I don't think it should be applied as policy. It's a dangerous precedent and at the least leads to uncertainty.


I don't have a problem with that statement as far as outlining their discretion in a formal written policy. But, I also don't have a problem when the DOJ does it. It's clear that that policy is subjective and reversible at any time. So, it doesn't really mean much going forward.

But I think it also shows that laws are subject to interpretation and societal norms. A written policy of discretion on certain topics simply acknowledges this while the powers that be figure out what they are going to do on a more permanent basis.

Had states not ignored the federal law and moved forward, then obviously we certainly wouldn't have states with legalized marijuana sales. Like I've said before, I'm a big fan of civil disobedience and individuals or states ignoring the law if they are willing to deal with the consequences. Our history is littered with the positive effects of such actions.

BBatesokc,
No, I'm not wrong, our laws require the DOJ to defend the constitution and enforce all laws of the United States. I didn't say they didn't use discretion but it is against the law. Show me where it says they can pick and choose the laws they enforce and then I will agree that "I am wrong". I'm not even saying you are wrong, the DOJ has not enforced several laws, what I am saying is that it's not the way things are supposed to work.
C. T.

Discretion is embedded in every aspect of our justice system, starting from when the cop decides whether or not to turn his lights on and go after the red-light-runner to the plea deals being cut to when the final gavel falls in the courtroom (or the equivalent of those scenarios), whether it be local, city, county, state, or federal. If there was no discretion and all laws were enforced, our entire society would grind to a halt in probably less than a day.

Is a blanket statement from the AG giving individuals discretion, or is it removing it and declaring a federal policy that a law won't be enforced at all? Fine with prosecutors looking at a specific case and using discretion but that's different than declaring as a blanket rule a law won't be enforced in certain states.

Has there been any recent polling done on state question 778?

One of my hardcore evangelical friends stated this the other day when it was in the news and we were discussing the issue: "If god put this plant on earth, he must have had a reason". He is younger though, I'd assume the 60+ age group will vote no pretty heavily but there are a lot of younger conservatives who I think will vote yes on it.

I think most of the hard core opposition as well as hard core support will be the 60 plus age group. I tend to doubt younger people like from the late teens through the 20s will care enough to vote for it one way or the other in good numbers.

I think most of the hard core opposition as well as hard core support will be the 60 plus age group. I tend to doubt younger people like from the late teens through the 20s will care enough to vote for it one way or the other in good numbers.

Apathy is the biggest enemy to this passing.

I think most of the hard core opposition as well as hard core support will be the 60 plus age group. I tend to doubt younger people like from the late teens through the 20s will care enough to vote for it one way or the other in good numbers.

Especially given that its going to be in June and not on the November ballot. I am certain the reason why it was moved up to June is that the powers that be think it will be less likely to pass.

Is a blanket statement from the AG giving individuals discretion, or is it removing it and declaring a federal policy that a law won't be enforced at all? Fine with prosecutors looking at a specific case and using discretion but that's different than declaring as a blanket rule a law won't be enforced in certain states.

I get where you are going. But I also take into account the implications of policy versus law. These policies of turning a blind eye can be rescinded at any time and without warning. That would cause chaos - in this case I'd be for it as I think it would result in actual changes in the federal law. Individuals and businesses that decide to invest millions (billions) into this federally illegal industry know the risk they are taking. I also see the benefit of the federal gov't taking a 'lets wait and see approach.' If legalization proves to be disastrous then the federal gov't will step up enforcement. If legalization seems to work and be overwhelmingly popular, then I see changes in the federal law. I personally prefer this 'wait and see' approach as opposed to a knee jerk reaction either way.

Especially given that its going to be in June and not on the November ballot. I am certain the reason why it was moved up to June is that the powers that be think it will be less likely to pass.

Sounds like they (Fallin) were more concerned about a large Democrat turnout in the general election and thereby winning back the Governor's office. I agree with jerry, though. I hope people get out and vote on this measure, in particular.

Sounds like they (Fallin) were more concerned about a large Democrat turnout in the general election and thereby winning back the Governor's office. I agree with jerry, though. I hope people get out and vote on this measure, in particular.

