Colorado cannabis sales

January 4th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Politicians in Colorado have reported that “the sky didn’t fall in” when went on sale to the public for the first time, leading to calls for the drug to be legalised in other US states.

In Denver and at ski resorts around Colorado, dozens of shops licensed to sell cannabis to anyone aged over 21 reported few problems.

Barbara Brohl, the director of Colorado’s Revenue Department – which hopes to raise millions of dollars in taxes on the drug – said: “Is the sky falling? No, I don’t think the sky is falling today. Everything’s gone pretty smoothly.”

Andy Williams, the owner of Medicine Man, one of the first legal shops to open in Denver, said: “A lot of people around the country were looking for something bad to happen here and it didn’t. A lot of state legislators are going to take note and say ‘We can do that too and help our citizens out’.”

Williams served 650 customers and sold about 6.8kg of cannabis.

The data from this law change will be fascinating. Will the number of people who use cannabis increase, decrease or stay the same? Will it lower the price of the drug on the black market and reduce profits for criminals? Will drug related harms increase, decrease or stay the same? How much money will the state make from legal sales from it?

Other states and countries will be in a good position to decide, based on the data, if legalising cannabis is beneficial or not. The fact 48 other states have not legalised, will also allow for comparisons.

Tags:

59 Responses to “Colorado cannabis sales”

  1. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    This is the next item on the liberal agenda, the legalization of cannabis.

    Ten years from now it will be a legal drug, and all the time, money and effort that has gone into stamping it out will have been for naught.

    All of which is fine, common sense prevailing perhaps, except for the self same liberals are hell bent on taking tobacco out of the picture and even as we speak in this country the self appointed guardians of our welfare have given our Government an excuse to become tobacco profiteers with eye wateringly large excise duties on the demon weed.

    Of course this means the black market in tobacco will prosper.

    This war on tobacco is not of course about the welfare of the people, rather it is the liberals pathological need to control other people along with their intense hatred of successful privately owned businesses and their desire to control them also.

    Its all just a power and an ego trip

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. JMS (330 comments) says:

    Andrei,

    Anti-tobacco/pro-cannabis liberals should not be able to have it both ways.

    Nor should anti-cannabis/pro-tobacco conservatives be able to have it both ways,

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Harriet (4,970 comments) says:

    “…..Will it lower the price of the drug on the black market and reduce profits for criminals?…”

    I read the other day David that some stats may not be too reliable because of ‘interstate’ activity. Some people interstate will sell into the market by suppling it illegaly and cheaply for more business which will send the price lower, and other people again will then buy from it to take interstate.

    It seems the debate in NZ is a case of ‘drugs are ok but dealers are bad’ – What’s the point of that?

    Shouldn’t it just be a case of ‘Should people be allowed to take these?’

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nostalgia-NZ (5,202 comments) says:

    The reason why ‘Banksie’ turned on Don Brash looks even more facile in view of Colorado legalising cannabis.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MH (753 comments) says:

    who will be the first POTUS to inhale…in the modern era ? in- Hail to the Chief and In God we Trust,or did someone leave out an L in God or swap a d for a t ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Don the Kiwi (1,754 comments) says:

    Apart from the high one gets from cannabis, the harmful effects of cannabis are worse in the long term that tobacco – this has already been established.

    Pure idiocy is legallising mary-jane.
    When i was building I had a roofy working for me, and his work was very good – till lunchtime when he rolled up a J. His work then turned to crap. Four years later – at 26 – he died of throat cancer caused by smoking MJ.
    Likewise, I employed a bricklaying contractor. Same story. Before lunch, great; after lunch and a few tokes, ratshit.

    It is well known that marijuana is a gateway drug for heavier narcotics. There will be many unintended consequences. This is a decision that Coloradans will regret in 10 years time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi (1,226 comments) says:
    January 4th, 2014 at 11:39 am
    Apart from the high one gets from cannabis, the harmful effects of cannabis are worse in the long term that tobacco – this has already been established.

