Washington Senate Approves Marijuana Bill Combining Medical and Recreational Industries

Patients would have to register, and recreational consumers could not grow their own.


Office of Ann Rivers

On Friday the Washington State Senate approved a bill aimed at integrating medical and recreational marijuana into a single, state-licensed industry. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Ann Rivers (R-La Center), is more restrictive than legislation introduced last month by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle), a longtime supporter of medical marijuana. Like Kohl-Welles' bill, Rivers' would shut down the dispensaries that operate as "collective gardens" while allowing some of their owners a chance to run state-regulated marijuana stores. Unlike Kohl-Welles' bill, Rivers' does not allow home cultivation for recreational use, and it would impose new limits on patients' freedom to grow their own medicine.

Patients with doctor's recommendations currently have an affirmative defense against cultivation charges for at least 15 plants—more if they can show it is medically necessary. Rivers' bill, S.B. 5052, would create a registry in which patients would have to enroll if they want to grow marijuana. They would be limited to six plants unless a health professional certified that they needed more. Under Kohl-Welles' bill, by contrast, all adults 21 or older would have been allowed to grow up to six plants, while patients who obtained a "medical marijuana waiver" would have been allowed to grow up to 15.

Patients in the registry created by S.B. 5052 would be allowed to possess three times as much marijuana as recreational consumers: up to three ounces of buds, 48 ounces of marijuana-infused foods, 21 ounces of liquid, and 21 grams of concentrates. Under current law, patients may possess up to 24 ounces of marijuana. Registration would exempt patients from sales tax (but not the state's hefty marijuana-specific taxes) on cannabis purchased from retailers with "medical marijuana endorsements."

Under Rivers' bill, the Washington State Liquor Control Board, renamed the Liquor and Cannabis Board, would issue those endorsements to retailers who want to specialize in serving patients. To accommodate the influx of patients, the board would raise the number of retailer licenses (currently limited to 334) and open a new, merit-based licensing process that would be open to current dispensary operators who have been collecting sales taxes and otherwise striving to comply with state and local law. Patients who do not live near a state-licensed store would be allowed to form "cooperatives" that would be limited to four patients growing no more than 60 plants and could not be located within 15 miles of a regulated retailer.

The bill, which aims to reduce competition with state-licensed marijuana merchants and raise the share of transactions subject to taxes, will now be considered by the state House of Representatives. "The Senate sent a strong and clear message to the people of this state today that we're taking this issue seriously and we're going to keep working on it for the safety of our patients and the safety of our children," Rivers told the Associated Press. "There's tremendous will to get this done. We have got to get rid of the gray and black market."

NEXT: Attn, Philly-Area Reasonoids: Nick Gillespie and David Boaz Discussing The Libertarian Mind TONITE at 6.30pm

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. You just had to blow Shriek’s whistle, didn’t ya’?

      1. I don’t know about that.

        On an unrelated note, a booming stock market isn’t evidence, necessarily, of real economic recovery.

        Also, the Affordable Care Act will eventually fail because it seems to incentivise the consumption of medical services, but penalize the provision of those services. Recently, I read of a bump in the Medicare payments to doctors, which indicates that the administrators of the ACA realize that the incintive/disincintive mis-match is a problem that needs correction.

          1. The guy who’s in office now is always considered one of the worst.

        1. The stock market indicates that rich people are happy

    2. I have no idea how I feel about this story. Either we have a agency that operates above/separate any kind of executive authority(scary) or one of the major political parties put a perceived threat to national security over partisan jockeying(just as scary).

    3. That’s nice. I’m still not going to believe them when they say “trust us, we know what we are doing” next time someone wants to start a war.

      I also wish people would specify what they are in headlines and not just say “WMDs”. How hard is it to say “chemical weapons”. I think a lot of people think nuclear when they see that and it is used in a somewhat deceptive way. Chemical weapons are nasty, but aren’t massively destructive in the way nukes are.

      1. In this case the term WMD is more relevant to the story than the specific type of WMD. The headline writer did a good job.

        1. But who really thought that Saddam had really gotten rid of every chemical weapon?

          1. The “Bush lied people died” people.

      2. It may not be harder to say “chemical weapons”, but it takes longer to write, and in this fast-paced blogging environment, seconds count.

      3. Their goal is to reduce consumption by people who qualify as drug addicts.

        That is what a Sin tax is

        I am not concerned with the tax and I am not concerned with anything but the right to enter the market as a skilled producer based on performance alone. Growers should have to prove they can reliably produce top tiered products at rock bottom prices in addition to having further contributions to make to the community (like having a high IQ and sharing that with people who aren’t so lucky).

    4. There’s very little that the CIA can do at this point that would shock or surprise me. They are the of the federal bureaucratic fiefdoms, answerable to no one, with no checks on their power.

  1. We have got to get rid of the gray and black market.

    “We have to regulate our way to freedom!” Yeah, good luck with that.

    1. Excessive taxation and regulation is a sure fire way to get rid of the black market. Just look how well it’s done for alcohol and tobacco in Washington!

      1. It appears government can’t be borderline fair without excessive taxation and onerous regulation.

    2. I’m sure I am not the only one who thinks “good” when I see a story about how large the underground economy is.

      1. Part of me says “good” – but more of me wishes activity didn’t get driven underground by the dead hand of Uncle Gubmint. Just think of the protections of enforceable contracts, being able to advertise, more customers, etc an open business could have.

        I guess, in short, the need to go underground makes me sad, despite the good feeling I may get from people persevering in the face of the G.

        1. The anarchist in me really likes how even in the black market things largely go smoothly without a formal system to enforce contracts. It is far from ideal in terms of how violence is used, but it definitely works in its way. And I think a larger black market, especially as enabled by the internet and technology will offer more less-violent alternatives. The really bad violence seems to happen when governments really try to crack down on black markets.

      2. I think of it oppositely: the underground economy is the natural one, and the regulated one is the unnatural one. Whenever I see figures related to their sizes, I imagine rooms of bean counters trying to figure out how to discover and regulate more.

        1. That’s pretty much why I feel that way. The violence and corruption associated with black markets is mostly caused or exacerbated by governments’ attempts to stop them. Without that they are just markets.

          1. Well, of course there’s the whole not getting shot by my competitor to put me out of business part of regulated markets that’s pretty good. And it’s nice when you can call the police if one of your competitors steals your product instead of having to mount your own armed raid.

          2. The only thing that makes a common god given plant valuable enough to create violent drug cartels and corrupt government is the prohibition of it..

      3. Black/Free market.

    3. The most effective way to eliminate a black/gray market is to have regulation and taxation be such a light touch it is not worth the risk to go underground.

  2. On Friday the Washington State Senate approved a bill aimed at integrating medical and recreational marijuana into a single, state-

    banned industry. No? Yes.

  3. Rube Goldberg thinks this bill is needlessly complicated.

    1. Yeah, I gave up halfway into the article. It is unclear what benefit they are aiming for other than multiplying the number of government regulators.

      1. The SEIU approves this statement.

      2. “It is unclear what benefit they are aiming for other than multiplying the number of government regulators.” Did you consider that perhaps that’s the only point of the bill?

    2. I’m stealing this analogy.

  4. open a new, merit-based licensing process

    Merit-based, eh? I’m sure that will totally not be subject to corruption, no sir.

    1. “Vinnie the Enforcer just happens to be well-qualified to run a chain of medical MJ facilities!”

      1. But does he have a degree?

        1. Of course he does. How else would he be able to run a chain of MMJ facilities.


        2. From the University of Palermo.

          1. Wait, there’s a *real* university of Palermo, never mind –


            1. You don’t think that certain families may have at certain times co-opted that institution?

    2. Dude, it’s the LCB. They already fuck up everything they go near, even if it wasn’t merit based they’d find a way to fuck it up. Those worthless fucks were nearly done for after liquor privatization, then they got thrown this bone and it gave them new life. ARRGGHHH

      1. Humorously, that’s not the first time alcohol regulators put out of work by liberalizing the alcohol market turned to drug regulation.

