Current Live Stoner Gossip May June July 2018

[Dichoti]

Boooooooooosssshhhhhhhh!
We have buuusssshhhhh!

...sorry. Had to flash her when she was under all the lights.

 

[Padawan1972]

View attachment 910951 Boooooooooosssshhhhhhhh!
We have buuusssshhhhh!

...sorry. Had to flash her when she was under all the lights.

 

[MegaBecca]

Hey! I'm doing an outdoor grow on my balcony with 3 Haze XXL and 1 Cheese. Feel free to take a look! Fairly new at this so any feedback is appreciated
https://www.autoflower.org/threads/bc-balcony-grow.65512/

-Becca

 

[Padawan1972]

Another win for the fight to make it legal everywhere.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/264735-judge-marijuana-smoking-ban

 

[Mike20132]

Another win for the fight to make it legal everywhere.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/264735-judge-marijuana-smoking-ban

"Gievers agreed with argument from plaintiff’s counsel JonMills that the amendment “recognizes there is no right to smoke in public places, thereby implicitly recognizing the appropriateness of using smokable medical marijuana in private places.”

That's not terribly encouraging. "implicit" is a scary word when it comes to directives/amendments. That's the thing.. If it's not explicitly defined, it's up to interpretation. While this ruling grants some precedent, it does mean that the appeal also has a chance, depending on the arguments made. They really should have made the position on private use explicit in the amendment... If that was their intention

 

[Mike20132]

Being vague and/or intentionally leaving a law up to too much interpretation is a good way of making it toothless.

 

[Mike20132]

I wonder how many of my fellow American stoners are currently caught in traffic on their way to the place they are to celebrate the upcoming holiday weekend - unlike me. I'm staying home. Also, that trip to the office next month that would have otherwise compelled me to harvest my GG4 early has been cancelled...

 

[Padawan1972]

"Gievers agreed with argument from plaintiff’s counsel JonMills that the amendment “recognizes there is no right to smoke in public places, thereby implicitly recognizing the appropriateness of using smokable medical marijuana in private places.”

That's not terribly encouraging. "implicit" is a scary word when it comes to directives/amendments. That's the thing.. If it's not explicitly defined, it's up to interpretation. While this grants some precedent, it does mean that the appeal also has a chance, depending on the arguments made. They really should have made the position on private use explicit in the amendment... If that was their intention

I agree, however.... at least its being looked at...better than just taking the new laws and regulations as gospel .

 

[Mike20132]

@chefdave

 

[Mike20132]

I agree, however.... at least its being looked at...better than just taking the new laws and regulations as gospel .

The reason it's being looked at is in the form of an attempt to make sure its still illegal to smoke privately. If it was better defined in the original legislation, this would never be a concern. I agree that they are moving in the right direction, but changing the wording of an amendment to a state constitution is pretty much as big a deal as getting the original passed. So instead of knowing that its legal to smoke in the house, we'll get this endless chain of appeals until it's amended or repealed... Until then, if an injunction materializes, then home use remains illegal until everything eventually works out.

Hoping for the best, either way.... Too stoned to really worry about it right now anyway..