Ever feel like you might be in the wrong Business--> Adults only

[LuminousMaximus]

Los Angeles will emerge as the marijuana capital of the world. The financial industry has Wall Street, the tech industry has Silicon Valley, and the cannabis industry will soon have Los Angeles. No disrespect to Denver, but Los Angeles is about to come out of the shadows and steal the spotlight.

By some estimates Los Angeles's medical cannabis market is already worth close to $1 billion, larger than Colorado's entire recreational market. Unfortunately, most of that business operates in the shadows today. But that is about to change. In early 2017, the city is expected to pass an ordinance that will clear the path for a proper licensing program and pave the way for a robust recreational market.

Surrounding cities are joining in with programs of their own that will support cultivation, production and lab facilities. Investors have taken notice too, and capital is flowing to fund local ventures.

Meanwhile, California's state treasurer recently launched a working group to address the cannabis industry's banking challenges. Expect to hear big news out of Los Angeles in 2017.

Courtesy of @_AdamBierman_.

I was told that I have a green thumb...

[KrismanX]

Ain't a terrible thought to think these days...

[Runnin' Rebel]

I never liked it but if their handing out licenses to sell which this county is I'm grabed one cause someone else will if I don't. Tons of money to be made and it's just starting up

[Wesley Crusher]

I am personally not a fan, but I am all for legalization. Take it out of the hands of criminals and tax the hell out of it. Kill two birds with one stone.

It's funny how so many law makers are against the idea when alcohol is more damaging. Hypocrites.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

I am personally not a fan, but I am all for legalization. Take it out of the hands of criminals and tax the hell out of it. Kill two birds with one stone.

It's funny how so many law makers are against the idea when alcohol is more damaging. Hypocrites.

I think ignorant. The government has pushed pot as a dangerous gateway drug for so long that it's hard to dissuade some people that it's not the boogeyman.

And more importantly, drug enforcement is a billion dollar industry with copious funding for LE and corporate contractors. Backing out of those programs costs lobbyists pain everywhere. I would like to see the MJ equivalent of a peace dividend go into health care programs, but we all know the money will be lost into other programs.

[Gaijin]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

I am personally not a fan, but I am all for legalization. Take it out of the hands of criminals and tax the hell out of it. Kill two birds with one stone.

It's funny how so many law makers are against the idea when alcohol is more damaging. Hypocrites.

[THC]

Just buy the penny stocks of these places.. some are sure to explode

[thejerseyrock]

I dunno... I think there is a pretty big difference between Nor Cal and So Cal.....

[BristolCavendish]

Just another taxable vice and an unlimited opportunity for countless ad agencies, financial speculators, the corporate world and suppliers to milk yet another cash cow. Decriminalization is one thing, full legalization another. Can't wait to see the ubiquitous Madison Avenue-inspired advertisements addressing the various demographics along with the allure and attractiveness of smoking weed. Talk about tacky and uncool. It will be hilarious at best.

[kulak]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

I am personally not a fan, but I am all for legalization. Take it out of the hands of criminals and tax the hell out of it. Kill two birds with one stone.

It's funny how so many law makers are against the idea when alcohol is more damaging. Hypocrites.

I think it is naive to assume criminals will close shop rather than shifting to harder drugs, ransom, and people smuggling. Whatever becomes legal will suddenly not have the profit margins they desire. So I believe the reduction in criminal enterprise argument is not relevant.

My main concern is staying safe in the road. It doesn't seem there is an instant field test for impairments like a breathalyzer. Maybe the field test is good enough then blood to a lab. Then again texting or sleep deprivation are probably worse hazards.

[Patton250]

Ok

[GradyPhilpott]

Ahem.

IBTL

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I've known two hard drug attic's including my brother that died of a heroin overdose. Both started out drug usage with marijuana. I believe it is a gateway drug it's just there are people that can handle it and not advance to harder drugs and there are people that can't. It's the same with alcohol. Only with alcohol there is only abuse of it and not much worse versions of it like there is for drugs.