        IIRC the feds re-purposed the guys hunting rum-runners to going after marijuana cultivators after prohibition was repealed.


          1. Like someone with the complete collection of Robin Williams movies on Laser Disk, DVD and Blu-ray has any concept of what humor is.

            1. Jumanji is a great film you asshole!

              1. +1 Crude CGI Monkey!

        2. It did take some effort. I read (some of) the personal papers of my fellow alumnus Harry Anslinger. They’re available (or were available) for perusal at the main library at Penn State’s main campus. Not really that interesting, but he was truly an asshole and an expert bureaucrat. The fucking guy wrote thousands of letters.

  5. Rivers’ does not allow home cultivation for recreational use

    Of course it doesn’t, which was the best part of Kohl-Welles’ bill. Of course not. They have to try and get the people who are still buying from dealers who get non-state-store weed (like myself) to pay their asinine taxes. Assholes. That’ll work just as well as it already is.

    At this point the police seem completely uninterested in enforcing the “you can’t grow your own” bullshit, which is nice, but who knows if that might change.

    1. but who knows if that might change

      I think you know.

      1. Oh, yeah, I do, but I’ve just been surprised so far at how little effort or care seems to be directed at going after people growing for themselves or even for low level dealing.

        I’m sure that part of this was that MJ enforcement was set as the SPD’s (and other cop departments’) lowest priority even before legalization and it’s just some inertia, but I’ll take it while it lasts.

    2. Of course they won’t…you’re talking about a bunch of people who can’t understand why people aren’t buying the legal version of a product that’s taxed at 50% and would rather buy the illegal version that isn’t taxed at all.

      That’s one of the things that always amused me about the idiots who touted marijuana as this bottomless revenue stream…they assumed that incentives created by price somehow didn’t apply once you legalized weed.

      I’m waiting for one of them to try and explain to me that 50% of a legal pot sale that doesn’t happen is better than 8% of a legal pot sale that does. That’ll be a fun time making that person feel very stupid.

      1. True. Here in Taiwan I can buy American cigarettes for 25% of the American price. People are still smuggling in smokes from Thailand and China.

  6. What they should do is require a certificate of need. Maybe a neighborhood can only support one or two pot shops. The certificate would require getting existing firms to agree to additional firms being opened in the community.

    1. Can’t tell if serious..

      1. I was being cynical.

        “Certificates of Need” are one of the things that really frost me. It is a gross violation of free market principles that could probably be repealed fairly easily, if more people knew about them.

        1. that could probably be repealed fairly easily

          Doubt it. Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs, and lots of progs think competition is bad and government control is good.

          1. I was thinking more along the lines of torches and pitchforks.

        2. Let’s call them by another, more descriptive name: licenses to cartelize.

  7. We have made tremendous gains in getting marijuana treated like alcohol, and people aren’t allowed to own stills or make their own moonshine in Washington State either.

    We haven’t destroyed the government’s apparatus or their ability to micromanage our lives; we’ve just managed to drag that apparatus, kicking and screaming, to regulate marijuana like it’s alcohol.

    One of the libertarian principles this demonstrates is that meaningful change comes from the bottom up–it isn’t about electing politicians that share our views. It’s about changing the views of the politicians’ constituency*.

    If we want the government to stop micromanaging and regulating every aspect of our lives like they do with alcohol, 1) that’s a much bigger job than getting recreational marijuana legalized and 2) we’ll accomplish that the same way. It won’t be accomplished by electing politicians that share out views; it will happen when we change the views of the politicians’ constituency*.

    *Excellent reasons to give money to Reason.

    1. “Donate to Reason? The Impossibly Great American Dream!!!” Nick G.

      1. If a few decades from now, some future Doherty writes a history of the libertarian movement from when Doherty left off, I suspect it would have a lot to say about and the internet.

        I see so much Reason stuff linked to and libertarian arguments repeated across the web–by people who may have never heard the arguments made by those who originally made them.

        If we were able to trace where people originally heard these arguments, I suspect we’d find that Sullum and some of the other Reason staff have had a much greater impact on the debate than most people realize.

        Even the other non-libertarian journalists out there covering these topics are often reacting to argument strains that were initiated by staff here at

        Legal recreational marijuana sure as hell didn’t happen by accident.

        The activists found a fertile field to plant their bills in, and I’d argue that field was plowed by people like Sullum.

        1. Arguments repeated? Certainly. Arguments understood while being repeated? Well, time will tell.

          I’m just joking about that bit Gillespie wrote last night.

        2. I’ll consider marijuana to be legal when I can grow a plant without fear of being imprisoned and/or having my right to keep and bear arms being abridged.

          1. abridged *infringed*

            1. *revoked*

          2. I didn’t mean to suggest that what Washington may be doing here is okay.

            I was trying to suggest that the problem here is the same problem with everything else.

            The problem is that Marijuana isn’t being given special treatment in this bill. It’s being treated just like everything else that’s comparable.

            And if we want to fix “everything else”, we’ve still got a lot of heavy lifting to do.

            One doesn’t simply set up a still and start making their own alcohol.

            I was looking at doing that to run alcohol in my car. You have to pay an outrageous tax and get impossible permits from all sorts of levels of government to do that–unless you fill your alcohol with mustard, which would make anyone sick as hell if they drank it.

            It’s absurd. If you want to make biodiesel and you’ve got enough land, nobody gives a damn.

            1. It’s absurd.

              Yes, yes it is. Anytime you want to do something where there’s a chance to make money, there’s guys with guns standing there with their hands out.

              1. “…there’s guys with guns – and police uniforms – standing there with their hands out.”

                Just to be clear about who the guys with guns are…

        3. “The Libertarian Moment Occurred Just Before The Invasion of the Space Cockroaches. Who then ate all the libertarians.”

          -Nicholas Gillespie XVII, 2638.

    2. Alcohol is micromanaged because of the money. Period. For the first century of the republic, alcohol was the single most significant source of revenue for the federal government. That changed with the income tax and Prohibition, but the attitude hasn’t changed a bit. I’m happy I can make beer and wine without being considered a criminal. Yeah it would be nice to legally distill some of it, but I don’t see that ever being legal in this country. Ever.

      1. Other governments micromanage their citizenry much more than ours while allowing the people to legally distill alcohol. It’s not about micromanagement, it’s about money. Same deal with weed. Every place it’s been legalized, it has been micromanaged so the state can get its cut of the profits.

        1. Most countries try to tax all distilling. But people do it a lot in places with very high taxes on spirits. I think New Zealand is one of the few countries that allows home distilling without any taxes or permits or anything.

      2. I was at a city council meeting not so long ago at a city in Southern California that will remain unnamed, where somebody decided to sell their corner lot to a 7-11. The owner was there ahead of me trying to get a conditional use permit and a liquor license to sell beer. 7-11, of course, didn’t want to buy the lot without it.

        The lot owner showed up with a slick, well supported presentation about all the benefits to the city–especially in terms of tax revenue. The chief of the local police showed up to testify against the permit saying there were already too many places to buy beer in the city and that this location would result in x number of drunk driving deaths per year–and x number of them would be children.

        The council rejected the CUP and license unanimously.

        You have to get CUPs and licenses for so many things. From alcohol to tattoo parlors and titty bars. When there’s corruption in a city, it’s often tied to getting these unwanted things approved. And I think a lot of people get elected to city office specifically to stop these kinds of things from getting approved.

        It’s certainly true that the poorer a city is, the easier it is to get these things approved because they’re so starved for tax revenue.

        1. Yet another reason to hate the cops.

        2. You know what I mean though (unless you’re being Ken The Ass again). The laws against home distillation are federal, and based upon obtaining revenue.

          1. I don’t know who Ken the Ass is, but like I said, the poorer a neighborhood is, the easier it is to get these things approved.

            For a while in Inglewood (basically South Central LA), the city council started requiring CUPs for new churches–because churches were taking up commercially zoned space, and they were tax exempt.

            Eventually the courts struck that down on First Amendment grounds.

            I appreciate that the significance of tax revenue is an important consideration. I hope you understand what I’m saying about titty bars. There are some things your average suburban city council doesn’t want–no matter how much tax revenue it would bring. If all they were worried about was tax revenue, there’d be a lot more casinos than just the ones on your local Indian reservation.

            Those casino operators would much rather be nearer the retirement community and the suburbs–but even if your state did legalize slot machines, etc., the chances of the local council getting a casino approved in the suburbs is pretty slim.

            And if they do get it approved, it’ll be in the industrial part of town–over by the titty bar, the tattoo parlor, the smelly ass slaughter house, and the eyesore of a junkyard.

            P.S. Here are the still laws for Washington State:


            1. I don’t know who Ken the Ass is, but like I said, the poorer a neighborhood is, the easier it is to get these things approved.

              He’s the guy who totally misses the point that I was speaking with regards to the federal government, and then goes on and on about local government.

              1. You think my point about local government doesn’t have anything to do with your point about the federal government?

                Yeah, the laws at the federal level, especially those applied by ATF, are almost certainly about revenue.

                The laws and restrictions on the same activity at the local level mostly aren’t about revenue.

                Meanwhile, the laws in Washington State and Colorado on recreational marijuana are mostly ignoring federal law.

                And the medical marijuana laws in California (which admittedly are so broad that no recreational user can’t find some medical use to qualify for), are pretty much completely capitulating to local law. You pretty much can’t put a dispensary anywhere a city council doesn’t want one–which is pretty much everywhere they don’t wouldn’t want a liquor store.

                1. The laws and restrictions on the same activity at the local level mostly aren’t about revenue.

                  I thought we were talking about distilling, which is illegal at the federal level.

                  1. It’s legal at the federal level, but you have to get a permit–and you have to pay tax. And the tax is onerous.

                    When the federal government starts treating marijuana like alcohol, we should probably expect it to look like that, too.

                    The marijuana laws that evolve after the Drug war will probably look something like the alcohol laws that evolved after prohibition.

                2. What you’re talking about is more like comparing dispensaries to brewpubs. I get it. But I thought we were talking about distilling, which isn’t affected by local regulations.

                  1. Unless you mean states legalizing/regulating the distillation of liquor in defiance of the federal government. That’s an interesting thought.

                  2. It’s going to be like home beer brewers–if we’re lucky.

                    But I doubt we’ll be that lucky.

          2. No, states have laws against home distilling, and base them on revenue, too.

        3. “and x number of them would be children.”

          There’s the problem right there!
          Shoot the rug rats first, and then we won’t have to worry.

          1. “Children are our future- unless we do something to stop them now!”

    3. Changing the views of their constituency is often ineffective. Officials are elected by voters with a combination of reasons for voting for them, and it’s well known that voters were much more favorable to legal pot than elected officials were, because among those voters who made the issue a priority, the antis were far ahead of the pros. They got it legal by putting it on the ballot directly to voters, because their state allowed such a procedure. Most states don’t, so even though the constituency thinks the same way in most of those states, policy has not reflected it.

      1. It requires a critical mass of support.

        That critical mass didn’t just pop out of nowhere.

        Libertarians have been building and building that legalize marijuana that critical mass for decades.

        There’s an old business saying that goes, “You know your marketing is working when your customers repeat it back to you”. Well, I go to mainstream websites now, and I read the non-libertarian masses making the same arguments for legalization that Sullum was making 20 years (or more) ago.

        You change the constituency first, and then the law changes.

        Martin Luther King didn’t start marching, making speeches, and protesting because the politicians wanted to get rid of segregation. The politicians wanted to get rid of segregation because Martin Luther King was marching, making, speeches, protesting, and thereby changing the minds of those politicians’ constituents.

        George Wallace is an excellent example of that, actually. When a critical mass of his constituents wanted segregation, he was all about “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”.

        Once a critical mass of his would be constituents changed their minds about segregation, so did George Wallace!

        …after a heart-felt, soul shaking look in the poll numbers mirror, no doubt.

        1. Same arguments from Jacob S. 20 yrs. ago? Trouble is, I remember those from other people 40-45 yrs. ago, so that proves too much.

          What really had to happen with pot was a couple of things: A lot more people had to smoke it for a lot longer, and enough old people had to die.

          1. Yeah, the politicians’ constituency had to change.

            And electing libertarian politicians to make it happen didn’t have to happen at all.

            On a libertarian website, especially with someone who remembers the libertarian arguments from 45 years ago, the suggestion that politicians aren’t the solution to our problems really shouldn’t be controversial.

            1. How many people do you know who have no hang ups?

              Hang ups meaning some subject that is dogmatically banned from discussion with them?

    4. ” and people aren’t allowed to own stills or make their own moonshine in Washington State either.”,,,, Yes you can brew up to 50 Gallons of Beer for personal consumption in Wa.state.

  8. Free to ask permission and obey orders. Yay.


  9. What a clusterfuck. Proponents should’ve been asking to regulate MJ like broccoli instead.

      1. I laughed.

      2. This is evidence of how moronic people are…They have no idea about the standards of the commodities by which they consume. At first it was reasonable…Then the consumers became jealous of their profits and made rules commanding quality so those profits would be warranted.

        If only they made a rule that high quality cannabis grown by the highest quality individual growers was the only products to be legally distributed..that would be sweet because we would be talking $150/oz fire (this is only after more people show they can be responsible with less restrictions on access).

    1. You could’ve asked, but you wouldn’t’ve gotten. What makes you think you could get public acceptance of one high-making product to leapfrog over another & become less regulated?

  10. Rivers’ does not allow home cultivation for recreational use

    WTF? Does her husband have a commercial grow op?

    1. No, the idiots in the government actually think they can get most of us to pay their fucking 25% tax in the licensed stores. They think wrong.

      1. Until they find a way to make you prove you purchased it legally. Tax stamps or something.

        1. Most people have spent their lives up to now not getting caught. They’ll just keep doing that. But I could see tax stamps happening. Which would be kind of funny since that is how cannabis prohibition started in the first place.

      2. An employee in a dispensary told me the state skims 87%. I hadn’t been able to find any sources to back that up or dispel it. Actually, I haven’t been able to find a single figure which is agreed upon anywhere. Do you have anything definitive? I’d appreciate it.

        1. Sorry, no, I don’t go near the stores because of the tax, so I don’t have anything definitive. Wouldn’t surprise me at all, though.

        2. All you have to do is compare the price of legal weed to illegal weed. As a general rule, the illegal stuff is cheaper. That means either the dispensaries are making a killing with a massive profit margin, or they’re paying out the ass in fees, taxes, and licenses. I’m thinking it’s the latter.

    2. Generally when a state wants to tax mfg. of an item, they outlaw prod’n of it at home, so nobody can say they’re invading people’s homes to inspect their biz. They require at a minimum that the mfg. be done in a place that does not open into a residence by connecting doors or passages, & has a separate legal address. Then they require that the place be open to inspection, if for no other reason than to count the goods.

      1. And then they pretend that outlawing home production had to be done for the children.

        1. No, sometimes they pretend it has to be done for the women, as when Fla. enacted regs on cosmetics & toiletries commercial mfg. that stopped hobbyists from growing gradually into small biz.

  11. Well, if it’s for the children, then I guess we have to do it.

  12. An employee in a dispensary told me the state skims 87%.

    Speaking of which, have “legal” dealers received any relief from the IRS, or are their business expenses all disallowed? ~35% on your gross is a big whack.

    1. We pay with jail time and felony convictions…its a far higher tax.

      And the dispensary is always making profits…they close if they don’t..therefore the tax rate is absolutely irrelevant.

      No one wants the price to fall out of the market except for inept drug addicts.

  13. “We have got to get rid of the gray and black market.”


