(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Prosecutor figures since voters in his district overwhelmingly supported legalizing pot, he's not going to have any luck getting juries to convict people of possession, so why even try

15 Nov 2012 06:57 AM   |   8053 clicks   |   Boulder Daily Camera
Showing 1-50 of 89 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
BronyMedic     
Good. Decriminalization and descheduling of Marijuana is the only way this history of social injustice of throwing people in the can for a dimebag of pot can begin to become history.

15 Nov 2012 06:57 AM
Summoner101     
Didn't WA state as a whole already do this?

15 Nov 2012 07:00 AM
bump     
... a government by the people, for the people...

Majority rules basically. I'd love to see this bowlshirt settled, legalized and become a non-issue sometime in my lifetime.

/50 yrs old

15 Nov 2012 07:01 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
When will pot be available in stores and available for purchase without a prescription?

15 Nov 2012 07:05 AM
Bigdogdaddy     
Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot. I say that the people of Colorado have spoken and if that's what they want, good on this DA for bowing to the will of the people.

Oh, and also the feds should respect the state's laws and lay the hell off of them..

15 Nov 2012 07:16 AM
TexasPeace    [TotalFark]  
Why not do it like they do the death penalty? Ask the prospective juror "can you set aside your bias against the death penalty in the right circumstance and sentence someone to die?" If they say no, they are off the jury panel. Just do it with weed. Those who will never convict because of their disagreement with the law should be forbidden from serving.

/snark

15 Nov 2012 07:28 AM
orbister     

Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.


A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

15 Nov 2012 07:32 AM
spentshells     

orbister: Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.

A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.


How do you do it without the pot???

15 Nov 2012 07:39 AM
Bender The Offender     

spentshells: orbister: Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.

A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

How do you do it without the pot???


Some people need drugs, he just has a god-given natural talent.

15 Nov 2012 07:45 AM
davidcameron1     
Pot should have been legalised a long time ago i believe

15 Nov 2012 07:45 AM
Mr.Bobo     
Progress!

fc00.deviantart.netView Full Size


NSFW

15 Nov 2012 07:48 AM
Burr     

davidcameron1: Pot should have been legalised a long time ago i believe


It should have never been illegal in the first place.

15 Nov 2012 07:49 AM
Slives    [TotalFark]  
This is one of the areas that I think the Federal Government should change their policy.
Let the States handle small possession and personal use stuff. States can also handle the licensing and registration of growers and distributors. They can tax and control at a local level, much like what already happens with gasoline or cigarettes.
Make a breakpoint at say 1 pound, and if you have more than that without a valid state license, then throw the charges up to the Federal level for trafficking. Then bump up the penalties for trafficking to make it serious enough to maybe actually get attention, say 10 years min?

15 Nov 2012 07:55 AM
Bomb Head Mohammed     
I'm all for decriminalization of pot.

But I prefer having a legal system where legislatures make the law, the judiciary interprets it, and the executive enforced it. not one where some prosecutor decides what to do based on his gut instincts and some vague appeal to 'majority rule.'

15 Nov 2012 07:56 AM
Mr. Right     
Here's a question for all the legal beagles in Farkland: we all know that ex post facto laws are Constitutionally prohibited at both the federal and state level. Which is good. Does the reverse of ex post facto also hold? I'm not saying this prosecutor should proceed with any of these cases, I'm just wondering from a theoretical and legal perspective; should he, in a legalistic kind of way, still prosecute based on the laws that were in existence at the time the "crime" was committed?

15 Nov 2012 08:00 AM
sodomizer     

orbister: I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.


The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.

Happened in the 1960s.

The majority of Americans don't want their kids smoking pot. I favor letting a state legalize it, and the rest of us watch and see what happens. If in 100 years they're doing great, maybe it should be accepted.

But if it looks like California does now, after only a decade of pseudo-legalization... well, let's just say pot will remain illegal for a long, long time.

15 Nov 2012 08:03 AM
BronyMedic     

Slives: This is one of the areas that I think the Federal Government should change their policy.
Let the States handle small possession and personal use stuff. States can also handle the licensing and registration of growers and distributors. They can tax and control at a local level, much like what already happens with gasoline or cigarettes.
Make a breakpoint at say 1 pound, and if you have more than that without a valid state license, then throw the charges up to the Federal level for trafficking. Then bump up the penalties for trafficking to make it serious enough to maybe actually get attention, say 10 years min?


Legalization is going to be FAR, FAR harder than either decriminalization or descheduling pot at the Federal Level.

For pot to be legally sold in the United States, as it was a scheduled, restricted prescription drug, the FDA will have to approve it for either OTC Medical uses based on the reason you're marketing it for and based specifically on the route of intake, or will have to approve it as safe for use as a dietary or nutritional supplement.

That's going to be even harder than legalizatiion, because it's going to require scientific studies which have been hard to come by because of the illicit status of pot over the past 70 years.

15 Nov 2012 08:08 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  

BronyMedic: For pot to be legally sold in the United States, as it was a scheduled, restricted prescription drug, the FDA will have to approve it for either OTC Medical uses based on the reason you're marketing it for and based specifically on the route of intake, or will have to approve it as safe for use as a dietary or nutritional supplement.

That's going to be even harder than legalizatiion, because it's going to require scientific studies which have been hard to come by because of the illicit status of pot over the past 70 years.


How did alcohol and tobacco make the cut?

15 Nov 2012 08:09 AM
orbister     

orbister: Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.

A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.


... that this would get most of their children ...

/serves me right for posting in haste because the phone rang

15 Nov 2012 08:13 AM
Z-clipped     

Bomb Head Mohammed: I'm all for decriminalization of pot.

But I prefer having a legal system where legislatures make the law, the judiciary interprets it, and the executive enforced it. not one where some prosecutor decides what to do based on his gut instincts and some vague appeal to 'majority rule.'


So would we all, I'm sure. But if the legislature fails to represent the people, representation will fall to someone else down the chain. Also, that argument aside, the prosecutor's doing exactly what he should under the less-than-ideal circumstances. He's dismissing cases that would waste both the court's time and the taxpayers' money. I say give the guy a medal. No, TWO medals.

15 Nov 2012 08:13 AM
MythDragon     
As a result of the announcement, police officials across Boulder County also stated they will no longer issue marijuana-possession citations in light of Amendment 64. The constitutional amendment will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana in Colorado for those 21 or older.

Ok, so let me make sure I got this right. Colorado passes a state consitutional amendment allowing the use of pot (up to an oz, I guess?) and the DA says "Hey guys, I'm not gonna charge anyone with possession any more, 'cause I'm such a cool guy". Um....isn't that how the law is supposed to work? You de-criminalize something, then they can't charge you for it anymore. It seems it would be a violation of state law if he were to press charges. So thanks for following the law, Mr Garnett. We appreciate it.

As a side note, I wonder how military commanders are handling this for troops stationed in CO? I guess as federal soldiers they still can't puff? What about the CO National Guard?

15 Nov 2012 08:13 AM
orbister     

spentshells: orbister:
I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

How do you do it without the pot???


Natural talent. No need to make things even worse though.

15 Nov 2012 08:14 AM
Milo Minderbinder     
Well, duh. Juries get the society they want.

15 Nov 2012 08:14 AM
j4x     

sodomizer: orbister: I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.

Happened in the 1960s.

The majority of Americans don't want their kids smoking pot. I favor letting a state legalize it, and the rest of us watch and see what happens. If in 100 years they're doing great, maybe it should be accepted.

But if it looks like California does now, after only a decade of pseudo-legalization... well, let's just say pot will remain illegal for a long, long time.


Weed usage is far, far more widespread than people think. Almost everyone I know smokes from time to time, and I'm from the richest and most upper class area in the US (plano) but they all manage to be productive members of society.

That being said, it absolutely should be restricted to 18+. I think it does interfere with development and at the very least motivation for doing schoolwork

15 Nov 2012 08:14 AM
orbister     

MythDragon: You de-criminalize something, then they can't charge you for it anymore. It seems it would be a violation of state law if he were to press charges.


If it was a crime at the time the act was committed you can be charged, just as you can't be charged if it wasn't a crime when you did it.

15 Nov 2012 08:16 AM
Milo Minderbinder     

MythDragon: As a result of the announcement, police officials across Boulder County also stated they will no longer issue marijuana-possession citations in light of Amendment 64. The constitutional amendment will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana in Colorado for those 21 or older.

Ok, so let me make sure I got this right. Colorado passes a state consitutional amendment allowing the use of pot (up to an oz, I guess?) and the DA says "Hey guys, I'm not gonna charge anyone with possession any more, 'cause I'm such a cool guy". Um....isn't that how the law is supposed to work? You de-criminalize something, then they can't charge you for it anymore. It seems it would be a violation of state law if he were to press charges. So thanks for following the law, Mr Garnett. We appreciate it.

As a side note, I wonder how military commanders are handling this for troops stationed in CO? I guess as federal soldiers they still can't puff? What about the CO National Guard?


It really doesn't change anything. UCMJ still (and probably will always) prohibit controlled substances.

15 Nov 2012 08:16 AM
AdrienVeidt     

sodomizer: orbister: I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.

Happened in the 1960s.

The majority of Americans don't want their kids smoking pot. I favor letting a state legalize it, and the rest of us watch and see what happens. If in 100 years they're doing great, maybe it should be accepted.

But if it looks like California does now, after only a decade of pseudo-legalization... well, let's just say pot will remain illegal for a long, long time.


I'd be real interested to see the rates of teen use of weed in the quasi-legalized states vs the still-illegal ones. All evidence thus far leads me to think it being legalized and controlled makes it far harder for teens to get it then, just like how it is with alcohol. So if you want to keep it from your kids, you need to support legalization.

15 Nov 2012 08:20 AM
gregory311     

orbister: Bigdogdaddy: Although I've never been a fan of total legalization, I always thought it was stupid to arrest someone and give them a felonly and prison time for a small amount of pot.

A Conservative minister (Anne Widdicombe) in the UK once tried to sell a hardline anti-pot policy to the conservative's annual conference. This would have involved gaol and criminal records for even small amounts of possession. It took even the conservatives only about fifteen seconds or so to work out thatthis would get most of the children, and the whole thing sank like a lead balloon.

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot...


No you don't.

15 Nov 2012 08:22 AM
r0Be     

sodomizer: orbister: I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot, but there is no need to criminalise them as well.

The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.

Happened in the 1960s.

The majority of Americans don't want their kids smoking pot. I favor letting a state legalize it, and the rest of us watch and see what happens. If in 100 years they're doing great, maybe it should be accepted.

But if it looks like California does now, after only a decade of pseudo-legalization... well, let's just say pot will remain illegal for a long, long time.


Solid advice for your family....from....the sodomizer?

15 Nov 2012 08:24 AM
BronyMedic     

AverageAmericanGuy: How did alcohol and tobacco make the cut?


They were grandfathered in at the time the FDA was established. It wasn't until much later that the FDA tried to go after tobacco sales, and faced a whole hell of a lot of political push back for it.

15 Nov 2012 08:24 AM
Z-clipped     

AverageAmericanGuy: How did alcohol and tobacco make the cut?


They're specifically named in the Internal Revenue Code. Which is why the ATF used to be part of the Treasury Dept.

15 Nov 2012 08:24 AM
Zeb Hesselgresser     

AverageAmericanGuy: When will pot be available in stores and available for purchase without a prescription?


It's a plant. You can cook with it. It belongs in the produce department.

15 Nov 2012 08:24 AM
orbister     

gregory311: orbister:

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot...

No you don't.


Oh yes I do. I also think that anyone who uses tobacco is an idiot.

Is this a pantomime?

15 Nov 2012 08:27 AM
Bomb Head Mohammed     
Z-clipped:
So would we all, I'm sure. But if the legislature fails to represent the people, representation will fall to someone else down the chain. Also, that argument aside, the prosecutor's doing exactly what he should under the less-than-ideal circumstances. He's dismissing cases that would waste both the court's time and the taxpayers' money. I say give the guy a medal. No, TWO medals.

I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. If the legislature doesn't "represent the people", then vote the legislature out. Don't hand vigilante-like powers to a prosecutor. Otherwise, whoever screams the loudest wins. Again, I'm all for "his side" of this particular issue (decriminalization), but I'm all for giving him not a medal, but the boot for dereliction of duty.

15 Nov 2012 08:27 AM
RobSeace    [TotalFark]  
Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small... I get that they want to still prevent illicit dealing, and sure at some point when you have a ridiculously huge amount, you're likely dealing... But, is more than one ounce really that point? It just sounds to me like if one where to say, "Alcohol is legal, as long as you have no more than a 12-pack of beer or a fifth of hard liquor"... I don't know about anyone else, but I keep enough booze on hand at all times to stock a large bar! But, it's all for personal use nonetheless... Instead of arbitrary weight limits, what's wrong with just going after the obvious dealers, who surely can be spotted by means other than the quantity of pot they happen to have onhand at any given time?

15 Nov 2012 08:30 AM
ph0rk     

TexasPeace: Why not do it like they do the death penalty? Ask the prospective juror "can you set aside your bias against the death penalty in the right circumstance and sentence someone to die?" If they say no, they are off the jury panel. Just do it with weed. Those who will never convict because of their disagreement with the law should be forbidden from serving.

/snark


They could also ask "can you set aside your bias against marijuana and choose not to convict unless absolutely certain?"

Those who say no to the second question should similarly be barred.

/Only going to screen the idiots that way, though.

15 Nov 2012 08:35 AM
StrangeQ     

sodomizer: The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.


Hurr durr smoking pot is for dopes! Now please excuse me while I go down this fifth....

15 Nov 2012 08:39 AM
mattharvest     

RobSeace: Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small...


Pretty straight-forward:an ounce is 28 grams; a joint is going to be 1-3grams, more or less. Ounce is (according to my officers) the most common purchase-volume here in Maryland, so I assume it's similar in other states. Setting the limit at an ounce (or more accurately, setting it to an equivalent gram measurement) allows you to more-or-less limit it to personal consumers as opposed to even small-scale redistribution dealers.

Also, once you get above an ounce, it's awkward to be carrying it (i.e. the bag starts to be 'big' in your pockets). Someone who is carrying pot just for himself isn't going to want it to be awkward or uncomfortable, so if you find someone carrying an amount so large it doesn't readily fit in their pockets without being totally obvious, they're probably not carrying it just for themselves (this is another way of looking at the same argument, i.e. user vs. dealer).

/Not speaking for my office, or any prosecutorial unit.

15 Nov 2012 08:40 AM
mattharvest     

ph0rk: They could also ask "can you set aside your bias against marijuana and choose not to convict unless absolutely certain?"

Those who say no to the second question should similarly be barred.


Just FYI, that's not the standard. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is not beyond all doubt. It is to believe a thing to the point where you would reasonably act upon it (according to the SCOTUS-approved jury instructions).

Asking a juror to be "absolutely certain" is unconstitutional and illegal.

15 Nov 2012 08:41 AM
StrangeQ     

RobSeace: Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small... I get that they want to still prevent illicit dealing, and sure at some point when you have a ridiculously huge amount, you're likely dealing... But, is more than one ounce really that point? It just sounds to me like if one where to say, "Alcohol is legal, as long as you have no more than a 12-pack of beer or a fifth of hard liquor"... I don't know about anyone else, but I keep enough booze on hand at all times to stock a large bar! But, it's all for personal use nonetheless... Instead of arbitrary weight limits, what's wrong with just going after the obvious dealers, who surely can be spotted by means other than the quantity of pot they happen to have onhand at any given time?


While there are of course extremes anywhere, an ounce for a responsible person working a steady job and having a toke or two after work analagous to a beer to take the edge off would last for a pretty long time.