Spread the word! Contact old friends, relatives, anybody!! With this happening in a primary of a non general election year, every vote will count! I would hate to lose this by a few hundred votes! I can promise you this - anybody who has ever known me is going to be absolutely sick of hearing me talk about it until voting day. Make sure young folks register!!

Especially given that its going to be in June and not on the November ballot. I am certain the reason why it was moved up to June is that the powers that be think it will be less likely to pass.

I think Republicans also were afraid that too many people wanting to vote YES for medical marijuana in November would more likely vote for Democrats then.

I think Republicans also were afraid that too many people wanting to vote YES for medical marijuana in November would more likely vote for Democrats then.

Wasn't there a poll a couple years ago that 80+ % in OK were in favor of MMJ?

Wasn't there a poll a couple years ago that 80+ % in OK were in favor of MMJ?

That's nationally I believe. I think in Oklahoma its in the high 50s or low 60s.

A 2013 poll showed 71% of Oklahomans supported medical marijuana.
https://soonerpoll.com/poll-oklahomans-views-of-marijuana-are-changing/

I'd imagine it's a bit higher today.

A 2013 poll showed 71% of Oklahomans supported medical marijuana.
https://soonerpoll.com/poll-oklahomans-views-of-marijuana-are-changing/

I'd imagine it's a bit higher today.

A 2015 poll found 60% of Oklahomans supported legalizing med marijuana, while only 31% supported legalizing rec marijuana like Colorado does it.

A 2015 poll found 60% of Oklahomans supported legalizing med marijuana, while only 31% supported legalizing rec marijuana like Colorado does it.

Yeah, this is the figure I saw. I think medical has a good chance of passing providing there is decent turnout. Recreational is a few decades away and that is provided that the momentum towards legalization isn't stopped dead in its tracks by Sessions and Trump.

I'm always skeptical of stuff like this passing in OK, but then I was fairly surprised by how the 2016 Ballot Questions turned out so I'm cautiously optimistic.

I'm always skeptical of stuff like this passing in OK, but then I was fairly surprised by how the 2016 Ballot Questions turned out so I'm cautiously optimistic.

I agree. I was especially surprised how the "money for religion" question went. I thought for sure that would pass.

Without this proposal being a constitutional amendment, the legislature can negate the successful passage of this with their own legislation. Or in the alternative, amend the law to make it ineffectual. Just ask Kris Steele.

I think that if thus passes, especially if it strongly passes, the most they'll do it tighten up some aspects of this. Which, imo there are some aspects that need tightening up.

Without this proposal being a constitutional amendment, the legislature can negate the successful passage of this with their own legislation. Or in the alternative, amend the law to make it ineffectual. Just ask Kris Steele.
There will be a town hall meeting for Stillwater area state legislators on Thursday evening. Maybe they will get a question pertaining to medical marijuana.

I think that if thus passes, especially if it strongly passes, the most they'll do it tighten up some aspects of this. Which, imo there are some aspects that need tightening up.

Like what? IMO, this is too strict already.

Like what? IMO, this is too strict already.

What is strict about it, in any way? This is so loose it might as well be recreational and in some ways I think it's looser than some recreational states. I'll get into specifics once I get home from work.

nm

Yeah, this is the figure I saw. I think medical has a good chance of passing providing there is decent turnout. Recreational is a few decades away and that is provided that the momentum towards legalization isn't stopped dead in its tracks by Sessions and Trump.

Even if it does pass I am sure that they will figure out a way to cut the balls off and leave us with a shell of the orig. question. That's just how it works around here Pard!

What is strict about it, in any way? This is so loose it might as well be recreational and in some ways I think it's looser than some recreational states. I'll get into specifics once I get home from work.
There are all kinds of limits on how much you can grow, how much you can own and/or carry. How is it in any way shape or form close to recreational(which is what Oklahoma needs)?

Carrying three ounces is restrictive? That's a wild party. I can't see needing to carry more than a 1/4 for personal use. Colorado limits recreational carry to one ounce AND you have to be 21. Ditto for California. Oklahoma there is no age minimum if you have a medical card although you need parental consent to get one under 18. To me the quantity combined with the age issues is a cause for concern. Also that fact that it limits the cities right in regards to zoning. Something no other industry gets and even recreational states don't do that.

Oh, and this also matches the growth limits of California.

How many people die a year because of marijuana? How many people die a year because of alcohol? How much alcohol are you legally allowed to possess?

California you can walk in and buy weed for any reason. So no, regardless of the growth limits, this is nothing like California or any states recreational pot laws. Don’t cherry pick.

Why should there be an age limit to receive critical medicine that could potentially save a life and greatly reduce pain?

California’s pot laws are virtually unenforceed. There are so many places that allow minors and people with no card to buy weed even before the recreational laws were passed. It’s even legal to drive high, or it was. Not like that law will be enforced anyways.

Cherry pick? I responded to the exact restriction you mentioned. The quantity, but rather than aknowledge you were wrong you shift. Why are those liberal states restricting access to something so critical. Do they hate sick people?

Ok, on the card - yes, that's the single difference between this and full recreational. Although the cards will be easy to get, for any reason. Combined with it being obtainable by anyone 18 years or up, that's more permissive than California or Colorado which limits you to being over 21.Why are those liberal states restricting access to something so critical. Do they hate sick people?

Yeah you responded to a part of what I said about growing. Fine. There should absolutely no limit on how much you can grow or possess. That’s why I think the laws are too strict.

Remember, California just recently upped the age of tobacco use to 21. I was under 21 when I got my card. I have friends who were under 18 who bought weed from shops. The laws are on the books but aren’t enforced. I have no idea about Colorado.

PS, I edited the response just above yours to add a few things.

Actually, I responded to every single restriction you mentioned in your initial response, but moving on...

Arguing that the laws are poorly enforced and people routinely ignore them is a horrible argument and gives tons of ammo to the no voters.

As for driving while high, it's never been and is not legal anywhere in the US as far as I know. An another bad argument, although if someone thinks the speed limit should be eliminated they might not have a problem with driving under the influence.

Basically my main grip about this is that alcohol is so dangerous(listed more so than herion) and there are no limits on that. You can even drive while drunk. 0.08 can be too high for some people and others can drive fine well beyond that.

Every single friend I ever knew in middle and high school had easy access to booze. I did too. Passing archaic laws such as preventing stores from being x distance from schools or churches does nothing to stop kids from getting it. Arguably, increases the will or desire to do it. Passing age limit laws don’t prevent jack. Many countries have very low or no age limits at all for alcohol and they just fine.

I drink and smoke. I enjoy it in moderation. But I see the differences between weed and alcohol. It’s shocking that people want limits placed on weed but not alcohol. I’m against limits on either of them. If I had my way, just about every drug out there would be legalized and taxed. So that’s where my position is at.

Actually, I responded to every single restriction you mentioned in your initial response, but moving on...

Arguing that the laws are poorly enforced and people routinely ignore them is a horrible argument and gives tons of ammo to the no voters.

As for driving while high, it's never been and is not legal anywhere in the US as far as I know. An another bad argument, although if someone thinks the speed limit should be eliminated they might not have a problem with driving under the influence.Yeah, I think speed limits should be eliminated on certain corridors having an autobahn type system in the US. German autobahns are some of the safest freeways in the world. But I know, I’m crazy and insane for wanting that.

You’re missing my point about the laws not being enforced or being ignored.

Moving on from restrictions, okay. So what about my other points concerning alcohol?

I know, I’m such a fiend because I’ve hurt so many people driving stoned. Meanwhile how many who aren’t high killed how many people? Where are the statistics to back up how dangerous it is to drive stoned? Because I obey and follow all speed limits and am very cautious way more than when I’m not smoking. Of course I can already guess what your response is going to be to this but whatever.

You weren’t even arguing with my points which I’m sure you view as extreme as I’m sure a number of other posters on this board will view as well. I won’t respond to anything else regarding them because it’s a moot point and off topic.

