Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Legalization Nation

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

Just like the liquor industry.. the three tiered system. wonder who really is in charge here? the tax folks? the liquor industry?

Posted by Warren Bobrow on 09/29/2015 at 8:28 AM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 09/28/2015 at 9:08 PM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 09/28/2015 at 4:54 PM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 09/28/2015 at 4:50 PM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

@ dankweeddotcom: Nothing in this legislation changes the recommendation procedure, which doctors are allowed to issue them, or which doctor(s) you may choose; all such proposed restrictions were shot down by the California Medical Association. Maybe you're just misinformed, or maybe you're just trolling, but it kind of sounds to us like maybe you're one of the folks operating in the current "gray area" that doesn't want the hassle and expense--licenses, record-keeping; you know, all that boring running-a-business type stuff--of going "legit". Which is *not* to say we think regs like this are necessary, any more than they are for coffee or Red Bull; but given the current political realities, they were probably inevitable, and they could have been *much* worse.

Posted by Miles Monroe on 09/28/2015 at 4:35 PM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

Well, hopefully the voter initiative in 2016 will simply legalize personal cultimavtion for everyone, everywhere, and that will be the end of it.

Posted by Haywood Jeblowme on 09/28/2015 at 11:36 AM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 09/28/2015 at 9:32 AM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

The ending fact about prices per gram falling to 1 per gram in Washington is just not true. I have friends that live there and say that pot is hard to get, and expensive due to the small amount of growing permits issued. The local clinic in the small town they lived in was selling 100 eights of og. I realize thats not whole sale, but there's no way pot was going for $456 a lb. LOL

Posted by Haiku DeReynier on 09/25/2015 at 10:29 AM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

"The state's medical cannabis industry will be for-profit for the first time" - a very funny statement! It has all been about profit, big profit, at all links in the chain, all along. Look a little deeper....

Posted by Steve Heilig on 09/24/2015 at 5:32 PM

Re: “The Winners and Losers of California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 09/24/2015 at 12:16 PM

Re: “Can Pot Help Cure PTSD?

This comment was deleted because it violates our website's Terms Of Use. People who repeatedly violate our policies will lose their ability to post comments. You can read our entire Terms Of Use here.

Posted by Editor on 09/09/2015 at 7:53 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

VICTIMS OF UFCW REPRESENTATIVE DAN RUSH contact: danrushvictims@yahoo.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKARXRqChK0
Because a tainted voice is no voice at all!

Posted by Carl Anderson on 09/01/2015 at 4:31 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

People need and deserve real cannabis freedom not fake freedom monopolies.

Vote for initiatives that provide the most freedom like the California Cannabis Hemp Initiative 2016.

http://cchi2016.org/index.html

Grow 99 Plants, No permit, license, or tax shall be required for non-commercial cultivation with CCHI 2016.

Posted by Ruben Hernandez on 08/27/2015 at 6:14 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

This comment was deleted because it violates our website's Terms Of Use. People who repeatedly violate our policies will lose their ability to post comments. You can read our entire Terms Of Use here.

Posted by Editor on 08/27/2015 at 5:11 PM

Re: “The Best Marijuana Strains of Summer 2015

This comment was deleted because it violates our website's Terms Of Use. People who repeatedly violate our policies will lose their ability to post comments. You can read our entire Terms Of Use here.

Posted by Editor on 08/27/2015 at 2:32 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

Gee Brian, What are you trying to hide with your 7 posts in a row of cheerleading? Oh, here it is, maybe this comment from Bud Green about special interests trying to run the show?

AB 266 is all stick and no carrots. The claim that a complex overlay of state regulations involving multiple agencies will encourage local governments to play ball is unconvincing. What we have seen, so far, is an emerging coziness between local politicians and dispensary operators in a relative handful of cities, spurred on by the likes of union organizer Dan Rush. The "local control" provisions of AB 266 will open the floodgates to more influence-peddling involving local officials.

