• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

CD Social V. Dab or Die Tryin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really don't understand pot smokers/growers in Ohio that voted no on issue 3. We would have been able to legally go to a store to buy weed, and grow up to four plants for personal use. Who cares if it is monoploized? People are going to do what they do anyway, what is the difference?
 
^ Issue 2 passed, which means that even if Issue 3 passed it would be shot down anyway.

It sucks that it's not legal, but I really do think a monopoly would sour the experience for the consumer.

Since Issue 2 passed, this type of scenario can never happen again for Ohio, however a MUCH better scenario can now happen for Ohio:

Legal weed without a monopoly. It's in the cards. Patience.
 
Yeah I agree I don't really see how monopolized weed would do any good for the average consumer. What would benefit them is it no longer being a crime to posses and consume. I think the cap they are setting on personal grows is pretty low too, seems to benefit a monopoly structure.
 
imo, they should just decriminalize it US wide and put limits to how many plants you can grow and how much you can possess. i've never been supportive of completely legalizing it.

all drugs should receive this same treatment^

for some reason i think if it was legal then weed will change as we know it.
 
^ How do you expect a plant limit or fully allow possession without legalization? That's not possible.

Decriminalization is the first step in the right direction though I agree.

For Colorado, decriminalization happened in 2006. What that meant for CO in 2006 is that you could get a ticket for possession but you wouldn't go to jail. To legally hold or grow in Colorado, it was not possible until 2014.

And yes, legal weed changes the game completely. It's made everything better.
 
Yeah, legalization will change weed all right. It will make it even more awesome.

I've really seen nothing but positive changes in the market in either Colorado or Alaska (the state I live in) since legalization.
 
I just really had high hopes for it passing lol. Even my dad was excited about the possibility of legal weed happening sooner rather then later. He doesn't smoke on the regular because my mom is paranoid about the fact that it is illegal and blahblahblah. Because of this I have never had the privilege of getting baked with my parents, which is something I am definitely looking forward to. Plus I really wanted to start growing, but the lady won't allow it while it is still illegal. Ah...oh well. Everything good comes to those who wait, right?
 
I've heard you can still be fired from a job for testing positive for thc on a drug test... anyone out there in colorado or washington know if this is true or not?
 
Mafioso said:
I've heard you can still be fired from a job for testing positive for thc on a drug test... anyone out there in colorado or washington know if this is true or not?
Click to expand...


I know it's true for Colorado that it's up to the individual companies if they want to drug test or not and have their own policies in place for handling it. Not sure about Washington.

As an Ohioian I'm glad issue 3 didn't pass, but it wouldn't of been the end of the world if it did either. We have people here who need it NOW, Ohio's #1 cause of death is opiates surpassing car accidents and suicide. People shouldn't be going to jail and having legal trouble over a plant. People should have the right to use cannabis if they choose to do so. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

Having restrictions on grows and amounts of dried material isn't cool with me though. Especially if we aren't allowed to enter the market anyways. I think you should be able to grow whatever you want and if you get caught selling it you face penalties, but just because you're over a plant count or material amount is bullshit IMO. 4 plant and 8 oz limit was already setting us up for failure in my opinion too. From what I understand it's pretty reasonable that you can pull a lot more than a half pound off 4 plants and a bunch new growers would of ended up breaking the law completely on accident. Kind of fucked.

Waiting for 2016 though, we have other more reasonable groups already working on it such as OTEP. Would love to see something on the federal level happen more though. We'll see.
 
Some jobs have federal regulations so it's not possible to separate the two.

For example, BNSF is railroad owned by the federal government that supplies jobs in several states including Colorado. In the 1970s/1980s, many workers were not only drinking and smoking but there were high as shit on you name it and noone said anything. Today, most signalmen/engineers etc working for BNSF get randoms and are fired for anything even alcohol positive (I'm not joking at all).

So, even if/when it goes legal on a federal level, there will still be companies (like BNSF) that don't give a shit about your recreational life and care more about protecting the lives of others (which makes sense, no?)
 
I've heard similar stories about many trades during that same time doing the same type of stuff. Probably one of the reasons for work place drug testing today.

It's understandable for federal jobs obviously, and perhaps some more dangerous jobs- but I have never heard of someone being fired for testing positive for opiates or benzos if they had a prescription. Seems a little hypocritical to me. Legally I don't think someone can be discriminated against in the workplace for using a drug prescribed to them by a doctor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Mafioso said:
I've heard similar stories about many trades during that same time doing the same type of stuff. Probably one of the reasons for work place drug testing today.

It's understandable for federal jobs obviously, and perhaps some more dangerous jobs- but I have never heard of someone being fired for testing positive for opiates or benzos if they had a prescription. Seems a little hypocritical to me. Legally I don't think someone can be discriminated against in the workplace for using a drug prescribed to them by a doctor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...



