Holland-Style Marijuana Clubs Coming to America

  • by Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel September 12, 2016

    Logo-1-R4One of the next frontiers in the political battles for marijuana smokers is the need to provide venues where marijuana smokers can socialize with other marijuana smokers in a marijuana-friendly lounge. Under current laws in Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and the District of Columbia, it is perfectly legal for smokers to possess specified amounts of marijuana, but they are only legally allowed to exercise their newly won freedom in their home or as a guest in someone else’s home.

    Holland-style coffee shops, or marijuana lounges were not legalized by those early voter initiatives.

    This is particularly important to the many tourists who visit those states, as most will have nowhere legal to smoke their legal cannabis. Most hotels don’t allow cannabis consumption, and public marijuana smoking is outlawed – meaning there are a lot of people with no place to go to enjoy their legal bud.

    That is about to change.

    Can you imagine for a moment what the alcohol scene would look like today if alcohol drinkers were precluded from drinking at bars, and only allowed to drink alcohol in a private home? That would largely eliminate the lively night life scene in every city in America, and it would surely result in the rise of speakeasies, clandestine illegal bars similar to those that arose in several states before the end of alcohol prohibition.

    It is equally absurd to suggest that the tens of millions of Americans who smoke marijuana, once it is legalized, will have to limit their marijuana smoking to private homes. There is absolutely no policy justification for this limitation, and smokers will always find a way around it.

    The choice: Regulate smoking lounges or smoke-easies will proliferate.

    It is the nature of a free market. If the government does not license and regulate the market, those willing to operate in the “grey zone” will fill the void and develop venues where marijuana smokers can socialize with other marijuana smokers. There are currently smoke-easies operating in many cities, in states that have legalized marijuana. But because these are not technically legal, the state and local jurisdiction does not receive the tax revenue, nor can they regulate the qualify or safety of the product. When marijuana is being sold illegally, the products are not tested in a certified laboratory for molds and pesticides, nor is there any way to assure the labeling is accurate as to the strength of the drug.
    Marijuana smoking is a social activity better enjoyed with friends, so the only real question is whether these marijuana-friendly clubs will continue to be clandestine, or whether they will be licensed and regulated and above ground.

    A licensed and regulated system, with age controls, is far preferable to grey market “smoke-easies.”

    This push for smoking lounges is currently being principally fought in Alaska, within the state agency developing the rules for legal marijuana in that state; and in Denver, where two versions for social marijuana use were competing for the November ballot.

    The situation in Alaska.

    First, let’s look at the Alaska situation. Last November, the Alaska Marijuana Control Board issued draft regulations to define when and where “on-site consumption” would be permitted. The proposed regulations have for several months been open for public comment and were expected to be approved this past week, but that vote has now been delayed until October.

    While the proposed regulations are still tentative, marijuana cafes would be permitted in Alaska only in conjunction with an existing marijuana retail store, on the same premises, either indoor or outdoor, but with a separate entrance and separate serving area. A separate license would be required for on-site consumption.

    Customers could purchase small amounts of marijuana (1 gram of marijuana, edibles with up to 10 milligrams of THC, or .25 grams of marijuana concentrates) to consume on-site and would not be permitted to bring their own marijuana to smoke on-site. Strangely, an early version of the regulations said the legal smokers would be required to leave any unfinished marijuana behind to be destroyed, although this was met with some strong opposition, and has now been deleted. Customers would now be permitted to reseal their unused marijuana and take it with them. Also, marijuana “happy hours” would not be permitted, although marijuana lounges would be permitted to sell food and non-alcohol beverages.

    It appears that Alaska may well become the first state to license marijuana lounges, some of which could be up and running within a few months. It is incredibly important for the legalization movement nationwide for a couple of states to move forward to experiment with new marijuana-friendly venues, to serve as a living experiment, which other states can evaluate when they are facing these same issues down the road. If the initial experience with marijuana lounges is generally successful, and if the lounges do not present any unintended consequences in the communities they serve, other states that legalize marijuana will want to incorporate this specific wrinkle in their policy.

    Alaska is set to be our first social use club demonstration.

    The Denver, Colorado experience.

    Denver presents a different situation, as there the effort to legalize social use venues is being fought by way of a city-wide voter initiative. In fact, there were two competing marijuana lounge initiatives being circulated this fall.

    One (proposed by Denver NORML and the Committee for the Responsible Use Initiative in Denver) that would have established licenses for marijuana only (no alcohol) social use clubs and for special events, was a grass-roots undertaking, and despite a valiant effort, the sponsors fell short of the required number of registered voters (5,000), so that proposal will not be on the ballot this fall.

    Jordan Person, the chief advocate, said she was surprised by the number of rejected signatures for the group’s private clubs initiative, adding that it underlined the need for more voter registration drives.

    “You know, we’re not going to stop,” she told me, arguing that private clubs are the better solution to the need for places where people, including tourists, can consume marijuana together.

    The second proposal for social use clubs was proposed at the last minute, offered as a competing initiative by the Cannabis Consumption Committee, an industry group that had qualified a similar measure for the ballot in 2015 before pulling it from the ballot at the last minute, in a failed attempt to work with the City Council. Over a thirty-day period, with industry funding, the group managed to collect 10,800 signatures to qualify.

    (One would naturally ask why there would be competing social use voter initiatives; were they so different that a reasonable compromise could not have been reached, offering a united social use initiative? The answer, of course, is that individual personalities and egos naturally get involved, and in this case, despite an extraordinary effort by Denver NORML attorney Judd Golden and Executive Director Jordan Person to reach an accord with the industry group, in the end, a compromise was not possible. So we were left with two competing social use initiatives being circulated for signatures in Denver.)

    The initiative that did qualify for the ballot would permit certain bars and restaurants to obtain a social use license in which marijuana edibles and vaporizers could be used, but no marijuana could be smoked (because of Colorado’s strong indoor clean air act), and approval would have to be obtained from neighborhood groups and business improvement districts before any such license could be awarded. This requirement may well prove a somewhat challenging proposition in today’s world of NIMBY (not in my backyard), as neighborhood groups may be fearful of the social consequences of allowing marijuana products to be consumed in conjunction with alcohol.

    The proposal would establish a four-year pilot program, requiring the city to study the measure’s effectiveness. By the end of 2020, the City Council could allow it to expire, make it permanent or tweak its provisions.

    So we are left in Denver with a proposal that we should all support, as it moves us a little closer to the goal of being allowed to smoke marijuana with friends in a social setting, outside a private home. But it remains to be seen how many neighborhood associations are likely to allow the issuance of licenses. Nonetheless, it does recognize the need for responsible marijuana smokers to have a place to congregate where they can socialize with other smokers. And we should all do what we can to get the Denver social use initiative approved by the voters in November.

    It’s certainly not a perfect social use initiative, assuming the goal remains to treat marijuana like alcohol, but as this is new territory for the legalization movement, we should use this proposal to try to demonstrate that social use clubs are a viable alternative to the current policy of limiting marijuana smoking to a private home.

    The most current polling suggests the proposal is favored by a clear majority (56 percent) of voters in Denver.

    Laboratories of democracy.

    As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “a state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” The city of Denver and the state of Alaska are exercising that important role as we move forward with new and improved versions of legalization. What we learn from these initial experiments with marijuana social clubs will inform subsequent cities and states in the coming years.

    31 Responses to “Holland-Style Marijuana Clubs Coming to America”

    1. Anonymous says:

      Clearly the future and we might as well get there already. A shame what happened in Denver. Also, said clubs had better expand to other states at a quick rate as well. Frankly, this progress including the ENTIRE legalization effort is NOT moving quickly enough at ALL. Legalization needs to speed up starting at least by this November and into next year. We have to move faster than this.

    2. Julian says:

      Glad to hear Alaska got that ridiculous clause to “leave ones joint” at the bar removed. What a stupid idea. As proud as Alaskans must be to start the show for public cannabis venues, I can’t help but feel they already did that in the bar scenes of that 90s sitcom “Northern Exposure.” C’mon, look at Fleishman’s eyes… They were all stoned!
      Anyway, special congratulations to Denver NORML; I loved your proposal more, but will settle for what is to come if we can improve on it, and improve we will! I am inspired and encouraged by what you all accomplished. This is a tough lesson for us that not only do we need to vet for reputable notaries, we need to screen signatures for voter registration!
      Thanks!! _\|/_

    3. KonaOhana says:

      I’m astonished at how pushy, controlling & manipulating some people of policy & law enforcement are. THE fact of a God given or natural occurring weed should be made illegal purely out of the greedy & selfish drive of big PHARMA & cops, local politicians is ridiculously absurd. It should be decriminalized from the DEA. Nixon the CROOK started this insanity. He’s been proven to be a criminal. THE DEA should be CLOSED. Their list burned. THE remaining drugs be turned to an independent medical panel elected not appointed as it is done in Europe.

    4. mexweed says:

      Beyond repetitions of heavy concern for $moke, $mokers, $moking etc., this SUI social use initiative has great merit on basis of its leniency to vaporizing. Not only because successful attainment of harmless civil use will, as Keith pointed out, lead to leniency also toward $moking. I am also dumm enough to think more $mokers will dump their recalcitrance and reconcile with the vapor idea– who needs carbon monoxide and 4221 Combustion toxins?

      1. There are dozens of vaporizer brands under $50 (and cheaper ways to make them continue to be found)) and just about anyone who can afford herb can afford a vaporizer;

      2. Vaporizers are designed to bypass $idestream $moke issues (disturbs others, too public, or whatever) because you inhale 100% of the effluent and your lungs themselves have largely detoxified most anything others might breathe after you exhale– also true of a $1.29 flexdrawtube oneheater.

      3. Most pen vapes can be used even outdoors in the wind so you can pretoke (get thyself social) before entering any building. (Unfortunately this does not always apply to flexdrawtube oneheaters and the easy-learn, heat-not-burn Vapetoke Technique– but the way to address that down the road will be to furnish birdhouselike or telephoneboothlike frontaccess Lighthouses on the sidewalk where you can keep your lighter going 19 seconds, 19 inches from your trachea.)

      4. Worth starting right away to insist that cheap democratic flexdrawtube oneheaters be classified as vaporizers, even if longtime $mokers are likely to ignite overhastily at first before catching on to the Technique.

      • A says:

        thanks Mexweed; I might try vaporizing one day;I use less Herb in my pipe per toke these days; this helps me to save money for more Herb;

    5. Mark Mitcham says:

      Can’t smoke marijuana at a marijuana lounge? Are they kidding? That’s not going to work.

      I know I commented on a previous blog that we should all get behind either initiative that gets on the ballot, but… to be honest, I wasn’t aware that the corporate initiative was a “no-smoking” initiative! For fuck’s sake, isn’t that the whole idea behind having a cannabis club?!

      So now, I’m pissed. That’s such a buzzkill. Now I don’t even feel like going out dancing at the cannabis clubs anymore. And I was really looking forward to that.

      For the record, I’ll still vote for it. I’m not going to oppose it. Once again, I agree with Keith.

      But, I don’t think I will be going to the clubs, not if you can’t smoke there! That’s really stupid.

      And I promise you, if I do go there, it will be to BREAK THAT RULE! You can bet your ass I will be smoking cannabis at the cannabis club, whether it’s permitted or not!! Because that is some corporate bullshit with which I cannot abide.

      Leave it to a corporate industry trade group to come up with plan for a marijuana lounge in which marijuana smoking is prohibited! Sheesh.

      • Mark Mitcham says:

        I support the strong Colorado Indoor Clean Air Act. It has saved my health from the effects of a great deal of second-hand cigarette smoke, to which I would have otherwise been subjected.

        But you have to be able to smoke pot in a cannabis club; it’s axiomatic! Even if it means NOT selling food, NOT selling alcohol. If you have to choose, you have to sacrifice the alcohol, even the food before the cannabis, or it’s no longer a true cannabis club!

        I acknowledge that other people have given this a great deal of thought; I don’t claim to have the last word here. But, for Denver, I can see no other solution than private clubs, with memberships that can be very easily obtained by anyone, even tourists, for short periods of time. Memberships can be inclusive, rather than exclusive. Tourists will be proud to be a member of a Colorado Cannabis club, don’t you think?

        I think this is close to what Denver NORML wanted, and as Keith pointed out, eventually America will have to come around to proper cannabis clubs, or we will continue to be treated as second class citizens, and I don’t think that’s going to fly anymore.

        Anyway, there are ethical priorities; we’ve still got places like Alabama and Kansas to pull out of the prohibitionist dirt!

        • Julian says:

          “It is better to live on a housetop than live in a house full of confusion.”

          • Mark Mitcham says:

            Rooftop is a good place to toke, too! Literally!