15 Nov 2012 08:42 AM
lewismarktwo     

RobSeace: Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small... I get that they want to still prevent illicit dealing, and sure at some point when you have a ridiculously huge amount, you're likely dealing... But, is more than one ounce really that point? It just sounds to me like if one where to say, "Alcohol is legal, as long as you have no more than a 12-pack of beer or a fifth of hard liquor"... I don't know about anyone else, but I keep enough booze on hand at all times to stock a large bar! But, it's all for personal use nonetheless... Instead of arbitrary weight limits, what's wrong with just going after the obvious dealers, who surely can be spotted by means other than the quantity of pot they happen to have onhand at any given time?


They kept the amount small so that growers have an incentive to up the THC and CBD etc content of the weed, so it continually gets stronger and you need less and less. Just like how Heroin©®™ can be 10 to 20 times more potent and is cheaper than ever thanks to the War On Some Drugs. Yay, unintended consequences! And all because doing real police work is hard.

15 Nov 2012 08:44 AM
Z-clipped     

Bomb Head Mohammed: I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. If the legislature doesn't "represent the people", then vote the legislature out.


So you're cool with congress-critters saying whatever they need to to get elected, and then ignoring the will of the people for the duration of their term? 'Cause THAT's a bit idiotic, I think. You can only vote a rep in based on his position on a certain number of issues. Beyond that, he should be paying attention to public opinion when he votes.

Bomb Head Mohammed: Don't hand vigilante-like powers to a prosecutor.


Dude, IT'S HIS JOB. He's doing his JOB. You think we should force every DA in the country to prosecute every case the cops bring him whether he has a chance of winning it or not? Do you know what that would do to the court's case load? To your local and state budget? Helloooo? 6th Amendment?

Bomb Head Mohammed: I'm all for giving him not a medal, but the boot for dereliction of duty.


[headdesk]

He can't put together a jury that will convict. What do you want him to do?

15 Nov 2012 08:45 AM
StrangeQ     
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/743 4940/80706665#c80706665" target="_blank">lewismarktwo</a>:</b> <i>RobSeace: Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small... I get that they want to still prevent illicit dealing, and sure at some point when you have a ridiculously huge amount, you're likely dealing... But, is more than one ounce really that point? It just sounds to me like if one where to say, "Alcohol is legal, as long as you have no more than a 12-pack of beer or a fifth of hard liquor"... I don't know about anyone else, but I keep enough booze on hand at all times to stock a large bar! But, it's all for personal use nonetheless... Instead of arbitrary weight limits, what's wrong with just going after the obvious dealers, who surely can be spotted by means other than the quantity of pot they happen to have onhand at any given time?

They kept the amount small so that growers have an incentive to up the THC and CBD etc content of the weed, so it continually gets stronger and you need less and less. Just like how Heroin©®™ can be 10 to 20 times more potent and is cheaper than ever thanks to the War On Some Drugs. Yay, unintended consequences! And all because doing real police work is hard.</i>

Yes, good thing that has never happened with any other legal intoxicating substances.

Oh wait.

<img src="http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/imag es/everclear.jpg">

Just because it is available does not mean people will be stocking their shelves with it.

15 Nov 2012 08:48 AM
StrangeQ     

StrangeQ: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/743 4940/80706665#c80706665" target="_blank">lewismarktwo</a>:</b> <i>RobSeace: Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small... I get that they want to still prevent illicit dealing, and sure at some point when you have a ridiculously huge amount, you're likely dealing... But, is more than one ounce really that point? It just sounds to me like if one where to say, "Alcohol is legal, as long as you have no more than a 12-pack of beer or a fifth of hard liquor"... I don't know about anyone else, but I keep enough booze on hand at all times to stock a large bar! But, it's all for personal use nonetheless... Instead of arbitrary weight limits, what's wrong with just going after the obvious dealers, who surely can be spotted by means other than the quantity of pot they happen to have onhand at any given time?

They kept the amount small so that growers have an incentive to up the THC and CBD etc content of the weed, so it continually gets stronger and you need less and less. Just like how Heroin©®™ can be 10 to 20 times more potent and is cheaper than ever thanks to the War On Some Drugs. Yay, unintended consequences! And all because doing real police work is hard.</i>

Yes, good thing that has never happened with any other legal intoxicating substances.

