I saw collectors at the SW corner of Britton Road and N. May today. That's the first time I've seen them in that location.

Yes you are correct. Corner of NW Expressway and Meridian cop car sitting there and people would pull in and turn right around and pull out. I didn't see them this year as I drive by that location just about every day. I think this is the last week for the collectors and I drove by this morning and didn't see any one at that location.
There was one on Aug. 4.

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13923752_10100224354493855_3311568519695795347_o.j pg

Uh-oh. http://www.news9.com/story/32728822/supporters-need-more-signatures-to-put-medical-marijuana-on-nov-ballot
After hearing for weeks that there were 55k signatures already, now they are reporting only 50k when 66k is needed? Crap.

And Joe Dorman is asking for 300 volunteers to each come up with 50 signatures within 24 hours. That means 15,000! The problem is there's simply a sad lack of volunteers even from a huge populated area as OKC. On Monday, I went to volunteer for about 4 1/2 hours at the NW Expressway and Meridian tent site. The three other volunteers there were like me. All were from out of town. Two were from Tulsa and the other one from Shawnee. I've gotten over 900 signatures, so there hasn't been a problem about me volunteering.


Whatever the outcome, lawsuits are likely to be filed. Sometimes police have harassed and intimated petitioners. One even got a $100 ticket for trespassing at the OKC VA.

And Joe Dorman is asking for 300 volunteers to each come up with 50 signatures within 24 hours. That means 15,000! The problem is there's simply a sad lack of volunteers even from a huge populated area as OKC. On Monday, I went to volunteer for about 4 1/2 hours at the NW Expressway and Meridian tent site. The three other volunteers there were like me. All were from out of town. Two were from Tulsa and the other one from Shawnee. I've gotten over 900 signatures, so there hasn't been a problem about me volunteering.


Whatever the outcome, lawsuits are likely to be filed. Sometimes police have harassed and intimated petitioners. One even got a $100 ticket for trespassing at the OKC VA.


I know a bunch of folks that won't sign because they are afraid to have their name attached in fear of police getting the list and putting them on some kind of hit list. Most people that see a police car sitting at a signing tent are going to just drive right on by. It's very intimidating. But this is Oklahoma we are speaking about and this is pretty much par for the course.

I don't know. I wonder if there has ever been anybody go down to the Oklahoma Secretary of State's office and gone through many thousands of names looking for certain individuals.

It's probably much riskier to have your name on a local city petition over a controversial issue. Then there may not be as many as 1000 names to go through and the list may be published or otherwise easily accessible. Then your boss might see your name and fire you.

DEA to make an announcement today:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dea-to-make-long-awaited-marijuana-announcement-thursday-2016-08-10

DEA to make an announcement today:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dea-to-make-long-awaited-marijuana-announcement-thursday-2016-08-10

DEA declines to loosen the restrictions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-fails-to-loosen-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana/

I don't know. I wonder if there has ever been anybody go down to the Oklahoma Secretary of State's office and gone through many thousands of names looking for certain individuals.

It's probably much riskier to have your name on a local city petition over a controversial issue. Then there may not be as many as 1000 names to go through and the list may be published or otherwise easily accessible. Then your boss might see your name and fire you.

This is a reason why a few people I know won't sign: they're afraid of perceived potential consequences/blowback. Basically, fear tactics and mental conditioning. No matter my explanations, pleas, etc. However, I will say I've been able to get multiple family/friends to sign after just bringing it to their attention. Me telling them that I signed gave them the "OK" to sign the petitions.


DEA declines to loosen the restrictions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/dea-fails-to-loosen-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana/

Too much money involved on every level.
Tighten your foil here... But from top down, the CIA runs drugs and that helps feed usage and the global trade. In turn laws are in place against this and our PDs are given weapons amd armor of war that are justified in the WAR on drugs, etc. This in turn helps feed convictions and the private prison system, on top of fines and fees that also help feed municipalities to a small extent.

A giant circle of nonsensical crap that has truly only made society worse.

*loosens foil*

A giant circle of nonsensical crap that has truly only made society worse.

Just can't figure out how progressive Oklahoma's two largest metropolitan areas (OKC-TUL) has been since 1990 (Post first MAPS, Vision 2025); yet, the rest of the State continues to stay in the backwoods.

