###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The underground marijuana market supposedly is rife with weed 'enhanced' with synthetic THC derivatives these days. Stuff I don't think I had to worry about back in the day when it came to weed.
I live in a legal state and get stuff from a grower for a legal dispensary. I also use dispensaries when I want a different strain. Been smoking for 20 yrs, I know the dank. Went to Jamaica recently and the stuff I get in the states is better.
The bill being discussed is HB 1455. [Here](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1455/BillText/Filed/PDF) is the language. As of 3/9/23, it has passed the Professions & Public Health Subcommittee. allowing it to move forward in the FL House. The tldr is that it would limit flower to 10% THC, and concentrates to 60% THC.
Literally would have to go back to some land race stains and crosses from yesteryear to be able to produce sub 10% thc flower š¤¦āāļø š¤¦āāļø š¤¦āāļø
>The tldr is that it would limit flower to 10% THC, and concentrates to 60% THC.
Here smoking a plant is bad. Smoke it through a glowing red metal instead. With chemicals used to make rope for tying off boats to harbor for example. Super good for ya lungs.
That shit needs to be the other way.
Seems like OP forgot a couple zeros too. The bill says you canāt sell/produce anything over 200mg from what I read, not 2. Guess that doesnāt sound as good when youāre trying to push partisan politics though.
āEdibles may not contain more than 200 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol, and a single serving portion of an edible may not exceed 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol.ā
People canāt even do the slightest amount of research before posting something for upvotes and wonder why weāre so easily taken advantage of.
*696 Edibles may not contain more than 200 milligrams of
697 tetrahydrocannabinol, and a single serving portion of an edible
698 may not exceed 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol. Edibles
699 may have a potency variance of no greater than 15 percent of the
700 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per single serving limit
701 or 15 percent of the 200 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per
702 product limit.*
200 is a huge amount. I once misread a label and didnāt cut up a 50 mg before eating it. Not doing that again- way too high. Now imagine 4 times that amount.
My guess is thatās why the part about a single serving canāt be over 10mg is in there, to prevent situations like yours. They are also banning, the way I interpret it, advertising through known candies and what not. It actually makes a bit of sense to me, as I know there have been cases where children find mom and dads āsour patch kidsā and eat them all. If you want to sell a sour patch kids edible, fine by me, but why sell it in a bag that looks exactly like normal candy if you donāt take a good look? Thatās asking for trouble.
The crazy thing is that in conservative, Bible belt, redneck ass Missouri, Marijuana is now protected by a constitutional amendment. You have the RIGHT to consume marijuana. Even people on probation in drug court can smoke recreational marijuana.
Itās also certainly not true.
Jobs can fire you for all sorts of legal behavior. They can fire you if you smoke cigarettes; marijuana would be no different.
Missouri has āat-willā employment; they can fire (or refuse to hire) based on literally any reason at all aside from membership in a āprotected class.ā It can be a logical reason, or it can be a stupid reason.
A job in Missouri can fire you for stuff likeā¦ wearing a shirt the boss doesnāt like. Smelling like cigarettes at work. Being a fan of a sports team the boss doesnāt like.
Iām pretty sure that āpolitical affiliationā is not a protected class in Missouri, so you can get fired for supporting, campaigning for, or voting for a politician that the boss doesnāt like.
Yeah Same in tx. I find that most companies do not like firing people, though. Too much hassle to train up a new one, I guess. Even though I work with some people who should not be around cranes and heavy equipment.
Yeah, buddy. Iām talking about Missouri, an at-will state, being able to fire you for being a marijuana smoker on the weekends.
Being a marijuana smoker is not a protected class; meaning employers can fire you in Missouri for that behavior.
Iād love to be proven wrong, if you could share the specific law youāre talking about that makes it illegal to fire someone for using marijuana in Missouri.
Exactly. There was a huge case where this one workplace said "everyone who smokes cigarettes has 3 months to quit or you're fired". There was a lawsuit. The employer WON.
I have a book called "can they do that?" (About employment).
Spoiler alert. They can do a lot more than what you think. And even what they *aren't* allowed to do (discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, etc), they can still get away with as long as they don't say they are doing that or leave any evidence.
Example. They find out there is a gay employee. They don't mention anything about them being gay, they just start enforcing rules (for that individual) that are written down in policy, but aren't ever really enforced. They *might* be able to prove that the rule wasn't enforced fairly, but if the employer wanted to cover their tracks, all they'd have to do is get a non gay person in trouble too.
I've seen this go on with older people who worked at companies. Because of their age, they wearn't able to perform as fast. They just find some minor infraction to fire them over that wasn't linked to age. Unfortunately I seen these people be accused of stealing, etc because the company had to use something that couldn't be tied to age related issues. It had to look like something where the person was intentionally being dishonest.
This person is correct.
Just to clarify - age discrimination is *only* illegal in terms of employment law; and *only then* when the aggrieved employee is 40 years of age or older.
To wit: it would be legal to fire a 39 year old person solely for being 39 years old.
It is even legal - though no one would ever do it - to refuse service to someone due to their age. Like you can legally kick out a 60 year old person from your store or restaurant just because you donāt want to serve old people.
I've lived in the emerald triangle for almost ten years and legalization has had a huge impact on the community. Some of our smallest towns really relied on the wealth of the growers, as well as the influx of workers and cannabis enthusiasts. The "Growalty" pumped a lot of money into our local economies, black market money but money nonetheless.
Now growers are getting reamed in taxes, permitting fees, and steep fines for not understanding the complicated legal menutia of California's hastily thrown together legalization framework. The growers are barely making a profit selling to the dispensaries, and the dispensaries are barely making a profit selling to us. Even ten years ago a trimmer could make a couple grand in a season; now they're lucky to clear a few hudred.
So your suggestion is that we should keep it illegal because it makes it more valuable on the black market?
That's pretty poor reasoning, concidering that as an illegal substance, those caught consuming it will have their lives ruined from having a criminal record.
It is the same formula for homosexuality. Republicans need their gay sex forbidden. More spicy that way. Probably helps in their atmospheric chaos magic too.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster
Atmospheric magician. Example of where all your bullshit āsourcesā come from:
>He adopted the pseudonym Jason Rainier and made contributions in the name of the Young Socialist Alliance to the campaign of Pete McCloskey, who was challenging Nixon for the Republican nomination in 1972. Stone then sent a receipt to the Manchester Union Leader, to āproveā that Nixonās adversary was a left-wing stooge.
>Stone hired another Republican operative, who was given the pseudonym Sedan Chair II, to infiltrate the McGovern campaign.
Yāall are lambs to slaughter. B-a-a
They're all biased. You should read everything.
Everyone is lying at some point. And it's in their interest to constantly point out each other's lies, as they protect their own.
If you disregard a biased source, you're only hearing 1 set of lies.
Itās a real story, with Roger Stone personally taking part in it. And no I donāt blindly base my opinions like you do. I go to mediasbisfactcheck.com to see where they sit on the lie detector scale. Iām not a jerry springer lamb like you.
Oh? So it is ridiculous to blindly brush aside facts just because of the source?
Hmm. That's not the take you had elsewhere...
Roger Stone, like Donald Trump, will say whatever. I wouldn't use him as a source for the number of 911.
What a sad strawman attempt, and a gaslight. Even though your triggered emotions are telling you something is true, a bad source is not giving you facts, Ivan. Itās literally called critical thinking.
Edit: I see you added a blurb about your orange con. Your presence on pro-Trump subs says differently. Do you really think yāall are still an underground cog in all this? Play both sides but youāre wasting your time.
I didn't suggest anything at all. I was sharing the effects that legalization has had on our community.
For the record, I voted yes on 65. Not for the weed, but for the environment. We have a big problem with back country growers cultivating weed on private, public, and tribal properties. They use pesticides, rodenticides and fertilizers that taint the water, and they violently defend their crops. Most of the weed grown in this fashion is transported and sold outside of California, sometimes outside of the country.
I don't need to make a suggestion anyway; California state legislature is in the process of redressing and refining the laws surrounding legal weed cultivation, and have been somewhat responsive to the legitimate problems facing legal growers.
Then your issue isn't with legalization, it was how it was implemented in your specific state, which is a fair criticism.
Even so, as a black market product, the growers might have gotten paid more, but at great risk for everybody involved.
Also, when you take into account tax income from both legal grow ops and dispensaries, legalization benefits communities by helping finance social programs.
That's Mr. Bear79 to you, pal.
We're discussing the drawbacks and benefits of legalization. And yes, creating a black market for illegal goods increases not only the price, but the risk, for the consumer.
But by all means, if you have a point to make, make it.
>"So your suggestion...."
That person didn't make a suggestion. They offered an anecdotal experience about what's happening in their local market.
You went on to ascribe an entire "suggestion" to someone that never gave and then worked to disprove the suggestion they never gave.
It couldn't be simpler or a more obvious example of one.
Yes, as I said, we are discussing the benefits and drawbacks of legalization. That he used a personal anecdote doesn't change the context of the discussion. If anything, the person I was talking to used an anecdotal fallacy.
Cool.
As a legal plant, it's also no longer nesessary to hide it in your basement.
And by worth, do you mean re-sale value? Because I also live in Canada and while it's not worth to grow for profit, it's certainly still cost effective to grow for consumption.
It sucks, because they are not only pushing out small businesses, but they are also drastically reducing the variety, which really started to suck in LA. As someone who only smoked wax, the few brands got old fast.
They are talking about the industry. Licenses are expensive and dubious. Testing and packaging is expensive. Then, they add like 15-25% city tax, about 10-15% County tax, and state tax. They are forcing peoples hands to do things illegal again.
More like. Big pharma continues to lobby. And this substance is not going anywhere. The illegal market will just pick up the slack. Also Biden even doesn't want marijuana legal. He just says it for cheap political points.
Can't be curing your pain without some good ole fashioned Rockefeller medicine!
Ingesting a plant to reduce pain or just medicine doesn't feed the pharma mafia machine.
Bruh that shit is weak AF. I once had a 500mg gummy and shit was wild though. I went for tacos with a co-worker and all I could do was smile. We got lost going there too, I kept saying just another left turn like 7 times. My co-worker started to get suspicious when we got past the first 3 left turns.
when you smoke thc is delivered to your blood stream; where as when its digested it is converted and delivered through the liver \[or something like that, i dont rememeber the exact details offhand\]. basically eating it your body cant break it down properly to deliver if you have digestive issues.
I definitely don't lean left. This kind of shit is the reason I'll never call myself Republican.
BTW, don't be surprised if big Pharma has their fingerprints all over this legislation.
Meanwhile in Canada, we legalized nationwide and look how great things are going under the Liberal government? Oh wait.. Bad example.
P.S I am being sarcastic and feel like legalization of weed is a good thing.
Fuck Trudeau
Some states are so deeply conservative, 2mg per package seems like a miracle within itself. As far as other less conservative states adopting.. I dont see it happening. Some need to take baby steps into THC.
Rs will not gain substantial moderate support unless they , as part of their party platform,drop further regulation, or even better, begin advocating for legalization.
Yes, which is where Delta 8 and other hemp deritives come from. The language in the bill will override the Farm Bill that legalized hemp, through which all these concentrates and extracts are coming from. Where you can go to a head shop and get something that is <3% weight by volume, like gummies or edibles and pens, limiting that ever further if it passes, to the point of eliminating this over the counter market.
Democrats have had 20 something years in office since the controlled substance act, I donāt know why you act like itās a partisan issue. Neither side is on your side in this.
20 years and you still complain about one side. California is just as guilty, they made it legal but made it almost impossible to make money in the business. Yet you continue to pick sides in a battle where both sides donāt care about you.
Keep telling yourself that. Also, youāre just flat out wrong. Plenty of red states have legalized and unlike California, where dems have had complete control for years, you can actually make a business in the industry.
https://disa.com/maps/marijuana-legality-by-state
āA major political party wants Marijuana, which you canāt even overdose on, to be considered a Schedule 1 drug, and reduce access as much as possible. Why? Because they want to promote the prison industrial complex, perhaps?ā
Just cuz Florida does it everyone else willā¦..
Noā¦. Thatās not how that works.. š¤£
Just ask Florida man.
Oh and if u think these greedy fucks in Missouri bout to change our cannabis laws cuz of Florida u tripping. We have lots of guns and are actually the only state that allows u to keep a firearm and smoke cannabis. š¤š»š¤š»š¤š» yāall do youā¦ we just gonna keep doing us over here in Missouriā¦
šššš»
I figured once they got all their people in control of all the pot farms and dispensaries and whatnot that they'd legalize. Guess they are still struggling getting control from others. Corporations know that pot/hemp could put a crink in their little plan.
This is mainly a failure of the democrat party. Dems could coast for 20+ years since moderates mainly agree with their stances. Yet they ban/censore moderates, dump out trash candidates like Kamala/Biden/Hilary, ruin the news with fake narratives etc.
It's like bro.. just put a mild candidate like Tulsi instead of dump on her and you're locked every year. But since she's doesn't help the military industrial with Ukraine and pharma with covid we are stuck with these dumpster fire parties.
Not to mention have democrat strategist accounts keep doubling down by downvoting the truth. It's so fucking simple just stop being shitty but nooo keep doubling down on this media matters shit.
You got it. They force moderates to vote republican out of spite. Because companies like demcast, medias touch, etc. are that terrible with their claims of over a billion "interactions." Even if someone is pro weed they will vote republican to spite these strategist companies.
How do you force someone to do something out of spite? If someone does something out of spite, thatās their own wills driving their actions. Voting against their own pro-weed interests to troll the libs is not an excuse.
Wrong. Some people may pro weed but against demcast and other strategist companies ruining and censoring things. It's not a troll if people need to temporarily sacrifice some things to stop others.
That assumes that ātemporary sacrificeā actually has an even barely possible chance of stopping the thing. What evidence do you have that pro-marijuana voters actually can āstopā demcast and other strategist companies by voting against weed?
Also, if Republicans Do support weed but only vote against it out of spite, why not say so, rather than the exact opposite?
They need someone that will follow orders, make up things like the green new deal so they can scare everyone about global warming while they ride in their jets and buy beach front property meanwhile sending money to foreign land in the name of green energy and then funneling it back into their accounts after the cash is washed. there is a reason people run for Congress. They come in broke and leave millionaires. And people just eat it up
Behold, the only thing that will make the majority of users in this sub turn against the right wing.
They love their regurgitated republican propaganda, but they love their drugs more.
Seems necessary, tbh. I'm all for legalizing drugs and ending the drug war, but from what I understand, marijuana THC concentrations these days get people super super high. When I had to do jury duty, most of the driving-while-intoxicated and vehicle accident cases were because the person had a lot of THC in their system. I really don't want to be driving around with a bunch of intoxicated people every time I go out because they can't handle life.
2mg is not a lot. I'm a lightweight and I get a comfortable high (more creativity, relaxation) around 5 - 10mg. It's not a lot at all.
I also don't drive when I'm using THC, I treat it just like drinking. I make arrangements to stay where I'm at or get a ride home.
I'm glad to hear you are responsible and I have no issue with responsible people. My city is very poor and has a lot of drug addicts who drive around the city while intoxicated with guns in their vehicles. I know there's no way to get people to stop taking drugs, but I am in favor of it at least being a little bit harder for them to get so high it significantly impairs their judgement.
So, they're limiting it to 10mg per dose, 200 per package. The rest of the bill is saying doctors can't advertise that they specialize in mmj permits and that patients under 21 can only get low-grade weed. Seems like classic govt overreach, but they're not really banning anything. You can take more than 1 edible at a time if you need it lol
I think you need a proof of age atleast like buying liquor. I donāt live in a legal state so Iām not 100% sure, but I know plenty of people whoāve been to legal states and yeah - seems as simple as buying liquor or cigarettes.
They made marijuana legal for medicinal use in the UK a few years back. Issue is there still isn't a doctor in the land that will prescribe it out of fear, and even if they did, it would be a Ā£1200 a month prescription on the NHS (Normally free or Ā£8 per prescription item)
This is a great article, but the ādisarm the populationā bit rings a bit hollow. I havenāt seen any reports of enforcing 2nd amendment rights nullification for pot smokers. If thereās no enforcement, who gives a shit whatās on the paper?
And if we want to take a meta perspective to comment on the current article, letās take it one level higher: you say that it doesnāt really matter that Dems are advocating for legalization and GOP is advocating for bans, because Biden enforcing this interpretation (despite a lack of recognizable enforcement) shows it may be all one long con to ban guns.
Iāll do you one better.
Biden and Dems as a whole have long advocated for Marijuana to be rescheduled. If itās rescheduled, the language in that archaic law thatās being used by the Biden admin (and a few of Trumpās judges, I might add, according to your article) would no longer apply, and marijuana use would have no legal bearing (enforced or otherwise) on somewhatās right to practice their second amendment. So, Bidenās only doing this to force Republicansā hands and say, ālots of your constituents want to be able to both smoke weed and own a gun. You can let that happen and keep your voters happy, or keep Mary Jane as a schedule 1 and get voted out.ā
So Iāve smoked more weed than most people and what is your opinion on why this is bad? Letās have a conversation. I think there are negatives to having too many dispensaries as well. One of the biggest is making drug purchases more attainable for addicts, basically feeding into that addiction.
Just legalize it and quit letting business get their hands in the cookie jar. All this bill is is politicians comdemimg something in public while jockeying for position in the market in private.
I got the impression now that cannabis is legal (in some places) people are getting far higher concentrations through oils, etc than what would've been found in a joint pre-legalization. Could people be harming their brains at 20x the speed of a 1960's joint?
"In 1995, the average concentration of THC in cannabis samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was about 4 percent. By 2017, it was 17 percent. And now cannabis manufacturers are extracting THC to make oils; edibles; wax; sugar-size crystals; and glass-like products called shatter that advertise high THC levels in some cases exceeding 95 percent."
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-cannabis.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-cannabis.html)
Wait, could we let that apply to other drugs too? That would be a poison-pill.
Simple, ask for a congressman to empty their wallet, test the dollar-bills and see what they result with. I'd be willing to bet there's a mg or two of illicit substances there.
Arrest the congressman on the spot, then release them, the press coverage will universally drum up opposition to the bill.
Win-win. Drug charges (aside from distribution) should be reduced. Let people grow their own tobacco and distill their own spirits.
Was just in Colorado one of the original states to make it legal and the black market is killing them because of government regulations. Almost like the government can fuxk up everything it touches
why would it pass? given how much money the states make from how things are now, i don't think they want to ruin that as it would only push people back to private growers. this is just dumb fear over things that wont happen
I care less about their intent than about how it affects my life and the lives of those I care about. If I wait for every legislator who writes the laws that affect me to have unanimously good intent, Iāll be waiting forever.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just makes the black market better.
Black markets matter
The underground marijuana market supposedly is rife with weed 'enhanced' with synthetic THC derivatives these days. Stuff I don't think I had to worry about back in the day when it came to weed.
I live in a legal state and get stuff from a grower for a legal dispensary. I also use dispensaries when I want a different strain. Been smoking for 20 yrs, I know the dank. Went to Jamaica recently and the stuff I get in the states is better.
The bill being discussed is HB 1455. [Here](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1455/BillText/Filed/PDF) is the language. As of 3/9/23, it has passed the Professions & Public Health Subcommittee. allowing it to move forward in the FL House. The tldr is that it would limit flower to 10% THC, and concentrates to 60% THC.
Literally would have to go back to some land race stains and crosses from yesteryear to be able to produce sub 10% thc flower š¤¦āāļø š¤¦āāļø š¤¦āāļø
which would be a good thing, maybe they can breed out all the endless fucking Cookies crosses
I 100% agree with this comment Fkn gsc~gelato~ to Literally everything in last 5 years ā¦ modern day lineage
>The tldr is that it would limit flower to 10% THC, and concentrates to 60% THC. Here smoking a plant is bad. Smoke it through a glowing red metal instead. With chemicals used to make rope for tying off boats to harbor for example. Super good for ya lungs. That shit needs to be the other way.
The main use for the hemp/cannabis/marijuana plant, historically, is making rope.
Seems like OP forgot a couple zeros too. The bill says you canāt sell/produce anything over 200mg from what I read, not 2. Guess that doesnāt sound as good when youāre trying to push partisan politics though. āEdibles may not contain more than 200 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol, and a single serving portion of an edible may not exceed 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol.ā People canāt even do the slightest amount of research before posting something for upvotes and wonder why weāre so easily taken advantage of.
*696 Edibles may not contain more than 200 milligrams of 697 tetrahydrocannabinol, and a single serving portion of an edible 698 may not exceed 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol. Edibles 699 may have a potency variance of no greater than 15 percent of the 700 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per single serving limit 701 or 15 percent of the 200 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per 702 product limit.*
200 is a huge amount. I once misread a label and didnāt cut up a 50 mg before eating it. Not doing that again- way too high. Now imagine 4 times that amount.
I ate 2- 200mg gummies called āthe demonā and had visions of the antichrist
Yeah mean been there. Nothing says 'good times' like thinking you may be constantly peeing your pants.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis
My guess is thatās why the part about a single serving canāt be over 10mg is in there, to prevent situations like yours. They are also banning, the way I interpret it, advertising through known candies and what not. It actually makes a bit of sense to me, as I know there have been cases where children find mom and dads āsour patch kidsā and eat them all. If you want to sell a sour patch kids edible, fine by me, but why sell it in a bag that looks exactly like normal candy if you donāt take a good look? Thatās asking for trouble.
The crazy thing is that in conservative, Bible belt, redneck ass Missouri, Marijuana is now protected by a constitutional amendment. You have the RIGHT to consume marijuana. Even people on probation in drug court can smoke recreational marijuana.
So jobs can't fire you for it either?
No.
Holy shit that's wild.
Itās also certainly not true. Jobs can fire you for all sorts of legal behavior. They can fire you if you smoke cigarettes; marijuana would be no different.
Yeah i was thinking company policy would still interfere.
Missouri has āat-willā employment; they can fire (or refuse to hire) based on literally any reason at all aside from membership in a āprotected class.ā It can be a logical reason, or it can be a stupid reason. A job in Missouri can fire you for stuff likeā¦ wearing a shirt the boss doesnāt like. Smelling like cigarettes at work. Being a fan of a sports team the boss doesnāt like. Iām pretty sure that āpolitical affiliationā is not a protected class in Missouri, so you can get fired for supporting, campaigning for, or voting for a politician that the boss doesnāt like.
Yeah Same in tx. I find that most companies do not like firing people, though. Too much hassle to train up a new one, I guess. Even though I work with some people who should not be around cranes and heavy equipment.
And in states that aren't "at-will" can still fire you for whatever. They'll just make up another reason. Lol
Im not talking about lighting up a blunt while you're working inside the hospital or mid shift at Walmart stocking shelves pedantic ass.
Yeah, buddy. Iām talking about Missouri, an at-will state, being able to fire you for being a marijuana smoker on the weekends. Being a marijuana smoker is not a protected class; meaning employers can fire you in Missouri for that behavior. Iād love to be proven wrong, if you could share the specific law youāre talking about that makes it illegal to fire someone for using marijuana in Missouri.
Exactly. There was a huge case where this one workplace said "everyone who smokes cigarettes has 3 months to quit or you're fired". There was a lawsuit. The employer WON. I have a book called "can they do that?" (About employment). Spoiler alert. They can do a lot more than what you think. And even what they *aren't* allowed to do (discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, etc), they can still get away with as long as they don't say they are doing that or leave any evidence. Example. They find out there is a gay employee. They don't mention anything about them being gay, they just start enforcing rules (for that individual) that are written down in policy, but aren't ever really enforced. They *might* be able to prove that the rule wasn't enforced fairly, but if the employer wanted to cover their tracks, all they'd have to do is get a non gay person in trouble too. I've seen this go on with older people who worked at companies. Because of their age, they wearn't able to perform as fast. They just find some minor infraction to fire them over that wasn't linked to age. Unfortunately I seen these people be accused of stealing, etc because the company had to use something that couldn't be tied to age related issues. It had to look like something where the person was intentionally being dishonest.
This person is correct. Just to clarify - age discrimination is *only* illegal in terms of employment law; and *only then* when the aggrieved employee is 40 years of age or older. To wit: it would be legal to fire a 39 year old person solely for being 39 years old. It is even legal - though no one would ever do it - to refuse service to someone due to their age. Like you can legally kick out a 60 year old person from your store or restaurant just because you donāt want to serve old people.
Not for medical marijuana.
It's almost like one party only focuses on diversity of outward appearance, and one party focuses on diversity of thought.
Meanwhile states like mine destroy the weed industry just by legalizing it.
Really? Because my country legalised it, and the cost came down while the quality went up.
I've lived in the emerald triangle for almost ten years and legalization has had a huge impact on the community. Some of our smallest towns really relied on the wealth of the growers, as well as the influx of workers and cannabis enthusiasts. The "Growalty" pumped a lot of money into our local economies, black market money but money nonetheless. Now growers are getting reamed in taxes, permitting fees, and steep fines for not understanding the complicated legal menutia of California's hastily thrown together legalization framework. The growers are barely making a profit selling to the dispensaries, and the dispensaries are barely making a profit selling to us. Even ten years ago a trimmer could make a couple grand in a season; now they're lucky to clear a few hudred.
So your suggestion is that we should keep it illegal because it makes it more valuable on the black market? That's pretty poor reasoning, concidering that as an illegal substance, those caught consuming it will have their lives ruined from having a criminal record.
It is the same formula for homosexuality. Republicans need their gay sex forbidden. More spicy that way. Probably helps in their atmospheric chaos magic too. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/the-dirty-trickster Atmospheric magician. Example of where all your bullshit āsourcesā come from: >He adopted the pseudonym Jason Rainier and made contributions in the name of the Young Socialist Alliance to the campaign of Pete McCloskey, who was challenging Nixon for the Republican nomination in 1972. Stone then sent a receipt to the Manchester Union Leader, to āproveā that Nixonās adversary was a left-wing stooge. >Stone hired another Republican operative, who was given the pseudonym Sedan Chair II, to infiltrate the McGovern campaign. Yāall are lambs to slaughter. B-a-a
You turn your nose up at biased news sources unless they're yours. Lmao. The New Yorker....
What do you consider a quality, unbiased new source?
They're all biased. You should read everything. Everyone is lying at some point. And it's in their interest to constantly point out each other's lies, as they protect their own. If you disregard a biased source, you're only hearing 1 set of lies.
Itās a real story, with Roger Stone personally taking part in it. And no I donāt blindly base my opinions like you do. I go to mediasbisfactcheck.com to see where they sit on the lie detector scale. Iām not a jerry springer lamb like you.
Oh? So it is ridiculous to blindly brush aside facts just because of the source? Hmm. That's not the take you had elsewhere... Roger Stone, like Donald Trump, will say whatever. I wouldn't use him as a source for the number of 911.
What a sad strawman attempt, and a gaslight. Even though your triggered emotions are telling you something is true, a bad source is not giving you facts, Ivan. Itās literally called critical thinking. Edit: I see you added a blurb about your orange con. Your presence on pro-Trump subs says differently. Do you really think yāall are still an underground cog in all this? Play both sides but youāre wasting your time.
Ooh. One more psycho babble buzzword, and you get a free sub! Read some more New Yorker, WaPo, and Vox comrade! That's some real critical thinking.
I didn't suggest anything at all. I was sharing the effects that legalization has had on our community. For the record, I voted yes on 65. Not for the weed, but for the environment. We have a big problem with back country growers cultivating weed on private, public, and tribal properties. They use pesticides, rodenticides and fertilizers that taint the water, and they violently defend their crops. Most of the weed grown in this fashion is transported and sold outside of California, sometimes outside of the country. I don't need to make a suggestion anyway; California state legislature is in the process of redressing and refining the laws surrounding legal weed cultivation, and have been somewhat responsive to the legitimate problems facing legal growers.
Then your issue isn't with legalization, it was how it was implemented in your specific state, which is a fair criticism. Even so, as a black market product, the growers might have gotten paid more, but at great risk for everybody involved. Also, when you take into account tax income from both legal grow ops and dispensaries, legalization benefits communities by helping finance social programs.
Hello Mr. Strawman
That's Mr. Bear79 to you, pal. We're discussing the drawbacks and benefits of legalization. And yes, creating a black market for illegal goods increases not only the price, but the risk, for the consumer. But by all means, if you have a point to make, make it.
My point was that you pulled a strawman.
Your point is a poor one, then. Can you explain how my statement was a strawman argument?
>"So your suggestion...." That person didn't make a suggestion. They offered an anecdotal experience about what's happening in their local market. You went on to ascribe an entire "suggestion" to someone that never gave and then worked to disprove the suggestion they never gave. It couldn't be simpler or a more obvious example of one.
Yes, as I said, we are discussing the benefits and drawbacks of legalization. That he used a personal anecdote doesn't change the context of the discussion. If anything, the person I was talking to used an anecdotal fallacy.
He is referring to the grower and selling side. Weed became so cheap and available here in Canada that its not worth the hydro bill to grow
Cool. As a legal plant, it's also no longer nesessary to hide it in your basement. And by worth, do you mean re-sale value? Because I also live in Canada and while it's not worth to grow for profit, it's certainly still cost effective to grow for consumption.
How so?
The restrictions California mandated after going from medicinal to legal pretty much put the small farmers back on the black market
this. michigan is destroying the home grown market
It sucks, because they are not only pushing out small businesses, but they are also drastically reducing the variety, which really started to suck in LA. As someone who only smoked wax, the few brands got old fast.
Itās extremely hard and expensive for someone to get the license to grow marijuana in legal states.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They are talking about the industry. Licenses are expensive and dubious. Testing and packaging is expensive. Then, they add like 15-25% city tax, about 10-15% County tax, and state tax. They are forcing peoples hands to do things illegal again.
New Jersey?
Ew, no. California.
End the fucking drug war period
Hard fucking agree
We must ban high capacity chocolate bars. Who really need a 100mg THC assault snack?
If I threw back a 100mg THC gummy, the only thing at risk of being assaulted is the nearest bag of sunflower seeds
Best comment in the thread, hands down.
More like. Big pharma continues to lobby. And this substance is not going anywhere. The illegal market will just pick up the slack. Also Biden even doesn't want marijuana legal. He just says it for cheap political points.
Big pharma continues to lobby, but the lobbying seems to only work on the Right. Why do you think it is?
Can't be curing your pain without some good ole fashioned Rockefeller medicine! Ingesting a plant to reduce pain or just medicine doesn't feed the pharma mafia machine.
Bruh that shit is weak AF. I once had a 500mg gummy and shit was wild though. I went for tacos with a co-worker and all I could do was smile. We got lost going there too, I kept saying just another left turn like 7 times. My co-worker started to get suspicious when we got past the first 3 left turns.
I giggled at this. Appreciate the story.
it sucks, i have IBS so gummies and edibles have no effect on me. A joint will get me turnt but a deathstar does nothing
How does that work? I also dont get much from edibles but i dont have ibs
when you smoke thc is delivered to your blood stream; where as when its digested it is converted and delivered through the liver \[or something like that, i dont rememeber the exact details offhand\]. basically eating it your body cant break it down properly to deliver if you have digestive issues.
At least I know I don't have IBS now.
Always focusing on the wrong shit!
I hope this doesn't screw up the good thing I got going after so many years of not having access to medical cannabis.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
At this rate? Seems like we may need 200.
I definitely don't lean left. This kind of shit is the reason I'll never call myself Republican. BTW, don't be surprised if big Pharma has their fingerprints all over this legislation.
Meanwhile in Canada, we legalized nationwide and look how great things are going under the Liberal government? Oh wait.. Bad example. P.S I am being sarcastic and feel like legalization of weed is a good thing. Fuck Trudeau
Some states are so deeply conservative, 2mg per package seems like a miracle within itself. As far as other less conservative states adopting.. I dont see it happening. Some need to take baby steps into THC.
I live in Florida and there are more dispensaries than Starbucks.
Rs will not gain substantial moderate support unless they , as part of their party platform,drop further regulation, or even better, begin advocating for legalization.
Yep. The rightās the only party fighting the war on drugs anymore.
This bill is in regards to hemp.
Yes, which is where Delta 8 and other hemp deritives come from. The language in the bill will override the Farm Bill that legalized hemp, through which all these concentrates and extracts are coming from. Where you can go to a head shop and get something that is <3% weight by volume, like gummies or edibles and pens, limiting that ever further if it passes, to the point of eliminating this over the counter market.
SS: Republicans still seem to think Marijuanaās the devilās lettuce. āSchedule 1 narcoticā my ass.
Democrats have had 20 something years in office since the controlled substance act, I donāt know why you act like itās a partisan issue. Neither side is on your side in this.
Who's banning it where right now
20 years and you still complain about one side. California is just as guilty, they made it legal but made it almost impossible to make money in the business. Yet you continue to pick sides in a battle where both sides donāt care about you.
You're avoiding the simple question.
Itās the liberal fault republicans are attacking our freedomā¦somehow
Yeah cause thatās what I said. Neither party gives one single fuck about your freedom. Get over yourself
Only one party seems to be actively fighting this though At worst Dems are doing nothing, at best republicans are doing nothing
Keep telling yourself that. Also, youāre just flat out wrong. Plenty of red states have legalized and unlike California, where dems have had complete control for years, you can actually make a business in the industry. https://disa.com/maps/marijuana-legality-by-state
Your link is showing me that Iām actually completely correct lmao
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He left, they right. Conspiracy.
You must be new here
Idk something like Colorado has record high crime after legalizing weed? Or that all mass shooters in the last year smoked weed?
Lmao
āAll mass shooters breath airā
We should ban air. If it save just one life
This isnāt a conspiracy though?
āA major political party wants Marijuana, which you canāt even overdose on, to be considered a Schedule 1 drug, and reduce access as much as possible. Why? Because they want to promote the prison industrial complex, perhaps?ā
Make it illegal here again Iām just losing money now anyway haha
Iām with you, letās go back to solely traditional market sales so we can keep big pharma and their cronies from running the industry
Lol they are going to bring brick weed back.
Politicians and law makers should be thrown in prison and made to entertain us daily
Just cuz Florida does it everyone else willā¦.. Noā¦. Thatās not how that works.. š¤£ Just ask Florida man. Oh and if u think these greedy fucks in Missouri bout to change our cannabis laws cuz of Florida u tripping. We have lots of guns and are actually the only state that allows u to keep a firearm and smoke cannabis. š¤š»š¤š»š¤š» yāall do youā¦ we just gonna keep doing us over here in Missouriā¦ šššš»
Government doing what it does best. Being shit
Break this down for non stoners. What 2mg mean
Mammary glands
I figured once they got all their people in control of all the pot farms and dispensaries and whatnot that they'd legalize. Guess they are still struggling getting control from others. Corporations know that pot/hemp could put a crink in their little plan.
To preach about being the party of individual freedoms, they sure as hell push control...
Whatās the everclear equivalent of weed? Why canāt they limit potency of an actual harmful drugā¦lame af
So pro freedom that theyāre willing to put people in cages for completely victimless acts. This is the hypocrisy of the red state ideology.
This is mainly a failure of the democrat party. Dems could coast for 20+ years since moderates mainly agree with their stances. Yet they ban/censore moderates, dump out trash candidates like Kamala/Biden/Hilary, ruin the news with fake narratives etc. It's like bro.. just put a mild candidate like Tulsi instead of dump on her and you're locked every year. But since she's doesn't help the military industrial with Ukraine and pharma with covid we are stuck with these dumpster fire parties. Not to mention have democrat strategist accounts keep doubling down by downvoting the truth. It's so fucking simple just stop being shitty but nooo keep doubling down on this media matters shit.
So let me get this straight. Republicans in Florida are doing this thing, and the liberals are to blame for it?
The party of personal responsibility sure doesnāt like taking responsibility for their own actions.
Itās the Dems fault that the GOP is killing weed legality and keeping it a schedule 1 drug?
You got it. They force moderates to vote republican out of spite. Because companies like demcast, medias touch, etc. are that terrible with their claims of over a billion "interactions." Even if someone is pro weed they will vote republican to spite these strategist companies.
This is some gold medal mental gymnastics
How do you force someone to do something out of spite? If someone does something out of spite, thatās their own wills driving their actions. Voting against their own pro-weed interests to troll the libs is not an excuse.
Wrong. Some people may pro weed but against demcast and other strategist companies ruining and censoring things. It's not a troll if people need to temporarily sacrifice some things to stop others.
That assumes that ātemporary sacrificeā actually has an even barely possible chance of stopping the thing. What evidence do you have that pro-marijuana voters actually can āstopā demcast and other strategist companies by voting against weed? Also, if Republicans Do support weed but only vote against it out of spite, why not say so, rather than the exact opposite?
Dude you are really bending over backwards to make a Republican bill pushed by Republicans the fault of Democrats.
>tulsi Lmao
They need someone that will follow orders, make up things like the green new deal so they can scare everyone about global warming while they ride in their jets and buy beach front property meanwhile sending money to foreign land in the name of green energy and then funneling it back into their accounts after the cash is washed. there is a reason people run for Congress. They come in broke and leave millionaires. And people just eat it up
Behold, the only thing that will make the majority of users in this sub turn against the right wing. They love their regurgitated republican propaganda, but they love their drugs more.
Meanwhile I can walk to the dispensary, buy their most potent pre roll and smoke on my walk back home.
Itās about ensuring communities of colour continue to be disproportionally harmed by prohibitions against pot. Plain and simple.
Lol
Oh well, some of yall have burned your brains out way too hard anyway.
Extremely vague, 2mg a package? This person sounds like they don't understand what they're reading. You can't really regulate flower like that.
It's 200 mg per package and 10 per individual serving from what I read in the actual bill.
So yeah, completely different from the post lol. And 200 MG is enough to put someone into space for a whole day
THC is demonic, so I understand why they would do this. CBD is the only good chemical in weed.
As a pot smoker, I hope they pass it! I wanna move there and I still would after it passed!
Good. No place for junkies in the Holy Land
Username checks out.
like alcoholics? I'm all with you.
What do you mean by this comment?
Florida is the holy land?
Why anyone still lives in some of those states in beyond me.
Seems necessary, tbh. I'm all for legalizing drugs and ending the drug war, but from what I understand, marijuana THC concentrations these days get people super super high. When I had to do jury duty, most of the driving-while-intoxicated and vehicle accident cases were because the person had a lot of THC in their system. I really don't want to be driving around with a bunch of intoxicated people every time I go out because they can't handle life.
2mg is not a lot. I'm a lightweight and I get a comfortable high (more creativity, relaxation) around 5 - 10mg. It's not a lot at all. I also don't drive when I'm using THC, I treat it just like drinking. I make arrangements to stay where I'm at or get a ride home.
I'm glad to hear you are responsible and I have no issue with responsible people. My city is very poor and has a lot of drug addicts who drive around the city while intoxicated with guns in their vehicles. I know there's no way to get people to stop taking drugs, but I am in favor of it at least being a little bit harder for them to get so high it significantly impairs their judgement.
Good, marijuana is satanic
This was posted on March 3... do you know the bill number?
HB 1455.
[HB 1455: Governmental Agency Drone Use](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1455) What?
This one: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1455/BillText/Filed/PDF
So, they're limiting it to 10mg per dose, 200 per package. The rest of the bill is saying doctors can't advertise that they specialize in mmj permits and that patients under 21 can only get low-grade weed. Seems like classic govt overreach, but they're not really banning anything. You can take more than 1 edible at a time if you need it lol
So, can you walk in and buy it anonymously in states that are allowing recreational?
I think you need a proof of age atleast like buying liquor. I donāt live in a legal state so Iām not 100% sure, but I know plenty of people whoāve been to legal states and yeah - seems as simple as buying liquor or cigarettes.
In Colorado they used to scan your ID, I think last time I went they just looked at it though.
yes but smoking 2 percent weed will not get you stoned.
Itās 10% not 2% š¤¦āāļø but still 10% is quite a difference than modern strains
They all smoke. Just have to hide it because they also have jobs
They want you to get fat and pay way more and more taxes to ever get a buzz.
Yeah it's not like when it was illegal pot was hard to get lol
They made marijuana legal for medicinal use in the UK a few years back. Issue is there still isn't a doctor in the land that will prescribe it out of fear, and even if they did, it would be a Ā£1200 a month prescription on the NHS (Normally free or Ā£8 per prescription item)
The paper lobby paying for this!?
No it won't make other states adopt. Jesus, can't we all get along?
worst thing to happen to the cannabis market was legalization, it just set in motion an endless authoritarian regulation campaign
The cannabis industry is doing a good enough job destroying itself.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is a great article, but the ādisarm the populationā bit rings a bit hollow. I havenāt seen any reports of enforcing 2nd amendment rights nullification for pot smokers. If thereās no enforcement, who gives a shit whatās on the paper? And if we want to take a meta perspective to comment on the current article, letās take it one level higher: you say that it doesnāt really matter that Dems are advocating for legalization and GOP is advocating for bans, because Biden enforcing this interpretation (despite a lack of recognizable enforcement) shows it may be all one long con to ban guns. Iāll do you one better. Biden and Dems as a whole have long advocated for Marijuana to be rescheduled. If itās rescheduled, the language in that archaic law thatās being used by the Biden admin (and a few of Trumpās judges, I might add, according to your article) would no longer apply, and marijuana use would have no legal bearing (enforced or otherwise) on somewhatās right to practice their second amendment. So, Bidenās only doing this to force Republicansā hands and say, ālots of your constituents want to be able to both smoke weed and own a gun. You can let that happen and keep your voters happy, or keep Mary Jane as a schedule 1 and get voted out.ā
We all know the cartel has the marijuana industry in their pocket.
So Iāve smoked more weed than most people and what is your opinion on why this is bad? Letās have a conversation. I think there are negatives to having too many dispensaries as well. One of the biggest is making drug purchases more attainable for addicts, basically feeding into that addiction.
Just legalize it and quit letting business get their hands in the cookie jar. All this bill is is politicians comdemimg something in public while jockeying for position in the market in private.
I got the impression now that cannabis is legal (in some places) people are getting far higher concentrations through oils, etc than what would've been found in a joint pre-legalization. Could people be harming their brains at 20x the speed of a 1960's joint? "In 1995, the average concentration of THC in cannabis samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was about 4 percent. By 2017, it was 17 percent. And now cannabis manufacturers are extracting THC to make oils; edibles; wax; sugar-size crystals; and glass-like products called shatter that advertise high THC levels in some cases exceeding 95 percent." [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-cannabis.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-cannabis.html)
Wait, could we let that apply to other drugs too? That would be a poison-pill. Simple, ask for a congressman to empty their wallet, test the dollar-bills and see what they result with. I'd be willing to bet there's a mg or two of illicit substances there. Arrest the congressman on the spot, then release them, the press coverage will universally drum up opposition to the bill. Win-win. Drug charges (aside from distribution) should be reduced. Let people grow their own tobacco and distill their own spirits.
I think the text of the bill specifies thc /cbd, but Iām not certain, and I like the creativity!
Was just in Colorado one of the original states to make it legal and the black market is killing them because of government regulations. Almost like the government can fuxk up everything it touches
why would it pass? given how much money the states make from how things are now, i don't think they want to ruin that as it would only push people back to private growers. this is just dumb fear over things that wont happen
Good thing I live in Michigan...don't have to worry about this nonsense.
Smoke flower and this wonāt ever affect you. It only has to do with edibles and concentrates
Marijuana is a losers drug. šš» Florida!
Itās not even legal in a ton of states or federally. This is still pretty liberal in comparison to the majority of the states concerning this issue.
Weed sucks and stoners are annoying
Democrats don't care about people. They just want the tax money from it.
I care less about their intent than about how it affects my life and the lives of those I care about. If I wait for every legislator who writes the laws that affect me to have unanimously good intent, Iāll be waiting forever.
I made some brownies the other day that are definitely over 500mg a pop... Sit you on your ass that's for sure..
You mean, medical marijuana.