is your state a legal MJ state? medical or rec?

elections are coming up in about a month. it is on the ballet for my state. both recreational and medical. of course i updated my registration so i can vote the issue.
i was reading the particulars on the bill and something struck me as a bit odd. if this passes there will be a monopoly on the growth and cultivation. there will be 10 and only 10 legal grow ops in the state. it showed us a breakdown of who invested and in what parcel of land and what city. struck me as funny that former boy singer nick lachey has invested 400k to the one a city over from me.

then it talked about dispensaries. my state is limited to no more than just over 1k dispensaries through the whole state and of course they have to be so far away from schools(which i get) and places of worship(which i dont get)

anyway, i am curious to how fast things moved if you live in a legal state?
if this passes i am expecting things to get moving pretty fast.

there are also particulars in the bill about how much a person aged 21 or higher can possess. it is a pretty damn good amount but to have that amount you have to have a drivers license or id for this state.

for those that live in a legal state, besides having dispensaries did you notice any changes? less stigma? tax revenue?
anything really.

this is all out of curiosity really as i am of course voting in favor of this.

a reply to: TinySickTears

its been legal in my state since the dawn of time. with one stipulation, one doesn't venture far outside the wavy line that stipulates and discerns what is criminal and/or illegal .

I live in Washington state, personally I have noticed a slight drop in the stigma, but it's mostly that people are more open to discuss the issues involved with it.
As for the tax revenue aspect, Washington state made $65 million the first year(2014) it was legalized for recreational use. I believe Colorado is making over $100 million a month now, but their laws are very loose compared to Washington, which from what I've heard has some of the most strict laws on who can grow, process, transport, and sell marijuana.
When it came to a vote in Washington, the voter information pamphlets they handed out had a lot of great unbiased info in them that presented the facts and pro/cons of each side. So I'd suggest you read up and maybe compare your states laws to those of Washington and Colorado to see how fast it will move in your state.
The things that made me vote for legalization were large amounts of the tax going to public schools, and personal liberty.

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.

a reply to: TinySickTears

When the bill comes up for vote in your state vote against it if it does not include personal cultivation. Colorado does and Washington does not. I live in Oregon where personal cultivation is set at 4 plants at one time.

What is common in there three states is that there is a quick rush to make profit from sales. AND TAXES. As the poster above points out if the profit is large enough the corporates will become more involved in it and monopolize.

Remember. When it comes time to vote, make sure there is a personal cultivation clause in the bill. Because if there is not then THERE NEVER WILL BE

Im in South Carolina, we had to BEG for CBD oil to be legalized and it took a few kids having seizures on tv to do that. Maybe one day we can atleast get medicinal.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TinySickTears

When the bill comes up for vote in your state vote against it if it does not include personal cultivation. Colorado does and Washington does not. I live in Oregon where personal cultivation is set at 4 plants at one time.

What is common in there three states is that there is a quick rush to make profit from sales. AND TAXES. As the poster above points out if the profit is large enough the corporates will become more involved in it and monopolize.

Remember. When it comes time to vote, make sure there is a personal cultivation clause in the bill. Because if there is not then THERE NEVER WILL BE

if the law passes people 21 and over will be able to have x amount(quite a lot really) and x amount of plants(also quite a good amount)
the 10 and only 10 deal was for commercial growers.
citizens can cultivate for personal and also 'prepare' tinctures and edibles and such.
of course this is if the law passes

the amounts that were mentioned for personal carry for plants and 'loose' was actually a large amount as far as im concerned. far, and i mean far more than a person would ever need to carry around.

It is legal here in the Emerald Triangle i.e. Mendocino Co. California.It is legal to have up to 25 plants for "personal use" and people still get caught stealing it.It is estimated that my generates 40% of all revenues for the county.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Sweet. Go for it.