Channel 9 news reported OK4Health thinks it got enough signatures. Joe Dorman said the flood of signatures that came in today outside the state capitol may be enough to push it through. I brought 11 pages of them, or around 100 signatures per petition. The signature count and validation begins on Monday, August 15th, and is expected to take from 10 days to 2 weeks to verify.

Thursday, during the busy activity of getting the final petitions together at the capitol, an additional table was set up for this Ardmore man to get his stack of petitions signed and notarized:

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13906607_1109487439111875_7854081259410770944_n.jp g?oh=64550c6010981070651b9767a8bf5d57&oe=58548152

Channel 9 news reported OK4Health thinks it got enough signatures. Joe Dorman said the flood of signatures that came in today outside the state capitol may be enough to push it through. I brought 11 pages of them, or around 100 signatures per petition. The signature count and validation begins on Monday, August 15th, and is expected to take from 10 days to 2 weeks to verify.

Thursday, during the busy activity of getting the final petitions together at the capitol, an additional table was set up for this Ardmore man to get his stack of petitions signed and notarized:

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13906607_1109487439111875_7854081259410770944_n.jp g?oh=64550c6010981070651b9767a8bf5d57&oe=58548152

Any word on the official number yet? Surely they have a number by now. I know it can take time to verify but they should have a number.

Any word on the official number yet? Surely they have a number by now. I know it can take time to verify but they should have a number.

No, other than Joe Dorman saying on Facebook late Monday, "Got word that the count by the office of the Secretary of State proceeded well on SQ 787 today (initiative petition reform). Hoping both petitions move through the process in a timely manner!"

To get an idea of the outcome sooner, I hope SOS reveals the count of the 787 petition as soon as it's available and not wait until 788 is counted as well, the med mj petition. I'm concerned over whether 787 gets enough signatures, because I didn't get quite as many for that. Sometimes people seemed in too big of a hurry to bring up signing 787.

Joe Dorman's photo snapped on Tuesday, while observing the counting on the petition for SQ 787. Shown are two of six counters. I'd sooner no final total on 787 be known before Friday. The longer it takes to count, the more likely there was enough.

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13912507_1571988546444140_8910864746419043903_n.jp g?oh=5ace04079e4f9e3a218c648b24cef854&oe=5846A911

Let's hope this gets on the ballot--so that the people can vote.

I hope everyone who signed the petition gets out and votes in November!

It'll all be for naught if no one shows up to the polls and the old folks have their say...

Oklahomans For Health said this evening counters have finished SQ787. No report of any count total. I'm concerned they might have finished up too soon, indicating not enough signatures.

Oklahomans For Health said this evening counters have finished SQ787. No report of any count total. I'm concerned they might have finished up too soon, indicating not enough signatures.

If SQ787 passes that should be excellent news for SQ788 but if it comes up short there's still hope for SQ788. I never seen nor was 787 even mentioned when I signed.

Per Joe Dorman:

State Question 787 got 59,981 signatures. It fell short of the required 65,987 for qualification.

The good news is SQ 788 (medical marijuana) was collecting about 10% more, so that means it will be a very close count next week!

Channel 4 today reported that the results for SQ787 were the results for the Medical marijuana petition. great fact checking

The state questions need more time to collect signatures. It's a shame that 787 didn't collect enough signatures. Oklahoma voters are so ill-inform about many of the state questions that do get on the ballot.

Just to tell you how ill-informed some Oklahoma voters were when we passed 'right-to-work' in 2001; recall a white colleague telling me (sympathetically) that he thought the everybody should have the right to work--as if that were a black or minority thing (LMAO).

After living in two recreational marijuana states in the past year, I no longer support recreational use and only endorse very limited medical use.

After living in two recreational marijuana states in the past year, I no longer support recreational use and only endorse very limited medical use.

Why?

Why?

Unless they are in a very professional or DOT regulated position, it seems everyone everywhere is always stoned out of their mind. You go to the grocery store and the cashier has red eyes, reeks of marijuana, and seems to be in a world of their own. In Portland you could hardly get on the MAX without your clothes being drenched in marijuana smell after a very short ride-- very embarrassing when you are on your way to work (and can get drug tested and suspended until results are back just based on odor of MJ). It's better off to be illegal but decriminalized, that way at least people don't light up in public, at work, and while driving.

It's also incredibly expensive for companies, here at my company (and many other DOT regulated jobs) we routinely lose 40% of new hires in Denver due to failed drug tests within 2 months of employment. This costs the company serious money as we are paying for the drug tests themselves, as well as the drug tests of their replacements, and for the first few weeks of the job for training and background checks and airport related tests -- all that do not add to productivity but are a direct cost with no return.

I bet the company spends about $1500 for each employee to go through all the required tests, fingerprints, background checks, and security clearances-- we hire 40-60 a month, and we lose almost half of those very soon after starting just due to failed drug tests for marijuana. That is serious money...

Not to mention the safety aspect of it. Nothing angers me more than someone potentially killing me or someone else at work with heavy equipment because they were smoking marijuana.

People clean up for two weeks to pass the initial drug test, then they are straight back on the dope and fail the checkup a month or two down the road. It's absolutely out of control.

So maybe a lot of Oklahomans acted drunk for a few years after alcohol was legalized in 1959.

My employer warned everybody they would be subject to getting fired over alcohol after someone came to work smelling like alcohol. Nobody tests for alcohol. If anybody comes to work acting high they should be sternly warned or fired on the spot. Alcohol can be used responsibly without getting fired over it. It sounds like some people in Colorado need to apply the same principle toward pot.

So the Governor signed 5 ballot proclamations today ahead of the Friday deadline. Hmmmm. No mention of 788 yet. Will it still be added if it is certified before Friday? I would hope so!
http://m.news9.com/Story.aspx?story=32816206&catId=112032

One of them seems to be aimed towards getting the 10 commandments monument back up. Jesus f#cking christ. Oklahoma is just a state that won't give up on pursuing bullsh!t.

Temporarily :ot:

Take a toke & don't choke...

Religious symbols are historically symbolic; however, there's no place on government property for the 10 commandments.

People who believe strongly in the 10 commandments won't be harmed by the physical absence of tablets on State Capitol grounds. If you allow the ten commandment monument; then where does it stop; do we allow a satanic group to erect its own monument, buddha to be displayed or Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/400/img/photos/2013/12/09/db/9b/Oklahoma_monument.jpg
http://kfor.com/2016/02/15/lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-bring-ten-commandments-monument-back-to-oklahoma-capitol/


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ks0c0JQqrKg/Us_TZ6I2V7I/AAAAAAAAF-k/M52Q5QTsScY/s1600/thumbRNS-SATAN-STATUE010714.jpg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/09/satanists-want-a-monument-in-oklahomas-capitol/

http://www.buddha-statues.info/administrator/system_img/Amitabha-Buddha-Statue.jpg


http://test.olphtoronto.com/Images/Photo_gallery/Phase2_Reno_jan2012/phase2_jan12_4.jpg

But supporters of the Ten Commandments monument will tell you that the U. S. Supreme court ruled that government also has free speech rights, and so has the right to decide what religious monuments it allows on government property. To quote from Wiki on the case:

"On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Summum in the Pleasant Grove case. Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, explained that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech, which is permissible and not an unconstitutional interference with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. According to Alito, "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" is perceived by an ordinary and reasonable observer to be an expression of values and ideas of the government, the owner of the park and the monument, even though the particular idea expressed by the monument is left to the interpretation of the individual observer."

So the Governor signed 5 ballot proclamations today ahead of the Friday deadline. Hmmmm. No mention of 788 yet. Will it still be added if it is certified before Friday? I would hope so!
http://m.news9.com/Story.aspx?story=32816206&catId=112032

Surely, the governor isn't through with proclaiming ballot questions. Interesting how what is missing is the question to put capital punishment in the state constitution and the one for the Right to Farm Act or SQ 777. I've already seen several road side signs saying to vote YES for right to farm. However, does anyone know if there are lawsuits holding up those two questions? If they stay off the ballot, I don't mind, since I was going to vote NO on them.

I don't know how late it can go before it's too late to put questions on the November ballot. I complained that OK4Health should have started its petitions a month or two sooner to have less heat to put up with, to get the college crowd, while having more time to get over any delays to get on the ballot. But was told they were afraid of the spring time rains and that there is never a good month to do a petition in Oklahoma. Blah.

But supporters of the Ten Commandments monument will tell you that the U. S. Supreme court ruled that government also has free speech rights, and so has the right to decide what religious monuments it allows on government property. To quote from Wiki on the case:

"On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Summum in the Pleasant Grove case. Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, explained that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech, which is permissible and not an unconstitutional interference with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. According to Alito, "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" is perceived by an ordinary and reasonable observer to be an expression of values and ideas of the government, the owner of the park and the monument, even though the particular idea expressed by the monument is left to the interpretation of the individual observer."

