Cancerous Capitalistic Cannabis Consumerism

[SnozzleBerry]

I'm committing the worst sin of the forum, that is replying prior to reading the entire thread.

I live in a rec legal state, that is Oregon. We denied legalization for nearly a decade while the bill was fine tuned. The bill we finally passed did so because it had the support of long time users and growers.

The concern is valid over cororate pot, and making sure that those who stewarded the plant through prohibition would continue to profit and now be able to provide for themselves and families legally.

Also pay taxes, start farms and above ground business and hire people. The revenue it has generated in a little over a year is very good for my hurting region.

For me, i have easy cheap access to fine herbs, can buy as much or little as I want, i know the strain, it is tested for pesticides and thc/cbd content, and i have lots and lots of choice.

A lot of us feared legalization for some of the reasons op stated, but a well crafted bill and good oversight has created a pretty good situation IMHO.

I love living in a legal state.

Thanks for chiming in with the real world experience A few questions:

Did Oregon take any steps to free folks who were incarcerated for cannabis-related crimes?

Do you have any sense of the situation re: conglomerates/corporations muscling people out? Any knowledge on the growing collective setups?

I believe you can grow a decent amount of personal under the OR legislation...are there issues with gifting/selling?

What do you think of the super slick "professional" packaging and/or the marketing in general? Personally, I found it a bit overwhelming, but that's just me.

Is there any indication as to what the state plans on doing with their drug interdiction squads? Iirc, the majority of the funding/effort goes into cannabis-related crimes. I have a hard time imagining that those institutions are willing to shrivel up/go away.



Actually, as a side note from all of these questions, I think it's worth noting that the Corrections Corp of America (private, for-profit prison corp) explicitly stated they're against legalization because it means less money in their pockets because of less prisoners. These are the same people running for-profit immigration detention facilities (Which are expanding at an alarming rate).

Does anyone find it unlikely that if drug offender populations dwindle due to drug offenses no longer being jailable offenses (or maybe not even crimes), that such corporations (and their massive political lobbies) will simply look to replace their lost revenue by increasing their efforts to make as much money as possible off of non-drug offender populations, such as immigrants?

It seems to me that the cannabis-/drug-using population should be standing/working in solidarity with these other criminalized/repressed groups, not just celebrating that our crimes may soon be state-sanctioned, and no longer illegal.

 

[dragonrider]

No snozz...i don't think that everybody would turn into a rapist all of a sudden, if there would be no laws and no police. Just 20 to 30% of all men. But i'm an optimist. The millgram and stanford prison experiments indicate it could be much worse.

What you say about my arguments, i could say about yours: actual failed states tend to be not that idyllic either.

I like discussing with you, but sometimes when i get the feeling that we simply are not going to convince eachother, i just quit. It's not because of any lack of arguments. I'm sure we both could continue arguing like this forever

 

[burnt]

Economic philosophy aside the practical benefits of legalization far outweigh those of prohibition and even decriminalization. Remember when drugs are illegal people get thrown in cages or worse for using them. You can't avoid that sad and disturbing fact. So whatever problems people have with society or capitalism or whatever remember people suffer immensely from the war on drugs all over the world.

There are trade offs with legalization just like anything else. For sure there is commercialization / commodification. But who cares? Legal cannabis is similar to beer and wine industries. You have a mixture of small and big business. Its like craft beer or Budweiser. You have a choice between your friendly local mom and pop weed shop or some bigger chain. When its illegal you may have your safe sustainable supply but most people don't. Most people get their drugs from criminal organizations and the further up the chain you go the more human misery you tend to encounter.

When cannabis is illegal and you have no regulation there is a lot environmental destruction, pesticide use, and other contamination / quality control problems. When its legal and regulated these issues tend to be mitigated. Of course regulations make it difficult for some growers who used cannabis as a supplement to income or were self employed. But whatever they can still grow their own usually and even if they get caught doing something outside the regulatory scheme the penalties usually aren't as bad.

Although I've focused my reply on cannabis I think the benefits of legal psychedelics also far out weight those of prohibition. Its not even close really.

 

[RAM]

So, perhaps the first way one can fight back is to understand the social and political histories of psychedelics, the war on drugs, etc. and challenge distortions of these histories that are commonly presented in pop culture (or by figures who have something to gain from the distortion). With the understanding that different groups have different things to gain from their portrayals of psychedelics (e.g. advancing the positions that psychedelics are benign medicines that pose no threat to the economic order of industrial capitalism/militarism/etc.) I think it's important to be clear on why psychedelics have the history that they have (from MK-Ultra to social/political catalysts and beyond).

I agree totally with this. It is extremely useful to have intelligent and responsible users of psychedelics who can spread the message in a somewhat restrained, measured fashion. I think that the Nexus is populated with many of these types. I do feel it is difficult and maybe even irresponsible to prescribe one purpose to psychedelics, however. Personally, I would like to see that purpose as the upheaval of norms, current structures, and old ways of thinking, mostly due to this being the natural effect of psychedelics in our brains (according to a Carhart-Harris lecture I attended once).

One of the most important lessons I have learned in life is to never underestimate the effect of physical spaces and structures on mental spaces and structures. So, I hope the jump from effects on the brain to effects on society above makes sense. But then again, is any one entity really even qualified to prescribe a particular goal for psychedelics? I am getting the sense it is just something the community always has to talk and be critical about, as you also mentioned in your post.

For me, there's a category mismatch between dominant cultural institutions and psychedelic experiences. Or put another way, the sociopolitical landscape needs to be drastically altered, at least concurrently, with the popularization of psychedelics, if we want the popularization of psychedelics to have any hope of not falling victim to dominant culture (and commodification, among other things). I see it as a recursive process that, if we don't start/continue making strides with pretty immediately, will start to take off in the direction of whoever is able to get out in front of it (most likely those with greater resources/abilities to advance their positions).

As a concurrent business student and psychedelic user, I often sit in lectures thinking about how the capitalistic paradigm is to blame for so many of the problems that business is trying to "solve" today. I am one of the most anti-capitalist students at my school, and I try to spread thinly veiled socialistic messages to my classmates.

From my time doing this kind of stuff, I have learned that one person can alter a decent number of mindsets if they are willing to speak out against the status quo, build alliances, back up points with data and moral logic, and simply be willing to be branded as an outsider. However, I myself am a bit skeptical when people advocate for complete changes to the system as a solution for problems.

It reminds me of one of Slavoj Zizek's ideas (he gets to it around 6:30 here:

): he has said that donating to charity simply fuels the cycle of dependence and allows the destitute to continue living and that by doing this, charity almost prevents a "radical restructuring of society" that would solve the deeply rooted causes of the problem in the first place. He says, "It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property." For example: it is immoral for wealthier countries that gained their wealth partially by exploiting African nations to turn around and "donate back" in the form of aid to these select African nations, partially just to feel better about themselves. They should withhold such donations, take total responsibility for their actions, and work toward creating a society where this could never happen again.

I am just skeptical that the "radical restructuring of society" that we all want will ever happen. From reading all of your ideas, Snozz, all of which I really enjoy, I always have the feeling in the back of my head that the "the sociopolitical landscape" won't be altered in any sort of radical way and that changes will only occur marginally and incrementally in our society, as they so often have, as people are generally slow to accept changes. Prove me wrong?

 

[Jagube]

I do feel it is difficult and maybe even irresponsible to prescribe one purpose to psychedelics, however. Personally, I would like to see that purpose as the upheaval of norms, current structures, and old ways of thinking, mostly due to this being the natural effect of psychedelics in our brains (according to a Carhart-Harris lecture I attended once).

The natural effect of psychedelics will manifest anyway, whatever purpose is prescribed to them.

I'd rather see psychedelics legalized for a limited, controlled set of uses than not legalized at all.

If it was legal for certified therapists to give, say, LSD to their patients in therapy sessions, it wouldn't affect anyone's current illegal use in any negative way - they could still take it illegally on forest hikes or at festivals, and the upside is that the substance at least would be moved from Schedule I to Schedule II. Moreover, a patient attending a legal LSD therapy session for childhood trauma or alcohol addiction might well discover the substance's potential doesn't end there.

 

[downwardsfromzero]

This discussion has to a certain extent converged on the dynamic balance outlined in Leary's 'The Politics of Ecstasy'.

As I understand it, the status quo will always resist those Dionysian forces which would tear it down and instate some kind of youthful utopia.

Snozz's comment re private prisons has it absolutely on the nail. Those who profit from incarceration of others are the real scum of the earth.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Economic philosophy aside the practical benefits of legalization far outweigh those of prohibition and even decriminalization. Remember when drugs are illegal people get thrown in cages or worse for using them. You can't avoid that sad and disturbing fact. So whatever problems people have with society or capitalism or whatever remember people suffer immensely from the war on drugs all over the world.

What problems arise from full decriminalization (i.e. "the removal of criminal penalties for drug law violations")? At that point, no one should find themselves thrown in cages or otherwise worse off, no? And ideally, it could prevent rampant commodification by depriving the necessary regulatory framework such commodification would rely on. An obvious reply is to suggest that we need such framework to provide quality assurance, but the Nexus (and dancesafe and other NGOs) demonstrate that's not the case.

And to point it out again, I don't believe any of the states that have legalized have done anything positive with regards to their incarcerated drug-offenders, but I may just be unaware. This is why I posed the question earlier. Ime, most drug users that I've encountered don't actually care about this issue, beyond the fact that they're personally safe. It's rather telling that not only are folks silent on that, but other incarcerated populations as well, especially those similarly incarcerated for profit (as I pointed out earlier).

There are trade offs with legalization just like anything else. For sure there is commercialization / commodification. But who cares? Legal cannabis is similar to beer and wine industries. You have a mixture of small and big business. Its like craft beer or Budweiser. You have a choice between your friendly local mom and pop weed shop or some bigger chain. When its illegal you may have your safe sustainable supply but most people don't. Most people get their drugs from criminal organizations and the further up the chain you go the more human misery you tend to encounter.

When cannabis is illegal and you have no regulation there is a lot environmental destruction, pesticide use, and other contamination / quality control problems. When its legal and regulated these issues tend to be mitigated.

It seems that you're suggesting that commercial/industrial agriculture is "sustainable" in this quote. Is that the case? If any of the major agribusiness or related corps get involved in the large-scale growing of cannabis, it seems incredibly unlikely (based on currently-existing models) that it will be anything approaching "sustainable" agriculture. As I pointed out earlier, drug cartels are bit players in international industry. The atrocities they commit certainly get a lot of media attention, but, I think there's good evidence that the frequency, amount, and scale of corporate-atrocities dwarf those of drug cartels.

Although I've focused my reply on cannabis I think the benefits of legal psychedelics also far out weight those of prohibition. Its not even close really.

I'm not so sure and again raise the question I asked earlier with regards to decriminalization. Additionally, I would point to the earlier list of issues I raised, most significantly those of MDMA for battlefield PTSD in the context of US imperialism/hegemony and the re-framing of psychedelics from boundary-dissolving agents to productivity-boosting nootropics in the context of the tech industry/consumer culture (inherently tied to ecological devastation). I do think it's possible to eliminate the carceral penalties of prohibition without turning psychedelics into the next chic consumer trend, and I think it's important to try for that specifically, but that's just me.

I do feel it is difficult and maybe even irresponsible to prescribe one purpose to psychedelics, however. Personally, I would like to see that purpose as the upheaval of norms, current structures, and old ways of thinking, mostly due to this being the natural effect of psychedelics in our brains (according to a Carhart-Harris lecture I attended once).

One of the most important lessons I have learned in life is to never underestimate the effect of physical spaces and structures on mental spaces and structures. So, I hope the jump from effects on the brain to effects on society above makes sense. But then again, is any one entity really even qualified to prescribe a particular goal for psychedelics? I am getting the sense it is just something the community always has to talk and be critical about, as you also mentioned in your post.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think there's a singular purpose...and I think that most utilitarian approach is one that treats these experiences as offering precisely what you referenced, "the upheaval of norms, current structures, and old ways of thinking"...something we might call a "perpetual becoming." And in that context, I think that your point about the connection between the brain/society makes perfect sense. Just as with any political project/process, the goal isn't to prescribe some utopian stasis, imo, but rather to be in perpetual dialogue with the world around us, to navigate the ever-shifting terrain, adapt, adjust, and grow. We may have some loose sense of "ideals" or "goals" but I think that ultimately, these are as much living processes as anything else.

From my time doing this kind of stuff, I have learned that one person can alter a decent number of mindsets if they are willing to speak out against the status quo, build alliances, back up points with data and moral logic, and simply be willing to be branded as an outsider. However, I myself am a bit skeptical when people advocate for complete changes to the system as a solution for problems.

I hear you and to be clear, I'm not suggesting that anything I'm advocating for will solve society's problems or avoid additional problems. I don't think it's possible for anyone to actually predict the myriad of events/effects that can ripple out from even relatively small changes. This is precisely why I structure most of my positions as structural analysis/systemic critique. I do my best to identify the problems, to the fullest extent I'm able and attempt to map their causes/effects from there, based on the available evidence.

In the case of prohibition, I don't need to be able to articulate a full vision to be implemented in order to coherently argue that we need a complete change to the prohibitionist system. I can identify systemic ills, point to their racists/classist history, as well as the numerous deaths and vast suffering directly attributed to this system. Even if we (say here on the Nexus) disagree about the specifics about what a post-prohibition world should look like, it's pretty simple to argue for the necessity of fairly widespread social change to support this shift (just considering the role police have played in the drug war, for-profit prisons, hospitals/healthcare, the probation industry, rights of convicted felons, elections predicated on "tough on drugs" stances, just to name a few things that come to mind in this moment).

It reminds me of one of Slavoj Zizek's ideas (he gets to it around 6:30 here:

): he has said that donating to charity simply fuels the cycle of dependence and allows the destitute to continue living and that by doing this, charity almost prevents a "radical restructuring of society" that would solve the deeply rooted causes of the problem in the first place. He says, "It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property." For example: it is immoral for wealthier countries that gained their wealth partially by exploiting African nations to turn around and "donate back" in the form of aid to these select African nations, partially just to feel better about themselves. They should withhold such donations, take total responsibility for their actions, and work toward creating a society where this could never happen again.

Full disclaimer, I'm not a fan of Zizek...I think he's got a lot of his ideas bass-ackwards (such as making arguments about Trump that eerily mirror some of those made in 1930s Germany re: Hitler) but here is a case where I agree with his premise, but I find his reasoning to be incredibly flawed. I'll start with the conclusion here and then expound backwards, as I think the conclusion is the most relevant part to discuss.

The question that seems to linger is what would it look like to "take total responsibility for their actions, and work toward creating a society where this could never happen again." Personally, I believe this would require abolition of the state. I don't think it's likely, or realistic, but that's what I think it would take to achieve such a thing.

The reason is pretty simple...again focusing on the US. The US is incapable of taking responsibility for their actions, because their actions are what it takes to sustain the US state. Without exploitation and domination on a global scale, the US would cease to be what it is...most notably, it would cease being able to provide the top .0001% with the fantastic wealth/power that it currently affords. So again, we run into that structural component which, imo, kind of makes Zizek's logic a bit absurd, even if his point that charity is top-down and inherently coercive. Material aid may be absolutely necessary, and it may be the "best" that can be provided in a given situation, not as a permanent fix, but rather as a "life raft" between the present disaster and the world we'd like to build.

There are rather significant issues with Zizek's notions of private property. We don't need corporations to give us things to resolve the crisis of the commons. Rather, we need some sort of fairly radical agrarian reform, imo. Again, this is tied to the US's history, with founders intentionally crafting government in a preemptive response to their understandings/perception that if the populace was able to influence the governmental system, they would unquestionably restructure society against the interests of the "opulent minority," with agrarian reform explicitly on their minds. The issue goes much deeper than simply "private property"...rather, it goes back to the "cardinal theft" that turned the commons into private (not personal) property in the first place.

As to his words on charity...I believe in solidarity, not charity, personally, but Zizek's arguments come across as rather shallow. States donating to states may have some benefit on the actual populace that needs support/aid, but certainly not the full potential that mutual aid and direct engagement can provide. People don't need charity, they need the freedom to autonomously determine their own lives, imo. In the historical context of Africa, this has been constrained by colonialism/imperialism, with legacies that are ongoing, today. So, we don't even have to ask the questions of reparations...we're not even capable of forming that question when you look at things that are currently taking place.

Just consider the fact that we dump our electronic waste on impoverished communities, in order to grant them the privilege of being able to participate in "the market"...after all, there are components of value in that waste, who cares if they get sick/die, it's cheaper than building a factory specifically for that purpose. And, imo, this present situation is inseparable from the colonial past, as communal autonomy was devastated throughout history, perhaps most recently in the wake of WWII when the US decided to let some of the European powers carve up Africa to exploit its resources. So here too, I feel like Zizek's makes some semi-coherent assertions, however it's the result of rather tenuous logic, imo.

I am just skeptical that the "radical restructuring of society" that we all want will ever happen. From reading all of your ideas, Snozz, all of which I really enjoy, I always have the feeling in the back of my head that the "the sociopolitical landscape" won't be altered in any sort of radical way and that changes will only occur marginally and incrementally in our society, as they so often have, as people are generally slow to accept changes. Prove me wrong?

Unfortunately, I agree with you. I can provide tons of platitudes and cliches in this vein (think "men planting trees whose shade they will never enjoy" etc etc etc ad nauseam) but I honestly think we're doomed. For me, that doesn't negate the value in trying to build a world I would like to live in (or maybe pass on to future generations?) even if it gets rather depressing at times. Maybe it's just a selfish search for some kind of moral absolution that compels me to try to push these ideas, even against my own pessimism (realism? I think it's realism, if the reality is disastrous, then...).

Despite that, I do think there are periods of tremendously fast development/change. I don't think that they make things perfect, but I do think they can dramatically increase the well-being or "positive" potential of society or large segments of societies. The US in the 60's seem like the cliche to point to, but ask women, or black folks, or LGBTQIA folks who lived through that period and are alive today if there were improvements and I think you'll get a pretty clear yes (even if things are still a dumpster fire). Also, revolutionary Spain in the 30s is also a remarkably interesting case study in rapid pushes for developing networks of autonomy and mutual aid (as well as the fact that fascists, communists and Western democracies, all teamed up to quash it, having decided that anarchist/libertarian society was too great a threat to the world at large). And there are others but it's late and I'm tired so I'm copping out on listing more

I guess, at the end of the day, I don't see a reason not to try to change things for the better, you know, aside from state repression, and social alienation, and all that fun stuff On a more serious note, I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't try, regardless of what anyone else is/isn't doing or how hopeless humanity's prospects seem. Maybe it's just a personal compulsion or w/e...but this is the place we live, how could we not try to put some real work into improving it? I don't think I'm or we're going to "save the world" but, in the words of Howard Zinn, "You can't be neutral on a moving train."

What you say about my arguments, i could say about yours

I believe I said that you failed to provide evidence/cite sources...I honestly don't think you can say the same thing about mine. And, I must admit, I find the moral positions presented in your (and Jagube's) posts re: industry/state highly disturbing, to say the least.

 

[burnt]

Some good points Snozzleberry.

What problems arise from full decriminalization (i.e. "the removal of criminal penalties for drug law violations")? At that point, no one should find themselves thrown in cages or otherwise worse off, no? And ideally, it could prevent rampant commodification by depriving the necessary regulatory framework such commodification would rely on. An obvious reply is to suggest that we need such framework to provide quality assurance, but the Nexus (and dancesafe and other NGOs) demonstrate that's not the case.

Most decriminalization schemes don't remove criminal penalties for production or distribution. But lets assume a full decriminalization scenario that does remove penalties for production and distribution. Where do the businesses that produce or distribute fit? Are they criminal or legal businesses? Do they pay taxes? I don't see how you can have decriminalization on a large scale and then just ignore all the business that develops around it. How could you prevent them from exploitation of natural resources or excessive commodification? You may end up with a worse type of commodification if there are no rules.

Shouldn't drugs of different addictive potential and overall danger be treated differently then drugs that are less dangerous? From a consumer and public health perspective wouldn't it be preferable to have regulations somewhere between how alcohol to herbal products to pharmaceuticals are regulated depending on what kind of drug we are dealing with? Clearly test kits and the ability to have some products tested in some parts of the world is a good thing. But it doesn't compare to the level of quality of control you have in legalized normal businesses.

And to point it out again, I don't believe any of the states that have legalized have done anything positive with regards to their incarcerated drug-offenders, but I may just be unaware. This is why I posed the question earlier. Ime, most drug users that I've encountered don't actually care about this issue, beyond the fact that they're personally safe. It's rather telling that not only are folks silent on that, but other incarcerated populations as well, especially those similarly incarcerated for profit (as I pointed out earlier).

Most states that have fully legalized cannabis have expunged records, tossed out court cases, reduced penalties, all sorts of criminal justice reform. Many good things have happened for a lot of people as a result of legalization in states that have gone that route.

It seems that you're suggesting that commercial/industrial agriculture is "sustainable" in this quote. Is that the case? If any of the major agribusiness or related corps get involved in the large-scale growing of cannabis, it seems incredibly unlikely (based on currently-existing models) that it will be anything approaching "sustainable" agriculture. As I pointed out earlier, drug cartels are bit players in international industry. The atrocities they commit certainly get a lot of media attention, but, I think there's good evidence that the frequency, amount, and scale of corporate-atrocities dwarf those of drug cartels.

Didn't mean to suggest that current big AG is sustainable or that legal cannabis will or should resemble big AG. In certain cannabis regulatory schemes its hard to own enough licenses to get too big. I think your going to see more small to medium sized businesses as opposed to big tobacco like sized companies. At least in the current regulatory environment in most states so far.

There is no doubt drug cartels kill a lot of people and otherwise cause problems for a lot of people who have to deal with them. So if legalization removes them but decriminalization leaves them intact in similar form wouldn't you want the scenario that removes them? For the simple reason that it prevents a lot of human misery? I dunno if its between people getting killed or weed billboards I'll go with the billboards. It would be nice to stop state or corporate violence but that wouldn't stop whether drugs were legal, illegal, or decriminalized. That is a different societal problem. Sure it is related in certain cases but overall.

I'm not so sure and again raise the question I asked earlier with regards to decriminalization. Additionally, I would point to the earlier list of issues I raised, most significantly those of MDMA for battlefield PTSD in the context of US imperialism/hegemony and the re-framing of psychedelics from boundary-dissolving agents to productivity-boosting nootropics in the context of the tech industry/consumer culture (inherently tied to ecological devastation).

I don't think whether MDMA is approved for PTSD is going to make a huge difference in whether the US does warlike things or not. I think most veterans who find some peace through MDMA treatment from PTSD probably aren't the type to want to run right back into a war. Not to mention all other victims of trauma it could help if it were legalized for this purpose. I can't see any reason to prefer illegal MDMA compared legal MDMA of well known purity and source from a adult use / recreational perspective either.

Same goes for psychedelics. I see no problem with people using psychedelics to make then more creative at their work. If I have a problem with the type of work someone does I'd prefer to focus on that rather then what drugs they are taking while doing it. I don't think anyone would object to the musicians or artists benefiting creatively from these substances so why shouldn't other professions? I don't think its fair to say all technies micro dosing are doing evil empire sort of work. Were using computers to communication after all. It can't all be bad. Also there are people who benefit from anxiety and attention issues by micro-dosing and I don't think there is anything bad about that either.

I do think it's possible to eliminate the carceral penalties of prohibition without turning psychedelics into the next chic consumer trend, and I think it's important to try for that specifically, but that's just me.

I agree. How do you try for that? How does legalization really impede that? How does decriminalization prevent it? But again if it came down to psychedelics becoming some chic consumer trend I'd still prefer that to it being illegal. I would be ok with a 1960's like psychedelic atmosphere with legalization compared to prohibition. I don't mind more people trying drugs that tend to open their minds at all really. :twisted:

 

[dragonrider]

But snozz, no hard feelings here, but...don't you realise that, considering the fact that you would passionately reject, or rather, condemn even, the lifestyle of at least 99% of all nexians, and that you openly approve of the use of violence, your views are equally concerning?

 

[null24]

Apologies for taking so long to respond.

Did Oregon take any steps to free folks who were incarcerated for cannabis-related crimes?

I don't think so, at least not in the way you are probably thinking. I do think that there was some sentence reductions, but the thinking goes that the people who are incarcerated committed a crime and are doing the time for it. I think it sucks, they should be free.

Do you have any sense of the situation re: conglomerates/corporations muscling people out? Any knowledge on the growing collective setups?

I don't think it will happen. Oregon is pretty provincial and the whole idea is for cannabis to be a way to bring in money across the board. [/quote]
AFAIK, the dispensaries are all supplied by local farms who have all gone through the long and arduous licensing process. I have not heard anything at all about corporate involvement or investment, perhaps some speculative land purchases.

I believe you can grow a decent amount of personal under the OR legislation...are there issues with gifting/selling?

4 plants, no specified weight, and as long as there is no exchange, yes, you can gift it. I think there is a weight limit. (I'll link to the ORS code)

What do you think of the super slick "professional" packaging and/or the marketing in general? Personally, I found it a bit overwhelming, but that's just me.

It's crazy, how quickly it has become the new normal, with billboards and weed columns in the local papers etc. Overwhelming is a good way to put it. All the products - live resin, winterized wax, rosin; and toys-pens, pulls, rigs and crushes, wow! Along with all the product creation and promotion comes research, believe it or not. Since alot of these companies are started by people with real interest in cannabis, these are the people doing the research into identifying terpenes and their effects, for example.

Is there any indication as to what the state plans on doing with their drug interdiction squads? Iirc, the majority of the funding/effort goes into cannabis-related crimes. I have a hard time imagining that those institutions are willing to shrivel up/go away.

The state has not focused on marijuana production for some time. Most municipalities in Oregon have far more serious drug issues to face, namely heroin and meth. In the last few years in my city, extremely cheap meth has flooded the streets, almost replacing heroin as the dominant street drug. The irony is that it is produced in Mexican 'super-labs' capable of producing tons rather than pounds that took over after legislation made the otc purchase of precursor pills was made illegal.

Basically, fwiu, penalties for production or sales outside the law of cannabis have been stepped up, as far as interdiction efforts like aerial surveillance, i can't say. Most outdoor farms are in the southern part of the state, I'm not in the loop.

There is no such thing as perfection and there will always be problems with everything under the sun. I love having the option to shoot up the block to the shop and pick up a little smoke, however I still support independent growers as much as possible. The quality of dispensary pot is good, but it goes through many hands and is often shaken around way too much before i get it. Also it is always machine trimmed, which i don't like since it removes all the protective sugar leaf, nor does much of it seem to be cured for the market and it lacks the nice bouquet.

There are economical strains and top shelf and the thc content as tested is listed. From this I've learned how much well cured terpenes affect the high as well as thc. So I can say I've become more knowledgeable about my relationship with the plant, after decades of smoking, now I can effect - tailor my weed like never before. Also Oregon is very strict on pesticide and solvent residue testing, which I appreciate.

The downside of all that testing is a backlog and a broken system, according to farmers, as well as a huge beurocracy to navigate and pay for. There have also been allegations of favoritism and other malfeasance but I don't know of any that have been substantiated.

Actually, as a side note from all of these questions, I think it's worth noting that the Corrections Corp of America (private, for-profit prison corp) explicitly stated they're against legalization because it means less money in their pockets because of less prisoners. These are the same people running for-profit immigration detention facilities (Which are expanding at an alarming rate).

