Don't the current tests already do that? And the problem isn't determining the amount of THC in a person's system, it's whether or not they're impaired by that amount at the time of the test, isn't it? And that's where it starts to get messy... Other states have most likely figured some part of this out, so we need to follow their leads, not try to figure it out ourselves.


If that's the case then it's just more crap from the worry warts trying to muddy the waters. If they have a test that they can give someone that measures the amount of THC in the system then there need to be a baseline established just like there is for booze. So what's the issue?

If that's the case then it's just more crap from the worry warts trying to muddy the waters. If they have a test that they can give someone that measures the amount of THC in the system then there need to be a baseline established just like there is for booze. So what's the issue?

The issue is that unlike booze, whatever compound they test for can stay in your system for a month give or take. Unlike alcohol where a high blood alcohol level means you are drunk, someone can test positive for weed two weeks after they have smoked even though the high only lasts for a couple of hours..

Don't the current tests already do that? And the problem isn't determining the amount of THC in a person's system, it's whether or not they're impaired by that amount at the time of the test, isn't it? And that's where it starts to get messy... Other states have most likely figured some part of this out, so we need to follow their leads, not try to figure it out ourselves.

No, as I understand it, most tests look for non-psychoactive metabolites of THC (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol) such as THC-COOH (11-Nor-9-carboxy- Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol); however, there are a few saliva and blood tests that do directly test for THC. Directly testing for THC is preferable as an indicator of intoxication, as that is the psychoactive chemical and only really sticks around as long as the user is under the influence (typically 2-6 hours). THC-COOH is detectable for much longer (several days to a week or two), but since it's non-psychoactive, it's a poor indicator of present intoxication.

No, as I understand it, most tests look for non-psychoactive metabolites of THC (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol) such as THC-COOH (11-Nor-9-carboxy- Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol); however, there are a few saliva and blood tests that do directly test for THC. Directly testing for THC is preferable as an indicator of intoxication, as that is the psychoactive chemical and only really sticks around as long as the user is under the influence (typically 2-6 hours). THC-COOH is detectable for much longer (several days to a week or two), but since it's non-psychoactive, it's a poor indicator of present intoxication.

You're right, my bad, it is the metabolites that are tested for in urine and blood tests. And as has been said, those can stick around for days/weeks/months without the person being impaired/high. And actually, that's part of what makes those tests problematic WRT race, interestingly enough - stories have been written that coke/heroin/alcohol can only be detected for a fairly short period of time (a day or two, maybe, not totally sure) after being ingested, yet MJ can be detected for a lot longer, and it's been said that coke/heroin/alcohol use is more prevalent among whites than blacks, therefore whites can get away with more serious drugs/drug abuse than blacks can since the testing window for those is so short. Whether or not all those suppositions and theories are true, I'm not sure, but it sounds fairly reasonable.

But the big takeaway is that the current tests for MJ do not tell if someone is currently impaired, so someone could've smoked 3 weeks ago, get called for a drug test, test positive, and have hugely bad consequences from that even if they haven't smoked/eaten any MJ in weeks and aren't currently impaired/intoxicated/under the influence. Not a very good situation at all, and hopefully tech *will* catch up, as others have noted.

...And actually, that's part of what makes those tests problematic WRT race, interestingly enough - stories have been written that coke/heroin/alcohol can only be detected for a fairly short period of time (a day or two, maybe, not totally sure) after being ingested, yet MJ can be detected for a lot longer, and it's been said that coke/heroin/alcohol use is more prevalent among whites than blacks, therefore whites can get away with more serious drugs/drug abuse than blacks can since the testing window for those is so short. Whether or not all those suppositions and theories are true, I'm not sure, but it sounds fairly reasonable...

Interesting. Doesn’t really match my experience with administering pre-employment screening. Would love to expound on that, but I think it’s inappropriate and a general bad idea for me to get into my own HR matters here.

But the big takeaway is that the current tests for MJ do not tell if someone is currently impaired, so someone could've smoked 3 weeks ago, get called for a drug test, test positive, and have hugely bad consequences from that even if they haven't smoked/eaten any MJ in weeks and aren't currently impaired/intoxicated/under the influence. Not a very good situation at all, and hopefully tech *will* catch up, as others have noted.

