Cannabis-Infused Dining Coming To Chicago

CBS Chicago ^ | 11/20/2017 | Diamaris Martino

[Boogieman]

The munchies are a pretty exaggerated phenomenon. Mainly potheads are craving something to drink because they have a dry mouth. I have never seen them go on a “munchie run” to the convenience store like you see in the movies.

[Ken H]

“My wife and I think that the social cost was totally ignored because the politicians just wanted more tax money to spend on social justice b.s.”

Actually, politicians have not legalized recreational pot anywhere in the US.

It has been by referendum in all cases so far.

[Ken H]

“A friend in enforcement tells us that since pot is an all cash business (shops can’t use financial institutions), that it makes the perfect cover for cartels, so cartel traffic is actually increasing in states that have legalized pot.”

That makes no sense. Before it was legal in CO, the recreational pot industry was ALL black market... right?

Now that it’s legal, CO is collecting over $200M a year in taxes on over $1B in sales. That’s coming out of the pockets of the black marketeers.

[Libloather]

Saw a few episodes. Fascinating.

Bong Appétit: The Ultimate Marijuana Munchies Gourmet Cooking Show

http://bigbudsmag.com/bong-appetit-marijuana-munchies-cooking-show/

[Parmy]

noun, plural referendums, referenda [ref-uh-ren-duh] (Show IPA) 1. the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body, head of state, etc., to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection. Compare initiative (def 4a). 2. a measure thus referred. 3. a vote on such a measure.

Cutting through the mumbo-jumbo, the politicians did allow legalization by punting with the referendum process so that they could have cover when things go wrong.

Our family had a member of the legislature who was pushing for the legalization of pot while he was in office. So, the idea was around for a long time before it ever went to a vote by the people.

And the money was the real reason. But thrown aside was all the data about damage to the brain, etc. The mantra was that everyone was doing it so it should be made legal and not criminalized.

[Ken H]

Politicians didn’t “allow” anything. The referendum process was already in the state constitutions where it’s been legalized.

Politicians in the Swamp love the war on drugs.

[Parmy]

Of course they allowed it. They just used the referendum process for political cover and to gain what they wanted---more products that they can tax.

Of course it is the state's constitution. It is a tool at their disposal and they used it after a prolonged ad campaign touting why it was beneficial to have pot legalized. The ads were used to take the stigma off the growing, processing and selling of it, which is taxed at every level.

Whether the referendum process was used or some other means to gain the end, is not significant or relevant. The result is that a lot of people are buying it and getting stoned.

Enough said!!!

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

LOL!

[Ken H]

Your claim was that politicians are responsible for legalization, which is hogwash. Politicians are mostly dragging their feet, despite the polls showing large majorities favoring legalization. Now why would that be?

Answer: Prohibition is a Progressive, statist policy. The drug war is one the more fetid areas of the Swamp, which is where politicians love to wallow.

[Parmy]

Your ideas are hogwash as well. Best we leave it at that.

[crosdaddy]

What I love about Freerepublic; I get to read words I grew up with from my father, hogwash, malarkey, batfur, except when he was in the basement trying to fix the furnace. Those were a little different.