I should note that for people under the age of 18 to get Medical under SQ788, they have to get permission from two different doctors.

I've got a friend who has to anally inject valium into his child because the child is having seizures. Correct - he has to carry around a giant anal syringe full of a liquid benzo for when the child has seizures. If I were the kid or the parent... I'd prefer a tincture of a plant extract vs. anal injection of Valium. Am I crazy?

I drink and smoke. I enjoy it in moderation. But I see the differences between weed and alcohol. It’s shocking that people want limits placed on weed but not alcohol. I’m against limits on either of them.

I agree. You can buy as many bottles of Everclear as you want. But if you're stupid enough, you can drink too much of that stuff and die. Fortunately, stories of people doing just that are rare. Legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes to get rid of the problems, especially the violent ones, associated with it for being illegal.

It's also ironic how little concern there is over drugs being advertised on TV, such as Chantix, that carry the warning among the possible bad side effects that the drug may make you feel like killing yourself. I guess it's because they're FDA approved.

All the details how medical marijuana in Oklahoma will be regulated, if passed, can be found here: https://yeson788.com/sq-788. Hopefully, legislators will leave it alone for at least a year or two to see how well it works.

I should note that for people under the age of 18 to get Medical under SQ788, they have to get permission from two different doctors.

I've got a friend who has to anally inject valium into his child because the child is having seizures. Correct - he has to carry around a giant anal syringe full of a liquid benzo for when the child has seizures. If I were the kid or the parent... I'd prefer a tincture of a plant extract vs. anal injection of Valium. Am I crazy?

I feel like for those under 18, the parent should be able to get the caregiver license.

On a side note, I have epilepsy and pretty bad seizures. Now I take perfectly legal and non THC CBD oil. Been taking it for a little over a year and no seizures and none of the nausia from Keppra I used to get. Obviously every case is different but for seizure disorders the THC isn't relevant as far as I know.

I agree. You can buy as many bottles of Everclear as you want. But if you're stupid enough, you can drink too much of that stuff and die. Legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes to get rid of the problems associated with it for being illegal.

All the details how medical marijuana in Oklahoma will be regulated, if passed, can be found here: https://yeson788.com/sq-788. Hopefully, legislators will leave it alone for at least a year or two to see how well it works.
Yeah lol. I didn’t even mention tobacco.

I agree. You can buy as many bottles of Everclear as you want. But if you're stupid enough, you can drink too much of that stuff and die. Fortunately, stories of people doing just that are rare. Legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes to get rid of the problems, especially the violent ones, associated with it for being illegal.

It's also ironic how little concern there is over drugs being advertised on TV, such as Chantix, that carry the warning among the possible bad side effects, that the drug may make you feel like killing yourself. I guess it's because they're FDA approved.

All the details how medical marijuana in Oklahoma will be regulated, if passed, can be found here: https://yeson788.com/sq-788. Hopefully, legislators will leave it alone for at least a year or two to see how well it works.

These quantity limits are so high its laughable to even bring them up as a restriction. It would be like complaining if you can't have 24 handles of vodka. Yeah, no alcohol limit exists and 3 ounces plus 8 in the house of marijuana is a limit no one who isn't dealing on the side is going to come up against.

If anything, these proposed regulations are looser in some ways than those on tobacco or alcohol, and will be amunition from the no campaign. I'm already hearing it from the talking heads on the radio. No one is fooled that this is about medical marijuana. It's about disguising medical as recreational. Which, I'm all for, but again, let's be honest.

I know, I’m such a fiend because I’ve hurt so many people driving stoned. Meanwhile how many who aren’t high killed how many people?

This... this is not good logic.


Where are the statistics to back up how dangerous it is to drive stoned?

Lenné MG, Dietze PM, Triggs TJ, Walmsley S, Murphy B, Redman JR. The effects of cannabis and alcohol on simulated arterial driving: Influences of driving experience and task demand. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42(3):859-866. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.04.021.


