Go Back   Marijuana.com > News > The Drug War Headline News
Register FAQ Gaming VB Image Host Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-15-2005, 09:20 AM   #1
Buzzby
Buddhist Curmudgeon
 
Buzzby's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,168
Grams: 42,616.14
Groans: 33
Groaned at 42 Times in 35 Posts
Buzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputationBuzzby has entirely too much reputation
Thanks: 486
Thanked 3,513 Times in 1,780 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default TX: Don't Bogart that Lollipot

Don't Bogart that Lollipot
Nobody in their right mind would want to eat cannabis-flavored candy. Or would they? Lawmakers and confectioners hash out the hemp candy craze.
Jordan Smith | AlterNet | 07/14/2005

From the recent official frenzy over the sale of cannabis-flavored lollipops, gum, bonbons, and other candies, you might think the confections were new products, that they might contain one of the psychoactive compounds found in marijuana, and that they are illegal.

To set the record straight: Cannabis candies are not new, do not contain Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or any of the other psychoactive ingredients of marijuana, and they are not illegal -- at least in the notoriously sober judgment of U.S. Customs agents and the FBI.

That hasn't stopped the Chicago City Council from banning the candies, and it hasn't discouraged Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena, D-Edinburg, from authoring new legislation (HB 74) to ban the sale of any confectionery containing any marijuana-derived ingredients.

According to a Pena press release, the sale of cannabis candies is a means to "entice our children into a life of illegal drugs," through the "legal marketing of the drug culture to our children by the sale of marijuana candy." That was also the sentiment of Chicago Alderman Edward Burke, who sponsored the city's ban on the offensive lollipots: The sole purpose of the "hideous candy" is to groom another generation of drug addicts, he said. "I can't imagine the degree and the extent to which people will go to make ... a buck on kids, trying to get them to experiment with something that is going to be a lead-in to the use of marijuana."

Under the Chicago ban, passed last week, stores selling the candies will face up to a $500 fine and the possible revocation of their business licenses. Under Pena's HB 74, selling or offering to sell a cannabis confection to a person would be a Class A misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine. (Unless Gov. Perry adds the pot candy crisis to his special session call, Pena's bill is little more than grandstanding.)

At the center of the reactionary rhetoric and stiff penalties being proposed by Pena and others are the kind of lollipops and sour candies sold by Corona, Calif.-based confectioner Chronic Candy, which sells lollipops -- under the slogan "every lick is like taking a hit" -- with names like "The Chronic" and "Acapulco Gold," spoofing various strains of the evil weed.

Nonetheless, they are simply candies, made with an extract taken from marijuana flowers, and contain absolutely no THC -- as confirmed by a recent Food and Drug Administration analysis of Chronic's candies, says Tony Van Pelt, the company's founder and president. And Matthew Huijgen, whose company, Cannabis Candies, sells a variety of cannabis confections, confirms that, unlike other cannabis-derived food products -- foods containing hemp seeds or hemp oil, which contain traces of the psychoactive ingredient -- cannabis candies contain no THC whatsoever.

Van Pelt knows that his company's marketing is a little cheeky, but says that the indignant reactions of late are over the top. Neither Van Pelt nor Huijgen sell or market their candies to children -- the confections are retailed only in liquor stores and head shops or online for credit card purchase -- and Van Pelt thinks that the recent hullabaloo is nothing more than theatrical politicking. "There are just so many other things that are problems," he said. "I never thought this would happen."

Van Pelt has been selling the candies for six years without consumer complaint and without any trouble from local or federal law enforcement. Moreover, most of his candies are imported from Germany, with approval of the U.S. Customs Service. And Van Pelt got de facto approval from the FBI, which signed off on his candies after a 2002 investigation. The narcos thought the boxes contained drugs, he said, because of the strong odor coming from the lollipots.

But official critics say no one in their right mind would actually want to suck on a stick of fibrous-tasting hemp-flavored candy, no matter how sweet. The only reason that anyone would buy and eat the stuff, officials (including Pena) charge, is to buy into the drug "lifestyle," which Van Pelt glamorizes by marketing his candies as "highly addictive" and tasting "like the real thing." "We ... need to be vigilant for the ever increasing legal attempts to divert our children down the wrong path," Pena wrote in a press release.

That's a bunch of hooey, says Van Pelt. "They're saying that people don't buy the candy for the taste, but for the 'reaction.' But there is no reaction; it's not going to be like, 'Ooh, let's go smoke some pot now,'" he said. If that were the case, he asks, then isn't marketing nonalcoholic beer also a problem? "What message is O'Doul's sending?" he asked.

Van Pelt says he would be more than happy to sit down with his critics and listen to any suggestions they might have to ensure that kids don't end up with the candies. "I'll fly wherever, [and they can] sit down and show me what [they] think we can do; give me a lead," he says. "But no one has done that."

Neither Pena nor officials from Chicago have ever called Van Pelt directly about his Chronic confections; nor did Pena return calls for this article. And despite his open-door confection conversation policy, Van Pelt said that he recently received a subpoena seeking his business records from the Illinois attorney general's office.

Van Pelt says that although the subpoena requires only that his records be in Illinois on July 12, he intends to hand-deliver them. "I'm not stupid; I'm not trying to do anything illegal," he said. "[And] I plan to take [the records] there myself."

Jordan Smith is a staff writer at the Austin Chronicle.
__________________
McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.
Do we really want four more years of the same old shit?

~ Buzzby, 08/31/2008

Buzzby is online now Award Buzzby Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Old 07-16-2005, 08:13 AM   #2
StonerWithBoner
New Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1
Grams: 667.40
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
StonerWithBoner has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Talking cannabis-flavored food/drink

here's a list of cannabis-flavored food/drink:
mariwater - weed flavored water
pot pop - mmmm, weed soda
GRASShopper - creme de cannabethe
chicken POT pie - marijana chicken
marijuana O's - weed cereal, mmmm
POTcorn - weed buttered popcorn
POTsicle - marijuana ice pop
Weed Jelly Belly - cannabis jelly beans

what about a slogan like:
smoke cannabis-when hash turns to ash
StonerWithBoner is offline Award StonerWithBoner Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2005, 07:00 PM   #3
PotShot
Sr. Member
 
PotShot's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 925
Grams: 3,206.28
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
PotShot can see the Karmic Tunnel of Life
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Van Pelt knows that his company's marketing is a little cheeky, but says that the indignant reactions of late are over the top. Neither Van Pelt nor Huijgen sell or market their candies to children -- the confections are retailed only in liquor stores and head shops or online for credit card purchase -- and Van Pelt thinks that the recent hullabaloo is nothing more than theatrical politicking. "There are just so many other things that are problems," he said. "I never thought this would happen."
THERE ARE JUST SO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT ARE PROBLEMS.

Making pot candy illegal because it "cultivates a new generation of addicts"? What a bunch of B.S. Like adults dont eat candy, I know I eat ALOT of candy, and I dont see how "pot candy" could be anything but a novelty item. Does anybody really like the "flavor of marijuana"?(Whatever that is) I have yet to try any pot candy, and I dont see schoolyards of innocent children clammoring for the stuff. Candy cigars and cigarettes are still legal right?

So has anyone tried any of this stuff? And uh, another thing is I am getting sick of the stupid pun headlines dealing with this stuff, like "Dont bogart my lollipot" Or "Dude you got a cell" ad nauseum.
PotShot is offline Award PotShot Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45 AM.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52