I think most if not all public facilities and grounds should try and be a neutral as possible.

The 10 commandments is the oddest Pissing match ever. so tired of it.
hoping we hear something soon on SQ 788 and that it makes the Ballot. we shall see.

https://www.facebook.com/JoeDorman/posts/1776151535934294

Surely, the governor isn't through with proclaiming ballot questions. Interesting how what is missing is the question to put capital punishment in the state constitution and the one for the Right to Farm Act or SQ 777. I've already seen several road side signs saying to vote YES for right to farm. However, does anyone know if there are lawsuits holding up those two questions?


To clarify matters, after research, the above two questions brought up will actually be on the ballot. They weren't mentioned in the story about the governor's proclamation for five other state questions, because they had already been cleared for placement on the ballot in Nov.

Finally, an important piece of this drama ends positively:

State officials: Enough signatures collected for medical marijuana petition to move forward

http://kfor.com/2016/08/23/state-officials-enough-signatures-collected-for-medical-marijuana-petition-to-move-forward/

Now the question is will the system drag its feet to prevent 788 from being on November ballot? I hop not but I'm skeptical.

I'm glad its making it to the ballot.

I do not smoke, however I believe drug abuse should be treated as a medical condition, not a criminal issue. Marijuana seems pretty harmless compared to other illegal drugs for the most part which can really destroy lives. Still though, these "hard" drug users should be forced into state-sponsored-treatment, not prison. As for the cartels and dealers, keep putting them in prison, but stop worrying about the end users, they just need help getting clean and leading productive lives again.

I didn't vote for this one, 7% tax seems way to low, I'd like to see it around 20%.

Maybe someone can fill me in on what a pound of this plant sells for retail vs what it costs to produce. I feel it should be taxed at all levels, grower, distributor and retailer.

Put the majority of proceeds into education as we have a crisis on our hands since the oil/nat gas bust.

Just my 2 cents though.

To quote from Wiki on the case:
Bunty,
Not a good source since Wiki is modifiable by any one, I'm not questioning whether you are right or wrong, but there are much better sources.
C. T.

Unless they are in a very professional or DOT regulated position, it seems everyone everywhere is always stoned out of their mind. You go to the grocery store and the cashier has red eyes, reeks of marijuana, and seems to be in a world of their own. In Portland you could hardly get on the MAX without your clothes being drenched in marijuana smell after a very short ride-- very embarrassing when you are on your way to work (and can get drug tested and suspended until results are back just based on odor of MJ). It's better off to be illegal but decriminalized, that way at least people don't light up in public, at work, and while driving.

It's also incredibly expensive for companies, here at my company (and many other DOT regulated jobs) we routinely lose 40% of new hires in Denver due to failed drug tests within 2 months of employment. This costs the company serious money as we are paying for the drug tests themselves, as well as the drug tests of their replacements, and for the first few weeks of the job for training and background checks and airport related tests -- all that do not add to productivity but are a direct cost with no return.

I bet the company spends about $1500 for each employee to go through all the required tests, fingerprints, background checks, and security clearances-- we hire 40-60 a month, and we lose almost half of those very soon after starting just due to failed drug tests for marijuana. That is serious money...

Not to mention the safety aspect of it. Nothing angers me more than someone potentially killing me or someone else at work with heavy equipment because they were smoking marijuana.

People clean up for two weeks to pass the initial drug test, then they are straight back on the dope and fail the checkup a month or two down the road. It's absolutely out of control.

Very interesting. I have not spent that much time in those states, but I do see the presence of marijuana more here in California than in Oklahoma which I expected. I tend to think it will be fad and as the years go by, you won't see many people smoking marijuana as you do now. I smoke cigars on occasion and when I get a head rush, my reaction time is impaired slightly, and the fact cigarettes are allowed for recreational use and not marijuana baffles me. I understand they affect people much differently, but if someone goes high to work that is on them. The government needs to limit it authority on people. There are obviously exceptions to that, but with drugs like marijuana, I don't think you should be required to have a prescription. I believe in live and let live.

It's fairly obvious if someone has been smoking. Marijuana, tobacco, alcohol are just a few things I think should be up to the person to decide if they want do it. It's called responsibility for people such as adults to make. I believe the minimum age for all of those things should be 21. Not that it will stop people younger from doing it, but it is a preventive measure.

I've witnessed first hand the effects of alcohol with getting into fights and I nearly was arrested a few nights ago in Santa Monica for getting into a brawl with this dude at a bar. I take responsibility for it happening, but I smoke maybe once every week or so and I don't usually like to get too high, but I have never encountered a case of violence, rage, or anyone getting hurt as a result of smoking marijuana. That personal experience. I'm sure it's happened? But as with anything, moderation is key here.

I do believe there are some negative effects of marijuana and I see people that smoke it every single day seem to be a little slow even when they aren't high after years and years, but that is their choice to make. They still have jobs. They still pay taxes. If it is your moral belief then that is something within yourself which is fine and I respect it, but don't impose it on others.

Bunty,
Not a good source since Wiki is modifiable by any one, I'm not questioning whether you are right or wrong, but there are much better sources.
C. T.

While that is true, the barrier for entry for making lasting edits to wikipedia is fairly high. There are controls in place to revert random vandalism, and beyond that there is a fair chance whatever page you edit (especially if it is a popular one) has someone interested in the subject who watches it, will get an alert if you screw something up, and will go clean up after you.

David,
I stand by my original statement. I use Wikipedia for fun facts, never for anything serious. Any source that can be edited is not a source in my opinion.
C. T.

7% tax seems way to low, I'd like to see it around 20%.

I'll agree with you on recreational use, but we're talking about medical needs. As it is, I'm not happy with taxing what would essentially be prescription drugs, as someone who suffers from seizures, chronic pain, and liver disease. All of which could be helped with medical marijuana.

I'll agree with you on recreational use, but we're talking about medical needs. As it is, I'm not happy with taxing what would essentially be prescription drugs, as someone who suffers from seizures, chronic pain, and liver disease. All of which could be helped with medical marijuana.

I know in Colorado if you have a prescription, like any other prescription drug, the rates and taxing is very different.

David,
I stand by my original statement. I use Wikipedia for fun facts, never for anything serious. Any source that can be edited is not a source in my opinion.
C. T.

That's an unfair stance to hold other people too, especially since any page on the internet could potentially be edited depending on who hosts it and controls the content. Nothing that could be linked in a forum post is any more or less reliable than wiki when you get down to it.

Wikipedia is good enough for fun and basic facts like CT said. Anything passed that needs to be referenced. I like Wikipedia and I understand changes are harder to make than they used to be, but everyone who modifies those articles are subject to their own biases as well. If anything, treat it like any other website or source.

Regarding SQ788, it would seem the state is already providing excuses for why it may not appear on the November ballot.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5515176

I know in Colorado if you have a prescription, like any other prescription drug, the rates and taxing is very different.

Yeah, most states I've seen have two rates, one for medicinal, and one for recreation. I read a good study talking about DC's rate, and how they might have to adjust it to combat illegal/unregulated sales. The trick is the balance, since you have to be competitive with illegal sales.

Regarding SQ788, it would seem the state is already providing excuses for why it may not appear on the November ballot.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5515176

All I see is clarification of the process. Is there something I'm missing, or are you reading into something I'm not?

There is a lot of room in that process as listed for the state to drag its feet too long to get it on the November ballot. If all of the following needs to happen by Friday:


“As required by law, the secretary of state's office will send a report on its findings to the Oklahoma Supreme Court,” the secretary of state's office said in a news release.

“The state Supreme Court determines whether the number of signatures counted is sufficient for the proposal to be placed on an election ballot.”

Oklahoma's attorney general is then given five business days to review the ballot title.

“If the proposed title is found noncompliant, the attorney general has 10 business days to submit a rewritten ballot title,” the news release said. “The next step will be notification to the press to announce publicly that any member of the public can, within 10 business days, challenge the signatures and/or the proposed ballot title. When the measure has cleared all legal hurdles, it can qualify to be placed on a ballot for a vote of the people.”

Then I'll be really surprised to see it on the ballot. Does anyone really expect Scott "sue Colorado for their legal pot" Pruitt to get his part of the process done in 2 days when he could legally stretch it out to 15? For that matter, if there is a mandatory 10 day period for a member of the public to challenge the signatures or ballot title, is November even possible?

It may be better if it is on the ballot in June, IMO.

There is a lot of room in that process as listed for the state to drag its feet too long to get it on the November ballot. If all of the following needs to happen by Friday:



Then I'll be really surprised to see it on the ballot. Does anyone really expect Scott "sue Colorado for their legal pot" Pruitt to get his part of the process done in 2 days when he could legally stretch it out to 15? For that matter, if there is a mandatory 10 day period for a member of the public to challenge the signatures or ballot title, is November even possible?

There is no state law specifying a deadline as to when a state question can go on the Nov. ballot. The Friday deadline was an arbitrary decision set from the governor. So please call the governor and Attorney General's offices and tell them to put SQ788(Medical Marijuana) on the November 8th ballot!

Governor Mary Fallin's office: 405-521-2342
Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office: 405-521-3921

There is no state law specifying a deadline as to when a state question can go on the Nov. ballot. The Friday deadline was an arbitrary decision set from the governor. So please call the governor and Attorney General's offices and tell them to put SQ788(Medical Marijuana) on the November 8th ballot!

Governor Mary Fallin's office: 405-521-2342
Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office: 405-521-3921

I believe Tuesday is the actual hard stop for them to get it printed on ballot to comply is what I read yesterday. I could be wrong.

There is no state law specifying a deadline as to when a state question can go on the Nov. ballot. The Friday deadline was an arbitrary decision set from the governor. So please call the governor and Attorney General's offices and tell them to put SQ788(Medical Marijuana) on the November 8th ballot!

Governor Mary Fallin's office: 405-521-2342
Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office: 405-521-3921

I still think that's a mistake. A later special election would be better than the general election in November. I'm 100% sure it fails if on the November ballot.

I still think that's a mistake. A later special election would be better than the general election in November. I'm 100% sure it fails if on the November ballot.
Then Fallin and Pruitt should be glad to have 788 on the ballot, since it seems they're strongly against it. Why would it fail in Nov.? Because lots of conservative church people will be motivated to turn out and vote yes for the return of the Ten Commandments and pro capital punishment, but will vote NO for medical marijuana?

Then Fallin and Pruitt should be glad to have 788 on the ballot, since it seems they're strongly against it. Why would it fail in Nov.? Because lots of conservative church people will be motivated to turn out and vote yes for the return of the Ten Commandments and pro capital punishment, but will vote NO for medical marijuana?

And presidential elections have a larger turnout, the majority is conservative, and will likely vote no.

I'll agree with you on recreational use, but we're talking about medical needs. As it is, I'm not happy with taxing what would essentially be prescription drugs, as someone who suffers from seizures, chronic pain, and liver disease. All of which could be helped with medical marijuana.

+1. I would support a 20% tax on recreational.

And presidential elections have a larger turnout, the majority is conservative, and will likely vote no.

Or the flip side there could be a greater turnout of people interested in modernizing this law. In 2012 when CO had recreational on the ballot, voter turnout of registered voters was 66.57%, one of the greatest in the 50 states.
Conversely voter turnout of registered voters in 2012 of Oklahoma voters was 48.47%. The players in the AG office, and Governors office are wrestling with this I'm sure. This issue on the ballot could very easily increase voter turnout that also elects a Dem or two in the legislature.
http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/2012%20Swingstate%20Turnout.pdf

That's an unfair stance to hold other people too,

David,
That's why I said, "in my opinion". The CBS website can't be edited by me or any other non CBS journalist, Wikipedia can. We can agree to disagree and still be friends.
C. T.

David,
That's why I said, "in my opinion". The CBS website can't be edited by me or any other non CBS journalist, Wikipedia can. We can agree to disagree and still be friends.
C. T.

CBS can be hacked. Anytime you get online you are subject to false information. Wikipedia is a great tool if you know how to use it. Read the article and verify using the sources and links posted at the bottom. It is up to you to further decide how credible the website listed is.

This quote from a Tulsa World article appears to explain the Friday deadline: "The State Election Board in a May 13 letter to Gov. Mary Fallin said it needed all the ballot information by Friday in order to meet printing, testing and federal legal requirements for mailing ballots overseas."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/medical-marijuana-supporters-consider-options-if-question-doesn-t-make/article_798ffbc7-3933-5add-ad1a-2256d1d27925.html

Also to quote from Joe Dorman why the petitions did not come out sooner: "The group was working on writing new language and it took a while. The final draft was approved the morning of the day we filed the language. We were trying to get language which we were as confident as possible would hold up to a legal challenge."