hippiefreak

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69979

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    Hi Phoo,

    Responding to your post July 9, 2014 at 7:41 am.

    I actually hope they package pot in a very bland way, and let the product sell itself. I caught glimpse of the packaging on the TV news on the first day the pot shops were first open and I think the packaging was bland enough for me. I think, as I didn’t get a long look.

    I kinda think the illegal pot market will still exist to sell to minors. I mean, I don’t really know, of course. I’m just talkin’. Because, unless the people 21 and older procure pot for the minors, the minors still have to get their pot from SOMEWHERE. I heard on local TV that the police aren’t that interested in seeking out the established illegal drug dealers.

    Going back to edibles, and just thinking logically, each minor who eats too much of it and gets sick or too high likely will try again in the future, like you say, so once they get past that initiation, this makes getting sick on edibles a temporary discussion point.

    I think minors who want to get high will continue in their desire to get high, but I want us adults to not resign ourselves to some imagined vision of the inevitable and then give up on responsibility (whatever forms the responsibility takes), thus hastening that vision of inevitability. And I’m not saying responsible preventive measures are not happening. I saw on TV that pot candy will need to have the THC evenly distributed through the “candy bar” and the candy will need to be able to break apart in “doses” the way a Kit-Kat bar breaks apart. But then, the TV announcer replied, “Yeah, but who DOESN’T eat the entire Kit-Kat bar anyway?” LOL

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69729

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    Hi Phoo,

    You’re exactly right, I’ve only answered to the wrong people, yuk. I’ve been absorbed with swatting flies here and my thoughts about your post of June 29, 2014 at 12:09 pm just faded away, to my regret. I was just about to vacate the premises when I saw you post above. Like you, my original post was not honored and I had to truncate it, calling it Part 1. Never got to writing Part 2 before the distractions occurred.

    Ok, let me try to address your points, but I worry this website may truncate again.

    You: People who are for marijuana legalization are not the same as those who consume marijuana.

    Me: I am concerned about the marketing of edibles, to the extent it brings the drug to children (I wrote “minors”). I would hope any group of people would want to get behind that.

    Say, let me just post this much before the website acts up, and I’ll look for your next post in a day or three?

    Thank you.

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69723

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    More edible news: Colorado has/had a problem with people overeating edibles, not anticipating the delayed reaction, but then getting a huge (and apparently unwanted) accumulated delayed reaction.

    The above is not my opinion, folks. This is just the news. I was anticipating a discussion, not the self-inflating personal attacks from overly sensitive people.

    (Cate, if you don’t want me to post, don’t engage me with negative. Simply as that. Why can’t you think that up on your own? Neither could Pennygirl, who asks me a question and gets mad when I answer. Lame!)

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69660

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69641

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69624

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69588

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    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.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023988090_davidsackopedmarijuana04xml.html

    Dismissive comments are unhelpful. Each of us decides to help, or not.

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #69259

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    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…

    Part 1

    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.

    in reply to: Alcohol permit at the old Ballard Camera #68834

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    Gee, between pot, booze, and tattoos, seems our Bedford Falls is becoming more like Pottersville.

    signed,

    Grumpy Old Man ;)

    in reply to: Bowling Alley in Ballard. #68833

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    The whole point of the “New Ballard” is to exploit young people and their income for all they’re worth. There, I’ve said it. I resent that idea but there it is. And now because I have told you this, the Old Guard will knock on my door and you will never hear from me again. ;)

    in reply to: Ballard wins the lottery! #68832

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    I think the edible pot idea is going to hurt a lot of minors.

    in reply to: Dog Microchip – How important it is? #68830

    hippiefreak
    Participant

    Cautionary tale here. A dog was hit by a car in front of our house on a holiday. Several neighbors came out. Nobody knew whose dog it was. It had no collar. It needed medical attention. It was difficult enough finding an animal hospital or vet that was open on the holiday, but without permission from the owner, they would only do minimal medical to the dog (may have been related to who will pay). None of us were the owner. None of us knew the dog was chipped and none of us had a chip reader, of course. One of us drove around and amazingly found the owner. I told the owner if the dog had a collar we could have found him much sooner, good thing the dog was not hurt worse than it was. Owner told us it was chipped, implying that was all that was needed.

    I think a chip is great for a lost dog that is not hurt, but for a dog in need of medical attention, I’d do a collar in addition to a chip. Time was wasted which would have made a difference to the dog’s life, seems to me.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
Advertisement