Skip to comments.What safety standards will Colorado implement for recreational pot grown by licensed retailers?
Posted on 01/07/2014 1:16:56 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Should the state of Colorado issue licenses to (for example) long-established farmers instead of retailers for the growing of medical marijuana?
Will licensed retailers have the same quality, safety standards (per qrowing of recreational marijuana) that will be monitored by the state of Colorado...
As in, will fertilizers used, types used, etc, be kept track of by CO state safety monitors so as to ensure that (for example) no "night soil" is used?
Would it be better for farmers to grow all the massive amounts of recreational/medical pot for Colorado users versus the 130+ licensed retailers growing it?
Safer for the unsuspecting user?
Wonder if they’ll do tax stamps like booze and cigs.
I’m on the board of a 78 unit condo complex in CO.
We have to decide on what basis smoking pot will be allowed.
We already had issues with inside unit cigar smoking. The odor is strong and there are too many inter-unit pathways.
Fortunately there are food item products out there.
Same rules as tobacco?
Same rules as tobacco?
I cannot believe the media circus surrounding this issue. It is a non event here in Denver.
For the first time in the history of mankind, people are smoking pot.
I think, when it comes to marijuana, traditional farmers would have little idea what it would take to grow the quality of crop that is demanded by consumers. They’ll probably get in on the game when they see they can make a profit, but for now, the people growing it are likely the same people who have been growing it for the black market for decades.
I imagine that if anyone would know how to grow anything safely it would be the traditional, long-established farmers...
Do you buy food from M exico on a regular basis?
You know you look to see if a label saying “grown in Mexico” is on fruits. :)
Look for the Union Label?
Or “Look for the NO NIGHT SOIL” label?
If this is a concern, then you could grow your own (you can do so under the new law) or better yet, just not smoke it.
Truth is, you can smoke cigarettes in the unit and it is not likely the neighbors would notice.
Lite cigar would probably go unnoticed.
Refers would likely be intense because of the sharing and would be noticed.
So we will probably go with no smoking of any kind, with the idea that you may be able to get away with it.
Safely? Perhaps. That doesn’t mean anyone would actually buy what they would grow, if it wasn’t up to the quality standards they were used to.
If I lived in an apartment where I started smelling dope around me, I’d be making immediate plans to move elsewhere.
Living in apartments always unnerved me, due to the fear of some smoker in an adjacent area falling asleep and starting a fire, which would burn up my valued possessions. I’d be even more alarmed at learning some zonked-out dopehead filth were next door. Seriously, I’d be moving out the very next day.
is more government regulations...
Let's apply all this bureaucracy you suggest to alcohol, prescription drugs, & household chemicals.
Did you follow the link ? It was to an old Saturday Night Live Sketch of a “commercial” for the mythical American Dope Grower’s Union. . .
Context, and humor, my friend. . .
For a “Laissez-faire capitalist,” you seem awfully interested in government regulations of (certain) markets.
I know. Just joining in.
Please don’t use broad brushstrokes, implying that to be Laissez faire I must support this or that.
I have been called fake Laissez-Faire because I don’t support gay marrige, but Adam Smith was Laissez-faire and would certainly not have supported Gay marriage, nor pot legalization, either.
Your posts indicate a need for big government, nanny state solutions to marijuana production, distribution, & consumption - the very opposite of free market capitalism - Laissez-Faire, which also means the “noninterference in the affairs of others”.
Apples and oranges. What does gay marriage have to do with laisses faire economics? Absolutely nothing.
Marijuana legalization? That’s a different story. A laissez faire economist would have to stretch pretty far to justify prohibiting a market in a particular product because the government thinks the product is bad. And, why do you think Adam Smith would have opposed marijuana legalization? You do realize that marijuana was perfectly legal when Adam Smith was alive (prohibition was a 20th century phenomenon), so the relevant question is whether Smith would have affirmetively supported prohibition.
You can’t credibly call yourself a laissez faire capitalist when you want the government to regulate/restrict/prohibit markets in products that you don’t like.