The "haves" would like to cement their gains, of course, while lining up new companies and silent partnerships for state licensing plays. The "have-nots" ... well, they're screwed, but at least they're not lining up for the next Green Rush at the expense of other patients and would-be business owners. Financially, AB 266 is a multi-headed monster that doesn't pencil out, even assuming Emerald Triangle growers and L.A. dispensaries are willing to provide the lion's share of application fees and tax revenues.

Or maybe this post from Mara Felsen reminding us that Weedmaps is trying to run the show?

You stated, "In April, marijuana technology entrepreneur Justin Hartfield parked $1 million in a committee to support a middle-of-the-road effort. But other than that, the Secretary of State's website reports no other substantial donations to legalization committees."

What is the committee to support a middle-of-the-road effort to which you refer? That seems like an important detail to omit if Hartfield donated to it 5% of the amount needed to mount an effective legalization campaign.

Or perhaps this reminder from Jeff Clark that Sacramento legislators are about to commit a federal crime if they vote yes on these atrocities?

Janet Reno said in 2008 well allow this as long as there is no lower government intervention. Legislators swore an oath to the constitution of their state and the United States,therefore any voted in legislators are guilty of not upholding their state oath or their U.S. oath by 1. Accepting a state tax on a substance that is illegal federally ,therefore should be prosecuted.
2. Taxation without representation by allowing feds to arrest in this state people that are abiding by state law that was written by and voted in by the People.
vote for CCHI2016org filed 8 24 2015 in California.

And I'm shaking my head David. Just when I think you're coming around you go and lose a little credibility in my eyes when you fail to mention out the gate that the UFCW's Dan Rush was a main driving force behind "the most credible effort for the ballot."

Posted by Deborah Tharp on 08/26/2015 at 6:55 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

Janet Reno said in 2008 well allow this as long as there is no lower government intervention. Legislators swore an oath to the constitution of their state and the United States,therefore any voted in legislators are guilty of not upholding their state oath or their U.S. oath by 1. Accepting a state tax on a substance that is illegal federally ,therefore should be prosecuted.
2. Taxation without representation by allowing feds to arrest in this state people that are abiding by state law that was written by and voted in by the People.
vote for CCHI2016org filed 8 24 2015 in California.

Posted by Jeff Clark on 08/26/2015 at 1:12 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

You stated, "In April, marijuana technology entrepreneur Justin Hartfield parked $1 million in a committee to support a middle-of-the-road effort. But other than that, the Secretary of State's website reports no other substantial donations to legalization committees."

What is the committee to support a middle-of-the-road effort to which you refer? That seems like an important detail to omit if Hartfield donated to it 5% of the amount needed to mount an effective legalization campaign.

Posted by Mara Felsen on 08/26/2015 at 12:48 PM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 08/26/2015 at 10:27 AM

Re: “California Legalization Measure to Debut Soon

"Smoking marijuana is 114 times safer than drinking alcohol"

http://rt.com/usa/234903-marijuana-safer-a…

"Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say"

"Marijuana may be even safer than previously thought, researchers say New study: We should stop fighting marijuana legalization and focus on alcohol and tobacco instead By Christopher Ingraham February 23

Compared with other recreational drugs — including alcohol — marijuana may be even safer than previously thought. And researchers may be systematically underestimating risks associated with alcohol use.

Those are the top-line findings of recent research published in the journal Scientific Reports, a subsidiary of Nature. Researchers sought to quantify the risk of death associated with the use of a variety of commonly used substances. They found that at the level of individual use, alcohol was the deadliest substance, followed by heroin and cocaine."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl…

"The report discovered that marijuana is 114 times less deadly than alcohol. Researchers were able to determine this by comparing the lethal doses with the amount of typical use. Through this approach, marijuana had the lowest mortality risk to users out of all the drugs they studied. In fact—because the numbers were crossed with typical daily use—marijuana is the only drug that tested as "low risk."

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/02…

Posted by Brian Kelly B Bizzle on 08/26/2015 at 6:42 AM

Most Popular Stories

Best of the East Bay


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation