Cannabis is newly legal in this state, for recreational use. Medical has been implemented for some years.
Dispensaries are only just beginning to open, and there seems a scramble to obtain permits for the various stages of production and distribution.
I think people are still only vaguely aware of the laws governing production and possession; these grey areas of awareness lend to a "free for all"
elation in the air.
Indeed, cannabis lost much stigmatization upon obtaining legality. There surely was a lot of fear and paranoia dropped when the actions of thousands
were decriminalized. When humans feel more free, it is always a healthy thing for the mental atmosphere.
It is too soon to comment upon the tax revenues; surly this will be a great boon the state's coffers...
21 one is the age of possession here. Naturally, the laws are being modeled somewhat to the alcohol program here.
It makes sense that minors mustn't possess, people must not drive under influence, etc.
The limit to possession amount also is fair. All the states I have looked at allow practical amounts, and often really more than most would need. To
play with larger amounts, one may now go through the permit process to do it legitimately.
I should also add that there have been challenges to the state laws, whereby municipal governments supersede them. That is, it makes sense for people
not to have plants outside, within the limits of a crowded city, for example. Discretion is important, because of criminals, young people, and those
whom simply do not want to see it.
I wanted to address the particulars, though, which strike you as odd.
Here, one may grow a number of plants in his yard. To me, the whole point has been: it is ridiculous to criminalize a plant. So anyone should be able
grow right next to the tomatoes, in God's green earth. If you want it, you should not have to buy it.
Legality of cannabis after all will bring millions and millions of commercial and tax revenue to a state. In today's corporate and corrupt
atmosphere, herein lies a specific danger.
Companies like Monsonto and Marlboro may try to use their immense lobbying power to push laws that will take the cannabis from the people and wrest it
to corporate control.
We have seen such attempts at monopolization in the food industry, for example, for a long time now.
Gigantic corporate, non organic, unsustainable farms must not be allowed to be come part of this program.
I have not read the measure you refer to as written, so maybe I cannot comment accurately.
I think , though, that it is important that the people individually are allowed to grow the plant. Also, anyone should have the opportunity to become
a commercial farmer within the boundaries of law.
It is perhaps dubious that the people whom will be making the big money in your state, the 10 producers to which you referred, are already chosen,
before the law is even in place.
Incidentally, there are way we might limit the new cannabis industry from corporate attempts of monopolization.
When these laws are drawn up, the inherent limits can serve us all. If size of commercial plots were limited to, say, an acre, production could stay
sustainable- and corporate farms would not see the profit.
edit on 10-10-2015 by ecapsretuo because: correction
edit on 10-10-2015 by ecapsretuo because: (no reason given)