California residents with a genuine need to skin up can now avail themselves of marijuana vending machines, the BBC reports. While whacky baccy is illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act and the US federal government "does not currently recognise any legitimate medical use", 11 states do allow it to be used medically, …
Everyone but us...
Why don't they legalize it here, so stupid, could make more money & save lives too, after all I don't see the shops in Amsterdam trying to sell you what ever else they might have too, plus would move in Overground & be much easier to track & overall probably reduce crime.
Wonder how much pain you have to be in? Might be worth getting run over in the long run. LOL
I should get to the doctor
and get a prescription for any of the related deseases... hmmm, maybe for all of the related deseases
We already have these vending machines near where I live, they are called phone boxes, the security guards have just been replaced by 'legitmate buisiness men'. They are open to all, not just those willing to sign up to a back door ID-Card.
Got me coat, going to make a 'phonecall'.......
Califonia Dreaming on such a winters day......
Anybody know if its hard to get US citizenship ? I wanna move to where the girls are neat and the ganja is sweet
Sorry, please make another choice...
I wonder what happens when the machine needs re-filing. Do they send someone from a top secret government grow lab?
Bet it ain't long before the guy gets done over!
'On today's news a government official was mugged in broad day light, thieves made off with fifty $10 bags of marijuana with an estimated street value of $999,999.'
Now then... cheap flights to America... hmmm
I'm kidnapping me a prescription-holding ill person
That is all.
hopefully they will hire some bottom of the ladder civil servant who will lose the prescription database which he burnt on disc and forgot to send via registered post. that coupled with a quick fix cali style plastic surgery and pronto, you get a vending-machine come casino slot with guaranteed jackPot. chi-ching!
Legalise it here...
would be great, except then that'd give the government the chance to get their claws into it, just like ciggies. Imagine it, instead of 1/2 ounce of lovely homegrown skunk for £60, you'd get a cardboard box full of warning about what you're buying with 20 pi$$ weak stale joints in there, for £60 + 400% tax.
Los Angeles owner tells a Waco, Texas TV news station?
Wouldn't you think he'd tell a Los Angeles TV news station?
Or maybe this isn't news in Los Angeles. Maybe it's not news anywhere?
Need a prescription?
It's not difficult to get one...
Don't go wishing to have to use it medicinally (well, in any legit way). As far as I remember (not much, but not because of ganja use...), marijuana is used to increase appetite and diminish nausea/vomiting in terminal cancer patients (so they can eat something AND keep it down). It's supposed to help with the pain too.
If I wasn't so lazy I would Google it to see, but I suspect you don't want to have those diseases. Vulture icon for obvious reasons.
South Australia has the right idea
Where I live, marijuana is "decriminalised", which mean that if the police catch you in possession of it, they issue a $75 fine and that's it - same sort of fine as a speeding ticket. No conviction is recorded. Of course, if you're caught SELLING it, or possessing it in commercial quantities, that's a different story - up to 25 years.
However, it's use is so common here (last survey showed 39% of Adelaide's population are stoners) that the police rarely even bother. Go up to one of the hills lookouts above Adelaide and you'll see 20 cars all filled with smoke and the occasional glowing bowl and lighter flashes. The cops will rock up, look around to make sure nobody's vandalising anything etc, and then drive off without booking anyone! I've been in a car that was being searched for "hard" drugs (which ARE very illegal here), the cop clearly saw a bag of dope and a pipe on the floor, and never said a word or did a thing about it!
A few surveys have shown that nobody wants legalisation here, however. As one poster has noted above, legalisation means boxes covered with horrible medical warnings and propaganda, poor-quality piss-weak dope, runaway taxation - AND, as has been shown with this California machine - you'd likely need to register, give fingerprints and be photographed buying it as well. Add to this that the local dope dealers have a lucrative non-taxable business, and you can see why neither dealers or users would be willing to change the status quo.
Nor is the government. A couple of years ago the state government tried to recriminalise marijuana. The local media themselves shot the gov to pieces, saying "So you're going to instantly turn MORE THAN A THIRD of the population into criminals are you?" The gov backed down, quick smart. Strength in numbers, people.
Wouldn't bother with emigrating
Even it were possible, you'd be better off just heading over to Amsterdam - or even staying put in a country that has a policy of warning pot smokers they're being naughty as opposed to actually fining them.
Trouble is even if you can legally buy bud, you won't find anywhere you can smoke it. They even want to outlaw smoking in your own car.
I'll quote Eddie Izzard.. "You certainly haven't been smoking in a bar in California! Because you can't! Yes … no smoking in bars, and soon no drinking and no talking! Be careful, California, you're supposed to be the crazy state – out there, the wild ones. Soon everybody will be saying, 'Come down to the library, we'll have a wild time!'"
No, I'd avoid visiting somewhere that abuses and fingerprints anyone wanting to pop over for a holiday and stick with Amsterdam's coffee shops. Awesome shakes btw, they go down a treat after some bio-bud.
"Los Angeles owner tells a Waco, Texas TV news station?
Wouldn't you think he'd tell a Los Angeles TV news station?"
He tried, but the guys on the phone were all wasted.
Ah - the annual resurgence of the great pot debate... so now, for your delictation, the annual comments.
1: Thousands die or are permanently harmed either directly or indirectly by alcohol ause in this country. The cost to the NHS is astronomical. There has NEVER been a single recorded death attributed to pot. People on drugs (search for Bill Hicks).
2: The level of tax now placed on tobacco would, if applied to hash, make it cost approximately the same as the current street value (allegedly) bringing a welcome new source of income to the government without the need to take any extra money from the already cash-strapped general public, merely diverting it away from all those terrorists that are supposedly being funded by the growing and distribution of said weed.
3: Am I to believe that God, in his/her/it's infinite omnipotent wisdom, looked down upon the Earth on the 7th day and said, "OMG - what have I done - I've gone and left hemp all over the place". I think not. The entire planet is festooned with useful plants and minerals - who are we to ignore the bounty of the world?
4: There IS documented evidence that suggests (quite strongly) of a link between the consumption of delta9 THC and the remission of glaucoma, the easing of respiratory problems, reduction of some mental aberations, lessening of withdrawal symptoms during cold turkey abstention from harder drugs, eases the come down off amphetamines (allegedly), reduction in demand for alcohol, less frustration (eg road rage, street rage, press rage, political satire) and the obvious immediate economic advantage of the consumption of lots and lots of snacks.
5: Hash, in economic terms, is one of the few items that displays "UNIT ELASTICITY". This does not mean it's bendy (except for squishy black - allegedly) but that no matter what the product costs to purchase, the consumer will tend to spend EXACTLY the same amount of money on it. That is, the cheaper it is, the more is purchased, the more expensive it becomes, the less is bought. This economic (a sort of pseudo-science) argument is categorical proof that sativa and it's derivatives are NON-HABIT-FORMING or, put another way - none addictive.
6: The prisons are currently overflowing... Child molesters are released early to re-offend to ease the burden. Prisons are supposed to be there to protect the public - where is the sense in using up valuable places incarcerating people who's only crime is to commit a crime for which there is NO VICTIM.
7: Of all the drugs freely available on the black market, dope is the most easily detected (and for the longest period of time) making it the single easiest means of obtaining a successful conviction by the Drug Squad and thus justify their activities.
8: Cigarettes harm health, alcohol destroys lives, governments destroy whole societies. Should we, the people, not be demanding of "our" government (the people whose job is to "represent" the masses) to represent us?
9: With smoking now banned in public places, all smokers - fag and spliff alike - are now pretty much indistinguishable. They all look shifty, huddled in alleys...
10: Dope heads make better council workers... after all, the current trend is for council workers to lose CD's of sensitive data whilst "druggies" rarely lose their stash.
The author would like to make it ENTIRELY CLEAR that (s)he does not partake at present.
The Straight Dope
I have a chum in northern California with a prescription.
For Attention Deficit Disorder...
Harming the have-nots
In SA, your average ganj is grown by your average have-not, planted between the corn plants. These guys rely on selling the stuff to survive. Understand that this is Africa... I asked a chap in Lesotho what he does for weed and he said "I harvest in April, what do you mean"?
So, the cops seize someone's livelihood and burn it. This isn't helping the guys who need help the most. Er... what I just said.
I couldn't agree more with "legalise it" point no. 8: I think it's plain that government is self-serving and we can do FUCK ALL about it.
To the parents out there: your kids will, at some stage, experiment with weed. Do you want them to have to go to a guy who will ask them if they'd like some crack with that? That's the way it is while weed is illegal/criminalised.
Re: legalise it
"1: Thousands die or are permanently harmed either directly or indirectly by alcohol ause in this country. The cost to the NHS is astronomical. There has NEVER been a single recorded death attributed to pot. People on drugs (search for Bill Hicks)."
Directly, no. But there is increasing evidence that cannabis acts as a trigger for paranoid schizophrenic disorders in susceptible individuals. Schizophrenia is a known cause of both murder and suicide. Then there is the increasing research that is challenging the received wisdom that hash is less carcinogenic than tobacco.
Further research is needed, but as long as people like you continue to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this evidence the anti-cannabis lobby have clear evidence that the public are not mature enough to make an informed decision on this matter.
"3: Am I to believe that God, in his/her/it's infinite omnipotent wisdom, looked down upon the Earth on the 7th day and said, "OMG - what have I done - I've gone and left hemp all over the place". I think not. The entire planet is festooned with useful plants and minerals - who are we to ignore the bounty of the world?"
And in this same spirit of employing God's bounty, considering that He littered the place with curare, are you OK with being killed by a poisoned blowpipe dart? After all, who are we to ignore the bounty of the world?
"8: Cigarettes harm health, alcohol destroys lives, governments destroy whole societies. Should we, the people, not be demanding of "our" government (the people whose job is to "represent" the masses) to represent us?"
And hash destroys minds. We think. If they legalised it and there was a marked increase in schizophrenic disorders, would you be pleased?
If you want to support a cause, please try to be informed and support research.
For the record, I'm in favour of the controlled medicinal use of cannabis, but not in favour of recreational use.
I am also in favour of research into the potential impact of both forms of use.
I think you already have your ID card and finger prints well in order, i'm pretty sure that 50 x $10 isn't $999,999
Re: Re: legalise it
The paranoid schizophrenic is really a last grasp for some excuse, if it really was the case how come there hasn't already been a marked increase in cases and then related murders as u dubiously implied. Fact is many people have been enjoying it for 1000s of years and well this mental break down just didn't happen. I personally know alot of smokers and there is no signs of it in them. Admittedly maybe certain susceptible people may have a problem but for all we know they could watch the wrong thing on TV one day and just 'flip'. And what percentage of the population are we talking here 0.001% or something.
And before the strength argue is raised, it just the same as with strong anything u don't take as much. ie its not advisable to drink pints of hard liquor or strong expresso coffee.
As for the it causes cancer its no surprise u are smoking after all, but then again u could just eat it or use a vapouriser.
To be honest none of your arguements hold water for blanket prohibition, indeed this just makes it more dangerous, read soap bar hash, and fuels the black market.
Also the simple fact is that it was prohibited not to save u but to protect large pharma companies and the American cotton industry.
Worse than burying ur head in the sand is to taut sensationalist prose with very little basis in fact just to push an agenda.
I have seen first hand the problems alcohol more than often produces and its is far away alot worse than the issues with cannabis. Hell even look at the problems religious fundamentalism can cause.
