Page 10 of 14

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:04 am
by bovine knievel
Flea wrote:The wife wanted to share a cookie tonight. She has not indulged for 20 years, and had consumed a beer or 3. I strongly advised against this to no avail. Don't let this happen to you.
:lol:

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:52 am
by Iowan
Flea wrote:The wife wanted to share a cookie tonight. She has not indulged for 20 years, and had consumed a beer or 3. I strongly advised against this to no avail. Don't let this happen to you.
At least she's well rested today?

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:41 am
by Clams
Iowan wrote:
Flea wrote:The wife wanted to share a cookie tonight. She has not indulged for 20 years, and had consumed a beer or 3. I strongly advised against this to no avail. Don't let this happen to you.
At least she's well rested today?
Or not.

Flea, please let us know how it went.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:20 am
by Flea
Clams wrote:
Iowan wrote:
Flea wrote:The wife wanted to share a cookie tonight. She has not indulged for 20 years, and had consumed a beer or 3. I strongly advised against this to no avail. Don't let this happen to you.
At least she's well rested today?
Or not.

Flea, please let us know how it went.


She went to bed about 8 PM and stared at the pink elephants cavorting inside her eyelids for a few hours until sleep encroached, rising every half hour or so for a glass of water to beat back the dry mouth. And yes, too well rested today.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:15 am
by Beebs
Just visited my brother in San Diego. You spoiled bastards.

Within an hour of me getting off the plane I had perused a menu, he'd made a call and Victor from Left Coast Collective was at his door with an assortment of edibles and 2 grams of Sour Diesel that cost so little I couldn't believe it. Bizzaro world.

I recommend the Sativa Cheeba Chews.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:06 pm
by pearlbeer
Happy 4/20 Everyone!!!!

Image

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:47 am
by Beebs
Fresh back from a week in Colorado.

Enough said.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:05 pm
by Wolf
i'm making cannabutter with a half ounce of Kush. how much butter should i put in a store bought box of brownie mix?

Re: Reefer

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:23 am
by Beebs
How much butter you making? A half oz of Kush sounds like it should probably make at least 10 pounds of butter.

I was the edibles baker for my sister in law going through chemo this past winter and fall. Friend of a friend hooked me up with a huge block of butter they had made. Kept experimenting with a chocolate chip cookie recipe, kept decreasing dosage until I had something where she could just eat a whole cookie without worrying and not have to break them into sixteenths like the first batch.

I ended up using 2Tbs cannabutter in this recipe that calls for 16Tbs butter when doubled (48 cookies). Of course it all depends on the strength of your butter.

http://altonbrown.com/the-chewy-chocola ... ie-recipe/

Consider too that while brownies are the stereotypical baked good, they are usually a vegetable oil based recipe. You'll get better results with a butter based recipe like cookies.

Then there's the whole school of thought that because of the way the liver processes fat soluble THC when eaten, you get higher quality effects (not stronger), with high dosage low volume edibles like 20mg tiny little candies. Like anything else you can go down the internet rabbit hole and learn way too much about the specifics of this stuff online.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:14 pm
by Flea
Image

Re: Reefer

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:42 pm
by Flea

Re: Reefer

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:43 am
by Beebs
Glad I took the time to answer your question, Wolf.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:24 pm
by Wolf
Beebs wrote:Glad I took the time to answer your question, Wolf.
thank you. i decarbed the weed, made the butter then some brownies. half a brownie takes my pain away for 5-6 hours

Re: Reefer

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:41 pm
by Beebs
Wolf wrote:
Beebs wrote:Glad I took the time to answer your question, Wolf.
thank you. i decarbed the weed, made the butter then some brownies. half a brownie takes my pain away for 5-6 hours
Just busting your balls old man. Glad its working out.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:48 pm
by pearlbeer

Re: Reefer

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:46 pm
by Cole Younger
I turned forty last Monday. So I figured, why not?

Re: Reefer

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:33 pm
by Flea
Cole Younger wrote:I turned forty last Monday. So I figured, why not?
Image

Now I'm REALLY fucking sad I won't make Homecoming this year. :cry:

Re: Reefer

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:23 pm
by bovine knievel
Cole Younger wrote:I turned forty last Monday. So I figured, why not?
:mrgreen:

Re: Reefer

Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:30 pm
by Cole Younger
Flea wrote:
Cole Younger wrote:I turned forty last Monday. So I figured, why not?
Image

Now I'm REALLY fucking sad I won't make Homecoming this year. :cry:
Me too. :D

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:15 pm
by pearlbeer
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/p ... .html?_r=0

This seems like a great idea for a historically understaffed department that heavily supports State's Rights, and has no significant damages to show.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:04 pm
by beantownbubba
pearlbeer wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/p ... .html?_r=0

This seems like a great idea for a historically understaffed department that heavily supports State's Rights, and has no significant damages to show.
I would say it's unbelievable, but unfortunately it's totally believable. I would say it's stupid as fuck but, hell, it IS stupid as fuck.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:15 pm
by pearlbeer
beantownbubba wrote:
pearlbeer wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/p ... .html?_r=0

This seems like a great idea for a historically understaffed department that heavily supports State's Rights, and has no significant damages to show.
I would say it's unbelievable, but unfortunately it's totally believable. I would say it's stupid as fuck but, hell, it IS stupid as fuck.
Considering that the Administration fired 17 US Attys in March and replaced them, quite literally, YESTERDAY, which was, quite literally, HOURS before the deadline for the Admin to act, I truly don't get it. Seems like a complete waste of resources. I rarely have as disagreement with btb, but I'm sorry man, fuck isn't nearly this stupid.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:27 pm
by John A Arkansawyer
pearlbeer wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:
pearlbeer wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/p ... .html?_r=0

This seems like a great idea for a historically understaffed department that heavily supports State's Rights, and has no significant damages to show.
I would say it's unbelievable, but unfortunately it's totally believable. I would say it's stupid as fuck but, hell, it IS stupid as fuck.
Considering that the Administration fired 17 US Attys in March and replaced them, quite literally, YESTERDAY, which was, quite literally, HOURS before the deadline for the Admin to act, I truly don't get it. Seems like a complete waste of resources. I rarely have as disagreement with btb, but I'm sorry man, fuck isn't nearly this stupid.
It's not stupid to take aim at your enemies' resources. That is what Sessions is doing. And he just put in 17 US Attorneys who'll see it his way.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:17 pm
by beantownbubba
pearlbeer wrote: I rarely have as disagreement with btb, but I'm sorry man, fuck isn't nearly this stupid.
Point taken.
John A Arkansawyer wrote:It's not stupid to take aim at your enemies' resources.
I read the linked article and this is still too subtle for me. What enemies? What resources?

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:20 pm
by John A Arkansawyer
beantownbubba wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:It's not stupid to take aim at your enemies' resources.
I read the linked article and this is still too subtle for me. What enemies? What resources?
If there is a Republican in the industry anywhere west of the Mississippi (other than Arkansas, which is a story that still pisses me off), I'd be surprised.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:06 pm
by Tequila Cowboy
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:It's not stupid to take aim at your enemies' resources.
I read the linked article and this is still too subtle for me. What enemies? What resources?
If there is a Republican in the industry anywhere west of the Mississippi (other than Arkansas, which is a story that still pisses me off), I'd be surprised.
Nah, that's not trueor least not entirely. Many of them are funded with heavy duty Wall Street money, particularly in Colorado, and any "war on pot" is not going to be popular with the donor class. This isn't going to fly, although I can see some overzealous US Attorney giving it a shot.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:32 pm
by beantownbubba
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:It's not stupid to take aim at your enemies' resources.
I read the linked article and this is still too subtle for me. What enemies? What resources?
If there is a Republican in the industry anywhere west of the Mississippi (other than Arkansas, which is a story that still pisses me off), I'd be surprised.
To the extent that Libertarians and especially Libertarian leaning self identified conservatives are more likely to vote Republican (not a sure thing but surely a plurality at least historically) there's no way this is true. Add to that TC's comments about the big biz/finance aspects of the cannabiz, and I don't think so. The higher profile aspects of the cannabiz certainly focus on the blue leaning states (CO, OR, CA) but I'm not sure where the total numbers lie and in any case it's not all blue people in those blue states running those businesses.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:58 pm
by LBRod
We still have the Rohrbacher-Farr amendment.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/04/victo ... e-falls-fi

Re: Reefer

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:05 am
by Tequila Cowboy
This piece goes to what I was saying yesterday

https://www.wired.com/story/sessions-le ... -startups/

But while Sessions may not win any popularity contests in Boulder any time soon, the entrepreneurs and investors fueling the legal marijuana boom of the past few years remain, well, pretty chill about the whole thing. Yes, Sessions has rolled back the Obama-era Cole memo, which essentially instructed federal prosecutors to deprioritize marijuana crimes in states where it's legal. That's a setback. But in practice, legal weed purveyors see the move as unlikely to be as disastrous for their businesses—and their customers and patients—as many expect.

"The public gets a little scared, but the reality is, so far, it means absolutely nothing," says Randy Maslow, cofounder of iAnthus Capital Management, which invests in the cannabis industry.

The Department of Justice's announcement Thursday rescinded all nationwide guidance regarding the enforcement of federal marijuana law. And while that pierces that protective shield around legal marijuana companies in states like Colorado, Washington, and as of earlier this week, California, it does not specifically instruct federal attorneys to go after legal weed.

'The reality is, so far, it means absolutely nothing.'


The bottom line was this fight was over when pot investments became part of people's 401K funds. Pot stocks took a tumble yesterday but that was more because money is going have to spent on lobbying efforts than any sense of impending doom. There might be some kicking and screaming but the idea that this tide will be rolled back is pretty far fetched.

Re: Reefer

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:35 am
by pearlbeer
Image