• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Pot bust? Shaky start likely for Washington state sales

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
30,674
Pot bust? Shaky start likely for Washington state sales
Abbey Gibb, KING-TV,
July 7, 2014

SEATTLE — The nation's second legal recreational marijuana market is opening in Washington on Tuesday, but it might not be what state voters expected when they legalized the sale of heavily taxed pot 20 months ago.

The state's Liquor Control Board issued 24 marijuana retail licenses Monday. Stores can open Tuesday if they're ready, but it wasn't clear how many will be. The Liquor Control Board was overwhelmed with nearly 7,000 pot-license applications, and reviewing them has been slow.

Colorado, which began recreational sales in January, also experienced a bumpy start that featured few outlets, tremendous demand, lines and quick sellouts. But many of those issues have been smoothed over.

In Seattle, Cannabis City will be the only location ready to go on Washington state's opening day.

"It's definitely exciting but also a little scary just having that much responsibility. All eyes are on us right now because we're the first," said Cannabis City Manager Amber McGowan.

She said the first pot delivery will come early Tuesday. Two-gram bags will sell for $54 each. But the shipment of just 2,265 small bags won't come close to enough product for the 5,000 people they expect to start lining up before doors open at noon.

While 79 growers have been licensed since Initiative 502 won voter approval, most don't expect to have their first shipment ready until late summer, the board said.

"Will there be shortages?" asks Randy Simmons, the board's legal-pot project manager. "The answer to that is yes."

Entrepreneurs who want to make pot-infused sodas, brownies or other treats must get approval for their products, and so far no one has. People like Alison Draisin, who currently makes pot-infused brownies and other treats for medical marijuana patients, will have new hoops to jump through before the general public gets a taste.

The edible-makers will have to have child-proof packaging. And the board doesn't want gummy candies or anything that would appeal to children. All edible-makers also need to have their kitchens pass a state inspection. Two have been tested so far: One failed, with results pending on the other.

"I wanted to see how I-502 was going to pan out before applying for a 502 license so if there's a second round we definitely would apply," said Draisin, who runs Ettalew's Medibles.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ington-state-recreational-marijuana/12281997/
 
I'd pay $27 a gram just for the novelty.

I haven't been a heavy smoker for years. I smoke maybe 5-6x a year vs 5-6x a day. So it makes sense for me. Plus, to be able to buy a strain, know for sure it's an indica or sativa and to be able to tell people you were there on opening day. Meh. Seems like it's worth it to me.

For someone who hasn't seen a medical dispensary and is stuck back in the cannabis dark ages....this is kind of like doing to a titty-bar. Yeah I can see my gf's titties at home for free but who wouldn't want to check out all the titties and pick your favorite.... for a premium price.
 
54 for 2 grams? Fuck that I would just keep using my illicit dealer
 
Wow, very expensive, will it get cheaper over time and or cheaper in larger amounts ie an ounce? I suppose it's still good for people who might not have any dealers they can turn to.
 
Another example of regulations completely raping a concept and turning a step forward into 2 steps back. Why would someone pay those disgusting government bastards so much money in taxes when they could just buy it cheaper from a normal dealer like they always have.
 
A misleading double entendre for a headline, for an article that isn't news or newsworthy? Journalism is going the way of vaudeville, I tellsya.
 
Another example of regulations completely raping a concept and turning a step forward into 2 steps back. Why would someone pay those disgusting government bastards so much money in taxes when they could just buy it cheaper from a normal dealer like they always have.

Didn't all the stoners love to say "The government should make it legal! They'd make SO much tax money from it!"

Now that they've done made it legal, all they do is complain about the price.

They could sell $100 ounces, and if street price was $85, people would still complain.

You can never make stoners happy. Glad I moved over to opiates a long time ago.
 
^
Yeah because opiate users never bitch about quality or about how pills are much harder to abuse nowadays or how the weaker ones always have apap or something else with them or the legal status or about how hard it is to get them for pain management or how the price of pills has gone up.

No bitching there
 
No need for bitching when buns are $50 in jersey city!

Potheads are the most paranoid, bitchy, pseudo-intellectual, and anti-government people I know. It's so funny how a bunch of middle class white boys can hate the government that enables them so much.
 
! Potheads are the most paranoid, bitchy, pseudo-intellectual, and anti-government people I know. It's so funny how a bunch of middle class white boys can hate the government that enables them so much.

You must know some looser pot heads. Since you have the opium in your name I will just assume you use a type of opiate. Composing a comparable statement about opiate users instead of pot smokers, that included similar stereotypes, grossly unbackable generalizations, and racism.. I could say..

Junkies are the most useless, never contributing, dropout, spare changing, government sponging, criminal people I know. Its funny how a bunch of hands aways out, uneducated, broke ass black folks, can live off the welfare of the government for generations, yet holler to the rafters of heaven that the very government that supports them, has an agenda to keep them down.

This statement is not true and it does not reflect my my views.. I just presented a false statement, centered around derogatory racial, social, and DOC stereotypes for opiate users and blacks, instead of pot and whites.

