Marijuana Legalization Debate *NO PICTURES*

[BustedS13]

oh, and congrats to Super Lemon Haze for winning the Cannabis Cup again.

Toke of the Town - Sativa Takes Top Spot: Super Lemon Haze Repeats As Cannabis Cup Champion

[BustedS13]

California Tax and Regulate Cannabis Initiative Suspends Signature Gathering

Posted in Chronicle Blog by Phillip Smith on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 8:27pm

The Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 initiative, sponsored by Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee, has laid off its paid signature gatherers, saying they already have sufficient signatures to qualify for the November 2010 ballot.
Lee told the Chronicle this afternoon that more than 650,000 signatures have been turned in, and that he expects an additional 50,000 or so to dribble in in the coming weeks. Precisely 433,971 valid signatures of registered California voters are required for an initiative to be approved for the ballot. That leaves Lee and the initiative a substantial cushion of about a quarter-million signatures to make up for any invalid signatures.

The campaign will wait to turn in signatures until January 15. If they were turned in this month, the initiative would appear on the June ballot, not the November ballot. Lee wants the initiative on the latter.

Lee's initiative, which would allow individuals up to 25 square feet to grow their own and would allow counties and municipalities to opt to tax and regulate marijuana sales on a local basis, is controversial. Some national figures believe it is premature and risks going down in flames at the polls, thus setting the movement back, while some California activists believe it does not go far enough and does not entice voters with potential revenues for the crisis-ridden state budget.

But it will be on the November 2010 ballot, provided the signatures are certified by election officials in February. It may not be the only legalization initiative on the ballot. At least two other signature-gathering campaigns for competing initiatives are under way.

[S14_Kouki]

This is cool and all for cali but know one is thinking of FL

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by S14_Kouki

This is cool and all for cali but know one is thinking of FL

with FL's old people population.... it'll be decriminalized at a federal level before FL passes anything.
hang in there, the gulf beaches are godlike

[Future240]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

with FL's old people population.... it'll be decriminalized at a federal level before FL passes anything.
hang in there, the gulf beaches are godlike

I would say something similar for GA, AL, SC. Though due to being in the bible belt, not because of geezers.

[BustedS13]

Washington state has a bill pre-filed for 2010
HB2401, legalization

Page Not Found

[Slideways^Jordan]

What about in Texas!?

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by Slideways^Jordan

What about in Texas!?

do some research, champ

Texas
Texas - NORML

[S14_Kouki]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

Washington state has a bill pre-filed for 2010
HB2401, legalization

Page Not Found

So what does this mean it will be legal in Washington??? lol well thats what I read. Im just asking in case I missed something.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by S14_Kouki

So what does this mean it will be legal in Washington??? lol well thats what I read. Im just asking in case I missed something.

right, if it passes.

[drift_limo]

Originally Posted by S14_Kouki

This is cool and all for cali but know one is thinking of FL

FL is a long shot... old people and there old refeer madness days.

Originally Posted by future240

I would say something similar for GA, AL, SC. Though due to being in the bible belt, not because of geezers.

its a possibility

Originally Posted by Slideways^Jordan

What about in Texas!?

I dont knwo about that one.... .

since the border is there and the cartels... maybe

Originally Posted by S14_Kouki

So what does this mean it will be legal in Washington??? lol well thats what I read. Im just asking in case I missed something.

I hope so im moving up to washington soon

[BustedS13]

Washington DC is getting medical marijuana.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: Great News From Congress!
http://blog.norml.org/2009/12/09/con...-law/#comments

what's up.

[drift_limo]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

Washington DC is getting medical marijuana.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: Great News From Congress!
Congress allows DC to implement 1998 medical marijuana law | NORML Blog

what's up.

Geee I wonder y....

Obama was like "wtf its not legal in my crib the white house! oh hell naw!"
true story.
lol

[S14_Kouki]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

Washington DC is getting medical marijuana.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: Great News From Congress!
Congress allows DC to implement 1998 medical marijuana law | NORML Blog

what's up.

congrats DC glad to hear this.

Originally Posted by drift_limo

Geee I wonder y....

Obama was like "wtf its not legal in my crib the white house! oh hell naw!"
true story.
lol

If that was the case. Im going to send him a letter to tell him to move to FL.

[BustedS13]

and now, a couple news videos

on medical in DC:



and on legalization in Nevada:



also, has anybody watched American Drug War: The Last White Hope? here's a video link to it, looks like it's two hours long. might sit down and watch it later

American.Drug.War.The.Last.White.Hope.avi

[BustedS13]

according to a new poll, the majority of Americans support marijuana legalization!

According to new poll, majority of Americans support marijuana legalization | NORML Blog

[drift_limo]

YouTube - Mother Gives Son Marijuana To Treat His Autism - ABC News


proof?

