Apple now allowing marijuana-themed App Store downloads in 23 US states where drug is legal

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44

    How would Apple reliably determine the location of the user? Determining location by IP address is no longer reliable. I don't recall if location is required info when creating an Apple id (and I'm certain it can be faked). Billing address by credit card isn't a good means to determine the current location of the user. Activation address for an iTunes card wouldn't be accurate either because people can travel.

     

    I see Apple removing this restriction because it really doesn't accomplish anything -- restricting info because the use of something is illegal in that area? It's also technically impossible, circumventable, or potentially inaccurate.

  • Reply 22 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Roake View Post

     

     

    it's not "Cannabis" but rather "Cannabis sativa".  Regardless of what it's called, I wouldn't endorse it.


     

    What about cannabis indica? You don't consider that marijuana? Most people will disagree with you.

  • Reply 23 of 44
    So only 23 states were enough to get acceptance by Apple? That points out an odd contrast.

    Guns, including concealed carry by most adults, are legal in all 50 states, with the few remaining city-level restrictions are rapidly being declared unconstitutional by our courts. Yet Apple has recently moved to ban the appearance of guns on iOS app icons.

    That matters because guns lie at the heart of the rights recognized by the Second Amendment. Events like those in the UK, also demonstrate that when the private ownership of guns is highly restricted or banned, the legal system soon becomes hostile toward most forms of self-defense (i.e. heavy walking sticks). A rapid rise in violent crime soon follows, as only the police and criminals are armed.

    That also raises a question about consistency. Is Apple going to also ban app icons that show books or religious buildings? After all, freedom of press and religion lie at the heart of the First Amendment. If any visual expressions of the Second banned from iOS apps, then why not those of the First?

    Ah, but we should not forget that Apple is not only based in California, it proudly proclaims "Designed in California" (note not "Designed in the USA" in parallel to "Made in China") on its products. Practical experience, good sense, and logic seem to be rapidly deserting that state. That's perhaps why getting stoned matters more the decision makers at Apple than being able to protect your family from killers and rapists.

    And that may also explain why Apple is acting against all good business sense and remaining in California. Leaving coastal California would mean encountering painful realities the company leaders would rather not face.

    Perhaps oddest of all it the attitude so common at Apple that might be called "California Exceptionalism." It's the belief that the state, particular along its coastline, is superior to the rest of the country. Movies and TV shows promoted that idea in the 1960s and 1970s, but that era is long past. Now the state is regarded as the place where bad ideas go to be tried and soon discredited.

    Even California's sunny climate has taken a serious hit. It results in insufficient rainfall that can only partly be compensated for by snowfall in the mountains. With the current drought, that former benefit is rapidly becoming a liability that is made still worse by the state's stubborn refusal to prepare for these inevitable droughts.
  • Reply 24 of 44
    xixoxixo Posts: 422member
    Their logic escapes me. Under [B]federal[/B] law, pot is illegal [B]everywhere[/B]. Is this an acquiescence to "states rights" over federal code?

    And what's next? Will safari block URLs and search terms containing "cannabis" in states where it's illegal?

    Will Siri reply "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"?

    What are they smoking out there in Cupertino?
  • Reply 25 of 44
    Not a single Southern state is listed lol.
  • Reply 26 of 44
    Two references now ... So .... is there some relevance / connection to 'Dr. Dre' and 'selling Cannabis related apps' I am unaware of?

    I'm assuming it's a reference to Dre's album The Chronic.
  • Reply 27 of 44

     

     

  • Reply 28 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cali View Post



    Hmmm did they really need to hire Dr. Dre for this?



    uh...no. but MUCH BETTER than guns!

     

    the marijuana handbook, frweed, leafly, weed maps, and who could forget cheech and chong's "the fatty" (cheech and chong's newest joint venture) and many more were available pre-beats.

     

    and i associate smoking weed with snoop (or willie, depending upon your generation)—not dre as others have suggested. apple should give him an honorary board position just for that.

  • Reply 29 of 44
    Just now downloaded it. Very illegal here.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Not a single Southern state is listed lol.



    how ironic. they're the ones that need it most.

  • Reply 31 of 44
    Not a single Southern state is listed lol.
    Don't want it here. Last thing you want is some idiot lighting up a joint in your trailer - ether and a lit joint don't mix. (they actually do, just not in a good way)
  • Reply 32 of 44
    xixoxixo Posts: 422member
    Don't want it here. Last thing you want is some idiot lighting up a joint in your trailer - ether and a lit joint don't mix. (they actually do, just not in a good way)

    I'm assuming you left off the /s tag.

    Some of the best pot I ever smoked was consumed in a trailer located in a southern state trailer park.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by argonaut View Post



    "Marijuana" , although originally a Mexican folk name historically, became a pejorative term for Cannabis, popularised by the racist publisher William Randolph Hearst and used to demonize Cannabis and its users through his newspapers. The plant is called Cannabis.



    I understand you needed to grab eyeballs with the headline... at least you then use the correct term in the story..

    You must be fun at parties.

  • Reply 34 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Not a single Southern state is listed lol.

    When does the meth lab app come out?

  • Reply 35 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    I found that interesting. That sort of thing has happened many times and happens now with words. The etymology of a word is often well worth knowing for a good understanding of historical and current values thus enabling a better perspective.



    I'm all for the here, now and the future. The past is nothing but trouble. There's probably 1000 words for weed, any one of them will do.

  • Reply 36 of 44
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post



    Well Dr. Dre is on Apple's executive board so this comes with the territory that Apple would be peddling Mary Jane apps.

     

    Oh, do shutup. Not only is every one of your posts trollish, mindless and irrelevant to the thread at hand, every single one is also laced with racism and bigotry. What fascinates me is the tolerance of the mods for your nasty, vile drivel. 

  • Reply 37 of 44
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,379member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by argonaut View Post



    "Marijuana" , although originally a Mexican folk name historically, became a pejorative term for Cannabis, popularised by the racist publisher William Randolph Hearst and used to demonize Cannabis and its users through his newspapers. The plant is called Cannabis.



    I understand you needed to grab eyeballs with the headline... at least you then use the correct term in the story..

     

    Partly right and mostly wrong.  See below.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post



    Who cares


     

    Words and their meanings, connotations and nuances do matter. Ever seen any derisive nicknames for Samsung, Android or Microsoft used for effect on these forums?  Once or twice at least... ..haha...

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post



    The term is correct. If you want to debate the nomenclature using the term marijuana has become as ubiquitous as "Q-Tips" has become for "cotton swabs".

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I found that interesting. That sort of thing has happened many times and happens now with words. The etymology of a word is often well worth knowing for a good understanding of historical and current values thus enabling a better perspective.

     

    It was not only the Hearst family (and the Mellons and duPonts), but organizations within the federal government - looking for something to demonize after it was clear that prohibition of "demon rum" (see words do matter!) was on the way out and their fiefdoms needed a new bogeyman for their agents to chase down and terrorize.



    And under the direction of Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, they further bastardized the term in the law which was called the "Marihuana Tax  Act of 1937."



    Evidence suggests that Hearst's (and the other families' mentioned) angle was actually more doing away with a competitor to his paper mills (and to duPont's then new synthetic fibers) by adding industrial hemp - which will not get anyone stoned -  to the substances criminalized by the law. 



    During this period a private religious organization funded the making of the propaganda film "Reefer Madness," and Anslinger and others were only too happy to capitalize on its stereotypes.



    Opposition to pot (the drug of a thousand or more nicknames, actually) was partially based on racism, though, since its use was initially mostly in minority neighborhoods. And Hearst's "yellow journalism" papers were hardly above pandering to middle-class fears, so hardly a surprise if he worked this angle as well.



    However, at the time, marijuana use was breaking out (along with Jazz and other things scary to the culture of the time) into more mainstream segments of society and many "hash houses" and "tea clubs" were springing up around the country. (Partly, ironically, as a result of Prohibition making alcohol hard to access.)



    The AMA actively  opposed the 1937 bill, btw.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    I agree with Argonaut's view on this one. It's popularly called "medical marijuana" or "recreational marijuana", but those are lazy and uninformed descriptors.

     

    A fair number of activists for drug law reform tend to focus on using the term "medical cannabis" because it sounds more scientific and less slangy as they try to bring a known-to-be-medically efficacious set of compounds into the mainstream. 



    And recreational marijuana and cannabis are both common terms in reform efforts.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Roake View Post

     

    Apparently, "Marijuana" worked to grab your eyeballs.  Besides, if you are going to stand on technicalities, it's not "Cannabis" but rather "Cannabis sativa".  Regardless of what it's called, I wouldn't endorse it.


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post

     

    What about cannabis indica? You don't consider that marijuana? Most people will disagree with you.


     

    Cannabis sativa and cannabis indica are the two main subspecies and have somewhat different effects on mind and body.  Both have their proponents (and fervent opponents), however, with all of the breeding activity going on in the medical cannabis community, there are also vast differences in various strains of either. 

     

    Cannabis actually has between 60 and 80 "cannabinoids" in its make-up, many of which are of pharmaceutical interest, especially as curbs on legitimate research are breaking down.  And they can be "bred and fed" to help achieve particular profiles of these.



    Also, some like CBD can be extracted for medical use. 

     

    Meanwhile, "Cartel weed" is bred strictly for high THC at the expense of all other components, and so provides the most dizzying and jagged experience (it's also cultivated with dangerous chemicals - dangerous for users, for growers and for the environment, as witnessed by depredations in various western state and national forests). 

     

    It's also often contaminated with fungus and other nasty stuff owing to how it's stored and transported in the underground networks.  Comparing that with medical-grade cannabis is basically like comparing ingesting Sterno or bathtub gin to drinking carefully prepared fine wine.



    Note:  While industrial hemp has virtually no THC, it is NOT a separate species, rather a separate strain of Cannabis Sativa L. 



    Also, besides still being arguably among the best sources for any number of fiber and fibrous products, hemp food products have amazing nutritional profiles.  Research and try some raw hulled hemp seeds or hemp milk from your local Whole Foods or other health-oriented food and such emporium....

  • Reply 38 of 44
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,372member
    I'm assuming it's a reference to Dre's album The Chronic.

    OK thanks, I was curious.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,372member
    bigpics wrote: »
    Partly right and mostly wrong.  See below.

    Words and their meanings, connotations and nuances do matter. Ever seen any derisive nicknames for Samsung, Android or Microsoft used for effect on these forums?  Once or twice at least... ..haha...


    It was not only the Hearst family (and the Mellons and duPonts), but organizations within the federal government - looking for something to demonize after it was clear that prohibition of "demon rum" (see words do matter!) was on the way out and their fiefdoms needed a new bogeyman for their agents to chase down and terrorize.


    And under the direction of Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, they further bastardized the term in the law which was called the "Marihuana Tax  Act of 1937."


    Evidence suggests that Hearst's (and the other families' mentioned) angle was actually more doing away with a competitor to his paper mills (and to duPont's then new synthetic fibers) by adding industrial hemp - which will not get anyone stoned -  to the substances criminalized by the law. 


    During this period a private religious organization funded the making of the propaganda film "Reefer Madness," and Anslinger and others were only too happy to capitalize on its stereotypes.


    Opposition to pot (the drug of a thousand or more nicknames, actually) was partially based on racism, though, since its use was initially mostly in minority neighborhoods. And Hearst's "yellow journalism" papers were hardly above pandering to middle-class fears, so hardly a surprise if he worked this angle as well.


    However, at the time, marijuana use was breaking out (along with Jazz and other things scary to the culture of the time) into more mainstream segments of society and many "hash houses" and "tea clubs" were springing up around the country. (Partly, ironically, as a result of Prohibition making alcohol hard to access.)


    The AMA actively  opposed the 1937 bill, btw.


    A fair number of activists for drug law reform tend to focus on using the term "medical cannabis" because it sounds more scientific and less slangy as they try to bring a known-to-be-medically efficacious set of compounds into the mainstream. 


    And recreational marijuana and cannabis are both common terms in reform efforts.



    Cannabis sativa and cannabis indica are the two main subspecies and have somewhat different effects on mind and body.  Both have their proponents (and fervent opponents), however, with all of the breeding activity going on in the medical cannabis community, there are also vast differences in various strains of either. 

    Cannabis actually has between 60 and 80 "cannabinoids" in its make-up, many of which are of pharmaceutical interest, especially as curbs on legitimate research are breaking down.  And they can be "bred and fed" to help achieve particular profiles of these.


    Also, some like CBD can be extracted for medical use. 

    Meanwhile, "Cartel weed" is bred strictly for high THC at the expense of all other components, and so provides the most dizzying and jagged experience (it's also cultivated with dangerous chemicals - dangerous for users, for growers and for the environment, as witnessed by depredations in various western state and national forests). 

    It's also often contaminated with fungus and other nasty stuff owing to how it's stored and transported in the underground networks.  Comparing that with medical-grade cannabis is basically like comparing ingesting Sterno or bathtub gin to drinking carefully prepared fine wine.


    Note:  While industrial hemp has virtually no THC, it is NOT a separate species, rather a separate strain of Cannabis Sativa L. 


    Also, besides still being arguably among the best sources for any number of fiber and fibrous products, hemp food products have amazing nutritional profiles.  Research and try some raw hulled hemp seeds or hemp milk from your local Whole Foods or other health-oriented food and such emporium....

    Wow, great post. I found this part worthy of a film script ...

    'Evidence suggests that Hearst's (and the other families' mentioned) angle was actually more doing away with a competitor to his paper mills (and to duPont's then new synthetic fibers) by adding industrial hemp - which will not get anyone stoned - to the substances criminalized by the law. "Evidence suggests that Hearst's (and the other families' mentioned) angle was actually more doing away with a competitor to his paper mills (and to duPont's then new synthetic fibers) by adding industrial hemp - which will not get anyone stoned - to the substances criminalized by the law.'

  • Reply 40 of 44
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,372member

    I'm all for the here, now and the future. The past is nothing but trouble. There's probably 1000 words for weed, any one of them will do.

    I have to say I disagree. I was never lucky enough to study history beyond the age of 13 at school because the silly English Grammar School system separated 'science' students from 'arts' student and that was that. My world became all about chemistry, biology and physics etc.. As an adult history has become my pet hobby and I read all I can. The past, it seems to me, as unqualified as I am to speak of it, holds some very valuable and important lessons for the present and the future.

    I would add that a knowledge of the past in science is very important to understanding the basis of modern and future science. Without understanding that, we would be building the castle of the future on sand so to speak.
Sign In or Register to comment.