When I made a very similar statement, about the the good people i mentioned, to me it would be clearly inappropriate if I was serious. The reality is, racism is racism, and prejudice is prejudice. No matter what race engages in it and what race its its about. It never has a positive result. It sustains and feeds the sickness that hurts us all. We aren't born thinking like this. Its a virus we learn.

So BL actively discourages the sickness of racism, on even if its racism toward white boys.
 
Last edited:
You can't be racist towards white people.

Racism = power + prejudice. African americans have no power, thus can't be racist.

Try taking a lib arts class, or a history class at any major university, and maybe you'll learn some things about post-colonialism.
 
What constitutes power to you?

If we take this simple definition of power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people. Then we can find many instances of African Americans having power over americans of defendant decent. I feal that a african american president has significant power over many behaviors. He can tell the whole american army where the need to go. He can tell the Attorney General of the United States that he no longer want medicinal grass cases prosecuted.
Who is the president of the US? What race was Colin Powell? Clarence Thomas?
The 113 congress had 43 African Americans.
There are many African American who are in positions of power ranging from the military, tenured professor at ivy league schools, law enforcement, lawyers. judges, business owners, politicians, teachers, There are successful and powerful black people throughout the fabric of this nation.

Because of this african americans do indeed have power over americans from different heritages.

Your statement claiming african americans have no power is not true.

I have many years of school, all at a university, and six out of the nine were at a major university.. not that I think a school being designated a major university indicates its superior, I have had great and awful professors at these places.

I have already taken American history I and II at a UNi undergrad level.

Im sick of writing african american so I'm going back to black. If I can be called white even though I'm not that color and groups me with millions of people i have nothing much in common with, then since that good for me black works as well.

You can't be racist towards white people.

This is totally wrong. There are many ways a person can have power. Some powers are powerful in certain situations and not in others.
I have met many people from non white descent who are openly and outspokenly prejudiced toward "white" people.

I solo white person who finds himself in an all black area and then comes across a group of prejudice blacks and the racism can be seen as clear as day.
The group has the power at that moment.

Black supremacy
Black supremacy


Here is the rule from the BLUA
You may not..

post or upload any content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason;
BLUA
 
Since when is "white boy" a harassing term?

And yes, there are blacks with individual amounts of power, but as a whole, black society has no power. They are the most disenfranchised group of minorities, through no means of their own. There are still people alive today who lived through a time where blacks couldnt even step on a white mans shadow.

I also have read an interesting passage I will try to find that shows that the main reason racism is still around today, is that people believe it's over. Generation Y and the millenials are very guilty of this. I have many friends who believe that since blacks arent discriminated against by law, that racism doesn't exist. Or that since barack is our leader, there is no racism. When you bring up the fact that 80% of the prison population is black, they'll hem and haw about how more of them are criminals.

It is all an effect of post-colonialism. Hong Kong and China went through these issues after the opium wars with britain, while blacks in america, and Roma in eastern europe are STILL going through these issues. There is no easy solution, but the more people believe racism and prejudice is over, the longer it will stay alive.
 
The word race comes from the Latin word radices, meaning roots. Racism is treating a person a certain way based on their ancestral roots, no more no less. I'm not saying history, economics, morality, and domination of one group over another are not worth discussing frankly, but they need not even enter the equation when deciding whether a specific deed was racist. All that needs to be asked is, did the recipient's apparent ancestral origins play a significant role in the doer's choice to do what (s)he did?

Anyone can commit a racist action against anyone else. If an Italian-American meets somebody for the first time who has a vaguely Italian-sounding surname and takes the liberty of calling him paesano, that's a racist action and a racist remark, even if most Americans wouldn't think of it as one. After all, the speaker is assuming his listener's ancestral roots, assuming his listener's comprehension of a foreign term, assuming his listener (if he's even Italian after all) strongly identifies with his roots and is proud of them, and is assuming his listener will be receptive to an attempt at familiarity and solidarity. That's a whole lot of assumptions to make about someone, and if our hypothetical speaker ended up being wrong on any of them, he'd look like an ass and things could get awkward rather fast.
 
The word race comes from the Latin word radices, meaning roots. Racism is treating a person a certain way based on their ancestral roots, no more no less. I'm not saying history, economics, morality, and domination of one group over another are not worth discussing frankly, but they need not even enter the equation when deciding whether a specific deed was racist. All that needs to be asked is, did the recipient's apparent ancestral origins play a significant role in the doer's choice to do what (s)he did?

Anyone can commit a racist action against anyone else. If an Italian-American meets somebody for the first time who has a vaguely Italian-sounding surname and takes the liberty of calling him paesano, that's a racist action and a racist remark, even if most Americans wouldn't think of it as one. After all, the speaker is assuming his listener's ancestral roots, assuming his listener's comprehension of a foreign term, assuming his listener (if he's even Italian after all) strongly identifies with his roots and is proud of them, and is assuming his listener will be receptive to an attempt at familiarity and solidarity. That's a whole lot of assumptions to make about someone, and if our hypothetical speaker ended up being wrong on any of them, he'd look like an ass and things could get awkward rather fast.

What you described is prejudice. Prejudice, bias, and racism are all 3 different things.
 
Top