Octopus Overlords

stessier wrote:So it passed in MA, right? I looked over that bill - 10 oz and up to 6 plants!? I'm impressed. Surprised they didn't go for "allowing exports to neighboring states." My sister is likely very happy about that today. Probably suicidal about the President though. Maybe one can help the other...

Kraken wrote:
Weed becomes legal on Dec. 15; for the first time in 45 years, I won't be a criminal anymore. However, getting from there to retail sales is going to be a slog. We dragged our feet on medical dispensaries for years after they were legalized.

stessier wrote:The tax rate IS too low. 3.45%, right? Cigarettes and alcohol are taxed way more than that, aren't they? I'm all for legalization - but at least tax the heck out of it.

Jeff V wrote:

Kraken wrote:
The medical dispensaries would be more heavily regulated, so the delays are not unexpected. Head shops will get business going overnight.

Jaymann wrote:California boards the magic bus.

Just a day after voters legalized marijuana for recreational use, Massachusetts’ top regulator called on the Legislature to extend the deadline for opening retail shops beyond the January 2018 target date so she has time to build an effective oversight force.

Treasurer Deborah B. Goldberg also said Wednesday lawmakers should hike the 3.75 percent tax on marijuana sales included in the new law so there will be enough money to police the industry and have some cash left over. And Goldberg wants legislators to ax a provision allowing people to grow up to 12 marijuana plants per household, which she believes could gut the retail market and be detrimental to public health and safety.

Kraken wrote:And Goldberg wants legislators to ax a provision allowing people to grow up to 12 marijuana plants per household, which she believes could gut the retail market and be detrimental to public health and safety.

stessier wrote:I have no idea - how much could 12 plants supply? How much does a person use a day if they still want to function (ie - go to work the next day)? I would imagine 12 plants wouldn't be enough to destroy the retail market, but really have no idea.

Kraken wrote:And here's our government proposing to change the law the day after it passed:

Just a day after voters legalized marijuana for recreational use, Massachusetts’ top regulator called on the Legislature to extend the deadline for opening retail shops beyond the January 2018 target date so she has time to build an effective oversight force.

Treasurer Deborah B. Goldberg also said Wednesday lawmakers should hike the 3.75 percent tax on marijuana sales included in the new law so there will be enough money to police the industry and have some cash left over. And Goldberg wants legislators to ax a provision allowing people to grow up to 12 marijuana plants per household, which she believes could gut the retail market and be detrimental to public health and safety.

Smoove_B wrote:12 plants does seem a bit excessive. I mean, if I can brew my own beer or wine and grow my own tobacco, I'm pretty sure I should also be able to grow my own marijuana in a state where doing so would be legal. There are limits on the other items so coming up with a reasonable restriction on how many plants you can grow doesn't seem unrealistic.

Z-Corn wrote:Twelve plants is not excessive. Fifty plants is not excessive. There is no proper definition being used here of "excessive". Limits, if they must be enforced, should be on the amount of harvested buds in ones possession. This should be measured by weight, not by the number of plants required to produce that weight.

Not all cannabis plants produce buds. Only female plants produce buds. Male plants are necessary to preserve breeding stock and variety. Basic botany...

Kraken wrote:

Z-Corn wrote:Twelve plants is not excessive. Fifty plants is not excessive. There is no proper definition being used here of "excessive". Limits, if they must be enforced, should be on the amount of harvested buds in ones possession. This should be measured by weight, not by the number of plants required to produce that weight.

Not all cannabis plants produce buds. Only female plants produce buds. Male plants are necessary to preserve breeding stock and variety. Basic botany...

Depends on how they're raised. If one follows commercial practices of hydroponics, high-intensity lights, cloning cuttings, ventilation, etc., then a dozen plants are more than enough to keep even a heavy smoker generously supplied. OTOH, if one just plops some seeds into pots on a windowsill then 12 plants are not very much at all.

Z-Corn wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Z-Corn wrote:Twelve plants is not excessive. Fifty plants is not excessive. There is no proper definition being used here of "excessive". Limits, if they must be enforced, should be on the amount of harvested buds in ones possession. This should be measured by weight, not by the number of plants required to produce that weight.

Not all cannabis plants produce buds. Only female plants produce buds. Male plants are necessary to preserve breeding stock and variety. Basic botany...

Depends on how they're raised. If one follows commercial practices of hydroponics, high-intensity lights, cloning cuttings, ventilation, etc., then a dozen plants are more than enough to keep even a heavy smoker generously supplied. OTOH, if one just plops some seeds into pots on a windowsill then 12 plants are not very much at all.

Sure, I agree with you there but what I was trying to point out is that to place an arbitrary plant count on a Dioecious plant is not proper regulation.

What if I want to keep 10 males and 4 females at a time for breeding purposes but I only flower one plant at a time? Those male plants don't have enough psychoactive compounds to hurt any children. What about keeping mother plants to propagate the strain, as you mentioned with clones? If they never flower should they be held against the allowed plant count?

I would argue that, just like children, one should be allowed to house as many plants as one can properly feed and keep healthy as long as one is not over the allowed weight limit. Are you suggesting that we should next put limits on the number of children a couple can raise? Or are you suggesting that a family of skinny children is better than a family of fat children? Because, if so sir, I have some people at my church that would have strong words with you!

Secretary of State William F. Galvin warned last week that the measure legalizing marijuana might have to be delayed, but now says that won’t be necessary.

Galvin’s office said Friday he will submit official results of the voter-passed legalization measure to the Governor’s Council Wednesday for certification. Barring any unforeseen snafu — or dramatic intervention by the Legislature to undo the will of the voters — possessing, using, and growing marijuana at home will become legal on Thursday.

...

Still, marijuana remains illegal under federal law. And some fear the administration of Donald Trump will crack down on the nascent industry after he takes office on Jan. 20.

As one BostonGlobe.com commenter wrote, “Legal weed 12/15/2016 — 1/20/2017. RIP.”

Alefroth wrote:You guys didn't waste any time. Do you have a legal way to purchase it? It was a year and a half for WA between legalizing it, and the first retail store opening. Technically we could posses it, but couldn't buy or grow it.

Jeff V wrote:Couldn't you call out the state militia to preserve states rights? That's why all those second amendment weenies have guns, right?

Kraken wrote:

Jeff V wrote:Couldn't you call out the state militia to preserve states rights? That's why all those second amendment weenies have guns, right?

Our state officials were nearly unanimous in opposing legalization, so don't expect any help from them. At least not until those sweet sweet tax dollars start rolling in.

Alefroth wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Jeff V wrote:Couldn't you call out the state militia to preserve states rights? That's why all those second amendment weenies have guns, right?

Our state officials were nearly unanimous in opposing legalization, so don't expect any help from them. At least not until those sweet sweet tax dollars start rolling in.

Foot dragging commencing.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/ ... story.html

Maine Governor Paul LePage on Tuesday said he had signed a measure legalizing the recreational usage of marijuana in his state after voters approved the move in a November ballot initiative.

With the signature, the country's northeastern-most state becomes the ninth to legalize recreational use of the drug.

LePage, a Republican who had opposed the idea, expressed reservations about how legalization would be implemented in a regular weekly interview with WMOV radio, in which he confirmed signing the legalization proclamation.

"There is nothing I can do until the legislature gives me money to set up the infrastructure," LePage said.

The law will allow adults aged 21 and older to use the drug in private, but not public places, and to possess up to 2.5 ounces (70.9 grams) of marijuana.

Kraken wrote:Newscast on a college radio station this morning told me that a fellow on craigslist has found a loophole in our legalization law. Selling weed is illegal until shops open in 18 months, but gifting it is allowed. So he is selling plastic baggies for $325, with a free ounce of marijuana thrown in.

Somehow I think lawn forcement is going to look askance at this (assuming the report is even true). I got a good chuckle out of it anyway.

“The ads are illegal,” Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan said. “It’s illegal to sell marijuana in Massachusetts even with the new ballot initiative.”

The new law does allow legal gifts of up to an ounce, but the gift cannot be advertised to the public.

Section 7. Personal use of marijuana […] (4) giving away or otherwise transferring without remuneration up to 1 ounce of marijuana…to a person 21 years of age or older, as long as the transfer is not advertised or promoted to the public.” — text of ballot question

And Sullivan said pretending to sell a bag is a complete end run around the law.

“To say an empty baggie costs $350 is ridiculous,” he said. “I think it’s a clear fraud on its face.”

Sullivan said he’ll ask police to investigate.

We texted the phone number listed on the Craigslist ad, asking for comment.

The response, from someone who said he was going by the name Corey Hampton, said his friend cards customers to make sure they’re at least 21. And as for the DA’s statement about the ads?

“I just think it’s foolish to waste any more of the taxpayers money on a harmless plant that helps people,” the text read.

Oregon is rolling out another first in the recreational marijuana industry: Customers may now order pot from licensed retailers and have it delivered to their homes.

The Oregon Liquor Control Commission had granted delivery permits to 117 retailers across Oregon, including 13 in Portland, last year but postponed their permission until last month.

“We needed to make an adaptation to the cannabis tracking system to provide a document that would actually allow for the delivery of recreational marijuana to homes,” said OLCC spokesman Mark Pettinger.

British teens with the highest test scores are less likely to smoke cigarettes yet more likely to drink alcohol and smoke pot compared with teens with lower scores, according to a study published Wednesday in the British Medical Journal Open.

Although some people believe smart students simply have a tendency to experiment, James Williams and Gareth Hagger-Johnson, co-authors of the new study, say these patterns of substance use may continue into adulthood.
...
Using questionnaires, they regularly tracked each student's use of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis from age 13 or 14 until age 19 or 20. Williams and Hagger-Johnson used national test scores taken at age 11 to rank students academically.
...
During their early teens, high-scoring pupils were less likely to smoke cigarettes and more likely to drink alcohol than their peers with lower test scores. At this time, they were slightly more likely to say they used cannabis.

During their late teens, pupils with the highest scores were more than twice as likely to drink alcohol regularly compared with others, yet they also showed themselves to have less of a tendency to binge-drink. During this same period in their lives, the academically gifted students proved nearly twice as likely to use cannabis persistently and 50% more likely to use it occasionally compared with their peers with lower test scores.
...
Meanwhile, average students were 25% more likely to use cannabis on occasion and 53% more likely to use it persistently in their early teens than pupils they outperformed on tests. Average-ability students also used weed more than lower scoring peers.

Fitzy wrote:It was a good run. http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -marijuana