Reefer madness blasts pot machine maker's stock sky high

The management of marijuana dispensing machine manufacturer Medbox has asked investors to chill out and get a grip after the company's stock suddenly rose 3,000 per cent to over $215. "While we are pleased by the share attention, Medbox shares have traded between $2.75 and $3.45 over the past several months," said CEO Bruce …

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year the States Rights issue was something that the Republicans were all behind, whilst the Democrats thought the idea of returning the 10th amendment to its original scope and restricting the actions of the federal government was a racist dogwhistle.

Now I suspect we'll see the Democrats swinging fully behind States Rights, because suddenly it involves a constituency they think they own. Will Republicans turn against the idea of properly enforcing and limiting the scope of the 10th amendment to its original intent now that naughty, naughty drugs are involved?

Politics is fun!

[Erwin Hofmann]

... there is no Madness in Reefer, only in Politics ...

... consider this, Hemp (cannabis, reefer) was used for thousands of, pre-industrial, years as an invaluable crop for making fabric, paper, rope, oils and much, much more ... but hemp's main property, it's durable and strong fibers, was always a main obstacle for using it in an industrial environment. That changed in the early 1930's when a new technique for using hemp pulp for paper-making was developed, by the US Department of Agriculture, and the patenting of the hemp decorticator (a machine that revolutionized the processing of hemp) came about. These innovations reduced the cost of producing hemp-pulp paper to less than half the cost of tree-pulp paper. Which threatened the profit making of DuPont (chemical industries) who held many lucrative patents on manufacturing plastics, tree-pulp paper making and paints that could become valueless if hemp products became widely available, and one billionaire William Randolph Hearst, then the most powerful US newspaper mogul, who owned huge amounts of timber acreage, which monopolized the tree-pulp paper market. No surprise that the Hearst medias began campaigning falsified and exaggerated stories about the "evils of marijuana" ... Reefer Madness ... it is really shocking to see how "easily" private financial interests find their way into law ... worldwide ... without any fact base ... but devastating and long lasting effects ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ... there is no Madness in Reefer, only in Politics ...

Nice history for why Cannabis was demonised. A similar story is true of Herpes, which has never been a purely an STD nor deserving of the "you've been a bad boy (or girl)" stigma it acquired, but I digress and the second part of your assertion is I think misleading.

I used to take marujana fairly regularly in my college years. I stopped after it became clear to me it was doing discernible damage to the some of my friends totally destroyed the mental capacity of one of them within the time we were at college. Of the two people I know who continued to take it in later life (and we are now talking 20 years later), one was committed to a mental institution for a short period 2 years ago, and the other diagnosed as bipolar. The one that was committed. is actually the author of a fairly well regarded book on the drug which details its history and in effect advocates its usage (I wouldn't be surprised if your example comes from his book)!! I'm not saying its an ultra bad drug or indeed particularly worse than that socially acceptable drug alcohol (i've lived long enough to see friends lives lives destroyed by that drug also) and as anyone with an understanding of stats will point out, two cases is nothing like a big enough sample size to establish a pattern but these kind of "it's only got a bad name because big industry has used money to brainwash us into thinking it bad" stories only have traction because its use is illegal and society has proclaimed it verboten. The reality is its a drug, has some positive medical benefits, but is not particularly good for the average person and has many measurable negative effects. I've lived long enough to realise my initial youthful enthusiasm for it and my - the adults have got it wrong - attitude was misplaced. Sorry if that sounds all "I know better than you" but what can I say. It's simply what I've experienced. Marujana is not problem free. Maybe we should be free to choose to take it. Maybe not. I don't have a strong view. Just don't glitz it up as "it's only seen as bad because the *authorities* or *society* say it is."

[h4rm0ny]

Re: ... there is no Madness in Reefer, only in Politics ...

I love how you came into a thread with what you wanted to post, realized you were a bit late to it and that your post might languish on page 2 with not all the readers you deserve, so decided to post your unrelated comments as a reply to the first and highest comment you could find. No wait, I don't love that at all. It's irritating. Sometimes you just have to accept that you don't have more right to be heard than anyone else.

[Senior Ugli]

Re: ... there is no Madness in Reefer, only in Politics ...

maybe hes an old DuPont employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ... there is no Madness in Reefer, only in Politics ...

I find it annoying when people post replies to a thread for no other reason than to crack a self referential joke that isn't funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad timing...

And as all this state level legalization occurs,

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/hostess-brands-says-it-will-liquidate/

"What is it, Stoner-wan?"

"II felt a great disturbance in the Weed, as if millions of Twinkies suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."

(not to speak of the negative impact on parapsychologies everywhere, as they are left without a proper reference for PKE levels.)

[Graham Marsden]

"legalizing the stuff actually cuts demand"

And that's all we *really* need to know to stop the stupid waste of time, money and resources on the nonsensical and unwinnable "War on Drugs" that too many grandstanding politicians have forced on us!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "legalizing the stuff actually cuts demand"

I'm going to be downvoted to hell for being a 'stoner' but what difference would it make even if it didn't cut demand?

I vaporise so there's extremely little risk of lung disorders because I'm not inhaling carcinogenic smoke. Even if I did smoke the stuff we're talking maybe 1 or 2 in the evening if it's a weekend or been a particularly stressful day (far less than any cigarette smoker is likely to get through). Current smoking laws also mean I can't realistically light up anywhere but my own home. Sure I could light up in an official smoking area but you usually find those at either work (not a good place to be intoxicated) or at the pub where you've already got intoxicated people (though to be honest I find pubs boring). If this stuff was legalised I could stop buying from a supply chain that obviously involves organised criminals at some point and I could start paying tax on my purchases which would benefit you all.

As a foot note, I hate the word 'stoner' not because I'm ashamed but because you lot use it with such venom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "legalizing the stuff actually cuts demand"

Personally I carbonise my weed and cook it up with coconut oil. I then put the oil into my own capsules and set them in the fridge for long term storage.

Cannacaps for the win.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "legalizing the stuff actually cuts demand"

I decarboxylize mine.

Green Dragon for the win.

[Naughtyhorse]

Re: "legalizing the stuff actually cuts demand"

WORD

DUDE

:-s

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitutionally speaking....

It's unclear as yet if the decision by US voters to take a more open-minded view towards drugs will be allowed by the Federal government

The drug laws enforced by the Feds have always been enforced under the interstate commerce clause. If no interstate commerce occurs then, technically speaking, the Feds can't stick their noses into the matter. Basically so long as the weed is grow and remains in Colorado and Washington the Federal government doesn't get a say.

Of course given that we've been ruled for a long, long time by criminals who stretch, bend, or just ignore the law whenever it suits their political agendas, I don't have high hopes of that bit of legal truism mattering much.

[skeptical i]

Alas, such logic does not apply here. [Re: Constitutionally speaking....]

See Raich -v- Gonzales (I'm pretty sure that's the name, search on 'Raich decision' if not), the Supreme Court case (2005?) in which it was decided that a medical marijuana user, Ms. Raich, was affecting interstate commerce despite her growing, using, and consuming MMJ solely in her home (and thus her state) because of the POSSIBILITY that someone's homegrown, somewhere, would find its way into the marketplace and cross state lines. Since the Feds have a clear interest in regulating commerce in illegal drugs (i.e., reduce or eliminate it), the Commerce Clause could be used to prohibit similarly situated MMJ users from growing their own. This line of thinking tracks back to a case in the 1930s, I think, wherein it was decided that a farmer who grows wheat on his own land solely for his own family's consumption should be forbidden from doing so since it COULD impact interstate commodity trade. In the 2005 Raich case, otherwise staunch supporter of states' rights SCOTUS judge Antonin Scalia voted to unshackle the Feds' regulatory hand, go figure.

[skeptical i]

Re: Alas, such logic does not apply here. [Constitutionally speaking....]

Sorry, a key detail: Ms. Raich was only growing enough for herself -- not for her friends, not her family, not her neighbors -- just for her own use.

[mark 63]

Re: Alas, such logic does not apply here. [Constitutionally speaking....]

"POSSIBILITY that someone's homegrown, somewhere, would find its way into the marketplace and cross state lines."

We prosecute because you might commit a crime in the future??

Well thats just another example of the US government just doing what the hell they want, just like invading Iraq against the UNs decision , holding people for years with no trial at Guantanamo , and , er , holding Kevin Mitnick for 7 years without trial

[That Awful Puppy]

Well done

To quote a politician who, in my personal experience, isn't a complete waste of DNA, for he provided me with Neuromancer, Foundation and similar sci-fi classics when I was a poor lad from what was then more or less a third world country:

"While we recognize that other states have chosen a different path, and further understand that the federal government has an important role to play in protecting against interstate shipments of marijuana leaving Colorado or Washington, we ask that your Departments take no enforcement action against anyone who acts in compliance with the laws of Colorado, Washington and any other states that choose to regulate access to marijuana for medicinal or personal use."

[Anonymous Coward]

More outlets than Starbucks eh?

As a bonus, maybe they'll even pay some tax.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... in part because its use is socially stigmatized in most Dutch homes and offices."

It's worse than that really. Go try and light a doobie in, say, the tram (obviously zonked out, obviously tourist) and you'll be asked to wait with that until after you actually leave the tram. Small wonder. The stuff f'n stinks, and some of us have other things to do than to get high on second-hand smoke.

'Sides, plenty non-smoker houses have house rules to not smoke at all inside, so it's not specific against weed really. More that people like their homes cozy yet sparkly clean and neat. Or be bothered by yet another annoying tourist. Not that different from just about everywhere else, really.

Regarding the laws, well, there's something of a swing back to "verboten" with the current minister and his sidekick. Personally I think Portugal has a much better idea on dealing with people and their drug addictions.

[Stoneshop]

Re: "... in part because its use is socially stigmatized in most Dutch homes and offices."

Go try and light a doobie in, say, the tram

Smoking is prohibited in public transport.

[Anonymous Coward]

Legalise the damn stuff

When I used to smoke the cursed weed, the biggest danger I put myself in was actually getting hold of it.

I ended up in some pretty scary places with some very unhinged people, not to mention the potential of being arrested and thrown in the slammer.

So, you put drug users through a double whammy when you make it illegal - the risk of obtaining it and the risk of legal action, both of which could end up far more harmful to the individual than the drug itself. (aside from the obvious hard drugs)

Then there's the entire 'teenage rebellion' thing - the thrill of doing something illegal. That, in itself, probably results in more drug usage. A percentage of those teens will become addicts or habitual users.

Finally, there's the bad weed - the super skunk varieties that seem so prevalent now - that's completely out of control. The weed is so strong in a psychoactive way, it puts the user at risk of schizophrenia - extreme mood swings.

If it were legalised, the quality and strength could be properly regulated. We know all weed isn't created equal. Just like booze, different weed results in different buzzes, some bad and some good.

Despite the fact that I now consider weed something which screwed with my progress through life quite badly, I reckon if it was legal when I was young, I may never have bothered in the first place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: aside from the obvious hard drugs

Careful what you think is "obvious" - clean heroin in controlled doses is a very safe drug.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: aside from the obvious hard drugs

Clean heroin is, physiologically, a very safe drug, but even then can have negative social and emotional effects, just as spending too much time doing any one thing can.

Good point about the 'super skunk', that stuff is worrying. In my teenage years it was unheard of and youngsters smoked resin. As I am led to believe, there are cannaboids - warm and fuzzy in the body - and THC- the loopy stuff. Cannaboids are anti-psychotic, and used to be found in varying ratios... but many modern varieties are almost 100% THC and have almost no cannaboids.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: aside from the obvious hard drugs

"Good point about the 'super skunk', that stuff is worrying."

It's probably more potent than your 1960s weed, but you just treat it like whisky or more accurately, moonshine. You don't drink moonshine like beer unless you want to be on your back or dead!

As well as that, I'd much rather get something that looks, smells and tastes like a marijuana bud than get a brown lump of something that's about 10% butane-extracted cannibinoids and 90% brick dust, bird droppings and whatever else got swept up from the warehouse floor. If the people cutting it are nice, they might use henna, but it's still crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: aside from the obvious hard drugs

"but many modern varieties are almost 100% THC and have almost no cannabinoids."

The strongest strains you're ever likely to find will be 30% THC. This is premium stuff we're talking about here. As pointed out by the post above me it's akin to the difference between drinking a 12 year old single malt and a cheap 8 pack of Carlsberg. You consume the two at different speeds not just because of their relative potency but also because of their relative prices.

CBD is the cannabinoid you should concern yourself with. It alters the psychoactive effect of THC in such a way that the user experiences none or considerably less schizophrenic-like symptoms if they are predisposed to them. This is the reason hemp is useless for smoking because its ratio of CBD to THC is heavily skewed towards CBD and as such has virtually no psychoactive effect.

What worries me is that pharmaceutical companies have been trying to produce THC pills, initially so that medical users could take a controlled dose. Now however they're being unofficially played up as some sort of 'healthy' alternative for recreational users (certainly nothing to do with increased profits). I suspect we're going to see a large upsurge in the number of people who are predisposed to schizophrenia experiencing severe reactions because of these refined THC pills. Ironically they'd probably be fine with the less health option of having an occasional spliff.

[M Gale]

Re: aside from the obvious hard drugs

"What worries me is that pharmaceutical companies have been trying to produce THC pills"

Just to clarify, there's a UK trial of the Sativex product by GW Healthcare. The bottle states that each 100 microlitre spray contains 2.7mg delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 2.5mg cannabidiol from Cannabis Sativa. The company say that you get the medical benefits without the high.

A friend of mine with some serious and painful illnesses who's managed to wrangle themself onto the programme says that you damned well can get high from it, but only if you take a heavy dose. Apparently it works medicinally quite well though. Better than slow-release morphine, but "not as well as a bud", so says the afflicted one. It also costs the NHS something like £240 per month to provide it, which might explain many doctors' reticence in prescribing it. Basically it costs the NHS more than it would cost someone to buy raw bud from a dealer in ounces, given the medicinal dose for bud is a lot lower than you'd have to get high.

Of course at 300W for a grow, with photoperiod plants, 18h veg cycle and 12h bud cycle, you'd spend maybe £100-£150 or so at the usual per-KW/h electricity prices to make several ounces of your own at home. In metric, you're looking at maybe 0.5g per watt of lighting if you do it right, or at least so say the books on the subject. Doing so would put you into serious-legal-penalty territory and it gets worse if you try and make it neat and tidy, because that means it's a "sophisticated" grow. You probably will be doing time if caught, might well lose your job, could lose your children if the courts decide you're unfit to look after them, could very well lose your home if it's a rented property (as increasing numbers of homes in the UK are). And all over a grow tent.

People say that marijuana induces insanity. Maybe, perhaps, but only in the minds of the lawmakers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: aside from the obvious hard drugs

"Careful what you think is "obvious" - clean heroin in controlled doses is a very safe drug."

The trouble with heroin is that it's a bit moreish...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Legalise the damn stuff

>> I ended up in some pretty scary places with some very unhinged people, not to mention the potential of being arrested and thrown in the slammer.

+1 to that, brother. Thinking back to my student days, I can confirm that getting hold of the damn stuff was the worst part - the only time (mugging excepted) when decent, law-abiding pot-heads actually come into contact with real criminals. Plus nowadays, having a bit more brain, I'd be too scared to carry it in my pocket as I did.

[Arnie]

Re: Legalise the damn stuff

"Finally, there's the bad weed - the super skunk varieties that seem so prevalent now - that's completely out of control. The weed is so strong in a psychoactive way, it puts the user at risk of schizophrenia - extreme mood swings."

no no no no no. You have been listening the jacqui and theresa too much. let me explain. Yes cannabis is "bit stronger" than it was 30 years ago. maybe 2-4% this is due to selective breeding over the last generation. What has happened in the UK is that we have switched from smoking cheap bush weed with seeds in it, to sinsemilla (without seed) which is nothing more than un pollinated female flowers. When the female plant is pollinated it switches production from psychoactive compounds to seeds thus reducing the end products potency. FYI Skunk is a brand name not a type of cannabis. it has been picked up by the press and governbent to trick otherwise intelligent people like yourself into believing the prohibitionist lie. try mentioning skunk or schizophrenia to any of the US pro cannabis lobbyist and they will laugh you out of meeting.

know your cannabis

[The Vociferous Time Waster]

Legalise all drugs for the employed.

Probably not a popular viewpoint and I expect I shall get branded a troll but...

Employed people who pay their taxes and smoke a bit of pot are not the problem, it's the unemployed smack heads who are a drain on society that are the problem. Simple correlation suggests that we could solve the whole problem by relaxing laws for tax paying employed citizens and make the laws harsher for those who are unemployed. I pay higher rate tax so why can't I do a bit of coke at the weekend if I want to? I'm not causing drama for anyone else and my net contribution to society is considerable. I also have the means to pay for my drugs without resorting to crime. As for those who are unemployed the tax payer should not be forced to foot the bill for them to buy drugs* so bang them up and force them to detox then give them a program of activities to help them gain long term productive employment.

* And I include alcohol and tobacco in this, if you're unemployed you don't get stuff like that out of my taxes, scumbag.

[mickey mouse the fith]

Re: Legalise all drugs for the employed.

I bet your fun at parties then....

I like the way you portray the unemployed as some sort of untermensch.

If your not trolling you come across as a right cock with no social empathy whatsoever (typical twatish cokehead really).

I wonder how quick you change your tune when you loose your job and find yourself in the same boat as the people you obviously hate so much?

[Sloppy Crapmonster]

Re: Legalise all drugs for the employed.

Did you all really miss the trollface?

[nematoad]

Re: Legalise all drugs for the employed.

You seem to be under the impression that unemployed people pay no tax. Were that it was true!

Sure, if you are unemployed you won't pay income tax or NI, but think about it for a bit. What about VAT, petrol duty, excise duty, road tax and so on, they are taxes as well you know and it's regressive. The lower a persons income the higher the percentage taken from that income in tax.

You may be in a well paid job for now but what happens if you lose your job? Will you take a stand and declare "I will not take from those who pay income tax." or will you take what you are entitled to and live the very basic, pared down existence that living on benefits really means.

Oh, and finally, by your actions you are helping organised crime to flourish and I bet they don't pay any income tax either.

[Arctic fox]

Good grief! All I can say is - see icon.

"While we are pleased by the share attention, Medbox shares have traded between $2.75 and $3.45 over the past several months," said CEO Bruce Bedrick in a statement. "our fundamentals and market potential are improving, but we temper investor expectations at present price points."

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn fools

Poor sods, when they finally figure out the price of their stupidity, it will be too late to recover from the drug damage.

You can bet some stock price manipulation is making a few folks rich.

[amanfromMars 1]

Re: Damn fools

Poor sods, when they finally figure out the price of their stupidity, it will be too late to recover from the drug damage. .. Anonymous Coward Posted Saturday 17th November 2012 12:13 GMT

You do not think marijuana the smartest and most potent plant on the planet, AC? We'd be a damn fools if we didn't, believe you me.

Sure it even has humans lobbying and legislating for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Damn fools

Fools rush in where wise men dare not tread.

[FreakBakingAccident]

All they need to add to this is

Munchies and DVDs and we'll be set.

[Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance]

Govenor Hickenlooper ?

Govenor Hickenlooper (sic) ? Ist das richtig?

Govenor Hoopenlicker ist die guten freund of die mister Spooner, ja?

What an unfortunate name, or spelling, or both.

It's all right, I'm half way down ze road following ze blinkenlighten...

[radariba]

a high use of euphemism.........

[Arnie]

I wonder how......

these machines will turn a profit esp in colorado. With it now being legal to grow 6 plants per person. in roughly 8-10 weeks the state will be awash with high quality top shelf canna. the like of which must people in the uk have little experience of. Add the fact that they are legally allowed to give away upto an oz to adults over 21 the price of yes-i-cannabis will drop through the floor.

Crims will not be able to sell 1gram of wet underipe contaminated canna hooch for extortionate prices. happy days. at last voters are realising the cannabis prohibition is not beneficial to society.

[M Gale]

Re: Turning a profit in colorado

For the same reason that beer brewers make money in the presence of legal hops, barley and yeast. Some people would rather pay someone else to grow a warehouse full of plants so stinky you can chew the atmosphere around them.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: I wonder how......

It's trivial to mix up your own carbonated sugar-water, but somehow the soft-drink machines remain.

[Senior Ugli]

I still do think, if I am in my own home, its up to me what I put in my body. As long as I am not hurting anyone, looking after children or operating heavy machinery it is up to me what I do. It feels really medieval that we are so controlled by 'the man" still. then again, we still have princes and princesses in the country, alongside the wizards and dragons

[M Gale]

Re: alongside the wizards and dragons

I don't know what you're smoking son, but I'll buy an ounce.

[James 36]

real problem

is the politicians. The scottish police issued a report that focused on their seizures of heroin between 2000 and 2006. they estimated the amount of heroin in Scotland and compared it to their seizures.

The best year they had they seized an estimated 1.9% of the heroin in scotland.

Spend on drugs in the UK is estimated at £3-8 Billion, cost to the tax payer of enforcing the law regarding illegal drugs was estimated at £4billion,

just from a value to the tax payer given that a generous estimate would be the border forces and the police stop 5% of illegal drugs entering the UK what is the effnig point of them being illegal. Before you say "protecting the publc" 95% of the illegal drugs destined for the UK make it to the customer base so again what is the point. this is a ciomplex issue but the numbers do not add up, make it a medical problem , legalise all drugs, free up £4billion , granted there are probably many holes in my argument but the fact remains money spent on enforing the law regarding illegal drugs is wasted