We are gonna get what we want here. It was a hallmark of his campaign.

CA, OR, WA, CO, AK...

nobody's dying.

I believe that selling it or distributing it to anyone under 21 should have serious consequences.

That is baring any legitimate medical condition.

minimum extent necessary. After all, anybody who wants pot now already gets it.

We already have workable mechanisms for regulating Whiskey and cigarettes. They’d apply to pot.

I took a growler (a 32 or 64-ounce container used to take-away beer from beer bars) to a bar in Vancouver WA. I tried a couple of beers, then asked them to fill my growler with one that I liked. They said that they could not. Because they also sold hard liquor in addition to beer, the law prohibited them from filling growlers to go!

That is a stupid law, and over-regulation at it's worst.

Another: In OR, it is illegal for bartenders to drink while on duty. While this may seem reasonable, it means that they can't taste cocktails that they make. Bartenders should taste cocktails to make sure they didn't leave anything out, or mess up the proportions.

Another stupid law, and over-regulation.

In Kentucky, I was once told that I could not have a beer in a restaurant because it was Sunday!

I could go on and on and on. I don't smoke, so I don't know what the deal is with cigarettes, but I assume it is also messed up.

We Democrats need to get over our regulation fetish.

From what it seemed (I've never tried weed) that the weed regulation was done right.

I remember the shops had film covering the windows so you couldn't see in and a secuirty guard checking ID at the door. I never went into one (I'm over 21) but I was curious.

I don't smoke, but I used to work at a store that sold (they don't anymore) cigarettes. They wouldn't let us complete the transaction unless we entered the customer's DOB into the register system (1/11/11 was a generic one we entered for older customers-- this was the 90s, so 1911). We had to card people who appeared under 30 (smoking age was 18 at the time) and the county would send people to check that.

And I remember the name of a weed shop there-- Mary Jane's House of Grass. I thought the name was great.

Portland, of course, and the situations are very different. Portland is full of pot stores, but Vancouver tried to minimize then through zoning: they couldn't be too close to a school or to residential areas, etc, etc.

I also haven't checked any out - I'm already lazy and disorganized enough just drinking beer, wine and cocktails.

I did see about 4-5 weed shops there. One was downtown, the others were in the strip mall areas.

I told one of my friends if I was going to try weed, I'd have a brownie.

and how much THC it contains, which strains are best for pain, for sleep, for daytime use. and most of it is grown organically,
The legal pot market has also created edibles, for those who need it for medical problems, but can't /won't smoke it.
This is true in Cal. and Colorado, as far as I know/have heard.

this is a result of deregulation (making pot legal), more than it is a result of over-regulation. Pot sellers learned on their own what their customers wanted, the government didn't tell them. The standards for THC testing weren't developed by the government, but by the industry.