I just read the State of California's new recreational marijuana laws took effect this morning.?ÿ Although my weed-smoking days ended before Travolta struck his pose for "Saturday Night Fever" I have watched as state after state accepted cannabis use.?ÿ Brands like Hostess, Fritos and Hershey's can probably only benefit from the legislation.
The article I read indicated the State of California was still hammering out its local laws and codes in respect to the sale of recreational herb.?ÿ I'm sure that has been a huge legislative undertaking with literally millions of dollars in revenues hanging in the balance.?ÿ Hopefully they will get it right and everyone will benefit.
Interestingly the article mentioned one location, The Harborside Dispensary in the bay area, that would open its doors at 6AM local time today.?ÿ And they have a "menu" on their website.
Viewing their on-line menu I couldn't help but chuckle at some of the names of their "combustible" goodies.?ÿ A few that stood out to me were "Starwalker, Jet Fuel and Rug Burn".?ÿ I get the feeling that although some things have changed in 40 years...some things have probably remained the same. ??ÿ
Rug Burn? hmmmm....
?ÿ
wow! very interesting. I suppose the County did not set obstacles and they had their regulations in place. In the more conservative Counties it will probably take quite some time.
FAQ from that Harborside place: https://www.shopharborside.com/adult-use-regs.html#
...In the more conservative Counties it will probably take quite some time.
?ÿ
Pierce County, in Washington State, would only issue a permit if you got a federal permit first.
Banks still won't work with the industry; cash only transactions. Not much different from the old days...
Recreational pot has been legal in Oregon and Washington for a few years now. "Dispensaries" are as common as Starbucks in Portland. Nothing particularly bad has come of it, IMO.?ÿ?ÿ
I doubt that conservative counties will fail to get on the taxation gravy train in California. They may just require the dispensaries to be a bit more discreet.?ÿ
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/marijuana/sd-me-marijuana-firstday-20171231-story.html
http://fox5sandiego.com/2018/01/01/long-lines-on-1st-day-of-legal-recreational-pot-sales/
https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=Marijuana+Dispensaries&find_loc=San+Diego%2C+CA
amazing!
What some have not considered is that many (all to whom I have spoken) employers will not hire anyone with cannabis in their system, even if it is legal.?ÿ Required?ÿurine tests are becoming more common as a condition of employment.?ÿ Smoke it if you wish, you just can't work here.
Andy
I think it's inevitable that there will be lawsuits challenging a company's right to deny employment based on a (now) legal activity. But I also don't see anything changing as long as it's illegal at the federal level. If you want to work on anything DOT related, like pipelines as an example, you're going to have to be able to pass a drug screen for the foreseeable future.
Wonder where "ears" is going to obtain the billions of dollars to enforce this. A giant leap backwards in my opinion...
?
Wonder where "ears" is going to obtain the billions of dollars to enforce this. A giant leap backwards in my opinion...
?
I guess society will have to alter its leisure habits to mo' better fit the "norm" that others perceive is correct.?ÿ
No weed...but it's OK for 30 year old men to troll the malls for giggly hard-bellied skirt. ??ÿ
Recreational pot has been legal in Oregon and Washington for a few years now. "Dispensaries" are as common as Starbucks in Portland. Nothing particularly bad has come of it, IMO.?ÿ?ÿ
I doubt that conservative counties will fail to get on the taxation gravy train in California. They may just require the dispensaries to be a bit more discreet.?ÿ
Already happening here in Oregon.?ÿ The jurisdictions that choose to deny pot businesses are complaining that they did not get a chunk of the new tax income.?ÿ Of course these are the same places that refuse to increase their local taxes to cover the cost of cops then want the rest of us to bail them out.
I hope I'm still alive when they try to ban spirits, wine, and (god help us all) BEER.?ÿ ??ÿ
I hope I'm still alive when they try to ban spirits, wine, and (god help us all) BEER.?ÿ ??ÿ
Well...the US already tried that once!
See the 18th Amendment, Volstead Act, and the 21st Amendment.
Unfortunately, "we" didn't appear to learn as much from that mess as maybe we should have.
?ÿ? ?ÿ
Can somebody explain the Tenth Amendment to me?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
did that get removed by executive order or something?
"Can somebody explain the Tenth Amendment to me?"
Here ya go, you choose. Good luck!
?ÿ1.?ÿ The Tenth Amendment, or Amendment X of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that basically says that any power that is not given to the federal government is given to the people or the states.
?ÿ2.?ÿ The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. This amendment means that anything the Constitution does not mention can be considered by states as part of their powers if they wish to do so.
3.?ÿ Modern Use of the Tenth Amendment: Today, the Tenth Amendment is often thought of as something very obvious or self-evident. In a 1931 Supreme Court case, the justices said that the Tenth Amendment did not really add anything new to the United States Constitution. Sometimes, local or state governments try to say that they do not have to follow some federal laws because of the Tenth Amendment.
In the Supreme Court, there have been very few cases that use the Tenth Amendment to call a law unconstitutional. The only times the Court has done this is in situations where the Federal government forces a state to follow their laws. However, in 1996, a Justice said that Congress can try to make a state follow a law by setting certain laws that may involve commerce or spending power, but Congress cannot force a state to follow federal laws.
It will take 10,000 lawyers and the Supreme Court to figure this one out.?ÿ ??ÿ
Even before this, I've been smelling more skunks while driving. Is it just me? I think the smell is worse than cigarette smoke. Bleh. I realize that's a particular strain (I think). Not tempting at all to me, but then I think coffee stinks too.
