No, it say's the rec shops have made them cost prohibitive.
Hey, ya wanna do pot, I could give a shit. But when the legislation makes what was legal almost impossible to obtain, you have a problem. I'll leave it there. No point belaboring it.
No, it say's the rec shops have made them cost prohibitive.
Hey, ya wanna do pot, I could give a shit. But when the legislation makes what was legal almost impossible to obtain, you have a problem. I'll leave it there. No point belaboring it.
But when the legislation makes what was legal almost impossible to obtain, you have a problem.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against that.
> But when the legislation makes what was legal almost impossible to obtain, you have a problem.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against that.
I agree. They screwed up that legislation royally ... cutting out those who need it most in favor of recreational users. That sucks.
I agree. They screwed up that legislation royally ... cutting out those who need it most in favor of recreational users. That sucks.
I read that, but it is stretching this to inflate an issue that isn't really a problem.
Don't want to eat a stack of candy bars? Get gummy bears instead. Really, if the dose is that high then they should be buying the extract.
Limits on the edibles makes sense. Amateur recreational users eating something with that much would be floored.
The legislation provides new hoops for growers. But has only a cosmetic effect on the consumer.
The article did try to spin it the way you took it. But boil off the colour and the details do not support the claim.
Even my black-market shop carries medical extracts, because it's profitable.
Recreational shops do cater to the medical users. This article tries to imply that medical users need special shops or goods that can't be found or obtained at a regular shop, and that is just not true.