if you meet the deadline, you meet the deadline...you don't move the goal posts after the fact.


That's not how it works around here. This is Oklahoma and these officials seem to make the rules to suit their agenda. Deadlines be damned!

The people who collected those signatures as well as the voters who signed those petitions deserve to have this put on the ballot for a November vote even if Scott Pruitt has to work overtime to get it done--he's salaried.

He's done. And did his part quickly. I'm not sure what else he could do.

Did Scott Pruitt sabotage the ballot title?

Supporters of medical marijuana state question criticize AG Scott Pruitt's rewrite of ballot title:


The rewritten ballot title does not accurately reflect the medical component and implies marijuana will be legalized regardless of medical need, Paul said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/health/supporters-of-medical-marijuana-state-question-criticize-ag-scott-pruitt/article_8d200b4f-976b-54a0-93df-9717fa998e47.html

A good State Attorney General would have been on top of his game anticipating what to write for a title.

Scott Pruitt purposely sabotage the ballot title or he is incompetent.

He wrote it to appear it's a full on legalization vote, striking any reference to medicine. These people are demonic.

You're not wrong. I see on here many people saying they know a lot of people who are moving to OKC or want to or know people that are, but my personal experience is completely different. Most of my friend are moving away from the city just be in a better environment.

When things improve, but not fast enough, you get the condition of rising expectations that cannot be met fast enough. This is a widely documented social science phenomenon observed in repressive countries (Oklahoma is not a dictatorship but is extremely oppressive). In this scenario, people who have been repressed, but for whom things have marginally improved, suddenly get rising expectations that can't possibly be met fast enough, and they often revolt. The improvement is slowing in OKC due to the oil and gas bust and suddenly the yahoos ruining (not running) our state become more prominent in people's minds. OKC is getting cooler overall but it seems like a sham when the state is moving backwards economically and socially. People with options are bailing left and right. It is happening.

They should wait to see how the elections on Nov. 8 turn out, especially to see if criminal justice reform questions are approved as well as the one for alcohol law reform. It will help if incumbent Republican legislators get thrown out.

I agree with you, but people do what they do. The difference between winning and losing is often subtle but significant.

I think the confusion is terminology. The state has a deadline for putting initiatives on the ballot. It's the latest one in the country, and according to ballotpedia is Sept 7. However, there is a process an initiative must go through, including a 10 day objection period, and a review by the SoS. And a title rewrite if requested by the SoS. Dorman knew this process going in, and has publicly stated they were aware that they pushed to very close. Also, back in May the election board requested the ballots by today to have time to print them.

If Dorman doesn't know how the process works, it's a good thing he didn't win the gubernatorial election.

If Pruitt and Failin push this vote to 2018, they will be doing Joe Dorman a huge favor: that would probably get him elected as our next governor. Pruitt is pretty dumb, which we have known for some time. But the word on the street is that he wants to run for governor (God help us). This will not help that effort because by 2018 this will become a major driver to get people to the polls. He would be smarter to get this off his plate now, but he is a total ideologue.

Okay so I just checked out what exactly it says, and I don't see what is wrong with the way it is written.

http://www.news9.com/story/32844189/pruitt-submits-ballot-title-for-state-question-788

I think the confusion is terminology. The state has a deadline for putting initiatives on the ballot. It's the latest one in the country, and according to ballotpedia is Sept 7. However, there is a process an initiative must go through, including a 10 day objection period, and a review by the SoS. And a title rewrite if requested by the SoS. Dorman knew this process going in, and has publicly stated they were aware that they pushed to very close. Also, back in May the election board requested the ballots by today to have time to print them.

If Dorman doesn't know how the process works, it's a good thing he didn't win the gubernatorial election.


Okay so I just checked out what exactly it says, and I don't see what is wrong with the way it is written.

http://www.news9.com/story/32844189/pruitt-submits-ballot-title-for-state-question-788

Read closer. The ballot language makes scant reference to medical MJ. It implies legalization. Setting the initiative up to fail with voters. Don't be fooled.

Polling has shown as many as 70% of Okies support medical MJ. Pruitt is writing this as if it's the Colorafo initiative. You're not dumb; why would he do this?😐

He wrote it to appear it's a full on legalization vote, striking any reference to medicine. These people are demonic.

Decisions like this are what fuels the perception and reality that Oklahoma is a poorly managed, and slow to change place. Keep voting for these fools

I figure this issue will keep getting pushed back til all surrounding states pass something similar. Then Ok will fall in line. Perception is reality.

Even with the current wording, I think it should still go on the ballot. I think it has a good shot at passing no matter what. Especially if everyone who signed the petition gets out and votes yes.

I figure this issue will keep getting pushed back til all surrounding states pass something similar. Then Ok will fall in line. Perception is reality.

And by then, the potential for huge revenues will have already passed us by. I don't understand why a state in such poor shape financially wouldn't jump at the opportunity to reap the rewards this kind of product would offer. Colorado seems to not have descended into mayhem after allowing recreational marijuana.

Even with the current wording, I think it should still go on the ballot. I think it has a good shot at passing no matter what. Especially if everyone who signed the petition gets out and votes yes.

Many would vote for it with the current wording; the trouble is it makes it easier for recreational users to obtain marijuana. Wasn't our intent to address the need for those who needed medical marijuana?

Many would vote for it with the current wording; the trouble is it makes it easier for recreational users to obtain marijuana. Wasn't our intent to address the need for those who needed medical marijuana?

Both wordings had the same result. Neither required a prescription.

Both wordings had the same result. Neither required a prescription.

It's a certificate that you have to obtain through a licensed doctor that is able to practice medicine in the state to only give it to people who they feel need it is what I got out of it. I'm not sure if California is the same way, but I went a doctor who gave me a certificate for anxiety and AHDH. I don't smoke that much, but it sure is nice to have that option to unwind just like having a drink every now and then.

Both wordings had the same result. Neither required a prescription.

I was personally more troubled by "Fees and zoning restrictions are established." changing to "Local government cannot use zoning laws to prevent the opening of a retail marijuana store." While still factually true, my guess is the updated language will have serious implications for turnout against the measure in rural parts of the state.

http://okcfox.com/news/local/group-at-the-state-capitol-call-for-vote-on-medical-marijuana

http://okcfox.com/news/local/group-at-the-state-capitol-call-for-vote-on-medical-marijuana


Really a sad deal for those folks that could use this to help make their lives better. This could easily be on the ballot in Nov. if certain people in high places wanted it to be on there IMO.

Really a sad deal for those folks that could use this to help make their lives better. This could easily be on the ballot in Nov. if certain people in high places wanted it to be on there IMO.
Face it. Most Oklahomans can't relate to legalizing medical marijuana as an important issue, because they and their loved ones have been blessed to be in very good health with no chronic conditions. They have little knowledge of what real pain and sickness is. It also reflects why the Oklahoma Legislature and the governor rejected any more Medicaid. Maybe it would help if candidates in wheelchairs would run for legislator.

http://www.koaa.com/story/32941667/us-court-upholds-ban-on-gun-sales-to-marijuana-card-holders

http://www.koaa.com/story/32941667/us-court-upholds-ban-on-gun-sales-to-marijuana-card-holders

As long as gun shows and private sales are legal, this ruling does not have much of a practical effect.

Face it. Most Oklahomans can't relate to legalizing medical marijuana as an important issue, because they and their loved ones have been blessed to be in very good health with no chronic conditions. They have little knowledge of what real pain and sickness is. It also reflects why the Oklahoma Legislature and the governor rejected any more Medicaid. Maybe it would help if candidates in wheelchairs would run for legislator.
Is there any data to suggest that the health of Oklahomans is good with fewer chronic conditions than the citizens of states where medical mj has been approved by the electorate?

this ruling does not have much of a practical effect.

Really? Wow!
How about not having the right to have a CCW permit? Then too if it's not permissable by law to purchase a gun, it's likely a felony to have one.

Really? Wow!
How about not having the right to have a CCW permit? Then too if it's not permissable by law to purchase a gun, it's likely a felony to have one.

I will be the first to say I do not know about the CCW issue as it relates to what you linked to. However I do know CCW is a states jurisdiction issue and the purchasing from a licensed gun dealer involves federal statutes. As to your second point, I can not say with certainty that if it is not permissible to buy a gun from a licensed dealer but it is permissible to buy a gun from a private seller that it is a felony to possess one. Obviously you also do not know the legal status of this question by your use of the word "likely". Maybe someone in the know can shed light on this grey area.

Look at other classes barred from purchasing firearms; Felon? No you cannot legally buy or posess a firearm. Says that right on the federal form. Mental? Same thing. Drug user? Same thing.
I'm positive you'd be committing a felony if you purchase a firearm if you have a MJ license. Firearms owned prior to the MJ license? :headscrat

As long as gun shows and private sales are legal, this ruling does not have much of a practical effect.

The last study I saw showed that 80% of gun purchases were made through licensed gun shops. So I can't imagine it not having much of an effect.

My question is how would a gun shop know someone was a card holder? Is it reported on the background check? If so, that's sort of scary.

The last study I saw showed that 80% of gun purchases were made through licensed gun shops. So I can't imagine it not having much of an effect.

My question is how would a gun shop know someone was a card holder? Is it reported on the background check? If so, that's sort of scary.

I get what you are saying. What I am saying though is there appears to be a legal loophole as long as private sales are legal. 20% of gun purchases in this country equates to quite a few guns, amiright? A mj card carrier now knows it is not permissible to buy at the local store but can buy privately if there is no restriction on possession. Possesion and buying from a licensed dealer are two different animals.

As far as knowing if a person is a mj card holder you are correct in how would the shop even know unless self reported. Or what about the individual that purchases a weapon prior to getting a mj card?

Really? Wow!
How about not having the right to have a CCW permit? Then too if it's not permissable by law to purchase a gun, it's likely a felony to have one.

An example of state jurisdiction of CCW butting up against legal medical mj.

Willis vs. Winters in which Oregon Sheriffs withheld concealed handgun licenses from applicants solely due to their medical marijuana use. Plaintiffs purported that applicants had submitted an otherwise favorable registration and that legal marijuana use was not a sufficient reason to deny a Concealed Handgun License. The Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not preempt state laws and required the sheriffs to issue the CHL anyway.
http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2011/s058645.html#

Question "e" pertains to MJ.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Question "e" pertains to MJ.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Nobody is taking a position contrary to the point you are repeating. However #1289 clearly shows that a state that has medical mj does not preclude an individual with said card from having a CCW nor for that matter be able to possess a firearm. This ruling contradicts your post in which you believed it was felony for said card holder to be in possession of a firearm and a medical mj card.

WTH is 1289? Is that something you have in your pocket?

Post #1289 (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=30795&p=965769#post965769) in this thread, I would assume.

Post #1289 (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=30795&p=965769#post965769) in this thread, I would assume.

Bingo, and I did not have to preface # 1289 with the word post. Post # 1289 cites a Oregon Supreme Court decision that rebukes the false assertion that Stick made in which he claimed it was a felony for a medical mj card holder to possess a firearm and by extension have a CCW permit. See post # 1286 - I'm positive you'd be committing a felony if you purchase a firearm if you have a MJ license or his post # 1284 it's likely a felony to have one.

Bingo, and I did not have to preface # 1289 with the word post. Post # 1289 cites a Oregon Supreme Court decision that rebukes the false assertion that Stick made in which he claimed it was a felony for a medical mj card holder to possess a firearm and by extension have a CCW permit. See post # 1286 - I'm positive you'd be committing a felony if you purchase a firearm if you have a MJ license or his post # 1284 it's likely a felony to have one. Hence my post about private sales and gun show purchases means the Federal ruling on mj cards and buying from licensed dealers can easily be negated.

Whatever you believe it all says now, I would just mention that the camels nose is under the tent so be prepared to see changes.

If it follows like it did in Colorado, you likely would not be able to (legally) get or renew a concealed carry permit. You also could be charged with possession of a controlled substance with a firearm if you smoked and had weapons in your home.

If it follows like it did in Colorado, you likely would not be able to (legally) get or renew a concealed carry permit. You also could be charged with possession of a controlled substance with a firearm if you smoked and had weapons in your home.

There is no place for it to follow in Oregon. It ended with the Oregon Supreme Court making a final ruling for Oregon. CC is a state issue.

Whatever you believe it all says now, I would just mention that the camels nose is under the tent so be prepared to see changes.

You just can't admit that you were incorrect can you? It is not what I believe it says, the ruling speaks for itself. I'm done with you.

There is no place for it to follow in Oregon. It ended with the Oregon Supreme Court making a final ruling for Oregon. CC is a state issue.

Correct. But Colorado chose to revoke CC permits for those that got a red card. That's why I qualified it as "if", which I expect would be likely in Oklahoma.

There is a ballot initiative in Colorado that would change this -

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Concealed_Handgun_Permits_Initiative_(201 6)

Correction, there was an initiative. Forgot it failed.

You just can't admit that you were incorrect can you? It is not what I believe it says, the ruling speaks for itself. I'm done with you.

I'm not the one who began his contribution to this section of this thread with
this ruling does not have much of a practical effect. so all you're doing now is trying to claim some petty 'victory' out of that. As mentioned, on the line "e" of the Federal form it asks if you are a user of illegal drugs. MJ is illegal everywhere per the Federal Govt so no, you can't legally buy a gun if you use MJ. BTW Where the heck is Bunty on this subject?

Related:

Kratom (I never heard of it before this story) is being moved to schedule 1. And apparently, per this story, it's a pain killer used by some people to avoid becoming addicted to pharmaceuticals.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5520134

Related:

Kratom (I never heard of it before this story) is being moved to schedule 1. And apparently, per this story, it's a pain killer used by some people to avoid becoming addicted to pharmaceuticals.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5520134

Thanks to backlash from not allowing a means to give feedback, the DEA decided to delay putting Kratom on Schedule 1. It's pretty stupid to do that. It makes research more difficult to determine its bad as well as good effects. The most worst thing most likely to happen from self doctoring on Kratom is an upset stomach from taking too much. However, there is some risk to being addicted to Kratom, like when used to get off opioids, but at least the danger of accidentally taking a fatal overdose is quite unlikely. Nearly all the small number of deaths associated with Kratom were also associated with other drugs in the blood stream. Aspirin is associated with more deaths, many from successful suicide attempts. I never heard of anyone trying Kratom for suicide.

The medical marijuana petition cleared the protest period with no problem. Only thing left is to see if Pruitt's rewrite of the ballot title can be rewritten and determine a date for it to be on the ballot, which can be no later than Nov. 2018. Since if passed, the state legislature can abolish or neuter it, I won't be surprised if another medical marijuana petition comes out for medical marijuana to make it a law under the state constitution. But will be surprised if it is attempted without adequate funding to gather signatures.

I'm sure the title will be rewritten somewhat. From what I've seen, it's fairly common for some back and forth on the ballot title, to get the language constitutionally sound.

As for the legislature... I'd be surprised if they acted on this, if it passes. I'm not optimistic about the vote, to be honest, but if by some chance it passes (and especially if it passes overwhelmingly) then I can't imagine the legislator using up political capital to overrule the will of the people.

Not by a wide margin, but I do think legal medical marijuana would pass in Oklahoma, because I haven't seen a poll that opposed doing that. But I'm not confident that if it passed, the legislature would not mess with it, since it's not a conservative medical marijuana plan, due to no restrictions on ailments treated, and cultivation is allowed, along with dispensaries. That is also why I don't think voters would pass it by a wide margin. Interesting, though, that nobody wanted to protest the successful results of the petition. Also if Arkansas voters can legalize medical marijuana in November, then surely Oklahoma can by 2018. The expense of over 1 million needed for a special election is cited as the reason why it can't be sooner. However, that can be countered by the tax revenues raised by sales of medical marijuana would eventually pay for the election. It would be taxed at 7%.

I don't think that rec marijuana, like in Colorado, can be legalized in Oklahoma for quite some time, like in less than 5 to 10 years. A 2015 poll showed only 31% of Oklahomans would approve of doing that. Passage of SQ 780 and 781 will be steps in the right direction, though, for state drug policy.

Nat'l Guard raids elderly woman's home over a single Marijuana plant:

http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaRaid-HG-100116-5074664

Fallin's task force calling for lighter sentences for drug related crimes; cites necessity due to OK prisons being overcrowded amidst a call for more prisons in the state:

http://m.newsok.com/governors-task-force-calls-for-decreasing-sentences-for-drug-crimes/article/5536636?rotator=true

First, this state does not need more prisons.
Second, the drug laws need to be relaxed.

Nat'l Guard raids elderly woman's home over a single Marijuana plant:

http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaRaid-HG-100116-5074664

LOL, Reefer Madness still rules!

It looks like the days if legal cannabis in some states may be coming to an end.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-marijuana-donald-trump-pot/

I know a lot of people don't agree with recreational or even medical marijuana usage from a moral and religious standpoint but there is no argument that the benefits outweigh the negatives of legalization and a majority of Americans now support legalization including 74% of Millennials. The divide on this is more generational than a left vs right issue (conservatives under 35 tend to favor legalization while those over 35 tend to oppose it). I can't see a lot of people supporting this move by Trump, beyond the pharmaceutical industry, the private prison industry, and the Southern Baptist Church.

The most ironic thing about this is this comes only a day after Trump was touting "states rights" on LGBT issues.

yah its interesting that "states rights" isn't a concern in this area.. hmmm wonder if this has something to do with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-will-again-use-private-prisons/2017/02/23/da395d02-fa0e-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.6c461fc47d8f

yah its interesting that "states rights" isn't a concern in this area.. hmmm wonder if this has something to do with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-will-again-use-private-prisons/2017/02/23/da395d02-fa0e-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.6c461fc47d8f

With most people on the far right it seems that, "states rights" only applies to red states and only applies to the evangelical agenda (anti-LGBT, anti-public education, etc). This is a politically dumb move for Trump as he likely won't get much support for going after cannabis outside the Bible Belt. Red states that are not politically dominated by evangelicals don't have an issue with legalization. Alaska is a very red state and they have legalized. It wouldn't surprise me if swing states in the Midwest like Ohio, Wisconsin, etc start legalizing soon.

The most ironic thing about this is this comes only a day after Trump was touting "states rights" on LGBT issues.

More like five minutes later, from what I understand both issues were covered in the same press conference.

More like five minutes later, from what I understand both issues were covered in the same press conference.

Hopefully this gets more press coverage and enough pushback that Congress decides to fix it. Cannabis legalization is an issue where liberals and libertarian-leaning conservatives can agree. The major force against it is the religious right.

In Oklahoma, the way alcohol prohibition was finally repealed in 1959 is the state had a governor that decided to enforce prohibition and that put pressure on the state to finally repeal it. With 8 states now allowing recreational marijuana and much of the country allowing at least medical, hopefully there is enough opposition that Congress can be persuaded to consider the issue. I think it would pass the House of Representatives. The Senate would be a bit more difficult but I can see it passing there as well. If not, hopefully we get a new Democratic Congress in 2018 that will have the guts to do what needs to be done and decriminalize it federally.

The FDA classifies drugs, not the Congress, and nationally decriminalizing it would actually violate an international treaty and UN agreement. The closes thing we can come to without a new treaty is the fed not enforcing it.

The FDA classifies drugs, not the Congress, and nationally decriminalizing it would actually violate an international treaty and UN agreement. The closes thing we can come to without a new treaty is the fed not enforcing it.

I guess now is the time for Trump to put his money where his mouth is. Who cares about the UN. America first. Will it happen? Not likely.

I am not opposed to legalization of marijuana, but the fact is, it is against federal law. Change the law and allow the states to decide. The DOJ is responsible for enforcing laws and they have no right to pick and choose which ones to enforce. Just my opinion, but I believe it is in line with how things should be handled.
C. T.

I guess now is the time for Trump to put his money where his mouth is. Who cares about the UN. America first. Will it happen? Not likely.

That's fine, as long as we accept that the moment we ignore our treaties and UN agreements, everyone else can too.

That's fine, as long as we accept that the moment we ignore our treaties and UN agreements, everyone else can too.

With countries around the world legalizing marijuana, like Spain, Portugal, and soon to be Canada, why is the US still bound by that agreement if other countries are not adhering to it?