Ga. Legislators Target Pot-Flavored Candy

Of all the silly things.

A bill that would ban the sale of marijuana-flavored candy to children in Georgia won approval from a legislative committee this morning, advancing the proposal toward a vote in the House of Representatives.

House Bill 280 calls for a $1,000 fine for those caught selling the sweets, also called “chronic candy” or “pot suckers.” The candy comes in the form of lollipops, gumdrops and other sweets.

Read the comments. One is from a prohibition true believer and former prosecutor and drug agent who thinks the bill is a great idea. The other is from NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre, who writes:

This inane legislation is another shining example of the vapidity of the war on some drugs, notably cannabis.

Because of the foolishness and ineffectiveness of 70 years of cannabis prohibition in America, Georgia and federal legislators can’t effectively stop children from accessing untaxed and unregulated cannabis (in the same way that state governments do with taxed cash cow drugs like alcohol and tobacco products), but will effectively ban novelty candies, which, ironically, exist only because of prohibition.

With over 400,000 Americans dying annually because they choose to consume tobacco products, one logically wonders if the legislators have considered banning candy cigarettes and bubble gum cigars?

Ah yes, another ‘victory’ in America’s longest, most expensive and abjectly failed war, a civil war—the war against tens of millions of American adults who consume cannabis.

< Libby: Day Six, No Verdict | Jose Padilla Ruled Competent to Stand Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Absolutely apalling! (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:22:20 PM EST
    Three bucks for a lollipop!  Five for a handful of gummy bears!

    Special bonus joke: do you still get the munchies after?

    HEY! (none / 0) (#15)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    Thanks for the bonus joke roy...it really helped b/c the original joke was really bad...haha

    NORML guy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:24:06 PM EST
      May not be old enough to recall when candy cigarettes were sold to children. Stopping both that and the sale of marijuana themed candy seem perfectly reasonable to me. I could also get on board not selling "Jack Daniels" flavored soft drinks or "crack" powdered sugar rocks to kids in packages resembling the coener of a sandwich baggie.

      Some things ARE just really bad ideas.

    Seems silly to me, but (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    but will effectively ban novelty candies, which, ironically, exist only because of prohibition

    what the heck does this mean - pot-flavored candy only exists because pot is illegal? Seems counter intuitive to me as I chew thoughtfully on my cinnamon-flavored gum...

    As an aside, I don't imagine shroom-flavored candy would have much of a market.

    Hilarious.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    A geat anti-anti-drug commercial would be a kid getting carded while trying to buy a thc-free reefer lolly , and going to the corner and buying a dime to suck on instead.

    You can't make this stuff up.  Never before has a several million strong population asked their govt. to "tax my vice, please!" and their plea is ignored.  Yet thc-free candy is a pressing concern in need of legislation.

    pot flavored candy? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jen M on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:04:57 PM EST
    doesn't sound very tasty to me.

    what happened to free market forces determining what products succeed or fail?

    whats next, are they going to raid kitchens and take every cooks' pots?

    should market forces decide whether (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 07:05:05 AM EST
      --children can buy alcohol and tobacco?

      --whether child pornography can be produced?

      -- whether the minimum wage should be abolished?

      -- whether we do anything involving government to reduce reliance of fossil fuels?

        We could go on and on and on and on with examples.

      Let's at least be honest for a change. The truth is almost everyone --liberal, conservative or whatever wants government to intervene in the free market (and to intervene in other ways). The REAL doifference is people want government to intervene to stop what they really dislike or promote what they really like.

      It's pretty inconsistent to be screaming about how the government is failing to take prudent steps to discourage burning of fossil fuels despite the market forces favoring such activity and then turn around and say only the free market should decide what products should be sold to children.



    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    I did't realize you were humor challenged.

    I'm not sure when I screamed about gas usage, cause I drive a car. I certainly wasn't screaming about the pot flavored candy, I was laughing at the sheer stupidity of the GA lawmakers and at the utter waste of time.

    Obssesing about children eating candy and production of child pornography might be considered by some to be a smidge different


    the point is (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:42:36 AM EST
      YOU have your opinion about when government intervention is appropriate and what form it should take and so do other peole, but don't hide behind the silly charade that you think "free markets" should be the final word.