There actually are a few commercially available tests that specifically look for Δ9-THC; of the ones I found on Google, many appear to be saliva-based tests (oral swab), with the remainder being blood tests. Truthfully, I have zero idea of the sensitivity and specificity of these tests, but at first blush the ones I've found would seem to be an effective test for acute intoxication. However, from a layman's standpoint, it seems as though the most common testing method is for the long-lived metabolite THC-COOH instead. This makes sense if the goal is to identify someone who is an illegal drug user (which has been the case for a long time), but not if you're looking for acute intoxication or impairment from legal consumption. But reading up on this, I've found a lot of information about how even just looking for the presence of Δ9-THC isn't always a positive indicator of acute intoxication, because it's fat-soluble - a heavy user will have higher levels of Δ9-THC in their bloodstream for much longer than a light user, but that light user could be intoxicated at a level much lower than the heavy user. Further, the level of Δ9-THC in their blood doesn't directly correspond to intoxication level like it does for alcohol. It sounds like this is an ongoing field of research and it's apparently really difficult to pin down a good way to qualitatively measure acute intoxication levels from MJ. Looking directly for Δ9-THC instead of metabolites does seem to be a step in the right direction, though.

Perhaps we would have better knowledge of and tests for cannabis if federal laws did not prohibit research.

Interesting. Doesn’t really match my experience with administering pre-employment screening. Would love to expound on that, but I think it’s inappropriate and a general bad idea for me to get into my own HR matters here.

Hey maybe you can answer this. Does drug testing REALLY save that much on insurance for a business? Because you're in the hole paying for a drug test for every single person that accepts an offer. So the insurance savings would need to at least make you whole after that cost. Additionally, if you give somebody a random and they ate a weed brownie legally while in another state a few weeks ago, then you have to fire that person and it can potentially cause problems for the business to have forced turnover due to an event that is unrelated to poor workplace performance.

My understanding is that the drug test manufacturers WANT business owners to believe that testing is the best thing ever and it will save so much money and make your business automatically better. But... I would have to think that the majority of workplace injuries happen to sober people.

My understanding is that the drug test manufacturers WANT business owners to believe that testing is the best thing ever and it will save so much money and make your business automatically better. But... I would have to think that the majority of workplace injuries happen to sober people.

What in the hell are they smoking? We want to legalize Cannabis for recreational and medicinal use--sounds as though the drug test manufacturers are smoking crack.

Hey maybe you can answer this. Does drug testing REALLY save that much on insurance for a business? Because you're in the hole paying for a drug test for every single person that accepts an offer. So the insurance savings would need to at least make you whole after that cost. Additionally, if you give somebody a random and they ate a weed brownie legally while in another state a few weeks ago, then you have to fire that person and it can potentially cause problems for the business to have forced turnover due to an event that is unrelated to poor workplace performance.

My understanding is that the drug test manufacturers WANT business owners to believe that testing is the best thing ever and it will save so much money and make your business automatically better. But... I would have to think that the majority of workplace injuries happen to sober people.


A testing policy likely saves a nominal amount on insurance premiums. The real benefit will be realized if people or property are ever hurt or damaged. If that happens and the individual that caused the issue tests positive, the insurance won't cover the claim.

There actually are a few commercially available tests that specifically look for Δ9-THC; of the ones I found on Google, many appear to be saliva-based tests (oral swab), with the remainder being blood tests. Truthfully, I have zero idea of the sensitivity and specificity of these tests, but at first blush the ones I've found would seem to be an effective test for acute intoxication. However, from a layman's standpoint, it seems as though the most common testing method is for the long-lived metabolite THC-COOH instead. This makes sense if the goal is to identify someone who is an illegal drug user (which has been the case for a long time), but not if you're looking for acute intoxication or impairment from legal consumption. But reading up on this, I've found a lot of information about how even just looking for the presence of Δ9-THC isn't always a positive indicator of acute intoxication, because it's fat-soluble - a heavy user will have higher levels of Δ9-THC in their bloodstream for much longer than a light user, but that light user could be intoxicated at a level much lower than the heavy user. Further, the level of Δ9-THC in their blood doesn't directly correspond to intoxication level like it does for alcohol. It sounds like this is an ongoing field of research and it's apparently really difficult to pin down a good way to qualitatively measure acute intoxication levels from MJ. Looking directly for Δ9-THC instead of metabolites does seem to be a step in the right direction, though.

