Old School Arizona

[wolfhoundaddy]

So...that said ralp......I do have an interest in much that you brought up. I am also concerned about the new mj commision,how 205 will impact az. Medical program,can local jurisdictions still 'say no?',what will the home grow limits be,? Still like to hear what you know.. just chill (please).

 

[mofeta]

Hi friends and family, Our dear dog friend, Dharma the Desert Dog, departed to the eternal Mystery...

Sad news, brother. I shed tears for you.

This is the hardest thing about having animal companions. It is a very dear price to pay for the relationship, but we know it is worth it. Just think how terrible it would have been to never have had her in your life.

She is now privy to knowledge that you and I can only perceive dimly from our flesh-bound consciousness.

Please accept my deepest condolences, and pass them on to your wife and Raji.

 

[mofeta]

Why I will vote NO on 205

Why I will vote NO on 205

I have been out of touch with the weed scene for some time now (aside from smoking). Just too busy with life. I did finally find time to read Prop 205 last week. It is terrible!

Just as our MMJ law was a wolf in sheep's clothing with it's 25 mile rule that negates almost everyone's grow rights (forcing you to buy at grossly inflated prices from dispos), the new ballot initiative will not allow you to grow your own (in a meaningful way).

This part looks OK at first glance:

2. POSSESS OR TRANSPORT NOT MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS AND POSSESS PRODUCE OR PROCESS NOT MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS AT THE PERSON’S PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR PERSONAL USE AND POSSESS THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN IF NO MORE THAN TWELVE PLANTS ARE PRODUCED ON THE PREMISES AT ONE TIME.

You read that and think, "Wow I can grow six trees that produce 5 dry pounds each and keep all that weed as long as I just keep it at home!!"

But if you then interpret it along with the following:

1. POSSESS, USE, PURCHASE, OBTAIN, PROCESS, MANUFACTURE OR TRANSPORT MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA, EXCEPT THAT NOT MORE THAN FIVE GRAMS OF MARIJUANA MAY BE IN THE FORM OF CONCENTRATED MARIJUANA.

7. “MARIJUANA”

(A) MEANS ALL PARTS OF ANY PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT OR ITS SEEDS OR RESIN.

The inclusion of the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" in the definition of Marijuana will make it so that yeah, you can have six plants, but those living plants will fall under the definition of marijuana, and the combined weight of those six living plants can't exceed one ounce - you would be in violation as soon as the plants were a couple of inches tall. They specifically exclude roots and stems, but that doesn't matter. It also implies that the one ounce limit still applies to your homegrown.

If the clause on being able to "POSSESS THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN" were more explicit in exempting the homegrown from the possession limits of one ounce, it would be OK.

The real killer is the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" part of the definition of marijuana. Why would you include that in the proposal if you wanted people to be able to grow? I don't see any way of interpreting this that is good. How do you think LEO and the prosecutors will interpret this?

 

[redlaser]

Fentanyl Maker is Fighting Legal Marijuana in Arizona with Big Bucks
Insys wants no competition in the marijuana market

http://naturalsociety.com/fentanyl-maker-fighting-legal-pot-arizona-money-8351/

Insys Therapeutics, a pharmaceutical company that sells fentanyl, an opioid painkiller 100 times stronger than morphine and 50 times stronger than heroin, is fighting pot legalization in Arizona with the most powerful weapon in business and politics: money. [1]

The embattled company donated $500,000 to a campaign fighting a proposition in Arizona that would legalize recreational marijuana. For pot advocates, Insys is the poster child for the evils associated with drug companies that put profits over people.

This company makes a dronabinol spray, wonder if that's any good. I've never heard anything positive about dronabinol pills.

Fentanyl is an unpleasant drug, can't picture anyone intentionally wanting to get high on it,
Took it for about two years as a patch and it worked for pain but no euphoria. Never needed to increase the dosage which would happen with other opiates. About half the time it would seem too strong bordering on paranoia, and an overall "spooky" feeling from time to time.
Unpleasant drug to say the least, really last resort type of stuff. People already o.d. on opiates all the time, why would we need something that is so strong it's dosed in micrograms?

 

[trichrider]

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/12/...oid-marijuana/

Pharma Company Funding Anti-Pot Fight Worried About Losing Business, Filings Show
Lee Fang
Sep. 12 2016, 8:17 a.m.

Pharmaceutical executives who recently made a major donation to an anti-marijuana legalization campaign claimed they were doing so out of concern for the safety of children — but their investor filings reveal that pot poses a direct threat to their plans to cash in on a synthetic cannabis product they have developed.

On August 31, Insys Therapeutics Inc. donated $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, becoming the single largest donor to the group leading the charge to defeat a ballot measure in Arizona to legalize marijuana.

The drug company, which currently markets a fast-acting version of the deadly painkiller fentanyl, assured local news reporters that they had the public interest in mind when making the hefty donation. A spokesperson told the Arizona Republic that Insys opposes the legalization measure, Prop. 205, “because it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.”

A Washington Post story on Friday noted the potential self-interest involved in Insys’s donation.

Investor filings examined by The Intercept confirm the obvious.

Insys is currently developing a product called the Dronabinol Oral Solution, a drug that uses a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to alleviate chemotherapy-caused nausea and vomiting. In an early filing related to the dronabinol drug, assessing market concerns and competition, Insys filed a disclosure statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating plainly that legal marijuana is a direct threat to their product line:

Legalization of marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids in the United States could significantly limit the commercial success of any dronabinol product candidate. … If marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids were legalized in the United States, the market for dronabinol product sales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Insys explains in the filing that dronabinol is “one of a limited number of FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids in the United States” and “therefore in the United States, dronabinol products do not have to compete with natural cannabis or non-synthetic cannabinoids.”

The company concedes that scientific literature has argued the benefits of marijuana over synthetic dronabinol, and that support for marijuana legalization is growing. In the company’s latest 10-K filing with the SEC, in a section outlining competitive threats, Insys warns that several states “have already enacted laws legalizing medicinal and recreational marijuana.”

Subsys, the fentanyl spray Insys makes, is used as a fast-acting pain reliever. Fenatyl is an opioid that has made headlines in recent years as the number of Americans overdosing on the drug has skyrocketed. Fenatyl is 50 times stronger than heroin and has been linked to the death of Prince earlier this year. Last month, two Insys executives pled guilty to a pay-for-play scheme to use speakers fees as a way to get doctors to prescribe Subsys.

Marijuana advocates claim that legalized pot has a variety of medical uses, including pain relief.

It’s not the first time pharmaceutical companies have helped bankroll the opposition to marijuana reform. The Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, a nonprofit that organizes anti-marijuana activism across the country, has long received corporate sponsorship from Purdue Pharma, the makers of Oxycontin, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, another opioid manufacturer.

J.P. Holyoak, chairman of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, a group supporting the legalization ballot measure, released a statement condemning the Insys donation. “Our opponents have made a conscious decision to associate with this company,” Holyoak said. “They are now funding their campaign with profits from the sale of opioids — and maybe even the improper sale of opioids.”

huligan...i don't want to buy weed, i want to grow it.


__________________

 

[wolfhoundaddy]

We have waited this out for a long time. I've been smoken for 46 years. As citizens we have had plenty of time to play by the rules and affect change. It has progressed in granny gear. It has gone so long that the rules have changed. I'm old enough to fondly remember our days in the sun but the new face of marijuana is anything but.

All new players. Big money,canabizness,all kinds of politicians,moms for moms against,med,rec,...

We will be steamrolled over, won't feel a thing.
I'm feeling like the native americans felt when they finally gave in. Tired


The perfect bill will never come around. Maybe when the feds give up. Yeah I'll wait a while longer for that.

I say get it in. And do what you have always done. It will be one more green state for the people who only read headline news. We can show the rest of the world we ain't so bad. Medical experimentation should accelerate, in general it should chill the local scene.

 

[Ralp]

What is my opinion on 205 it is classic Arizona. Do any of you see the Supreme Court of AZ has just ruled a attorney can be disbarred for counseling a client on how to obtain marijuana. What the court ruled on is. If an attorney tells his client that the growing laws of 25 miles are so convoluted that they can't be enforced. If the person growing has 12 plants in a residence a valid Medical card. Not selling or contributing to a social nuisance.

The SCOAZ ruled that an attorney has to follow federal law as well and counseling a client that they can grow constitutes a violation of federal law and can be disbarred. So In fact retaining counsel and asking professional advise would constitute a crime of federal law.

So the conundrum here kiddies is the 25 mile administrative rule is not enforceable. If an attorney says so, he is committing a federal crime and even if not charged in that crime can be disbarred for not following federal law.

http://tucson.com/news/local/az-sup...cle_71af5bb8-dccb-5df0-84d4-37b55238efbe.html
Went to SCOAZ website closed as always for the public. I can't give the back door

This is the type of administrative law that 205 instills and can't be changed without a constitutional overwrite. But hey mommy can I have 6 plants? I want to smoke my kids to education to Harvard or Wharton Yea that blunt.

If I was a member of the Bar and an Officer of the court I would have committed disbarment action on previous posts. If I was an enforcement official I would have committed termination actions too. But yea I will vote and now that ballot harvesting in Laveen & Guadalupe down through the San Tans has been made illegal prop 205 might not pass.

I want to Vote in Arizona at least 6 times against 205 LMFAO

 

[Ralp]

[Q

If the clause on being able to "POSSESS THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN" were more explicit in exempting the homegrown from the possession limits of one ounce, it would be OK.

The real killer is the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" part of the definition of marijuana. Why would you include that in the proposal if you wanted people to be able to grow? I don't see any way of interpreting this that is good. How do you think LEO and the prosecutors will interpret this?[/QUOTE]


Thank You; I applaud understanding taking time & social responsible position.

I will be coming to the Copper State Fly in Mesa I will be paying the ripoff prices of $20.00gm $400.00 an oz and I will be happy to give it all away I dont fly and smoke.

Huligan all I have said about the Seattle Marijuana market dispute that but can't. People in Arizona want to grow and now the Investors are allowed to leave the state of WA a recent law passed in Wa in May. Huligan Just a clue look at the average incomes of AZ. They are half of WA and the Marijuana is more expensive. Whats your angle ?

 

[Ralp]

If I insult the feeling of success in Marijuana, Well that's good because we have not traveled very far yet. There are many stones that need to be placed on this highway we came to a river called AZ criminal code title 13-3401. A bridge was built call AZ/MMJ people could now walk across this bridge to social acceptance. The toll to he bridge was expensive doctor and state license. Now we are faced with the question to tear down the bridge and take to Holyoaks boats to cross getting rid of the toll. A limited numbers of boats and swimmers will be shot on site.

What is the cost of the boat ride TBD But MOMMY can I have 6 plants?

 

[Sforza]

I say get it in. And do what you have always done. It will be one more green state for the people who only read headline news. We can show the rest of the world we ain't so bad. Medical experimentation should accelerate, in general it should chill the local scene.

I am with you, wolfie. It is illegal now, so I don't see how it can be worse that it will still be less than perfectly legal under 205. I think partly legal, even with a shitload of stupid caveats, will still be the getting the nose of the camel into the tent. Once the nose is in, eventually the whole damn camel is in the tent.

Take what you can get with this round and keep working to make it better.

Hey Jude, don't make it bad / Take a sad song and make it better / Remember to let her into your heart / Then you can start to make it better

 

[Sforza]

If I insult the feeling of success in Marijuana, Well that's good because we have not traveled very far yet. There are many stones that need to be placed on this highway we came to a river called AZ criminal code title 13-3401. A bridge was built call AZ/MMJ people could now walk across this bridge to social acceptance. The toll to he bridge was expensive doctor and state license. Now we are faced with the question to tear down the bridge and take to Holyoaks boats to cross getting rid of the toll. A limited numbers of boats and swimmers will be shot on site.

What is the cost of the boat ride TBD But MOMMY can I have 6 plants?

So you have some money tied up in Arizona medical marijuana and that is why you don't want everyone to be able to grow at least 6 plants and avoid buying from you?

The 25 mile rule screwed over almost everyone in the state and forced almost everyone to either grow illegally or buy from dispensaries. I'd like to grow 12 plants legally for my wife and I. Perhaps I can get in three or four crops a year. Seeing how the boys in California do it with the monster plants, that would tend to cut into your profits, wouldn't it?

Mommy, please don't let people be able to grow six plants, I have loans to pay off.

 

[beefalo bill]

MadJag, I really appreciate you sharing your stories of the past. I've only been in the state since '96, and have hiked hundreds, if not thousands of combined miles in the high country. I've often wondered about growing up there in the wilderness. The thing I miss most is relatively easy access to the Tonto Narrows, near Gisela, south of Payson. It was shut down years ago because the kids from Payson would come down with coolers full of beer bottles and spray paint, tear up the roads in mom/dads Ford Exploder, GMC Denali, etc, and tear up the narrows and the private land used for years to access it. That place where you go cliff jumping, is it widely know and highly traveled or is it a calm, tranquil place where people can go to relax and enjoy the environment?

 

[Ralp]

So you have some money tied up in Arizona medical marijuana and that is why you don't want everyone to be able to grow at least 6 plants and avoid buying from you?


Mommy, please don't let people be able to grow six plants, I have loans to pay off.

Figures you just dont get it do you can't cure stupid."Ron White"

The Supreme court has just stripped legal counsel from talking about growing. A person's rights under Arizona law and Under Federal law. SO IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND COMPLICIT IN COMMITTING A CRIME. TO SAY THE ARIZONA 25 MI LAW CANNOT HOLD UP PERSONAL USE MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD HOLDER. Lets ask AZDHS how many revocations of medical Marijuana cards have there been for personal growing at one residence ?


Simply put people are still growing in homes and consuming their own product. If I live in AZ I would grow 12 plants under the current definition of what constitutes a plant.

So what I am say is get the freaking card and have the protections that are in place. If you pose to any officer of the court this question

" Do I have more personal protections with a medical marijuana card than I would if Prop 205 passes"

The Alt right Republican Congress has been trying since early 2015 to limit the Democratic social administrators to rein in the DEA the Justice Dept on abusing the powers on Marijuana.

Money tied up LMFAO moronic delusions I dont stand to lose either way Idiot I am an Administrator.

 

[Ralp]

I should say retired Admin. If I was currently in service everything I posted would be a conflict and enticement of a direction to a vote. I sit on several corporate Boards in WA & OR that I have no vested interests so being on these board I act as a consultant on administrative powers and implementations. I am paid a fee. Just how many preemptive seminars for possible Standards in health, commerce, enforcement, revenue. Our consulting group's usual fee for a one day seminar is $25,000. Let me say this if 205 passes your all fucked why am I here a moral integrity reason as I cant go public.

 

[Ralp]

Does anyone understand MPP has been holding a carrot of monies and unfettered use. CA. CO. & AZ atty gen staff have been meeting on how to collectively control the marijuana market. The format is drawn up loose ends are being reduced and eliminated in some states like home growing in AZ. These are also prospective interstate trade deals unlike those with Alcohol. They want to be able to control state to state commerce even unlike Tobacco and just wait for the impact fees/tariffs going to be applied their. for a fucking natural weed growing wild everywhere.

 

[mofeta]

Hey Ralp-

I didn't start this thread for semi-literate simpletons to insult my friends. The only reason you have gotten away with it is that they are all really nice guys with even temperaments. I, on the other hand, am a complete asshole with a bad temper. If you want to keep posting on IC MAG you will stop being so offensive.

I understand that this will be hard for you. If I had the misfortune of being you I would be bitter and petulant too.

Your content sucks too. For every valid, factual point you make, you posit three wild speculations as fact, and one outright piece of disinformation. I don't mind that, though, you are free to reveal yourself as a shallow, hysterical demagogue all you want. It is just your pathetic, childish, attention-seeking displays of misanthropy and emotional disability that I won't tolerate.

You have already broken the TOU in a majority of your posts, and could be banned on that basis alone. As you are incapable of the self-control needed for constructive dialogue, your reply to me will almost certainly break the TOU again, and I will not hesitate to ask a Mod to ban you, as you are fucking up a really good thread with your deficiencies of character and intellect.

 

[mofeta]

I have been out of touch with the weed scene for some time now (aside from smoking). Just too busy with life. I did finally find time to read Prop 205 last week. It is terrible!

Just as our MMJ law was a wolf in sheep's clothing with it's 25 mile rule that negates almost everyone's grow rights (forcing you to buy at grossly inflated prices from dispos), the new ballot initiative will not allow you to grow your own (in a meaningful way).

This part looks OK at first glance:

2. POSSESS OR TRANSPORT NOT MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS AND POSSESS PRODUCE OR PROCESS NOT MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS AT THE PERSON’S PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOR PERSONAL USE AND POSSESS THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN IF NO MORE THAN TWELVE PLANTS ARE PRODUCED ON THE PREMISES AT ONE TIME.

You read that and think, "Wow I can grow six trees that produce 5 dry pounds each and keep all that weed as long as I just keep it at home!!"

But if you then interpret it along with the following:

1. POSSESS, USE, PURCHASE, OBTAIN, PROCESS, MANUFACTURE OR TRANSPORT MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA, EXCEPT THAT NOT MORE THAN FIVE GRAMS OF MARIJUANA MAY BE IN THE FORM OF CONCENTRATED MARIJUANA.

7. “MARIJUANA”

(A) MEANS ALL PARTS OF ANY PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT OR ITS SEEDS OR RESIN.

The inclusion of the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" in the definition of Marijuana will make it so that yeah, you can have six plants, but those living plants will fall under the definition of marijuana, and the combined weight of those six living plants can't exceed one ounce - you would be in violation as soon as the plants were a couple of inches tall. They specifically exclude roots and stems, but that doesn't matter. It also implies that the one ounce limit still applies to your homegrown.

If the clause on being able to "POSSESS THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN" were more explicit in exempting the homegrown from the possession limits of one ounce, it would be OK.

The real killer is the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" part of the definition of marijuana. Why would you include that in the proposal if you wanted people to be able to grow? I don't see any way of interpreting this that is good. How do you think LEO and the prosecutors will interpret this?

I had emailed the Prop 205 guys about this last week. When I didn't receive a reply after several days, I made the post I quote above.

Today I got this reply:

You will be able to keep all your yield legally in your home. However the 1 oz limit will apply if you out on the street. Hope this helped.

If this were so, I would vote yes. As I pointed out in my previous post though, the inclusion of the "WHETHER GROWING OR NOT" in the marijuana definition, and the lack of strong enough language that is sufficiently explicit in the exemption of "homegrown in the house" from the one ounce limit makes me skeptical.

I am not an attorney, so I will need to ask around before I make my final decision on how I will vote.

Anybody interested in asking the 205 guys for clarification on this or any other matter, here is the contact info that came with the email I got:

Carlos Alfaro
Arizona Political Director
Marijuana Policy Project
202-905-2040
[email protected] | www.mpp.org

 

[wolfhoundaddy]

That's how I saw it.

Never could understand why they can't or won't write it so it would be plain what the intention is.

 

[beefalo bill]

I logged on yesterday to see if I could dig us some info I'm not sure actually exists, and ended up in this thread, as I'm in the Valley of the Sunburn. I read through about 15 pages late last night, and plowed through the rest of it today. I am so thankful I did. Some of the stories shared are utterly amazing and I really want to thank those of you that shared them. I wanna know when MadJag's book is coming out and when you guys are gonna get back to telling us about the wild, wild west.

 

[huligun]

We have waited this out for a long time. I've been smoken for 46 years. As citizens we have had plenty of time to play by the rules and affect change. It has progressed in granny gear. It has gone so long that the rules have changed. I'm old enough to fondly remember our days in the sun but the new face of marijuana is anything but.

All new players. Big money,canabizness,all kinds of politicians,moms for moms against,med,rec,...

We will be steamrolled over, won't feel a thing.
I'm feeling like the native americans felt when they finally gave in. Tired


The perfect bill will never come around. Maybe when the feds give up. Yeah I'll wait a while longer for that.

I say get it in. And do what you have always done. It will be one more green state for the people who only read headline news. We can show the rest of the world we ain't so bad. Medical experimentation should accelerate, in general it should chill the local scene.

That is a couple very good points. Waiting for the feds to take it off the schedule is a long wait. Once that has happened there will be a lot less regulation even in the green states.

And yes.. Another green state has to help sway the feds to agree that there is a majority of people that are tired of this ridiculous, racist, prohibition that was brought on with lies and propaganda that even a child an see. Time to show Uncle Sam we are tired of his meddling into our personal lives. Nothing gets their attention more than another state going recreational. They are missing out on a lot of excise taxes and other kinds of taxes by being pig headed about the whole thing.

It will always be illegal for kids, illegal to drive intoxicated, and illegal to get lit in public. There is no reason that an adult can't smoke it in their own homes any time they want.