Mary Jane

grcthird · May 6, 2016

Funny, I know a guy that is heading to the NW to "get into the MJ industry", dude was like "I already have some experience" molaugh

:smoke:

TNGreg · May 6, 2016

RockHales · May 6, 2016

The US strains and profits have had a 1000% increase in the last 15/20 years,now it's legal and the gates are just starting to open. Atleast that is what I heard.

Beerj · May 6, 2016

"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit…paranoid? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the ****ing law? It grows everywhere. Serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake. You know what I mean? It's like God on the seventh day looking down on his creation:
'There it is, my creation, perfect and holy in all ways. Now, I can rest…Oh my me…I left ****ing pot everywhere…I shouldn't have smoked that joint on the third day…****…That was the day I created possums. Ha ha ha. Ohh, still gives me a chuckle…If I leave pot everywhere, that's gonna give people the impression they're suppose to…use it. Now I have to create Republicans.'
'And God wept'… I believe was the next verse."
Bill Hicks

417chevy · May 8, 2016

creepycrawly said:
Legalize it and tax it.

The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't grow or what I can and can't put in my body.

How many people do you know who get drunk and want to fight? Lots. Now how many do you know that get stoned on just weed and want to fight? Exactly.

I know of one.

onepieceatatime · May 8, 2016

Re:

I might fight someone over a bag of fish sticks when I get high!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

patooyee · May 8, 2016

Why does anyone think that anything would change if they were legal? You think the cartels would just pack up, go home, get educations and office jobs? You think Mexico is just going happily grow a new export market? You think they could even if they wanted to?

Sorry. The cheap, untaxed, unregulated, cartel drugs will still flow over the border. The Fed will still wage their drug war for the same reasons they do now. Cartel drugs will still be in high demand.

You think the Fed would consider just legalizing them and allowing every TN redneck with an acre of weeds to start producing completely unregulated? That's not even part of the debate. And even if it was, it would only be for a few years before some college kid got some sort of poisoning from some sort of fungus they got in a joint grown on some idiot's land where he was feeding his cows glowing green grapes or some ****. There would be commercials with a cute little vegetable-girl in a motorized wheelchair typing her message to the audience with a Stephen Hawking voice saying, "Unregulated drugs did this to me. Don't be a victim. Support the Marijuana Industry Regulation Bill during this fall's election cycle." Then the public will be screaming for regulation again. How is that TN redneck going to compete with the cartels then?

Just like we can't compete in the labor market due to regulation now, we wouldn't be able to compete in the drug market.

I agree, the fed shouldn't be able to tell me what I can or can't put in my own body. On the other hand, if they legalize drugs all they are doing is bringing the users out into the open, intermingling them with productive members of society. In that case, the Fed shouldn't be able to tell a non-user how they are allowed to protect their body from harm either. If I suspect an obvious drug user may wish to inflict harm upon me or mine, I should be able to preemptively extinguish that user without fear of legal repercussion. That user has already devalued his own life anyway. The logic test should be this simple:

Did perp test positive postmortem?
If yes, no trial or suits allowed.
If no, proceed legally as usual.

That would be the only way I could support legalizing. Otherwise it's just more of the fed protecting the vampires over the productive members and getting more money and power in the process.

kushKrawlin · May 8, 2016

Are you thinking that Mexicans have anything to do with the reefer in this country?? No one smokes that bullshit they have. All from Cali. Mexicans = Meth. Not weed. That bullshit they try to grow is like smokin burnt hair. All the bud that any human would smoke comes from Cali.

zukimaster · May 8, 2016

^^ and this is coming from a professional! :JRich:

lowbudgetjunk · May 8, 2016

Re: Re: Mary Jane

patooyee said:
Why does anyone think that anything would change if they were legal? You think the cartels would just pack up, go home, get educations and office jobs? You think Mexico is just going happily grow a new export market? You think they could even if they wanted to?

Sorry. The cheap, untaxed, unregulated, cartel drugs will still flow over the border. The Fed will still wage their drug war for the same reasons they do now. Cartel drugs will still be in high demand.

You think the Fed would consider just legalizing them and allowing every TN redneck with an acre of weeds to start producing completely unregulated? That's not even part of the debate. And even if it was, it would only be for a few years before some college kid got some sort of poisoning from some sort of fungus they got in a joint grown on some idiot's land where he was feeding his cows glowing green grapes or some ****. There would be commercials with a cute little vegetable-girl in a motorized wheelchair typing her message to the audience with a Stephen Hawking voice saying, "Unregulated drugs did this to me. Don't be a victim. Support the Marijuana Industry Regulation Bill during this fall's election cycle." Then the public will be screaming for regulation again. How is that TN redneck going to compete with the cartels then?

Just like we can't compete in the labor market due to regulation now, we wouldn't be able to compete in the drug market.

I agree, the fed shouldn't be able to tell me what I can or can't put in my own body. On the other hand, if they legalize drugs all they are doing is bringing the users out into the open, intermingling them with productive members of society. In that case, the Fed shouldn't be able to tell a non-user how they are allowed to protect their body from harm either. If I suspect an obvious drug user may wish to inflict harm upon me or mine, I should be able to preemptively extinguish that user without fear of legal repercussion. That user has already devalued his own life anyway. The logic test should be this simple:

Did perp test positive postmortem?
If yes, no trial or suits allowed.
If no, proceed legally as usual.

That would be the only way I could support legalizing. Otherwise it's just more of the fed protecting the vampires over the productive members and getting more money and power in the process.