            Metaphorically speaking (which I think is what you actually intended), I admit I’ve got it pretty good in Colorado, and I wouldn’t want to seem to be rubbing it in anyone’s face who might not be in such a fortunate situation as myself. I’m celebrating, but I’m not gloating. My sympathies lie with those still stuck in Reefer Madness World; I know the place only too well myself, having only “got out” (that is, became legal) relatively late in life.

            But the cannabis clubs, such as they are, truly highlight the stark differences in marijuana policy across America.

            “States’ Rights” is a double-edged sword. Remember, it is used to justify slavery (bad), as well as marijuana legalization (good.) We legalization-types have benefited from this political “pass” from people and politicians who still want to distance themselves from marijuana itself. But even in marijuana policy, it is creating an untenable moral and legal differential.

            With respect to weed, living in Colorado has me spoiled so bad, I won’t leave the state! I’m afraid to! It would be like traveling to a foreign country with harsh and barbaric laws against freedom — wait a minute, that’s America I’m talking about! See what I mean?

            • Julian says:

              That’s funny… I thought I was quoting a Bob Marley song “Running Away,” and what I meant by that was to practice nonviolent civil disobedience by smoking on rooftop bars. (Really, who builds a rooftop bar and doesn’t think about rolling a spliff?) Now if you’re at a rooftop club with lots of elderly people eating restaurant style you might wanna curb your enthusiasm and hit the vaporizer.
              The funny part is I looked up the quote from Proverbs in the Bible, and the quote goes like this;

              “Proverbs 21:9: Better to live on the corner of a roof than to share a house with a nagging wife.”

              Which was decidedly NOT what I was thinking about, but VERY wise words to live by indeed. (In fact, I’m building my new home Pueblo style with a flat roof…) Perhaps a better proverb would be “It is better to grow some good weed on a rooftop where you can boil it into a concentrate without stinking up the kitchen then sneak some into some massage oils… THAT’ll stop her nagging…”

          • Mark Mitcham says:

            Here’s my Proverb 420: “It’s better to live a mile high in Colorado, than to share a police cruiser with an arresting officer in an alcohol-only state.”

            • Julian says:

              I’m still gonna sneak some concentrate into some of her lavender oil. I don’t care if she does nag later. We all know how the massage ends!
              And if she finds out like “what’s that smell,” Ill be like “dont worry baby its gonna treat your thyroid. Just lay down…”

        • chad says:

          “current policy of limiting marijuana smoking to a private home”
          The current policy is really to step outside the bar around the corner. It’s a joke to pretend that anyone except the most skittish respects the current restriction on where you can smoke.

    6. Wade Rawluk says:

      The important thing when it comes to cannabis clubs is that they allow all forms of consumption. Smoking, edibles and vaping must be included. What we must never do is have a social consumption venue that only allows for vaporization. People should have choices in forms of consumption. I hate the vapor lounge craze that bans smoking but only allows vaping. As a consumer who prefers smoking and has no interest in vaping at any time I find it offensive when others who have vaping as their personal choidce try to impose it on others. A marijuana club without smoking is for me an absense of a marijuana club. Under no circumstance will I ever vape. I would appreciate it if those who prefer vaping give the same freedom they would give themselves and allow us to smoke without trying to force us to vape against our will. I will not be converted to vapuing and if someone else does not like it too bad. I wish they would just take the time to visualize what it would be like for them if they were in a cannabis club that allowed smoking but no vaping and tried to make them into smokers by denying them the abilty to consume the way they want.

      • mexweed says:

        You have to decide about your politics, which side you’re on etc., on different levels. In the case of $moke vs Vape, having attending indoor $moking law debates in the 70’s I know it was already established then that $ide $tream $moke (loose into the air off burning $ig) contains 5 times as much carbon monoxide and 30 times as much sulfur dioxide as the Main $tream $moke inhaled directly through a device by the user.

        You have to wonder if this OD of carbon monoxide at joint $moking parties contributes to that “dopy” behavior attributed to the cannabis in Daily Mail stories with a picture of someone $moking a Joint at the top of the page.

        In which case, let’s get wise (use both eyes): monoxidal stoning ritual is bad politics for us because it furnishes story material for TFNP tobaccofunded fascist newspaper propagamble to scare millions of readers just before election and keep cannabis illegal.

