Bitcoin Forum

Voters in Colorado and Washington on Election Day in favor of ballot measures that remove criminal and civil penalties for the adult possession of cannabis. The votes mark the first time ever that voters have decided at the ballot box to abolish cannabis prohibition.

In Colorado, 55 percent of voters decided in favor of Amendment 64, which allows for the legal possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and/or the cultivation of up to six cannabis plants by those persons age 21 and over. Longer-term, the measure seeks to establish regulations governing the commercial production and distribution of marijuana by licensed retailers. Initial returns show the measure passing with 54 percent support.

In Washington, approximately 55 percent of voters decided in favor of I-502, which regulates the production and sale of limited amounts of marijuana for adults. The measure also removes criminal penalties specific to the adult possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for personal use. Initial returns indicate that 55 percent of voters backed the measure.

State lawmakers in Colorado initially prohibited the possession of cannabis in 1917. Washington lawmakers initially outlawed the plant in 1923.

Commenting on the historic votes, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Amendment 64 and Initiative 502 provide adult cannabis consumers with unprecedented legal protections. Until now, no state law has defined cannabis as a legal commodity. Some state laws do provide for a legal exception that allows for certain qualified patients to possess specific amounts of cannabis as needed. But, until today, no state in modern history has classified cannabis itself as a legal product that may be lawfully possessed and consumed by adults.”

Armentano continued: “The passage of these measures strikes significant blow to federal cannabis prohibition. Like alcohol prohibition before it, marijuana prohibition is a failed federal policy that delegates the burden of enforcement to the state and local police. Alcohol prohibition fell when a sufficient number of states enacted legislation repealing the state’s alcohol prohibition laws. With state police and prosecutors no longer engaging in the federal government’s bidding to enforce an unpopular law, the federal government had little choice but to abandon the policy altogether. Today, history begins to repeat itself.”

Separate marijuana law reform measures proved to be equally popular among voters. In Massachusetts, 63 percent of voters approved Question 3, which eliminates statewide criminal and civil penalties related to the possession and use of up to a 60-day supply of cannabis by qualified patients. It also requires the state to create and regulate up to 35 facilities to produce and dispense cannabis to approved patients. Massachusetts is the 18th state since 1996 to authorize the physician-recommended use of cannabis.

In Michigan, an estimated 65 percent of Detroit voters approved Measure M, which removes criminal penalties pertaining to the possession on private property of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults over age 21.

A statewide ballot measure to legalize the therapeutic use of cannabis in Arkansas appears to have narrowly failed by a vote of 49 percent to 51 percent. In Montana, a referendum that sought to ease legislative restrictions on the state’s medical marijuana law also failed. Oregon’s Measure 80, which sought to allow for the state-licensed production and retail sale of cannabis to adults, garnered only 45 percent of the popular vote.

The ballot measures in Colorado and Washington will take effect once the vote totals have been formally ratified, a process that typically takes up to 30 days.

Thankfully, we can avoid smelling it for at least a few more years here in Oregon.  I was getting scared there for a bit...

Oh, please. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's going to be everywhere. Anyone who wanted to was already doing it, now they just don't have to worry about going to jail for it. Should cut back on the paranoia.

Has anyone studied the effects of secondhand marijuana smoke?

I think that's called "contact high" ;)

Lol, excellent.

On the upside, at least this will cut into cartel profits.  Of course, they'll probably just push more of the harder stuff now.

But at least the vast majority of drug users won't be exposed to and offered those harder drugs when buying their weed.

What I don't understand it that since it became legal, does that mean that companies cannot refuse to hire you anymore if they find out that you smoked weed?

*shrug*  I don't like the smell.  And I disagree that anyone who wanted to do it was already doing it.  Legalization will certainly increase usage, especially in public areas.

Has anyone studied the effects of secondhand marijuana smoke?

That's akin to asking if companies are allowed to peruse your credit card bills and decline to hire you if they see a W.O.W. account subscription.

Firsthand or secondhand, there's no harmful effects from smoking weed.

Firsthand or secondhand, there's no harmful effects from smoking weed.

+1, you know I knew a person once who would snoop around people's facebook accounts and decide whether she want's to hire them.

Doesn't it kill braincells or something, or was that just FUD?

Doesn't it kill braincells or something, or was that just FUD?

Fairly common practice these days.  That's why anyone with facebook should set their profile as private (and completely so - none of the "friends of friends" nonsense) when job hunting.  It's not illegal if they see something that they believe could hinder your performance, and that includes excessive partying, getting high, etc.

I doubt that getting any type of smoke into your lungs is very good for you.

+1  I don't believe it is particularly dangerous, but smoking anything is not healthy at all.  

I doubt that getting any type of smoke into your lungs is very good for you.

+1  I don't believe it is particularly dangerous, but smoking anything is not healthy at all. 

More importantly, weed has the capacity to cure any/every aliment/sickness.

It has been shown to help a great many things. Curing everything, however, I would place beyond even this miracle plant.

It is an excellent source of complete protein and amino and fatty acids, though. Makes good paper, too.

It cures cancer man, from my research, every legit study I find has the same end result: weed helps.  The thing is, weed cures your soul, a healthy soul has a healthy body.  It makes perfect sense, it's grown from nature, a little piece of god.  You can't really think our man made pharmaceuticals can match with the work of god, the universe.

This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_phalloides) is grown from nature, too... a "little piece of god." I wouldn't recommend eating it.

This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_phalloides) is grown from nature, too... a "little piece of god." I wouldn't recommend eating it.

That's like comparing alcohol to cannabis.  You have to look at it for what it truly is and has been for over 5000 years.

No, It's like comparing cannabis to a toxic fungi... because that's exactly what I did. Toxic plants exist as well as beneficial ones. you cannot say "Look, it grows upon the ground, as a gift from god! It must be therefore good to eat!" Nature will kill you just as quick as heal you.

Alcohol, THC, and α-amanitin all have one thing in common: they are chemicals designed by the plants and fungi that produce them to keep pests away. That one of those is non-toxic, even beneficial, to humans is happy accident.

I was not justifying it's healthiness based on the fact it's natural.  I was justifying it's capabilities to cure everything.  I never said therefor.  If there would be a cure all, it would be natural, and if there is one, it would be cannabis.

I was not justifying it's healthiness based on the fact it's natural.  I was justifying it's capabilities to cure everything.  I never said therefor.  If there would be a cure all, it would be natural, and if there is one, it would be cannabis.

Dude.. I have probably smoked more weed in 2 weeks then you have in your entire life.... Some of the stuff you say seems sorta Crazy..... Weed is great yes.. But smoke in itself is very bad for your body...

Unless you only consume your weed by eating it or vaping it, then you are doing much harm to your body.....



If it's a cure all why the fuck do I keep stubbing my damn toe? Weird ass deformity with the second toe longer than the big toe.... HIGH!

Don't get me wrong, Cannabis is a great plant. It's a "superfood," does seem to have some anti-cancer properties, makes great paper and cloth, and you can even run your cars on it. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that because it can do all those things, it can do everything.

I mean, Amanita phalloides is a "cure-all" too... have one, and you'll never be sick again. Doesn't mean I'll be handing them out next Halloween.

I started smoking over 2 years ago, you probably smoke a lot more than me, now.  I can't find a study that proves a harmful effect from cannabis smoke (other than suffocating monkeys with gas masks for 15 minutes, producing killage of braincells).

If someone could correct me, and provide a study that proves some negative effects.  From my experience, I can't attest to any.

Cannabis is as good a medical plant as any other (curing Alzheimer, cancer, etc.), but using it without a medical reason is clearly bad for your health. In fact, smoking cannabis when you don't have cancer can increase your chance of cancer.

Ignoring the opposition is not an effective way to make it disappear.

• Carcinogenic properties. (http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/FinalMJsmokeHID.pdf)
• Anxiety disorders. (http://www.mcri.edu.au/news/2012/august/heavy-teenage-cannabis-use-linked-with-anxiety-disorders/)

Nearly everything's carcinogenic.  Cannabis use does not increase your risk of cancer, it cures cancer.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

It helps reduce the growth of certain cancerous cells... (Does not make it a total cure for cancer)


so by using marijuana you might have a 4% less chance of getting cancer than someone who only smokes cigarettes....  (that number is a guess but it's probably close to the truth)

Someone who smokes cigarettes is extremely likely to get cancer anyways.

Cannabis reduces the growth of certain cancerous cells. That's why medical cannabis makes sense. But if you don't have those cancerous cells in the first place, risking possible growth of other cancerous cells sounds like a bad idea to me.

I'm guessing this will affect property values in these states. It will probably drive the hydroponics industry up a bit as well.

Will individuals be allowed to grow a personal amount without being persecuted?

What I don't understand it that since it became legal, does that mean that companies cannot refuse to hire you anymore if they find out that you smoked weed?

Pot smokers aren't going to suddenly be made a protected class under civil rights and other anti-discrimination laws.  

But it should reduce the number of pee tests.

Companies can require alcohol tests, but alcohol is legal. It is not about the legality of the substance, it is about the impairment to performing the job functions. If you come to work high impaired and put other people in danger, then you should be fired.

Fixed that for you. But I 100% agree. I was speaking of pre-employment pee tests. You know, the ones where they check to see if you've smoked in the past 3 months. (They don't check for past history of alcohol use...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuPqLVEnd7A

Cannabis has been used as medicine for thousands of years, this information is just suppressed, nothing new.

Yeah but there is a difference, where alcohol only stays in blood for a couple hours.
So are you saying that those who smokes have to wait 3 months before getting a job?

You lucky americanz... I wonder when the shit will be legal in Europe...  ???

You lucky americanz... I wonder when the shit will be legal in Europe...  ???

Fixed that for you. But I 100% agree. I was speaking of pre-employment pee tests. You know, the ones where they check to see if you've smoked in the past 3 months. (They don't check for past history of alcohol use...)

That is only because alcohol is harder to measure than cannabis. Where I work, we sometimes have to take a random trip to the clinic for a pee test and alcohol breathilizer. So they are measuring alcohol use. And before I started this job I took the pee test and breathed into the machine. While few people would be drunk going into a job interview, I suppose doing the test screens out the real screwballs.

All a UA proves is that you used a chemical. It tests for metabolites. It proves that your system has processed a chemical. Testing for impairment instead of the presence of a chemical or its metabolites will catch not only the stoners and drunks, but also the ones who don't get enough sleep, or otherwise are a danger to their co-workers, and more importantly, not catch the people who had a beer or a joint last night after work and aren't impaired now.

And how, exactly, would a company objectively test for impairment?

Google is your friend. First result: http://workrights.us/?products=impairment-testing-does-it-work
There are several methods.

In Colorado, voters approved Amendment 64  that supports the legalization of marijuana on a recreational basis and will amend the state constitution to legalize and regulate the production, possession, and distribution of marijuana for persons age 21 and older. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado would be amended by the addition of a new section: ‘Personal Use and Regulation of Marijuana.’ Regarding the workplace, Section 16(6)(a) states:
“Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing or marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.”

In Washington, voters supported Initiative 502  that will legalize and regulate the production, possession, and distribution of marijuana for persons age 21 and older. The Washington referendum called for a 25% tax rate imposed when the grower sells marijuana to the processor, when the processor sells marijuana to the retailer, and when the retailer sells marijuana to the customer. Estimates for how much tax revenue the Washington measure would create run as high as $500 million.
Concerning the workplace, State Drug Testing Laws Monthly reports Initiative 502 does not address if the decriminalization of recreational marijuana use requires workplace accommodation but does say the Washington State Institute for Public Policy must create reports on the effects of marijuana that must specifically include the effects on the workplace.

I don't care to read a 200 page paper on the subject.  Just give a quick summary - what are ways that a company can objectively test for impairment?

One of the methods used: http://www.eyedynamics.com/products.htm
Another: http://www.bowles-langley.com/job-safety/
And one more: http://www.pmifit.com/

All three of these have proven results.

Those are pretty cool TBH!  I agree with impairment testing.

If I drank 10 beers. I wouldn't be functioning normal for 2 days afterwards... If I smoked 10 joints I would be fine after my nap......

Much smarter than checking for evidence that you've sobered up, huh?

Much smarter than checking for evidence that you've sobered up, huh?

Assuming you made it to 10 before the nap...

The fed's might put up a weak fight, but they understand the inevitability. They knew this was coming. Now that Obama is re-elected for his last term, and the states are firming their ground, while medicalization keeps rapidly growing, I see more states to follow the legalization trend in the future.

Lost profit for SR.