Oh wait.

<img src="http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/imag es/everclear.jpg">

Just because it is available does not mean people will be stocking their shelves with it.


well that was odd, meant to post this...
www.gourmetsleuth.comView Full Size

15 Nov 2012 08:49 AM
glmorrs1     

StrangeQ: RobSeace: Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small... I get that they want to still prevent illicit dealing, and sure at some point when you have a ridiculously huge amount, you're likely dealing... But, is more than one ounce really that point? It just sounds to me like if one where to say, "Alcohol is legal, as long as you have no more than a 12-pack of beer or a fifth of hard liquor"... I don't know about anyone else, but I keep enough booze on hand at all times to stock a large bar! But, it's all for personal use nonetheless... Instead of arbitrary weight limits, what's wrong with just going after the obvious dealers, who surely can be spotted by means other than the quantity of pot they happen to have onhand at any given time?

While there are of course extremes anywhere, an ounce for a responsible person working a steady job and having a toke or two after work analagous to a beer to take the edge off would last for a pretty long time.


When I can, I buy by the oz. I'm a pretty decent smoker and it takes me almost a month to go through it. Depending on the strain of course.

15 Nov 2012 08:52 AM
Burr     

sodomizer: The problem with decriminalizing it is that we're sending the message that it's OK to be an idiot, and so non-idiots start using it too.


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

"Idiot"

15 Nov 2012 08:53 AM
gregory311     

orbister: gregory311: orbister:

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot...

No you don't.

Oh yes I do. I also think that anyone who uses tobacco is an idiot.

Is this a pantomime?


Do I really need to quote Bill Hicks here? You don't really believe what you've said, you just think you do. Or perhaps you've deluded yourself into thinking that people who do things that you yourself don't do are idiots but at the same time continue to enjoy the things they've offered to the world that enlighten and enhance your daily life.

I don't smoke weed, I don't use tobacco. But I'm also not stupid enough to say that I think anyone who does is an idiot.

15 Nov 2012 08:54 AM
Hyggelig lurker     
Can Washington and Colorado be the tipping point where there becomes a groundswell for declassifying it from a Schedule 1, and where it becomes decriminalized on the Federal level?

15 Nov 2012 08:55 AM
Bluemookie     

mattharvest: RobSeace: Why did one ounce become the official cut-off everywhere? I don't smoke it, so I really have no idea just how much of a supply that is... But, it sounds pretty small...

Pretty straight-forward:an ounce is 28 grams; a joint is going to be 1-3grams, more or less. Ounce is (according to my officers) the most common purchase-volume here in Maryland, so I assume it's similar in other states. Setting the limit at an ounce (or more accurately, setting it to an equivalent gram measurement) allows you to more-or-less limit it to personal consumers as opposed to even small-scale redistribution dealers.

Also, once you get above an ounce, it's awkward to be carrying it (i.e. the bag starts to be 'big' in your pockets). Someone who is carrying pot just for himself isn't going to want it to be awkward or uncomfortable, so if you find someone carrying an amount so large it doesn't readily fit in their pockets without being totally obvious, they're probably not carrying it just for themselves (this is another way of looking at the same argument, i.e. user vs. dealer).

/Not speaking for my office, or any prosecutorial unit.


A 3 gram joint? All the dispensaries here in Michigan sell pre-roll joints as 0.5 grams, which is what I see as typical. So, an ounce will get you about 56 joints, unless you're hanging out with Snoop Lion or Tommy Chong.

15 Nov 2012 09:08 AM
Rude Turnip     

orbister: gregory311: orbister:

I still think anyone who uses pot is an idiot...

No you don't.

Oh yes I do. I also think that anyone who uses tobacco is an idiot.

Is this a pantomime?


As long as you hold the same feelings regarding alcohol use, we can at least say that you are consistent.

15 Nov 2012 09:08 AM
Showing 1-50 of 89 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined