Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
California Medical Marijuana: My Doctor Says I Need Weed to Get High

By QuantumFoam in Culture
Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:05:02 AM EST
Tags: THC, Marijuana, Weed, Pot, Chronic, Dank, Crong, Grass, Skunk, The Purpose of My Life (all tags)

I've been a chronic smoker for the last eight years, but had recently abstained for 111 days due to a job situation. I read this and many articles like it through this bleak dry period, coming up with all sorts of schemes to beat drug tests, but I never had the balls to follow through. But, at the end of the 111 days, I found myself without a need to produce clean urine and decided to indulge in the freedom offered by my new home, California.


The Law

In 1996, the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) was passed by a margin of 55.6%. It was later amended with California SB420, which clarified more concrete limits on what one can possess legally.

What it all comes down to is that an approved patient can possess an amount of marijuana which varies by county, but usually is equivalent to $5000 of bud. Additionally, the patient can possess a county-specific and maturity-specific number of plants and grow them to his heart's content. State, county, and city officials have to recognize this law, but federal officials don't.

Technically, cops can take your weed and impound it indefinitely. I met a fellow that had his stash confiscated, but he got it back after a three-month bureaucratic hassle. He said it was kind of cool to go to the police station to get pot.

Getting the Prescription

I researched the process a bit online. It's kind of slick, actually. There are doctors that specialize in referrals that can readily be found in the local alternative newspapers. You have to bring the referring doctor a note from your regular doctor saying that you have a condition that is treatable with marijuana. This sounds like a pain in the ass, but as it turns out prescriptions you've been issued for conditions that could theoretically be treated with marijuana are accepted as an implicit approval by your usual doctor. I even got lucky and naturally had a condition (and freshly-filled prescriptions at hand) that several referral sites mentioned specifically: asthma. Yes, asthma.

I checked online for the general procedure, and the businesses in play seemed to match the story in the article. I looked around for the cheapest referral. They seemed to average $150, with $125 being the lowest advertised. I called the cheapest one first. No answer. I called another clinic. They asked me where I was coming from and gave me $25 off due to the price of gas. An hour's drive in traffic got me to his office. His office was in a nondescript office building. I came in and a cute receptionist took my license and gave me some paperwork. It was the first medical form I'd ever read that asked for a Myspace profile address in the contact form (I don't have one). I filled it out, and as I waited the patient before me came out and got his card and certifications. He was an old guy, maybe fifty. He looked giddy.

Old, affluent stoners I expected. I didn't expect to encounter people that looked like they genuinely needed it. The other patient in the room looked like he had been recently fucked up in an industrial situation. He had a large ziplock bag full of prescription bottles and a neck brace. It's really bad taste to judge fellow waiting room patients; the old guy could have had leukemia and the other guy could have just been faking it for workers comp, but appearances are all I have to go on.

I was called into the doctor's office. He was very young, possibly younger than me. We did the usual doctor-patient deal, and he asked me what I was there for. Hazily recalled transcript:

Me: "I'd like to try to use marijuana to treat my asthma. I've used it for a while now, and it seems to make it better, so I'd like to at least do so legally."

Doctor: "It can actually be detrimental to your asthma..."

Me (interjecting): "Actually, I vaporize or eat it usually. I have a volcano."

Doctor: "I was going to say that to do otherwise might aggravate your condition..."

He continued on to a spiel about legal history of the measure, my rights, the virtues of indicas and sativas, that they have fucking weed delivery services for this, and that I should quit smoking cigarettes. The last bit kind of surprised me, since the whole procedure was a lot more formal that I'd expected. I'd sort of imagined that the doctor would have gotten his degree from the internet in a third world country or something, and that I'd be greeted by a friendly stoner in a tie dye shirt and flipflops. He'd call me "dude", perform a perfunctory inspection, and cause the appropriate paperwork to be filled out. But this guy was actually professional about it.

Our meeting is concluded, and I'm ushered out to the waiting room, where his receptionist took my photo for my card. She gave me the documentation and a more thorough run-down of how this worked: They kept my records of the doctor's visit confidential, but I should use cash and be as anonymous as possible at the dispensaries since those were the entities that got raided. Throw it in the trunk, take it home, and consume it like a responsible citizen: privately if possible, not near kids, not in your car. I left the office with a big smile on my face, an MMJ card in my hand, and the actual prescription in a folder.

Getting the Bud

I'd seen ads for the dispensaries in the local free papers for months, so I just grabbed one and looked for the closest outlet. It was basically on the way home. I drove there quickly but passed the fucker up twice. It was an anonymous, windowless little building. I parked a bit down the block and walked to it. As I approached it, a large man, the bouncer, opened the door. He asked me if I was a new patient. I said I was. He asked for the certificate and a state license. I provided them and filled out some paperwork as he validated them. Then a pretty girl led me into the shop. They had all kinds of goodies: hash, Honey Oil, THC-infused honey, brownies, cookies, truffles, sodas, and small potted pot plants (I think it varies by county but possession of eight to sixteen, depending on maturity, is legal here). And weed, of course. About twenty different varieties, sold in grams, 1/8 ounces, or full ounces. On the board, various colors and symbols denoted indicas, sativia, or hybrids. For each, they had a jar with a small sample enclosed that one can sniff and examine. I asked for her suggestions and decided to get an eighth of Purple God's Gift and one of Lemon Sour Diesel. The shopkeeper reached into drawers and pulled out large green-tinted prescription bottles from numbered drawers and dropped them into a traditional paper prescription bag. She asked me if I wanted anything else. Since the hash and brownies are still technically illegal, I passed. She threw an extra gram in the bag and gave me 25% off since I was a new customer. Total: $95. She stapled the bag shut and gave me generic instructions about dealing with potential setbacks on the way home. According to her, it was illegal for a cop to search my now-stapled prescription bag. I thanked her and left. I walked to my car, threw the bag in the trunk, and left. This is also the first time I've ever tipped a dealer.

I've always had serious nervousness when in a car and in possession of substances. In theory, at least, they can't search you on foot. But in most jurisdictions, you give away most of your privacy when you get in a car. There is always the possibility that the cop will pull you over for some other bullshit and use whatever pretense he finds handy to search your car. In the past, I was searched for making a sloppy turn. The cop pulled me over, and noticed the baseball bat that was behind the seat in my cab. He asked me what it was for. I told him it was for baseball. He didn't like that answer, so he searched me. Somehow, the fucker missed the two-odd grams of pot in the jar in my pocket and let me continue on. Since then, I'd always opted to walk to my dealer. On this trip back I experienced none of the past anxiety. The weed was in my trunk, in prescription bottles. I had paperwork in the passenger's seat that basically told a cop to fuck off: the great state of California says that I can possess up to eight ounces of marijuana. Aside from some painful traffic, I got home without a hitch.

Getting Stoned

I tried to maintain my dignity when I got home. It had been 111 days. The longest I'd gone without since 2000 is two weeks. I went to the best light source in my house and opened the bag. The gram was fairly neutral kind bud. Nothing special, but I've certainly paid normal prices for some like it before. I opened the bottle of Lemon Sour Diesel and poured it out. It was a healthy eighth. I don't have a scale to verify the weight, but it looked about right. It was in two pieces: one large Christmas tree nug, and a smaller one. It smelled lemony and good, and it had a healthy number of crystals. Not the best bud I've ever seen, but it would have been a $60-$65 eighth back home easily. I put the weed back in and opened the Purple God's Gift. It came in smaller nugs, but they were very healthy. Kind of low on the crystal count, but I don't think that's the point with indicas anyway. I put the weed back in and took it all to my desk. The chick at the shop told me to stick to indicas at night and sativas during the day, so I decided to start off with the Diesel.

About two hits into this, I knew I wasn't going to be able to finish the bowl. Holy god.

A Comparison

I'll spare you the tedious review of the strains. In retrospect, they are good, but not the best I'd ever had. Amsterdam was much the same way: I'd had better weed back home (Texas), but they had really good stuff consistently and an atmosphere that was free from paranoia. The weed I'd get at home that would have exceeded their quality would have only come around once or twice a year. I'd say that the consistency in California or Amsterdam is far better than the... variation and excitement... that comes from doing things the old-fashioned way in a backwards state. I'd also say it's done better in California than it is in Holland. There, you usually go to the back and push a button on a little box, allowing you to see samples of the weed alongside the prices. You don't get to examine it. You don't get the prices in some form you can understand without tedious mental calculations. The prices and masses are not consistent: you can have 2g of X for €30 or 1.5g of Y for €43. By the time you've factored in our shameful exchange rate, and convert the quantities involved into something you can deal with, you've done quite a bit of mental calculation. My first time at one of these places had me staring into that dingy, grime-encrusted box trying to see what weed looked like the best bang for the Euro, and trying to figure it out an hour after I'd gotten off the plane.

The setup here in California is much more simple and straightforward. You have a big board with names and denominations that correspond to those my dealer used. You have cute chicks pick out pre-measured bottles rather than some surly Eurotrash douchebag, and it actually comes out to be much cheaper per gram than even the black market here can provide.

I next went to another dispensary and got an eighth of Jack Herrer. They threw in a gram of Granddaddy Purple that actually looked better than the eighth since I was a first-time customer. It reminds me of turning 21 and hitting as many bars as I could to get free shots.

I've since visited many other dispensaries. Most have free gram or free kind joint days on two random days of the week. You can buy an eighth and they throw in one or the other gratis. It's kind of nice, and I have gone out of my way for the free gram before. A number of them offer the eighth eighth or the thirteenth eighth free, which is also nice.

I've also grown some balls on the other consumables, and bought a few. I got two jars of flavored THC honey and drank them on consecutive days. The first had almost no effect and the second made me feel like I was tripping. I also bought some some hash and found it to be good. I'm looking into tinctures.

I've also since bought some hash. First I got what is called "Humboldt Hash", which sells at 10 per 0.5 grams and looks roughly equivalent to the low-end Morrocan hash in Amsterdam. More recently, I got half a gram of "Chemdog Goo" for $50. It resembles the isolator hash in Amsterdam (though I was too broke at the time to actually buy any): very blonde, with a consistency of dried peanut butter. This goo was very powerful, and tasty too.

Due to the intensity of my asthma treatment, I have not gotten around to noting all the varieties of bud I consumed, but this is a partial list: Orange Crush, Sugar Shack, Caribbean Diesel, Blue Dream, Master Kush, Bullrider, Headband, Magic Kush, Pine Tar, Honey Dew, Third Eye, Strawberry Cough, Blue Satellite/Killer Queen, Pineapple Express, Guru, Skywalker OG, and Sweet Ginger.

Notable events

In a recent ruling, the AG here in California sought to clarify some of Proposition 215, the law that makes all this legal awesomeness possible. There's been some controversy over whether a dispensary can be operated on a for-profit basis.

I was in my local dispensary today, and some dude was bitching about the prices, complaining that it wasn't supposed to be operated for profits. The dude behind the counter told him to fuck off, politely. That's the most drama I've seen at a dispensary so far.

I've also tried to get a handle on how they operate. None of the clerks at the dispensary seem too eager to say where the weed comes from, and I don't blame them. I have a feeling that it comes from private small-scale grow farms within the state, just like it's done pretty much everywhere else. I've seen the guys that work at my most-frequented dispensary breaking up what looked like a quarter pound into little jars.

The source of the weed is important, though. Most Federal drug laws are derived from the idea that since drugs are necessarily trafficked by the black market, they are likely to cross state lines at will and their regulation is the domain of the Federal government. This may be true for heroin, coke, or even Mexican ditch-weed, but I can guarantee you that most, if not all, of the weed sold at these dispensaries was grown in-state. California grows a lot of weed, and it smokes a lot of weed. It works that way in most places where there is a high population because, if you get together enough people, there's always a market for anything. Additionally, transporting drugs can be dangerous, especially with California's numerous Border Patrol and Agricultural Control checkpoints.

I frequent a dispensary that has the fewest daily deals but is forty miles closer to me than the next nearest one. All the employees seem to be stoners around my age, and their eyes are usually pink or red. The whole establishment, despite the best efforts of air purifiers, reeks of doob. I even met the owner once, he was an older guy that looked vaguely like Keith Olbermann.

The Health Benefits

Does it help my asthma? Probably not. I vaporized quite a bit with friends back in Texas, but didn't bring the necessary equipment here to California. When one vaporizes, it does tend to cause a good amount of beneficial coughing.

I visualize the amount of tar in my lungs as a varying quantity: If I smoke a lot of schwag and hold it in for a while, it seems like my lungs are coated with tar (they probably are). When I vaporize I tend to cough up more than I could possibly be putting in, so I figure that. For those that haven't tried it, vaporizer smoke is almost invisible and is mostly free of the matter that isn't actively working to get you high.

My asthma has been slightly worse than when I started my medical marijuana treatment, and I don't deny the causal effect here: it's because I'm smoking an eighth every two or three days. Am I abusing the system? Sort of. But my asthma is just the excuse to get the prescription. I feel I have other, more severe problems (depression, anxiety, mild Assburgers, and such), that are inarguably treatable with marijuana, but remain undiagnosed. For some careers, it really doesn't look good to have a formal diagnosis of any sort of mental aberration on one's medical record, so sometimes workarounds are in order. But I'm no Angel Raich.

And, of course, I love to get high. If it wasn't for the tolerance build-up and the expense, I would spend every waking moment blitzed out of my mind.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Favorite Type of Bud
o AK-47 18%
o Any Variety of Kush 0%
o Blueberry 9%
o Bubblegum 0%
o Cotton Candy 0%
o Diesel 18%
o Fruit Loops 0%
o Jack Herrer 0%
o Juicy Fruit 9%
o Sensi Star 0%
o Sugar Shack 0%
o Thai Stick 9%
o The Purps 0%
o White Lightening 9%
o White Widow 27%

Votes: 11
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o this
o Propositio n 215
o California SB420
o volcano
o indicas and sativas
o hash
o Honey Oil
o brownies
o Lemon Sour Diesel
o Jack Herrer
o Granddaddy Purple
o tinctures
o Master Kush
o Strawberry Cough
o recent
o Propositio n 215 [2]
o vaporized
o Angel Raich
o Also by QuantumFoam


Display: Sort:
California Medical Marijuana: My Doctor Says I Need Weed to Get High | 154 comments (135 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
next step: (none / 0) (#2)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:58:32 PM EST

branding

you want to be the budweiser or coca cola or marlboro of mary jane as it becomes more legal


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

I dunno (none / 0) (#3)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:01:01 PM EST

It might take a generation or two. Yeah, Marlboro 420s would be nice, but there is a large base of people that know that the best stuff is homegrown.

If it ever becomes more legal or if I ever stop moving around, I could just grow my own and be self-sufficient.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

as maryjane becomes legal (none / 0) (#4)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:13:14 PM EST

no one is going to grow their own stuff. growing your own is simply an artifact of illegality. you can make your own beer, grow your tobacco, make your own carbonated sugar water, but who is doing that? 0.0001% of consumers?

the thing to do is get in early with a brand of maryjane that gets well known for having the combined attributes, blend, strain, whatever, that has the most to offer what most people want out of their bud

whoever does that starts the next coca cola/ rj reynolds/ budweiser


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0) (#5)
by QuantumFoam on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:16:35 PM EST

Whenever I smoke bud, I'd rather have a strain I've never had before than an old standby. And with bud, you get a much higher ROI than with brewing beer or growing your own tobacco.

If it became legal, I'd get seven other people together, coordinate to grown different strains, and the divide the harvests equally.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

and people like to try microbrews (2.00 / 1) (#6)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:28 AM EST

but dependability and quality standardization is why we have coors, budweiser, miller, heineken, etc

i'm glad you are a bud variety enthusiast

but you're not the norm

branding is the future


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Eh, not really (none / 0) (#25)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:51:14 PM EST

My alcoholic uncles all have stills. I like booze, but with that you can actually kill yourself if you fuck it up. With weed, given a permissive enough society, you could just put the fucker on your windowsill.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

of course there are stills (none / 0) (#28)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:13:46 PM EST

of course there are even those who grow their own tobacco (its more of a weed than mary jane even)

all of which means nothing, since i'm talking about the majority of consumption

the future of weed is branding

what is the source of your resistance to this inevitability?

do you use weed because its counterculture? weed will be as corporate as anything else when it goes mainstream

but who cares? its just a drug

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I smoke it because it gets me high (none / 0) (#30)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:20:50 PM EST

But if you're going to do something 16 hours a day, there should be some variety. I don't eat McDonald's all the time.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

these reactions i am getting to my point are weird (none / 1) (#35)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST

i am simply saying that wider acceptance of marijuana will lead to corporization and branding

its a simple, rather straightforward and inevitable observation

and you start talking about your personal tastes and niche cravings

its almost as if you attach some sort of social status to marijuana use and are offended at it turning into just another commodity

well, there are snobby wine drinkers, who attach some sort of significance to their self-regard to their ability to discern fine wine, so be it for maryjane i guess

kind of retarded if you ask me

its just a fucking drug

sorry if that offends you personally

(rolls eyes)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Of course, it will be legalized eventually. (none / 0) (#43)
by dakini on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:31:08 PM EST

Then government can get into the act, making sure taxes are collected on all sales like they do with alcohol and cigarettes. Of course there will be a "legal age" attached to the buying of this wonderful drug, so the kids will hang around the stores waiting for someone to "pull" for them, like they do now for booze.
Yes, medicinal pot does help alleviate pain, such as those with multiple sclerosis and cancers, as it creates a euphoria, but those on long term use who smoke it, are developing lung diseases as they age, as with tobacco.
It's amazing to me that they are making smoking cigarettes illegal and the smoking of "pot" legal. What a weird world this is.

" May your vision be clear, your heart strong, and may you always follow your dreams."
[ Parent ]
I also meant to say, that this article (none / 0) (#44)
by dakini on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:32:24 PM EST

is very well written and I will be voting it as +FP.

" May your vision be clear, your heart strong, and may you always follow your dreams."
[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0) (#45)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST


- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

make caffeine illegal, make lsd legal (none / 0) (#47)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST

just to TOTALLY WEIRD YOU OUT DUDE


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
'shine (none / 1) (#86)
by rusty on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST

I like booze, but with that you can actually kill yourself if you fuck it up.

Common misconception. Actually, unless you (a) add things like radiator fluid to your booze or (b) like to play with matches near your still, it's very hard to make hard alcohol that can hurt you, apart from the ways all alcohol can hurt you.

