« Holiday references and caseload details in Chief Justice's 2013 year-end report | Main | A victim's perspective from Iowa on the aftermath of Graham and Miller »

January 1, 2014

Seeking first-hand accounts/reports (good, bad and ugly) of start of recreational pot sales in Colorado

It is around 2pm EDT, January 1, 2014 as I write this post, which means recreational marijuana sales have now been underway for a full 12 hours in Colorado today.  On the east coast, at least, the sky has not fallen (and my kids have not already become regular pot smokers) ... yet.   Perhaps the sky is falling in the Mile High City.  Or, perhaps most accurately, a few more folks than usual in Denver, where most of the early sales are taking place, may be feeling sky high.

Jokes and snickering aside, I am genuinely interested in any and all "objective" on-the-ground reports from folks in Denver or elsewhere about what is going on in the midst of what some suggest is the start of the end of a 40-year drug war in the US and what others fear is the start of a doomed experiment with a harmful new legal substance.  As the title of this post highlights, I am especially eager to hear praise, complaints and observations from all quarters, if possible.

Cross-posted at  Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

January 1, 2014 at 01:58 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201a3fb7c498f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Seeking first-hand accounts/reports (good, bad and ugly) of start of recreational pot sales in Colorado:

Comments

"Perhaps the sky is falling in the Mile High City."

I have to smile every time I see the "falling sky" standard.

The sky is not going to fall if we legalize pot and allow children to smoke it. It is not going to fall if we keep it criminal and double the sentences. It is not going to fall if we abolish executions, or have twice as many. It is not going to fall if the prison population is zero or three million.

The question is whether, overall, we are better off making it easier or harder to get stoned, and what the costs of each alternative are.

Virtually anything can be "justified" if the question is, "Will it make the sky fall?", which is why that is never the question.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 1, 2014 5:41:43 PM

If the sky is not going to fall, how do you justify the hundreds of thousands languishing in our modern high-tech oubliettes? if the sky is not going to fall, how can you justify the seizure laws, the no-knock raids, the political corruption, the stupendous cost in lives lost to gang feuds, and all the other results of prohibition?

I can understand the morality of someone willing to accept these results if they honestly believed that allowing folks access to intoxicants would lead to great tragedy and social disintegration. But it simply beggars belief that someone might support prohibition without also having a conviction that it is preventing some even greater harm.

Posted by: Boffin | Jan 1, 2014 7:39:50 PM

Free at last; free at last. Great God Almighty, we're free at last (at least in Colorado). Go, go, go Colorado!!

Posted by: anon | Jan 1, 2014 8:13:25 PM

Boffin --

"If the sky is not going to fall, how do you justify the hundreds of thousands languishing in our modern high-tech oubliettes?"

First, for personal use of pot, essentially nobody is "languishing in our modern high-tech oubliettes," so you're positing a non-problem.

Second, for those very few who have been convicted of distribution small amounts, there might be very small prison sentences (hardly "languishing"), and, even if so, they assumed a known risk and lost. How much sympathy do you get for that?

We're a free country and you can petition to get the law changed, as they did here. But before it changes, you don't get to make your own rules. When Mr. X does something he knows is illegal, and gets caught doing it, he has assumed the risk. If he could have waited like all the hundreds of other revelers did, he'd have no problems. But when he demands the right to create his own law out of the ever-present certitude of the pro-pot people, and then buys the pot he full well knew was illegal at the time, what happens next is on him

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 2, 2014 6:02:16 AM

Bill, you're the one prone to shouting a parade of horribles from legalizing pot, reducing the numbers of executions, etc.. It was your comments (and a handful of others on this site who think hype and repetition are substitutes for reason) that Doug was characterizing, and accurately.

Also, your suggestion that CO would "allow children to smoke" pot is just smarmy misinformation and another example of your Chicken Little rhetoric. Prohibition makes it easier to get pot. Illegal drug dealers don't mind selling to kids; however, store-owners with licenses to lose have a greater disincentive.

Finally, it's true that prisons aren't full of pot smokers but hundreds of thousands are sent to county jails every year. You and Boffin are both spreading self-serving misinformation on that score. The other issues Boffin raised, though - re: "seizure laws, the no-knock raids, the political corruption, the stupendous cost in lives lost to gang feuds" - are legitimate concerns that will be mitigated by ending Prohibition.

I'm still waiting for actual reports from the ground as opposed to sky-is-falling foolishness from SL&P's regulars who have no knowledge of the topic. Rehashing your own biased views you've already expressed a hundred times in Doug's comment section (probably a gross underestimate) really isn't responsive to Doug's post.

Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Jan 2, 2014 9:21:25 AM

Grits --

I'm still waiting for you to admit and retract your false and insulting claim that I have posted anonymously on your blog.

There is absolutely no point in trying to have a serious discussion with a person who reserves the right to lie. It can't be done.

You might think that you can lie and just walk away from it. I can't stop you from lying -- that is well established -- but you're going to continue to hear about it until you admit it, retract it, and apologize for the 100% false smear that I don't post under my own name. I post under NOTHING BUT my own name, as you full well know, and I have never posted on your blog.

Man up and fess up.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 2, 2014 11:01:34 AM

Just bought dope legally for the first time--nice choice--well regulated. Smoked at home. Feels great. Highly recommend it. Plus, paying state taxes on it--goes for education. So I'm being a good citizen too. Everything in moderation!!

Posted by: lawyer in Denver | Jan 2, 2014 1:16:03 PM

lawyer in Denver --

"Just bought dope legally for the first time..."

Not unless 21 USC 844(a) got repealed while none of us was looking.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 2, 2014 1:48:38 PM

Bill, well, of course. But I think, as of now at least, in Colorado the federal prohibition against possession is a dead letter.

Posted by: lawyer in Denvir | Jan 2, 2014 1:57:07 PM

I bought some too. Good feeling. The state is going to make a killing in taxes.

Posted by: lawyer2 in Denver | Jan 2, 2014 2:17:12 PM

lawyer in Denvir --

"I think, as of now at least, in Colorado the federal prohibition against possession is a dead letter."

The federal prohibition against simple possession has been almost entirely a dead letter for a long, long time. I'll bet good money that the number of Coloradans federally prosecuted for simple possession of pot in 2014 will almost exactly equal the number prosecuted for the same offense in 2013, 2012, 2011, et al. Having been a fed for many years, I can tell you that we have too many meth dealers and other sweethearts to deal with to want to use the time with some guy out in the woods smoking a joint.

Now if he wants to smoke it on the steps of the USAO to show what a hot number he is, well, yes, that is going to be a different matter.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 2, 2014 3:23:18 PM

Bill, I agree that federal prosecution for possession is rare (except for large quantities), but much harder now for me to justify prosecution or incarceration of those who manufacture and deliver. Indeed, I can now grow my own ---and plan to. May I suggest you catch a quick flight to Denver, smoke a joint with me, and mellow out. Your hard-line views might soften.

Posted by: lawyer2 in Denver | Jan 2, 2014 3:40:20 PM

Haven't bought any pot and don't intend to, but so far the whole thing seems pretty much like a non-event.

Posted by: lawyer3 in Denver | Jan 2, 2014 4:31:47 PM

lawyer2 in Denver --

"...but much harder now for me to justify prosecution or incarceration of those who manufacture and deliver."

I don't believe anyone has asked for you to "justify" it. But I note how quickly (one day) it has taken for pot proponents, who at the time of the campaign gave assurances that the whole enterprise was going to be strictly small-scale, limited and regulated, to start pushing Big Pot in the same way the cigarette companies push Big Tobacco.

"May I suggest you catch a quick flight to Denver, smoke a joint with me, and mellow out."

Flights to Denver are anything but quick, I don't like smoking, I don't think it's healthy, and -- last but hardly least -- I actually believe in obeying democratically adopted law, like the CSA.

If you think every person gets to make his own rules, however, isn't it a bit odd for you to be practicing law? Do you tell your clients they can do what they please as long as they think it's right? Like heroin? Or sex with (willing) 14 year-old's? Or cheating (just a little, ya know) on their taxes? I mean, who gets hurt, really?

"Your hard-line views might soften."

It's indicative of a great deal that goes on in the comments section of this blog that merely following settled law is viewed as "hard-line."

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 2, 2014 5:02:44 PM

Bill, on this one I agree with Lwyer2 in Denver. You need to chill out. Light one up; take one or two hits. Put on the old LP "Ina Gadda Da Vida." You're whole outlook my change. Happy New Year!

Posted by: observer | Jan 2, 2014 5:28:50 PM

observer --

Oh, don't worry. I'm plenty laid back. I'm going to be more laid back still next week when I get to the place I live in on the Big Island during the winter (about 30 miles north of Kona, on the Kohala Coast). I think the "chillin' out" will be done by those of you who'll be enjoying all eight degrees in the Northeast.

As for intentionally violating federal criminal law -- ummmmm, no thanks. It's somewhere between mind-blowing narcissism and vigilantism, neither of which is my style. I'll leave that sort of thing to my adversaries, whose version of "chillin' out" is to get unhinged about how Bush was behind 9-11 and the cops are an occupying fascist army, etc. Lotta chillin' out, that.

P.S. Now that I think of it, maybe the Enlightened Progressives who need to chill out would include the lovely Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC, who engaged in a little, ya know, really funny racist ridicule of Mitt Romney's granddaughter, or the even more lovely Martin Bashir, late of the same network, who recently suggested on air that Sarah Palin.........uh, well, I won't get into it. But I have to admit that the pro-pot crowd is REALLY, REALLY laid back and cool and all.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 2, 2014 5:59:12 PM

[music]
The Surgeon General warns.
Cigarette smoking is dangerous. Hazad to your health.
Does that mean anything to you?
So. Legalize marijuana, hoo hooo hoooo.
Right here in Sweet Jamaica, hoo hooo hoooo.
There will be , no more, illegal,
Interrogations.
No More! Police confabulations. hoo hoo hooo.

-- Bob Marley

Now, all you pot prohibitionists: How many of you smoke cigarettes? Fess up. Guns are quicker.

Posted by: Liberty1st | Jan 2, 2014 6:42:38 PM

Bill's gonna get some Kona Gold and mix into some coconut milk and have a potta colada while he's at the Kohala Coast.

Posted by: *power | Jan 2, 2014 9:06:59 PM

Being back in Denver for the Holidays has been great. I have been wandering around the city with friends and can say that the sky is not falling in Denver. However, this is an obnoxious haze (not marijuana related) ruining the view of the mountains from my parent's house. Other than complaining about the prices, I haven't heard of any trouble coming from the legalization. In fact, I have a good friend from high school who spent a few hours in line and, other than the fact that he has not left his house in the last 24 hours, there is nothing wrong with him; hopefully he will make it out in time for work tomorrow. I have not heard of any issues with the enforcement of some of the regulations regarding sales to out-of-staters etc. So far, so good. I will continue to keep an eye on things on the ground before I head back to Columbus.

Posted by: Troy | Jan 2, 2014 10:27:03 PM

When I argued in the Fourth Circuit a many moons ago, about a quarter of the time, the defendant's presentation was of such "quality" that I waived my opportunity to say anything. It was just as well, since the judges would have considered it piling on, not to mention a waste of their time.

First rule of advocacy: When the other side has not only lost, but embarrassed itself, be kind, wrap it up, and go to lunch.

The pro-pot comments here remind me of those days.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 2, 2014 10:35:50 PM

I thought $160 an ounce in Cali was outrageous. It's $400 an ounce in Colorado.

Unless covered by health insurance, forget about it. A big rip off.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/02/22149509-high-demand-price-of-legal-marijuana-soars-in-colorado?lite

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 3, 2014 2:36:25 AM

Bill's approach of click-your-heels, salute and defer to any law on the books is nauseating.

Thank goodness, the Lovings had the fortitude to openly defy Virginia's anti-miscegeny laws.

Posted by: Dan Jensen | Jan 3, 2014 2:39:36 PM

Dan Jensen --

"Bill's approach of click-your-heels, salute and defer to any law on the books is nauseating."

Dan's approach of law-is-for-suckers, do-your-own-thing is totally cool, especially if we're talking, say, age-of-consent law. Is that what we're talking about, Dan? Why not? Couldn't some avant garde 40 year-old decide that he doesn't want to "click his heels" or anything and defer to some outdated, Puritanical, Church Lady statute that says the age of consent is 16? So, following Dan's courageous, stand-up-to-the-nerds, say-no-to-conformity outlook, he goes right ahead and impregnates his starry-eyed, utterly willing, if slightly naive, 12 year-old "girlfriend."

Hey, look, Dan, he had the fortitude to openly defy Virginia's anti-child rape laws! Bully for him!!! I'll bet Mr. Nicey would even pay for the abortion, too, rather than make her do it out of her allowance.

You're right! How could I have been so blind? All of us should decide for ourselves what laws we'll obey, especially if we agree with your policies (most especially your pro-narcotics policies), because, dontcha know, that's the way to a peaceful, productive society in which everyone's rights are protected.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 3, 2014 3:18:59 PM

Hey, gringos, I just read this:

"Pot shop owners in Colorado claim they made over $1 million in sales statewide on the first day of legalized recreational marijuana sales alone, according to Denver's 9News. Nationwide, the legalized pot industry is expected to bring in a reported $2.34 billion in 2014, including both medical and recreational sales.

Most of the 24 shops that opened Wednesday were in Denver. Owners in the city expressed concern about taking in large amount of cash, since federal banking regulations currently prohibit banks from working with the marijuana industry while the drug remains classified as illegal by the federal government.

“We all know this needs to be fixed because there is not one good reason why these businesses are not allowed to have banking accounts -- only bad reasons: security concerns and accountability concerns,” Mike Elliott, executive director of the trade association Medical Marijuana Industry Group, told KDVR.

A solution may soon be reached, but while the industry grapples with how to handle its cash, Colorado is banking on pot: with an eighth of an ounce currently selling between $35 and $70 after taxes, the state estimates that the retail marijuana industry will bring in $67 million in tax revenue.

The first $40 million generated by the state excise tax is dedicated to school construction, and the rest is slated for marijuana regulation. "

Gringos, this is not good. I appeal to my good amigo, Bill Otis, to get the federal government to stop Colorado making money from pot. This is what I do. All my hard work in shooting my enemies now for nothing. Colorado is taking away my business. Please, Bill, do something.

Your amigo, Pablo.

Posted by: Pablo Escobar | Jan 3, 2014 3:55:32 PM

Pablo Escobar: you wrote that Colorado is taking away your business. Wrong, Colorado is taking away MY business.

You wrote that "the legalized pot industry is expected to bring in a reported $2.34 billion in 2014, including both medical and recreational sales."

You son of a _____. If I see you, i will shoot you. You hijacked my last load of weed from Morales--don't think I don't know. Colorado is not taking away your business; it is taking away my business. Something must be happening to the gringos--what is making them think intelligently. I too appeal to Bill Otis (whoever he is) to help stop this sudden common-sense action of the People of Colorado.

Posted by: jose villalobos | Jan 3, 2014 4:00:51 PM

jose and Pablo --

You have stumbled upon a plan I am compelled to concede would produce substantial, if not exactly legal, benefits: Shoot each other.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 3, 2014 4:31:02 PM

jose villalobos --

"I too appeal to Bill Otis (whoever he is)..."

It's not that hard. Google is your friend.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 3, 2014 5:57:41 PM

Dan Jensen --

You were eager to imply that I'm a Nazi, so how about stepping up and telling us whether perverts are required to comply with age-of-consent laws.

I mean, 50 years from now, we could "achieve" an "advanced" understanding of childhood sexuality, right? So far-sighted thinkers like you could claim that having your way with a willing 12 year-old is just like having the "fortitude" to "defy" anti-miscegenation laws, right?

Why do we need to be bound by one anachronistic, faux-moralistic set of laws about sex any more than another anachronistic, faux-moralistic set of laws about race? Hey, look, times change. It could all look different in the bye-and-bye.

So you get your 12 year-old, right? And the next guy gets his 10 year-old, right? Everyone gets to decide for himself whether the law gets obeyed, no?

You wanna call me a Nazi because I believe in law? OK, hotshot, step right up and defend your position.

Should I wait?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 4, 2014 12:45:10 AM

now me! I'm still trying to figure out how any state can pass a law saying something is legal that Federal Law specifically states is NOT legal. More importantly why when it happens isn't the federal govt immediately arresting anyone at the state lvl who pushed it. voted for it or implimited it.

For conspiracy to commit a felony at a minimum.

Yes I am including the politicians, cops and burecurats as well as any media who pushed the vote.

Posted by: rodsmithi | Jan 4, 2014 12:59:16 AM

Jose and Pablo:

Allow me to introduce myself. My friends called Comandante Huerco, and I am in charge of a small battalion of Mexican federal law enforcement officials. I am prepared to facilitate and protect your valuable shipments of precious cargo. My men are available for this and for other, let us say, "services" as needed. But I can serve only one master, so one of you will have access to my armed men and the sophisticated weapons we have purchased with a generous grant from the United States, while the other will have to find a more survivable line of work. Bidding starts at . . . one meeeellion dollars!

Posted by: Comandante Huerco | Jan 4, 2014 1:23:56 AM

rodsmith --

"I'm still trying to figure out how any state can pass a law saying something is legal that Federal Law specifically states is NOT legal."

A pretty good question. When states had laws saying that segregation was OK, and federal law said differently, liberals had no trouble correctly recognizing that federal law was supreme. I guess the Supremacy Clause must have changed its wording sometime in the last 50 years.

"More importantly why when it happens isn't the federal govt immediately arresting anyone at the state lvl who pushed it. voted for it or implimited it."

Theoretically, because such a prosecution would present difficult problems of federalism, would be very expensive for what you'd get, and would target states that voted for Obama, which Eric Holder is not about to do. Actually, because Holder agrees with them, but doesn't have the political muscle or guts to try to get legalization through Congress.

"Yes I am including the politicians, cops and burecurats as well as any media who pushed the vote."

It is not illegal for anyone, including politicians and cops, to speak out for, or "push," changes in law. A person can peaceably advocate any change he wants; what he may not do -- Dan Jensen to the contrary -- is violate a law because he feels like it. Any other conclusion vitiates the purpose of having law at all.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 4, 2014 2:02:12 AM

Dan Jensen offered an instance of when disobeying a law is the moral thing to do. Bill countered with an instance of when disobeying a law is not the moral thing to do.

Dan--by offering a counterexample to the proposition "one must always obey the law"--has disproved the universality of that proposition, unless one disagrees with his counterexample. Which one is free to do.

Bill--by offering an example of a time when obeying the law is the just, right, moral thing to do--has NOT established the universality of the proposition that ALWAYS obeying the law is just, right or moral thing to do. He has just offered an example of when one must obey the law. That is like justifying the proposition "one must ALWAYS wear a sweater" by giving the example that sometimes it is cold.

"Everyone gets to decide for himself whether the law gets obeyed, no?" As autonomous moral agents, it is the duty of everyone to do no less. However, one must justify one's position on what laws to obey with rational argumentation. If someone offers a terrible, irrational argument for child rape then we do not have to accept it. If someone offers a compelling, rational argument for marijuana use, then we should.

Rationality is not no standard.

Posted by: Grant | Jan 4, 2014 10:39:47 AM

hmm

"It is not illegal for anyone, including politicians and cops, to speak out for, or "push," changes in law. A person can peaceably advocate any change he wants; what he may not do -- Dan Jensen to the contrary -- is violate a law because he feels like it. Any other conclusion vitiates the purpose of having law at all."

Wanna bet? it's called conspiracy to commit a felony! DAs use it when they can't get a conviction on anything else.

Sorry but any politician who voted for it is guilty. Any governor who singed it is guilty. At a minimum their jobs should be GONE! We seem to have this same problem with cops. they break the law and lie though their teeth and when caught....they misspoke! what the fuck is that?

our glorious head of intelligence is beging hung over this very thing now. he swore up and down the NSA was NOT collecting metadata a few months ago as proven by his testimony to the senate intelligence committee. Now suddenly it turns out not only that they were doing it. But the have been going to the FISA court for YEARS in 6 months terms to get the permission all over again.

So why was Martha steward locked up? she lied to a fed! but for some reason it's ok for them to lie to us? Sorry NO it's NOT!

Sorry but if I ever caught a govt agent lieing to me personally over something that effected my life. They would simply be DEAD!

Posted by: rodsmithi | Jan 4, 2014 11:37:34 AM

Grant --

Your attempt at logic is just so much silliness, which can be seen in your very first sentence: "Dan Jensen offered an instance of when disobeying a law is the moral thing to do. Bill countered with an instance of when disobeying a law is not the moral thing to do."

Wake up. The WHOLE POINT is that people will have differing versions of what is moral. The purpose of democratically enacted law is to settle on the version with majority support (within constitutional limits).

There may be -- indeed there are -- some people who think it's moral for grown men to have sex with 12 year-old girls (or boys). They have their reasons, I guess. They say they're avant garde. They say society is repressed. They say we're still in the grasp of Puritanism. They say that a more advanced understanding of psychology will vindicate them. They say a lot of stuff.

I really don't care. When you live in civil society, you surrender the blissful (or, more often, savage) autonomy of the jungle for the many benefits of the rule of law. The rule of law means you don't get to decide for yourself anymore which statutes you obey and which are just for suckers.

Many people think that the concept of property is a shake-and-jive cover for the exploitation of the poor by the rich. They make all manner of "rational" arguments, see, e.g., the Occupy Movement. This is why the Occupiers felt free to vandalize and steal other people's possessions. It was also the stated rationale of the Symbionese Liberation Army, and their excuse for armed bank robbery. And it is a central guidepost of Marxism.

Again, I don't care. The majority in this country thinks, and has legislated, otherwise. You can be a sincere Marxist with an IQ of 150 and I still won't care. You don't get to steal stuff, and if you do, you're rightly going to the slammer.

Not that anyone should be fooled about all this pseudo-intellectual hokum. The real reason people have sex with children has zip to do with some exotic argument. It's that they're perverts. The real reason people steal is not Marxist ideology. It's that they want the goodies without working for them. And the real reason people want to legalize pot and/or cocaine and/or meth is not that they're libertarian theorists. It's that they want to get blasted -- as numerous of the comments on this thread vividly attest.

Was I supposed to be fooled?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 4, 2014 3:31:20 PM

Bill Otis, just saw this in the NY Times:

" ALBANY — Joining a growing group of states that have loosened restrictions on marijuana, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York plans this week to announce an executive action that would allow limited use of the drug by those with serious illnesses, state officials say. The turnabout by Mr. Cuomo, who had long resisted legalizing medical marijuana, comes as other states are taking increasingly liberal positions on it — most notably Colorado, where thousands have flocked to buy the drug for recreational use since it became legal on Jan. 1. "

Hard to argue to continue incarcerate those who grow and distribute marijuana for mandatory minimum terms when there's a tidal wave of folks saying, "hey this stuff is not so bad--and is even good for you." I think we'd better switch sides now while we still can.

Posted by: Dave from Texas | Jan 4, 2014 6:03:26 PM

Dave from Texas --

How's that? The NYT wrote a pro-pot article?? It's an article about how a Democratic governor in a very blue state, with his eye on the nomination in 2016, wants to play to the party base???

Goodness gracious! Next you'll be telling me that the NYT has an anti-death penalty article!!

P.S. There's a "tidal wave" of people out there who think Lady Gaga is the peak of the culture, too.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 4, 2014 6:19:38 PM

Dan Jensen --

Still no answer? So you think it's OK for grown men to "defy" the age-of-consent laws and have sex with kiddies so long as they have, ya know, "rationally considered" those laws and concluded that they are insufficiently justified?

I mean that must be it, right? Otherwise you'd just be a "heel-clicking" crypto-Nazi, as you implied I was.

I know you wouldn't want to be a heel-clicker, but I still don't see an answer.

Get moving.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jan 5, 2014 4:32:44 PM

very cute bill! loved these!

"The rule of law means you don't get to decide for yourself anymore which statutes you obey and which are just for suckers."

and

"You don't get to steal stuff, and if you do, you're rightly going to the slammer."

Were especially nice. NOW if it just applied to the average govt fucktard. you might have something. Till then. Forget it! As far as myself an a hell of a lot more American Citizens! until it applies to them....it does NOT apply to us either.

After all their power comes from US! therefore if THEY have it. So DO WE!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 5, 2014 6:34:11 PM

rodsmith:

Love your comment at 6:34 PM. Apparently the gov't (your word) do not equate stealing with civil forfeiture! What hypocrites!

How can you argue with someone who equates baby-r-pers with teenagers?

They have repeatedly demonstrated that their God is their government. Since morality is relative, even the concentration camp guards acted the same. (Note to everyone: I was not the first on this thread to invoke Godwin's Law)

Posted by: albeed | Jan 5, 2014 8:04:53 PM

Bill, Otis the Center for Disease Control has just released figures setting out the total number of deaths of marijuana by Year back to (believe it or not) 1500 B.C.!!!

2013........0
2012........0
2011........0
2010........0
.
.
.
.
.1500........0
.
.
.
.
1500 B.C.....0

A truly staggering, number, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Alice | Jan 6, 2014 1:37:58 AM

Alice, I love your stats. But I think the figures actually overstate the number of deaths!!

Posted by: observer | Jan 6, 2014 10:25:29 AM

"The real reason people have sex with children has zip to do with some exotic argument."

Do you ever hear snickers coming from the back of the lecture hall during your presentations and if so ever wonder why??? What does your statement have to do with this thread???

Posted by: curious | Jan 6, 2014 8:18:52 PM

Two consenting adults engage in a consensual transaction, whereby one provides the other with cannabis, a material derived from a plant. The federal government finds out about it, swoops in, and puts them in prison. The government does so, even though one of the two people involved in the transaction is a medical doctor who underwent a double mastectomy. Her husband, who used to be a lawyer, got her pot after her mastectomy, because she was wasting away, unable to eat as a result of the nausea and loss of appetite occasioned by her chemotherapy and radiation treatment. The pot actually saved her. It gave her back her appetite. She credits it with giving her back her life.

She used to be a general practice physician. She had not previously had anything to do with marijuana. However, after it saved her, she changed her practice. She became a medical marijuana doctor.

This is how the story of Dr. Marion ("Molly") Fry and her husband, former attorney, Dale Schafer, came to be involved in medical marijuana. Very little about their story is disclosed at United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010).

Thanks to the federal government's enlightened marijuana policy, marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance (to this day), and Molly Fry and Dale Schafer are in federal prison.

Aren't we all so much safer with doctors and lawyers, like Molly and Dale, behind bars?

Posted by: Will Swanson | Jan 7, 2014 9:12:44 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB