As with all reviews, I take a few photos of each product in real lighting situations so you can get an idea of what the item looks like without the glamour of a light box and/or Photoshop. Below are 6 photos I look of the Smoke Ghost sent to me by the guys at smokeghost.com.
From the Manufacturer
The following content was pulled from the Smoke Ghost Website.
What is Smoke Ghost?
Simply put, Smoke Ghost masks the odor of the smoke you exhale with aromatic fragrances. This essentially means that you can smoke anywhere in the world without leaving a trace. Here is a short summary of all the benefits and features the little Ghost provides:
Prevents second-hand smoke
Saves environment from polluting and carcinogenic toxins
Contains interchangeable scent cartridges
Masks odor of smoke completely, can be used indoors and in vehicles
Portable, under 3 inches long and under 2 inches thick
Now let’s delve deeper into the Ghost’s power.
You may have seen similar smoking filters that attempt to deal with the smell of smoke. Smoke Ghost is distinct in that it not only filters your smoke but it alters the scent of your smoke into essential oil fragrances. The oil fragrances not only smell delightful, they combat the smell of the burning end of the substance you’re smoking in order to fully mask the smell.
The nozzle component of the Ghost contains a carbon filter that cleanses the smoke as you blow through. The nozzle is wide enough at the base (about 1.5 inches) to encapsulate your lips as the smoke leaves your mouth. This means that all of the smoke passes through the nozzle.
The first component of the device is the nozzle, the second component is the scent cartridge, the magical part. The scent cartridge contains an essential oils compound that radically transforms the odor of your smoke. This stuff smells sweet. Interchangeable Scents
One of the most awesome features of these scent cartridges is that they’re interchangeable. Every scent cartridge is compatible with the filter. Typically, a scent cartridge is 100% efficient in altering smoke odor for around 300 blow throughs (this is for our current prototype, we expect to increase this number once the first PO is placed). After this point, the cartridge gradually declines in efficacy. So once one scent cartridge begins to decline in potency, you can simply replace it with another. This adds even more life to your Ghost.
Smoking With Style’s Smoke Ghost Sploof Review
I had one of my most avid smokers (KC) try out the Smoke Ghost over the weekend with minimal results.
Took a puff, blew through it, and I don’t think it disguised it at all.
-KC, SWS Reviewer
As the above quote alludes to, he didn’t have much success with it. Aside from the usually issues such as side stream smoke, he didn’t think it helped 100% even with the smoke blown through the unit.
I had KC give the Smoke Ghost to a 2nd smoke with the same results. She said that dryer sheets inside of a toilet paper or paper towel roll (the original sploof) worked better. KC had her take a hit and blow it into his face. He could still smell the cannabis and felt like the scent was basically a mix of the two smells together.
All of this with a price tag of $19.99, led me to give the Smoke Ghost a 3 out of 5 stars. It makes for a great gift, but it’s not particularly practical.
As the State of Michigan continues to moves forward in developing rules to implement the State’s new Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA), the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) today reached out for the third time to seek stakeholder input on critical issues. This time, LARA is asking for feedback on questions pertaining to safety testing of marihuana and marihuana infused products.
Specifically, the Director of LARA, Shelly Edgerton, issued the following statement and request:
As you may be aware, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) may consider holding discussions regarding the new Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, 2016 PA 281, to examine the issues and get feedback from those who have expressed interest in certain related topics or the new law in general. Similarly, LARA is currently seeking comments from interested parties on the topic of marihuana safety testing as it relates to the licensed categories. The purpose of this document is to gather information only, and it is not meant to interfere with the authority of the Board or Advisory Panel procedures when these panels are appointed as provided under the Act. To that end we are asking for your input by responding to the questions below. We are only asking for brief answers, or comments limited to a short paragraph or a few sentences. Please provide your responses by 5:00 p.m., Monday, April 10th, 2017. After the responses are compiled, a meeting and/or conference call may be scheduled if appropriate to review the responses and receive additional input. Please submit your responses to email@example.com.
The Department in consultation with the Board is required to establish testing standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana. What testing standards should be considered mandatory and what are acceptable levels (e.g. maximum thresholds/limits)?
Should proficiency testing be used for safety compliance oversight?
Should the testing of marihuana be required at each facility point by licensed growers, processors, and provisioning centers (in other words, at which point(s) in the supply chain should testing be required)?
Should testing be required of every batch of marihuana and if so, what is an appropriate sample size for testing from a batch?
When a sample is received for testing should the rest of the batch be sequestered and if so, by what method?
What accreditation standard should be used for safety compliance facilities and why?
Should the THC content and possible allergens contained in the product be labeled on marijuana infused products?
We anticipate that LARA will continue to solicit stakeholder input, although LARA’s statement again notes that its work on the rules is to be in consultation with the yet-to-be-appointed Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Board and Advisory Panel. Given that the formal roles of advisory panels are fairly limited under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, the new Board and LARA will have some discretion with respect to how deeply they involve the Advisory Panel. While it remains to be seen what opportunities will be provided for public input into the rulemaking process (apart from those required under the APA), LARA’s continued outreach to the industry is promising.
As the rulemaking process in Michigan continues to unfold, check back here to Dykema’s Cannabis Law Blog for further updates.
Why is Trump against marijuana? Has the time come for the cannabis community to panic? Or is the industry already too strong, widespread and important for even Trump and Co. to touch it?
Uncertainty has been the name of the game for the cannabis industry over recent weeks. The overhauled White House has given very little indication as to its long-term intentions for legal marijuana, leaving millions across the US in a rather unpleasant state of limbo. Pot proponents really didn’t want to see Trump installed in the first place, but such concerns paled in comparison to those regarding Mr. Jeff Sessions. His appointment to the position of Attorney General seemed like the worst-case scenario…and that’s exactly what played out.
In the interim, there’s been little to go on. Instead, it’s been a case of referring back to previous comments and rhetoric to determine possible outcomes. In the case of Sessions, this is the man who once stated that he’d happily see cannabis dealers executed. He also famously said that “good people don’t smoke cannabis” while adding that the KKK would be fine, if it wasn’t for the fact that they advocate cannabis use. Pretty creepy for the man with his finger on the Federal law button.
As for the idea of Trump against marijuana, he’s indicated on a number of occasions that he thinks the cannabis issue is one that can and therefore should be handled at a state level. This also formed part of his campaign to get into the White House in the first place – a pledge that it would continue to be left up to individual states to determine their own pot policies.
So why is the industry holding its collective breath right now?
Because going entirely against this, the White House announced late last week that under Trump’s reign, there will most likely be “greater enforcement” of anti-cannabis law at a Federal level.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer was speaking with reporters on Thursday, when he stated outright that the medical cannabis industry would not be touched by Federal cannabis law. However, he did state that this was partially due to the fact that Congress had banned the government from such action. Had it not, perhaps this side of the industry would be under threat too.
As for recreational cannabis, he made it abundantly clear that the two represent wholly different issues for the White House, stating that: “I do believe you’ll see greater enforcement” of federal laws against the use (and presumably the distribution) of recreational marijuana.
Now, to the average bystander this doesn’t say a great deal at all. It could be seen as rhetoric, or perhaps an indication that the governments intends to clamp down on those who flout state-imposed cannabis rules, illegal smugglers, importers and so on. However, to those with a stake in the cannabis industry, it clearly conveys one severely disappointing message:
Cannabis is NOT going to be legalised at a Federal level.
This is hugely significant, as the one thing that’s standing in the way of the industry reaching its maximum potential now is Federal law. While cannabis remains illegal at a state level, major banks, lenders and investors in general will not go near the industry. Obtaining finance can be nightmarish, accountancy and recruitment are no picnic, those that do get involved don’t really know where they stand and there’s the ever-looming concern that accompanies knowing you are breaking Federal law.
Suffice to say, not exactly what the industry and its millions of supporters want to hear right now.
