06/26/2014 at 10:33 pm #69225
We even have a delivery service!
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/for/4540498495.html06/27/2014 at 10:23 am #69230
I dont think the food trucks or delivery services are legal, are they? I thought that the only places that could legally sell the THC are the licensed stores. I don’t think you will be able to buy infused foods anywhere else. I’m not even sure the licensed stores can sell anything but the raw herb. I guess we will see soon enough.06/27/2014 at 10:44 am #69231
they’ve been operating for quite awhile, albeit in a ‘grey’ area legally.
I suspect we’ll see even more delivery services, unless the WLSB bans them outright.06/27/2014 at 10:52 am #69232
I wonder if this is what they use for there delivery vehicle.06/27/2014 at 2:13 pm #69246
This is a great delivery service http://www.winterlifecoop.com/
They are friendly and professional and a portion of the money you spend goes to a good cause. They all have animal names. I spoke to a guy named “Bear” on the phone and I think the guy who delivered was named “Wombat”06/29/2014 at 10:30 am #69259
On June 19, Jimmy Rustler asked me, “Why do you think that edibles will hurt the minors? I mean, why edibles specifically?”
Not sure how to best explain, but here goes…
Over the decades, pro-pot people have enjoyed mocking commercial products. I’ve seen plenty of brand names altered to include pot references, although the only one that comes to mind is Weedies, Breakfast for Headstarters. All in fun, but it shows me that the mindset is all about mocking. Not taking things seriously. Look at the tone of the person who posted immediately after my earlier post, imitating me. Except I was serious. That person was pretending to be. You just cannot expect pro-pot people to be on the same wavelength when it comes to being responsible for getting it right. For getting it damn right. That is the scariest problem in this. Pro-pot folks have always lived outside the marijuana laws, mentally, and I believe they will continue to mentally live outside any new laws that are drawn up. They can’t help it. To them, pot is not a new option, it’s a Fact Of Life, and they want it to become a Universal Fact Of Life, and it would behoove the legal planners to fully comprehend what they are up against in that law-skirting attitude. If intelligent laws are not made and enforced, the pro-pot people will package the edibles to mainstream them, using the same amusing brand-name switcheroos as the Weedies example. Heck, we already see this on TV, edibles wrapped in faux Snickers wrappers and any number of common brand name look-alikes. This is not the way to have minors visualize pot. What was amusing for decades is now seriously irresponsible if not immature. In this way, pot is more dangerous than alcohol.06/29/2014 at 12:09 pm #69262
Boo. I spent the last hour refuting the above post only to find the system had the munchies and ate my post.
I don’t have time to retype all of that. Suffice it to say it was one of my truly marathon posts and I’ll do a very quick, very rough summary (you’re welcome for not recreating the truly long post ;):
People who are for marijuana legalization are not the same as those who consume marijuana.
Live outside the laws *mentally*, what does that even mean? Marijuana users do not have the law-skirting mentality cornered. We see this every day in the street when people do not signal 200′ before they turn and from those who have large amounts of money, but can’t quietly sweep their law-skirting under the rug.
I would feel very silly trying to buy “purple nurple” alcohol – the silliness in a brand name would be an impediment, not an inducement.
Faux Snicker’s wrapper: Copyright infringement – this is already illegal and will work itself out.
Teenager’s who successfully gain possession of an edible will be likely to have a poor experience because they ate too much (easy to do, I hear it takes at least an hour to kick in), discouraging them from trying it again for years, if not life. Younger than teenagers need responsible adults to prevent access (ie: not let YOUR stuff lie around the house) and to educate them. Teenagers should be educated too for that matter, by parents.06/30/2014 at 8:19 am #69279
I wonder how many thousands of kids have died in Colorado this year from eating pot Snickers? The liberal media sure is keeping it quiet. . .07/05/2014 at 4:38 pm #69588
Seattle Times dated 07-04-2014
It’s time to start child-proofing marijuana –
The legalization of recreational marijuana poses special risks for children and teens, writes Los Angeles Times guest columnist David Sack.
Dismissive comments are unhelpful. Each of us decides to help, or not.07/06/2014 at 8:31 am #6959207/06/2014 at 11:05 am #69594
hippiefreak, as much as I want to jump on your ‘bandwagon’, the author makes his money by fear-mongering parents into getting rehab treatment for their “drug addicted (or soon to be) children.
Dr. David Sack is CEO of Elements Behavioral Health, a California network of mental health and addiction treatment centers.
The story only has a couple of vague references to studies, and no real evidence of his claims
Pennygirl’s link is pretty much the same info as your link07/07/2014 at 11:10 am #69622
I went down to Eugene, OR for the extended holiday weekend and noticed the majority of reader boards on I-5 in Washington said ” Drive High , Get a D.U.I.”07/07/2014 at 12:19 pm #69624
Along the lines of reader boards, current TV commercials are trying to separate the legal activity of being high from other activities that are illegal, like driving while high. These ads are a pro-active and responsible thing to do. There are people who need this pointed out to them and will benefit from them, while the skeptics do their skeptical thing and act unconvinced.
Certainly no one here thinks only one newspaper article exists on this issue! The point is not any newspaper article’s inability to bring a skeptical reader to his/her knees. It’s the issue brought up in the article. Debating the efficacy of the author’s presentation is beside the point. Rating the author’s talent is not the point. There are a million ways to miss the point, we would be here all day over them. I draw upon your innate intelligence to see the value in the concern without dismissing its advocates as amateur, over-reacting squares. I wish you could see that a real issue exists, and get the conversation on THAT. Join the effort. We need your help.07/07/2014 at 3:51 pm #69636
Are you taking into account the articles that don’t agree with your position?
What ‘effort’ are you talking about? Are you part of some anti-pot group that is trying to recruit followers? Isn’t it a bit late for that?07/07/2014 at 4:37 pm #69641
Sigh, I only referenced that article because I sensed that some people who post here are not informed of the issue. It was handy, it was recent, its not a treatise.
I am taking into account EVERYBODY who might not agree, but mostly those who haven’t thought about it, or who do not care.
It’s about the marketing of edibles and that I believe it’s a danger to minors if not done smartly. If interested, you may want to read my few earlier posts for context. The marketing of edibles. The marketing of edibles. The marketing of edibles.
The effort of which I speak is the effort you demonstrate by your ability to understand it is to all of our benefit to ensure that edibles are distinguished from food or candy in the minds of minors. If you are going to give edibles to minors, then you already disagree with me. If you do not believe in giving edibles to minors, then please speak up when and where appropriate, in your day to day life. Risk sharing your opinion, as I do, and you will be surprised to find how many people trust their children to the marketing forces whom, we know, have already demonstrated they plan to market the edibles any way they can get away with.07/07/2014 at 4:43 pm #69642
Oh shut the hell up. I have kids and I am not about to feed them edibles, nor would I leave them anywhere accessible. Maybe you should look at my earlier posts that said I haven’t touched pot for years. You also don’t give parents credit for maybe warning their kids about such stuff.
Anyway, I’ve had enough of this crap. Go preach somewhere else.07/07/2014 at 5:26 pm #69643
It looks as though we don’t have to fear edibles at this time and can all sleep at night since the children will be safe;)
The board just announced that people who want to make pot-infused sodas, brownies or other treats must get approval for their products, and so far no one has.
People like Alison Draisin, who currently makes pot-infused brownies and other treats for medical marijuana patients will have new hoops to jump through before the general public gets a taste. The edible-makers will have to have child-proof packaging, strict labeling and their kitchens pass a state inspection. The board doesn’t want any gummy candies or anything that would appeal to children.07/07/2014 at 6:17 pm #69644
Thank you BH. Hopefully hippiefreak will climb down from the ediblesarethedevil ledge.07/07/2014 at 6:50 pm #69645
With all the fire and brimstone rhetoric in hippiefreaks post I was starting to think Marc Driscoll joined the forum…fwiw07/07/2014 at 7:41 pm #69650
Halleluliah sayeth me. Is hippiefreak a freak about all those long hair hippies of yesteryear or an old hippie who has reformed his evil ways? I keep wondering. Anyway, I hope he is as worried about flat beer looking like apple juice and vodka being mistaken for water. I never trust brownies, btw, ever since a very long night in 1974.07/07/2014 at 9:58 pm #69660
Yep, BH, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Pennygirl, no one is forcing you to click on this thread. No one is forcing you to take this personally. That’s all you. I was asked in this thread to explain myself. So, I explained. You come across like you’ve never served on a committee.
I think most responses to me here are unseasoned. Only BH brought something useful.
If I’m right about you, Pennygirl, you’ve got one chamber left in that shotgun of yours. Go ahead, make my day.07/07/2014 at 10:32 pm #69666
Actually I do think it is a risk. It isn’t the “omg…the kids are getting into the liquor cabinet” kind of risk it’s an accidental risk. And I also think it might be a not-so-accidental risk kind of like how yummy drinks are. I remember in college someone had Sloe Gin Fizzes. Omg….no alcohol taste, delightful, and I couldn’t walk my way back out of the canyon where we had all gone midnight hiking. Beyond that, there are things that appeal to younger people like chocolate and sweets. Not everyone is responsible. When I was in elementary school I would’ve scaled whatever it took to get into the cookie jar :)
I’d say caution is a good thing and not everyone is cautious.
I still wonder, though, about the job pool for federal jobs. Am thinking the odds will get better for those that want the jobs.07/07/2014 at 11:58 pm #69667
hippiefreak – I was willing to consider your opinion as one among many and as equally valid as anyone else’s. But you have crossed a line with your latest post. Go back to your hole.07/08/2014 at 9:44 am #69678
This is something I really didn’t think about and don’t want to get profiled because I have Washington State plates. I am heading down to the Oregon Country Fair Wednesday night and with the shops just opening I am hoping they don’t harass drivers. I have heard that people with Washington & Colorado plates have been getting extra attention to get pulled over in Montana & Idaho.
Don’t take it out of the state. No, really, cops just across the Washington borders will be watching.
While it remains illegal to pull someone over just because a cop suspects a driver might be carrying marijuana, we’ve heard scattered stories of police in border states singling out people with Colorado license plates for extra attention.
Remember: While it’s legal to buy marijuana in Washington state, it remains illegal in all of the border states. And no, telling the cops you paid taxes on it won’t sway them.07/08/2014 at 11:00 am #69682
@ Teiyr: Any accidental risk of children eating pot is created by shitty parents that leave their pot laying around. Sellers should be able to market their product the way they choose.
Also, if we are going to start telling business owners to stop making dangerous products that appeal to kids then shouldn’t we start with bullshit like this?:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.