@ the dude above and the re:re: legalise it and the one who started it
hear hear. if anyone is burying their head in the sand, it's most certainly you: "the anti-cannabis lobby have clear evidence that the public are not mature enough to make an informed decision on this matter".
is bush mature enough to make an informed decision about starting wars for petrol?
are religious fanatics mature enough to make informed decisions about abortions, gay marriage or infidels?
are curare harvesting individuals mature enough to make informed decisions about shooting off poisoned blowpipe darts?
are YOU mature enough to make an informed decision before posting rubbish excuses about a relatively inoccous substance that may certainly cause some sort of secondary effects in a small portion of the population (which should effectively stay away from said substance)?
The word 'obvious' has no place in your ambiguous post. So a stoner wrote some pro-cannabis rhetoric, that's no reason to go ad hominem on the guy; unlike your case. You're an idiot.
@ AC @ me... misunderstood?
i wasn't arguing against the stoner... i was quoting the anti-cannabis lobbyist because i thought his/her remark was ludicrous. but i take no offence at your impertinent and misplaced insult. that would make me an idiot indeed.
...if I may just add?
(A): Without research into the topic it is impossible to say if pot causes schizophrenia, or if potential schizophrenics are drawn to pot, nor if the partaking of pot eases or worsens their condition.
(B): The fact that "pot is currently illegal" causes a state of hightened tension; a dichotomous stress whenever the police, bluez-n-twoz or flashy blue lights are around... so does the pot make you nervous, or is it just the risk of being caught? There has been no research.
(C): "Blowdart"... very good. I almost made a reference to Hemlock in my original text but decided to keep things relevent. Yes there are some very dangerous things out their in the natural world, like sharks, volcanos and politicians; is it not incumbent on us, as free minded individuals (God-fearing an option, I prefer to think of Him/Her/It as a state of mind), to have that choice whether or not we throw ourselves "off this cliff" or "into that burning lava"? I would prefer not to, you may see things differently - you are currently entitled to your opinion.
(D): The other main concern not addressed was our freedom... Since no-one is harmed when stoner has a spliff, where is the crime? If you wish to quote some unprovable statistic regarding future costs to the NHS then at the same time one would have to ban bacon, egg and chips.
(E): "Hash destroys minds" - I refer the learned gentleman to the statement I made a few moments ago (see A, above). FYI, there is already a marked increase in schizoprenia... and numerous other ailments, both physical and mental. This is definately contributed to by the fact that we, as a species, are living longer; this is definately contributed to by the increases in lead and other heavy metals in the environment. YOU think that hash destroys minds, I don't, there is no proof... WE do not agree. There is room for experimentation and debate. For the record, I too wish to see cannabis available for medicinal purposes, and not just for recreation purposes. If they legalised it, I'd open a coffee shop.
(F): In addition to the observation above regarding the fact that by forcing kids to confront drug dealers in order to obtain hash... there is also the party-line message fed to younger people of "ALL DRUGS ARE KILLERS", so now when joey public has a spliff and enjoys the experience he might ask himself, "Well, if THAT was okay, then smack and crack must be fine too". (I should now add for the younger viewers) "They are not!!!" definately not (I did a research project on it many years ago), but as a society we are telling our children that all drugs are bad... forgetting that tea is a stimulant, nuerophen is a muscle relaxant, even cocaine is used in hospitals for the likes of endoscopic examinations.
(G): Carcinogenicity... completely unproven. Worse still, since the single most popular meathod of consuming cannabis is by smoking it in a mix with tobacco (heavily adulterated with hundreds of chemicals) and without a filter... completely unprovable.
(H): I missed out "prohibition". Uncle Sam did a marvelous experiment some time back, prohibiting the consumption of alcohol... wasn't THAT effective?
(I): @ tricky... s'okay mate - I got it. Equally, not one of us should be permitted access to a keyboard.
(J): ha ha ha - I said "J". See - THAT's the kind of humour we need more of.
I kind of expected this thread to go this way
triky writes - "some sort of secondary effects in a small portion of the population" - good point. nuts cause considerable discomfort, hideous choking death in many cases, and not only to those unfortunates who have an allergy to them. we should ban peanuts. now the good point is in context.
question? does one HAVE to be a stoner in order to vote to legalise cannabis?