I wouldn't call it discrimination, really, but it depends on what you do. Company I work for? If you're a driver and prescribed anything they deem questionable, they're most likely not gonna let you drive. I've seen one dude get put inside the building because he was on fucking anti-depressants, man.
 
well as far as I know they can't fire you or lay you off simply because of the medication you are on.

How does you work know that the guy is on anti-depressants if he didn't tell them? I've never heard of drug screening for anti-depressants.
 
Mafioso said:
well as far as I know they can't fire you or lay you off simply because of the medication you are on.

How does you work know that the guy is on anti-depressants if he didn't tell them? I've never heard of drug screening for anti-depressants.
Click to expand...




OHHHHH yeah, being fired. That's different from what I mentioned in my last post.

Where I work, if you're already hired and taking prescription medication they deem unacceptable to drive on, they're going to keep you employed but put you in a warehouse/distribution center.



I haven't seen a single soul fired for their prescriptions.... I've just seen job duties change because of them (essentially going from a $33/hr driving job to a $10/hr inside-the-building job.... pretty shitty deal, tbh.) I'd think being terminated because of prescription medication use would be discrimination, though.
 
Some interesting conversation about the situation in Ohio in this thread. While I'm based in the UK and don't know the ins and outs of what's happening there, our neighbour country Ireland has just decriminalised all drugs and is working towards having centres with treatment programmes for heroin. And that is pretty much the way I too would like to see it go.

What you guys are saying about limiting people to 4 plants or 8 Oz of dry being failed from the get go is right. In an organised system of continuous growing 8 Oz of dry may not be enough between harvests I think double that would be more like it as plants take between 7-16 weeks to flower depending on strain. Also where in the 4 plants rule do they factor in cuttings? I think Mafioso hit the nail on the head this system benefits the corporations who wanted to be involved. It's not a well thought out policy for people to be self sufficient. Which I think would be a better thing. It's not like there is a cap on how many bottles of spirits one can buy, which we all know full well are much more dangerous than cannabis.

What's the worst that could happen even allowing a team of qualified licensed people to grow a premium medicinal quality crop for each neighbourhood? And get the community involved. Teach people how to grow great marijuanna. It could be a booming industry and improve people's lives in the working classes. Give people have very little a focus and some work. Stoners seem to function together in communities. Everyone's happy. It's nothing like a community of drinkers who want to fight all the time. I know I'm talking in a very idealistic manor but that's the way it should be.

I hope the people in Ohio are rewarded for their patience. It was a tough call to make but hopefully they will get the right result next time.
 
Last edited:
Uruguay legalized pot in this way: everyone can grow up to six plants for personal use. The only commercial grower is the government and the only purpose of that is to provide pot to the pharmacies for those who can't/don't grow their own. Prices are negligible. No seeds can be patented. No one makes a killing. No hype, no advertising. Pot for people, pure and simple.
 
Uruguay has the cheapest pot in the world by far, that and the whole country legalizing weed is pretty special.

Leaving the only commercial growing to the government is not the best idea though. Even though the government can grow pot super cheap, so can the black market over there. There competition is not going to be the healthiest because of it and I think they might actually lose a lot of money to the blackmarket because of this. If they allowed a free market, the people would end up making stuff that actually is better than the blackmarket because they wouldn't be burdened by the limitations set by the government and people would stop going there because of it.

A free market is where it's at y'all.
 
herbavore said:
Uruguay legalized pot in this way: everyone can grow up to six plants for personal use. The only commercial grower is the government and the only purpose of that is to provide pot to the pharmacies for those who can't/don't grow their own. Prices are negligible. No seeds can be patented. No one makes a killing. No hype, no advertising. Pot for people, pure and simple.
Click to expand...




The Uruguayan president (if that's what they call it) is the fucking man, dude. I even read a story several months ago about him and his wife picking up a random hitchhiker and detouring to give him a ride to where he was going.


US leaders could learn a thing or two from that guy.... could probably teach him a thing or two, too, but still, I only hear good things about Uruguay whenever it's in the news.
 
I don't really understand the limits being imposed. If everyone was able to grow as much of it whenever they wanted then there would be no reason for a black market. Some people might even tell you that setting limits is exactly what will drive the black market- creating a scarcity simply because of a law which will drive the price up or keep it artificially high, which is what lures people to partake in the black market.

Idk, I think the limit has to do with the fact that the government is already making money from pot via the drug war. They can't just outright legalize it because in a financial reality, that would destroy some government agencies if not severely impact their budget. Many places already accept the fact that it can be used medicinally and some even recreationally. The only real contention that I see in most places has to do with money, not the safety or nature of cannabis. Such is politics tho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top