Does anyone find it unlikely that if drug offender populations dwindle due to drug offenses no longer being jailable offenses (or maybe not even crimes), that such corporations (and their massive political lobbies) will simply look to replace their lost revenue by increasing their efforts to make as much money as possible off of non-drug offender populations, such as immigrants?

It seems to me that the cannabis-/drug-using population should be standing/working in solidarity with these other criminalized/repressed groups, not just celebrating that our crimes may soon be state-sanctioned, and no longer

These are sobering points. I was not aware of that quote from CCA. It astounds me that such an egregiously anti-human statement could go unchallenged. This truly is the land of the jailed and the home of the scared.

It is no doubt that incarceration rates will fall with the legalization of marijuana alone, and that CCA and others have a profit motivation to incarcerate as many people as possible. The contracts they have with municipalities state that they will have to be paid by the state if they don't remain full. It goes to reason that those beds will be filled by someone, and immigrants look like as good a target as any.

Link to Oregon.gov= http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Pages/FAQs-Personal-Use.aspx

 

[dragonrider]

I think it's realy great that states such as oregon and washington have legalised cannabis.

It's way better than the semi-legal status that cannabis has, here in the Netherlands.
Here, coffeeshops are allowed to sell weed, but the 'wholesale' of cannabis is still in the hands of big criminals. So in a sense, the dutch policy is a catalyst for crime: Most dutch coffeeshops (probably 99% of them) buy their weed from criminal organisations, and often these coffeeshops are owned by criminals as well. Very often the coffeeshops are owned by 'marionettes' who're not realy in charge. The semi-legal status realy makes all of this possible. If tourists go to amsterdam and to buy weed, they often unknowingly facilitate organised crime this way. These criminals are also involved in human trafficking, extortion, forcing women (often minors) into prostitution, arms trade, etc. And these other businesses are very often being financed with the profits made from weed.

Full legalisation would definately help to fight all of that stuff. Coffeeshops could buy their weed from honest people. If you grow cannabis in the Netherlands now, you have to fear two groups of people: the police, and criminals. If criminals know about your little garden, they can come to visit you....they know that you're not going to the police, whatever they'll do to you. So there are very little honest people left in the business.
The semi-legal status works more or less like a sort of filter: only the toughest people survive. In many cases those aren't the nicest people you'd like to meet. To put it mildly.

Full legalisation is way better.

 

[Tommi]

It's just not right. Cancerous Capitalistic Cannabis Consumerism exists just as much as Cancerous Capitalistic Grain Consumerism. What's the problem with people using cannabis recreationally, just as one would drink a glass of beer. And not getting thrown in jail for it, or not having to deal with criminal world. Let them people smoke that taxed Sour Diesel right from the factory. Grow your indica landrace from India for spiritual purposes. What's the big deal...

I'd suggest, lets hear the TM speak. [YOUTUBE]

 

[null24]

To Dragonrider: all through high school my friends and I would read the high times stories and things and dream of going to Amsterdam. I never would have dreamed that the tables would be turned in such a way.

When I moved here from Georgia in the late 80's, part of the reason was the greenery, and not just the trees. I am proud of what the voters of this state have done with the cannabis legislation. We have state run liquor commission that is responsible for most of the oversight but they look to people with experience for advice on policy. Again, there are problems but it is so vastly better all around that it's worth it.

State interdiction efforts are concentrated on the huge, environmentally damaging illegal outdoor grows which are most often done on BLM state forest land (bureau of land management) or national forests. These are done at great cost to the entire biome;the watersheds, animals and plants are all negatively affected by chemical run off, clearing land and poaching for food. Most often these are run by illegal cartels and I'm all for their removal and prosecution.

A for the pot criminals, well that's what took us so long. The laws were written so that the farmers who had been criminals for so long while they propped up local economies (in so many ways, coming and going), that waved the flag and developed the grow tech act strains that are now for sale, are ensured a good above ground living for themselves and their families.

There is still plenty of black market, but now they have to compete with the dispensaries on product and price. With the early outdoor harvest coming in, that is good news for the consumer!