Despite having achieved meteoric growth and success over recent months, the industry has nonetheless been sitting on a knife’s edge, waiting and wondering what the Trump Administration has in store. Even though the appointment of Trump and Co. represented a hammer blow for the industry, most remained optimistic that he would, if nothing else, keep his promise of largely keeping out of the issue altogether.
If recent developments are anything to go by, this may not be the case. A potentially major shift in enforcement was indicated by Spicer, which indirectly gave the impression of an impending crackdown on recreational cannabis.
“There is still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.”
Unsurprisingly, Spicer kept things as vague and non-committal as they’ve been to date, offering no information as to time-frames or other specifics. Technically speaking, every single person playing a role in the US cannabis industry, using or distributing cannabis in any way, shape or form is breaking Federal law and liable for prosecution.
This in turn means that an incalculable number of businesses spanning Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and California are all up for potential prosecution, though to date the Justice Department has kept its distance from state-level cannabis policy.
“Now either the president is flip-flopping or his staff is, once again, speaking out of turn — either way these comments leave doubt and uncertainty for the marijuana industry, stifling job growth in my state,” commented Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, a Boulder-area Democrat.
“The public has spoken on recreational marijuana, we’ve seen it work in Colorado, and now is the time to lift the federal prohibition.”
What’s becoming more than apparent is that should the Trump Administration choose to crack down on recreational cannabis, it will be going directly against the sentiments and wishes of the public. A recent study carried out by Quinnipiac University found that across the right states that have legalised recreational cannabis, a landslide 71% of the population opposes the idea of Federal law being enforced. In addition, an incredible 93% believe in the importance of medical cannabis legalisation. The Justice Department has made it impossible for the Fed to touch the medical cannabis industry at any level, but has so far imposed no such restrictions on recreational cannabis.
Speaking on behalf of Marijuana Majority, a pro-legalisation campaign group, Tom Angell said that to enforce Federal cannabis law to any degree could have disastrous consequences for Trump’s already struggling approval ratings.
“If the administration is looking for ways to become less popular, cracking down on voter-approved marijuana laws would be a great way to do it,” he told reporters from USA Today.
“On the campaign trail, President Trump clearly and repeatedly pledged that he would leave decisions on cannabis policy to the states. With a clear and growing majority of the country now supporting legalization, reneging on his promises would be a political disaster and huge distraction from the rest of the president’s agenda.”
As far as cannabis proponents are concerned, the benefits of cannabis legalisation are clear, apparent and too significant to overlook. They argue that the popularity of recreational cannabis is such that to enforce Federal law would be counterproductive and nonsensical. Were recreational cannabis to once again be outlawed today, it would have no bearing whatsoever on the number of people choosing to use pot for recreational purposes. Instead, it would simply lead to the streets once again being flooded with illegal drug dealers, making a fortune selling low-grade cannabis and putting communities in jeopardy. It would lead to tens of thousands of job losses, rob the country of billions in tax revenues and make criminals of millions. Trump himself recently commented on “drugs as cheap as candy bars” on US streets due to illegal imports…an issue the criminalisation of cannabis is 100% guaranteed to further intensify.
“It is hard to imagine why anyone would want marijuana to be produced and sold by cartels and criminals rather than tightly regulated, taxpaying businesses,” commented Marijuana Policy Project spokesman, Mason Tvert.
Given the controversial decisions and actions taken by Trump and Co. so far, nothing is out of the question. But at the same time, experts remain largely convinced that what’s happening right now is simply a case of sabre rattling – a newly-installed government flexing its bureaucratic muscle to keep everyone on edge and let America know who’s in charge.
Realistically, the backlash of the Fed declaring war on cannabis would be too insane to comprehend. Every day sees the industry getting stronger, more people throwing their support behind it and communities all over the US reaping enormous benefits. We’re talking millions of people across the country and thousands of businesses, not to mention state senators and other officials who’d refuse to sit idly by and let progress be eroded. We’re not talking simple protests here, but rather vast swathes of the country rising up and refusing to cooperate. It’s unlikely that even Trump and his staff would have the audacity to go ahead and prosecute a sizable proportion of the entire country. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.
So while the bad news is that legalisation of cannabis at a Federal level seems well and truly off the cards, the likelihood of the plug being pulled on the entire industry is minimal to say the least.
Michigan State University Extension Hosts Workshops on Local Regulation of Licensed Marijuana Facilities
Over the last few weeks, Michigan State University Extension has been hosting a series of 13 seminars across the state entitled, “Regulating Medical Marijuana Facilities: A Workshop for Local Government.” I attended the three-hour seminar held on campus at MSU.
As most readers of this blog know, Michigan’s new Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA) establishes a framework for the regulation of five different types of licensed facilities. The MMFLA contains a local opt-in provision, meaning licensees may only operate in a local jurisdiction that has affirmatively authorized the specific type of licensed facility. Local governments may also cap the number of facilities of each type they allow, and regulate them through zoning and other requirements, so long as local regulations do not conflict with the MMFLA or address purity or pricing of marijuana.
MSU Extension’s seminar is intended primarily to educate municipal officials on the MMFLA. Of the hundred or so attendees in East Lansing, I would hazard a guess that 80 percent or more were local government planning staff, elected officials, or attorneys. Most reported that they are hearing from constituents with questions or recommendations on how to implement the MMFLA—with some, of course, advocating that no facilities be allowed at all.
As for the substance of the seminar, MSU Extension staff provided what I felt to be an unbiased explanation of the MMMA and the MMFLA, and the issues confronting municipal governments. Seminar attendees were given in-depth written materials, including draft ordinances. Attendees also engaged in role-playing exercises intended to have them listen to a range of views on the desirability of having licensed facilities in their communities.
Industry participants would be well-served to understand the issues and concerns from the municipal official perspective, and also to hear what those officials are being told both by MSU Extension staff and municipal government organizations. Although I found the seminar staff and materials to largely “play it straight,” I also heard advice that was disconcerting. A common refrain was that “it is easier to first say ‘no’ and then later say ‘yes’ than it is to first say ‘yes’ and then later say ‘no.’” More troubling, attendees were told that given the timing for license applications, municipalities could wait until late summer or early fall before beginning the process of crafting ordinances. For those of us advising clients acquiring real estate and getting their business plans in place to apply for licensure, such a delayed timing is highly problematic.
MSU Extension has just one more of these seminars yet to come; March 23 in Bessemer. For those who don’t wish to pair a seminar with skiing at Big Snow, MSU Extension also today announced a live webinar to be held from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. on March 30. Registration is open until March 23 at the following link:
Our buddies over at Pass The Bong have a huge assortment of bong types to fit your need and style. To make it easier to decide which may be right for you, we will break up all the various bongs into three distinct categories:
Acrylic bongs can be really stylish as well as durable, indestructible and easy to clean. Acrylic (or plastic) bongs represent an inexpensive, yet efficient way to get started smoking with a water pipe. Here are just a few examples from the wide variety of choices:
Cruved Double Bong
Oval Bowl Bongs
Double Bubble Bong
Glass bongs (also known as glass water pipes) are a generally thought of as more “upscale” than acrylic bongs. Glass water pipes commonly use percolators to provide a smooth and clean smoking experience. Below, check out a few of the various styles:
Double Shooter Bong
Novelty Bongs come in pretty much every style you can imagine, from ceramic cobra snakes to the grim reaper! Heck, you can even guy a boob bong for your collection. With so many to choose from, it comes down to personal choice and functionality. Here are just a few examples:
Michigan Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Releases Draft Initiative for Comment
Today, the Michigan Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol released its draft initiative. The Coalition is accepting comments until Saturday, February 25, so those wishing to weigh in should do so quickly.
Suits to Resurrect MILegalize 2016 Initiative Failing, Attention Turns to 2018
We have previously reported on twin court battles challenging a now-rescinded state policy on “rehabilitation” of petition signatures that kept MILegalize from making Michigan’s 2016 ballot. Coverage can be found at the links below:
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court closed the door on one of these challenges, rejecting without comment a petition for certiorari that asked the Court to hear a challenge to the decisions of Michigan’s appellate courts.
The other litigation effort to belatedly save the 2016 MILegalize initiative appears to be languishing before Judge Parker in the U.S. Eastern District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The State of Michigan filed a motion to dismiss that case back in October, and briefing on the motion was complete on December 9, 2016. No further action has been taken by the court in that case.
With efforts to salvage the 2016 initiative apparently stalled, MILegalize has joined with the Marijuana Policy Project in preparing a draft of an initiative for 2018. As we wrote last week, anyone with comments on that draft has been asked to submit comments by this Saturday, February 25. In the meantime, MILegalize has scheduled a $500 per ticket fund raising event in Detroit for March 23.
Michigan Seeks Input on “Inventory Startup,” Transition Issues
As the State of Michigan continues to move forward in developing rules to implement the State’s new Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA), the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) today reached out for the second time for stakeholder input on critical issues. This time, LARA is asking for feedback on questions that LARA characterizes as concerning “inventory start-up.” Fundamentally, these questions address how and whether individuals involved in the current caregiver model under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act can transition to operating under the MMFLA.
Specifically, the Director of LARA, Shelly Edgerton, issued the following statement and request:
LARA is currently seeking comments from interested parties on the topic of inventory startup as it relates to the licensed categories. The purpose of this document is to gather information only and it is not meant to interfere with the authority of the Board or Advisory Panel procedures when these panels are appointed as provided under the Act. To that end we are asking for your input by responding to the questions below. We are only asking for brief answers, or comments limited to a short paragraph or a few sentences. Please provide your responses by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 21st, 2017. After the responses are compiled, a meeting and/or conference call may be scheduled if appropriate to review the responses and receive additional input. Please submit your responses to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Should LARA require all licensees to begin without inventory or zero product on day 1 of license issuance and thereafter track all cultivation from the date of licensure?
Should LARA have an inventory startup period that allows a grower licensee to transition medical marihuana cultivated as allowed under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) into the future Statewide Monitoring System for tracking and inventory verification provided it is recorded/tracked? If yes, should LARA limit the timeframe in which these acquisitions can occur? What would you recommend as a timeframe?
Should LARA consider an inventory startup period for all 5 license categories?
Should a licensed grower or processor be permitted to include into a startup inventory the existing marihuana or marihuana-infused products cultivated or processed under the MMMA of the former registered primary caregiver who becomes an active employee of the licensee pursuant to the Act?
We can anticipate that LARA will continue to solicit stakeholder input, although LARA’s statement again notes that its work on the rules is to be in consultation with the yet-to-be-appointed Medical Marijuana Facilities Licensing Board and Advisory Panel. Given that the formal roles of advisory panels are fairly limited under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, the new Board and LARA will have some discretion with respect to how deeply they involve the Advisory Panel. While it remains to be seen what opportunities will be provided for public input into the rulemaking process (apart from those required under the APA), LARA’s continued outreach to the industry is promising.
As the rulemaking process in Michigan continues to unfold, check back here to Dykema’s Cannabis Law Blog for further updates.
Get your rolling papers at the ready for the Lennox Brothers’ debut feature “AmStarDam,” an Amsterdam adventure with a fairytale twist.
Jack comes to Amsterdam to find his father and, through a momentary magical encounter, finds the secret weapon that could turn around his father’s ailing marijuana coffee shop.
Combining classic fairytales with the wild world of Amsterdam, this riotous fantasy comedy is a coming of age story not for the faint hearted.
Shot on location in Amsterdam and at 3 Mills studios in London.</span>
Jonathan Readwin, Sean Power, Eline Powell, Eric Lampaert, Kenneth Collard, Howard Marks, Billy Boyd, Alice Lowe, Dannielle Brent, Anthony Cozens, Javone Prince, Ben Goffe, Francesca Papagno, Ricky Champ