The board has two groups 1 is absolutely for corporate control the second is for the small farmers. This is true in Albany as well. I sometimes believe that they are letting the stores function, just to get people used to the store shopping experience.
2 Likes
8 Likes
Interesting article, but premise is a little off. The continuing lie that marijuana was outlawed for public safety needs to stop. It was outlawed so new petroleum products could be sold, so paper mills didn’t have competition, and plain old racism.
Always appreciate your articles @Calyxander
7 Likes
“I don’t think there’s any surprises out there,” said DeWine, a Republican who last week said he wants to enact marijuana restrictions intended to prevent accidental ingestion, public use, driving while intoxicated and advertising. He also said he wants lawmakers to lift existing criminal penalties for marijuana possession to avoid public confusion.
Huffman, a Lima Republican, has expressed interest in raising the 10% sales tax on marijuana created by Issue 2, as well as lowering the maximum amount of THC that marijuana products can contain. Stephens, a Lawrence County Republican, has suggested lawmakers would divert some marijuana tax money toward county jail construction and law-enforcement training.
…
DeWine emphasized that any changes to state marijuana law need to be passed by Dec. 7, when parts of Issue 2 start taking effect.
Not that I trust them, but still seems hopeful for home grow. Unless of course they make it so you have to pay for a permit or something like that. They only have a little over 3 weeks to get it figured out.
5 Likes
" Recreational marijuana sales are expected as soon as late 2024 under the timeline outlined in the law, but individuals can begin growing six plants in their homes or up to 12 plants per household starting Dec. 7."
5 Likes
9 Likes
6 Likes
With legalization you wouldn’t need more jail space. Makes as much sense as building a new mall. As far as law enforcement training, I suspect it would be about how they can sill bust people for cannabis.
3 Likes
4 Likes
Shocking that closing down grey market sales is just now being understood. They’re severely under reporting how much tax they are losing to these shops. There are only about 25 legal stores in ny that produced the tax collection. Last estimate for grey market stores in nyc was 2000+ 
6 Likes
CBD, which can counteract the intoxicating effects of THC,” Dr. Leigh adds.
Don’t forget when you get too high you can take CBD to counteract the effect of THC.
But if you wanna get real high breed yourself something very low in CBD and very high in THC and THC-V.
But no one ever talks about that. 
Maybe that is another project we should tackle @Cactus 
6 Likes
THCV seems like an interesting one! Kinda think that the cannabinoid thing can produce different forms of them. Wonder how closely linked they are to other compounds? Wonder what types have high incidence of characteristics in the TH?-Variables?
2 Likes
7 Likes
Corrupticut showing it’s hand by ignoring their prior commitments of appointing a point of contact to laison between industry and patients, as well as not following through on the supposed task force to assess homegrown sales / make legislative recommendations
5 Likes
you mean you found a government not doing what it said it would? and not acting in the interest of it’s constituents? no, i don’t believe you.
4 Likes
Speak of the devil. I also found a government not doing what it said it would, and acting against the best interests of its constituents! Do I get a cookie? If so, how many milligrams is it? 
Apparently not that easy. 
The newspaper reporting it has already put everything except the lede behind a paywall, but here’s a “brief” summary put together by one of the court clerks - only 138 pages. If anyone actually wants to read it, here goes.
https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a_56_18.pdf
I quoted what seemed like the most relevant part. Basically, they’re keeping the “drug recognition experts” around but requiring the state to actually at least try to do a drug test, or else their testimony is thrown out. They can also be cross-examined by the defense now, rather than their testimony being considered sacrosanct. As far as the fact that it’s a highly biased and error-prone method, the court acknowledged it and said that it doesn’t matter. 2 of the 7 judges dissented, saying that “the Court’s charge is not to create safeguards to try to preserve the use of techniques that cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny, but rather to ensure that if evidence is given the weight of an expert’s endorsement, that evidence has ‘a sufficient scientific basis to produce uniform and reasonably reliable results.’” The other 5 judges agreed that not having a basis in fact or science is no obstacle just because the law requires it.
Many facets of the DRE protocol weigh in favor of its reliability, but the protocol
has several weaknesses as well. It does not establish that a driver is actually
impaired, or that the drug categories identified by the DRE are definitively the cause
of any such impairment. And there are palpable risks of confirmation bias when a
DRE officer administers the protocol, particularly in the more subjective aspects of
the examination. Thus, although Court finds DRE testimony sufficiently reliable to
be admitted in our courts, it adopts several limitations on the admissibility and
probative use of a DRE’s opinion in criminal and quasi-criminal cases:First, a DRE is only allowed to opine in court that the protocol has presented
indicia that are “consistent with” the driver’s usage of certain categories of
drugs. The DRE’s expert opinion testimony must not go further than that.
Proof of consistency can be pertinent as one component within the totality of
the evidence to support an inference that drugs caused a driver’s impairment.Second, a toxicology report corroborating a DRE’s opinion is important
evidence. DRE officers must make a reasonable attempt to obtain a
toxicology report when it is feasible to do so – and preferably to obtain a
blood sample rather than a urine sample – when their protocol indicates at
Step 11 an opinion of consistency with drug use. If the court finds no
reasonable attempt was made, despite its feasibility, the DRE evidence shall
be excluded. However, if the State establishes a reasonable justification for
the lack of a toxicology report, then the DRE evidence is admissible, subject
to defense impeachment and counterproofs.Third, if the trial court admits DRE evidence for the State, the defense shall
have a fair opportunity to impeach or rebut it through cross-examination of
the DRE and with counterproofs.Fourth, it may be beneficial for the court to provide jurors with an explanatory
instruction about the DRE evidence, such as the consistency limitation. The
Court refers this subject to the Model Criminal Jury Charges Committee for
its consideration.A positive DRE opinion at Step 11 is not dispositive of a driver’s guilt of driving
under the influence of drugs. Unlike a BAC reading of .08% or more in a drunk
driving case, the DRE’s opinion is not used as a per se test of guilt. Instead, the
DRE testimony is just one part of the evidence as a whole, and it can be amplified or
rebutted. The State would have a much steeper burden to prove a driver’s guilt
when it lacks corroborating proof from a toxicology report. (pp. 96-107)JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS, dissenting, explains that the Court adopted the
Daubert standard for criminal cases in Olenowski I as a means to ensure reliability
through concentration on “the soundness of the methodology used to validate a
scientific theory or technique, the strength of the reasoning underlying it, and the
accuracy of the theory or technique in practice.” 253 N.J. at 150 (emphasis added).
Under Daubert, Justice Pierre-Louis notes, the Court’s charge is not to create
safeguards to try to preserve the use of techniques that cannot withstand rigorous
scrutiny, but rather to ensure that if evidence is given the weight of an expert’s
endorsement, that evidence has “a sufficient scientific basis to produce uniform and
reasonably reliable results.” Ibid. By altering the Daubert factors here, Justice
Pierre-Louis writes, the majority not only reaches a determination of reliability that
is not supported by the test, it also upends the clear guidance in Olenowski I
regarding placing the focus of these expert reliability determinations on testing, peer
review, and error rates. Justice Pierre-Louis would hold that DRE evidence is not
admissible under N.J.R.E. 702.
3 Likes
Jesus, more “ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn!!” arguments. Is there a despot in the history of our species who HASN’T made that banal argument?
3 Likes