I'm for freedom but there's nobody that can give a positive aspect of marijuana usage other than a persons individual enjoyment of being taken out of reality temporarily. I can understand the allurement of that that. Just in my opinion it's not a positive thing. We will continue to see the legalization of marijuana throughout the USA and we have front row seats as to whether it's good for our culture or not. We will just have to standby.

I'm really sorry to hear of your brother Brett. I too have some personal experience with drug and alcohol abuse in my own family that didn't end well.

All I can say is that it's a sensitive topic and experiences vary greatly. I can see both sides of the pro and anti legalization debate. We're living in interesting times, and this is a new social experiment.

[Abdullah71601]

To be honest, I have seen far more lives disrupted or destroyed by alcohol than by weed. I do not partake in either, and have no dog in the race, but the amount of tax money poured into MJ enforcement programs isn't justified by the risks posed by the substance IMO.

It's the same argument as alcohol. There will be abuse. Some people's lives will be disrupted. And there will be horror stories. But we already have those issues now without regulation.

[Wllnv19]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

To be honest, I have seen far more lives disrupted or destroyed by alcohol than by weed. I do not partake in either, and have no dog in the race, but the amount of tax money poured into MJ enforcement programs isn't justified by the risks posed by the substance IMO.

It's the same argument as alcohol. There will be abuse. Some people's lives will be disrupted. And there will be horror stories. But we already have those issues now without regulation.

Well said

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by kulak

I think it is naive to assume criminals will close shop rather than shifting to harder drugs, ransom, and people smuggling. Whatever becomes legal will suddenly not have the profit margins they desire. So I believe the reduction in criminal enterprise argument is not relevant.

My main concern is staying safe in the road. It doesn't seem there is an instant field test for impairments like a breathalyzer. Maybe the field test is good enough then blood to a lab. Then again texting or sleep deprivation are probably worse hazards.

They sure as already deal in harder stuff and human trafficking. Make life easier and legalize everything as far as I'm concerned. Decriminalize atleast and use the enforcement money on addiction treatment. We need to control the demand.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

To be honest, I have seen far more lives disrupted or destroyed by alcohol than by weed. I do not partake in either, and have no dog in the race, but the amount of tax money poured into MJ enforcement programs isn't justified by the risks posed by the substance IMO.

It's the same argument as alcohol. There will be abuse. Some people's lives will be disrupted. And there will be horror stories. But we already have those issues now without regulation.

Agreed. Except that I do drink alcohol socially.

I would rather see tax revenue come from legalization of pot than have all that money go to druglords. At the very least, they should decriminalize MJ and make room in or prisons for more serious criminals

[Dr. Robert]

I've written my first jingle for cannabis advertising

No sticks no stems that you don't need......Acapulco Gold is bad assed weed.

(apologies to Cheech & Chong)

[Kingair]

I really don't care what other people do but . . . wonder how this will effect their driving capabilities here in CA ?

Texting and calling 'high' while driving ?



Sent from my SM-T377T using Tapatalk

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Kingair

I really don't care what other people do but . . . wonder how this will effect their driving capabilities here in CA ?

Texting and calling 'high' while driving ?



Sent from my SM-T377T using Tapatalk

Weed users tend to drive slower than the speed limit, so the impacts will be safer.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Weed users tend to drive slower than the speed limit, so the impacts will be safer.

I know you're joking but using any kind of drug when driving is a big No No in my book.

I do smoke week a few times a year and can tell you the effect can be very strong making even cycling or walking down the street potentially dangerous.

[rouxeny]

I always wonder about folks who say that it's a "safe" drug with minimal side effects.

When it is legal, would you feel ok getting on your 11-hr transpacific flight knowing that your pilot had just smoked a legal joint?

Or having your operation done by a surgeon who might be just a little high?

I think it should be entirely fine to do almost whatever you want in your own home, but when that right impacts others.....

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I know you're joking but using any kind of drug when driving is a big No No in my book.

I do smoke week a few times a year and can tell you the effect can be very strong making even cycling or walking down the street potentially dangerous.

There is a 100% likelihood that thousands of weed smokers will drive impaired. The good news is that there isn't a strong link between weed impairment and accidents once you account for all the variables (mixing with alcohol, mixing with other drugs, etc.).

Pot heads tend to know they are high and compensate for it. And the way weed affects the brain is "safer" than the way alcohol affects it. When you mix weed with alcohol though, you are completely impaired and risks skyrocket.

FWIW, I have known quite a few weed smokers over the years, including some current friends. All good people, all drive impaired, and all drive much slower impaired than they normally do.

[DeeTee]

Weed smokers are not the issue. 10 minutes after you smoke the effects hit.
Weed edibles are a whole different story. They can hit you like an 18 wheeler out of nowhere. You eat a brownie and think all is well, you go about your day then 2-3 hours later you feel like a one man Phish concert. It lasts for 3-12 hours vs 30 min-2 hours smoking.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by rouxeny

I always wonder about folks who say that it's a "safe" drug with minimal side effects.

When it is legal, would you feel ok getting on your 11-hr transpacific flight knowing that your pilot had just smoked a legal joint?

Or having your operation done by a surgeon who might be just a little high?

I think it should be entirely fine to do almost whatever you want in your own home, but when that right impacts others.....

It won't be legal for the Pilot or the Surgeon. Same curfew would apply (if not stricter) for the Pilot as with alcohol.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

There is a 100% likelihood that thousands of weed smokers will drive impaired. The good news is that there isn't a strong link between weed impairment and accidents once you account for all the variables (mixing with alcohol, mixing with other drugs, etc.).

Pot heads tend to know they are high and compensate for it. And the way weed affects the brain is "safer" than the way alcohol affects it. When you mix weed with alcohol though, you are completely impaired and risks skyrocket.

FWIW, I have known quite a few weed smokers over the years, including some current friends. All good people, all drive impaired, and all drive much slower impaired than they normally do.

Pretty easy to be a "good person" these days then, if one can knowingly get behind the wheel impaired and go out on public roads others use yet still be counted as such.

If you truly believe your statements that there's no risk to others posed by weed-impaired drivers because you suppose they "go slower", then surely you'd have no problem with putting your family on an airplane I was flying while I was at the controls while flying high myself?

And if it is as the advocates claim, that pot isn't addictive, that means if I did pilot an aircraft your family was on while high, I did so because I valued me getting high more than the lives of your family since I know it would alter my awareness and perception and therefore my judgment along with my reaction time.

Do I still get to be a "good person" if I knowingly degrade all those things while engaged in an activity (like driving) where inaction or slow reaction and loss of awareness will kill as quickly as "going too fast"? Apparently you don't mind that your friends knowingly degrade their judgement, reactions, and awareness etc while behind the wheels of their cars that me or my family members could also be on.

Of course, the actual science of impairment is broader than "pot is completely safe while operating a vehicle" using anecdotal "evidence" regarding one's friends and their supposed ability to self-compensate and mitigate all known risk by "going slower". Impaired operators of vehicles on the ground or in the air who's judgement, awareness, and decision-making capability has been degraded pose a higher threat which is supported by accidents, injury, and death. The rules and regulations restricting doing so have been written in blood.

There is no "good news" to be found in driving while high on public roads. Words designed to try and normalize abnormal/dangerous behaviour through irrelevant comparisons such as "Pot impairment is "better" than alcohol impairment" don't change that fact, and trusting the ability of potheads to self-compensate while judgement-impaired would be funny concept if it were limited to only hurting or killing themselves. If potheads want to drive or fly while high they should stick to their sofas where they belong and boot up an appropriate Playstation game to live it out in Pretend-land where their mistaken belief they're doing it awesomely poses no threat to anyone.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Pretty easy to be a "good person" these days then, if one can knowingly get behind the wheel impaired and go out on public roads others use yet still be counted as such.

If you truly believe your statements that there's no risk to others posed by weed-impaired drivers because you suppose they "go slower", then surely you'd have no problem with putting your family on an airplane I was flying while I was at the controls while flying high myself?

And if it is as the advocates claim, that pot isn't addictive, that means if I did pilot an aircraft your family was on while high, I did so because I valued me getting high more than the lives of your family since I know it would alter my awareness and perception and therefore my judgment along with my reaction time.

Do I still get to be a "good person" if I knowingly degrade all those things while engaged in an activity (like driving) where inaction or slow reaction and loss of awareness will kill as quickly as "going too fast"? Apparently you don't mind that your friends knowingly degrade their judgement, reactions, and awareness etc while behind the wheels of their cars that me or my family members could also be on.

Of course, the actual science of impairment is broader than "pot is completely safe while operating a vehicle" using anecdotal "evidence" regarding one's friends and their supposed ability to self-compensate and mitigate all known risk by "going slower". Impaired operators of vehicles on the ground or in the air who's judgement, awareness, and decision-making capability has been degraded pose a higher threat which is supported by accidents, injury, and death. The rules and regulations restricting doing so have been written in blood.

There is no "good news" to be found in driving while high on public roads. Words designed to try and normalize abnormal/dangerous behaviour through irrelevant comparisons such as "Pot impairment is "better" than alcohol impairment" don't change that fact, and trusting the ability of potheads to self-compensate while judgement-impaired would be funny concept if it were limited to only hurting or killing themselves. If potheads want to drive or fly while high they should stick to their sofas where they belong and boot up an appropriate Playstation game to live it out in Pretend-land where their mistaken belief they're doing it awesomely poses no threat to anyone.

Pontificate if you like, but your arguments don't have much merit in context of the science. You need to get beyond your emotions and read some data. Here's an example from NIH:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

You need to get beyond your emotions and read some data. Here's an example from NIH:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

You need to answer if you're ok with putting your family on an airplane I'm flying while I'm high. Serious question, would you? Why not if you're OK with your friends driving around on public roads while high? Tell me you're as cool with your being family at risk as you are with your good buddies putting nameless, faceless people you don't know at the same.

I can tell you every aviation authority on the planet isn't ok with it either, that there's plenty of evidence to support accidents and incidents caused by mind and judgement-altering substances. So despite your belief, it doesn't have anything to do with my emotions. Perhaps forward your link to all Aviation agencies and suggest they're all simply unable to see past their own emotions, and regulations passed against flying while high have nothing to do with proven degradation of judgement, performance, and proficiency but are merely a result of their own severely misplaced "Reefer Madness"-inspired morality. Faced with the weight added if you relate to them personal experiences observing your driving-while-high friends, undoubtedly many will re-write their rulebooks to reflect a more "progressive" and enlightened philosophy re pothead pilots that mirror your own personal beliefs re pothead drivers.

Personally, I couldn't care less if pot is legalised or not and doesn't even come close to being a moral issue. But that's not the subject you've addressed, which is operating vehicles with impaired judgement, awareness, and reactions. Your claim that pot has no degradation effect and that operating vehicles while high is completely safe is absurd.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by CRM114

You need to answer if you're ok with putting your family on an airplane I'm flying while I'm high. Serious question, would you? Why not if you're OK with your friends driving around on public roads while high? Tell me you're as cool with your being family at risk as you are with your good buddies putting nameless, faceless people you don't know at the same.

I can tell you every aviation authority on the planet isn't ok with it either, that there's plenty of evidence to support accidents and incidents caused by mind and judgement-altering substances. So despite your belief, it doesn't have anything to do with my emotions.

Personally, I couldn't care less if pot is legalised or not and doesn't even come close to being a moral issue. But that's not the subject you've addressed, which is operating vehicles with impaired judgement, awareness, and reactions. Your claim that pot has no degradation effect and that operating vehicles while high is completely safe is absurd.

Answer me why a pilot dove a jet full of passengers into the Alps. You guys aren't the model of perfection. You're human, and I am fairly certain there are commercial pilots in the air at this moment that are impaired. When they start drug screening you guys at the gate we will all be safer, yeah?

As for driving, given the choice of a weed impaired driver or an alcohol impaired driver, I go with weed every single time. The weed impaired driver has been found in studies to be far lower risk. Which was the point of my posts had you cared to read them objectively without trying to stuff your agenda down my throat.

[christo4]

Dude, surely, it is good for the children, surely.