Now what? You got what you asked for...

Just of few random thoughts.....I know it is early in the process and a lot has to be figured out on a local level, but for those counties and municipalites that do not prohibit licensed marijuana facilities, I am guessing that the quality of "recreational" marijuana may be lower than "medical grade" because the expectations will be lower since there are no medical conditions to address. How many of you existing dispensaries will abondon your existing license and go for the retail license? For those patients out there, how many of you will forego obtaining a card, and just buy through retail outlets? How this is all going to fall out, be regulated, not to mention what the Feds will do, sounds daunting at best.

when things change...there's usually a little pain

Well, there is a cure for that :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colagal

Well, there is a cure for that :stoned:

---

Yeh, I want to go to CO, just to buy OTC and sit and :smokin:smoke where anyone can smoke a cig.
Idk about CO, but WA, already set a bunch of taxes and stipulations, regarding legalization. It will be, a local level, fight, for them. Lets' hope that is all. pr

all the stoners in CO are just damn lucky :( wish theyd atleast decriminalize here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painretreat

Yeh, I want to go to CO, just to buy OTC and sit and :smokin:smoke where anyone can smoke a cig.
Idk about CO, but WA, already set a bunch of taxes and stipulations, regarding legalization. It will be, a local level, fight, for them. Lets' hope that is all. pr

---

In reading the full text of amendment 64 (Amendment 64: The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012 | Yes on Amendment 64: The Colorado Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol), I don't see under part (4) Lawful operation of marijuana-related facilities, where a customer can smoke within a marijuana retail store, which would make sense since you cannot drink liquor inside a retail liquor store. That would be the next step: smoking bars. :cool: Maybe what you meant by sit and smoke, is smoking inside your own or friend's residence?

My guess is that if these laws are actually implemented and legal 'over the counter' cannabis is available, that the medical coops would just evolve into OTC medical outlets, not requiring a doctors rec and the whole doctor rec/med card system would become obsolete and no longer used. but I'm just guessing, I have no clue really. :D

and I agree with PR, there really needs to be place where people can partake together. I've heard that really helps med patients to be able to medicate with others. The only place I've been able to do that was at the New Amsterdam Cafe in Vancouver and in the coffee shops in Amsterdam, and it was an awesome experience. sad i had to leave the US to experience that. but, I think Cali allows you smoke in the coops but I'm not sure, I haven't lived there in years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boaz

My guess is that if these laws are actually implemented and legal 'over the counter' cannabis is available, that the medical coops would just evolve into OTC medical outlets, not requiring a doctors rec and the whole doctor rec/med card system would become obsolete and no longer used. but I'm just guessing, I have no clue really. :D

---

It seems likely, and it would interesting to get dispensary owner's viewpoint. I don't think dispensaries are happy with this amendment because, like you may have implied, many so called patients are probably recreational users. I asked one of my patients if they would bypass the mmj/caregiver route and just buy from the retail store. The answer was that they didn't think so for a couple of reasons: 1) quality and 2) cost, i.e., the quality not will not be as good and the costs higher. We'll see.

As far as places where people can partake together, I don't know. Maybe private type of clubs will pop up where partaking is possible,,,? Nonetheless, expect the money people to start rolling into the state again.

oh...I like that private club idea :thumbsup: ....stoners need to group by age brackets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

oh...I like that private club idea :thumbsup: ....stoners need to group by age brackets

---

:thumbsup:There are already resorts in California:p..age not a requirement, though!:stoned:

I understand, Oregon, has a few, as well.:rolleyes: pr

:rasta:well, i just started this bb to chime in on this topic. I live in Colorado and we are all kinda looking at each other like "what now?". Our town just voted to allow the MMJ facilities back into city limits as well. Our biggest fear is a new "crackdown on 'potted-up' drivers"! Seriously, they didnt establish a scientific norm for what would be an "impaired driver", in other words, how much THC alone (minus alcohol or other drugs) would make you a DUI case? We all know that use creates tolerance and that many can drive perfectly fine moments after smoking it, while others can take one hit and hit the couch unable to move for hours! I think it would be best to just test for THC in cases of accidents and dangerous driving, but I doubt others are going to agree. They will want strict anti-drugged driving laws enforced just like they do alcohol. THC is very different from alcohol, regulating it as such is pretty risky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockyMountainHigh_CO

:rasta:well, i just started this bb to chime in on this topic. I live in Colorado and we are all kinda looking at each other like "what now?". Our town just voted to allow the MMJ facilities back into city limits as well. Our biggest fear is a new "crackdown on 'potted-up' drivers"! Seriously, they didnt establish a scientific norm for what would be an "impaired driver", in other words, how much THC alone (minus alcohol or other drugs) would make you a DUI case? We all know that use creates tolerance and that many can drive perfectly fine moments after smoking it, while others can take one hit and hit the couch unable to move for hours! I think it would be best to just test for THC in cases of accidents and dangerous driving, but I doubt others are going to agree. They will want strict anti-drugged driving laws enforced just like they do alcohol. THC is very different from alcohol, regulating it as such is pretty risky.

---

That is certainly going to be one of those sticky wickets that will be very controversial. There will probably be more drivers who will be under the influence of both marijuana and alcohol. Kind of scary. Whatever limits they come up with will be somewhat arbitrary and tied into traffic accident records where the driver tests positive for marijuana. A blood level limit was rejected by lawmakers for the third time just this past May. Many people think that the blood standard is an unfair assessment of impairment. I would agree that it depends upon the person. The dilemma is how to "protect and serve" from a law enforcement standpoint? Those drive responsibly ads will no doubt be updated to include marijuana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colagal

That is certainly going to be one of those sticky wickets that will be very controversial. There will probably be more drivers who will be under the influence of both marijuana and alcohol. Kind of scary. Whatever limits they come up with will be somewhat arbitrary and tied into traffic accident records where the driver tests positive for marijuana. A blood level limit was rejected by lawmakers for the third time just this past May. Many people think that the blood standard is an unfair assessment of impairment. I would agree that it depends upon the person. The dilemma is how to "protect and serve" from a law enforcement standpoint? Those drive responsibly ads will no doubt be updated to include marijuana.

---

Exactly, the blood standard they rejected would basically make you "too high" to operate heavy machinery for 48 hours or so. Even if they relax that standard greatly, would you still drive in a state that allows mandatory stops at police checkpoints? A DUI is very profitable to the state, they will enforce it. Which basically means pot smokers cant drive if they enact such legislation. I think we just opened a huge can of "unintended consequences".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockyMountainHigh_CO

Exactly, the blood standard they rejected would basically make you "too high" to operate heavy machinery for 48 hours or so. Even if they relax that standard greatly, would you still drive in a state that allows mandatory stops at police checkpoints? A DUI is very profitable to the state, they will enforce it. Which basically means pot smokers cant drive if they enact such legislation. I think we just opened a huge can of "unintended consequences".

---

Unintended consequences indeed! However, I guess that is to be expected when blazing new frontiers, eh? :upsidedow

:thumbsup:One can only hope, that it will be tolerated, as prescription drugs and tolerance.

Here in CA, when there are reports of impaired drivers, usually alcohol is involved and the primary cause. At least your law doesn't have impossible limits in the blood. Congrats to you'all.:rasta: pr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painretreat

:thumbsup:One can only hope, that it will be tolerated, as prescription drugs and tolerance.

Here in CA, when there are reports of impaired drivers, usually alcohol is involved and the primary cause. At least your law doesn't have impossible limits in the blood. Congrats to you'all.:rasta: pr

---

I had a cop tell me that he made a stop on a vehicle that was going between 5 - 10 mph down a 40 mph road. When pulled over and asked why he was going so slow, the driver responded by saying , " ...but dude, those G-Forces were feeling way extreme. Could hardly control the car. Had to slow down, mon." :rasta: