The Hippy
Well-Known Member
Please post the article showing they were killed over weed.
Calm down Mrs Kravitz....the skies not falling...really
It's better now than it's ever been to enjoy weed medically or rec.
Raided...
- Thread starter gb123
- Start date
Calm down Mrs Kravitz....the skies not falling...really
It's better now than it's ever been to enjoy weed medically or rec.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Yep.
1) Anecdotal evidence.
2) Correlation is not causation. This is the same as finding THC in the blood of a traffic accident victim/driver, and then concluding cannabis caused the accident. No 'facts' being shown.
As far as I know one dispensary has re-opened but the rest are still closed.
part of the buis ...I read they will be back up
He can't prove shit and you know it. I've bought weed solely from The bm my whole life. Never ever bought from a gang member. Lol the notion all bm dealers are gang members is asinine. Only a fucking moron would believe such bullshit.
Gquebed
Well-Known Member
Well i was going to but it doesnt say anything about the weed or amount... (which we all know the never do) ... so i figured why bother when it will be called bullshit.
But i knew the kid. And it was obvious why he was shot. He was parked in his usual spot where he met his buyers and took a bullet in forehead. Funny thing... because he sat there so often nobody even noticed he was dead for a few hours and called the cops...
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
My 2 cents. No doubt there is violence associated with some marijuana sellers, but to suggest all bm weed is somehow gang connected is foolish. I know quite a few people who have made a career out of growing and selling and none of them are gang members or associates. It wasn't that many years ago BC bud was being traded for blow and guns south of the border and that's where you see gangs and violence. I've been smoking weed since the 70's and I only had one 'incident' buying from the bm...some jackass ripped me off and then pulled a knife when I complained...fuck I hate Edmonton! lol
Gquebed
Well-Known Member
I didnt say all BM weed comes with violence. For the record.
Also for the record... i hate Edmonton too, but... i wont be able to leave for a while yet...
Gquebed
Well-Known Member
So that has been your experience. Lucky you that you have had good connections. Not everybody does. In fact, most people dont.
I've been involved in the BM nearly all of my life. To one degree or another. I know what i am talking about... on several levels. Some markets are blacker than others. And that is the biggest reason i cant wait for legalization....
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
Edmonton is a nice place to be from...
Some but not all. Most require a medical script from a doc or proof of an ailment that mmj is used to treat. A script for traditional meds is enough at many.
bengi
Well-Known Member
Not to many around here. I know of one in a neighboring city that is open to the public, w/e that means.
There's what, approx 100 +/- dispensaries in Toronto. Is there really that many MMP around to warrant that many places?
I've just started reading a bit about them, so wasn't sure on what the policies are/were and risks associated with them. I was debating on checking the one place out, but at the same time not sure how "safe" it is to visit.
they yer buddies?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
More @ linkSince Colorado voters legalized pot in 2012, prohibition supporters have warned that recreational marijuana will lead to a scourge of “drugged drivers” on the state’s roads. They often point out that when the state legalized medical marijuana in 2001, there was a surge in drivers found to have smoked pot. They also point to studies showing that in other states that have legalized pot for medical purposes, we’ve seen an increase in the number of drivers testing positive for the drug who were involved in fatal car accidents. The anti-pot group SAM recently pointed out that even before the first legal pot store opened in Washington state, the number of drivers in that state testing positive for pot jumped by a third.
The problem with these criticisms is that we can test only for the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for inebriation. Metabolites can linger in the body for days after the drug’s effects wear off — sometimes even for weeks. Because we all metabolize drugs differently (and at different times and under different conditions), all that a positive test tells us is that the driver has smoked pot at some point in the past few days or weeks.
It makes sense that loosening restrictions on pot would result in a higher percentage of drivers involved in fatal traffic accidents having smoked the drug at some point over the past few days or weeks. You’d also expect to find that a higher percentage of churchgoers, good Samaritans and soup kitchen volunteers would have pot in their system. You’d expect a similar result among any large sampling of people. This doesn’t necessarily mean that marijuana caused or was even a contributing factor to accidents, traffic violations or fatalities.
This isn’t an argument that pot wasn’t a factor in at least some of those accidents, either. But that’s precisely the point. A post-accident test for marijuana metabolites doesn’t tell us much at all about whether pot contributed to the accident.
Since the new Colorado law took effect in January, the “drugged driver” panic has only intensified. I’ve already written about one dubious example, in which the Colorado Highway Patrol and some local and national media perpetuated a story that a driver was high on pot when he slammed into a couple of police cars parked on an interstate exit ramp. While the driver did have some pot in his system, his blood-alcohol level was off the charts and was far more likely the cause of the accident. In my colleague Marc Fisher’s recent dispatch from Colorado, law enforcement officials there and in bordering states warned that they’re seeing more drugged drivers. Congress recently held hearings on the matter, complete with dire predictions such as “We are going to have a lot more people stoned on the highway and there will be consequences,” from Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.). Some have called for a zero tolerance policy — if you’re driving with any trace of pot in your system, you’re guilty of a DWI. That would effectively ban anyone who smokes pot from driving for up to a couple of weeks after their last joint, including people who legitimately use the drug for medical reasons.
It seems to me that the best way to gauge the effect legalization has had on the roadways is to look at what has happened on the roads since legalization took effect. Here’s a month-by-month comparison of highway fatalities in Colorado through the first seven months of this year and last year. For a more thorough comparison, I’ve also included the highest fatality figures for each month since 2002, the lowest for each month since 2002 and the average for each month since 2002.
Raw data from the Colorado Dept. of Transportation
As you can see, roadway fatalities this year are down from last year, and down from the 13-year average. Of the seven months so far this year, five months saw a lower fatality figure this year than last, two months saw a slightly higher figure this year, and in one month the two figures were equal. If we add up the total fatalities from January through July, it looks like this:
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You do realize that it's 100% legal to operate a vehicle on any prescription drug as long as you can pass a road side impairment test, right?
This is what the law says. It's not that unreasonable either.