[rollinrps13]

legalize!!!!

[S14_Kouki]

So today in my drug class this girl tryed telling us all that marijuana causes brain cancer lol.

[gzer750]

who gives a fuck. i know like 50 guys that sell weed. its always around. legal or not.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by S14_Kouki

So today in my drug class this girl tryed telling us all that marijuana causes brain cancer lol.

it's ridiculous what people will hear and then toss back out as fact, on both sides really.

Originally Posted by gzer750

who gives a fuck. i know like 50 guys that sell weed. its always around. legal or not.

i think every person in the US doing hard time for possession probably gives a fuck.
and you live in LA. you have literally a thousand dispensaries in your area where you can legally buy. why would you buy from a dealer? or talk about it on here, where you can get banned for that shit?

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Yes, doctor, my back hurts and I am having a lot of trouble sleeping. I've heard that cannabis can help.

That's pretty much all it takes. lol.

[dert420sx]

^^ most reputable doctors already know of this tactic and require medical documentation of your ailment for their records.

just recently i was in the waiting room at my doctor's office waiting to renew my 'script when one stoner-looking dude who looked to be no older than 21 exited the exam room and took a seat between his friend and i.

i managed to overhear their whispered conversation:

friend: dude so how did it go? what did he say?
stoner: he said no, dude.
friend: wtf? what did you tell him??
stoner: i told him i had insomnia but he asked if i saw a doctor for it and the paperwork but i don't have any of that.
friend: fuuuuu....

the pair continued whispering to each other, trying to figure out what story the other guy should sell to the doctor. was gonna listen in some more but i got called in. all my shit is fully documented and i have a legitimate need for it so i stepped out after the exam, paid my renewal fee and left with a new rec while the pair of stoners were still waiting for the other one to be called in.

these are exactly the types of people who will try to abuse the system to get a medical recommendation. i'm glad my doctor knows his shit. wish the same can be said for some of the other doctors here in california that churn out recs like it's a commodity. both sides can play dirty, ya know. in the end they'll just end up screwing the patients who genuinely need it.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by dert420sx

^^ most reputable doctors already know of this tactic and require medical documentation of your ailment for their records.

and that's why, if you want one, you wouldn't go to your regular doctor. you'd go to somebody who takes out full page ads in High Times.

[dert420sx]

read some really disturbing news the other day.

it disturbs me that marijuana has been listed as a controlled substance for decades without even testing for its therapeutic qualities. yet they allow big companies to SECRETLY manufacture chemicals that they don't want anyone knowing about for fear of hurting their bottom line. And it gets worse: the EPA is actually APPROVING these requests for confidentiality status without even checking out the long-term dangers, if any, of these new chemicals.


source: washingtonpost.com

Use of potentially harmful chemicals kept secret under law

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010

Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.
The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry. But critics -- including the Obama administration -- say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.
At a time of increasing public demand for more information about chemical exposure, pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy. Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation.
Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line.
Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.
Some companies have successfully argued that the federal government should not only keep the names of their chemicals secret but also hide from public view the identities and addresses of the manufacturers.
"Even acknowledging what chemical is used or what is made at what facility could convey important information to competitors, and they can start to put the pieces together," said Mike Walls, vice president of the American Chemistry Council.
Although a number of the roughly 17,000 secret chemicals may be harmless, manufacturers have reported in mandatory notices to the government that many pose a "substantial risk" to public health or the environment. In March, for example, more than half of the 65 "substantial risk" reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency involved secret chemicals.
"You have thousands of chemicals that potentially present risks to health and the environment," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that documented the extent of the secret chemicals through public-records requests from the EPA. "It's impossible to run an effective regulatory program when so many of these chemicals are secret."
Of the secret chemicals, 151 are made in quantities of more than 1 million tons a year and 10 are used specifically in children's products, according to the EPA.
The identities of the chemicals are known to a handful of EPA employees who are legally barred from sharing that information with other federal officials, state health and environmental regulators, foreign governments, emergency responders and the public.
Last year, a Colorado nurse fell seriously ill after treating a worker involved at a chemical spill at a gas-drilling site. The man, who later recovered, appeared at a Durango hospital complaining of dizziness and nausea. His work boots were damp; he reeked of chemicals, the nurse said.

Two days later, the nurse, Cathy Behr, was fighting for her life. Her liver was failing and her lungs were filling with fluid. Behr said her doctors diagnosed chemical poisoning and called the manufacturer, Weatherford International, to find out what she might have been exposed to.
Weatherford provided safety information, including hazards, for the chemical, known as ZetaFlow. But because ZetaFlow has confidential status, the information did not include all of its ingredients.
Mark Stanley, group vice president for Weatherford's pumping and chemical services, said in a statement that the company made public all the information legally required.
"It is always in our company's best interest to provide information to the best of our ability," he said.
Behr said the full ingredient list should be released. "I'd really like to know what went wrong," said Behr, 57, who recovered but said she still has respiratory problems. "As citizens in a democracy, we ought to know what's happening around us."
The White House and environmental groups want Congress to force manufacturers to prove that a substance should be kept confidential. They also want federal officials to be able to share confidential information with state regulators and health officials, who carry out much of the EPA's work across the country.
Walls, of the American Chemistry Council, says manufacturers agree that federal officials should be able to share information with state regulators. Industry is also willing to discuss shifting the burden of proof for secrecy claims to the chemical makers, he said. The EPA must allow a claim unless it can prove within 90 days that disclosure would not harm business.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to reduce secrecy.
A week after he arrived at the agency in July, Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, ended confidentiality protection for 530 chemicals. In those cases, manufacturers had claimed secrecy for chemicals they had promoted by name on their Web sites or detailed in trade journals.
"People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it," Owens said.
The handful of EPA officials privy to the identity of the chemicals do not have other information that could help them assess the risk, said Lynn Goldman, a former EPA official and a pediatrician and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"Maybe they don't know there's been a water quality problem in New Jersey where the plant is located, or that the workers in the plant have had health problems," she said. "It just makes sense that the more people who are looking at it, they're better able to put one and one together and recognize problems."
Independent researchers, who often provide data to policymakers and regulators, also have been unable to study the secret chemicals.
Duke University chemist Heather Stapleton, who researches flame retardants, tried for months to identify a substance she had found in dust samples taken from homes in Boston.
Then, while attending a scientific conference, she happened to see the structure of a chemical she recognized as her mystery compound.
The substance is a chemical in "Firemaster 550," a product made by Chemtura Corp. for use in furniture and other products as a substitute for a flame retardant the company had quit making in 2004 because of health concerns.
Stapleton found that Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient similar in structure to a chemical -- Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP -- that Congress banned last year from children's products because it has been linked to reproductive problems and other health effects.
Chemtura, which claimed confidentiality for Firemaster 550, supplied the EPA with standard toxicity studies. The EPA has asked for additional data, which it is studying.
"My concern is we're using chemicals and we have no idea what the long-term effects might be or whether or not they're harmful," said Susan Klosterhaus, an environmental scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute who has published a journal article on the substance with Stapleton.
Chemtura officials said in a written statement that even though Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient structurally similar to DEHP does not mean it poses similar health risks.
They said the company strongly supports keeping sensitive business information out of public view. "This is essential for ensuring the long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry," the officials said in the statement.
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

[BustedS13]

New Jersey passed medical marijuana. just needs the governor's signature now.
i don't think California's AB390 has a chance in hell, but tomorrow might be interesting anyway. regardless, November, when the people decide... oh boy.
this is going to be a huge year for marijuana reform

[VROOOM]

hmmm, i get kidney stones alot. wonder if i could get a prescription? it beats taking tons of vicodin.

[lflkajfj12123]

Originally Posted by gzer750

who gives a fuck. i know like 50 guys that sell weed. its always around. legal or not.

thats not it at all

if the stuff gets legalized

it does two things

removes the paranoia of smoking marijuana and its taboo that it carries for being illegal

i know so many people that do not give a shit if you're drunk but oh my god if you're smoking marijuana THATS ILLEGAL

also don't have to deal with a fucking dealer

just goto the gas station and wa~la

[dert420sx]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

New Jersey passed medical marijuana. just needs the governor's signature now.
i don't think California's AB390 has a chance in hell, but tomorrow might be interesting anyway. regardless, November, when the people decide... oh boy.
this is going to be a huge year for marijuana reform

it just passed to the next stage! Assembly committee OKs recreational marijuana

we'll see what Friday brings.

[bigdreezy]

Originally Posted by s0apgun

thats not it at all

if the stuff gets legalized

it does two things

removes the paranoia of smoking marijuana and its taboo that it carries for being illegal

i know so many people that do not give a shit if you're drunk but oh my god if you're smoking marijuana THATS ILLEGAL

also don't have to deal with a fucking dealer

just goto the gas station and wa~la

i quit smoking, but i was never paranoid about smoking. now driving while smokin a blunt is a sketch. or when your lit and start to drive. but that is the same with alcohol too. you can get a DUI while driving high. legalizing weed doesnt mean you are able to drive and smoke. the only thing leglizing will do will make it easy for you to blaze up on a street corner and not have to worry about getting a possesion ticket.

i personnally like my dealer. hes the homie and i would rather give him my money than to a stupid store thats ripping you off anyways.

i think the taboo will still be there. just because its legal doesnt mean it changes everyones mind