I don't know about this, guys. I smoked marijuana once and now I'm gay.
It can have many other deleterious effects as well. I also smoked marijuana once. Now I'm old, and a boomer.
I used to be gay too, but I still am.
Nearly a Mitch Hedberg quote.
Correlation. Does. Not. Equal. Causation.
Besides, everyone knows pot doesn't make you gay, it was the fluoride, everyone knows that.
The fluoride made my chocolate hole tickle. Now I can't stop getting it scratched.
I also don't know, I smoked it more than once and am at best a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Maybe I didn't smoke enough?
I don't think those are related, buddy.
That's the joke
Two questions:
If the answers are yes then I am all for it.
Depends on the state. This is just for removing the federal law against marijuana, states can and probably will still have laws against it. So it'll be up to the state to decide on those two questions, the trend though has been yes to both of them. Looks good for people convicted federally:
Criminal justice reform provisions of the bill include the release of prisoners convicted of federal nonviolent cannabis-related offenses and the expungement of records of such convictions
But that's probably a small amount of cases pertaining to people crossing state lines with marijuana. Most offenses would probably be at the state level.
The bigger benefit is that federal employees living in states that have legalized it will finally be able to enjoy it
Also anyone working federal contract workers won't have to be worried. My company no longer drug tests because I'm employed in a legal state but the company prohibits pot use and will drug test if the federal contracts asks for it.
Sensible legislation? Surely this won't pass.
And even if this somehow passes Texas will still keep it illegal.
Texas already has medicinal marijuana, and public opinion on the matter is in favor of legalization.
I think once Abbot realizes how much tax revenue he can squeeze out of it, he'll support it.
The Texas medical program is a joke though.
I think Abbott cares more about winning Evangelical votes than enriching the State; after all, the revenue isn't a secret. Colorado has had recreational for over a decade.
It really isn't. My doctor runs a clinic in a very rural area and had no problem getting set up or prescribing/filling for it.
It just requires a doctor be willing to jump through the red tape.
Not to mention that you can just buy D9 edibles in vape shops since congress changed the thc content limit.
Not to mention that you can just buy D9 edibles in vape shops since congress changed the thc content limit.
Yeah, the loophole for THCa is really closer to recreational than the current medical system is, though admittedly I haven't looked into it in a few years.
It's still embarrassing for the State to keep it in a quasi-legal (and therefore open to disruptions based on the whims of local LE). Selective enforcement is one of the worst offenses of the War on Drugs.
Well, I think the driving factor in Texas is that it's a good excuse to throw brown people in jail.
That's exactly it.
That's OK, they will just keep going north into Oklahoma to get it.
You need a med card to get it in OK; that's exceedingly rare in TX.
The med card can be had pretty easy though. At least for now.
The fact that the House has its own version probably means it's full of poison pill bullshit.
Looks like the STATES version is an attempt to keep it medical at the federal level instead of just regulating it like alcohol.
I don't understand the point of regulating marijuana growing at all. Seems like just another way for the government to make excuses to find another tax revenue stream
Regulation is in the Public's Interest. Sure, you may see it as a Government revenue stream, but it has merit. Regulating industries results in:
TL;DR: We wouldn't want the marijuana mafia price fixing our weed man.
I agree for industrial, but small scale it shouldn't be. If you want to just grow some for your use, and maybe some for friends/family/neighbors or whatever not for profit, you should be allowed to.
You can currently brew your own alcohol, so I highly doubt that marijuana wouldn't see a similar system. I think where I am the limit is 50 gallons a year of wine, not sure on beer. If marijuana has similar rules, you could grow enough for yourself and your neighborhood street's personal use for a year.
Most places it's legal the limit is pretty low to grow your own though. It's not close to consistent with the alcohol ruling.
You don't want marijuana farmers using toxic chemicals to increase yield. You also want the end product regulated so people don't start dying like they did with the EVALI incident.
Regulation is a great thing when it's not abused.
Idk, I'd rather not find out what happens when you smoke Roundup.
I'm mostly referring to growing your own stuff. The government likes to try to regulate how much of your own stuff you can grow
I live in CA and have family in CO, both states have legal pot growing. Here in CA you can grow as much as you want for your own consumption. That is, for yourself and your family. You just can't sell it without regulation.
I can walk into a dispensary right now and buy as many seeds, seedlings or recreational pot/gummies/gum/brownies/drops as I want and no one will bat an eyelash.
Making it regulated federally will not change that one bit.
edit: Exact law in CA says we can grow 6 usable plants at any given time, but I've never heard of that being enforced unless they are arrested for something else. That's also not, regulation, that's just the law here:
In CO it's 6 plants per household adult, only 3 can be flowering at a time. That's plenty for anyone. But if it's somehow not, you can get a bigger allowance with a med card. But there's no enforcement unless you get busted for something else. I've only heard of busts for 50+ illegal plants.
let's GOOOOOOOOO