    Reference, please.

    Pure idiocy is legallising mary-jane.
    When i was building I had a roofy working for me, and his work was very good – till lunchtime when he rolled up a J. His work then turned to crap. Four years later – at 26 – he died of throat cancer caused by smoking MJ.
    Likewise, I employed a bricklaying contractor. Same story. Before lunch, great; after lunch and a few tokes, ratshit.

    His work would have been so much better if he had taken to alcohol, wouldn’t it?

    It is well known that marijuana is a gateway drug for heavier narcotics. There will be many unintended consequences. This is a decision that Coloradans will regret in 10 years time.

    That old gateway chestnut again?
    Well, that would be alcohol, wouldn’t it?

    It’ll be funny to see how you defend your personal choice of drugs while criticise others.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    You can even get an APP to show you where to buy. God help us.

    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2014/01/yelp-site-colorados-newly-legal-marijuana-industry/7999/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. iMP (2,385 comments) says:

    Why don’t we try it with other chemicals first, like, say tobacco and alcohol. Oh, wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    All of which is fine, common sense prevailing perhaps, except for the self same liberals are hell bent on taking tobacco out of the picture and even as we speak in this country the self appointed guardians of our welfare have given our Government an excuse to become tobacco profiteers with eye wateringly large excise duties on the demon weed.

    It would make more sense for harmful substances such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, meth-amphetamine, heroine, …etc to be distributed through elected offices like the District Health Boards. Treating substance abuse as a health problem rather than a criminal problem is the only rational option, the hysterics of the anti-drug lobby that dominate the debate being the major obstacle.

    As Andrei points out, the state is already involved in the drug distribution racket through the cut it takes from tobacco and alcohol. By decentralising the revenue stream currently collected by the government and expanding that revenue stream by adding currently illicit substances we would be left with an excellent method of providing funding for rehabilitation programs in the regions where those programs were most needed. Furthermore, the funding of those regional distribution hubs would be at the expense of the current organised crime syndicates.

    It is becoming more and more apparent that the ‘war on drugs’ is a pretext for allowing an increasingly intrusive state security apparatus to carry out surveillance and detention programs against the real enemy, the general public. Those who truly worry about the ‘nanny state’ would surely be alarmed at the level of scrutiny to which the general population is becoming subject through such spurious ruses as the ‘war on drugs’ or the’war on terror’. It is also worthy of note that both of these ‘wars’ tend to disproportionately target ethnically marginalised communities, to the point that these crusades could be characterised as another manifestation of the institutional racism evident in ‘liberal’ Western democracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. holysheet (387 comments) says:

    What legalising MJ will do is hopefully the quality of weed will be pure MJ. I note from reports, gangs and others are adding other substances to the weed they sell to get the user hooked on those other more toxic drugs. If legalising weed stops this practice, then I am all for it being legalised.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Andrei (2,223 comments) says:
    January 4th, 2014 at 11:12 am
    This is the next item on the liberal agenda, the legalization of cannabis.

    *yawn*, that evil liberal agenda, again.

    Ten years from now it will be a legal drug, and all the time, money and effort that has gone into stamping it out will have been for naught.

    Agree completely on both counts. The money to fight cannabis is a complete waste and has been all the time. Very much like all the money (and lifes) wasted to enforce the prohibition.

    Time to stop throwing good money after bad.

    All of which is fine, common sense prevailing perhaps, except for the self same liberals are hell bent on taking tobacco out of the picture and even as we speak in this country the self appointed guardians of our welfare have given our Government an excuse to become tobacco profiteers with eye wateringly large excise duties on the demon weed.

    Of course this means the black market in tobacco will prosper.

    I doubt you will find many anti-tobacco campaigners that want to legalise cannabis.
    Trying to reduce the health risks associated with any drugs is fair enough, outlawing them isn’t. There is a big difference.

    This war on tobacco is not of course about the welfare of the people, rather it is the liberals pathological need to control other people along with their intense hatred of successful privately owned businesses and their desire to control them also.

    Its all just a power and an ego trip

    So, you are for the legalisation of cannabis, then?
    Or do you have an “intense hatred of successful privately owned businesses and desire to control them also?”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Longknives (4,744 comments) says:

    “Four years later – at 26 – he died of throat cancer caused by smoking MJ”

    Surely not?? The ‘Pro Cannabis’ brigade are always telling us that Cannabis is completely harmless!
    (Drug-fucked Hot Air Balloon Pilots also come to mind…)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. JMS (330 comments) says:

    Surely not?? The ‘Pro Cannabis’ brigade are always telling us that Cannabis is completely harmless!
    (Drug-fucked Hot Air Balloon Pilots also come to mind…)

    Rubbish. Total straw man argument.

    Of course cannabis is harmful, and it should remain illegal to operate vehicles in the public sphere under the influence. But the question here is whether is it any of big nanny-state government’s business to tell people what they can put into their own bodies on their own private property.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    Surely not?? The ‘Pro Cannabis’ brigade are always telling us that Cannabis is completely harmless!
    (Drug-fucked Hot Air Balloon Pilots also come to mind…)

    FFS – adult humans should be allowed to make adult choices for themselves. good or bad. Even if we lived exactly how all the yammering ninnies would have us live, ie never drinking, smoking, living on tofu, brown rice and carrot sticks (whatever the current fads are), scrupulously washing our hands after going to the toilet yadda, yadda Guess what? We would all still DIE one way or another, and accidents would still continue to happen.

    AND BIG GOVERNMENT EXPERTS along with all the nanny state legislation they can think up will never change this – it doesn’t stop them trying though, nor using any datum no matter how trivial (eg a trace amount of cannabis in a dead balloon pilot’s blood) to make their case and get ever more intrusive and pointless legislation passed

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Longknives (4,744 comments) says:

    “no matter how trivial (eg a trace amount of cannabis in a dead balloon pilot’s blood”

    So- If it turned out he had drank a bottle of Scotch that morning before the flight as opposed to smoking a few joints would it still be “Trivial”??
    It annoys me that Potheads just can’t ever see any wrong in their precious ‘Sacred Herb’!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Sector 7g (242 comments) says:

    It is not marijuanas effects that concerns me regarding this. The problem will come from the type of people that will now move there in droves. Underbelly scum, that is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    So- If it turned out he had drank a bottle of Scotch that morning before the flight as opposed to smoking a few joints would it still be “Trivial”??

    So- If it turned out he had drank a bottle of Scotch that morning before the flight as opposed to smoking a few joints would you be campaigning to outlaw alcohol?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    So- If it turned out he had drank a bottle of Scotch that morning before the flight as opposed to smoking a few joints would it still be “Trivial”??

    But he didn’t have “a bottle of Scotch that morning before the flight”, that is a totally irrelevant red herring, he had a trace amount of cannabis in his blood from cannabis taken many hour, perhaps even days before.

    Did this have any bearing on what occurred that day? Who can say for sure, just like when a pedestrian gets knocked down in Queen street did it happen because he was distracted by an argument he just had with his wife? Who can say in a complex and uncertain world what leads to what.

    We can say that operating a hot air balloon shortly after consuming a bottle of whiskey has a high probability of ending in disaster But that didn’t happen! and to extrapolate from that that cannabis should be illegal is just plain dumb.