    The people with whom I have discussed the issue in WA, which I doubt is a representative sample, but still, blames the state’s hypercontrol-freak regs, fees and taxes. A look at the law leads one to conclude the entire system was set up specifically to milk as much taxes and exert as much control as possible.

    All those middlemen, inspectors and certifiers don’t work for free. The weed in WA is middlin’ to good medical quality, and expensive as hell. Insanely so. Legal, recreational, medical-quality weed in CO is about $5 plus change per gram. In WA, it’s five times that, or more.

    I should think the existence of a black market would be obvious. You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

    1. The existence of a black market is proof that legalization won’t work! It’s a market failure! How could it be government’s fault! The regulated it with the best of intentions!

      1. +1 Capitalist America stole our toilet paper

    2. On re-reading, I think I ought to be more clear. The legal dispensary weed in WA is middling’ to good et cetera expensive as hell. I don’t know that much about the WA black market, so have no idea what sort of weed it is or how much it costs.

      1. WA black market weed is excellent and much cheaper. I can usually pick from 4-6 different strains from just one supplier, ranging from sativa heavy to indica heavy. All good shit too.

        1. I have got to get out of the house more.

          1. No, no need. They’ll usually deliver.

            1. Hot damn! I envy your contacts.

    3. I think the wife and I are going to Colorado in May. Perhaps i’ll try some if this marijuana. Sounds interesting.

  14. Medical cannabis needs to be treated as the legitimate health issue it is. The state should get out of the way of both recreational and medical cannabis use, and allow medical cannabis treatment to develop in to a more clinical and structured approach that professionals aren’t afraid to get close to.

    1. Yeah, at this point there are so many clearly legitimate medical uses that keeping it schedule I is just criminal.

      1. But do you want to see it regulated like drugs (medicines)? So if it makes therapeutic claims, it comes under all the federal & state pharmacy laws? Of course theoretically that’s already the case.

  15. “We have got to get rid of the gray and black market.”

    It’ll be fifty shades of gray market, Ann, until MJ is legal and not “legal”.

  16. “We have got to get rid of the gray and black market.”

    It’s quite simple, really. If you provide a superior product which is cheaper and more readily available than your competitors’, you’ll own the market.

  17. “The Senate sent a strong and clear message to the people of this state today that we’re taking this issue seriously and we’re going to keep working on it for the safety of our patients and the safety of our children,” Rivers told the Associated Press. “There’s tremendous will to get this done. We have got to get rid of the gray and black market.”

    “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through”

  18. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    1. One of the reprobates in my trailer park charges $12 per gram for dope, firms, but you don’t see me bragging about it, do you?

  19. Lets jsut do it man, I mean like come on dude.

  20. I don’t need to quote it, but the fourth paragraph in this post tells you how bad government has gotten, and more precisely, how bad we’ve allowed it to get.

    That fourth paragraph? That’s how you grovel before your betters, asking them for freedom.

  21. If you can’t grow your own then who cares if it’s legalized or not? People will still buy on the black market in that event, because they’re not interested in paying the taxes.

    1. What makes you think that the black market vendors are going to suffer the price cut resulting in less profit for the same amount of risk?

      I’m pretty sure you’re mistaken but I’d like to hear your arguments face to face. Can we meet to have a friendly discussion of your position over a glass of bathtub gin at your local Capone’s Speakeasy? Email me and we’ll set up a meet. Oh, I’ll even pick up the tab!

  22. my co-worker’s aunt makes $84 every hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her pay was $15545 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit this site…………


  23. “The Senate sent a strong and clear message to the people of this state today that we’re taking this issue seriously and we’re going to keep working on it for the safety of our patients and the safety of our children,” Rivers told the Associated Press” What a lying piece of crap Rivers is,,her bill would screw the MedMj patients in hopes of $$$for the state.

  24. The growers of medical need either to sell or contract the grow for a profit or the state needs to pay for it..Either way, expecting this stuff to be grown for free is asinine. They are guaranteed to cheat if they can. Have you ever met a human that never cheated or lied in their lives?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.