    7. Don M says:

      I never ceases to amaze me how much power a handful of ignorant jerks (e.g. prohibitonists) have over millions of us.

      Please consult NORML’s page:

      to help you decide who to vote for and do vote!

      We have got to work together to throw the bums out!!! I wish I could personally throw Iowa’s Republican Chuck Grassley to the curb. He is largely responsible for the continued suffering and prosecution of good Americans for their choice to use cannabis. What a friggin’ dirtbag this guy is!!!

      Chris Christie is no better, nor is Mike Pence (the VP choice of Trump). These people should all go the way of the dinosaur and the sooner the better for all of us who believe in freedom and the American way of life.

    8. TheOracle says:

      The DEA appears to have NO anti-marijuana talking points. Might this be a good thing if they finally just shut the f— up? They’ve been pulling shit out of their asses for years; damn the facts, science and testimonials. The DEA should just remain silent, and let legalization go through at the federal level. That, in and of itself, is a veritable green light for Congress to legalize, and set the UN changes and possibility of amending international treaties in motion–immediately. Just shut up and let it happen, DEA!

      Canada is implementing legalization. Just shut up and let it happen. More states are poised to legalize. Just shut up and let it happen.


      • Julian says:

        As much as we all wish we could Federally legalize simply because the DEA and NIDA have simply run out of effective propaganda, unfortunately too many Congressman and other politicians we won’t name categorically are not burdened by facts or justice.
        When a former NIDA director gets on the radio and says “marijuana is bad because the FDA can’t synthesize it,” there’s really nothing else left to say; the Drug Czar is muzzled by the CSAct. Worse, they are mandated by this treasounous Act to NOT shut up with their propaganda, using our tax dollars to deny the medical efficacy of marijuana as written by Congressional orders.
        Of course, as Federal Judge Mueller dissented, “Congress doesn’t have to be right.”
        That’s why I’m throwing my attention behind getting
        Republican Representative Lamar Smith chair of the House Science Space and Technology Committee thrown out of Congress from my district by supporting Progressive Democrat Tom Wakely;


        I just invited him to a cannabis policy reform training seminar in San Antonio next month. The strategy is to get Tom to attack Rep. Smith for “killing our veterans,” and invite local news like KSAT and TPR to do a press conference.
        If the American public wants a reality show, well, here comes your reality… 50 veteran suicides per day and Rep. Lamar Smith is banking on it to peddle opiates.

        • Julian says:

          Awesome news! I just got a response from Democratic candidate Tom Wakely saying “C ya there,” meaning he WILL be attending the Cannabis Policy Reform Training Conference in San Antonio October 9th!
          I’ll be contacting Jax Finkle from Texas NORML and KSAT and TPR now to get some press on this event, but we need some influence and guidance here.
          I’ve never asked for a personal favor from you before Keith, or from Paul Armentano for that matter, but we need a statement from one or both of you to KSAT and TPR and convince them to cover this event.
          Meanwhile I’m investigating Rep. Smith’s top contributors:
          And will collaborate when I meet with candidate Wakely next month.
          Smith’s third biggest contributor is NACS whose mission statement includes lobbying for tobacco, the leading sales product.
          Smith takes money from Deloitte LLP whose health consulting through their Center for Health Solutions suggests responding to the opiate crisis with more drug testing on employees, which we know catches the whole plant cure, such as cannabis, since the body gets rid of poisonous opiates within 72 hours.
          But what really shocked me was the dirty link from another top contributor to Smith, Northrop Grumman, who is the top Defense contractor through CNGS, or Counter-Narco-Terrorism-Support. How accurately named, because support they do…
          Along with the infamous Blackwater, now called Academi, these security contractors helped increase the export of opium and production of poppy by %60 since 2011. CNGS is heavily involved in the opium trade in Mexico and South Africa as well, killing innocent civilians all along the way.
          I will make it a point to vet Wakely to steer clear of these shady groups, as Northrop Grumman have donate broadly including to both Hillary and Sanders.

          • Mark Mitcham says:

            You ROCK, Julian!

            • Julian says:

              I appreciate your enthusiasm Mark, though I just got off the phone with a staff member at Texas Public Radio, executive director of Texas NORML Jax Finkle and executive director of the Texas Marijuana Policy Project Heather Fazio and learned some important things about how to separate policy education events with political campaigning and press releases.
              While its great for House candidate Tom Wakely-D to attend the educational event, his campaigning to the press and voters will have to wait for an undisclosed “afterparty” event, (TBA). As a staff member from TPR explained it, “The media has to follow strict FCC rules that when covering a political event we need statements from both candidates.” And I can answer that with Rep. Lamar Smith’s typical email for extending the Rorhabacher-Farr amendment; “Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I will surely keep your thoughts in mind” …Which is a way of saying “no comment.”
              But as Jax and Heather point out, there will be more political events during the legislative session here in Texas in February where we do want the press to “press” our legislators. The educational event next month is about organizing citizen lobbyists and educating legislators.
              I understand the dichotomy between getting statements from both sides over an issue. I’m not even a partisan voter. I’m working with my state legislator, Republican representative Jason Isaac, to expand the Compassionate Use Act in Texas while I’m working with Wakely who is a Progressive Democrat. No party limits for marijuana policy; no either or its both and more.
              But it appears here in Texas our marijuana movement is consolidating our efforts at the state level which means focusing on our state representatives.
              That doesn’t mean we can’t entertain a press release for a good federal candidate. Just gotta keep the weed on the roof tops away from those cameras! How’s that for a segue back to the topic of public marijuana venues?

        • YearofAction says:

          …Federal Judge Mueller dissented, “Congress doesn’t have to be right.”

          When Congress creates a definition of marijuana containing two antagonistic sentences that describe an “other substance”, and which the Supreme Court interprets holistically, but the DEA interprets literally, then the question of its correct schedule merits such a response. The question before the judge should be the constitutionality of the text in that definition. Still, that is a cop-out coming from a judge who has the responsibility to check for violations of this rule:

          “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

    9. Joel: the other Joel says:

      I do hope they have friendly security there, so that tourist and newcomers won’t become victims in or out of the clubs.

    10. Ralph says:

      Some great comments in here…what if we take it a bit farther though? We ALL know that the gubba-mint has been lying to us about Cannabis for years! It’s time to do a real World Wide Cannabis Day’ and no, not April 20th either. We need a REAL day to voice, educate and create a better future for all of us. How? Well, we have all seen hashtags trend certain keywords, right? With a wide-spread public awareness campaign, it’s time to call out the liars in DC and Big Pharma among others! Here are just a few of the issues they lie about in regards to Cannabis:

      They have been attacking constitutional and natural rights of the people for ages now and methodically chipping them away. Technically, the gov. should not even be allowed to collect ANY tax monies from the industry as cannabis is still considered an ‘illegal schedule one drug’. They (the gov.) are demanding (and receiving) tax money from a crime! Isn’t that pretty much racketeering?
      And yet… we just allow them to do it.

      Here’s yet another example for you in regards to the hypocrisy of the govt. –
      The U.S. Government (and others) have multiple letters patent on the medical properties of cannabis, yet it is listed as a Schedule One drug with “no medical value and highly addictive”. Those issued patents demonstrate and clearly prove the ‘medical benefits’ of cannabis, do they not? If they do not, then the patents should never have issued in the first place!
      Which brings me to my next point. According to the U.S.P.T.O (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office)you CANNOT patent “anything illegal or considered inherently dangerous”. Well, a Schedule One listed drug is considered both Illegal & dangerous, is it not?

      It’s way past time to call out the lying hypocrites. How MANY more lies do we have to have stuffed down our throats before we take action by calling out the gov? Don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m ready NOW!

      • Miles says:

        Hello Ralph, I guess you don’t realize they have been called out hundreds, if not thousands of times for their lies and hypocrisy. Look at where it has gotten us!

        They, the top level decision-makers, care only about money and power. Once all their pieces have been put in place (giant corporate size production/distribution operations) I’m sure it will be quickly legalized.

        It truly depends upon who is profiting. Prohibition has never actually been about protecting anyone as they have claimed for the last 80 or so years. It doesn’t matter to them that hundreds of thousands, millions if you include family members, have had their lives negative effected or totally ruined because of the racist/predjudicial/non-scientific laws against marijuana.

        Hillary Clinton boasts about why she is the most qualified to be our president after 40 years of service. Well, in all that time, the most she offers is to chance cannabis to schedule 2 if she gets elected to be our next president. It really pisses me off!

      • Seahawk says:

        I recommend #socalledpatriotscheated

    Leave a Reply