      That's untrue-- you like it when government intervenes in the areas and to the extent you think it should and you have no ideological aversion to the government intervening in markets.

      As I said, be honest for a change. don't write like total BS such as "I thought free markets..." and make some sort of sensible argument why this particular intervention is a bad idea.

      I've yet to hear one of those. Calling something silly or a waste of time means nothing. Why is it silly or a waste of time to advocate that government not allow such things to be sold to children?

      Give a single reason why such things should be sold to children.



    Children (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    They are not marketed to children and most children would prefer chocolate or strawberry.

    Is GA also arguing that liquor (non-alchoholic) lollies be made illegal for children? NO. Wonder why?

    Clearly this is politics at work, and nothing about it is rational.


    If they are not marketed to children... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:37:14 PM EST
     then why worry about a law not allowing it to be sold to them.

      Camel says its cartoon Camel and flavored cigarettes are "not marketed" to children, but AS ADULTS we can recognize the disingenousness of Big Tobacco. Sure, no one at Camel ever considered the possibility the advertsing imagery and sweet and smooth smokes would appeal to children. If kids smoke the stuff it's a totally unanticipated development and the present and future benefit to Camel was a complete shock to them.

      I don't think marijuana should be illegal for adults. i also don't think profiteers should be free to sell it or things that tend to encourage its usage to children. ADULTS should in myopinion be free to smoke pot, smoke tobacco or drink alcohol if they choose. Howver, I think it is perfectly sensible FOR THE ADULTS of this world to act like adults and be cognizant that these are not behaviors to be encouraged and that the decision to use those products should not be trivialized and presented to CHILDREN as no big deal.  


    HAhahah (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    the disingenousness of Big Tobacco
    vs the Big MJ industry?

    Very funny. If you really believe that the MJ lollies were marketed toward kids I have a bridge to sell you.

    The product is clearly an adult novelty product and GA is playing MJ politics.  

    If you want, just try to market them to kids. Hahhaha. Maybe if you gave them away with some $$ so they can buy candy that they like.


    Point is (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jen M on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    I am NOT a free market advocate particularly

    I really do have to spell out the humor for you, don't I.

    Plus, dollars to donuts the guy that introduced this legislation has stock in that candy company. And there I am NOT joking. Fastest way to get georgians to want to do somethiing is ban it.


    Big Brother's Big Hand (none / 0) (#22)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    The point is that the govt is getting pretty nilly willy with where they stick their big fat noses. It's a thin line between doing a service for the country and just flat overdoing it. Many of our elected officials have taken it on themselves to get too involved in everyday lives of citizens. I say if you dont want your kids eating pot flavored candy, dont buy it and tell your kids not to as well. If hippy jim wants to eat some pot flavored candy and pass it out at his hooka parties he should have that right. With every little nit picky prohibitive law like this that gets passed, America becomes less of the land of the free.

    and if (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:58:41 PM EST
      Jim's an adult and passing it out to other adults no one is saying he can't.

      As for the argument that parents should simply tell their children not to do certain things and government should play no role, that would work fine in the world where all parents were perfectly responsible and all kids perfectly obedient. In this one, not so much.

       With that logic we should allow anything to be sold to kids and simply blame the parents and kids and not the people making money from doing it.

      There is nothing at all unreasonable about thinking that things that can have no other purpose than to transmit the message "this is a good thing and its cool to use a surrogate to show how cool you are" are bad things and should not be sold to children.

      We don't expect children to have mature outlooks and judments. Laws to shield children are premised on that. Why not say that if YOU think it is a good idea for your children to have candy promoting marijuana that's up to you and you should have to go buy it and give it to them but thatthe parents with perhaps a bit more wisom should not have to worry about someone else selling their kids something they don't want them to have.


    But, It seems (none / 0) (#26)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    as though the govt is more worried about kids getting fake drugs than they are about getting real ones. So you have a 14 yr old kid, just old enough to start making the really stupid decisions, who goes to try to buy some pot candy. He cant b/c he gets carded w/ a cop in the store. Then he goes to the negative side of town, where there are no cops, and buys an 8 ball. Which candy would you rather him have? pot candy w/o the thc or real nose candy? I know you're thinking "but there are laws against kids with cocaine" and you're right...and a whole lot of good they're doing us too..........