You lost me on this one. Impaired doesn't mean free reign shooting spree. Otherwise, I could off an entire bar at happy hour and just say, "They were coming right at me." As well, the Cartel would take a large hit in the pocket book with legalized, taxed goods. There will always be an illegal market for any drugs. Look at moonshine at off road parks at any event. That being said, these barbarians making lemon drop don't hold a candle to the Natural Light and girl beer that Kmcminn drinks and the 30 packs Piper throws back.

Casey is partially right. Good weed also gets shipped in from Washington State and Oregon. Got a cop buddy that works with the DEA from time to time.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

patooyee · May 8, 2016

I guess my post refers more to illicit drugs. I know the subject says MJ but people were starting to talk about drugs in general, as if we weren't just talking MJ anymore, which is where my statements were directed mainly.

And I didn't say free killing spree on users. I said relaxed requirements for the use of lethal force during self defense. As it stands now you have to go through a 50-point legal checklist before you can even think about showing a gun much less using it. And even if you do check off every box on that list and use it, your life is liable to be ruined from the ensuing legal suits anyway. You don't have to be wrong to get sued and driven into bankruptcy. I'm saying that checklist should be much shorter with the burden of proof being on the perp instead of the victim in the case of users. If you get killed while high, it should be your legal team's problem to prove why you should not have been killed before the self-defender is automatically driven bankrupt proving why he should be alive..

And yes, I think the same should apply for drinking as well. You get drunk, start fighting people, cause a danger to me or mine? You deserve to die. As it stands now, the system protects you over us. That isn't right and would only be perpetuated by legalizing illicit drugs.

Why is it fair that someone who knowingly, under their own free will, who relinquishes control of their own body to a substance, thereby doing something they would normally not in their right mind do and endangering normal, productive members of society gets more or even the same rights as their potential victims? Let's at least acknowledge that these people are not as useful as others, have self-de-valued themselves, and are not as valuable as those who lead responsible lives.

Beerj · May 8, 2016

kushKrawlin said:
Are you thinking that Mexicans have anything to do with the reefer in this country?? No one smokes that bullshit they have. All from Cali. Mexicans = Meth. Not weed. That bullshit they try to grow is like smokin burnt hair. All the bud that any human would smoke comes from Cali.

Lots of good bud is grown just about everywhere. When plants are indoors, they don't care what state they're in. Also, Northern Lights and Lowryder strains do well outside on the east coast... so I've been told.

kmcminn · May 8, 2016

patooyee said:
I guess my post refers more to illicit drugs. I know the subject says MJ but people were starting to talk about drugs in general, as if we weren't just talking MJ anymore, which is where my statements were directed mainly.

And I didn't say free killing spree on users. I said relaxed requirements for the use of lethal force during self defense. As it stands now you have to go through a 50-point legal checklist before you can even think about showing a gun much less using it. And even if you do check off every box on that list and use it, your life is liable to be ruined from the ensuing legal suits anyway. You don't have to be wrong to get sued and driven into bankruptcy. I'm saying that checklist should be much shorter with the burden of proof being on the perp instead of the victim in the case of users. If you get killed while high, it should be your legal team's problem to prove why you should not have been killed before the self-defender is automatically driven bankrupt proving why he should be alive..

And yes, I think the same should apply for drinking as well. You get drunk, start fighting people, cause a danger to me or mine? You deserve to die. As it stands now, the system protects you over us. That isn't right and would only be perpetuated by legalizing illicit drugs.

Why is it fair that someone who knowingly, under their own free will, who relinquishes control of their own body to a substance, thereby doing something they would normally not in their right mind do and endangering normal, productive members of society gets more or even the same rights as their potential victims? Let's at least acknowledge that these people are not as useful as others, have self-de-valued themselves, and are not as valuable as those who lead responsible lives.

You have a link to 50-point legal checklist?

onepieceatatime · May 8, 2016

Re:

I know a guy, he says his isn't the best but it is organic. I don't know what that means but I "heard" it works for your average not get to smoke very often thanks to DOT drug test kinda fella.

Here's what gets me, I know some super smart pot smokers. How come they've not come up with a way to beat a drug test?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Beerj · May 8, 2016

onepieceatatime said:
I know a guy, he says his isn't the best but it is organic. I don't know what that means but I "heard" it works for your average not get to smoke very often thanks to DOT drug test kinda fella.

Here's what gets me, I know some super smart pot smokers. How come they've not come up with a way to beat a drug test?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Because there's just as many, better funded, smart people that do the opposite. It's only relatively recently that they began checking the dilution levels. No more chugging water and pissing clear.

patooyee · May 8, 2016

kmcminn said:
You have a link to 50-point legal checklist?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exaggeration

Could these actions be interpreted in any other way?
Are there witnesses to back my side up?
Could the perp be interpreted as retreating?
Have I done my due diligence to try to retreat?
Was the perp showing the ability to endanger my life or just hurt me?
etc.

This is all **** the courts debate for each case now. I think, if illicit drugs are legal and addicts are allowed to roam our streets freely, the test should just be one point:

Was perp acting like a crazy ****er who had the potential to hurt someone and was high on mind altering substances?
no etc.

kmcminn · May 8, 2016

patooyee said:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exaggeration

Could these actions be interpreted in any other way?

Are there witnesses to back my side up?

Could the perp be interpreted as retreating?

Have I done my due diligence to try to retreat?

Was the perp showing the ability to endanger my life or just hurt me?

etc.

This is all **** the courts debate for each case now. I think, if illicit drugs are legal and addicts are allowed to roam our streets freely, the test should just be one point:

Was perp acting like a crazy ****er who had the potential to hurt someone and was high on mind altering substances?

no etc.