    BTW I never have anything to do with cannabis, personally, nor do I drink for that matter but a significant proportion of my compatriots do, the vast majority of them do so without harming anyone, including in most cases themselves. And yet for reasons beyond the ken of most normal human beings a great deal of effort is put into the enterprise of stopping them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Longknives (4,744 comments) says:

    Who said I am against Cannabis reform? It’s bullshitting drug-fucked potheads with their constant ‘Cannabis is Harmless’ tripe that I am against…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. edhunter (546 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi you’re an idiot. In what world is it ok for you to allow a roofy & a bricky back on site after a joint?
    Just because something is legal doesn’t mean you’re allowed it in the workplace FFS, Would you have let them back on site after a pub lunch?
    Also you don’t have to smoke cannabis to get high, you can eat it or use a vapouriser, both methods negate any concerns regarding the harm the smoke might do.
    More workplaces will have a drug free policy with random tests a possibility. They’re already doing mandatory alcohol tests on mine sites in oz for example, every morning you blow into a device fail the test you could be up for instant dismissal, also pre employment medicals now have an instant drug & alcohol test included as standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wikiriwhis business (3,998 comments) says:

    The only bad thing to happen will be for gangs losing revenue.

    Commercial Hemp will now get a chance to breath and develop trends and styles

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. wikiriwhis business (3,998 comments) says:

    Andrei

    along with speed limits.

    Most of the crashes occurring over Christmas were due to fatigue.

    As long as you stay in your lane you will be 99% safe.

    Ask anyone driving the autobahn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dog_eat_dog (780 comments) says:

    Legalise the drug, but make the penalties for any crimes committed while under the influence of it automatically double.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    When i was building I had a roofy working for me, and his work was very good – till lunchtime when he rolled up a J. His work then turned to crap.

    You knowingly employed someone high on drugs? I would’ve given them their first written warning and sent them home with no pay.

    This is a decision that Coloradans will regret in 10 years time.

    How are the Dutch fairing with their decision? On that’s right, their only complaint is the drug tourists from their repressive homelands who go a little mental at their new found freedom, who, ironically, are most often from the Land of the Free.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Longknives – you’re talking crap.
    Organisations lobbying for cannibas reform have never said that it is harmless and have been very specific that legal cannibas supply should be for adult use only.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Longknives (4,744 comments) says:

    “Organisations lobbying for cannibas reform have never said that it is harmless and have been very specific that legal cannibas supply should be for adult use only.”

    You’re fucking joking right? Check out NORML’s website sometime…and how about Meteria Turei’s comments about all the fantastic good Cannabis does in the community?
    Your good mate Philu was always preaching to us that it had fantastic ‘medicinal effects’ and even went as far as claiming that it was great to give to kids..
    Potheads are ALWAYS banging on about it being a ‘harmless drug’! Don’t try to take the higher ground now mate..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    The question is NOT whether it’s harmful, rather it’s whether taking a harmful substance should be a criminal offence. If you think it should be, then consuming tobacco, excessive amounts of alcohol, sugary foods etc should all be illegal and criminal offences.

    I just cannot understand people who claim to be for liberty, personal responsibility and freedom and yet want to make decisions for others on what those others can and can’t do with their own lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    BTW I never have anything to do with cannabis, personally, nor do I drink for that matter but a significant proportion of my compatriots do, the vast majority of them do so without harming anyone, including in most cases themselves. And yet for reasons beyond the ken of most normal human beings a great deal of effort is put into the enterprise of stopping them.

    Re your compatriots, are you referring to booze or cannabis? Or both?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    Health-related costs.

    In terms of costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user. On the enforcement side, costs for cannabis are the highest at $328 per user—94% of social costs for cannabis are linked to enforcement. Enforcement costs per user for alcohol are about half those for cannabis ($153), while enforcement costs for tobacco are very low.

    http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/visions/cannabis-vol5/cannabis-tobacco-and-alcohol-use-in-canada

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Andrei (2,651 comments) says:

    And along comes Cha with some dodgy numbers plucked out of the air to try and convince us that cannabis is harmless

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. georgebolwing (853 comments) says:

    To try and get back to DFP’s questions:

    Will the number of people who use cannabis increase, decrease or stay the same: impossible to say. Depends on whether people are attracted to cannabis because it is illegal (i.e. motivated by rebellion) v. those put off by the high price. Also depends of whether you are talking about total number of users, our use per person. Per person use will probably increase, if only because of the expect fall in price and increase in ease of obtaining your weed.

