Colorado recreational marijuana retailers begin stocking shelves

[Sarah Sarah]

December 29,2013

DENVER - The world's first state-licensed marijuana retailers, catering to Colorado's newly legal recreational market for pot, are stocking their shelves ahead of a New Year's grand opening that supporters and detractors alike see as a turning point in America's drug culture.


CBS News Article

 

[MarkSB]

I like this line (from the article):

Last month, Colorado voters approved a combined 15 percent excise and 10 percent sales tax to be imposed on recreational pot sales, with the first $40 million raised to fund school construction projects.

Doesn't that seem a little... counterproductive?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I wish more states would follow. There are way too many people that are locked-up and/or have a criminal record for little or nothing more than simple weed procession or either crimes to get weed. Yet you do not see NEARLY as many people ( particularly adults) going to prison for procession of or even crimes trying to obtain cigarettes or alcohol ( particularly cigarettes).

 

[MarkSB]

I wish more states would follow. There are way too many people that are locked-up and/or have a criminal record for little or nothing more than simple wee procession or either crimes to get weed. Yet you do not see NEARLY as many people ( particularly adults) going to prison for procession of or even crimes trying to obtain cigarettes or alcohol ( particularly cigarettes).

Oh I agree that no one should be doing time for simple weed possesion, and the penalties should be drastically lowered. I'm not quite in favor of all out legalization or a structured distribution system though.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Good for Colorado. I think they tried to make medical pot legal in CA, but federal laws or something got in the way. Anyways I believe it still illegal, but so easy to get. The pot smokers I know don't seem to care. I haven't seen anyone get into trouble for having some on them. Some cops call it oregano, and leave. I think you have to be public intoxicated or braking another law to get charged.

 

[Paradoxum]

Good for them. It's crazy and unjust to ban a substance that doesn't harm others.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Good for them. It's crazy and unjust to ban a substance that doesn't harm others.

I agree. I do find it somewhat alarming that the state wants to be paid as if it were in the protection racket. "We would hate for your little pot shop to have an unfortunate accident" and taxing a mind altering drug to fund education seems tacky at best but they have been claiming that the gambling in NY State funds education and liquor and cigarettes get the same taxation as if to say the government disapproves but if they get their cut they will be glad to overlook the health consequences and societal problems related to those things.

Big government business seems to be in many places delighted to encourage its citizens, by claiming it will help the children, to engage in activities that will self anesthetize. It seems to me that encouraging citizens to engage in activities that are conducive to the development of a vibrant culture and an industrious and ambitious citizenry would be a better use of the government's time than to encourage the citizens to engage in wasting their time and money on activities that are designed to dull the senses and waste time and talent. All in an effort to divert money from the poorest among us ( where much of the gambling and much of the recreational drug use legal and illegal occur ) to a government that will fund large corporations and a bloated bureaucracy. I wonder if there has ever been a study to determine if the poor pay more or less in sin taxes than they recieve in government benefits?

 

[Billnew]

It does seem wierd that a store can stock it legally by state law, but even on a whim any federal agent can come in and confiscate it all, arrest everyone in the store at any time.

I think it should be legal, but the Federal government still hasn't given in.

They tax the heck out of cigarettes, they could do the same for pot.
Probably the huge tax on cigarettes will drive smokers to the weed.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree. I do find it somewhat alarming that the state wants to be paid as if it were in the protection racket. "We would hate for your little pot shop to have an unfortunate accident" and taxing a mind altering drug to fund education seems tacky at best but they have been claiming that the gambling in NY State funds education and liquor and cigarettes get the same taxation as if to say the government disapproves but if they get their cut they will be glad to overlook the health consequences and societal problems related to those things.

I don't think taxing it is that bad if the tax isn't too high. Maybe it is unnecessary though.

Big government business seems to be in many places delighted to encourage its citizens, by claiming it will help the children, to engage in activities that will self anesthetize. It seems to me that encouraging citizens to engage in activities that are conducive to the development of a vibrant culture and an industrious and ambitious citizenry would be a better use of the government's time than to encourage the citizens to engage in wasting their time and money on activities that are designed to dull the senses and waste time and talent. All in an effort to divert money from the poorest among us ( where much of the gambling and much of the recreational drug use legal and illegal occur ) to a government that will fund large corporations and a bloated bureaucracy. I wonder if there has ever been a study to determine if the poor pay more or less in sin taxes than they recieve in government benefits?

I don't think legalising something is the same as encouraging it. People should be free to live their lives how they wish as much as possible. No one has any right to taking away that freedom, even if they think it would improve culture.

Personally I'd rather live in a world where everyone smokes cannabis once a week, rather than a society where everyone works themselves into a stress caused death. Doing nothing is good for people too. I'd say that viewing free time as a waste is very dystopian. You can make something out of your life while also having free time.

If you consider cannabis like alcohol, then it will be used after work in free time. When I go out to town drinking it isn't as if other people are doing work. My parents, for example, just sit at home and watch tv at night. Allowing drugs doesn't waste time because people do it in what would be their free time anyway.

I agree that taxes might be worth avoiding for the sake of the poor though. Taxes wont put the more wealthy off buying something, but they will unfairly disincentivize the poor, or make the poor poorer.

They tax the heck out of cigarettes, they could do the same for pot.
Probably the huge tax on cigarettes will drive smokers to the weed.

I don't think they should heavily tax cannabis, if at all. I only think the cigarette tax might be justified so that the money can be put into healthcare.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't think taxing it is that bad if the tax isn't too high. Maybe it is unnecessary though.

I think that taxing it at the same rate as all other consumer goods are taxed is fine but by putting additional taxes on it, above the regular sales tax, the government political class is actually admitting that it isn't freedom of choice that motivates their actions but greed and a desire for an increased revenue stream that can be used to feather their nests that is the basis for their action.

I don't think legalising something is the same as encouraging it. People should be free to live their lives how they wish as much as possible. No one has any right to taking away that freedom, even if they think it would improve culture.

If an institution of government places a tax upon a product stating that its purpose for so doing is to advance education funding, would it not be reasonable to assume that that institution wants the product to sell as much as possible in order to increase education funding as much as possible? Would a citizen be wrong to think that by this action government is encouraging use of the product as part of one's civic duty?

Personally I'd rather live in a world where everyone live in a world where everyone smokes cannabis once a week, rather than a society where everyone works themselves into a stress caused death. Doing nothing is good for people too. I'd say that viewing free time as a waste is very dystopian. You can make something out of your life while also having free time.

Do you actually see no middle ground between smoking cannabis once a week and working oneself into a stress caused death? I would prefer if people had enough self confidence, imagination and natural ebullience that they never saw a need to alter their mood by artificial means. Doing nothing is probably not good for people as the only people that truly do nothing are the dead ones. You can have free time without using that free time to chemically alter your mood btw. I think free time from employment by an outside source is probably the most potentially rewarding part of life too bad so many people dislike it so much they must use some sort of chemical to escape it.It alarms me that so many people prefer living only for their jobs and immediately seek to find a way to dull their senses so they cannot use their free time to enjoy things that are uplifting.

If you consider cannabis like alcohol, then it will be used after work in free time. When I go out to town drinking it isn't as if other people are doing work. My parents, for example, just sit at home and watch tv at night. Allowing drugs doesn't waste time because people do it in what would be their free time anyway.

I totally disagree with your either or scenario. It is perfectly possible to not be working at your career and not be under the influence of a mind altering substance or in a vegetative state in front of a machine.

I agree that taxes might be worth avoiding for the sake of the poor though. Taxes wont put the more wealthy off buying something, but they will unfairly disincentivize the poor, or make the poor poorer.

We agree on that

I don't think they should heavily tax cannabis, if at all. I only think the cigarette tax might be justified so that the money can be put into healthcare.

What happens to health care when people stop smoking? Where does the next source of money come from? And as usual the poor tend to make up a large portion of the smoking public so we again are taxing the poor addicted smoker in order to help pay for the rich man's health care. Since the poor addicted smoker will probably die sooner because of it he will perhaps consume much less in total government benefits while paying much toward them than the non smoker.

 

[MarkSB]

I would prefer if people had enough self confidence, imagination and natural ebullience that they never saw a need to alter their mood by artificial means.

Well said. I'm a little reluctant to say this, but I used marijuana frequently before being saved and discovering that taking care of myself and using my God-given talent gave me the only "high" that I needed and provided the personal fulfillment that I was looking for.

Personally I think that legalizing marijuana sends the wrong message, especially to America's youth (in my opinion, of course).

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Personally I think that legalizing marijuana sends the wrong message, especially to America's youth (in my opinion, of course).

But so does selling alcohol and cigarettes. They are all drugs.

 

[kellhus]

Good for Colorado!

 

[MarkSB]

But so does selling alcohol and cigarettes. They are all drugs.

Right, and I think that is a legitimate argument. However (needless to say), different drugs have different effects. You can have a beer after work and not get drunk or even buzzed, but the sole purpose of smoking weed is to get high.

I just don't see what would be gained by all out legalization, but like I said that's just my viewpoint. From the government's side of it, the driving force behind its legalization seems to be the increased revenues it will bring in, and I don't see that as a good reason for legalization.

From the other side if it, there's the argument for personal freedom, whose proponents often use the "a drug is a drug" argument. But my question to you is, how far would you be willing to take that line of reasoning? Should we then legalize opiates? Methamphetamines? Please don't think that I am arguing that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope, I am just trying to point out that that line of reasoning applies to all drugs.

Apart from that you might argue that marijuana use is harmless, but I don't think that's true. It may lie on the "less dangerous" side of the drug spectrum, but is definitely not harmless.

 

[Sarah Sarah]

It does seem wierd that a store can stock it legally by state law, but even on a whim any federal agent can come in and confiscate it all, arrest everyone in the store at any time.

I think it should be legal, but the Federal government still hasn't given in.

They tax the heck out of cigarettes, they could do the same for pot.
Probably the huge tax on cigarettes will drive smokers to the weed.

I don't doubt that in six months we'll hear of a Colorado store in the news for that very thing. A huge federal bust.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I don't doubt that in six months we'll hear of a Colorado store in the news for that very thing. A huge federal bust.

Actually, I am fairly certain that from what I have heard the federal government decided that they have "bigger fish to fry" and were not going to focus on weed being legal unless it was like a MAJOR trafficing deal because there is simply more important laws to enforce than weed being illegal. It is about time that ended and either legalize it outright or have no federal law mandating it and leaving it up to each state.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think that taxing it at the same rate as all other consumer goods are taxed is fine but by putting additional taxes on it, above the regular sales tax, the government political class is actually admitting that it isn't freedom of choice that motivates their actions but greed and a desire for an increased revenue stream that can be used to feather their nests that is the basis for their action.

Taxing something doesn't mean that money is the main motivation, it could be a happy benefit. Maybe it should just have the regular sales tax though.

If an institution of government places a tax upon a product stating that its purpose for so doing is to advance education funding, would it not be reasonable to assume that that institution wants the product to sell as much as possible in order to increase education funding as much as possible? Would a citizen be wrong to think that by this action government is encouraging use of the product as part of one's civic duty?

I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion, though it is a possibility. I'd think that the extra money would be good, but that doesn't mean there is promotion. If there is less money coming in from that then so be it.

eg: There is tax on smoking, but the government does take steps to reduce smoking by other means (eg: warnings and banning advertising).

Do you actually see no middle ground between smoking cannabis once a week and working oneself into a stress caused death?

Of course I do, but you were complaining about people wasting time. Well people 'waste time' in many ways, not just on drugs. It sounded as if your against people relaxing and having time not working.

I would prefer if people had enough self confidence, imagination and natural ebullience that they never saw a need to alter their mood by artificial means.

Why do you think it is about a 'need'? It's not as if I'm a depressed person with no happiness in my life, and the only way I get happy is with alcohol. I drink because I want to, because it can be fun. There are other ways to have fun of course, and I do have fun in other ways. It isn't necessary to choose between sober happiness and tipsy or drunk happiness. You have both in your life.

I'd say I am a cheerful and imaginative person while sober. I'd agree that I lack confidence, and I hate that fact about myself. I was battling shyness long before I was old enough to drink, and I have become a more confident person. I continue to become more confident all the time, and alcohol doesn't reduce my personal growth. If anything it helps me grow as a person.

The main reason I take drugs (such as alcohol) is because it is one (or many) sources of fun.

Doing nothing is probably not good for people as the only people that truly do nothing are the dead ones. You can have free time without using that free time to chemically alter your mood btw. I think free time from employment by an outside source is probably the most potentially rewarding part of life too bad so many people dislike it so much they must use some sort of chemical to escape it.It alarms me that so many people prefer living only for their jobs and immediately seek to find a way to dull their senses so they cannot use their free time to enjoy things that are uplifting.

Why do you think drugs are an escape? I don't drink to escape any more than I play sport or eat nice food to escape. Sport and nice food are enjoyable in themselves, and part of a fulfilling life, just like drugs can be.

I suppose alcohol is fun to me partly because it opens me up, but also because it can make music and dancing more fun. 'Recently' I was out with friends and my now boyfriend, was only tipsy, dancing to cheesy music for hours. It was SO fun and I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

I'm not saying that other things aren't fun, or that other things aren't more fulfilling... I'm just saying that drugs can be just one part of a whole life.

I totally disagree with your either or scenario. It is perfectly possible to not be working at your career and not be under the influence of a mind altering substance or in a vegetative state in front of a machine.

I agree... you just quoted me talking about free time without drugs. I gave the more extreme examples because it sounded like you were against people having free time and not using it to work.

We agree on that

What happens to health care when people stop smoking? Where does the next source of money come from? And as usual the poor tend to make up a large portion of the smoking public so we again are taxing the poor addicted smoker in order to help pay for the rich man's health care. Since the poor addicted smoker will probably die sooner because of it he will perhaps consume much less in total government benefits while paying much toward them than the non smoker.

The tax should go towards smoking related healthcare. If smoking stops there is no need for smoking related healthcare. If the poor smoke more they will need more smoking related healthcare.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

I like this line (from the article):



Doesn't that seem a little... counterproductive?

Let's see ... we're going to spend $40 million on new schools that will now be populated by students suffering from Amotivational Syndrome caused by the marijuana they will be stealing from their parents' "legal stash."

Yeah, seems counterproductive, for sure.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Right, and I think that is a legitimate argument. However (needless to say), different drugs have different effects. You can have a beer after work and not get drunk or even buzzed, but the sole purpose of smoking weed is to get high.

You could drink water or soda and not get a buzz. Most or all people drink beer or other hard liquor to get buzzed or drunk. I have never met a person that like to drink beer or liquor, that didn't want a buzz. So I would believe the sole reason to drink is to get buzzed or drunk. Also you could smoke a puff or 2 of pot and not get buzzed. But I sure for most people the purpose is to get high.

I just don't see what would be gained by all out legalization, but like I said that's just my viewpoint. From the government's side of it, the driving force behind its legalization seems to be the increased revenues it will bring in, and I don't see that as a good reason for legalization.

I think a good reason to legalize it, is so people can freely smoke pot legally. The government has their own corrupt reason.

From the other side if it, there's the argument for personal freedom, whose proponents often use the "a drug is a drug" argument. But my question to you is, how far would you be willing to take that line of reasoning? Should we then legalize opiates? Methamphetamines? Please don't think that I am arguing that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope, I am just trying to point out that that line of reasoning applies to all drugs.

Then alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal then.

Apart from that you might argue that marijuana use is harmless, but I don't think that's true. It may lie on the "less dangerous" side of the drug spectrum, but is definitely not harmless.

I hear less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[Cearbhall]

Let's see ... we're going to spend $40 million on new schools that will now be populated by students suffering from Amotivational Syndrome caused by the marijuana they will be stealing from their parents' "legal stash."

Yeah, seems counterproductive, for sure.

It's better for them than the prescription and over-the-counter pills that they steal now to get high and perform better on tests.