This study compared the effects of three doses of cannabis and alcohol (placebo, low and high doses), both alone and in combination, on the driving performance of young, novice drivers and more experienced drivers. Alcohol was administered as ethanol (95%) mixed with orange juice in doses of approximately 0, 0.4 and 0.6g/kg. Cannabis was administered by inhalation of smoke from pre-rolled cannabis cigarettes (supplied by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, USA). Active cigarettes contained 19 mg delta-9-THC. Using a counterbalanced design, the simulated driving performance of 25 experienced and 22 inexperienced drivers was tested under the nine different drug conditions in an arterial driving environment during which workload was varied through the drive characteristics as well as through the inclusion of a secondary task. High levels of cannabis generally induced greater impairment than lower levels, while alcohol at the doses used had few effects and did not produce synergistic effects when combined with cannabis. Both cannabis and alcohol were associated with increases in speed and lateral position variability, high dose cannabis was associated with decreased mean speed, increased mean and variability in headways, and longer reaction time, while in contrast alcohol was associated with a slight increase in mean speed. Given the limitations of the study, it is of great interest to further explore the qualitative impairments in driving performance associated with cannabis and alcohol separately and how these impairments may manifest in terms of crash characteristics.

Hartman RL, Huestis MA. Cannabis effects on driving skills. Clin Chem. 2013;59(3):478-492. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2012.194381.


We review and evaluate the current literature on cannabis' effects on driving, highlighting the epidemiologic and experimental data. Epidemiologic data show that the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) increases approximately 2-fold after cannabis smoking. The adjusted risk of driver culpability also increases substantially, particularly with increased blood THC concentrations. Studies that have used urine as the biological matrix have not shown an association between cannabis and crash risk. Experimental data show that drivers attempt to compensate by driving more slowly after smoking cannabis, but control deteriorates with increasing task complexity. Cannabis smoking increases lane weaving and impaired cognitive function. Critical-tracking tests, reaction times, divided-attention tasks, and lane-position variability all show cannabis-induced impairment. Despite purported tolerance in frequent smokers, complex tasks still show impairment. Combining cannabis with alcohol enhances impairment, especially lane weaving.

Hartman RL, Brown TL, Milavetz G, et al. Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:25-37. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.015.


CONCLUSIONS: [Standard deviations of lateral position] was a sensitive cannabis-related lateral control impairment measure.

It is true that it is less clear if marijuana is associated with actual crashes (e.g., https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/pdf/marijuana-driving-508.pdf), as even though studies have shown positive correlations it is hard to control for every factor that goes into a study like that. But it is clear that marijuana consumption can impair driving accuracy, and I don't believe people who claim being high doesn't affect their driving performance for a second. (And I say this as someone who used to partake pretty regularly and strongly believes both medicinal and recreational marijuana should be legal. I just feel strongly about the whole driving thing.)

Okay well be sure to give a thought to the 28 people who will die tonight because of drunk driving. How many people will die from driving stoned again?

Keep in mind, I’m not saying driving stoned should be considered good practice. You should be 100% sober no matter what when driving.

I've never seen a more persistent use of a straw man argument, since no one here has been advocating for expanded availability of alcohol. Let's check out the modernization of liquor law thread and see who was pro expanding availability. Oh yeah... Not me.

I feel like for those under 18, the parent should be able to get the caregiver license.

On a side note, I have epilepsy and pretty bad seizures. Now I take perfectly legal and non THC CBD oil. Been taking it for a little over a year and no seizures and none of the nausia from Keppra I used to get. Obviously every case is different but for seizure disorders the THC isn't relevant as far as I know.

That is very good to hear about the treatment for your seizures. How do you acquire the oil, and what other ailments is it used for? My wife and I are on some medications that I'd like to get off, and I'm hopeful medical marijuana, in some form, could do the trick. Do you need a prescription for the oil?

You don't. I get it from a vape shop. There's also the CBD hut on South Penn. It helps with my wife's Crohn's as well, and my joint pain from my iron disorder. Not sure what else it helps with but I'm sure the folks at one of the shops could give more information.

You don't. I get it from a vape shop. There's also the CBD hut on South Penn. It helps with my wife's Crohn's as well, and my joint pain from my iron disorder. Not sure what else it helps with but I'm sure the folks at one of the shops could give more information.

Thank you for the info! I'll have to check it out.

A 2015 poll found 60% of Oklahomans supported legalizing med marijuana, while only 31% supported legalizing rec marijuana like Colorado does it.

Ah, I think I found it.
https://mjbizdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SoonerPoll2015.pdf

What stood out to me is the breakdown of age of those polled:
18-24 : 7
25-34: 15
35-44: 46
45-54: 82
55-64: 103
65+: 144

Ah, I think I found it.
https://mjbizdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SoonerPoll2015.pdf

What stood out to me is the breakdown of age of those polled:
18-24 : 7
25-34: 15
35-44: 46
45-54: 82
55-64: 103
65+: 144

Maybe those are the blocs with the highest percentage of people who actually vote? Could these numbers be compared to the stats from the last few elections to see if that bears out?

These quantity limits are so high its laughable to even bring them up as a restriction. It would be like complaining if you can't have 24 handles of vodka. Yeah, no alcohol limit exists and 3 ounces plus 8 in the house of marijuana is a limit no one who isn't dealing on the side is going to come up against.

If anything, these proposed regulations are looser in some ways than those on tobacco or alcohol, and will be amunition from the no campaign. I'm already hearing it from the talking heads on the radio. No one is fooled that this is about medical marijuana. It's about disguising medical as recreational. Which, I'm all for, but again, let's be honest.

Being honest was realizing that every state that has legalized rec marijuana first had to legalize medical marijuana. As a poll showed, it would not have been smart yet to go for a vote to legalize rec marijuana in Oklahoma.

Do we have any numbers as to how many people are busted and taken to jail in Ok County/Ok State for possession of MJ?

Being honest was realizing that every state that has legalized rec marijuana first had to legalize medical marijuana. As a poll showed, it would not have been smart yet to go for a vote to legalize rec marijuana in Oklahoma.

Agreed. We may be comitting Icarus' sin on this one though. I hope not n

Do we have any numbers as to how many people are busted and taken to jail in Ok County/Ok State for possession of MJ?

This is from 2016:

https://okpolicy.org/arrests-possession-marijuana-spiked-oklahoma-last-year-whats-going/

This is from NORML, and covers a few more years:

http://norml.org/data/item/oklahoma-marijuana-arrests

I really, really, hope the yes campaign pushes the estimated cost savings in prosecutions and incarcerations if this passes. The pocket book is a big vote getter.

I really, really, hope the yes campaign pushes the estimated cost savings in prosecutions and incarcerations if this passes. The pocket book is a big vote getter.

I also feel like this is a great topic to mention to people who don't consume cannabis - I always tell people: "you don't have be high (or even like cannabis) to understand that our current system isn't working. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on things we badly need - teachers, roads, job training, etc".

I also feel like this is a great topic to mention to people who don't consume cannabis - I always tell people: "you don't have be high (or even like cannabis) to understand that our current system isn't working. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on things we badly need - teachers, roads, job training, etc".

Absolutely, not to even mention the possible tax money brought in by the legal sale of medical marijuana.

This is from 2016:

https://okpolicy.org/arrests-possession-marijuana-spiked-oklahoma-last-year-whats-going/

This is from NORML, and covers a few more years:

http://norml.org/data/item/oklahoma-marijuana-arrests


Thanks for those links. Very disturbing trend and very Ok like trend.

Absolutely, not to even mention the possible tax money brought in by the legal sale of medical marijuana.

Oh I agree, especially at a time when our state needs tax revenue so badly.

Many different existing industries can benefit too: electricians (wiring up grow rooms), commercial real estate owners who will rent space to growers/refiners/stores/supply shops, Dr's who will get to see new patients wanting a license, bakeries/cooks who might want to diversify their recipes to include cannabis infusions, etc. Of course all of these different segments of the legal industries will have employees, supervisors, managers, etc. Many new businesses will of course need accountants, advertising contracts, legal consultations and general business services/human capital management (Paycom, Workday, etc).

Or?

We could continue to let the black market own the industry in Oklahoma. Drug dealers who aren't afraid to kill to defend their business which funnels the money up and out of the local economy and eventually into the hands of cartels. You know, the guys who will take a belt sander to your face & drill holes into your head if you come up short on a payment.

We could continue to let the black market own the industry in Oklahoma. Drug dealers who aren't afraid to kill to defend their business which funnels the money up and out of the local economy and eventually into the hands of cartels. You know, the guys who will take a belt sander to your face & drill holes into your head if you come up short on a payment.

While I'm definitely, and firmly, against the war on drugs overall. I read an article the other day about the problems the state of California is still having with the gangs growing marijuana and creating a black market for it.

I'm not convinced legalizing it ends the gang/cartel problem but it solves a lot of financial problems for the state. We waste way too many tax dollars housing people in prisons that are only guilty of crimes of personal choice against themselves. And we all know they are still getting their hands on drugs in prison and continuing to make the same poor choices on our dime.

While I'm definitely, and firmly, against the war on drugs overall. I read an article the other day about the problems the state of California is still having with the gangs growing marijuana and creating a black market for it.

I'm not convinced legalizing it ends the gang/cartel problem but it solves a lot of financial problems for the state. We waste way too many tax dollars housing people in prisons that are only guilty of crimes of personal choice against themselves. And we all know they are still getting their hands on drugs in prison and continuing to make the same poor choices on our dime.

It would be interesting to see how the illegal market handles CA's full recreational laws now. I'm sure some level of illegal sales will still occur, but at some point the consumers will likely prefer buying at retail vs. from a dealer, unless the dealer's prices are insanely lower. Simple economies of scale would seem to indicate that larger, legal operations will be better equipped to compete on price. Bootleg alcohol sales still exist today, but by and large, people prefer to buy alcohol at retail.

Indeed, true change will take time. Cartels have enjoyed multiple decades to perfect their operations at the cost of the American tax payer (and all the lives lost along the way). Of course they'll still have their meth, cocaine, & heroin businesses, but marijuana sales are typically regarded as their revenue foundation.

IMHO, medical cannabis is the first step towards more logical policies about how our society will handle drugs. Hopefully over time, we work to make all drug laws more sensible, with a focus on harm reduction instead of criminal punishments. As an example, Canada has allowed crack pipes and needles to be purchased in vending machines, as it will help reduce the instances of HIV & hepatitis that can occur from sharing needles & pipes. Costly diseases to treat - but an extremely simple preventative measure.

I think taking "the first step" towards a new policy on drugs is always the most difficult for those who have been brainwashed to think drugs are so bad. Much like the first MAPS vote in OKC, that "first step" was criticized as something that isn't going to work/help. Looking back, I can't imagine how differently my city - even my life - may have been without the first MAPs vote passing. Would I even live here? Would OKCTalk even exist?

I feel like this vote is also important for changing stereotypes about "red" Oklahoma and our backwards policies which are hurting our state in ways we'll never know. What companies have overlooked relocating here simply because of our political stereotypes?

While I'm definitely, and firmly, against the war on drugs overall. I read an article the other day about the problems the state of California is still having with the gangs growing marijuana and creating a black market for it.

I'm not convinced legalizing it ends the gang/cartel problem but it solves a lot of financial problems for the state. We waste way too many tax dollars housing people in prisons that are only guilty of crimes of personal choice against themselves. And we all know they are still getting their hands on drugs in prison and continuing to make the same poor choices on our dime.
On the other hand, there are no arguments being made to return to prohibition just because they found a still in Idabel or in Gravel Switch, Kentucky

Where does one go for info on becoming a grower in oklahoma?

Where does one go for info on becoming a grower in oklahoma?


Not sure but since it's still illegal I doubt that there's much info. out there. Hopefully if it passes that it will be a fair and just system that doesn't just benefit a few connected good ole boys.

The State has missed out on so much potential tax revenue they should be down on their knees praying that this passes.