The horror stories from Prohibition are all related to the horrific industrial chemicals that moonshiners routinely used or added to either stretch or speed up their distillation. Making distilled alcohol with high-quality traditional ingredients is perfectly safe.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Good to know (none / 0) (#101)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 08:51:59 PM EST

I was always kind of curious how the ancients got what I'd assumed was such a deadly enterprise off the ground so early.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

It's like baking a cake (none / 1) (#114)
by rusty on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 10:51:11 AM EST

If everything you put in it is edible, undercooking it or overcooking it won't make it poisonous. There isn't any chemical magic that goes on in a still, just removing water from what you could safely drink already.

Oh, the other thing that caused problems was the materials they made stills out of. You'd want to avoid lead and some other metals, in the same way you wouldn't want to cook in lead pans. Prohibition was good for ensuring that stills got made out of whatever was cheap and handy, safe or not.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Minor quibble (3.00 / 2) (#85)
by rusty on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST

"branding is the future"

Branding is the present, and the past back to at least the 1920's. Branding is so completely ubiquitous that most Americans define themselves solely in terms of brands, even the ones (like me) who would really rather not.

So I guess once again I'm agreeing with you but pointing out that you're loudly proclaiming the fucking obvious. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

i c wut u did ther (none / 0) (#94)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Naw, man ur talkin shit, MOST ppl don't grow NOW (none / 0) (#53)
by tdillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:59:07 PM EST

even tho it would probably be less risky for them than trying to buy it. They just don't wanna fuck with it when it's easier just to call up a dealer.

Be that as it may I'm voting this article up, enjoyed it.

Hard to imagine it ever being legal in Texas.

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.[ Parent ]

Moonshine is still made, as is illegal whisky (none / 0) (#15)
by ksandstr on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:53:55 AM EST

Though they're mostly for novelty value.

Besides, pot tends to be non-generic. Sort of like wine: unless you're looking to spend $5 or less on a bottle of red, any red, you're going to look at the label and remember whichever brands you liked. There's tens of stabilized strains in Amsterdam alone, quite likely more than that in B.C. and California each and whichever regional kinds happen to appear in a geographic region.

Fin.
[ Parent ]

and what's your point? (none / 0) (#19)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST

that alcohol brands don't dominate the market?

why do you think merely the existence of generics disproves my point about branding dominating?

is there any legal recreational drug use: alcohol, tobacco, coffee, etc., where branding is not important?

in fact, the last one, coffee, proves my point even more: it used to be that people would get a generic coffee from a deli as a standard behavior. starbucks came along and completely blew that model away, proving people prefer their drugs branded

psychologically, it makes sense: it's simple pavlovian association. people return for the drug they like, but they associate not only with the drug, but the logo on the packaging. and its not just mental trickery, it makes sense if that brand offers consistency of potency and availability

as maryjane goes more mainstream and legal, brands will grow and come to dominate

jump in on that game now if you want to be a billionaire


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't think Starbucks works (none / 1) (#26)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:39 PM EST

It was quite out of vogue where I lived last. All the coffee freaks wanted to go to the most indy coffee joint and drink the least-corporate, Fairest-trade coffee available.

I don't doubt that Altria or some similar entity will come in and make a fortune by making a consistent product. In fact, since its virtually impossible to overdose on THC, I'd imagine that someone will just come in, genetically engineer an algae to make THC, and turn it all into a paste that gets you higher than any naturally grown weed.

But people like me will always want well-manicured hydroponic buds. If I smoke more than a gram or two of something, I start to become resistant to the effect. The only way to avoid this is to vary it up between strains. While an alcoholic or a tobacco user has his favorite brands of booze and smokes, consistency is less of a desirable quality in this world.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

i understand your opinion (none / 0) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:15:22 PM EST

and i also understand starbucks sales and market penetration

which renders your opinion meaningless

and as for not wanting consistency, what can one say? you are not the average consumer, by far


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The Starbucks bubble has burst (none / 0) (#31)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:24:08 PM EST

it is merely a lesson on what happens when cancer metastasizes: it starves the host.

Think of my argument this way: The US marijuana industry is worth what, like a billion dollars? There will be room in the market for packs of Marlboro joints and $10,000 designer eighths of pot from plants fertilized with Hitler's ashes or Cheech Marin's shit.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

you're kidding me right? (none / 0) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST

starbucks has simply reached saturation. that it isn't growing like gangbusters doesn't mean it's going away. mcdonalds has closed many a restaurant and weathered many a supersize me type public backlash in its time. and mcdonalds is still chugging along quite happily and with still huge market dominance

i am simply saying that wider acceptance of marijuana will lead to this sort of corporization and branding

its a simple, rather straightforward and inevitable observation

its just a fucking drug, beholden to the same marketing forces as any other commodity

and those market forces teach us the road to dominance in any commodity business that is exposed to public choice is branding

no big deal


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Do you see branded lattuce at your foodstore? (none / 0) (#39)
by sausalito on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST

I don't.

Economists would say that where there is possible product differentiation, there lies the possibility of branding.

On the other hand, there have been quite a few attempts to brand bananas (Chiquita - i.e. United Fruits, Dole etc) but bananas are the least genetically different fruit ever and I bet a blind test would be impossible to say which banana is which brand.

So we might simplistically say it's just the size of the market and the possible profit from oligopoly that drive branding (banana is the largest or one of the largest fresh grocery markets).

I believe that the maryjane market certainly provides ample opportunity for differentiation (hybrids etc) and is certainly fairly large. So it is possible there would be branded strains from large corporations.

But I guess there will always be a bunch of independent providers, probably.

Could give enough thought to this, but couldn't care less.
_____________

GBH - "The whole point is that the App Store acts as a firewall between busy soccer moms and goatse links"
[ Parent ]

It's all about density of value (none / 1) (#41)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:26:54 PM EST

A tomato is worth, what, like 25 cents? People still grow their own. A pot plant would be worth hundreds of dollars at harvest time.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Depends (none / 0) (#109)
by pie on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 08:18:03 AM EST

"A pot plant would be worth hundreds of dollars at harvest time."

That would depend on how being legal affects the price. It would come down a lot from where it is just now anyway.

People grow their own fruit and veg mostly as a hobby and because fresh unmolested food usually tastes better.

[ Parent ]

I have a feeling it would retain its value (none / 0) (#145)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 08:43:48 PM EST

There actually is a lot of work that goes into making good buds. The fact that medical marijuana shops sell at dealer prices should be an indication that the price won't move very far.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

you think pot is like lettuce? (1.50 / 4) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:46:54 PM EST

i didn't read the rest of your comment after your title

if you don't understand the effect of branding on things like tobacco, alcohol, coffee, etc., you don't understand much of this subject matter you are commenting on, and your observations are therefore worthless

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

christ, are you fucking stupid. (none / 0) (#71)
by lostincali on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:01:36 PM EST


"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

here moron (none / 0) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:41:54 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2008/9/1/203051/8251/41#41

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Actually coffee is still a great example (none / 1) (#84)
by rusty on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST

"Starbuck's" isn't a coffee brand. It's a fast-food corporation, which eventually was going to fall victim to its own success in getting people to think about where exactly their coffee comes from, and to compare different regions and cultivars.

"Kenya AA" is a coffee brand. Sumatra Blue Batak Tarbarita Peaberry (my current favorite) is an even more specific brand. I suspect high-end weed would go in that direction, being specified by growing region, farm, cultivar, etc. I also think cts is right, that there would be a welter of low-end brands akin to "Folger's."

It seems like the market would shape up very like the ones for beer, wine, coffee, etc.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Snobs about everything (none / 1) (#92)
by anaesthetica on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:16:03 PM EST

Weed will be just like wine, and tea, and coffee.  Everyone will get all up their asses about the vintage, year, location, process, blah blah.

Also, the introductory speech to the fantastic movie Layer Cake is relevant here.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
Better link (none / 1) (#93)
by anaesthetica on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM EST

here

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
marlboro and others (3.00 / 2) (#104)
by FreakWent on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:19:53 PM EST

I think, IIRC, that the major tobacco Corps have business plans, land and so on held in reserve ready for legal pot in case it ever happens.

The chances of anyone else in the USA, corp or person, competing successfully with Phillip Morris (or whatever they renamed themselves to) or any other baccy group in growing and selling plants for smoking are slim at best, wouldn't you think?

[ Parent ]

interesting (none / 0) (#105)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:54:38 PM EST

but not as interesting as the near distant future when tobacco is illegal and marijuana is legal!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
That'll happen (none / 1) (#108)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:28:06 AM EST

around about the same time a NYC filipino releases a low budget HDV horror movie.

Never.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

tobaco (none / 1) (#38)
by Altus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:09:50 PM EST


Is actually pretty regulated I think.  Im not sure you are allowed to grow your own (old tax laws I suspect).

Your right that less people will grow if it is legal but weed is unlike beer in that you grow it and you are done.  It does not have to be processed the way barley and hops do.  This means that even if there are Marlboro 420s there will still be high end weed available in much the same way that I can go to my local tobacconist and get very nice rolling or pipe tobacco.

Personally I think I would grow my own if it were legal, but then I do brew my own beer.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

you are a slim minority (none / 0) (#46)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:44:16 PM EST

of consumer

anything that saves time sells and dominates the market


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It tobacco cost $60 for 3.5g (none / 0) (#49)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST

People would grow.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

what? (none / 0) (#50)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:14:33 PM EST

u think prices would stay the same when legalized?

pot would become incredily cheap

mary jane is a fucking weed. there is no intrinsic value to it. its not like coffee, where you have to cultivate carefully in exactly tropical conditions


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Wrong (3.00 / 2) (#54)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST

I'd think the MMJ prices would be lower than street prices. Nope. And good marijuana is tough to cultivate. You pretty much have to grow it indoors to make sure your females don't get fertalized, which means you have to pay for light, floorspace, etc.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

spoken like a wine connoisseur (none / 0) (#58)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:48:16 PM EST

don't worry about it, there's a place for you in the future of legal mj. but just as there are wine connoisseurs now, most alcohol puchases are done by assholes looking to get drunk

you keep positing your connoisseurship as the dominant paradigm of the future here. you are wrong. meanwhile, i am not saying connoisseruship will disappear, i am merely saying it will fade to esoterica, and the vast majority of pot bought in a public legal environment will be cheap branded crap

just as it is now with caffeine, ethanol, and nicotine

please stop positign your connoiseurship as somehow instructive as to the future of popular use of recreational drugs

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude, I guess you don't smoke weed (none / 1) (#60)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:00:01 PM EST

I learned the difference between kind bud and schwag when I was in high school. The difference between what you think people will want and what I claim will sell is akin to the difference between Coors Light and Everclear.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

so you think (none / 0) (#69)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:47 PM EST

everyone wants to drink what wine snobs want to drink too?

you're perception of the reality of what people want and need is warped


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude, I guess you don't smoke weed (none / 1) (#61)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:03:30 PM EST

I learned the difference between kind bud and schwag when I was in high school. The difference between what you think people will want and what I claim will sell is akin to the difference between Coors Light and Everclear.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

FFS (none / 0) (#62)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:03:54 PM EST


- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Not exactly the same (none / 0) (#122)
by Sgt York on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:40:51 PM EST

Drink to get drunk, or drink to enjoy a nice glass of wine/beer/scotch. You can get the worst rotgut in the world and accomplish A quite easily; most easily, in fact. You have to work at it and spend some cash to get B.

It's not the same with pot. It's not just it tastes better, smells better, less harsh, etc; it actually affects the high. As a high school kid, I bought the rankest whiskey I could find to get drunk on. I could have spent more money and bought a bottle of 80proof Johnny Walker, but I went for the $5 bottle of Fighting Cock at 140 proof for quick, cheap drunk. Why spend more to get less of what I want? Similarly, I bought Keystone & Icehouse beer in college. It wasn't good, and it cost a bit more than some stuff; but it did have a higher alcohol content than Lone Star or the Beast. More bang for your buck.

Not so with weed. I could buy the crap dimebag and smoked the whole thing and get a little high one night with a few friends, or I could spend 2-3 times as much on some better stuff and thoroughly enjoy the weekend. It's bang-for-your-buck.

Yeah, it will go commercial and the high-end market will be niche, but the bang for your buck aspect will maintain some of the quality.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

spoken like a true connoisseur (none / 0) (#124)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM EST

which most people aren't

this small point seems to continuously escape you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

WOW I NEVER SAW THAT ONE COMING (none / 0) (#126)
by Sgt York on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:59:50 PM EST

blahblahblahctsdidntlistentowhatisaidandhesnotreadingitblahblahblah

It's not a quality issue, it's a bang for your buck issue. Even a wino/college student pays attention to how drunk he can get for ten bucks.

OK, here's your freebie: Classify them as another type of connoisseur. Enjoy.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

(slaps forehead) (none / 0) (#128)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM EST

compare the amount of nicotine in your average cigarette to your average cigar

compare the amount of alcohol in your average beer to your average cognac

compare the amount of caffeine in your average coca cola can to your average espresso

now look at cigarette consumption versus cigar consumption

now look at beer consumption versus cognac consumption

now look at coca cola consumption to espresso consumption

i am certain a caffeine connoisseur, an alcohol connoisseur, and a nicotine connoisseur would have all the range o finteresting stories and wide experience and fascist devotion to quality and potency you demand for tetrhydrocannibinol. they're passionate about it, you're passinate about it. you are all deeply offended by anyone (that's me) who proclaims the dominance of the weak and trashy in the marketplace. it insults your love

none of which changes reality: most people want weak cheap dependable stuff. that will come to dominate. end of story sorry it insults your passions

it is assumed that the branded version of marijuana that comes to dominate the marketplace will be low dose. people don't want to get blown away every time. they want a nice small buzz. in other words, as i've already said, they aren't connoisseurs

your groveling apology is assumed fucktard

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0) (#130)
by Sgt York on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST

you got half of it. I'm impressed. You actually understood half of my argument. Now I'm going to push my luck. I'm going to attempt to get you to understand the other half. Wish me luck.

Executive summary: You didn't factor in cost.

A cig costs, what $6/pack, 20 in a pack? (I have no idea, just a guess here). Average crap cigar costs what, $2-3? Is there really 10x more nicotine in a cigar?

A bottle of beer at a bar costs $4-5. A glass of cheap congnac costs what, $25? More? (again, a guess). Less bang for your buck; you're paying for taste.

An espresso has ~2x as much caffeine as a can of Coke. I can buy a Coke for a buck in the vending machine. Espresso costs $3.50. Less bang for your buck.

I await the fruits of your creativity.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

im confused (none / 0) (#132)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:02:22 PM EST

why do you think your point trumps my point?

im simply saying cheap branded but consistent crap will trump connoissership

i dont know how or why you think getting more bang for your buck by buying speciality items counteracts that point

what dominates the market?

that's all i'm getting at

you're on a tangent dude

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Funny you still haven't picked it up..... (none / 0) (#133)
by Sgt York on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:50:31 PM EST

Nice to see the usual cts tactics here, though. Refreshing, even.

And your three examples demonstrate my point as easily as they do your own. You say that cigarettes, coke, and beer are more popular that cigars, espresso, and cognac because they are cheaper.

I say that cigarettes, coke, and beer are more popular because they give the consumer more bang for the buck. More economical; not simply cheaper.

What you don't understand is that people that smoke pot talk about "good stuff" as the stuff that gets you high. It doesn't necessarily taste better or anything, it just gets you higher faster & better.

And you're right this is a tangent. The whole conversation is a tangent from the start. You could even call all my points red herring. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you haven't picked up on what I'm doing yet, you never have picked up on anything I do until I just come right out and say it.

You know I don't really argue with you anymore.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

what are doing then, fellating me? (none / 0) (#135)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM EST

be direct and clear or stfu


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
No. (none / 0) (#137)
by Sgt York on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:02:17 PM EST

I shall do neither. I shall enjoy fucking with you for as long as I can. In fact, I am going to repeat this tactic every time I stumble across one of your comments that is vulnerable to it until you catch a clue.

Actually, I did try to be a little more direct in one of my posts, but you didn't see it, I guess.

And no, there is no other reason beyond my personal entertainment.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

ok (none / 0) (#139)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:05:42 PM EST

enjoy yourself

whatever


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 1) (#52)
by Altus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:43:48 PM EST


like I said, I don't think many people would grow their own, but I still think you would be able to get good product from places other than brand name.

After all I can still get micro-brew beer, small batch whiskey and farm fresh vegetables.

If they masses want their 20 pack of Marleys who am I to stop them.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

it really makes one slooooooow ! (none / 1) (#9)
by mirko on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:27:06 AM EST

"but he got it back after a three-month bureaucratic hassle. He said it was kind of cool to go to the police station to get pot."

Was he that stoned prior to the bust?
--
Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
we had to huddle together - trane

Looks good, +1FP (3.00 / 2) (#17)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST

So questions about local politics, since you seem to have your head on straight about responsible consumption...
  1. Does California treat driving while intoxicated the same for pot and alcohol?
  2. You mention the police would get bent out of shape about your possession of marijuana - but then go on to say you can posses 8oz legally. Which is it?
  3. Are the gun laws enjoined to the pot laws in Cali? Does the state use one to leverage the other? Whether the 3G crowd wants to admit it or not, the arguments for firearms generally can be used as an argument for alcohol or drugs and visa versa. (The "responsible use" argument).

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

AFAIK (none / 1) (#20)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST

I'm new to the state and my understanding of the law is incomplete, but:

  1. Probably. Only thing is is that it's a bitch to prove. You can smell like weed for all sorts of reasons that aren't actually illegal, and a piss test taken right after you've smoke a joint will look the same as a piss test two days later when you're completely sober. I've heard Ohio gives you a DUI if you test positive for pot (which can be up to thirty days after the last toke), but am unsure how it works here. As long as you aren't smoking while driving, it's usually all good.

  2. Well, the law making pot legal interacts in strange ways with others that make it illegal. A cop can pull you over and confiscate your weed for no reason at all. But he can do so with your laptop or pretty much anything else. Eventually a court will make him give it back, but that might not be for a while. Since it's pot, it'll be harder to get back than a normal possession, but the law eventually prevails. I added a paragraph in Notable Events covering a dude that had his medicine illegally taken.

  3. I have no idea how drug laws and gun laws interact here. I just moved to the state six months ago and didn't bring a gun in the move, so I've had no reason to look into it. One of my former co-workers was an Orange County native that had done a tour in the Navy. He was a Limbaugh-quoting conservative, and he bitched about the California gun laws, but I'm they didn't seem to be as restrictive as I'd imagined they'd be.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

on #3, I'd say not really at all (none / 1) (#21)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM EST

I'd say that it's mostly split between pro-gun conservatives who are vehemently anti-pot and pro-pot liberals who are vehemently anti-gun. Not much in the way of libertarians.