Was going to post something similar, about it also depends on heavy users, fat-soluble, light users, levels of impairment for heavy users vs. light, etc., but you have much more scientific info and sound more literate, thanks! :)

Hey maybe you can answer this. Does drug testing REALLY save that much on insurance for a business? Because you're in the hole paying for a drug test for every single person that accepts an offer. So the insurance savings would need to at least make you whole after that cost. Additionally, if you give somebody a random and they ate a weed brownie legally while in another state a few weeks ago, then you have to fire that person and it can potentially cause problems for the business to have forced turnover due to an event that is unrelated to poor workplace performance.

Until marijuana is changed at the federal level, this isn't going to change. Even in states where its "legal" it's not really legal. It's against federal law no matter what voters in states say. And this can cost companies contracts with the government. Not saying it's right or wrong but it's the way it is and businesses need to protect themselves.

A testing policy likely saves a nominal amount on insurance premiums. The real benefit will be realized if people or property are ever hurt or damaged. If that happens and the individual that caused the issue tests positive, the insurance won't cover the claim.

So let's say I own and operate pw405's roofing business. I pre-employment test and also do randoms. My best roofer falls off a roof and breaks his leg. Even though the business owner has a testing policy that compliant with whatever regulations (legal/insurance/etc), Broke-Leg-Roofer-Guy will be denied workman's comp for the injury because he used weed at some point in past few weeks, and since I'm the business owner that is in compliance, I don't have to pay a dime for his workplace injury?

The above hypothetical does not take into account 788 passing. Just wondering how all this works now.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-pledges-support-legal-marijuana-blow-sessions-article-1.3932441

Interesting, Trump seems on board with protecting state's rights on this issue.

A testing policy likely saves a nominal amount on insurance premiums. The real benefit will be realized if people or property are ever hurt or damaged. If that happens and the individual that caused the issue tests positive, the insurance won't cover the claim.
Pretty much what I would have said.

Another issue...under OK current DUI laws, the presence of any sch 1 metabolites in you blood is DUI.

A. It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this section for any person to drive, operate, or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state, whether upon public roads, highways, streets, turnpikes, other public places or upon any private road, street, alley or lane which provides access to one or more single or multi-family dwellings, who:

3. Has any amount of a Schedule I chemical or controlled substance, as defined in Section 2-204 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or one of its metabolites or analogs in the person's blood, saliva, urine or any other bodily fluid at the time of a test of such person's blood, saliva, urine or any other bodily fluid administered within two (2) hours after the arrest of such person;

So let's say I own and operate pw405's roofing business. I pre-employment test and also do randoms. My best roofer falls off a roof and breaks his leg. Even though the business owner has a testing policy that compliant with whatever regulations (legal/insurance/etc), Broke-Leg-Roofer-Guy will be denied workman's comp for the injury because he used weed at some point in past few weeks, and since I'm the business owner that is in compliance, I don't have to pay a dime for his workplace injury?

The above hypothetical does not take into account 788 passing. Just wondering how all this works now.


This hypothetical is essentially correct. A drug screen will be conducted as soon as possible after the injury occurs. If there is a positive result, the insurance will deny the claim.

This 2015 guide from the state may not be 100% accurate anymore due to changes in the law; however, this section is likely to still be accurate:


Guide for Injured Workers

II. Is your injury covered?
Not all injuries that occur on the job are covered by workers' compensation. Injuries that do not occur as a result of employment activities are typically not covered. For example:
...
Injuries caused by the use of drugs or alcohol are not covered; a positive drug test creates the presumption that intoxication was the cause of an accident.

(PDF warning) https://www.ok.gov/wcc/documents/4_13_16%20Guide%20for%20Injured%20Workers%20FINAL. pdf

Another issue...under OK current DUI laws, the presence of any sch 1 metabolites in you blood is DUI.

A. It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this section for any person to drive, operate, or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state, whether upon public roads, highways, streets, turnpikes, other public places or upon any private road, street, alley or lane which provides access to one or more single or multi-family dwellings, who:

3. Has any amount of a Schedule I chemical or controlled substance, as defined in Section 2-204 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or one of its metabolites or analogs in the person's blood, saliva, urine or any other bodily fluid at the time of a test of such person's blood, saliva, urine or any other bodily fluid administered within two (2) hours after the arrest of such person;

I still think that is reasonable. In general I'm not supportive of people driving high, especially people who aren't experienced with cannabis. If SQ788 passes, patients will still be subject to existing DUI laws which IMHO doesn't really create a problem. Experienced cannabis users will likely fly under the radar anyways, as they're likely driving after using cannabis today and understand the risks.

Forgot to mention, that is no different than other states:

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/marijuana/driving-and-traveling

https://www.shouselaw.com/dui-marijuana.html

It sounds like the Oklahoma Senate is more interested in ending the session quite early than getting a regulatory bill out for legalized medical marijuana, in order to be prepared for passage of SQ788. If these concerns are not addressed, it increases the likelihood that business communities will throw money behind an opposition campaign ahead of the June 26 vote. Who knows? Maybe that is just what senate leaders want.

https://nondoc.com/2018/04/27/new-medical-cannabis-framework-discussed/

It sounds like the Oklahoma Senate is more interested in ending the session quite early than getting a regulatory bill out for legalized medical marijuana, in order to be prepared for passage of SQ788. If these concerns are not addressed, it increases the likelihood that business communities will throw money behind an opposition campaign ahead of the June 26 vote. Who knows? Maybe that is just what senate leaders want.

https://nondoc.com/2018/04/27/new-medical-cannabis-framework-discussed/

I'm sure every back-handed approach to stop 788 is being considered by the reps. I haven't really seen much anti-788 advertising yet except for a poster warning people that they'll need hazmat suits to survive black mold if 788 passes.

https://twitter.com/tbrownOKC/status/990991972235141120

Welp, here comes the official push for recreational to be on the November ballot.

https://twitter.com/tbrownOKC/status/990991972235141120

Welp, here comes the official push for recreational to be on the November ballot.

I support this but it's too soon and I fear this will actually hurt SQ788's chance of passing. On the other hand, the opposition to SQ788 are trying to push the narrative that it's really recreational marijuana disguised as medical and that might be harder to do when there's an actual recreational petition circulating.

https://twitter.com/tbrownOKC/status/990991972235141120

Welp, here comes the official push for recreational to be on the November ballot.
Without a bunch of paid signature takers, it doesn't have a snowball's chance through hell making it. I don't think they have revealed if they have the money to do that. They also have a medical marijuana petition, in case the legislature guts SQ788. They are too early. They should have waited until 2020. If SQ788 isn't gutted, a new medical marijuana petition isn't needed. Their excuse was they didn't want to wait until 2020. To avoid causing confusion, they want signature takers to tell signers to also be sure to vote yes on SQ788. Anyway, I don't expect to help get signatures.

Without a bunch of paid signature takers, it doesn't have a snowball's chance through hell making it. They also have a medical marijuana petition, in case the legislature guts SQ788. They are too early. They should have waited until 2020. If SQ788 isn't gutted, a new medical marijuana petition isn't needed. Their excuse was they didn't want to wait until 2020. To avoid causing confusion, they want signature takers to tell signers to also be sure to vote yes on SQ788. Anyway, I don't expect to help get signatures.

I agree. It would have been better to wait until 2020. However, I can somewhat understand their sense of urgency being that there is a big push in the legislature to make initiative petitions much more difficult, specifically to prevent legal recreational marijuana from ever happening here.

I agree. It would have been better to wait until 2020. However, I can somewhat understand their sense of urgency being that there is a big push in the legislature to make initiative petitions much more difficult, specifically to prevent legal recreational marijuana from ever happening here.

I wasn't aware that awful bill to make petitions more difficult had a strong push. It's mighty stupid for anybody to support it, because at the same time they would be making it harder to get their own issues on ballot. With a recent poll, showing Oklahomans support legalizing rec marijuana by 37%, I don't see much need for alarm to do something about it.

I support this but it's too soon and I fear this will actually hurt SQ788's chance of passing. On the other hand, the opposition to SQ788 are trying to push the narrative that it's really recreational marijuana disguised as medical and that might be harder to do when there's an actual recreational petition circulating.

Maybe Yen will see the difference.

This video is the debate on SQ788 held Thursday April 26th at OSU in Stillwater. The pro side could hardly ask for two better supporters. Norma Sapp has been a pro marijuana activist in Oklahoma for 29 years. Frank Grove surely worked harder than anybody in writing the petition, holding meetings with grass root supporters in Oklahoma City, Norman, Tulsa and Stillwater for suggestions in finalizing the wording, organizing the signature drive (remember the 24hr tent at NW Expressway & Meridian) and lately lobbying for acceptable regulations at the state capitol. Opposition was lame. Following a slide show on the history of marijuana presented by the moderator, the debate starts at around 24:00.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_2z96NmtuU&t=1507s

Legislators want an additional special session if 788 passes:

https://i.imgur.com/McHesJY.png

Maybe the Senate thinks it would be more legally wise to gut SQ788 after it passes, not before.

Legislators want an additional special session if 788 passes:

https://i.imgur.com/McHesJY.png

I think if they don't pass any legislation surrounding the implementation of 788 during their regular session, they'd pretty much have to have a special session to address it. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but it would seem necessary to have some additional legislation, similar to what happened with the cold beer laws.

I think if they don't pass any legislation surrounding the implementation of 788 during their regular session, they'd pretty much have to have a special session to address it. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but it would seem necessary to have some additional legislation, similar to what happened with the cold beer laws.

Ya, I suppose it it isn't inherently good/bad. Depends on the legislation.

I just find it LAUGHABLE that the legislators are so concerned that the "vague" question may pass... when in reality, OK's ILLEGAL weed market - completely unregulated, operating in the shadows, AND tax free is currently valued at $400,000,000. The "horror" of an out of control drug market exists today, as it has for decades.

Ya, I suppose it it isn't inherently good/bad. Depends on the legislation.

I just find it LAUGHABLE that the legislators are so concerned that the "vague" question may pass... when in reality, OK's ILLEGAL weed market - completely unregulated, operating in the shadows, AND tax free is currently valued at $400,000,000. The "horror" of an out of control drug market exists today, as it has for decades.

Source for the $400M number?

Source for the $400M number?

In the Youtube video Bunty shared, the moderator of the debate mentions the $400,000,000 figure and where it came from. Ballpark... ~1/3 of the way through the video, I think.

I think if they don't pass any legislation surrounding the implementation of 788 during their regular session, they'd pretty much have to have a special session to address it. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but it would seem necessary to have some additional legislation, similar to what happened with the cold beer laws.

I believe Yen's SB1120 passed (sadly, since it's a horrible bill), and there was HB3468, which establishes a commission and *some* framework for medical marijuana, which also passed, so I think they've got a start on it, but yeah, they might need to do some more.

I believe Yen's SB1120 passed (sadly, since it's a horrible bill), and there was HB3468, which establishes a commission and *some* framework for medical marijuana, which also passed, so I think they've got a start on it, but yeah, they might need to do some more.

According to http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1120, the bill passed out of the Senate, and in the House it passed out of committee, but with the enacting clause stricken, so it basically died in the House.

I believe Yen's SB1120 passed (sadly, since it's a horrible bill), and there was HB3468, which establishes a commission and *some* framework for medical marijuana, which also passed, so I think they've got a start on it, but yeah, they might need to do some more.


Yen will not be getting my vote. He just had mailers sent out yesterday asking for our vote. Hopefully someone steps up and defeats this guy.

Yen will not be getting my vote. He just had mailers sent out yesterday asking for our vote. Hopefully someone steps up and defeats this guy.

Yen currently has 3 people running for his seat:

Carri Hicks (D)
Danielle Ezell (D)
Joe Howell (R)

According to http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1120, the bill passed out of the Senate, and in the House it passed out of committee, but with the enacting clause stricken, so it basically died in the House.

Good to know, thanks, I had skimmed over the info at the website, but not gotten in depth (too much new house gardening has worn me out, argh).

If incumbent legislators go out campaigning before Memorial Day, I hope voters will express outrage at them for ending the session too early.

http://www.gayly.com/nhso-oklahoma-left-unprepared-medical-cannabis-legislature-fails-act

They're already putting out BS. SQ788 specifies a board certified physician. Now really, is any veterinarian a board certified physician?

SQ 788 is NOT Medical Files Organizational Papers

Garvin County Sheriff Larry Rhodes asks voters to look very closely at what they will be asked to decide in SQ788. The attached press release by a coalition named SQ788 IS NOT MEDICAL was recently organized to provide accurate information about the ballot measure."

SQ 788 is NOT Medical Files Organizational Papers
A coalition of medical professionals, those in law enforcement, business leaders, and members of the faith community filed papers today to formally oppose SQ 788. This broad-ranging coalition is committed to defeating the state question.
“This state question is NOT about Medical Marijuana,” stated campaign chairman Dr. Kevin Taubman. “This question is too broad and does NOT have the support of the medical community,” Taubman said. In addition to chairing this committee, Taubman is the immediate past-president of the Oklahoma State Medical Association, a founding member of the Vote NO coalition.

“When you look past the ballot title and into the details of the question, you see many problems,” stated Mike Waters, Pawnee County Sheriff and President of the Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association. “This state question creates a special class of citizen out of those who obtain a medical marijuana license. It does not make sense that an 18-year-old can go to a veterinarian, say he gets headaches, and then be given a two-year license to carry enough marijuana for 85 joints. As it is written, it is possible he could then have these on school grounds and because it is medicine from a doctor, we couldn’t do anything about it,” Waters continued. “I believe a better medical marijuana law could be written that our organization could support, but SQ 788 is not medical,” Waters concluded.

The state question is worded in a way that prohibits municipalities, landlords, employers, and even schools from regulating the activity of medical marijuana license holders. If this question passes, some say a college could not keep a license holder from smoking and growing marijuana in a dorm room, and the state question expressly states a landlord could not prohibit these activities. If in place today, one could not stop someone renting a hotel room from using marijuana, as our smoke free areas only apply to tobacco.

“The business community has serious concerns about how this state question is written,” stated Roy Williams, President of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber. “This state question infringes upon our rights to operate a drug-free workplace. Our opposition centers around our concerns for the safety of employees and the public,” Williams stated.

“This is not a debate about whether or not marijuana has medicinal benefits. In fact, members of our coalition are not unanimous in opposition to all medical marijuana laws – but we all believe SQ 788 is NOT medical and encourage our fellow Oklahomans to vote NO on 788,” stated Taubman.

Current members of the growing coalition include:

Catholic Conference of Oklahoma
Greater Oklahoma City Chamber
Oklahoma Academy of Ophthalmology
Oklahoma Behavioral Health Association
Oklahoma City FOP, Lodge 123
Oklahoma District Attorneys Association
Oklahoma Faith Leaders
Oklahoma Hospital Association
Oklahoma Osteopathic Association
Oklahoma Pharmacists Association
Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association
Oklahoma Society of Anesthesiologists
Oklahoma State Medical Association
State Chamber of Oklahoma
State of Oklahoma FOP

https://newsok.com/article/5594788/coalition-created-to-battle-against-medical-marijuana-state-question

To explain the opposition in short: They sure aren't doing it for your health!

Deadline to register is approaching!! Re-remind friends if they aren't registered they don't have much time left!!

Lol... these opposed to SQ788 file organizational papers?... to what? Issue press releases? OH NO!!!

Haha... I can see a bunch of old, scared, white people sitting around a room: "WHAT DO WE DO??!" "I Got it!" "Let's issue press releases using scare tactics and false information!!".

You know... what they've been doing for decades.

Deadline to register is approaching!! Re-remind friends if they aren't registered they don't have much time left!!

Lol... these opposed to SQ788 file organizational papers?... to what? Issue press releases? OH NO!!!

Haha... I can see a bunch of old, scared, white people sitting around a room: "WHAT DO WE DO??!" "I Got it!" "Let's issue press releases using scare tactics and false information!!".

You know... what they've been doing for decades.

They are still trying to use scare tactics to keep this from passing. Hopefully most voters can see through their BS. I mean we all knew this was coming. I hope this passes by a huge margin.

Of course the sheriffs office doesn't want this to pass as they want to keep arresting people that get caught with a joint so they can bleed them out of thousands of dollars and get them some court and jail time. It's what they do and how they make monies.

Deadline to register is approaching!! Re-remind friends if they aren't registered they don't have much time left!!

Lol... these opposed to SQ788 file organizational papers?... to what? Issue press releases? OH NO!!!

Haha... I can see a bunch of old, scared, white people sitting around a room: "WHAT DO WE DO??!" "I Got it!" "Let's issue press releases using scare tactics and false information!!".

You know... what they've been doing for decades.

Before smoking was banned at the capitol and elsewhere in public, such people would be doing something like that while smoking cigarettes. Maybe they still are somewhere else.

If this is voted down the cartels will be dancing in the streets as they will keep supplying the black market. This coalition or whatever they call themselves might as well invite the drug cartels to join them. It's not like they are going to stop people from using MJ if they get the no vote.

This is going to really all depend on turnout. The Baptists are currently in overdrive rallying their congregations against it but will they vote? Most people in online communities support it but online communities are typically much farther left than the typical Oklahoma voter. Whoever is the most energized and can turn out their base is who will win this. If you support this, VOTE, because every vote will count.

https://newsok.com/article/5596593/the-morning-brew-oklahoma-religious-leaders-speak-out-against-medical-pot

"'None of us can sustain the sound minds and healthy bodies God desires us to have when we place ourselves under the controlling influence of something other than His spirit. If this state question passes, we have no ability to stop someone from using marijuana in public places, exposing even children to second-hand marijuana smoke, because it elevates the status of marijuana to a medicine,' Abner said."

https://newsok.com/article/5596593/the-morning-brew-oklahoma-religious-leaders-speak-out-against-medical-pot

"'None of us can sustain the sound minds and healthy bodies God desires us to have when we place ourselves under the controlling influence of something other than His spirit. If this state question passes, we have no ability to stop someone from using marijuana in public places, exposing even children to second-hand marijuana smoke, because it elevates the status of marijuana to a medicine,' Abner said."

I gather those Oklahoma religious leaders don't have faith in their fellow Christian Republican legislators to gut SQ788 enough to suit them should it pass. If they're really so deeply concerned about the harm due to drugs, they might as well go on a crusade to ban opioids, since those drugs have killed thousands of Oklahomans over the years.

I wouldn't be too surprised if their viewpoints don't represent many Oklahoma Christians. We'll find out in the vote on June 26.

I gather those Oklahoma religious leaders don't have faith in their fellow Christian Republican legislators to gut SQ788 enough to suit them should it pass. If they're really so deeply concerned about the harm due to drugs, they might as well go on a crusade to ban opioids, since those drugs have killed thousands of Oklahomans over the years.

I wouldn't be too surprised if their viewpoints don't represent many Oklahoma Christians. We'll find out in the vote on June 26.

I don't know. The opposition has been ramping up the religious rhetoric. I'm sure they believe that's what will change people's minds on this. Sell medical marijuana as a threat to the moral fabric of this God-fearing state. In reality it's all about lining the pockets of Big Pharma and the private prison industry. However, the people have to think it's about doing the will of God or otherwise they wouldn't support such injustice.

I don't know. The opposition has been ramping up the religious rhetoric. I'm sure they believe that's what will change people's minds on this. Sell medical marijuana as a threat to the moral fabric of this God-fearing state. In reality it's all about lining the pockets of Big Pharma and the private prison industry. However, the people have to think it's about doing the will of God or otherwise they wouldn't support such injustice.

God-fearing to an insane degree and not educated enough about marijuana - great recipe...

... If they're really so deeply concerned about the harm due to drugs, they might as well go on a crusade to ban opioids, since those drugs have killed thousands of Oklahomans over the years.
...

Or alcohol - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than marijuana.

Passage will present some challenges. Oklahoma does have several states to examine how their laws & enforcement comes into play.


https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/wE_4FcB4xFZoMPqB3Qq1T_a6AHg=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10078197/marijuana_laws.0.png

Marijuana is legal for medical purposes in 29 states https://www.vox.com/cards/marijuana-legalization/what-is-medical-marijuana

I think the Oklahoma Christian Right started losing political influence beginning not very long after they succeeded in not getting lotteries legalized from the 1990s. The first cracks in support began around 1999 when they couldn't get "The Tin Drum" and Penthouse banned. Further erosion appeared around 2004 when legalizing lotteries and casinos were approved at the polls, followed by legalizing tattoo application. Most recently alcohol laws were modernized. The vote on it wasn't even close. So I think SQ788 will pass. It's just a question by how much. The greater margin it passes, hopefully the less the state legislature will feel like gutting it.

One may want to go further back in time to trace when the Oklahoma Christian Right first began losing influence, such as far back as 1959 when alcohol was legalized or 1984 when liquor by the drink was finally legalized after a number of failed tries at the polls.

Latest poll by Soonerpoll indicates SQ788 will still pass. Poll is 57.5% yes to 29.6% no. That's not bad, since it reflects what the demographics is expected to be on election day with the majority of voters expected to be over 55. Hopefully, greater than expected number of younger people will turn out and put it over 60%.

https://soonerpoll.com/medicinal-marijuana-still-likely-to-pass-no-increase-of-opposition-since-january/

“Support is high for SQ788 among liberals, moderates and Democrats,” said Bill Shapard, CEO of SoonerPoll.com, “but anytime you can get a third or more of the majority — like Republicans and conservatives — to vote with you, you can get any state question passed in Oklahoma, and this is what we are seeing in these results.”

Demographic data detailed here: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2FKWTV.images.worldnow.com%2 Flibrary%2Febddf214-617c-4100-ab1f-60359513f993.pdf

I agree completely. Weed is the primary financial source for the cartels. If possession and cultivation were legal, this would be the single most damaging blow against the cartels we could make. The border violence is out of control, and funding for it would dry up if you could simply buy a joint at seven eleven. The funny thing I don't understand is that people think that by keeping it illegal, it helps reduce supply. Not true, supply is plenty, and plenty of people use the plant already. I'd have to pull some sources, but it was released the other day that the states that have medical laws have seen a 10% decrease in traffic fatalities. Imagine that... All the technology we have put into making cars safer, roads better, and all of the click or ticket ad campaigns, and traffic fatalities rose every year except 2010 or 2011 (further research needed to find source), and states where this "drug" can bought legally, and suddenly fewer people die in car wrecks.

Colorado has had fully legalized pot for a few years now yet cartels and organized crime still attempts to get into the local market. I've outlined stories before on here recently that organizations are renting homes - even in well-to-do neighborhoods - and using them as grow houses. Medical pot use, unless strictly controlled by the state, and dispensed only through pharmacies, will become a sham. As occurred in other states, a few doctors will be responsible for issuing the vast majority of licenses - primarily to 20 and 30-something males.

My suggestion is to not dick around with it and call this what it is as an effort to legalize pot. If that's what the people want, then so be it. Its not been a major problem here so far (except for the pot houses) Just be aware of all the side effects and the constant few who always try to push the legal envelope. Also be aware of the advancements in pot science to greatly enhance it's potency....cocaine anyone?

Think about it. This isn't just a matter of a legal avenue for you to get high, it's a legal avenue for you to alter your brain, for your children to alter their brains, to fill the air with the smell of weed and skunk (see prior posts I've made), to create a whole industry based on getting stoned and a whole new type of public service announcements (AKA: Meg the Budtender, the earthly but cute mother who calmly sips her herbal tea/coffee and reminds you that kids always find a way to find things you've hidden - hide your pot from your kids responsibly).

Look beyond having a bag and lighting up a few to the overall effect on the communities you live in.

Oh, one other thing, yes, the use of alcahol has declined a bit since pot legalization in Colorado. Some are making the arguement, however, that in Colrado, anyway, it may more be a function of the simultaneous legalization and the opening of our vast light rail system along with the acceptance of ride-shares like Uber and Lyft. I know in talking to co-workers, there is much more casual lighting up and a lot less happy hours

The dicking around comes from the refusal of the Feds to take marijuana off schedule. It shouldn't be on any drug schedule list any more so than alcohol and tobacco. Prohibition of marijuana is a money maker for the DEA. So they will never support descheduling marijuana until forced to, probably from an act of Congress.

I‘M A CONSERVATIVE, CHRISTIAN, HOME SCHOOLING MOM AND I SUPPORT LEGALIZATION OF CANNABIS.
http://www.soonerpolitics.org/editorial/guest-editorial-confession-of-a-homeschool-mom-supporting-cannabis-legalization