    The point is that if kids want to get it, they'll find a way to get it, just like with drugs, and you're wasting your time worrying about debating whether it should be legal or not when you could be debating ideas on keeping kids away from the real stuff.

    Anectodally (sp?)(real word?), when I was a 17 year old strapping young lad when my sister had her first baby. (She's older than I am and was married) I went into the gift shop and scooped up some little blue "It's a Boy" Cigars and we all laughed and joked and had a jolly good time. Let's say that this legislation goes into affect and hippie jim's family likes to enjoy pot flavored candy at celebrations and hippie jim's daughter has a baby. Let's assume further that his son, who is 17, is the only person not too busy to go get the pot flavor candy. He cant b/c he's too young according to the long hand of the law. No pot flavor candy celebration for our little hippie family. Not that big of a deal probably, but are the benefits worth it? Better safe than sorry? - not always.

    I assume that the argument for this law is that pot candy will make kids want to do drugs or think they're cool or whatever. Maybe it will, maybe it wont, but I doubt Keith Richards had heroine flavored candy when he was a young man and now he has a heroine i.v. shooting it into his veins 24 hrs a day. (I dont know how that guy's still alive)


    Well no (none / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:03:39 PM EST
      It's way easier to prevent the kid from getting the candy because the proifit margin in candy-selling is not of nature to encourage risk-taking as it is with illegal drug selling.

      I'm ambivalent about drug laws. I have a libertarian perspective to a degree and when younger I had no qualms about thinking all drugs including the most dangerous should be legally available. After many years of witnessing, in both my professional and personal life, people ruin and even end their lives and create hardships for their families , i am no longer quite so sanguine about the prospect of legalization improving things overall. That said, i think the best argument for legalization is theone you make or at least imply.

      Prohibition of things for which demand exists necessarily creates black markets to fill that demand. With those black markets come negatives that at least arguably outweight the positives of restricting supply. Black market sellers will  not only will sell to children  they will sell without any product safety oversight. Black markets will obviously be populated  in large part by a criminal element which will become greatly enriched and provided resources to commit other crimes and competing elements will engage in internecine violence to control lucrative markets.

      Legalization would reduce all of those negatives. Jim Beam and Jack Daniels don't shoot it out for the exclusive right to sell out of joe's Bar. Joe's bar is a lot more likely to card customers than the corner dealer. The distilleries, distributors and bars and stores. etc. are all heavily regulated, pay a lot of otaxes and are less connected with a criminal element.  Those are all rational points.

       On the other hand, the ability to walk to the corner and legally by the drug of one's choice would without question cause at least some people who otherwise would not to ruin their lives who would not when it is illegal and that is something that cannot be ignored.



    You make good points (none / 0) (#31)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    but the role of the govt should be to educate and inform citizens, truthfully, of the specific dangers of each drug. That way people can have the intelligence to make an informed decision. That's something that should be done whether or not drugs are ever made legal. But they have to tell the truth about the dangers of drugs. I think that if pot is a gateway drug it's because they made it a gateway drug by saying it's terrible and it'll turn you into a madman, when in reality all it does is temporarily makes you hungry, thirsty, and silly. Then somebody tries harder drugs b/c pot wasnt as bad as they said it would be...cocaine/meth/crack/whatever probably isnt either...

    ya know (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    this idea is trotted out here fairly often, while it sounds logical on it's face I'm not so sure it's a common-place occurrence, ie., "You told me pot was going to make me eat bugs, and it didn't, so now I'm going to mainline."

    I heard all the untrue but scary stories growing up as did all my friends. We all tried pot and other stuff, but I never once heard anyone react the way you are describing.

    I think kids are generally pretty savvy about such things, if they see others getting high and then going to class and stuff, they pretty much discount any scary stories they've been told about pot.

    Whereas when you see your next door neighbors get divorced because he's lost his job and the house due his coke or whatever habit and/or you have friends from school sent away to "camp" in Utah because they're doing meth and f'ing up big time - both as your friend as someone's child - you tend to accept that maybe the scary stories about it might just be something to listen to at least.


    Or, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:02:15 PM EST
    You're favorite College Basketball Players dies of a heart attack after celebrating being drafted by the Celtics. That was enough to scare the dickens out of me.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    Len Bias.

    To me though (none / 0) (#40)
    by peacrevol on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    it reduces the effectiveness of the education in the first place. Why trust them about heroine when they lied to me about pot? Most people dont think the bad things are going to happen to them anyway. When you see your neighbors or somebody else close to you lose status, home, family, and whatever else, it's not always black and white - "oh it's because he was on crack".

    Or what about those that dont really know anybody that has been in the gutter or prison b/c of drugs. Then when somebody offers hard stuff to them in college after they've smoked a doob and realized it wasnt as bad as they made it out to be...then the idea applies. "I've never really seen anybody's life get destroyed by drugs...They said pot would be the end of me and it was not that bad...Maybe trying some llello wont be that bad of a deal. They probably lied to me about that too."


    peace (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    Why trust them about heroine when they lied to me about pot?
    My point is that I've never seen anyone have that kind of a reaction, at least not in a serious way, though I see that reaction promoted here on TL fairly often.

    In my experience, despite whatever "lies" kids may hear from the "authorities" about pot, they learn in real life that there is a world of difference between pot and smack.

    On a nother note, regarding the "forbidden fruit" syndrome, I'm also not a big believer.

    Kids like to do "edgy" things, whether they're legal or not.

    Doing drugs, like riding a skateboard down a killer handrail on a huge set of concrete stairs in front of an office building, is edgy and often attractive - whether or not drugs are legal, and whether or not there is a security guard near the stairway who could bust you.

    Making drugs legal would not reduce their "edgy" attraction. imo.


    That is certainly true (none / 0) (#42)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:09:52 PM EST
     if for no other reason than no sane person advocates making it legal to distribute drugs to children and it would still be forbidden fruit for them.

      Additionally, we know kids drink even though it is legal for adults.

      Your other point about kids being attracted to what you call "edgy" activities, and somne might call recklessly dangerous activities that serve no purpose even close to balancing the risk involved is also true.

      But,  doesn't that highlight the reasons why the adults of this world have to act responsibly and seek to restrain children from acting on all their impulses andalso to do things that make certain impulses les likely to manifest themselves?

       Where we draw the lines between just telling the kid "don't do that it's dangerous and cheap thrills aren't worth the risk" and passing laws is a question to be decided. the way we decide such things is through action or inaction of legislative bodies.

      I didn't obey all the traffic safety rules when i was a kid driver. I like many guys drove in a very dangerous manner all the time. that doesn't mean the laws were not a good idea or that upon maturing i didn't come to realize that.



    Yes. (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    But,  doesn't that highlight the reasons why the adults of this world have to act responsibly and seek to restrain children from acting on all their impulses and also to do things that make certain impulses less likely to manifest themselves?

    Our thread is getting really narrow over here (none / 0) (#44)
    by peacrevol on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    but I've got to say that it's pretty common for kids to question authority no matter what they're telling them already. Though they may realize there is a difference between the affect of pot and narcotics, I think it does more harm than good that they realize that what they've been told about pot is not true. It happened to me in my college days. I tried pot and it made me hungry, relaxed, and lazy. Then I tried ecstacy thinking, 'how bad could it be?'...not wise but I think that had I been told that pot is not that big of a deal but stay away from X, I may have been more hesitant to try it.

    College?! (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:41:56 PM EST
    Wow. We were scraping resin from bongs in the 5th grade in my neighborhood.

    That may explain the difference in our experiences.


    I'm with Jen M (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:19:52 PM EST
    I have only eaten pot brownies, which I would never eat if not for the THC. I have not tasted any recipes from pot cookbooks. But thus far I find MJ semi palatable.

    Really? (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:10:00 AM EST
    I find some strains very tasty....finger-lickin' good even.

    yeah, i was thinking the same thing: (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    pot-flavored candy? yuck! i just can't imagine this being a big seller, other than to show at parties, certainly not for actual consumption.

    hey, how about beer-flavored lollipops! better yet, bubble gum in the shape of a "saturday nite special"? the possibilities are endless!

    all snarkiness aside, has GA fixed all its other problems (education, health care, poverty), so it has the time and available resources to spend on this? probably not.

    that argument is as old as the Republic... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:39:07 AM EST
     in fact probably older and it sounds good but is based on a complete fallacy:

      The premise that if legislatures did not spend time on a particular bill one considers wrong or unimportant it would use the saved time to develop the "right" solutions to important problems simply has no historical support.

      They'd pass other "bad" bills or spend more time partying, fundraising or what have you.

     Legislators will either do stuff like this (or censor the use of the term "illegal alien") or they won't and it will have no bearing on hoiw well or poorly they address important issues.


    Well, (none / 0) (#16)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:25:55 AM EST
    then maybe, just maybe we should reduce their pay by a factor just great enough to keep it a little more efficient. I dont want them having hearings on steroids in baseball, for instance, on my tax dollar (he says as he writes a $23,467.61 check to good ole uncle sam for last year's income tax after paying sales taxes on nearly every item he buys). Yeah I'm b*tching about taxes. How do you lower taxes? Increase govt efficiency. One way to increase govt efficiency is to stop making stupid laws that dont make any difference and stop discussing issues that make absolutely no difference.

    well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:54:59 PM EST
     A well-run dictatorship would be highly efficient and eliminate the need for inefficient legislatures and courts altogether.

      Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice  efficiency for the sake of representative government even if that means I have to live with the fact a lot of grandstanding knuckleheads will get elected and propose and vote for things I don't like.

       Some of you would not be satisfied under any system short of you being the dictator and getting to decide everything for everyone else.

       It's not going to happen, so grow up and come to terms with the fact that even people with whom you disagree get to participate too, and if more people vote in a way you don't like -- you lose.



    Really? (none / 0) (#23)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    I'm willing to sacrifice  efficiency for the sake of representative government even if that means I have to live with the fact a lot of grandstanding knuckleheads will get elected and propose and vote for things I don't like.

    Is the govt representative of you? It's not representative of me. It misrepresents me when they discuss miniscule things while our prisons continue to be overcrowded and teachers work 80 hours a week and get paid about the same as the garbage man. My point is that instead of discussing banning pot candy they could be discussing social programs to progress our 'system' and solve some real problems.

    Some of you would not be satisfied under any system short of you being the dictator and getting to decide everything for everyone else.

    maybe some people would, but I would be content with just having a govt that operates as the constitution describes it. (although that topic doesnt really have anything at all to do with pot candy...which is more or less my point)


    no it's not representative of ME (none / 0) (#25)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    or YOU and it's not supposed to be representative in that fashion.

      Government is supposed to represent the broad consensus. The hope is that through democratic procedures giving people who choose to participate a voice in selecting representatives that will reach compromise solutions which at least consider those widely divergent views held by significant numbers of people while reaching agreement somewhere in the middle . If the elected officials fail to do that they can be replaced at the next election.

      If government rarely does  what you think it should do, then (a) you are in a small minority or (b) the people who think like you are not doing enough to change the officials.

      It's also worth noting that our terrible government hasn't presented us from achieving a level of affluence once unthinkable where even the poor enjoy comforts and luxuries that not even Kings enjoyed not so long ago. it hasn't presented us from enjoying a level of freedom and self-determination essentially unkown to all bit the richest and most powerful a mere few centuries ago.

      our government is a long way from perfect--primaril because we collectively are a long way from perfect--- but it's a loooong way from Hellon Earth too.



    Wow (none / 0) (#27)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    I must respectfully note that I disagree with nearly every word you've typed in that post. Well maybe not every word but certainly the way you've arranged them.

    You're govt officials ARE in fact representative of both you AND me. The guy in the whitehouse right now...not going to mention his name b/c the mere mension of the shrub gets you in a whole new argument...he represents you and makes huge decisions on your behalf through the powers entrusted to the office. When you travel overseas and people find out you're a US citizen, they associate you with what they know...the prez. You are being represented...and quite poorly I might add...by your government.

    In the sense that the govt represents the consensus, I have to disagree with that as well b/c they can say what they want in their elections and then do what they want when they get in office. And they do it with so much smoke and mirrors that you miss what they've actually done? Have you ever read some of the legislation that gets passed? It's compound laws. You might have three or four completely different ideas passed under the radar b/c they're lumped in with some other bill that is labeled as something completely different.

    If government rarely does  what you think it should do, then (a) you are in a small minority or (b) the people who think like you are not doing enough to change the officials.

    With a 2 party system, we have to choose the "lesser of two evils" for lack of a better term. For example, how about the 2000 presidential election? We, as an arguable majority of the country chose the shrub as the lessor of the evils and he's gotten us in quite a pickle. So we decided to elect a democratic legislature to try to cancel him out. Where is the majority represented? You've always got your people who vote strictly repub or dem and then you have the stragglers. The stragglers are usually the election deciders. If there is one hot button issue that the dems think the repubs have done wrong, the stragglers will vote democratic no matter their stances on all the other issues. My case-in-point, the 06 congressional elections, everybody was pi$$ed about our situation with that camel f*$#er in Iraq and wanted to elect some people who'll do something about it. In that instance, govt is representative of the masses for one issue. Not overall.

    Our govt has allowed us to prosper but seems to be leading us away from prosperity by pissing off the rest of the world. They do that with faulty intelligence and maybe lies to the public to do whatever the hell they want. Very not representative of anyone.

    It's not hell on earth but it seems to be leading straight down the $h*tter by taking the power out of the hands of the citizens.


    So.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    I guess what that rant means is that the govt represents us but is not representative of us...strange concept i know...

    OK-dog (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:15:48 AM EST
    Oh yeah, some strains are so aromatic. Seeps right through a double baggie. I use a mason jar.

    I don't know how.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:38:45 AM EST
    the growers do it.  I had some recently that had a hint of mango flavor. And citrus-y flavored stuff is around a lot.

    When I'm rolling in it I'll sprinkle some on a salad...mmmm.


    Sprinkle (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    Though I'm sure you know, you gotta toast it in order to get toasted. Otherwise the vitamins get wasted, not you.

    Would this law even be constitutional? (none / 0) (#30)
    by windy city atty on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    Seriously, the candy has no illegal controlled substances in it nor even a precursor (unlike the REAL pot/hash candy sold in California Med. Marijuana dispensaries or in Amsterdam). I suppose one could make the argument that it is within the provence of the legislature to protect the children, bla bla bla, or regulate commerce, but couldnt a good constitutional attorney get this law struck down?

    Its not as if a lollipop could rationally be considered a look-alike substance for purposes of the criminal laws related to drugs. And the candy store at the local mall has jelly bean flavors like arsenic, cyanide, cow manure, and puke. Would a cyanide jelly bean be equally as prohibitable as a pot flavored jawbreaker? (equal protection?)  

    I assume the pot flavored candy is already on the market and this proposed bill is the inevitable response? Takings clause, due process violation, anything?? Any con-law attorneys?

    And yes, I agree with the esteemed Mr. St. Pierre, how truly ironic this situation really is. Ga. Legislator: "We have tried for decades and spent countless billions; but we can't seem to keep the real pot away from the kids, madame speaker, but we think we have found a way to keep fake pot-flavored candy from them."  "We are making progress!" {cheers from the crowd of legislators, self-congratulating themselves for a job well done).  How splendidly pathetic.  

     you argue the state does not have the power to restrict sales of certain goods to children upon a legislative finding of fact (whether or not YOU agree with it) that it's harmful to their welfare?

      All a state needs is a rational basis. it's perfectly rational (again even if YOU don't agree with it) to prohibit the sale of ogoods to monors that the legislature finds harmfiul.

      Do you folks not realize that getting all up in arms ABOUT THIS  is counter-productive if you want to see marijuana laws relaxed? I'll pass on the easy joke about it being anectdotal evidence that pot impairs judgment and common sense. I'll  simply point out that when people actually make arguments why CHILDREN should be free to buy these things and that  it's big brother run amok to suggest it's a really stupid idea to prevent it when there is no reason on Earth why anyone should want children having this,  you discredit yourself to the point where anything you say on any related subject is immediately suspect.

      That you guys like pot in no way supports the proposition that people should thus be allowed to sell marijuana themed items to children.



    Sugar... (none / 0) (#35)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:11:03 PM EST
    is a bigger killer than mj; tiny, white granules of death.

    Its the slippery slope stupid! (none / 0) (#38)
    by randomperson on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:07:56 PM EST
    To deconstructionist -

    This is windy_city_atty, couldnt for some reason log onto this site under my old name.

    Anyway, I think we are confusing concepts here.  I didnt advocate that children should be using these candies or that it would be great if more kids had access to them. Just as NORML advocates for legalization for responsible ADULT use of marijuana, I likewise am in agreement that pot is an 18 yr old and up endeavor. This thread is not about real pot, however, but rather a legislature's attempt to prohibit pot flavored candy. Considering the objective fact (supported by governments' own data) that any of the above mentioned kids can easily get the real pot as easy or easier than the pot candy, it would seem your concern really isnt about the safety of the children at all.

    However, I do have a problem with the government regulating in this manner. And thats the central concern of my post. Not the question of whether children should be eating pot flavored candy, but rather, whether the government should be regulating in this manner. Pot candies promote pot to children you say? Its perfectly rational for a legislature to want to stop the promotion of pot to kids and there is no constitutional consideration that could stop them? Okay. I accept your premise. Question: if this is the premise we are working on, where do you draw the line?

    What about pro-pot t-shirts, hats or buttons that kids wear and vendors sell? Shall it be okay for the legislature to ban vendors from selling those to everyone? What about pro pot music they listen to? Jay-Z and 50 cent or Cypress Hill jamming on the radio or on MTV about smoking blunts,living the good life, etc... Are we going to regulate what candy people can buy, what is acceptable to wear and then what music we can listen to? Are we going to ban showtime in GA because kids might watch the show Weeds and get bad ideas? Are we going to ban the kids from going on the internet because they can actually research pot and they might find pro-pot messages in the millionth google hit?  

    It would seem to me that the "no promoting pot to children" premise could lead to a great many tyrannical abuses. Abuses that would apparantly find sanction and praise in your world. I am not even sure if the candy in question is even available to kids (or only persons 18 or older) but it seems to me that a flat ban on all pot flavored candy, for kids and adults, is the slippery slope's beginning. Banning adults from exercising, for example, freedom to wear a t-shirt with a pot leaf on it because kids might be exposed! Those damn meddling kids!  

    And i take offense to your implied ad hominem that a person's (or groups) views on one subject sully and tarnish that person's  (or groups)views on every subject. I surmise that only someone who has never been wrong about anything would seriously consider such a rule as to be a guiding principle.  Surely you do not put yourself into such an exalted category?  

    Will the deconstructionist deconstruct himself? Stay tuned....


    My response to you (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:10:39 AM EST
    was directed at your suggestion the law might be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I have previously made it clear (that while I agree there are far morte important issues) i see nothing wrong with banning businesses from selling certain products to children based upon the REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE'S finding the need to protect children from such product. If enough people think that prohibiting the sale of a certain product to children goes too far, then they can vote for different representatives to repeal or amend the law.

      I'm not saying people should be prevented from exercising free speech simply because some children might be exposed to that speech. I've wriiten here many times that I think pot is relatively less harmful than alcohol and  tobacco (not to mention countless prescription drugs that the pharmaceutical industry advertises incessantly) and should be legal. i obvously do not think i should not be allowed to do because some children undoubtedly read this site.

      I view that as differen though than my being perfectly free to sell whatever I choose to children. I have no problem with you going to the park or circus proudly wearing your pot leaf shirt. On the other hand, I do not think you should sell that shirt to children. I wish we lived in a society where common sense and self-imposed limits would make any law unnecessary.

     However, if in pursuit of a buck some decide to sell to kids, then prohibitng you from selling that same shirt to children is  not unreasonable. Personally, I would not want that law but if it passed because enough people became alarmed at the irresponsibility of certain businesses and was limited merely to the sale to children I recognize the "slippery-slope" arguments and while they are valid they can also be applied to every law on every subject ever even proposed let alone enacted.

      As for taking offense to my observation that people sacrifice general credibility by making certain specific assertions, all I can say is don't shoot the messenger. I didn't create reality, I just live in it.