You can judge this somewhat by looking at the pattern of local options on both issues. Although counties are officially all supposed to implement the medical marijuana initiative, the conservative parts of the state have been dragging their feet to the point where many of the central-valley counties still don't accept applications for medical-marijuana cards, whereas the liberal parts were out front implementing it as soon as it passed. In the other direction, California is largely a sheriff's-discretion state when it comes to gun laws (as opposed to a "shall issue" state), and the liberal parts of the state generally have sheriffs who decline to issue permits, whereas the conservative parts have ones who issue the permits as liberally as state law permits.

[ Parent ]

The Dutch have been up to some dirty tricks lately (2.33 / 3) (#32)
by User 71708 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST

  • Spraying it with glass beads to make the weight up.
  • Adding sand to make the weight up.
  • Leaving seeds in to make the weight up.
  • Allowing a lot more leaf and stem than is decent, to make the weight up.
  • Spray-painting it lightly to change the colour to a more acceptable hue, and to make the weight up.
  • Drying it out artificially to hasten the transaction.

I refer to not anything you will have experienced in tourist cafes. It is the opinion of some that the English weed is now preferable.
---
"Ogg Frog's not going to be like that. When it hits 1.0, it's going to be bullet-proof, rock solid and with a GUI even my mom and Aunt Peggy can use." - MichaelCrawford, June 2006

"Some folks have made the reasonable accusation that Ogg Frog is just vaporware. It's not by any means, but I don't want to release it until it's ready. Why? Because I feel that the Open Source mantra of "Release Early, Release Often" doesn't serve the needs of my end users - you!" - MichaelCrawford, August 2007

"Maybe My CPAP Is Finally Helping .. If this keeps up I'll be able to resume work on Ogg Frog soon." - MichaelCrawford, May 2008

"It's coming Real SoonTM .. However, electricity is intermittent here in Africa and Zoolib needs extending to accommodate the XO&NO CARRI" - MichaelCrawford, June 2009

That's lame (none / 0) (#33)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM EST

I never noticed any of that over there in 2005, but that may have since changed. Here in California, you seem to get what you pay for: the only shitty eighth I've had was a $40 special.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

bullshit sounds like bullshit (none / 1) (#34)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST

there is none of this in Dutch cafes.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
moron reads like moron (2.00 / 3) (#37)
by User 71708 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST

re-read and then STFU.
---
"Ogg Frog's not going to be like that. When it hits 1.0, it's going to be bullet-proof, rock solid and with a GUI even my mom and Aunt Peggy can use." - MichaelCrawford, June 2006

"Some folks have made the reasonable accusation that Ogg Frog is just vaporware. It's not by any means, but I don't want to release it until it's ready. Why? Because I feel that the Open Source mantra of "Release Early, Release Often" doesn't serve the needs of my end users - you!" - MichaelCrawford, August 2007

"Maybe My CPAP Is Finally Helping .. If this keeps up I'll be able to resume work on Ogg Frog soon." - MichaelCrawford, May 2008

"It's coming Real SoonTM .. However, electricity is intermittent here in Africa and Zoolib needs extending to accommodate the XO&NO CARRI" - MichaelCrawford, June 2009

[ Parent ]
That's strange (none / 0) (#80)
by ksandstr on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:04:24 PM EST

I heard these are things that English people would do with weed grown by illegal Vietnamese immigrants and the like. Chav weed, just one step above soapbar.

Also, leaving in seeds is the rule with non-sinsemilla. Let the customer pick them out. Besides, seeded weed is trivially recognizable with an eye and a tiny LED flashlight.

The last one doesn't even make any sense: drying removes weight. The more credible drying-related scam would be not drying completely, or moistening. For-cash pot growers do it like an assembly line anyhow, and thus always have one sub-harvest's worth of weed drying, curing and whatever other stages there are.

Fin.
[ Parent ]

drying (none / 0) (#81)
by Altus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM EST


your right about not quite dry weed being sold by irreputable folks but you will also find quick dried weed depending on the time of the year.

Generally speaking, at least around here, there is a drought before harvest time.  The indoor growers cant keep up with demand and you are waiting on the big batches of out door to come in.  The first person to get a load of that out the door has the market to themselves so quick drying (and not properly curing after) is an easy way to get to market sooner with a lower quality product, but since you are the only game in town thats not a problem.

Often this week is not completely dry since it was rushed so it actually 2 bad practices in one.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

I have not asserted that they're (none / 0) (#83)
by User 71708 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:33:31 PM EST

drying to add weight, or modify the weight in any way. Christ, something about that post of mine has people tripping up over themselves to misinterpret it. I merely pointed to their artificial drying of it to hasten shipment, sacrificing taste and quality in the process.
---
"Ogg Frog's not going to be like that. When it hits 1.0, it's going to be bullet-proof, rock solid and with a GUI even my mom and Aunt Peggy can use." - MichaelCrawford, June 2006

"Some folks have made the reasonable accusation that Ogg Frog is just vaporware. It's not by any means, but I don't want to release it until it's ready. Why? Because I feel that the Open Source mantra of "Release Early, Release Often" doesn't serve the needs of my end users - you!" - MichaelCrawford, August 2007

"Maybe My CPAP Is Finally Helping .. If this keeps up I'll be able to resume work on Ogg Frog soon." - MichaelCrawford, May 2008

"It's coming Real SoonTM .. However, electricity is intermittent here in Africa and Zoolib needs extending to accommodate the XO&NO CARRI" - MichaelCrawford, June 2009

[ Parent ]
You're right. My mistake. /nt (none / 1) (#91)
by ksandstr on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST



Fin.
[ Parent ]
This is a great article (+1FP for me) although... (2.66 / 3) (#40)
by sausalito on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST

... I am rather uneasy at the prospect of a stoner nuclear engineer running a power plant while daydreaming of smoking buds.

"Scram button... damn mary jane, where the hell is that damn scram button..."
_____________

GBH - "The whole point is that the App Store acts as a firewall between busy soccer moms and goatse links"

Hush you (none / 1) (#42)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:29:00 PM EST

No, I've given up on nuclear forever. It's safe for the public, but it is really fucked up and I want to work in another industry. I'm really clumsy, and there are about a million ways to die a sudden, unexpected, painful death in a nuclear power plant.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

THC Honey? (3.00 / 2) (#57)
by xC0000005 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:38:02 PM EST

There's been great debate as to whether or not the nectar of cannibis would produce a honey that gets you high. I take this is honey that is blessed (as in the cooking term, not the religious) one or infused, not condensed?

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
I don't think it's honey from weed pollen (none / 0) (#59)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:57:33 PM EST

I think it's honey with THC-containing liquid dissolved inside.

Then, there's honey oil, which is oil made by separating the THC from the plant using a nonpolar solvent. You smoke it with a crack pipe. My friends and I were afraid of the pipe blowing up in our faces, so we made an adapter whereby a hose connected the crack pipe to a bong. We christened it "the crong" and it worked out pretty well.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 1) (#64)
by xC0000005 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:02:37 PM EST

Note: Honey is not made from pollen. Pollen serves as a protein source for bees, while the nectar is the carbohydrate source condensed to form honey.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
True (none / 1) (#65)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:09:32 PM EST

I knew that, it was just a gross simplification

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Also, marajuana doesn't really flower, does it? (none / 0) (#66)
by Hiphopopotamus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:48:12 PM EST

That would not attract bees. It seems to be a seed distributer much like grass. Probably mostly selfing with limited sexual reproduction with wind assistance, from the look of it.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

Sure it does (none / 0) (#68)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:12:51 PM EST

When growing, it is necessary to kill any males as soon as possible to prevent fertilization, which destroys quality. The best buds are the flowers of the unfertilized females.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

It does flower (none / 0) (#78)
by ksandstr on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST

But as the species relies on wind to carry pollen from male flowers, the bits that catch pollen aren't surrounded by a flower to attract bees and the like. So no nectar either, since no bees. Therefore no honey in the conventional sense, just things that sort of look like honey in some format.

Fin.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's what I meant. (none / 0) (#79)
by Hiphopopotamus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:03:55 PM EST

Wind pollination. Right.

I've never seen a  pot plant, so what do I know?
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
[ Parent ]

Fantastic article (2.00 / 2) (#63)
by mybostinks on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:35:27 PM EST

It should move to the front page quickly.

+1 FP.

assimilation (none / 1) (#67)
by kromagg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM EST

It's especially interesting seeing how quickly this has turned into a full grown industry. Or rather, most of the industry was probably already there, it's just gotten a legal front.

On an editorial note, some of the more specific vocabulary around the part of "Getting Stoned" was completely incomprehensible to me. Nugs? Crystals? Huh? But otherwise a very good read.

It just seems like a storefront (none / 0) (#74)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:51:16 AM EST

for the traditional black market apparatus.

And, a partial glossary:

Kind Bud: high quality flowers of an unfertilized female marijuana plant.

Eighth: 3.5 grams, or 1/8 ounce. A standard denomination of marijuana in the US. It keeps a stoner stoned for two to three days of heavy smoking.

