Part of This Nutritious Buzz

Attention, Cannabis-Americans! Dianne Feinstein wants to harsh your mellow:

In the name of saving children from candy-flavored methamphetamine, the U.S. appears on the verge of mandating more than a year in jail for anyone who cooks up a batch of pot brownies.

A bill by California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein that has recently reached the Senate floor has cannabis advocacy groups concerned that potent, medical-grade edible products would become a higher crime carrying weighter sentences, ostensibly to protect children from ingesting strawberry-flavored meth.

Wait: Meth?

We’ve fallen behind on our field research, but we’re, um, reliably informed that candy-flavored meth is harder to find than journalistic integrity at Fox News.

On the other hand, California has a certain Toke Tally on the ballot this fall, which the good Senator happens to oppose, and delightfully packaged Schedule 1 herbs are popular at the local medical dispensaries.

The bill actually excludes “five grams or less of marihuana” — Dude! Retro! — from its new penalties, but separating the THC from the Cacao for measurement apparently is not an exact science. But no worries: We all know that local constabularies would give close calls the benefit of the doubt.

Pot advocates fear bill could mandate ‘enhanced penalties’ for medical edibles [Raw Story]

The most frightening words in the English language are not “I’m from the government, and I am here to help,” they are “won’t someone think of the children?”

And by the way, the government workers one is most likely to have interaction with in daily life, and who will usually be offering to “help,” are the police, so actually, the first statement is really true, but not in the way those who love to quote Ronnie’s old joke think of it being true.

By the way, strawberry-flavored meth? Urban legend…check Snopes.

But have you ever really looked your hands? I mean REALLY looked at them? Wait, what were we talking about again?

@Tommmcat Still Gets Carly Confused With Meg:

When in the history of drug prohibition has “truth” been even remotely a requirement?

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment