# Marijuana-shaped candy alarms parents, officials



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

BUFFALO, N.Y. &#8212; Candy shaped like marijuana that's showing up on store shelves around the country won't get kids high, but aghast city leaders and anti-drug activists say the product and grocers carrying it represent a new low.

"We're already dealing with a high amount of drug abuse and drug activity and trying to raise children so they don't think using illegal substances is acceptable," said City Councilmember Darius Pridgen. "So to have a licensed store sell candy to kids that depicts an illegal substance is just ignorant and irresponsible."

The "Pothead Ring Pots," "Pothead Lollipops" and bagged candy *are distributed to retail stores by the novelty supply company Kalan LP of the Philadelphia suburb of Lansdowne.* It also wholesales online for $1 for a lollipop and $1.50 for a package of three rings.

Company president Andrew Kalan said the candy, on the market six to nine months and in 1,000 stores around the country, promotes the legalization of marijuana.

"It does pretty well," he said.

"This is the first complaint I've heard," Kalan said, "and people are usually not shy. I'm actually surprised this is the first."

An irate parent brought the candy to Pridgen's attention, hoping the city could apply pressure and get it out of stores.

Pridgen and Councilmember Demone Smith displayed the candy, along with fake marijuana known as "K2" that's also sold in some stores at Tuesday's Common Council meeting, where Pridgen said he'd refuse to grant licenses to stores in his district that planned to sell the merchandise and would seek to embarrass stores that carry it. The synthetic marijuana is sold as incense but is smoked.

Synthetic marijuana typically involves dried plant material sprayed with one of several chemical compounds. The products contain organic leaves coated with chemicals that provide a marijuana-like high when smoked. The Drug Enforcement Administration recently used its emergency powers to outlaw five chemicals found in synthetic marijuana.

It appeared Pridgen's message had gotten out by Thursday. A check of about a half-dozen stores in Buffalo, often in impoverished neighborhoods where real drugs are a festering problem, turned up none of the controversial candy.

The bags of "Pothead Sour Gummy Candy," and lollipops shaped like marijuana leaves appear to be a recent addition to the inventory of some corner stores. The sour apple-flavored candy contains nothing illegal, but with its marijuana leaf, the word "Legalize" and a joint-smoking, peace sign-waving user on the packaging, critics say it's not only in poor taste but an invitation to try the real thing.

"It's the whole idea that it promotes drugs and the idea that, here, you'll look cool if you use this &#8212; which is what gets these kids in trouble in the very first place," said Jodie Altman, program supervisor at Renaissance House, a treatment center for drug- and alcohol-addicted youth.

Charmaine Rosendary, 36, of Buffalo shook her head when she saw a picture of the package.

"That's not right. It's just promoting marijuana," she said while buying produce Friday at a Buffalo market. She said she wouldn't allow her five teenagers, ages 15-19, to have it.

"I would not buy it or give them money to buy it," she said. "It looks like weed."

It's not the first legal product to come under fire.

In 2008, the Hershey Co. stopped making Ice Breakers Pacs in response to criticism that the mints looked too much like illegal street drugs. Police in Philadelphia complained that the packets, nickel-sized dissolvable pouches with a powdered sweetener inside, closely resembled tiny heat-sealed bags used to sell powdered street drugs.

Candy cigarettes and fruity or energy drink-infused alcoholic beverages have been criticized for targeting young people. And in 1997, the Federal Trade Commission said the iconic Joe Camel cigarette ads and packaging violated federal law because they appealed to kids under 18. The tobacco company, R.J. Reynolds, eventually shelved the caricature.

A spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy said advocates for legalization who claim marijuana is benign are not supported by science.

"Trivializing drug use is a threat to public health because it erodes perceptions of harm among young people," said Rafael Lemaitre.

Kalan said his company carries several products with the marijuana leaf and "legalize" message to accommodate growing demand in the movement to legalize marijuana.

"We don't advocate for a political position. We just look at what the marketplace wants and respond to it," the wholesaler said. "It's just candy... It's sour apple flavor, it doesn't claim to be pot in disguise or anything like that."


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Oct 10, 2011)

When I was a kid, we had candy cigarettes.  I don't really think it made anyone start smoking cigarettes....


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

Things have changed a LOT since we were kids, THG!  However, advertising legalization to kids....what good can this do?


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

"We're already dealing with a high amount of drug abuse and drug activity and trying to raise children so they don't think using illegal substances is acceptable," said City Councilmember Darius Pridgen. "So to have a licensed store sell candy to kids that depicts an illegal substance is just ignorant and irresponsible."

That's the quote I have a hard time with. I'm all for raising kids to think that it's not okay to use illegal substances. The fact of the matter is, Marijuana should not be illegal in the first place. This quote is ignorant and irresponsible.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Things have changed a LOT since we were kids, THG!  However, advertising legalization to kids....what good can this do?


Who said anything about the candy targetting kids? Adults eat candy too. In either event, it'll help raise the awareness to the cause. As the younger generations grow with the thought instilled, decades down the road we could see a turn over in federal law as these children/teens/adults gain office in our government. Perhaps that's a little too hopeful, but it would certainly help aid others in overturning government decision if the people in our government at the point in time are not anti-pot.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

Can you straight faced say this isn't marketed at least partially to kids? Are they separating it from the regular candy section, or just putting it in the same areas the kids shop?


----------



## Locked (Oct 10, 2011)

> Synthetic marijuana typically involves dried plant material sprayed with  one of several chemical compounds. The products contain organic leaves  coated with chemicals that provide a marijuana-like high when smoked.  The Drug Enforcement Administration recently used its emergency powers  to outlaw five chemicals found in synthetic marijuana.



Now this sounds so much safer then actual Cannabis......

I don't think the candy's shld be peddled to young kids but they hve every right to manufacture and sell it to adults. Once again it seems like too many parents want the government to raise their kids instead of them doing it.. jmo


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

Most of those stores have toy aisles where most of the kids usually stay, if their parents don't force them to stay by their side, as they should. Very rarely do kids go into the bulk candy aisle. Generally when kids get candy, it's because their parents gave them permission to, and that's generally at the cannon rack by the register. In any event, just because it's located next to regular candy doesn't mean it's being advertised toward children. As I said, adults eat candy too. I, myself, eat more than I probably should of it. I work in retail currently, and regularly have more adults buying candy from my store than I do children.

I don't know, Roddy. There are just a lot of factors that are undisclosed in the article. However, the article does plainly state, "Kalan said his company carries several products with the marijuana leaf and "legalize" message to accommodate growing demand in the movement to legalize marijuana." He says absolutely nothing about kids. And yeah, I know, why would he? That's just asking for trouble. But it also happens to be the same thought that I had when reading the article.



> "We don't advocate for a political position. We just look at what the marketplace wants and respond to it," the wholesaler said. "It's just candy... It's sour apple flavor, it doesn't claim to be pot in disguise or anything like that."


"It's just candy...". Again, he reiterates that it's JUST candy.

Kids aren't the only ones who eat candy. Adults are more prone to buying it, anyways. They're the ones with the money, and kids who have money typically want to get a toy; not candy. Their logic being that their parents will buy candy for them quicker than they'll go out to get them "yet another 'expensive' toy."

I guess my answer to your question is yes. I don't really feel that the manufacturer is producing the candy to target children, in full or in part. I think he's trying to spread the message his company has adopted: Legalize Marijuana. And he's doing it in an innovative way.


----------



## Locked (Oct 10, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> I guess my answer to your question is yes. I don't really feel that the manufacturer is producing the candy to target children, in full or in part. I think he's trying to spread the message his company has adopted: Legalize Marijuana. And he's doing it in an innovative way.



:yeahthat:
Agreed.....parents need to step up and be parents for christs sake. I can't stand people who want the government to raise their damn children.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

BTW. this is the bag of candy in question here:


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

Zactly, Hammy! I'm so tired of it. You created em, take care of and protect them! If the pot candy is something you think you should protect them from, then do it yourself and stop harping on the government to take care of it for you. That candy being on the shelf is doing nobody any harm. Know what your kids are doing and ingesting... it's your job. Not Uncle Sam's.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

Hamster Lewis said:
			
		

> :yeahthat:
> Agreed.....parents need to step up and be parents for christs sake. I can't stand people who want the government to raise their damn children.



Parents don't even take their kids to the store anymore, they send them after stuff. They need to step up alright, but in many more ways than this instance. And I don't want the govt raising the kids, would be nice if people had common sense about what they market and how though...wouldn't it?


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> Most of those stores have toy aisles where most of the kids usually stay, if their parents don't force them to stay by their side, as they should. Very rarely do kids go into the bulk candy aisle. Generally when kids get candy, it's because their parents gave them permission to, and that's generally at the cannon rack by the register. In any event, just because it's located next to regular candy doesn't mean it's being advertised toward children. As I said, adults eat candy too. I, myself, eat more than I probably should of it. I work in retail currently, and regularly have more adults buying candy from my store than I do children.
> 
> I don't know, Roddy. There are just a lot of factors that are undisclosed in the article. However, the article does plainly state, "Kalan said his company carries several products with the marijuana leaf and "legalize" message to accommodate growing demand in the movement to legalize marijuana." He says absolutely nothing about kids. And yeah, I know, why would he? That's just asking for trouble. But it also happens to be the same thought that I had when reading the article.
> 
> ...



Maybe you misunderstand...I don''t give a rip if the company makes this junk, I don't care if stores sell it. But use COMMON SENSE on how it's marketed, how it's displayed and who it's targets are. Stores can do this by keeping it from the candy section, unless profit is truly the only driving force.

As for who the company is targeting, that image (on the bag of candy) holding the candy doesn't look like a middle aged adult, more like a teen...just saying.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

I didn't misunderstand, I was just sharing my thoughts on it.  And trust me, I'm in agreement with you. But, follow me on this, if you will:

The manufacturer has no control over how the stuff is marketed. They can only market it to the stores that sell it. It's up the chain they sell it to how it's marketed. Whether that be in the candy aisle or somewhere else. While we're on the subject, where else would you have it though? Unless these stores are selling a lot of Legalize MJ products, that's the only sensible place to put it. Otherwise, they can have a legalize mj aisle and shelve it there.

In regard to the cartoon on the candy bag, I chalk that up only to advertising. In the advertising industry, it's a tactic used to drive sales. Youthfulness promotes sales. I also agree that it looks like a teen, but I can't judge as to whether the cartoon looks 14 or 18. I have friends with similar appearances who are in their mid 20's. Either way, I do see how it could be misconstrued.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

They don't put the High Times on the same rack as the teen mags, at the same height and in reach of children...around here at least. Nor the skin mags as I recall....


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 10, 2011)

Haha they put all MJ related things behind the counters here in Cali, cause folks steal grow books. Bad Karma.


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Oct 10, 2011)

I just can't get too upset about this--I think I get more worried about toy guns than this....


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

You and I aren't the ones that'll get upset about this, those that do will only make more bad noise though.... I just hope the stores that do decide to sell this use common sense.

I hear you there, Hal.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

You're right, but they're still around other magazines. People know those magazines exist, so they can ask for them by name if needed. You generally happen about products like this Pothead Candy. You don't walk uip to the counter and ask explicitly for it. Unless there is another part of the store that this can be shelved on, the only sensible place to put it (think corporate america) is with the rest of the candy.


----------



## pcduck (Oct 10, 2011)

Hamster Lewis said:
			
		

> ...parents need to step up and be parents for christs sake. I can't stand people who want the government to raise their damn children.



You sure got that right HL. The way our politicians have been acting, does not make for good role models or mentors


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> You're right, but they're still around other magazines. People know those magazines exist, so they can ask for them by name if needed. You generally happen about products like this Pothead Candy. You don't walk uip to the counter and ask explicitly for it. Unless there is another part of the store that this can be shelved on, the only sensible place to put it (think corporate america) is with the rest of the candy.



Then I would hope they just don't sell it. If it can't be done responsibly, don't do it....but then, we're back to the profit comment.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

And yes THC, I loved the candy cigs. Back then, the movie stars were all smoking on screen, it was common place to smoke a cig and was accepted as such. Not so now, it's known to be bad for your health. I don't see those on the shelf in most stores these days.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Then I would hope they just don't sell it. If it can't be done responsibly, don't do it....but then, we're back to the profit comment.


It's an innovative way to market the cause. Even people who aren't for it will remember SEEING it, people who otherwise have no contact with it whatsoever and base their opinions on public scrutiny, rather thanf actual knowledge or hands-on experience. They'll remember the message: Legalize it. Whether they're for or against it.

I do see your point though, and it is a valid one. Call me a devil's advocate if you must, sometimes I am, but I see it from the opposite perspective in this case.  Hope is all with you tonight, I'm looking down at the clouds myself. ^_^


-getnasty


----------



## Locked (Oct 10, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Then I would hope they just don't sell it. If it can't be done *responsibly*, don't do it....but then, we're back to the profit comment.


It is the *parents responsibility* to know what their kids are buying.  I love violent video games...shld kids be playing them? No. So does that mean they shld be outlawed because the *parents* are too damn lazy to do their jobs?


----------



## Roddy (Oct 10, 2011)

Hamster Lewis said:
			
		

> It is the *parents responsibility* to know what their kids are buying.  I love violent video games...shld kids be playing them? No. So does that mean they shld be outlawed because the *parents* are too damn lazy to do their jobs?



Again, who is talking outlawing?? :confused2:


----------



## getnasty (Oct 10, 2011)

Hey Roddy, I think you kinda failed to address the initial point that it is the parents responsibility, regardless of anything being outlawed. It is a valid point, and I'm kinda interested in the retort to that. Because, ultimately, it is the parent who is responsible for the actions of said child until the age of 16, I believe it is, legally. They should know when their kid has cash and they should know what they're purchasing, for their own safety, if anything else.

I don't mean to nduge you in that direction or anything, but this is pretty interesting debate on both sides.


-nasty


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

I have already said I wished parents would do a better job raising their kids??

 I don't believe that parenting is going to stop the perceptions adults will have when they go shopping for candy this Halloween and see this on the candy shelves beside other kiddy treats though. I don't see how it's the parents' job to make sure the stores market responsibly? 

Yep, parents really should be better at raising their kids, unfortunately most aren't and won't be. So, we should just not worry about those youngsters left to parent themselves? I believe it was Mrs Clinton who said it takes a village to raise a kid? Surely, the stores are part of this "village"?


----------



## getnasty (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> I have already said I wished parents would do a better job raising their kids??
> 
> I don't believe that parenting is going to stop the perceptions adults will have when they go shopping for candy this Halloween and see this on the candy shelves beside other kiddy treats though. I don't see how it's the parents' job to make sure the stores market responsibly?
> 
> Yep, parents really should be better at raising their kids, unfortunately most aren't and won't be. So, we should just not worry about those youngsters left to parent themselves? I believe it was Mrs Clinton who said it takes a village to raise a kid? Surely, the stores are part of this "village"?


You're right, it's not, but it should be enough, is the point. It isn't the parents' responsibility to ensure the store's market their products responsibly, but it is the parents' responsibility to know what it is their kids are spending money on, consuming, etc etc. It's the parents job to protect their child, to monitor their consumption habits, etc etc. As parents, we are responsible for training and instilling morals in our children. It has nothing to do with the stores marketing responsibly.

And I also don't consider them putting these candies with the other candy to be irresponsible. It's a product that fits well in that aisle, where it's supposed to. Candy goes with candy, clothes go with clothes, hardware goes with hardware, etc. Yes, due to the nature of the product in question, morally they should consider putting it with other merchandise, if it's possible. In stores like Family Dollar or Dollar General, there are misc sections that they could be shelved at. But other stores don't have that luxury.

If a parent is with their kid and the kid happens to see it and asks the parent what it means, it's then that parent's responsibility to explain it to that child, if they've reached the point of being able to understand it all. I mean, let's face it, a 4 year old seeing that bag of candy vs an 8 or 12 year old seeing it... questions aren't gonna be asked until they get older and more curious. It's that curiosity that we either nurture and explain what it is, what it does, etc, or nip in the bud.

I guess my original intent was to stress that it's not the manufacturer's fault for creating a product that is inline with a practice that is becoming more and more widely acceptable. It's that particular store's fault for marketing it the way they are, in a state where marijuana is not legalized, in part or in full.


-nasty


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

> I believe it was Mrs Clinton who said it takes a village to raise a kid? Surely, the stores are part of this "village"?
> __________________




Look around your village, how many of your neighbors would you want to raise your children? Just my $0.02


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> You're right, it's not, but it should be enough, is the point. It isn't the parents' responsibility to ensure the store's market their products responsibly, but it is the parents' responsibility to know what it is their kids are spending money on, consuming, etc etc. It's the parents job to protect their child, to monitor their consumption habits, etc etc. As parents, we are responsible for training and instilling morals in our children. It has nothing to do with the stores marketing responsibly.
> 
> And I also don't consider them putting these candies with the other candy to be irresponsible. It's a product that fits well in that aisle, where it's supposed to. Candy goes with candy, clothes go with clothes, hardware goes with hardware, etc. Yes, due to the nature of the product in question, morally they should consider putting it with other merchandise, if it's possible. In stores like Family Dollar or Dollar General, there are misc sections that they could be shelved at. But other stores don't have that luxury.
> 
> ...



You've stated this a few times, I've agreed.

I guess a simple way to tell a store you approve or disapprove of them acting irresponsible is to stop going to that store. 

I highly doubt stores such as the big box (public outrage would lead to customer loss) or even most mom & pop stores (people who actually care what they sell) would market these anyway, we're just talking the sleazy stores with no community sense, in neighborhoods where crime is rampant anyway and kids are swept under the rug...no big loss? Guess those kids lose anyway, huh?


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Look around your village, how many of your neighbors would you want to raise your children? Just my $0.02



In my village? It's still that way, I still feed the area kids when they come visiting, I still call neighbor parents when I see something go on that shouldn't. I know my neighbors by name, we meet up at church and town picnics and such. So my answer is sure, hope they do what I do...and I already know they do lol


----------



## getnasty (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> I highly doubt stores such as the big box (public outrage would lead to customer loss) or even most mom & pop stores (people who actually care what they sell) would market these anyway, we're just talking the sleazy stores with no community sense, in neighborhoods where crime is rampant anyway and kids are swept under the rug...no big loss? Guess those kids lose anyway, huh?


 
Just the conditioning of the environment, I guess. It's a real shame, because a lot of those kids have great potential, but their environment has strapped them down and prevented them from growing.


-nasty


----------



## Locked (Oct 11, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Look around your village, how many of your neighbors would you want to raise your children? Just my $0.02




:yeahthat:


Bottom line is the buck shld stop with the parent....too many parents don't raise their kids anymore and rely on uncle Sam to try and do it for them...regardless of the fact that our rights are being eroded.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Hamster Lewis said:
			
		

> :yeahthat:
> 
> 
> Bottom line is the buck shld stop with the parent....too many parents don't raise their kids anymore and rely on uncle Sam to try and do it for them...regardless of the fact that our rights are being eroded.



There's other ways than relying on the govt to better our communities, our kids' lives....speak with your $ would be a start. If you see a store selling this irresponsibly, stop going to the store. Speak up about it, get other parents involved. Hey, tell your kids the problem, this is something many don't even bother with anymore.

But I agree Hammy, too many just forget their kids...I'm raising 2 that were left to the system years ago and am glad I saved them.


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> In my village? It's still that way, I still feed the area kids when they come visiting, I still call neighbor parents when I see something go on that shouldn't. I know my neighbors by name, we meet up at church and town picnics and such. So my answer is sure, hope they do what I do...and I already know they do lol



That must be some town Roddy.

No crime, no lowlifes, no difference in religion, everybody is just hunky dory?




> If you see a store selling this irresponsibly, stop going to the store.  Speak up about it, get other parents involved. Hey, tell your kids the  problem, this is something many don't even bother with anymore.



Why don't you just stop going to the store and tell your kids to quit going to the store? By why ruin it, for the people that do enjoy the candies or do believe that it should be legalize? I bet there is a lot worst stuff going on that nobody is standing on a soap box crying fowl over.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> That must be some town Roddy.
> 
> No crime, no lowlifes, no difference in religion, everybody is just hunky dory?
> 
> ...



Hmmm, here I thought we were talking about the kids. I already said I'd stop going and tell my kids. I'd also go and tell my friends' kids...what's the harm there? Is it bad that other parents are told of this and then can act appropriately? Legalize it, great, if it comes to needing to advertise on candy, we're sunk. 

All of a sudden, it sounds like I'm being a bad parent for caring...ouch. I'm a horrible person for asking that stores act responsibly? And we wonder how the world got how it is?

And I don't know, but I sense a bit of sarcasm there with the "some town" comment. Can I ask though, in what I wrote, where do you see anything close to what you quipped back?


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

What if we were advocating pornography? Would suckers shaped in human sex parts be OK?


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

> And I don't know, but I sense a bit of sarcasm there with the "some town" comment.



No sarcasm Roddy, but a town that you described just does not exist where everyone lives in harmony. That ended when Andy Griffith went off the air and even they had Otis. Could you imagine Otis telling your kids something for their own protection?

Maybe I just believe that people have the right to choose where they go, what they buy, and how to raise their kids, without government interference or other concerned parents telling me what is good and what is not for my kids.

I can remember when video games first came out and supposedly this was gonna be the downfall of our children. Before that it was probably TV but I was not around for that. And we are still here.


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> What if we were advocating pornography? Would suckers shaped in human sex parts be OK?



They already make them. And I do not see anything in the news about that.


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> I still call neighbor parents when I see something go on that shouldn't.


 
Oh....Your that guy.


----------



## Locked (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> All of a sudden, it sounds like I'm being a bad parent for caring...ouch. I'm a horrible person for asking that stores act responsibly? And we wonder how the world got how it is?



This is where my gripe is.....if the store was selling tobacco, MJ, alcohol etc to minors then yeah they need to act responsibly and follow the law....but we are talking about candy packaged and shaped in a way that parents and adults don't like. Well guess what? This is a case where the parents need to be parents. And I don't agree with your reason the world is the way it is now. In fact I believe a lot of the problems with the attitude of our youth is because a lot of parents stopped being parents and want our government to step in and raise their children.   Why are my rights so easily trampled on just because parents don't want to do their job?


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

:yeahthat:





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hamster Lewis again.



dang it


----------



## Locked (Oct 11, 2011)

NorCalHal said:
			
		

> Oh....Your that guy.




Yes unfortunately he seems to be that guy.....

Let's trample everyone's rights so that we can baby sit the kids who hve shitty parents.


----------



## Locked (Oct 11, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Maybe I just believe that people have the right to choose where they go, what they buy, and how to raise their kids, without government interference or other concerned parents telling me what is good and what is not for my kids.
> 
> I can remember when video games first came out and supposedly this was gonna be the downfall of our children. Before that it was probably TV but I was not around for that. And we are still here.



Thanks pc for posting this spot on post....exactly my feelings.

Bravo.


One more thing...I don't hve kids right now. Not because I don't think I cld raise them properly but because I don't hve the time in my life right now to raise them properly...so guess what? I didn't hve any and turn to the government to raise them for me.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> They already make them. And I do not see anything in the news about that.



Where are they selling this candy? Not on the store candy shelves...right? No, that's exactly my point. Not in the news because it's not being marketed to the kids.

So, let me be more clear since I guess I left out some....what if they were making the sex explicit candy and your local store had it right smack dab in the middle of the candy isle right at kid level. You know, like what you're saying is OK for this???


----------



## Rosebud (Oct 11, 2011)

We are not talking dildos we are talking a plant leaf. I had to laugh as my kids would tell you that when they were little, if we had this candy  we would have had a great conversation about marijuana.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Hamster Lewis said:
			
		

> This is where my gripe is.....if the store was selling tobacco, MJ, alcohol etc to minors then yeah they need to act responsibly and follow the law....but we are talking about candy packaged and shaped in a way that parents and adults don't like. Well guess what? This is a case where the parents need to be parents. And I don't agree with your reason the world is the way it is now. In fact I believe a lot of the problems with the attitude of our youth is because a lot of parents stopped being parents and want our government to step in and raise their children.   Why are my rights so easily trampled on just because parents don't want to do their job?



Answer the sex explicit question please....then put it in the same context as the pot shaped. Simple.

Why is it I say something about speaking out about a store selling candy and you keep coming back to govt?? Do you realize only you and a few others keep bringing them into this whole convo, NOT ME??? 

Parents...get this now, they often speak to fellow parents about things they perceive to be wrong. Then, the other parents can make up their minds as well and act or not as they feel fit. This is called parenting. Parents will boycott stores if they don't like what's sold, we do this for our kids, not ask the govt to stop the store as you keep eluding to over and over again.

It's called parenting, what I am suggesting being done is called parenting. I said I'd complain about it, I said I'd tell others and I said I'd boycott....damn, guess I'm a parent. And I suggest others do this, and guess what, I'm now a bad guy.

And guess what, you all act like your rights are being trampled on because I want to exercise my right to say no....


Wow


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Rosebud said:
			
		

> We are not talking dildos we are talking a plant leaf. I had to laugh as my kids would tell you that when they were little, if we had this candy  we would have had a great conversation about marijuana.



Maybe, Rosie.

It could also lead to kids trying it.


----------



## Rosebud (Oct 11, 2011)

Since I have adult kids, maybe I can speak to that.
If a piece of candy makes kids try pot, the candy is not their biggest problem. My daughter tried it for the first time at age 21 and was in NYC when she did.. what a memory. She told me about it. That is what i would have wanted for her. My son is so straight it is silly. Candy will not make people smoke pot. 
Although, i did love those candy cigarettes. And i did smoke for a while..hm...lol


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Now, I'll make it clear as I had said before, no this isn't a huge deal. Not the end of the world, no biggie at all, really. It's sad some would do this and even sadder yet they'd market this way (I'm beginning to think it's more to target the smoker who is gullible enough to believe buying a bag is in some way going to promote legalization LMAO).

I would, as I said, complain to the store, let my friends with small kids know and would tell my own not to go to that store. I'd be a parent and lead by example, not complain it were there and then ignore it as if it'll go away on it's own. I'd also speak to my kids should the topic come up. And no, it wouldn't be the candy of choice at my house come Halloween...unless we were having an adult party and they were made with special ingredients 

None of this would include govt anything, btw


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Rosebud said:
			
		

> Since I have adult kids, maybe I can speak to that.
> If a piece of candy makes kids try pot, the candy is not their biggest problem. My daughter tried it for the first time at age 21 and was in NYC when she did.. what a memory. She told me about it. That is what i would have wanted for her. My son is so straight it is silly. Candy will not make people smoke pot.
> Although, i did love those candy cigarettes. And i did smoke for a while..hm...lol



Imagine your 13 or so child (let's say a girl for this case) is with friends, they see a bag of this candy and think it's funny so they buy. As they're sharing, a kid comes up and says he has the real mccoy, why play with the kid stuff. Kid pressure pushes and it leads to.....


----------



## Rosebud (Oct 11, 2011)

My thirteen year old daughter knows the difference between candy and pot. All you can do is arm your children with knowledge. It works.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Rosebud said:
			
		

> My thirteen year old daughter knows the difference between candy and pot. All you can do is arm your children with knowledge. It works.



It's not about knowing the difference, and arming with knowledge does work, but only so far. Sure, your 13 yr old knows the difference, but when pressure is on, will that stop her from giving in?


----------



## Rosebud (Oct 11, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Rosebud said:
			
		

> Yes.



hmmmmm....thinking back to when I was teen, drinking was the thing then
 Yep, I was told not to, I was told the dangers and all that good stuff...I also remember the first time I got drunk....was still a very young teen lol. Were my parents bad? Did they fail? No, I was just being a teen...


----------



## ston-loc (Oct 11, 2011)

Yes, because candy wont change whether or not they will try it if a different kid busted out the real deal. 

My main thoughts following this thread, but not posting yet. In my personal opinion, it's a candy with "weed" references that I assume some profits go towards the legalization movement. A: if a candy changes some kids mind whether or not to try mj, they had bigger problems that need to be dealt with. B: I would think, from a person that supports the legalization of this beautiful plant, that a package like this would actually be an ice breaker TO TALK TO YOUR KIDS about it, instead of trying to keep blinders on them and shelter them from it. If they're too young to have that talk, or know what it is, then it doesn't matter if they see it. If they are old enough to know what it is, that's the perfect opportunity to have that talk. Are you just planning to ignore a very big thing from your kids until they're 18 they say, have at it. Or just lie to them that its wrong, or bad, and yet grow it and smoke it yourself? I'm just not comprehending.


----------



## Locked (Oct 11, 2011)

Rosebud said:
			
		

> My thirteen year old daughter knows the difference  between candy and pot. All you can do is arm your children with  knowledge. It works.


Thank you for making sense Rose....






			
				Roddy said:
			
		

> It's not about knowing the difference, and arming with knowledge does work, but only so far. Sure, your 13 yr old knows the difference, but when pressure is on, will that stop her from giving in?


You're right lets not take any chances.....trampling the rights of everyone else is the way to go. 

 An actual Parent who actually raises their kids hands on and doesn't b!tch and moan for the government to Ban and outlaw things will know the answer like Rose did. Here is something that might blow your mind. Parents can actually raise children that make the right choices _*FOR THEMSELVES*_ and there is no need for the government to get involved. Guess what? When it is done this way the rest of our rights are not stepped on.  I am sorry that lil Billy in Some Town, USA has horrible parents who let him run around *unsupervised *and he wanders into some 7-11 selling candy in the shape of MJ leaves....but maybe I want to buy that candy at that 7-11. Go find lil Billy's degenerate parents and do something with them instead of taking away the rights of other citizens.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Glad you jumped in Ston, but what makes you think I haven't already had several talks with my kids? I wouldn't need a bag of candy to break the ice, I'm much more proactive than that!

Tell me this, did you listen to your parents? Never tried any drugs, never drank?


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Hamster Lewis said:
			
		

> Thank you for making sense Rose....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Hammy, guess you can't read, really thought you were more capable than that. Sad, really sad...


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Now, I'll make it clear as I had said before, no this isn't a huge deal. Not the end of the world, no biggie at all, really. It's sad some would do this and even sadder yet they'd market this way (I'm beginning to think it's more to target the smoker who is gullible enough to believe buying a bag is in some way going to promote legalization LMAO).
> 
> I would, as I said, complain to the store, let my friends with small kids know and would tell my own not to go to that store. I'd be a parent and lead by example, not complain it were there and then ignore it as if it'll go away on it's own. I'd also speak to my kids should the topic come up. And no, it wouldn't be the candy of choice at my house come Halloween...unless we were having an adult party and they were made with special ingredients
> 
> None of this would include govt anything, btw




Hammy, where am I trampling any rights? Can you point even ONE out to me??? PLEASE????

I'd say you're trying to keep this govt thing up to get under my skin, I'd have to believe this because the other reason...well, I have to believe you're smarter than that.

Don't stop with this post, by all means, read ALL of my posts. Tell me, where have I said I was going to try to shut down any stores, go to my local govt and demand change or ANYTHING of this nature....I DEFY YOU, my friend.

Oh, but that'd mean reading....now wouldn't it?


----------



## ston-loc (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Glad you jumped in Ston, but what makes you think I haven't already had several talks with my kids? I wouldn't need a bag of candy to break the ice, I'm much more proactive than that!
> 
> Tell me this, did you listen to your parents? Never tried any drugs, never drank?



I wasn't attacking you by the way, just posting my thoughts and questions. 

Glad you have talked to them then. (*edit-pending what you said, haha*) I don't see what the point of all this is then.  What negatives will a package with mj leaves on them have with those children then?

And to answer your question, My parents were the "DONT DONT DONT, this is wrong, that is wrong, DONT DONT DONT"  I sure as hell did everything and anything under the sun. That's the difference. I will talk to my girls in a few years once they're old enough and tell them my true feeling on all of that. AND WHY! Not just "DONT, IT'S WRONG", but what can happen with things, what's happend to me with things growing up. And for one, I don't think mj is wrong. I don't want my young child smoking it, but once they hit an age that my opinion doesn't matter. They will atleast know my take, and have as much guidance as I could give them before they make that decision.


----------



## SmokinMom (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy, I applaud you.  While I don't feel as strongly as you do, nor am I as passionate as you are, good for you for sticking up for something you believe so strongly in.
--
This candy sounds like more of a novelty item- one that would be sold up by the register along with the fake roses, female arousel pills, and cheap sunglasses inside inner city convinience stores and dirty gas stations.  The kind of places I prefer not to bring my kids into unless I really have to.  Mainly because I don't feel much like answering a million questions about what those things are for.  Thank goodness for Pay At The Pump!!

I don't see how a candy has anything to do with marijuana awareness at all.  To me, unless its chocolate or breath mints, every other sugary concoction in a wrapper really is geared towards kids.  Especially one with a cartoon on the front.  

Sure, I had candy cigarettes too as a kid.  Were cigarettes illegal?  Nope.  But yes, I was indeed under age.  I also enjoyed IBC Rootbeer like many kids, it looks like drinking the real thing.  And Big League Chew, the grape kind...mm mmm mmm.  None of those I remember causing a stir. I did end up partaking in all of the real equivilents as a teenager though.  Even the chew- yuck!

I don't understand how poor parenting comes into the equasion at all...???  Anyone hear of mass media?  It's media that influences kids the most these days, regardless of what the parent tries to do, or not do.  

Now I havent taken the time to fully read this thread- there's a ballgame on that has my attention.  My reply is written in haste and I may have to come back to clarify later.  But I'm not big on this candy if sold at stores where children frequent.  I would find it cool in adult novelty stores however and would probably buy it as a gag gift.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

SmokinMom said:
			
		

> But I'm not big on this candy if sold at stores where children frequent.  I would find it cool in adult novelty stores however and would probably buy it as a gag gift.



I believe you and I think much alike!


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

ston-loc said:
			
		

> I wasn't attacking you by the way, just posting my thoughts and questions.
> 
> Glad you have talked to them then. (*edit-pending what you said, haha*) I don't see what the point of all this is then.  What negatives will a package with mj leaves on them have with those children then?
> 
> And to answer your question, My parents were the "DONT DONT DONT, this is wrong, that is wrong, DONT DONT DONT"  I sure as hell did everything and anything under the sun. That's the difference. I will talk to my girls in a few years once they're old enough and tell them my true feeling on all of that. AND WHY! Not just "DONT, IT'S WRONG", but what can happen with things, what's happend to me with things growing up. And for one, I don't think mj is wrong. I don't want my young child smoking it, but once they hit an age that my opinion doesn't matter. They will atleast know my take, and have as much guidance as I could give them before they make that decision.



I know you weren't, my friend, sorry if I came across harshly!


----------



## SmokinMom (Oct 11, 2011)

Ok, I skimmed the original post and the name of the candy is The "Pothead Ring Pots,"  or "Pothead Lollipops".

Do you think many folks will take the name Pothead seriously?  This will have no effect on the legalization of marijuana and could end up being very counterproductive in the cause.  I, personally, don't appreciate being labeled a "pothead" by society.


----------



## Locked (Oct 11, 2011)

SmokinMom said:
			
		

> Ok, I skimmed the original post and the name of the candy is The "Pothead Ring Pots,"  or "Pothead Lollipops".
> 
> Do you think many folks will take the name Pothead seriously?  This will have no effect on the legalization of marijuana and could end up being very counterproductive in the cause.  I, personally, don't appreciate being labeled a "pothead" by society.




And that's your right......just don't go asking the government to ban them because *you* don't like being labeled a pot head. That is the whole point to all of this....*individual* rights. 

For the record I cld care less if this helps or hurts " the cause". I do care and I served my country for the rights of individuals to decide things for themselves without the will of others being imposed on them through the government. 
If you don't like or approve of the candy don't buy it or let your kids buy it...yes, you as the parent have that power.  That's *your choice*...don't make mine for me....I got it and I will make it myself thanks.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

SmokinMom said:
			
		

> Ok, I skimmed the original post and the name of the candy is The "Pothead Ring Pots,"  or "Pothead Lollipops".
> 
> Do you think many folks will take the name Pothead seriously?  This will have no effect on the legalization of marijuana and could end up being very counterproductive in the cause.  I, personally, don't appreciate being labeled a "pothead" by society.



You are absolutely right on that, even the name of the candy is offensive! 

No, the legalize is merely a marketing ploy, and a good one. Some people will try to make a buck off anything, I still remember the 9/11 tribute items people tried to pass off. Worse yet, some actually buy in.


----------



## SmokinMom (Oct 11, 2011)

Yes, I agree hammy.  But I still don't have to like it.  Am I going to boycott, or take away the rights of others to be able to buy this product?  Of course not.

Luckily, I see this candy as a fad that will quickly phase out and be forgotten after the hoopla wears off...or wind up strictly in those adult novelty stores.  I'll buy a pack then.  

I am curious though, if anyone finds the name pothead derogatory, or if it's just me.  When it comes to legalization, I think we'd have better luck with words that shed a more positive light...


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Imagine your 13 or so child (let's say a girl for this case) is with friends, they see a bag of this candy and think it's funny so they buy. As they're sharing, a kid comes up and says he has the real mccoy, why play with the kid stuff. Kid pressure pushes and it leads to.....


 

I was the 13 year old kid with the weed....no really.
Started puffin' tough then, that was bad?


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 11, 2011)

Hi SM!


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

NorCalHal said:
			
		

> I was the 13 year old kid with the weed....no really.
> Started puffin' tough then, that was bad?



Oh, you're one of "those guys" are you?


----------



## SmokinMom (Oct 11, 2011)

NorCalHal said:
			
		

> Hi SM!



Hey stranger :hubba: How r u.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

I love those eyes, SM...smokin!


----------



## Locked (Oct 11, 2011)

I actually didn't like to smoke MJ much when I was younger....tried it a cpl times around 14 and it didn't fit my lifestyle at the time...the stuff i tried back then made me sleepy and lethargic and I was either on a baseball field, basketball court or hockey ring for most of my youth. I wld play basketball from 8 am till curfew on the weekendsin the late summer early fall.  I made a choice that MJ didn't fit my life at that time....and I wld like to think that my parents helped me make that choice by being a parent to me and not waiting for someone or something else to do it for them.


----------



## SmokinMom (Oct 11, 2011)

I think that's great that you enjoyed athletics HL, you seemed to be a pretty good kid who did a little experimenting.  Was it all necessarily good parenting?  
I'd like to think my dad did a good job with me as well, even if I followed a different path.  

One thing I will say, if my kids follow my path, they won't get away with it as easily as I already know all the tricks.  :giggle:


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Well Hammy, guess you can't read, really thought you were more capable than that. Sad, really sad...



 Is this your type sarcasm arriving to the thread, Roddy?


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

Dang better remove all those lighters they have at convenient stores and gas stations too and have that talk with the kids about playing with fire and doing drugs because they can be used for many purposes.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Is this your type sarcasm arriving to the thread, Roddy?


 
No, that would be the truth. And yes, it truly is sad.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Dang better remove all those lighters they have at convenient stores and gas stations too and have that talk with the kids about playing with fire and doing drugs because they can be used for many purposes.



Around here, they don't sell lighters to kids...not sure the age they start selling to them though.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 11, 2011)

SmokinMom said:
			
		

> I think that's great that you enjoyed athletics HL, you seemed to be a pretty good kid who did a little experimenting.  Was it all necessarily good parenting?
> I'd like to think my dad did a good job with me as well, even if I followed a different path.
> 
> One thing I will say, if my kids follow my path, they won't get away with it as easily as I already know all the tricks.  :giggle:



That's a fact, mine can't figure out how I know what's going on all the time!


----------



## pcduck (Oct 11, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Around here, they don't sell lighters to kids...not sure the age they start selling to them though.



Don't they have lighters in your state? Maybe some with Marijuana leaves on them? Could it be possible that  Lil Rod may ask why people need lighters and what is that pretty flower? And why so many? What do they use them for?

Just saying :ignore: better get them off the shelves too, will save a lot of explaining.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

My oh my, has this thread taken off in the last few hours!



> Why is it I say something about speaking out about a store selling candy and you keep coming back to govt?? Do you realize only you and a few others keep bringing them into this whole convo, NOT ME???



"...An irate parent brought the candy to Pridgen's attention, hoping the city could apply pressure and get it out of stores..."

This is why he keeps bringing it up time and again, and he's valid for doing so, in my opinion. His original point was that this parent is lashing out to he government for aid in violating other peoples' rights. Perhaps you should consider that viewpoint. That is how debating works. You don't consider the other side's point of view, then, quite simply, you're just arguing, not debating. Consider and retort. You don't seem to consider the fact that not having the candy available for sale, if someone wanted to buy it - because a person with a child who wants to be protective of their child and other people's as well, I'm sure - is a violation of their right to purchase that candy from the store that stocks it. Just because one group doesn't agree with something doesn't mean they automatically get their way. Call me crazy, but I don't see how other peoples' rights being stripped away , because someone found it illicit that pothead candy was on the same shelf next to the mike and ike's, doesn't directly have anything to do with the store selling the candy.




> My thirteen year old daughter knows the difference between candy and pot. All you can do is arm your children with knowledge. It works.


I'm with Rosebud on this. A piece of candy is not going to make a kid decide to try to smoke pot. I didn't smoke pot until I was 22 years old. I didn't drink until I was 18, and even then, I only drank 3 times between 18 and 21.




> Hammy, where am I trampling any rights? Can you point even ONE out to me??? PLEASE????


I'll bite. Boycotting is a way of protesting against something that will ultimately yield one of two results: Shutting down the store due to lack of profit, or removing said issue from presence and maintaining business levels. By boycotting the store (telling your neighbor's with young children not to shop there, etc etc) you are promoting the shutting down of the business, and "trampling on the rights" of those who use that store and don't care whether or not it sells the candy in the name of preservation of your own moral standard.

Again, he's not keeping it up to get under your skin, he's keeping it up because he has a valid point with it.



> I don't see how a candy has anything to do with marijuana awareness at all. To me, unless its chocolate or breath mints, every other sugary concoction in a wrapper really is geared towards kids. Especially one with a cartoon on the front.


With all due respect, I don't suspect that you know much about marketing. As I said earlier, youthfulness is attractive. It is widely used in marketing products to those in older generations who want to feel young again. Young people don't generally experience chronic pain that older people do, therefore I find it suiting that a young cartoon stoner is on the front of this package. I also disagree that candy that is not chocolate or breathmints is geared toward children. I love fruity and sour candies. I'm 26 years old. I have customers at work in their late 50s up into their 80's who come in and consistently purchase life savers, mike and ikes, peach rings, etc etc. So I can't agree with you on that, either.



> I don't understand how poor parenting comes into the equasion at all...??? Anyone hear of mass media? It's media that influences kids the most these days, regardless of what the parent tries to do, or not do.


A good parent controls what media their child is subject to. A good parent knows what their kid is ingesting, and a good parent KNOWS when their child is partaking in illicit activities that they should not be. You don't trust your children until they give you a reason to as they get older. It's earned, not given away. Atleast in my household.



> Now I havent taken the time to fully read this thread- there's a ballgame on that has my attention. My reply is written in haste and I may have to come back to clarify later.


The previous reply to your quote... some of that is covered earlier in the thread. I do urge you read this thread in full... It is quite simply intriguing to say the least, though it has seemed to get a little heated.



> Do you think many folks will take the name Pothead seriously? This will have no effect on the legalization of marijuana and could end up being very counterproductive in the cause. I, personally, don't appreciate being labeled a "pothead" by society.





> You are absolutely right on that, even the name of the candy is offensive!



Why are you guys so offended at being called a Pothead? For the same reason black people get angry when they are called the "N" word ( look up Louis CK's opinion on that term @ Youtube if you can handle mature comedy ), basically? Because the term has been associated with drug use for several decades. I am a pothead. I smoke marijuana frequently. This is, by definition, what a pothead is. Why get angry at someone who calls a brown cow brown? Would you rather be called a "Ganja Connoisseur"? You can stick a flower in a pile of dung but it's still going to be a pile of dung. The term has a negative connotation... I get it. So does the the N Word. It's all in the past, though... let it go! Embrace your Potheadery!



Just my thoughts on the recent developments in the thread. Happy tokin' ladies an gentlemen!



-nasty


----------



## SmokinMom (Oct 12, 2011)

Its unrealistic to think we can fully control what media our children are exposed to.  It's everywhere, whether we like it or not.  As much as I wish I could, it would be futile.

As far as the term pothead goes, I can't really see lawmakers successfully lobbying for us and being taken seriously in Washington (or wherever) by using the term pothead.  But hey, if you can, cool.  I wouldn't necessarily say I'm offended by the term, I just don't appreciate being stereo-typed as such by non*-*users.  I can't openly embrace any "potheadery", I have a reputation and family to protect.  It's a part of my good parenting.

Is my child going to smoke pot because of a piece of candy?  No.  
Will my child get into porn from seeing Playboys on the back of store shelves? No. Well, who knows.  I guess it's their decision to make when they get older.

But for now, I still don't have to like it.

Guess we can all agree to disagree on that, can't we.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 12, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Don't they have lighters in your state? Maybe some with Marijuana leaves on them? Could it be possible that  Lil Rod may ask why people need lighters and what is that pretty flower? And why so many? What do they use them for?
> 
> Just saying :ignore: better get them off the shelves too, will save a lot of explaining.



Lil Roddy? Are you another in here I need to ignore? Maybe the grown up conversations are too much for you? Act like an adult for crying out loud, not some kid playing games. If you have no better argument than to act childish, why bother?


----------



## Roddy (Oct 12, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> My oh my, has this thread taken off in the last few hours!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Nasty, not one time did he comment to the post, ALWAYS posting my comments and then sticking his govt jabs in. Not only in this thread but another....no, that's not why! The other side's view is to ignore and pretend it's not a problem...and it may not be for them. The other side has resorted to childish games. Given what I said I wold do all along, still told I'm a bad person for it....ok. 

*You don't seem to consider the fact that not having the candy available for sale, if someone wanted to buy it - because a person with a child who wants to be protective of their child and other people's as well, I'm sure - is a violation of their right to purchase that candy from the store that stocks it.*

oh please. It's not a constitutional right to buy candy, my friend. However, it is in the 2nd Amendment that I can complain about said candy. 

*I'll bite. Boycotting is a way of protesting against something that will ultimately yield one of two results: Shutting down the store due to lack of profit, or removing said issue from presence and maintaining business levels. By boycotting the store (telling your neighbor's with young children not to shop there, etc etc) you are promoting the shutting down of the business, and "trampling on the rights" of those who use that store and don't care whether or not it sells the candy in the name of preservation of your own moral standard.*

Really? I can shut a whole store down by not buying from them?? NICE! So if I and a few of my friends decide not to buy from the store, they go under...were we their only customers or do we have mind control over the rest of the community? :rofl: Now, IF the rest of the community agrees and stops buying as well, does that mean we're all wrong...or did the public speak? Trampling of rights? Are you serious?? So, the right to be a store owner trumps free speech? Better check that 2nd Amendment again, my friend! 

*With all due respect, I don't suspect that you know much about marketing. As I said earlier, youthfulness is attractive. It is widely used in marketing products to those in older generations who want to feel young again. *

Youthfullness is an attractant? Maybe they should have put a baby on the front then? :rofl: Yes, it's an attractant when targeting KIDS! If you truly believe this part, I suggest you also are a bit out of the loop when it comes to marketing. If this comment were true, we'd see nothing but kids and teens in every single advertisement out there....or maybe the rest of the world needs to catch up to these marketing ploys...why don't we see viagra advertised by Doogie Howser? btw, I've been a business owner long than you've been alive.

*A good parent controls what media their child is subject to. A good parent knows what their kid is ingesting, and a good parent KNOWS when their child is partaking in illicit activities that they should not be. You don't trust your children until they give you a reason to as they get older. It's earned, not given away. Atleast in my household.*

Are you a parent? If so, how old are they?? Hey, I bet you were a kid once, can you tell me your parents knew exactly what you ate, when you ate it, what you watched, did and thought? Also, you're tell me your kids are liars and not to be trusted until older? I've been a parent longer than you've been an adult, my friend.....

*Why are you guys so offended at being called a Pothead? For the same reason black people get angry when they are called the "N" word ( look up Louis CK's opinion on that term @ Youtube if you can handle mature comedy ), basically?* 

WOW


----------



## pcduck (Oct 12, 2011)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Well Hammy, guess you can't read, really thought you were more capable than that. Sad, really sad...



This is where the convo went south




> ......Maybe the grown up  conversations are too much for you? Act like an adult for crying out  loud, not some kid playing games. If you have no better argument than to  act childish, why bother?



Maybe you should follow your own advice. Just saying


----------



## Roddy (Oct 12, 2011)

Um no pc, it went south from Hammy's continual govt B S.... I treat others as am treated, if you like me playing nice, try it yourself. Simple. And that is simple truth, Hammy either couldn't bother to read or just ignored and injected his own B S as he pleased.


----------



## pcduck (Oct 12, 2011)

nothing wrong with different opinions.
but yours was not an opinion


http://www.marijuanapassion.com/Site_Rules.html



> 2. Flaming, or open argument including, but not limited to using derogatory names toward another member, degrading comments, racial insults and sexist comments are not acceptable for use anywhere in the open forums.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 12, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> nothing wrong with different opinions.
> but yours was not an opinion
> 
> 
> http://www.marijuanapassion.com/Site_Rules.html



If the truth hurts, ban me....

You here to merely argue and flame or we gonna talk the subject? btw, you may want to look back at your comments before telling me about the rules


----------



## pcduck (Oct 12, 2011)

> If the truth hurts,



You know that what you said was not the truth so what was it?

 Where have I argued or flamed you?  I am done with you...You want everyone but you to have to follow the rules here.


----------



## Roddy (Oct 12, 2011)

hmmm...were you not the one with the "lil Rod" comment?? 

Glad we could converse this morning pc, have a good one


----------



## pcduck (Oct 12, 2011)

great answer:rofl:



Now how about answering the question?
And what would you prefer me to call your little kids?


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

Smokin Mom,

I don't think it's unrealistic. Yes, the media is everywhere, but so are children when theyre with their parents. We have family filters on numerous technological products to prevent our children from viewing certain things. I can filter out any and all pornographic or non rated G material from my internet connection, television, etc. I can control what music CD's my child purchases. I can control what magazines they read, so on and so forth. We let our children grow up without any control in their lives, and we get a society like we have today, full of arrogant know-it-all youth that want to sag their britches down to their knee caps and spit ebonics and other slang at anybody they see. Yes, not all children are like this, but I doubt the one's with supervised structure in their life turned out this way. I didn't.

In regards to the potheads comments, I can't see them being successful either, using the term. Not with its negative connotation throughout the better part of 80-90 years. The image would have to be turned around. That's not the point I was addressing, though. My point is, as Potheads, we shouldn't be offended when someone calls us one. We are potheads. We smoke pot frequently. Why deny what we are because society has applied a negative connotation to it? And you most certainly can embrace your potheadery... embracing it doesn't mean that you dress like a hippie with a blunt tucked in behind your ear, smoke it around your children, etc etc. It merely means accepting that you are, indeed, a Pothea; in our community, it doesn't have that negative connotative that society has applied to the word.

And yes, we can agree to disagree on that point, SM... something some users seem to have difficulty doing!



Roddy-

Maybe he didn't, but I did. I saw your point and addressed it. He has the right not to do so if he so chooses. That's part of debating. Of course that route will generally bring you into a loss. I find that, in debating, addressing all points whether your argument is weak or not, will yield better results and generate better respect for your ideology by those who share it. Nobody wants a fool supporting their cause. not saying you're a fool Hammy, just making a general statement about not addressing every point in a debate.

No, it's not a constitutional right to buy candy. It's a constitutional right for the store owner to be able to carry the candy if they want to, and market it how they see fit as it is not regulated by the government like pornographic material, alcohol, and cigarettes are. Socialstic and dictatorship governments could straight up tell the store owner that he's not allowed to have the product in his store, and he has to get rid of it or face persecution, whereas it cannot be done under our loosely-democratic government. It's my right to be able to walk into that store and buy that product if that's what I want to do. Whether that product is candy, Kleenex, or a gun. Our constitution gives us that right. Let's not twist words around, my friend; afterall, This isn't politics. 

Yes, you can shut a whole store down by Boycotting them. GM had to shut down a lot of plants in the last decade because of Christian activists in the US and abroad boycotted their support of homosexual marriages. No, they didnt have to shut down, but these stores are on a much smaller financial scale than what GM is, and you could most certainly drive them out of your own, if not shut them down completely (assuming its a mom and pop store without moral values [they do exist]). I'm sayingi f you have enough support from your peers, you can shut them down. That doesn't mean that you're controlling the minds of the rest of your community. It means that you are persuading enough people with your argument to interfere with the business levels the store experiences, pressuring them into getting rid of the product from their shelves, or moving it to a different location in the store. And no, the right being a store owner does not political name free speech, but using one right to walk on someone else's right is the same as trampling on someone's rights.

Yes, youthfulness is an attractant. Go google it. Go look at make-up advertisements, skin care advertisements, etc. The only products you will find that are appear to be marketed explicitly toward the elder generations, are products specifically used by them: Adult Diapers, for instance. Not saying there aren't men and women in their 30s or 40s that don't use them. Hell, it's even been an orgoing to debate behind the ethics of marketing; it's a fixation we share in our society and people jump all over it. Just saying, Poise understands that older people more frequently use their adult underwear, and as such, target them specifically. Other products, like make up and skin care, can apply to all races and ages, and as such use younger models in marketing their products. You may be a bit more enlightened than the next guy... hell, they might even be a bit more enlightened than even you! But the majority of our nation is filled with ignorance. Not many people understand marketing; more accurately, they probably don't care.

You can stop being sarcastic. I haven't been sarcastic with you. you're trying to use it as a tool to bring down the validity of my statements, because you don't think they're accurate. I'm not doing that to you, and I share the same thinking in retort. Putting a baby on the front? Come on now, man... what an absurd suggestion. I said youthfulness. Not infantness. Do you think kids are interested in being kids? No, they're kids because they're kids. The older they get, the more they wish they were adults. How many times do we see kids who are too eager to grow up and get older and then wish they had those youthful, worry-free years back, when they get older? The only advertisements you see kids participating in, are the ones geared toward kids. Your idea that we'd be seeing more kids and teens in advertisementa is preposterous. Kids and teens aren't the only one who are young. Hell, I know people who've had modeling careers well into their late 30's and early 40's because of their youthful appearance. We can argue the condition of youthfulness in advertising all we want; bottomline is, it has little to do with point in the arguement we have now reached; that being parents using the government as a buffer to what their children are subject to in their community, rather than doing the parenting themselves. You don't see Viagra being touted by Neil Patrick Harris, because he is not old. Most young people don't need viagra. What sense would it make to have him hock the product? But let me ask you this, the older people that appear in those commercials... are they 80 and wrinkled all over? Or do they have few wrinkles, and appear younger than they actually are? That's what I'm getting at when I say youthfulness. It some to do with age, but to say that youthfulness is directly impacted by age, is way off the mark. I will say, though, that I've had 3 years of post-secondary marketing courses during my secondary education, and have since backed it with certifications. Call me out of the loop if you want, though I believe I'm more in the loop than either of you are.

We won't talk about my childhood. I did not have parents who supervised me closely. I don't consider my parents to have been proactive in raising me. Yes, I turned out fine, but most of the time that is not the case. I lucked out in that I was the quiet kid growing up, and as such wasn't invited to tag along to the events other kids were going to. I watched them get in trouble due to not being supervised, and learned from their mistakes.

In short, no I don't have children, but I have a ton of close experience with raising and caring for children over the course of the last few years. I raised my ex's child for her, basically, because she didn't know how to do it. I turned her attitude around from being a snotty little brat, to becoming in angel. While she was busy playing video games and ignoring her kid, I was playing with her, answering her 400 million questions, and teaching her right from wrong, and why. The process took a couple years, but I proved my methods worked on her, and other children I have baby sat for extended periods of time for my friends, as I have free reign over disciplining them as I see fit. I regularly babysit for friends and family alike, because they know their children will be taken care of, and won't come home acting like roughians, nor will they be abused.

But no, I do not have any children of my own. In answer to your other question, no, my parents didnt know exactly what I ate, when I ate it, what I watched and did. Nobody can control what people think, only instill the right thinking patterns in those children. If my parents had, I wouldn't have turned out to be a cynical a-hole with no respect for my elders BECAUSe they are my elders, and I most certainly would not be overweight. It's just my belief that you earn respect... you aren't entitled to it because you're older than me. I probably wouldn't have been obese throughout my teenage years, had healthy eating habits been instilled in me during my youth, and I would most likely have taken them into adulthood. I have since readjusted my eating habits, and have been enjoying a much healthier lifestyle; one I wish my parents would have taught me when I was younger, instead of letting me eat all the junkfood and candy that I wanted to, and letting me eat a large snack right before bed every night. For this reason, I am very strongly for proactive parenting.

---to be continued... apparently my post is too long by 737 characters---
***Edited for language. Sorry.. told you I tend to lean toweard the profane and provocative.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

---continued---

And no, I'm not telling you that my kids, or anybody else's kids, are liars. I'm saying they will be deceitful to obtain their desires, if they are opposed. That, my friend, is human nature. As we got older, we made the decision that deceitfulness was not going to be apart of our personality or lifestyle, and we make an effort not to be deceitful. Kids don't have this in their head, unless it's put in their head at a young age, and the thought is nurtured. A 6 year old can be taught what deceitfulness is and that we shouldn't be, but unless the parent maintains the development of that idea, the child could very well turn into a deceitful little turd into his teens (ie, engaging in and hiding drug use from their parents, engaging in other illicit activities because they think their parents will never find out, etc.) If deceit weren't human nature, it wouldn't be so prevalent in our society and abroad.

Wow all you want at my comment. You're viewing the word in a derogatory manner. The correlation stands.


-nasty


----------



## ston-loc (Oct 12, 2011)

Rod, pc said "lil rod" asking if your KID saw a lighter, etc etc. Wasn't talking down to you. Was asking a question... Re read it.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

ston-loc said:
			
		

> Rod, pc said "lil rod" asking if your KID saw a lighter, etc etc. Wasn't talking down to you. Was asking a question... Re read it.


^rep  Ty, I forgot to address that. He doesn't know your kid's name, but he knows you. Hence, "lil rod."


-nasty


----------



## dman1234 (Oct 12, 2011)

You guys wouldnt believe your eyes if you went to a corner store here, i cant speak for the rest of Canada but here in Ontario Corner stores or Convienience stores, have all the shelves behind the counters filled with pipes, bongs and all the accessories you can think of, i bought a 30 inch glass double bubbler with ice chamber for 60 bucks, although it is odd to stand in line with your bong while the guy ahead of you is buying milk.

Here in Ontario a law was pasted about 2 years ago banning ciggerettes from being visible to minors in the stores, they all have to be behind cupboard doors or in drawers.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

dman1234 said:
			
		

> You guys wouldnt believe your eyes if you went to a corner store here, i cant speak for the rest of Canada but here in Ontario Corner stores or Convienience stores, have all the shelves behind the counters filled with pipes, bongs and all the accessories you can think of, i bought a 30 inch glass double bubbler with ice chamber for 60 bucks, although it is odd to stand in line with your bong while the guy ahead of you is buying milk.
> 
> Here in Ontario a law was pasted about 2 years ago banning ciggerettes from being visible to minors in the stores, they all have to be behind cupboard doors or in drawers.


LOL! What a hilarious scenario! I imagine you'd probably get some dirty looks from some of their customers who do not partake! As for my area, I have access to 4 or 5 local head shops... these are stores that specifically sell items for smoking, whether it be tobacco or marijuana... but in my state, we do not have legalized MMJ, though we are jogging for it in 2012, so these shops advertise their bongs, water pipes, bowls, etc, as for tobacco use only, to keep things legal. Likewise, we also have gas stations who sell some of these products, and I'm seeing them show up more and more at other gas stations. Hell, 2 of them down one side of the road, and 1 down the other side of the road, are carring the stuff now, along with the "legal marijuana" products like K3, Mr. niceguy, FunkyMonkey, etc. Speedway isn't carrying them, though. I reckon it's because Speedway has more income and a larger consumer base than these other two FRANCHISE gas stations have. One is BP, the other is Shell. Down the other side of the road, it's a Marathon station.

In regards to the cigarette thing... I really just have to laugh at that. Not disrespectfully or anything; Lord knows I love our neighbors to the north with their foxy ladies and uncultivatated scenery (let's face it, you guys have more of it than we do). I just have to laugh because, in my opinion, children aren't going to try cigarettes because they can see them. They try cigarettes due to peer pressure, amongst other things. "Hey, there's  a cigarette, let's try it!" just doesn't happen very often, I'd think. It's more so, "Hey, I swiped this from my old man, you wanna try it?" But I do see how it could be used in a preventative measure to prevent the theft of cigarettes by minors, too.


-nasty


----------



## dman1234 (Oct 12, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> LOL! What a hilarious scenario! I imagine you'd probably get some dirty looks from some of their customers who do not partake! As for my area, I have access to 4 or 5 local head shops... these are stores that specifically sell items for smoking, whether it be tobacco or marijuana... but in my state, we do not have legalized MMJ, though we are jogging for it in 2012, so these shops advertise their bongs, water pipes, bowls, etc, as for tobacco use only, to keep things legal. Likewise, we also have gas stations who sell some of these products, and I'm seeing them show up more and more at other gas stations. Hell, 2 of them down one side of the road, and 1 down the other side of the road, are carring the stuff now, along with the "legal marijuana" products like K3, Mr. niceguy, FunkyMonkey, etc. Speedway isn't carrying them, though. I reckon it's because Speedway has more income and a larger consumer base than these other two FRANCHISE gas stations have. One is BP, the other is Shell. Down the other side of the road, it's a Marathon station.
> 
> In regards to the cigarette thing... I really just have to laugh at that. Not disrespectfully or anything; Lord knows I love our neighbors to the north with their foxy ladies and uncultivatated scenery (let's face it, you guys have more of it than we do). I just have to laugh because, in my opinion, children aren't going to try cigarettes because they can see them. They try cigarettes due to peer pressure, amongst other things. "Hey, there's a cigarette, let's try it!" just doesn't happen very often, I'd think. It's more so, "Hey, I swiped this from my old man, you wanna try it?" But I do see how it could be used in a preventative measure to prevent the theft of cigarettes by minors, too.
> 
> ...


 
yeah i dont know how much hiding the ciggs helps, but all forms of tobacco advertisement are banned here in Ontario.

Here is one for you, in Ontario it is illegal to smoke a ciggerette in a vehicle with someone under the age of 16, if caught $125 fine.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

I guess that's one of the differences between the US and Canada.  I'm not pulling over every hour so I can step outside along the highway and smoke a cigarette. That's just absurd, imho. 



-nasty


----------



## Rosebud (Oct 12, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> I guess that's one of the differences between the US and Canada.  I'm not pulling over every hour so I can step outside along the highway and smoke a cigarette. That's just absurd, imho.
> 
> 
> 
> -nasty



It is not absurd if the person beside you is allergic or has asthma.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

If that person is allergic or has astham, chances are they aren't going to be riding in my vehicle. Just saying.

I want to edit this and also state that, I, personally, do not carpool with non smokers. I believe I should have the freedom to smoke anywhere I so choose. However, another person's right to not have to take in the second hand smoke exists and clashes with my right to smoke, so laws are being put in place that no longer give me that freedom, because health is an important issue in our society and in our government. So, since studies have proven that cigarette smoke is toxic and carries with it carcinogens, the government is supressing one side's rights by imposing those laws... atleast in my eyes. I have the right to smoke, but I, technically, do not have the right to smoke wherever I so choose.

Having said this, I will say that I am respectful of others' preferences in addition to my own. Yes, in real life, I'm somewhat of a di*khead, and don't respect many people until they've earned it, but if I were a nonsmoker, I wouldn't want to have to breathe in someone else's smoke, simply because it's their right to smoke it. So, taking that into account, I don't smoke around nonsmokers, or if I'm going to, I ask if it's okay first.

-nasty


----------



## dman1234 (Oct 12, 2011)

It became law in 2009 and there was a minor fuss and now its just the norm, 

it is simply intended to protect the health of a minor that may not normally have any say in the matter, i have a hard time finding fault in that.

Sorry didnt mean to hijack the thread.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

Hey, it's cool, man. IMO the thread needed to be hijacked. We're all frolicing around in circles with this debate, I think. Can't fault that law, either. Though I wouldn't follow it. Don't really need to worry about it though, as I don't hang out with anyone who is younger than 18 anymore.  It's just a safe practice to get into.


-nasty


----------



## SmokinMom (Oct 12, 2011)

getnasty said:
			
		

> Smokin Mom,
> 
> I don't think it's unrealistic. Yes, the media is everywhere, but so are children when theyre with their parents. We have family filters on numerous technological products to prevent our children from viewing certain things. I can filter out any and all pornographic or non rated G material from my internet connection, television, etc. I can control what music CD's my child purchases. I can control what magazines they read, so on and so forth. We let our children grow up without any control in their lives, and we get a society like we have today, full of arrogant know-it-all youth that want to sag their britches down to their knee caps and spit ebonics and other slang at anybody they see. Yes, not all children are like this, but I doubt the one's with supervised structure in their life turned out this way. I didn't.
> 
> In regards to the potheads comments, I can't see them being successful either, using the term. Not with its negative connotation throughout the better part of 80-90 years. The image would have to be turned around. That's not the point I was addressing, though.


Some forms of social media and marketing we can't control as parents- adverts on the sides of busses, tshirts random people wear, displays at the mall, in the store, etc.  We are bombarded by media everywhere.  To think we can shelter our kids from it is purely unrealistic.  But ya know, this is kinda way off as far as Joe from Ohio or where ever he is, selling lollipops from his little ma and pa store on the corner.  IMO.

I think you're beginning to understand a little bit about how ridiculous it is to say Pothead lollipops positively advocate for marijuana legalization.  You just said yourself that you can't see it being very successful.  I highly doubt the dude that made the candy really had any desire to raise mj awareness, it was simply a cop out.  It's fine by me, he can do what he wants, I'm just saying the comment was a bunch of **, and scratching my head at folks who took that comment he said as serious.  Of course I know I'm a stoner, a pothead or whatever phrase you'd like to use.  I just don't want to be labeled a menace to society by ignorant folks who are unaware of the wonderful benefits of mj.  You're young still, and haven't started a family yet.  Your stance on this might change in the future.  Time will tell I guess.

As far as smoking rights go- the kids have rights too.  They just can't speak up for themselves so we have to do it for them.  

It does suck when I see it go to the extreme.  Listen to this- a major healthcare company in my city now gives blood tests that not only check for drugs but for tobacco as well and won't hire you if you fail.  The tobacco test only applies for new hires.  They don't care if existing employees smoke as long as it's not on company grounds and you don't come in smelling of cigarette smoke.  This really pi$$ed me off actually, as I felt violated and I quit smoking 14 yrs ago.

I am glad there's a lot of places that are smoke-free.  I don't have to see all the nasty cigarette butts on the ground, most bars I can go to and not come out smelling like an ash tray, and I can take my kids to most restaurants and know they aren't exposed.

But do I get freaked if they do get exposed on occassion?  Nah, they're healthy, I'm pretty damn lucky.


----------



## getnasty (Oct 12, 2011)

SmokinMom said:
			
		

> Some forms of social media and marketing we can't control as parents- adverts on the sides of busses, tshirts random people wear, displays at the mall, in the store, etc. We are bombarded by media everywhere. To think we can shelter our kids from it is purely unrealistic. But ya know, this is kinda way off as far as Joe from Ohio or where ever he is, selling lollipops from his little ma and pa store on the corner. IMO.


 
You're right, but it's our job as parents to rectify those things. If we, as parents, know that these things are going on, which we should, they should be addressed on the spot, so our kids know that we do not approve.



			
				SmokinMom said:
			
		

> I think you're beginning to understand a little bit about how ridiculous it is to say Pothead lollipops positively advocate for marijuana legalization. You just said yourself that you can't see it being very successful. I highly doubt the dude that made the candy really had any desire to raise mj awareness, it was simply a cop out...


My stance on it will not change in the future. I've thought about it quite a bit growing up. I guess you could say I wasn't a normal teenager growing up. It'd be an accurate statement. I was also well on my way to starting my family when my fiance decided she wasn't happy anymore, and opted to leave me for a 19 year old online gamer... one of her friends she was constantly playing video games with on her xbox. We were soon to be's with her daughter, and one on the way. However, shortly after the miscarriage, she split.

I didn't say that Pothead lollipops, or this candy, is a positive way to campaign for the legalization of marijuana. I said it was an innovative idea, and that I support it. It gets the message out. As far as the guy who made the candy in question, he's a marijuana legalization advocate. The article shows this in plain text. I don't view it as a cop out at all because of this. He manufactures product to sell. That is his career. He also happens to be a marijuana advocate and has chosen to incorporate that advocacy in his company. While it may not be the most effective way to market our campaign, it is certainly serves as a means to bolster our cause. It may not have much effect, sure, but the message is in plain sight: Legalize it.

Also, I said using the label Pothead, with its current negative connotation, would not make it very successful. The reason it's earned it's current connotation is because of people like Cheech and Chong. I can be blazed off my *** and still maintain a professional appearance and demeanor. If everybody "under the influence" were able to do so, the term wouldn't have a negative connotation today. 



> ... a major healthcare company in my city now gives blood tests that not only check for drugs but for tobacco as well and won't hire you if you fail. The tobacco test only applies for new hires. They don't care if existing employees smoke as long as it's not on company grounds and you don't come in smelling of cigarette smoke. This really pi$$ed me off actually, as I felt violated and I quit smoking 14 yrs ago.


That's called discrimination. They can be sued for it on legal grounds. If a company wants to take on that policy, has to be applicable to all employess. The only reason they're asking current employees who smoke to not come into work smelling of it, is because they can't fire them for being smokers. 



> I am glad there's a lot of places that are smoke-free. I don't have to see all the nasty cigarette butts on the ground, most bars I can go to and not come out smelling like an ash tray, and I can take my kids to most restaurants and know they aren't exposed.


Most bars around here don't abide by the laws. They charge for ashtrays so they have funds for fines, or ask you to use empty beer cans.


-nasty


----------



## KBM (Oct 12, 2011)

The same stores sell things like energy drinks to kids were I live which is much worse in my opinion then candy shaped like a pot leaf. I think the fact it contains refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup is much worse to the health of kids then something shaped like a pot leaf.


----------



## Locked (Oct 12, 2011)

KBM said:
			
		

> The same stores sell things like energy drinks to kids were I live which is much worse in my opinion then candy shaped like a pot leaf. I think the fact it contains refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup is much worse to the health of kids then something shaped like a pot leaf.


----------

