basis. It’s certainly not enough to justify a ban.

And that is a key point — it’s not up to legalisers to justify anything; the onus is always on those supporting a ban on anything to justify it, and to continue to justify it for as long as they want the ban to continue. If they can’t, then the state has no right to ban it, since the ban has no rational basis.

Milhouse (b95258) — 1/5/2014 @ 11:12 pm

This, right here, is why I am not a “good Libertarian.” I’m all for free choice, but there is a responsibility involved. Anyway, back to the amusing comment above.

Riiigghhht. Potheads have divine reflexes. Most people in my age group or younger knows lots of people who claim to toke (or drink) and then drive just fine. They are lying to themselves, so that they can get a buzz on….and they shouldn’t be driving.

Jeez, dude. You want to blow weed, okay. But don’t claim it makes you smarter and a better driver. Just stay home and bake. It’s a pretty simple equation.

It’s an intoxicant. The fact that it would impair driving is pretty clear. Everyone knows that even a small amount of alcohol impairs driving, from oodles of published studies.

See, I found this in about five minutes. But I’m not stoned.

http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2012/02/09/acute-cannabis-consumption-and-motor-vehicle-collision-risk

Of course, Choom Gangster devotees won’t believe it. Which is okay with me, as long as I don’t have to worry about my kids on the same road with tokers who actually try to claim it makes them better drivers.

Simon Jester (f3ccb2) — 1/6/2014 @ 12:37 am

to the best of my knowledge, there is no actual evidence that it does impair driving ability. It’s just speculation.

get stoned, try to drive, then get back to us, if you can…

if yer stoned, you can’t drive any better than a drunk.

redc1c4 (abd49e) — 1/6/2014 @ 12:39 am

Just looking around…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276316/

Nope, no evidence at all.

But there is a great report out of ABC “News” from some researchers claiming that riding the bong might make you a safer driver. Choomsters seized on this in death grip, I’m pretty sure.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/12/02/driving-stoned-safer-than-driving-drunk/

Note the researchers aren’t interested in anyone peer reviewing their data. But I love the final bit, which I quote here:

“…One hypothesis is that it’s just safer to drive under the influence of marijuana than it is drunk,” Rees says. “Drunk drivers take more risk, they tend to go faster. They don’t realize how impaired they are. People who are under the influence of marijuana drive slower, they don’t take as many risks.”

The other theory, Rees says, is that people smoking marijuana simply don’t go out as much….”

Um. I’m guessing #2, Alex. But I’ll stick with some of the controlled studies.

To be clear, I really don’t care if a person blazes up. I think it is a smelly habit, but that’s their business. Except if they operate heavy machinery or drive while playing the fume harp.

And I feel entirely the same way about alcohol. I don’t care if anyone drinks—but don’t drive or operate heavy machinery while tipsy. It’s not rocket science.

Simon Jester (f3ccb2) — 1/6/2014 @ 12:48 am

to the best of my knowledge, there is no actual evidence that it does impair driving ability.

Tell that to Michael Mickelson.

It’s always a mistake to limit yourself to your own knowledge when your own knowledge is that you are aware of nothing about a subject. Doesn’t help when you’re on the internet.

Without a doubt it reduces your coordination. It is also a hallucinogen and impairs your understanding of the world around you. Anyone who has been around a person who abuses this drug and isn’t an idiot is well aware of this.

However, only an imbecile would get high and then drive a car, so how much brain was there to impair in the first place.

Dustin (ee92a8) — 1/6/2014 @ 2:09 am

Rastamen know how to roll out a new program with success.
Obamacare had 6 people sign up the first day.
Stoners-1
obamacare-0

mg (31009b) — 1/6/2014 @ 3:47 am

Then there’s this, which seems solid.

And this, though it’s not exactly a source you’d look to for scientific rigour, but then nor are most of the sites that come up in a search. Most of the ones claiming that it’s dangerous are on anti-drug activist sites. That’s like looking to anti-vaxx sites for scientific information.

Milhouse (50cb78) — 1/6/2014 @ 9:47 am

There would be people who would actually do such a study – assemble groups of people to rate each murder etc.

Sammy Finkelman (9a177f) — 1/6/2014 @ 11:24 am

That was to 193.

202. They were trying to find a level where the effects would not be greater than legal levels of alcohol. But there’s a problem, in terms of the permanent effects.

And there’s this;

Inter-subject correlations between plasma concentrations of the drug and driving performance after every dose were essentially nil, partly due to the peculiar kinetics of THC. It enters the brain relatively rapidly, although with a perceptible delay relative to plasma concentrations. Once there, it remains even at a time when plasma concentrations approach or reach zero. As a result, performance may still be impaired at the time that plasma concentrations of the drug are near the detection limit.

They also said there was support for the idea that drivers become more confident after drinking alcohol, but more careful after taking marijuana.

Sammy Finkelman (9a177f) — 1/6/2014 @ 11:31 am

New discovery?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pot-boom-e-cigs-sales-set-soar-colo-article-1.1567304

E-cigarettes packed with marijuana oil set to boom in Colorado

Odorless electronic cigarettes are more discreet and offer stronger doses. They also get around the limit on the amount of weed one person can buy in the state, where pot was legalized from Jan. 1

….“It’s a more intense high than just smoking pot,” said Bob Richmond, 39, of his e-cig, which was designed not for synthetic nicotine but for highly concentrated marijuana oil.

Richmond said the odorless smoking device makes it convenient to spark up in public places — which is a no-no in the Centennial State.

It’s also very discreet,” Richmond said. “I can walk around Walmart and pull it out for a few puffs and nobody notices.”

Pot e-cigs, like the herb you can smoke, can only be used on private property in Colorado. Selling weed oil cartridges also is now legal in the state.

Cannabis fans say the electronic weed doobies also make it easy to take advantage of a loophole in the law — the amount of weed one person can buy.

A visitor to the state can buy up to a quarter ounce of fresh, green Mary Jane in a single purchase, more than enough to get high for a few days. Marijuana oil concentrates, on the other hand, are sold in cartridges measured in hundreds of milligrams.

These cartridges are so strong that they can last for weeks at a time….

It qquotes a user as saying: “I tried going back to regular pot and it tasted terrible, like a cigarette.”

Sammy Finkelman (9a177f) — 1/6/2014 @ 11:37 am

1/2/2014

Legal Marijuana in Colorado

205 Responses to “Legal Marijuana in Colorado”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out