Nugs: Small chunks of kind bud. An eighth will consist of maybe three of these, each roughly spherical and the diameter of a quarter.

Crystals: Good bud will have crystals all over it. These contain most of the THC in good bud. Generally, the more crystals, the better the bud.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

+1FP with comment (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by the77x42 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:51:29 PM EST

I'm amazed at how much you are paying for weed down there. A quarter for $95 is an absolute joke. These dealers are making a killing. The bud that we export from BC (in Canada) sells for $2000 a pound, $3000 a pound for awesome stuff. A quarter here will run you roughly $50, maybe $60 for killer shit.

I don't suggest you simply move here, however. What you need to do is find a hobby grower down there. I've befriended a couple here through friends and work. Each time they crop out I'm given at least an ounce from each source.

Since you are spending over $100 a week on pot now, this should probably be something to consider. Or can you write off your pot as a medical expense?


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

I don't know if you can expense it (none / 0) (#73)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:46:59 AM EST

and that $95 was at 25% off.

But I paid 55-60 an eighth through college, so the price doesn't seem unreasonable. It could be cheaper, yes, but it's pretty much my only significant expense. I tend to be a bit paranoid, and even though I could probably find it cheaper here illegally, I'd prefer the peace of mind. Plus, it's been my experience that sending stuff through the mail can lead to horrible consequences.

And I'm going to move to Vancouver this weekend, anyway, so we'll see how the bud is. I'd always heard that BC bud was more of a mass-produced thing, while California weeds were "microgrown".

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Let me know if you need any :P (none / 0) (#95)
by the77x42 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:33:07 PM EST




"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]
He could always (none / 0) (#77)
by Altus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST


Grow his own... somewhat leagally with little fear of being busted.  That's the way to go if you want to keep your costs down.


"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]
I move around too much (none / 0) (#99)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST

If I ever settle down here, I will perfect the homegrow, though.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

No kidding (none / 0) (#82)
by rusty on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM EST

I remember, uh... friends telling me... that an eighth in New England used to go for about $25-$35, in the middle 90's. Could it possibly be that much more expensive now? And if so, why?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
For crap maybe (none / 0) (#87)
by Altus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:00:29 PM EST


I used to smoke stuff like that.  Then I discovered that I could spend 50% more and get stuff that was really really good.  I would smoke a lot less of it and it pretty much worked out in my favor.  Not only was it around the same bang for the buck, the high was a lot more pleasant.

buying that cheep stuff from the mob isnt worth it.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Could be (none / 0) (#89)
by rusty on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST

It probably was crap.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
to be fair (none / 0) (#90)
by Altus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST


What I call crap (which really isnt fair) most people would be more than happy to smoke.  You can get much cheaper and lower quality stuff out there.  the $40 an eight stuff usually didnt have many seeds and it smoked fairly well.

Hell, I'd love to have a connection for that kind of stuff now, just for making brownies.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

This may be different bud (none / 0) (#100)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 08:50:35 PM EST

It has gotten more expensive, but it has gotten progressively more potent, as well. Altus mentioned seeds, and I haven't seen seeds in my pot in nearly a year.

Seeds are the hallmark of bad weed. It means someone fucked up and a female was exposed to pollen. Once a female is fertilized, she wastes all the energy that should be going to making THC to making seeds.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

its called supply and demand (none / 0) (#113)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST

where increased law enforcemnet activity makes supply scarcer, raising price

simple economics


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

actually i think it's gouging (none / 0) (#149)
by the77x42 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 11:23:24 PM EST

Because, you know, since the whole article was about how the supply is legal in these places.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]
you can talk price gouging, sure (none / 0) (#150)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM EST

pot is just a weed, it shouldn't expensive


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I come back to K5 after a long absence (none / 1) (#75)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 08:30:43 AM EST

And WTF, a stream of intelligent, well-written articles posted within days of each other on the front page? Maybe I should leave in case I jinx it...

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

RETURN OF THE DRUG STORIES (3.00 / 4) (#76)
by rpresser on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 09:46:00 AM EST

Well, I guess it's better than no stories. And it's damn sure better than my stories.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
RETURN OF VAPID CTS TROLLING THREADS (3.00 / 2) (#88)
by loteck on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:10:47 PM EST

and all the idiots who fall for them
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
Why doesn't he get MC-like shit? (3.00 / 2) (#98)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 08:47:11 PM EST

He's been working on that fucking movie since 2001.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

i need to do the audio in ogg frog (none / 0) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST

its all mcs fault its delayed


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
YOU'RE SUCH A FUCKING TWATSTAIN (none / 0) (#112)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST

DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERSPECTIVE MEANS? INTENT? CONTEXT?

YOU STUPID FUCKING ASSWIPE


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

This is why you don't get nice things (3.00 / 2) (#96)
by Liar on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM EST

This wink-wink-nudge-nudge approach is just begging for a backlash and as a result even those who need it will suffer. Regulations are 20,000 pages long even though they starts out at an innocent 20 pages but then people find loopholes. So, those loopholes get closed and 100 more pages are added. More loopholes are found and so on.

In the end, the medical approach will need to be as regulated as anything else that is sold and consumed for medical purposes, with regulatory requirements and FDA inspections. All it will take is people who are unhappy with what they've been supplied to sue producers for damages. Or someone who gets into an auto accidents sues their supplier because there wasn't a notice that recommended against driving...

Since this has been won through the legislative process for a good purpose (helping to ease the pain of sufferers), don't be surprised to find reactive legislation, such as requiring a declaration that you're taking medical marijuana when applying for insurance with dire consequences if you're ever pulled over stoned and you don't have that declaration on your insurance.

The better alternative would have been to decriminalize it. But since the stoners have gone and made this ridiculous dog-and-pony-show of a law trying to get any small victory that they could, they're just going to make the law more complicated and worse.

So, if it's your thing, enjoy it while you can.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
I disagree and agree (none / 0) (#97)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 08:46:05 PM EST

The original measure was passed by referendum 11 years ago, and it has mostly withstood challenges. Maybe it was strictly for dying people originally but has since become its less formal modern self.

And, yes, there is a lot of wink-wink-nudge-nudge, but what is the downside here? People are getting high, but they get high in other states too. I do agree that decriminalization would be the better alternative, but I'll take what I can get. In this case, at least, the state isn't wasting the retarded amount of taxes it takes from me prosecuting the subset of the population that has its shit together enough to pay $150 for the prescription.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

OK then (none / 1) (#102)
by Liar on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 09:08:58 PM EST

When you engage in wink-wink-nudge-nudge, this validates the tactic. That's also called breaking the spirit of the law while remaining within the letter. You see the only effect as "getting high", but I see it as "well, no one takes law seriously anyway, so we can suspend Habeas Corpus using this argument that the Founding Fathers never considered, so we can send people we don't like to Gitmo."

You can't really take the high road when that kind of thing happens since you're walking that same path. I think better of people who conscientiously engage in civil disobedience to this type of activity.

But that's just my opinion. My life isn't changed by the ballot proposition but I voted against it for this very reason--it's a good policy but bad law.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
Bullshit (none / 0) (#103)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 09:27:12 PM EST

Yeah, people with non-terminal illnesses are getting high in California and that lead directly to the suspension of habeus corpus and Gitmo. It could never the fault of a complacent and easily-cowed public or of the leadership in both parties, which have been trying for this for decades, anyway. Nah, it was the stoners.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

that's rich (none / 1) (#106)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:31:19 AM EST

I'm not saying it's only the stoners that are doing this. I'm saying that if you accept the policy of "following the letter but not the spirit" you can't be angry at others for doing the same. You're obviously tolerant of this excuse.

I'd rather people be active and engaged in the political system, but passing a law in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the citizenry is just bad whether it's a particular community, CEOs or politicians doing it. It's corruption, plain and simple.

What you're getting out of this is the right not to be sent to jail, but in doing so, you're selling out democratic principles. Excuse me for not embracing unprincipled corruption for such a petty cause.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
Democracy is flawed, massively (3.00 / 2) (#107)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:56:07 AM EST

I long ago gave up on trying to work within the system. I'm not rich. I don't have family connections. I will never be able to affect any change that I think is right. It's the state vs. me, at least until I can leave. In the meantime, I just want to live my life, be productive, and not be tortured, imprisoned, spied upon, or murdered.

And why should I follow the spirit of the law if the spirit of the law is wrong? Weed is illegal because white people in El Paso in the early 1900s hated Mexicans. The "spirit" of the law is that smoking pot is immoral since it will make me a lazy rapist. My own experience leads me to believe that every state-cited reason for prohibition is based on a pile of lies. Why should I accept that?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Democracy is not about getting your way (none / 0) (#116)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:35:45 PM EST

Bad law is bad law is bad law.

Democracy isn't broken. You are. Pot smokers succeeded in creating a law with the intention of breaking it. That's not a flaw with democracy but the groups which pushed for such a law. See, the fix for this law is to... you know... fix the law... by referendum. As the old adage goes, the cure for democracy is more democracy. And eventually, this silly law will get fixed but that's because its obviously broken as implemented. And loopholes do eventually get fixed, like the Tax Reform act of 1984.

I condemn all people who exploit loopholes, but worse still are those who create them. So I condemn you just as I condemn creditors for giving out credit cards while strengthening laws to prevent bankruptcy. You surely can't think creditors are the bad guys anymore--they're only engaging in democracy in the same way as you are. That is, corruptly.

You've ceded the high ground. Why do you want to encourage it and justify this behavior in others with whom you'd be in opposition and who may have more resources to exploit the law? You won't end up with the better end of that bargain.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
Democracy is already broken (none / 0) (#125)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:55:13 PM EST

Alcohol prohition required a consitional ammendment. The WoDs is just a way to get around the constitution, using the commerce clause as a loophole, to take away your rights. Corruption, as you put it, from the top.

So, what would you propose you do to get your rights back? Choose the lesser of murdoch's two evils and place your trust in diebold? Maybe go protest in a free speech zone?

Being 'corrupt' to get your weed isn't an ideal situation, but being a 'criminal' and dealing with 'criminals' to get it is even worse. So if that is what is required to exercise your rights, exercise them... It is a form of civil disobedience, he's just got a license for it (which means nothing federally, right?)

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you want democracy to be broken (none / 1) (#131)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST

Democracy ain't broke. The fact that so many people are aware of and pointing out the deficiencies in the system is a dramatic improvement over just a couple of generations ago. I'm confident that time will fix it.

For example, states have been de-certifying Diebolds. People complain and changes happen. But since people only see the mistakes and not the progress, they call the system flawed and propose a replacement (outright corruption) which is even worse.

In the last 40 years--even with irregularities--the corruption that existed has been of a reduced kind. We may worry over oil companies and bathroom stalls with wide stances, but they're nothing compared to how the railroads were. We may worry about Disney and patent law, but that's less morally bankrupt compared to Tammany Hall or the Fisk-Gould scandal. Generation after generation, the situation has improved because people were determined to excise corruption and make the system fair. The way I see it is that the public has a better chance of improving or fixing Diebold than it did in fixing Boss Daley's Chicago, including the hundreds of dead people that voted for Kennedy and swung the election for him.

Democracy hasn't broken; in fact, it's improving.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
The corruption is at the top, and nothing is done (none / 0) (#138)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:03:49 PM EST

Oh, the diebold machines we used to pull one on you are going to be decertified, hooray, democracy works.

If McCain gets elected there is no hope for even small steps towards ending the WoDs and therefore continuing the corruption of ignoring the constitution.

If Obama gets elected and doesn't change something its pure hypocracy -- [deleted because he's the lesser of two evils and you can only hope, however unlikely, right? Keep hoping. We defeated diebold, remember.]

If a third party hahaha

In the meantime, get a license or pay your fines and/or go to jail, or be well connected, rich or lucky. Don't think you being in jail works as civil disobedience like it used to either, by clogging up a beurecratic government system, as a prisoner you are now a resource of the for profit prison industry, a number in a database, an asset raising shareholder value.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the concept of democracy is fine (none / 0) (#140)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST

the implementation is flawed

and it will always be flawed, because it is composed of humans, and we are flawed

the question is, how many flaws are unacceptable? simply because you see some flaws does not mean the whole concept goes down in flames. criticizing from a position of expecting perfection is not a valid criticism

furthermore, for every criticism you can make in the flaws of democracy and its real world implementation, you can make more and worse criticisms for nondemocratic forms of government

so you go with democracy, with all of its imperfections, because every other form of government is worse

and you try to improve it, the best you can. but giving up on the idea of democracy is just retarded

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

cheer up, lil' camper (none / 0) (#141)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:38:08 PM EST

I'm not saying that everything is hunky-dory, but as a political process democracy has been tenaciously self-correcting. It takes only time.

Every election has had allegations of election fraud. Diebold is only the latest incarnation of that, but I don't know anyone who's actively supportive of them, they get nothing but bad press, and Diebold is even trying to spin off Premier Election Systems because they consider it a liability to their core business. It's taken an election cycle or two and may take a few more, but we'll get there.

But I think if you look at history, you'd rather be living under our current democracy even with its warts than at any time previous. If not, what better time/system would you suggest?

I'd also say that there's reason for optimism, no matter on which side of the aisle you sit. Both are trying to be the change candidate so that's going to be the criteria by which either will be re-elected. I think you'll get policy changes with Obama but electoral reform from McCain. Either way, that's progress.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
Fair points, really... (none / 0) (#143)
by procrasti on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 07:10:09 PM EST

Maybe things will get better and the constitution will start to become important again... Politicians might become accountable, give up their power and return people's rights, anything's possible.

In the meantime, you suggest people suffer the worst of todays justice system rather than bend the truth to get a peice of paper? At the same time admitting that democracy takes time, a slow march of which MMJ legislation is surely a part of.

You might be right about there not being a better time (say, except 8 years ago, or maybe before the WoD) in US history as far as democracy goes, but a better system would be a constitutional democratically elected republic, and if I was dreaming, some form of proportional representation.

Despite this, I too, hope for the best, and it will be interesting to see what the next eight years or so brings.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

The way I see it is this: (none / 0) (#144)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST

as soon as it was written, the constitution was ignored and betrayed its own principles and the principles of the Declaration of Independence that empowered it. Blacks, Indians, and women all were excluded immediately though they all suffered equally by the king and the white males who drafted the documents.

I think we take the constitution much more seriously than did our ancestors and we must do so in a highly sophisticated political climate, much greater in scale and complexity than they probably envisioned, ruling over more people, more land, and more diversity than they even wanted.

But you do bring a good point, and it's one that I'm not sure how to respond: "In the meantime, you suggest people suffer the worst of todays justice system rather than bend the truth to get a piece of paper?"

I want to say "Yes! Follow in the footsteps of Thoreau, Ghandi, and King." It's the tendency to keep things underground and hidden that is the problem. Shedding the light of day on the problem is what solves it--or else establishes that it won't be changed.

Both my parents were cigarette smokers and I hated it so much that I never smoked anything--marijuana or otherwise. That made it easy for me to be sold on its purported dangers. But then I had three or four friends that I respected and found out later that they smoked pot. The first guy, I thought less of him. The second guy puzzled me. But the third guy made me think that if so many people are doing it and I otherwise respect them, what difference does it make to me whether they do it or not.

Bill Clinton didn't inhale. Bullshit. He inhaled but he also wanted to get elected. As a result, he became a poster child of how to get what you want without having to pay the price for political change. And as a result, the issue gets postponed and more are made to suffer.

That's how change actually happens. You stand up for it and keep working for it.

It's not that I can't sympathize, but while people will lose their freedoms, that's the cost of being in governed society. In a democracy, we get some rights and we give some rights. If you're against a law and you're in the minority and can't get it overturned, you do the time when you break it. That old sentiment of, "Can't do the time, don't do the crime." Someone who doesn't have the courage of their convictions doesn't gain sympathy if they get caught and tries to weasel out.

And if the majority never agrees to decriminalize then that's the society that you're in. You think it's not dangerous, they disagree, and you both failed to convince each other. And so the two sides vote. But if you let anything but the majority carry the motion, though, you begin the road to aristocracy and tyrrany, unless you have a better idea.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
Firstly, I don't want to do away with democracy (none / 0) (#151)
by procrasti on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:24:29 PM EST

I was saying that what you have doesn't deliver democracy (or rather, doesn't deliver it well) and furthermore, there is a great chance that if not kept in check it will devolve further, because democracy is fragile, easily usurped and requires constant vigilance to maintain. It's worth the effort because of the rewards, freedom from state and individual forceful coercion.

You've been tricked into thinking democracy is the whim of the mob. Just mob rule, tyranny of the many. It has the obvious flaw that it does not protect minorities (of which we all in some ways must be).

So, there is a better form of democracy, one based on a strong foundation of natural rights and strict limitations to what the most powerful government forces can do. One in which representatives are democratically chosen, but who are not above the law and must obey the rule of law and therefore the constition - otherwise it's no longer a constitional democracy...

The way you thought about pot smokers until after you had met several and you thought one was decent, is exactly how you have been tricked into giving up rights. The fact that a personal habit or taste of someone bothers you doesn't give you the right (just ability) to stop them, even if the majority think so. Tommorrow it might be you and even if its not your habit outlawed, its still another excuse to take your taxes, oppress people and gain your support for the exesses of law enforcement and government.

My parents* were alcoholics, so I always thought it was disgusting. There's an alcoholic next door, I hear he beats his wife and all the homeless are drunks. Therefore alcohol is evil and should be outlawed. (* for example)

No, justice should be reserved for the guy who beat his wife, the parents who neglect their children and the guy who robs to support his drinking habit, but that's not a legitamite reason to disallow me my glass of whiskey.

What a person does, with themselves and/or consenting adults, in so much as it does not interfere with the rights of others, is inseperable from a person and therefore they have that natural right.

But if we want to break that at a federal level, you have to change the constition, which is exactly what they did to outlaw whiskey -- it was a very stupid idea in hindsight, but constitional ammendments are pretty hard, everyone was convinced enough to try it, so this was actual democracy in action... A few years later another ammendment reversed it.

So, you say the majority has to agree to decriminalise, but without changing the constitution, which requires a referendum, they never had the right to criminilise it in the first place! You've been tricked again.

Rather you should be demanding to have a referendum for a constitional amendment to outlaw drugs. If you cared about corruption, it would be you doing the civil disobedience rather than it being forced upon us (toke toke).

Also, focusing your distaste of the weak who have to suffer corruption in order to survive (to be themselves without fear of oppresion, to behave naturally and to persue hapiness where they percieve it to be) rather than at the powerful who create the corrupt environment seems a little misplaced to me.

BTW: Clinton was douche for saying he didn't inhale, but then again, I hear he didn't have sex with that woman either. What made him a corrupt hypocrit was not changing the laws that he avoided getting caught for, there's too much power to lose doing that.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, I cannot agree (none / 0) (#152)
by Liar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:07:32 PM EST

I think your approach is a bit impractical in that there's no way to implement it. I can see why you think Democracy is broken: it's not living up to a particular ideal you have, but I don't think you can construct your ideal. Demanding the impossible doesn't seem an option to me. That's like saying that the universe is broken because I am mortal.

For example, you say democracy must be "one based on a strong foundation of natural rights" and that sounds great. I'd sign up for that. So, we should vote for the Natural Law Party, right? Well, no, they obviously have a very different conception of natural law which includes Christianity. So, we're back to square one trying to agree what specific natural laws we should respect. And how do we do that? Same way we created the unnatural laws: we voted on it. It's turtles all the way down.

So, when you make a statement like this: "What a person does, with themselves and/or consenting adults, in so much as it does not interfere with the rights of others, is inseperable from a person and therefore they have that natural right," it's not really adequately supported. But more than that not everyone agrees with this sentiment and we have many laws which go against it. Helmet laws. Seatbelt laws. Laws prohibiting suicide. Laws requiring wills to have two witnesses (who is harmed if there's only one or no witnesses?). Term limit laws (think about it, it's not a prohibition on a guy from running, but a prohibition against the voter from even writing in the name). So, the consenting adults argument sounds pithy but it ignores the nature of law.

There are some who can also make a good case that very little stays truly private in the way you describe. In addition to the consenting adults, there is a large penumbra of people affected by even the most private of actions even if it's of the variety of "activity X is inferior to activity Y and because we value Y, we discourage X through fines, jail or taxes." How else can we tax some goods more than others: taxes on yachts are much higher than smaller boats and cars, even if no one is impacted at all by my yacht ownership. There's often "sin" taxes, luxury tax, airline taxes, hotel taxes, sales taxes and they're often at dramatically different rates. How about capital gains? Who is harmed by my investment doing well and why must I be punished for succeeding in investing more than if I succeeded by employment? You could argue that it's not a punishment, but then I could argue that jail for potsmokers isn't a punishment either--it's an opportunity for reflection. The reality is that the law can be arbitrary in how it is applied, and natural law itself (whatever that is) is subject to agreement through democratic processes.

Also, your argument about the 18th amendment is a red herring: a constitutional amendment wasn't required in order to prohibit alcohol. There were many laws like Maine's law which banned alcohol and none of them were declared unconstitutional. The temperance movements pushed for a constitutional amendment because it would be more difficult to repeal.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
And I don't care (none / 0) (#148)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 09:28:29 PM EST

The majority of humanity is inferior to me. Their laws are small-minded and paternalistic. I have no respect for them whatsoever. I also don't believe I owe my country a drop of my sweat or blood. Why should I care if I'm using a loophole to do what I want?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

My state doesnt have Medical marijuana (none / 0) (#121)
by Altus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:54:20 PM EST

yet I smoke it.  In complete violation of state and federal law.  Does this mean I cant get angry at someone who rapes and murders local women?

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

civil disobedience is a different thing (none / 0) (#123)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM EST

The question is whether you are willing to accept the punishment for being caught. If no, then there's a sense in which you and the rapist have a similar mindset (though different in actual harms). But, if you're like the motorist who speeds and gets ticketed and pays his fine, that's ok. Granted, the law provides for punishments out of proportion with the crime, but an unjust law doesn't excuse unjust behavior and it also doesn't help to get the law overturned.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
wrong (none / 1) (#110)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 10:19:50 AM EST

you don't make snap changes on an issue like this, you increase acceptance gradually. all of your observations are overshadowed by the fact that growing acceptance and visibility and tolerance will render any attempt at further restrictions more and more odious to the public at large

so you get quasi-pseudo-legalization anyway you can. you sneak in a little acceptance, you find another angle, you sneak in a little more, and you gradually open the floodgates

what you call a dog-and-pony show is actualyl the best and fastest route to legalization

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Spoken like a congressman (none / 0) (#115)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:11:56 PM EST

Sure, the public won't go for sudden and overt power grabs, but if we do it gradually over time, they won't notice the erosion of their rights...

Yes, let's treat all of our opposition like frogs and boil them slowly, while we ourselves are being boiled. You of all people, populist that you are, should be offended by such tactics.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
you're delusional (none / 0) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:50:08 PM EST

how do you think any large societal shifts happen? it's always a matter of storming the bastille to you?

societal consensus=opinion A

->

societal consensus=opinion B

the "->" refers to gradual change, not an explosion

but please, call me a neocon for stating the fucking obvious


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You don't know jack about California (none / 0) (#118)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:19:11 PM EST

Because California has a public which actively and agressively uses ballot propositions, California is primed for dramatic changes. We've frequently had massive upheavals in policy and society whether it's instituting the referendum, recall, and ballots in the first place (the change took 2 years) or Prop 13 (which dramatically changed the California tax code). It happens all the time in the Golden State. To say that being corrupt is the only way to change law is ignorant at best, evil at worst.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
where "massive upheaval" (none / 0) (#119)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:30:37 PM EST

means exactly what i am talking about

zzz


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

how is legalizing marijuana a massive upheaval? (none / 0) (#127)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST

Especially coming from the state which gave you Cheech and Chong.

The fact is that a majority are opposed to casual marijuana use, but that majority is shrinking. So do you:

A) Propose a law which ostensibly is about medical care but really is about duping and insulting the electorate.
B) Propose a law to overturn criminalization of marijuana that everyone can understand.

Look at it this way, suppose marijuana was legal. What would you think of an opposition group which had instituted a law which only made it illegal to smoke marijuana on Sundays out of respect for God and we give it to them because those silly buggers don't have much else going for them other than their Sundays. Then later they propose one that would ban it on Saturdays to respect the Jewish Sabbath--well, what's good for the christians is good for the christ killers. Then later on Fridays because that's a heavy commuting day and we want to reduce accidents. Then Thursday because it's Must-See-TV and we wouldn't want to compete with the laughs. Then Wednesday because it's Law & Order night. Then Tuesday because it angers the god Tyr. And then Monday because there's no reason for it to be different?

Fair or underhanded?


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
women got the right to vote (none / 0) (#129)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST

it was a massive upheavel over. it occured in small slow nudges. it consisted of decades of effort and a gradual shift in popular opinion, percolating up through the laws passed at the state and federal level

why am i arguing with you about the proper word usage to characterize the same damn process?

just shut up. you're arguing out of argumentativeness, we have no substantiative disagreement

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

psst, your ignorance is showing (none / 0) (#134)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST

Compare:

Case #1: Women lobbied to vote for lower offices. Eventually that's granted. Women lobbied to vote for middle offices. Eventually that's granted. Women lobbied to vote for higher offices. Eventually that's granted.

Case #2: Potsmokers lobby for a law ostensibly to permit marijuana smoking to sick people who need it but which is constructed to allow everyone to gain access.

You may not see it, but that's the whole shebang right there. That's the entire change disguised as gradualism.

Let's compare it a different way:

Case #1: Propose a thumbs up or down vote on a law to permit women to vote in school board elections.

Case #2: Thinking of the children, propose a law to make filesharing illegal because children may acquire porn and other inappropriate *cough*RIAA*cough* media through it.

Case #3: Thinking of sick people, propose a law to allow anyone with a flimsy medical review to get a prescription for [name your choice of intoxicant].

As an exercise, I leave you to figure out which two of these are closer in nature than the third.

How is it that encouraging bad lawmaking can be tolerated? Are you so desperate that the ends justify the means?


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
psst (none / 0) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM EST

even i don't have enough stamina to stay with you in this retarded thread

you're not making a point. you're arguing about shades of terminology. i'm perplexed at the source of your passion


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think its more likely (none / 0) (#120)
by Altus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST


That the medical use of marijuana will lead to its overall decriminalization rather than to an FDA regulated medical industry.


"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]
depends (none / 0) (#142)
by Liar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:25:15 PM EST

That's possible, but I'm thinking about what will happen at the federal level. I see it being approved for medical use there before being decriminalized altogether. When that happens, major distributors and drug companies can get in on the game and presumably will try to force out the smaller players from competing with their own products.

If I were them, I'd force out the small guys through the regulatory route--it's reasonable, quick, and easy to get laws passed for regulating medicines and will create such a hassle for the small time guy that the war on drugs will change character--instead of jail time, he'll be charged for regulatory noncompliance and cultivation without a license. And, he'll go bankrupt paying the fines.

But at least he won't be in jail.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
Medicinized pot already exists (none / 0) (#154)
by ksandstr on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:56:03 PM EST

It even has a brand name: "Bedrocan". It's got a red triangle symbol and everything. The pillbottle contains carefully measured, produced, controlled and packed Dutch pain-relief bud.

All your FDA needs to do is approve that, or an equivalent US-sourced treatment.

Fin.
[ Parent ]

You know what would really help your asthma? (none / 0) (#153)
by PrezKennedy on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST

Not smoking. Dumbass.
---
PrezKennedy.org - Bored stuff...
California Medical Marijuana: My Doctor Says I Need Weed to Get High | 154 comments (135 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!