    Will it lower the price of the drug on the black market and reduce profits for criminals?: Economics provides strong theoretical support and empirical evidence that there is a significant black-market premium for illegal activities/substances. Colorado hopes to transfer some of that to the state via taxes.

    Will drug related harms increase, decrease or stay the same? Depends on what you call harm. I would suggest that th availability of pure, clean cannabis will result in some reduction in the health effects of the use of the current illegally supplied and thus unregulated product. If you include all the harm that comes from the illegal/gang/black market activity (e.g. enforcement by violence), then legalization should markedly reduce this.

    How much money will the state make from legal sales from it?: probably a lot more than they expected. Estimating usage of an illegal product is hard, and it is likely that at least in the short-term, Colorado will get a nice little windfall gain from being one of the few places where you can buy the product legally. This, however, will be what will spur other states to follow suit: the prospect of a new revenue source.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Longknives – you talk crap, you always talk crap. This is because you just make stuff up to suit your prejudices. Facts are totally irrelevant to you.
    Now normally I just ignore you. Because regardless of any facts that are pointed out to people like you, they will stick to their bigoted opinions. So what’s the point of engaging in any type of discussion with people like that?

    But hey, you said to check out NORML’s website. I’m not particularly interested in what NORML has to say, but by the tone of your post clearly you have been on their website and had a look. You seem pretty convinced in your convictions so you must have done your research – right??

    Okay let’s have a look… on their homepage under the heading campaign themes:

    It’s time:–
    •for a regulated, adults-only, taxable market for low risk drugs, including cannabis.

    What’s this? REGULATED, ADULTS-ONLY, LOW RISK

    Oh, could it be longknives that you haven’t looked at NORML’s website at all, and you are making stuff up?
    Oh well you mentioned Meteria Turei – off to the Greens website next …

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. georgebolwing (853 comments) says:

    And on the philosophical points, I agree with all of those who say that whether cannabis use is harmful or not is not the issue, it is whether the state should be protecting people from self-harm, where generally the answer should be no.

    My personal view is that what people want to do with and put into their bodies in private is their own affair. Once they venture into the public and their activities start to effect others, then the state can and should become involve. A simple example: drinking to excess at home is fine, drinking to excess and then driving, or being rude and abusive to others in public, is not.

    That we continue to have a publicly-funded health system that treats people regardless of what they do is a complication. An insurance-based approach, with premiums based on life-style, might address this problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Wow the Green Party website is surprisingly well set out and informative (first time I’ve been there!). Click on the Policy tab and you get all of their policies, all logically set out into categories. Who would of thought!
    Anyway this is their “Drug Law Reform” policy:

    Key Principles

    The Green Party recognises that:
    •A drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest;
    •All drugs can cause harm, regardless of their legal status.
    •Not all drug use is problematic.
    •Some current government policies do not reduce harm but rather create a further set of problems.

    Goals
    •To reduce drug abuse;
    •To reduce the illegal drug market;
    •To minimise the harm of legal and illegal drugs on society and individual users.

    Seems pretty sensible to me. And pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what longknives was saying. Maybe that’s why it’s so sensible!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    Oh and just to finish off philu is NOT my “good mate”.
    I do not know who he is and I have no interest in meeting him.
    In fact I think kiwiblog is better off without his ridiculous style of commenting.
    I used to just scroll down and ignore his stuff.
    Must like I usually do with you longknives (today being an exception, sadly!)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. georgebolwing (853 comments) says:

    One other interesting thing to watch will be developments in some of the collateral anti-drugs laws they have in the US. Apparently, it is a crime in the Colorado US to by drugs using a credit card, meaning that there was a strong police presence at some of the more popular Colorado outlets, due to fears that pick-pockets would target the buyers forced to use cash to conclude their transactions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Longknives (4,744 comments) says:

    BC- You seem upset? Calm down mate!
    Maybe a big fat doobie will ease that stress eh??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    some dodgy numbers plucked out of the air

    No Andrei, this is dodgy shit plucked out of the air…..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Don the Kiwi (1,754 comments) says:

    edhunter
    2.33 pm.

    obviously you know very little about the building trade. If a roofy or a bricky want to toke up at lunchtime, they’re not going to come and ask the main contractor, even if that person is on site. All trade guys take their lunch break when it suits them – not necessarily at the same time as – say – the chippies on the site.
    So they sit outside or in their ute/van and have lunch and a joint. Its only afterards that it is obvious that they are impaired by dope – and that’s when I told them to pack up, and if they wished to continue working for me, no dope – or booze for that matter. But in the 35 years I was running my jobs, no-one brought booze onto the jobs. But its so easy to pack a few joints into a cigarette packet, you don’t know that its not tobacco – something that doesn’t impair them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bc (1,367 comments) says:

    longknives, I note that you didn’t address the discrepancy between your statements which you presented as facts and the ACTUAL facts.
    No surprises there. Why I would I expect otherwise I suppose?

    Oh, and I’m NOT a cannibas user. It is possible to believe in sensible drug reform and to believe that drug abuse is a health issue without having to be a drug user.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. edhunter (546 comments) says:

    Re your first post Don you intimated this was a regular occurrence & you didn’t mention any consequences for their actions.
    And yes Don I have been on plenty of building sites & am not blind to what can & does happen on sites.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    Business as usual.

    As recreational cannabis sales begin Jan. 1, one fact is sometimes overlooked: Employers still can fire workers for using it on- or off-duty.

    State law gives employers full authority to impose any drug prohibitions they wish, despite it being legal in Colorado for adults to possess and consume marijuana.

    “Employers hold all the cards,” said Curtis Graves, a staff attorney for the Mountain States Employers Council.

    So you smoke only off-duty? Not good enough. Consuming just at home provides no protection if your workplace drug test comes back positive for marijuana,

    http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_24799683/employers-can-still-fire-pot-smokers-legal-use

    Department of Defense officials are reminding soldiers stationed in or visiting Colorado that military rules prohibiting marijuana use still apply. That includes random drug tests and troops caught with drugs in their possession or in their system face loss of security clearance or even dismissal from the service.

    http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/marijuana_may_be_legal_in_colo.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    The neighbours have things in hand too.

    Wyoming Highway Patrol

    DO NOT BRING YOUR COLORADO PURCHASED MARIJUANA INTO WYOMING

    Cheyenne – The new law that went into effect January 1st in the State of Colorado making possession of marijuana legal to sell and possess in that State has generated many questions to our office from the media.

    The Wyoming Highway Patrol has no plans to increase patrols on highways near the state line to look for those transporting marijuana into the State from Colorado. It will be business as usual for the Troopers who always are on alert for any criminal activity.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=667619979927432

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Employer rights to judge private life behaviour as an employment issue – the work cell phone and always being owned by the one paying the working wage. Not so much casualisation as a new serfdom.

    One wonders when NSA traces of cell phone locations will be made known to employers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    Watch Colorado’s productivity plummet. Fucking morons!

    As I recall, cannabis made daytime telly and infomercials the most stunningly entertainingly fantastic thing my flatmates had ever seen. And the afternoons simply flew by (this is before they all got X boxes).

    Most of them – save a few – wondered where their twenties and thirties went. They ended up on minimum wage or became drop kicks and continued living on the dole at the beach. Seen some of them since and they look older than me, one or two are slack jawed idiots who can hardly string two words together and are still ‘jamming’, doing some art, writing some songs.

    That’s where the harm in cannabis is. Long term.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    duggledog (857 comments) says:
    January 4th, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    That’s where the harm in cannabis is. Long term

    The problem with this negative role model anecdote is its relevance. If you are anyone other than some kind of thin lipped patrician it is utterly meaningless, its like something out of the unintentionally hilarious, Reefer Madness.

    *black and white, somber thin lipped patrician addresses the camera* “This could affect your child, or your child, …? *patrician points directly at the camera* “…OR YOURS!”

    Completely potty, I think those who carry on like that are trying to convince themselves more than anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. nasska (11,503 comments) says:

    Weird orgies & unleashed passions….I must have been smoking the cheap stuff. :)

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgd3mb5xz7n1ux9/Itmustbeevil%204.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Watch Colorado’s productivity plummet. Fucking morons!

    As I recall, cannabis made daytime telly and infomercials the most stunningly entertainingly fantastic thing my flatmates had ever seen. And the afternoons simply flew by (this is before they all got X boxes).

    Most of them – save a few – wondered where their twenties and thirties went. They ended up on minimum wage or became drop kicks and continued living on the dole at the beach. Seen some of them since and they look older than me, one or two are slack jawed idiots who can hardly string two words together and are still ‘jamming’, doing some art, writing some songs.

    That’s where the harm in cannabis is. Long term.

    These people all took Cannabis while it is illegal. What’s your point? Most of us know it has side effects. The question is should it be illegal, and send you to jail, or is. It’s health issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Bloody iPad! That last sentence isn’t part of the quote and is my comment. And it should read “…or is it a health issue”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Will we see such a change in NZ ?

    I doubt it … Too many lawyers making too much money defending gang members making even more money …. About 10% of Police and Court time would be given back to real crime rather than fighting a phoney war stopping something that’s been going on for thousands of years….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    Williams served 650 customers and sold about 6.8kg of cannabis.

    At the first-day retail price of $400-500/oz for legal pot that’s a cool $100k US plus taxes. Not bad for a day’s dealing.

    Just a pity that the uncontrolled pricing regime is pricing the medical users out of the market.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. MH (753 comments) says:

    so it’s Colorado rocky mountain high for the next Olympics?

    Certainly another mental health issue,what’s the difference in the definition of moderation between the main accepted drug we take now alcohol c.f. use of mj ? For revenue gathering purposes what is over the limit at work or in a public place,driving etc ? How will they be measured or defined?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    One thing that I find interesting with this situation is there appears to be no association with this change to Obama. Recalling that Clinton said ‘I didn’t inhale’ while Obama said ‘I certainly did – that was the point wasn’t it’ it seems odd that the media are not tying this legislative shift more closely to him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Er, sock cons? You do realise that the reason that Colorado decriminalised recreational weed use is because of one of those binding citizens referenda thangs that you lot are so keen about, right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    And hey, Colorado is the home state of Focus on the Family, a notoriously predatory US Christian Right multinational. Looks like Coloradans got tired of incessant moralising from Colorado Springs, which is infested with fundies, and tacked toward libertarianism this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy

    Sure it was a referendum, but the point is that sufficient people voted to pass it in a country that until very recently was to scared to elect a president that’s wasn’t a Christian ( supposedly ) family guy who promised to waste billions on the drag war.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    DPF

    Is the NZ minister for tourism fully briefed on the situation in Colorado ?
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/colorado-pot-tours-grow-weed-article-1.1566673

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Moreover, do sock con boosters of binding citizens referenda realise that this hasn’t been the first time this has happened?

    In California (2010), Massachusetts (2008), Rhode Island (2013), Vermont (2013) and Washington state (2013), possession of pot for personal use is an infraction, attracting only a spot fine, or else has been decriminalised for personal use altogether. Washington state has also legalised recreational use. At last count, medicinal cannabis use was legal in California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_US_state

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote