420 Magazine Background

Real World Ramifications of Cannabis Legalization and Decriminalization

Jim Finnel

Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
Real World Ramifications of Cannabis Legalization and Decriminalization

Editor's Note: As more states begin to debate the question of legally controlling marijuana, many lawmakers are posing questions to NORML regarding what effect, if any, such a policy change may have upon the public's use of cannabis and/or young people's attitudes toward it.

The following paper reviews various studies** that have examined this issue in regions that have either a) regulated marijuana use and sales for all adults; b) decriminalized the possession of small quantities of marijuana for adults; c) medicalized the use of marijuana to certain authorized individuals; or d) deprioritized the enforcement of marijuana laws. This paper also proposes general guidelines to govern marijuana use, production, and distribution in a legal, regulated manner.

**This paper expands upon the studies initially referenced by NORML in its paper, Marijuana Decriminalization & Its Impact on Use.

By any objective standard, marijuana prohibition is an abject failure.

Nationwide, U.S. law enforcement have arrested over 20 million American citizens for marijuana offenses since 1965, yet today marijuana is more prevalent than ever before, adolescents have easier access to marijuana than ever before, the drug is on average more potent than ever before, and there is more violence associated with the illegal marijuana trade than ever before.

Over 100 million Americans nationally have used marijuana despite prohibition, and one in ten – according to current government survey data – use it regularly. The criminal prohibition of marijuana has not dissuaded anyone from using marijuana or reduced its availability; however, the strict enforcement of this policy has adversely impacted the lives and careers of millions of people who simply elected to use a substance to relax that is objectively safer than alcohol.

NORML believes that the time has come to amend criminal prohibition and replace it with a system of legalization, taxation, regulation, and education.
The Case For Legalization/Regulation

Regulation = Controls
Controls regarding who can legally produce marijuana
Controls regarding who can legally distribute marijuana
Controls regarding who can legally consume marijuana
Controls regarding where adults can legally use marijuana and under what circumstances is such use legally permitted

Prohibition = the absence of controls – This absence of control jeopardizes rather than promotes public safety
Prohibition abdicates the control of marijuana production and distribution to criminal entrepreneurs, such as drug cartels, street gangs, drug dealers who push additional illegal substances
Prohibition provides young people with easier access to marijuana than alcohol (CASA, 2009)
Prohibition promotes the use of marijuana in inappropriate settings, such as in automobiles, in public parks, or in public restrooms.
Prohibition promotes disrespect for the law, and reinforces ethnic and generation divides between the public and law enforcement. (For example, according to a recent NORML report, an estimated 75 percent of all marijuana arrestees are under age 30; further, African Americans account for only 12 percent of marijuana users but comprise 23 percent of all possession arrests)
Defining Marijuana Legalization/Regulation

What would marijuana regulation look like?
There are many models of regulation; depending on the substance being regulated these regulations can be very loose (apples, tomatoes) or very strict (alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs)

The alcohol model of regulation:
Commercial production is limited to licensed producers (though non-retail, home production is also allowed)
Quality control and potency is regulated by the state, and the potency of the product is made publicly available to the consumer
Retail sale of the product is limited to state licensed distributors (liquor stores, restaurants, bars, package stores, etc.)
The state imposes strict controls on who may obtain the product (no minors), where they may legally purchase it (package store, liquor store, etc.), when they may legally purchase it (sales limited to certain hours of the day), and how much they may purchase at one time (bars/restaurants may not legally service patrons who are visibly intoxicated, states like Pennsylvania limit how much alcohol a patron may purchase at a licensed store, etc.).
The state imposes strict regulations prohibiting use in public (no open container in public parks, or beaches, or in an automobile) and/or furnishing the product to minors
The state imposes strict regulations limiting the commercial advertising of the product (limits have been imposed on the type of marketing and where such marketing may appear)
States and counties retain the right to revoke the retail sale of the product, or certain types of alcohol (grain alcohol, malt liquor, etc), altogether (dry counties)

A regulatory scheme for marijuana that is similar to the scheme described above for alcohol would be favorable compared to the present prohibition. Ideally, such a regulatory scheme for marijuana would maintain the existing controls that presently govern commercial alcohol production, distribution, and use – while potentially imposing even stricter limits regarding the commercialization, advertising, and mass marketing of the product.
Marijuana Legalization And Its Impact On Use

Real-world examples of marijuana regulation:
India (prior to 1985)
Federal government imposed no national criminal prohibitions on marijuana cultivation, production, sale, possession, consumption, or commerce prior to the mid 1980s
"The incidence of the habit as estimated ... after extensive studies in the field ranged between 0.5% and 1.0% of the population." (United Nations Bulletin on Narcotics, 1957)
"So far as premeditated crime is concerned, particularly that of a violent nature, the role of cannabis in our experience is quite distinctive. In some cases these drugs not only do not lead to it, but actually act as deterrents. We have already observed that one of the important actions of these drugs is to quiet and stupefy the individual so that there is no tendency to violence, as is not infrequently found in cases of alcoholic intoxication." (United Nations Bulletin on Narcotics, 1957)
The Netherlands (30+ year history)
Retail sale of limited quantities of marijuana (5 grams or less) is allowed in licensed retail outlets for patrons age 18 or over
Ministry of Health also licenses production and distribution of marijuana for qualified patrons
"These data are consistent with reports showing that adult cannabis use is no higher in the Netherlands than in the United States and inconsistent with the demand theory that strict laws and enforcement prevent adolescent cannabis use." (International Journal of Drug Policy, 2010)
"Our findings suggest that the Dutch system of regulated sales has achieved a substantial separation of markets. ... As expected, most Amsterdam respondents obtained their cannabis in licensed coffee shops, and 85% reported that they could not purchase other illicit drugs at their source for cannabis. San Francisco respondents were three times more likely to report being able to purchase other illicit drugs from their cannabis sources." (International Journal of Drug Policy, 2009)
"Proponents of criminalization attribute their preferred drug-control regime a special power to affect user behavior. Our findings cast doubt on such attributions. Despite widespread lawful availability of cannabis in Amsterdam, there were no differences between the 2 cities (Amsterdam and San Francisco) in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use. ... Our findings do not support claims that criminalization reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use" (American Journal of Public Health, 2004)
"The Dutch experience ... provides a moderate empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other drug." (British Journal of Psychiatry, 2001)
Canada, Germany, Israel (3-10 year history)
Federal health department oversees the licensed production and distribution of marijuana to qualified patrons
No evidence this limited regulatory model has led to an increase in general marijuana use or attitudes among the public
"The data provide no evidence that strict cannabis laws in the United States provide protective effects compared to the similarly restrictive but less vigorously enforced laws in place in Canada, and the regulated access approach in the Netherlands." (International Journal of Drug Policy, 2010)
California, Colorado, New Mexico (1 year to 10+ year history)
County/city licensing of outlets overseeing distribution of marijuana to qualified patrons
"Our results indicate that the introduction of medical cannabis laws was not associated with an increase in cannabis use among either arrestees or emergency department patients in cities and metropolitan areas located in four states in the USA (California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington). ... Consistent with other studies of the liberalization of cannabis laws, medical cannabis laws do not appear to increase use of the drug." (International Journal of Drug Policy, 2007)
Marijuana Decriminalization And Its Impact On Use

Real-world examples of marijuana decriminalization (removing the threat of arrest for the personal possession or cultivation of marijuana, but maintaining prohibitions on commercial cultivation and retail sale):
Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Luxemburg, etc.)
"Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U. ... The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet American has the highest rates of ******* and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use." (Time.com, 2009)
"Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly, and is simply not related to drug policy. ... The U.S. ... stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, *******, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. ... The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the U.S., has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in national rates of illegal drug use." (PLOS Medicine, 2008)
"This paper has shown that ... decriminalization does not result in lower prices and higher consumption rates, nor in more sever patterns of cannabis use, ... and that criminalization may reduce the legitimacy of the judicial system." (Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 2008)
"While the Dutch case and other analogies have flaws, they appear to converge in suggesting that reductions in criminal penalties have limited effects on drug use, at least for marijuana." (Science, 1997)
Australia (20+ year history)
"There is no evidence to date that the (expiation/decriminalization) system ... has increased levels of regular cannabis use or rates of experimentation among young adults. These results are broadly in accord with our earlier analysis of trends in cannabis use in Australia. ... They are also consistent with the results of similar analysis in the United States and the Netherlands." (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1999)
Great Britain (2004-2008)
"Cannabis use among young people has fallen significantly since its controversial reclassification in 2004, according to the latest British Crime Survey figures published today. The Home Office figures showed the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who had used cannabis in the past year fell from 25% when the change in the law was introduced to 21% in 2006/07" (The Guardian, 2007)
United States
Decriminalization (12 states, 30+ year history)
"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in use" (U.S. National Academy of Science, 1999)
"The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states [that] reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states [that] retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernible impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system." (Journal of Public Health, 1989)
"Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization" (U.S. Institute for Social Research, 1981)
Medicalization (13 states, 2-13 year history)
"More than a decade after the passage of the nation's first state medical marijuana law, California's Prop. 215, a considerable body of data shows that no state with a medical marijuana law has experienced an increase in youth marijuana use since its law's enactment. All states have reported overall decreases – exceeding 50% in some age groups – strongly suggesting that the enactment of state medical marijuana laws does not increase marijuana use" (MPP, 2005, 2008)

LLEP/Deprioritization (various municipalities nationwide including Seattle, WA; Denver, CO; Oakland, CA; Missoula, MT; Columbia, MO, etc.)
"Many states and localities have either decriminalized marijuana or deprioritized the enforcement of marijuana laws. There is no evidence that the decriminalization of marijuana by certain states or the deprioritization of marijuana enforcement in Seattle and other municipalities caused an increase in marijuana use or related problems. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of numerous studies indicating that the increasing enforcement of marijuana laws has little impact on marijuana use rates and that the decriminalization of marijuana in U.S. states and elsewhere did not increase marijuana use" (Beckett/ACLU, 2009)
Conclusions
Strict government legalization/regulation of marijuana is unlikely to increase the public's use of marijuana or significantly influence attitudes.
Decriminalization is unlikely to increase the public's use of marijuana or significantly influence attitudes.
Free market legalization of marijuana without strict government restrictions on commercialization and marketing is likely to increase marijuana use among the public; however, given that the United States already has the highest per capita marijuana use rates in the world, this increase is likely to be marginal relative to other nation's experiences.

References

Simons-Morton et al. 2010. Cross-national comparison of adolescent drinking and cannabis use in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. International Journal of Drug Policy 21: 64-69.

Reinarman et al. 2009. Cannabis policies and user practices: market separation, price, potency, and accessibility in Amsterdam and San Francisco. International Journal of Drug Policy 20: 28-37.

Time.com. "Drugs in Portugal: did decriminalization work?" April 26, 2009.

Beckett et al. 2009. The Consequences and Costs of Marijuana Prohibition. University of Washington: Seattle.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. 2009. National Survey on American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIV: Teens and Parents. Columbia University: New York.

Figure 2.5 Marijuana Use in Past Year among Persons Age 12 or Older. U.S. Office of Applied Studies, 2009.

Table 13 Trends in Availability of Drugs as Perceived by 12th Graders. Monitoring the Future: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, 2008

Degenhardt et al. 2008. Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and ******* use: findings from the WHO world mental health surveys. PLOS Medicine 5: 1053-1067.

Van den Brink. 2008. Decriminalization of cannabis. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 21: 122-126.

Terry-McElrath et al. 2008. Saying no to marijuana: why American youth report quitting or abstaining. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 29: 796-805.

Earleywine et al. 2005/2008. Marijuana Use by Young People: The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Laws. Marijuana Policy Project: Washington, DC.

Gorman et al. 2007. Do medical cannabis laws encourage cannabis use? International Journal of Drug Policy 18: 160-167.

The Guardian. "Fewer young people using cannabis after reclassification." October 25, 2007.

Reinarman et al. 2004. The limited relevance of drug policy: cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health 94: 836-842.

MacCoun et al. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington, DC.

MacCoun et al. 1997. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 278: 47-52.

Donnelly et al. 1999. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis use in South Australia: Evidence from the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1985-1995. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.

Single. 1989. The impact of marijuana decriminalization: an update. Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466.

Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana decriminalization: the impact on youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Chopra. 1957. The Use of Cannabis Drugs in India. United Nations Bulletin on Narcotics: Vienna.



Source: Real World Ramifications of Cannabis Legalization and Decriminalization - NORML
 

vette777

New Member
prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it certainaly isn't going to work concerning cannabis. it is only a matter of time before the ax comes down on prohibition and the chains holding down our rights will be unlocked and freedom of choice will finally have arrived.
 

michaelkaer

New Member
I predict that Cannabis will be legal in most of the states within 4 years. Canada will be legal just before or just after. The ramifications are that the cartels are going to take a big hit, many politicians who refuse to listen to people will be out on their backside, Police at all levels will have jobs cut; gaurds jobs will be cut- prisons will close... it is not going to be fun for many people who are happy with the way things are right now. for the rest of us, we can look forward to paying less taxes and have less car accidents. Respect for the law will come back once it is earned. The thugs we have now will be forced to retire, quit or get retrained. I have a hard time seeing police kick people who are handcuffed and can't fight back in the head or break some ribs...(cowards!!!) What trip are they on? It is harder when the people being kicked and tortured are Medical Cannabis patients.
 

Odin

Plant of the Year: 2010 - Plant of the Month: July & Aug 2010
The War on Drugs is something I have spent a lot of time researching as well as something I have witnessed first hand with my own eyes for a long time. I even wrote extensively about it early in my college career in general ed English. My teacher was blown away by my paper because she merely assumed I was some stoner who wanted to write about legalizing pot. And she was more or less right :smokin:.

She gave me the benefit of the doubt however and I ended up writing a 46 page paper by the end of the semester that covered lots of different bases about drugs, but my focal point was the War on Drugs. I ended up getting the highest grade in the class and she had me read my paper to the class on the last day. The sheer ignorance of the general population in regards to what is going on, and has been going on with the War on Drugs in the last 70 some years blows me away. My teacher was a new found "Legalizer" after that semester and she told me I had completely changed her mind about the War. Many conservative students in the class expressed similar things. That was quite a few years ago and obviously, its popularity has skyrocketed in just the last few years.

However, the biggest problem I see with legalizing pot (other illegal drugs is an entirely separate issue IMO) is that the USA is a pretty unique place. Not only on culture, but on what the War on Drugs has done to our society as a whole and how the government has been operating. I grew up in small town in a county that was the epitome of what the War on Drugs has done to countless counties across America.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the county was shutting down all the mining in the area after over 100 years of being a very wealthy mining county. With mines shut down, the town didn't have anything to keep the economy going. Shit started to slow down, lots of people left. Then a bunch of hippies realized the climate in this area was perfect for growing pot. Seeing as it was the 60s and 70s, the area evolved into a 70s version of what Humbolt is today. Things were great, and the town and county grew as more and more people caught on. Marijuana fueled the economy. Then, in the 80s, and escalating into the 90s and now the 00s, a new wave of government rolled into town.

These new city councils, police, sheriffs, DAs, judges, etc were and still are all staunchly anti pot. The Sheriffs brought with them a vastly Federally funded Narcotics Task Force, with its own SWAT team and a high dollar Chopper to fly around the county looking for one thing: Pot. Instead of capitalizing on it, these Federal goons came in and decided the county's new livelihood would be based on two things: Mining history tourism, and turn the area into a retirement community.

The new money and government changed things slowly at first, but the pace only quickened. Money was poured into the area to turn abandoned mining crap into parks. They even got it right by keeping a 4x4 spot open up until about 5 years ago which brought a ton of revenue from people all over the state. But they caught onto taking peoples rights in a whole different shape and form, and took the offroad park away too. Thats another story.

Pot growers pushed further and further into the woods, and the war got more violent, ruined more families that had previously committed no crimes, locked people away for longer and longer and acquired more and more houses, properties, cars...

When the economy crash hit the rest of the country, it had been slowly eating my community away already for 20 years. The tourism and retirement worked for a while like a placebo until the economy crashed and old people stopped being able to afford cost of living there. That and, they all died from the 4 big wig pharmacies in town that hopped them up on pills, pills, pills!!

So what did the Feds do? Pump more money into Narcotics Task Force, thats what! Now once again people are moving away to other more pot friendly places. Too many peoples decades of hard work pumping MILLIONS into the local economy went down hard. The county wouldn't even allow Clubs to operate anywhere in the county, all the while more and more store fronts become abandoned, and never fill up again. Its turning into a ghost town.

Obviously we all know what the problem is there. This story rings true in towns and counties across America. Now you are probably thinking where the hell is this stoner going with all this?

Ideally what happened in the 80s in my county should never have happened, and the war on drugs should have ended a long time ago. Then my town, and other towns like it at the time, could have had a much better chance at being successful and keeping their county's economy healthy. The problem now, is going to be supply and demand and how the Feds handle it. In my opinion, thinking that alcohol prohibition and marijuana prohibition are comparable is foolish. For starters, alcohol had been legal for a long time and was much more mainstream then marijuana was at the time. Making it illegal for only a short period of time proved to be a disaster, which they quickly repealed and voila, back to the way it was before. Marijuana prohibition did the exact same thing Alcohol Prohibition did, however it spawned over a much, much longer time period, and is still waged over 70 years later. Essentially, the War on Pot is a model of what Alcohol Prohibition would have looked like if they had still kept it up today.

Because pot has been illegal for so long, and even when states like CA make it legal for medical use, the Feds still come in and implement their crooked cops who carry out the dirty work for them, that results in years of trials, that always end up getting dropped, but cost EVERYONE thousands or millions. The Marijuana black market only works the way it does now because most places crack down on pot and growing, so only remote areas or SMART areas (Humbolt) can capitalize on the benefits of where they live. Places like Humbolt supply vast percentages of the weed sold in America that is actually grown in the USA. The last 10 years has seen explosions all across California where people were once able to get top dollar for their product, are now competing with people mass producing and packing it out well below wholesale, putting the people under who should rightfully be the ones producing and disturbing the LEGAL weed that is sure to come, but because everyone has caught on to the "Cash Crop of CA" pound prices are lower than they have arguably ever been. This last ditch effort by Pound Penny Pinchers to make as much money as possible before it becomes legal is going on for a reason. They know the same thing I have been getting to this whole long drawn out stoned post. :roorrip:

When pot becomes legal in CA, its gonna spread like a wildfire. Soon it will be legal across the country in every state. Just being legal to smoke and grow your own will be great, and for me is all I really care about. Its the people who should have been the industry leaders today with their extensive decades of genetic work that often times was destroyed by cops, are now going to be out of the only job they have known for decades. Why do I say that? Because you know the Feds are not gonna sit back and not turn this into a way to recoup the loss of revenue coming from no more raids. They are going to regulate the SHIT out of it and make it so the government controls who can grow. They aren't gonna let free market economies run on weed without them getting most of the profit. And I am quite certain they are not gonna let anyone grow it themselves. Why would they want that? They need to get their hands in everyones cookie jar in any way possible. No way they can recoup the loss with taxes alone. Think about it, how they gonna fund the War in the Middle East without the income from the War on Drugs, mainly POT? If everyone's allowed to grow their own, how they gonna make money off it?

Truth is, no one really knows what is going to happen. You can't accurately compare legalization here with anywhere else. Usually just doesn't work. These are my predictions from watching how the black market/white market has operated over the years in my small little bubble which represents many more places across the USA. I could very well be wrong, and I hope it all works out, but I am not happy with a lot of things going on in this country right now. I have lots of faith that things regarding Marijuana's illegal status are about to change, drastically. I am just worried that we are going to find ourselves in another Fed SNAFU and ultimately, we are all still going to be in a similar boat as before, just in a different way. I think most people think victory is at hand, however my instinct tells me our fight has just begun. Hope I am wrong.


Odin
 
That was a very well thought out statement and one that I happen to completely agree with. I have also been watching this "War on Drugs" for many years and the federal government has made a complete industry out of it that is an all win situation for the government, just look at the forfeiture laws and how they work, the government wins all of the time even if they are wrong because it takes very little to cause someone to forfeit everything they own and more often than not getting it back is near impossible. In my opinion one of the reasons that marijuana is still illegal in comparison to other drugs is because the government knows they can not control it simply because it is to easy to produce and they know that once they take the criminal penalties away from it then it will become to difficult for them to get their fingers into it. I agree with you that once states start to legitimize it then it will spread like wildfire across the rest of the country. CA. is definitely setting a standard that the rest of the country will more than likely follow. The sad thing is like you said though once the government gets their fingers into it the people with the experience are going to be left in the cold. An example of this already is that states that are voting in medical use of marijuana are preventing people who have a previous record of even a minor drug offense such as simple possession charge will be prevented from obtaining a license to become a grower even though growers will be needed to supply the medical distribution centers and I may be mistaken but I think it would also prevent you from becoming a compassionate care giver. I am with you I think our fight has only just begun , I just hope that we are wrong on that point....WMDmountainIG :goodjob:
 

Odin

Plant of the Year: 2010 - Plant of the Month: July & Aug 2010
That was a very well thought out statement and one that I happen to completely agree with. I have also been watching this "War on Drugs" for many years and the federal government has made a complete industry out of it that is an all win situation for the government, just look at the forfeiture laws and how they work, the government wins all of the time even if they are wrong because it takes very little to cause someone to forfeit everything they own and more often than not getting it back is near impossible. In my opinion one of the reasons that marijuana is still illegal in comparison to other drugs is because the government knows they can not control it simply because it is to easy to produce and they know that once they take the criminal penalties away from it then it will become to difficult for them to get their fingers into it. I agree with you that once states start to legitimize it then it will spread like wildfire across the rest of the country. CA. is definitely setting a standard that the rest of the country will more than likely follow. The sad thing is like you said though once the government gets their fingers into it the people with the experience are going to be left in the cold. An example of this already is that states that are voting in medical use of marijuana are preventing people who have a previous record of even a minor drug offense such as simple possession charge will be prevented from obtaining a license to become a grower even though growers will be needed to supply the medical distribution centers and I may be mistaken but I think it would also prevent you from becoming a compassionate care giver. I am with you I think our fight has only just begun , I just hope that we are wrong on that point....WMDmountainIG :goodjob:

Hey thanks for your reply WMDmountainIG, reps for your thoughts! :smokin2:

I think its the dark side of "legalization" that most people don't want to think about. We are moving in the right direction though. We just have to stay strong, and keep the fight strong. We can't settle for anything but the way it SHOULD be.
 

bonedaddy4u

New Member
This is a big problem. With all the incarcerated people after a change in the law being released With a shitty job market. It would have to be a big flip and make a need from the new industries of marijuana production to fill the gap. In my option it would fix our country finical issues in the end but be a bumpy road. Lets hope common sense becomes popular soon, And people stop fearing the change. This is history repeating its self. Remember Prohibition, same shit. (The drunks where more violent) but we were in need of money at that time also, and I think that's what brought the right to drink(money)! Money moves the world.
 
Top Bottom