I think Stitt is salivating over the additional tax revenue rec will bring, so it might be a win either way for him and the OK GOP. My guess is they like tax money more than they hate pot.

I tend to doubt that. Anyway, I heard Stitt couldn't schedule the election on March 14th when college students are on break, because election law requires elections to be held on the first Tuesday of the month.

I don't have as strong of a positive feeling that SQ820 will pass as I did for SQ788. I bet it will be close. Even one of the biggest sponsors of SQ820, Ryan Kiesel, said tonight that the election would be extraordinarily close.

I guess it will come down to who is more motivated to get out to vote. I feel like Medical passed as rural Oklahomans were in favor of this. I wonder if that has changed with how many farms and shops have popped up. I guess we will know next week.

Actually, the majority of rural counties voted against medical, especially in the western half of the state. Metro counties largely carried it to victory. Now SQ820 opponents have to hope urban support for rec will be off enough from medical.

Interactive Map: How did Oklahoma counties vote for State Question 788?
https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/interactive-map-how-did-oklahoma-counties-vote-for-state-question-788/

Actually, the majority of rural counties voted against medical, especially in the western half of the state. Metro counties largely carried it to victory. Now SQ820 opponents have to hope urban support for rec will be off enough from medical.

Interactive Map: How did Oklahoma counties vote for State Question 788?
https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/interactive-map-how-did-oklahoma-counties-vote-for-state-question-788/

Interesting! Thanks for the link.

I tend to doubt that. Anyway, I heard Stitt couldn't schedule the election on March 14th when college students are on break, because election law requires elections to be held on the first Tuesday of the month.

I don't have as strong of a positive feeling that SQ820 will pass as I did for SQ788. I bet it will be close. Even one of the biggest sponsors of SQ820, Ryan Kiesel, said tonight that the election would be extraordinarily close.

You doubt our current administration hates pot more than tax revenue?

You doubt our current administration hates pot more than tax revenue?

Considering they are doing everything they can to have less tax revenue (and spend less, which is already bare bones), I don't think it is an argument at all.

You doubt our current administration hates pot more than tax revenue?

Yes I doubt that. Stitt has came out opposing it and the Oklahoma Republican Party came out staunchly against it and specifically said that the revenue generating potential "does nothing to persuade us."

Interesting article, knew OK was an outlier, had no idea *how much* of an outlier...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oklahoma-recreational-marijuana-referendum_n_640107b6e4b0a96d9cd2606d

Interesting article, knew OK was an outlier, had no idea *how much* of an outlier...


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oklahoma-recreational-marijuana-referendum_n_640107b6e4b0a96d9cd2606d

In what ways? It seemed to underestimate how many people in Oklahoma would actually use medical Marijuana. So I'm wondering where Oklahoma is an outlier here.

In what ways? It seemed to underestimate how many people in Oklahoma would actually use medical Marijuana. So I'm wondering where Oklahoma is an outlier here.

Do you want me to read the article out loud to you?

"In Oklahoma, a resident can have up to 3 ounces of marijuana on them and up to 8 ounces in their residence as well as up to six mature plants and six seedling plants, 1 ounce of concentrate, 72 ounces of edibles and also up to 72 ounces of topical marijuana.

“In most states that have recreational [marijuana], that type of weight is a felony,” Devereaux said.

To meet demand, Oklahoma has the most dispensaries of any state in the country, by MJBizDaily’s account. Oklahoma had 2,880 licensed dispensaries as of early February, according to the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority. California listed 398 fully licensed retailers and 701 provisional licensees.

To supply all those dispensaries, Oklahoma has licensed 7,088 farms, only about 500 less than California. Of those, Woodward said, about 2,000 are under investigation for obtaining their license by fraud, potentially with the intent of selling their products out of state illegally."

I thought you were trying to find a negative about Oklahomans views on weed. If anything, all of the problems that article pointed out are reasons why some might vote against recreational.

I thought you were trying to find a negative about Oklahomans views on weed. If anything, all of the problems that article pointed out are reasons why some might vote against recreational.

Yep. I'm worried the utter free-for-all our medical market has become will have soured some people on the potential who then think recreational will make it even worse. If medical was a "trial run" in some people's minds, I don't know if they're going to love the preliminary results and vote for more.

Devereaux, the Logan County sheriff, is of two minds. While not happy at the prospect of more marijuana-related businesses, he also said full legalization may be a practical choice to make illegal growing less profitable.

“We can’t put the cat back in the bag right now, I guess. It’s too big. It’s gotten too big to try to control now,” he said.

This guy had the most sensible take in the whole article, IMO. Nearly the entire rest of it is a weird argument that illegal activity means recreational should stay illegal, which to me just looks like a self fulfilling prophecy.

I thought you were trying to find a negative about Oklahomans views on weed. If anything, all of the problems that article pointed out are reasons why some might vote against recreational.

Me? It was just an observation, thought the article was interesting, I didn't say anything about the viewpoints in it other than to notice that we were outliers in a lot of categories (I knew we were, just didn't know to what extent).

I had never voted early before. Lot was full but I never stopped moving and was in and out in 5 minutes. I might do this from now on.

Yes I doubt that. Stitt has came out opposing it and the Oklahoma Republican Party came out staunchly against it and specifically said that the revenue generating potential "does nothing to persuade us."

I hadn't heard that. I really hadn't heard much from the state GOP about it, though. While it shouldn't surprise me, it does.

I had never voted early before. Lot was full but I never stopped moving and was in and out in 5 minutes. I might do this from now on.

I've voted early once before, and it was because the weather was going to be cold and bad on voting day. That's one of the best reasons to have early voting.

You doubt our current administration hates pot more than tax revenue?

Yes. However, at least legislators allowed Oklahomans to vote in 2016 on modernizing its alcohol laws. State government must have been eyeing the tax revenue from it. But marijuana still carries with it a strong stigma, and I can't imagine legislators from their side allowing Oklahomans to vote on legalizing rec marijuana in any form. The defeat of SQ820 will signal to legislators that they still don't need to do that. The people will just have to keep trying with petitions until its done. If I'm right, if SQ820 is defeated, it will be three years before the people can try again for a rec vote. Maybe an upside to the defeat of SQ820 is that legislators won't see it as much necessary to make the petitioning process more difficult.

After weighing what I considered to be pros and cons I voted "YES".
At the end of the day it came down to criminal justice. People do not need to be fined and or jailed for having cannabis. It is time to stop enriching the DA office, the court system, bail bondsmen and defense lawyers.

After weighing what I considered to be pros and cons I voted "YES".
At the end of the day it came down to criminal justice. People do not need to be fined and or jailed for having cannabis. It is time to stop enriching the DA office, the court system, bail bondsmen and defense lawyers.

Maybe you saw where the top donors to the SQ820 campaign are social justice concerns. Some people against SQ820 think it's about big business and will drive the mom-and-pop med marijuana shops out of business. But nowhere is Phillip Morris found in the top 5 donors.

After weighing what I considered to be pros and cons I voted "YES".
At the end of the day it came down to criminal justice. People do not need to be fined and or jailed for having cannabis. It is time to stop enriching the DA office, the court system, bail bondsmen and defense lawyers.

An interesting aspect of the CJ aspect. I worked at the county district court clerkÂ’s office for a year or so. And the real quiet part out loud here is that I would see felonÂ’s all the time come in to have records sealed. Petitioning expungement. And what youÂ’ll see at that counter is that violent crimes (assaults, rapes, child crimes, and even manslaughter but not murder theyÂ’re actually pretty tough on murder) but those people actually get our relatively quickly. 5 -7 years time served., but IÂ’ve seen many more non violent drug crimes do 10-12-15 years time served. Non violent drug crimes, third strikes drug crimes easily make up a majority of prison occupants. WhatÂ’s more youÂ’ll also see state run institutions with empty beds but virtually zero empty beds at one of our many many private for profit institutions. And these min and med security facilities are NOT safer. A guy I went to middle school with just died as a result of inmate on inmate violence at Conners.

I rambled. But Ultra stiff drug crime sentences produce very very profitable assets for Geo Corp or CCA. While violent crimes are fewer and not profitable at all. Hence the continued need for CJ reform.

I saw quite a few ads on TV last night to vote no with the Save Our Children theme. I didn't see any vote yes ads.

I'm seeing a lot more of the status quo (OKC Chamber of Commerce, etc) coming out forcefully urging people to vote no in the past few days. I'm worried it will be defeated for aforementioned reasons and we'll be left with our de facto Wild West recreational landscape but without many of the tax benefits of full recreational. But it does make me wonder if they're concerned it will be very close if people are now feeling the need to speak out forcefully.

I'm seeing a lot more of the status quo (OKC Chamber of Commerce, etc) coming out forcefully urging people to vote no in the past few days. I'm worried it will be defeated for aforementioned reasons and we'll be left with our de facto Wild West recreational landscape but without many of the tax benefits of full recreational. But it does make me wonder if they're concerned it will be very close if people are now feeling the need to speak out forcefully.

I saw one police officer pro 820. I think it’s also a March election so it’ll be low turnout because a lot of younger voters and urban voters don’t even know about it while you have November elections which turn out so so many more votes. In a perfect world they wouldn’t allow public initiatives on the ballot in March. Only retired people turn out. Whoever did this? I think this was strategic honestly. it’s overwhelmingly popular in the urban areas but our rural population controls the legislature. That’s why they want to keep the turnout low. I mean I hope I’m wrong but I haven’t seen any campaigning save for a mail out and one commercial. But I bet no one turns out but retirees and farmers

Has Holt tipped his hat either way on how he might vote? I’m assuming he hasn’t as he seems to be busily posting selfies and plates of pasta.

... But I bet no one turns out but retirees and farmers

My wife and I and a friend are voting yes (all in our 50s and actively working professionals), and I'm guessing that there are a lot more like us that will turn out (in addition to the retirees and farmers, if they give enough of a crap to do so).

My wife and I and a friend are voting yes (all in our 50s and actively working professionals), and I'm guessing that there are a lot more like us that will turn out (in addition to the retirees and farmers, if they give enough of a crap to do so).

I hope so. neither my wife or I are cannabis users but from a CJ aspect this could make a sizable impact., I get embarrassed by the number of, profitability and occupancy rate of private prisons. It’s not something to take pride in., the illegality of marajuana has been very useful to LE for years. Really racking up sentences, and companies like CCA and geo have making off like oil companies.

I hope so. neither my wife or I are cannabis users but from a CJ aspect this could make a sizable impact., I get embarrassed by the number of, profitability and occupancy rate of private prisons. It’s not something to take pride in., the illegality of marajuana has been very useful to LE for years. Really racking up sentences, and companies like CCA and geo have making off like oil companies.

Not really. Anyone who owned either stock over the last 5 years has gotten crushed. Both are down ~60% over the period.

I saw one police officer pro 820. I think it’s also a March election so it’ll be low turnout because a lot of younger voters and urban voters don’t even know about it while you have November elections which turn out so so many more votes. In a perfect world they wouldn’t allow public initiatives on the ballot in March. Only retired people turn out. Whoever did this? I think this was strategic honestly. it’s overwhelmingly popular in the urban areas but our rural population controls the legislature. That’s why they want to keep the turnout low. I mean I hope I’m wrong but I haven’t seen any campaigning save for a mail out and one commercial. But I bet no one turns out but retirees and farmers

No wonder why it's important to get the signs up. If they don't watch local TV but drive, maybe they have noticed the yes and no signs, if a good many are out. I believe there are now more yes signs in Stillwater. At one street corner, one no sign got countered by 4 yes signs.

Gov. Stitt did it. It's in his job description. Thankfully, as I pointed out earlier, election law did not allow him to hold the election while college students are on Spring Break. All elections are supposed to be held on the first Tuesday of the month.

And listen to Stitt say the reason to vote NO is because the Feds still haven't legalized marijuana. I'm only lukewarm at best with that happening, because it would allow the Feds to tax marijuana. It would also make big companies like Phillp-Morris think it's time to enter the marijuana market and try to rule it. Many people don't want the mom-and-pop dispensaries driven out of business. I suppose a solution to that is regulate dispensaries similar in some ways to liquor stores.

No wonder why it's important to get the signs up. If they don't watch local TV but drive, maybe they have noticed the yes and no signs, if a good many are out. I believe there are now more yes signs in Stillwater. At one street corner, one no sign got countered by 4 yes signs.

Gov. Stitt did it. It's in his job description. Thankfully, as I pointed out earlier, election law did not allow him to hold the election while college students are on Spring Break. All elections are supposed to be held on the first Tuesday of the month.

And listen to Stitt say the reason to vote NO is because the Feds still haven't legalized marijuana. I'm only lukewarm at best with that happening, because it would allow the Feds to tax marijuana. It would also make big companies like Phillp-Morris think it's time to enter the marijuana market and try to rule it. Many people don't want the mom-and-pop dispensaries driven out of business. I suppose a solution to that is regulate dispensaries similar in some ways to liquor stores.

Not sure how long it will take the fed gov't to actually legalize or decriminalize marijuana, but at the very least, it needs to be de-scheduled, and it should've happened years, if not decades ago.

Not sure how long it will take the fed gov't to actually legalize or decriminalize marijuana, but at the very least, it needs to be de-scheduled, and it should've happened years, if not decades ago.

The fact that democrats, with total control a couple years ago, didn't even truly, seriously discuss it, says all you need to know.

Not really. Anyone who owned either stock over the last 5 years has gotten crushed. Both are down ~60% over the period.

But if you are a mineral or royalty owner you've been killing it since 2018 - 19 thereabouts.

The fact that democrats, with total control a couple years ago, didn't even truly, seriously discuss it, says all you need to know.

What relevance does the Democratic political party have to this discussion?
As far as total political control, that is BS. Are you familiar with needing 60 votes in the Senate?
Please leave your partisan takes to somewhere else. Thank you.

^^

Not commenting on control and what not, but actually legalization of Mary Jane is almost completely partisan. Generally speaking, most of my conservative friends are totally against it based on their principles, meanwhile most of my liberal friends are completely for it. Also if you look at the maps provided earlier of the counties that carried the approval of the legalization of the stuff medically, it's your more liberal-leaning counties that voted for it.

^^

Not commenting on control and what not, but actually legalization of Mary Jane is almost completely partisan. Generally speaking, most of my conservative friends are totally against it based on their principles, meanwhile most of my liberal friends are completely for it. Also if you look at the maps provided earlier of the states that carried the approval of the legalization of the stuff medically, it's your more liberal-leaning counties that voted for it.

Interestingly, Dems over 70yo support medical and recreational use of MJ less than Reps under 29yo. In other words, Reps under 29yo are more likely to support legalization than Dems over 70.
Overwhelming support for legal recreational or medical marijuana in U.S. | Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/22/americans-overwhelmingly-say-marijuana-should-be-legal-for-medical-or-recreational-use/)

What relevance does the Democratic political party have to this discussion?
As far as total political control, that is BS. Are you familiar with needing 60 votes in the Senate?
Please leave your partisan takes to somewhere else. Thank you.

I am a liberal. But the fact it wasn't discussed at all, like at all, and hasn't been, like, at all (in any serious capacity), says that the federal government doesn't care about legalizing or decriminalizing it. But by all means, keep pontificating to me.

Me mentioning democrats was solely because they are the party that would ever want to see it decriminalized fully.

But go on and wax poetic with your bad self :)

^^

Not commenting on control and what not, but actually legalization of Mary Jane is almost completely partisan. Generally speaking, most of my conservative friends are totally against it based on their principles, meanwhile most of my liberal friends are completely for it. Also if you look at the maps provided earlier of the states that carried the approval of the legalization of the stuff medically, it's your more liberal-leaning counties that voted for it.

May I suggest a more current map that includes Alabama, LA, MO, etc?
https://disa.com/maps/marijuana-legality-by-state

The medical movement started in western states through initiative petitions, not legislators of either party. It had nothing to do with partisan members of state legislatures.
Never the less. If you go back to my response it was framed around responding to an allegation of the national Democratic party not doing anything on a Federal level.
Anecdotal stories of local liberal and conservative opinions of friends are not relevant to my original post.

^^

Not commenting on control and what not, but actually legalization of Mary Jane is almost completely partisan. Generally speaking, most of my conservative friends are totally against it based on their principles, meanwhile most of my liberal friends are completely for it. Also if you look at the maps provided earlier of the states that carried the approval of the legalization of the stuff medically, it's your more liberal-leaning counties that voted for it.

It all goes back to religion and the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention has deemed cannabis a detriment to the moral fabric of society. The preachers have been much more outspoken against SQ820 than they were SQ788 a few years ago. SQ788 was a matter of good luck and the "openness" of it was something that was kind of snuck by the holy rollers. Tomorrows vote on SQ820 is going to be very interesting.

Hope it passes so I can be done hearing about it.

Hope it passes so I can be done hearing about it.True story.

Hope it passes so I can be done hearing about it.

If it fails, you will not hear about it anymore

I just voted a big fat NO and I hope it fails

Voted yes around 7:30 this morning as per my usual approach. I was the fourth voter in my precinct again and while I was there two or three other people were coming in to vote.

I just voted a big fat NO and I hope it fails

I just cancelled yours out. That said I’ve barely heard one word about it save for a commercial featuring an ex cop. I wouldn’t be surprised if it fails. All the under 40 (progressives)people I’ve talked to in the past
Week seemed to be surprised that it’s on a ballot or that there was a vote today.

I have yet to hear one logical argument against recreational use. Trust me when I say current college students/recent college grads have had it with this state's political agenda. Even if they do not use weed for recreational use, they will vote to pass it as a middle figure to the republicans in this state.

I am one of those.

I have yet to hear one logical argument against recreational use. Trust me when I say current college students/recent college grads have had it with this state's political agenda. Even if they do not use weed for recreational use, they will vote to pass it as a middle figure to the republicans in this state.

I am one of those.

If young people/recent college grads actually show up to vote then it'll pass. They don't exactly have a stellar track record of voter turnout, though.

I just voted a big fat YES and I hope it passes

I have yet to hear one logical argument against recreational use. ...

If you're OK with alcohol and tobacco being legal, you should have absolutely no *logical* (as you said) problem or argument against marijuana. There have been zero deaths attributed directly to marijuana, compared to probably billions from alcohol and tobacco. MJ is not a "gateway" drug, and none of the other "reefer madness" propaganda is realistic. Just legalize and de-schedule it and be done with it.

I am guessing this will most likely fail at the polls. Something like 40-60 no. Based on what I saw from my city, county and ward pages on various social media. Very vocal no votes. As well as many religious groups.

There have been zero deaths attributed directly to marijuana,

link?

https://rehabs.com/pro-talk/fatal-marijuana-overdose-is-not-a-myth/

It's not zero. But considering that in a single variable analysis, it makes no sense to treat it differently than, say, Tylenol.

If anything, the real problem is that, for decades, it has essentially been illegal to posses it in any quantity that would allow for comprehensive and controlled scientific testing. Not that testing hasn't taken place, but it's been very limited due to it being a Schedule 1 federal substance. If anything, dosing seems to be a real question mark. I think a lot of people just don't know how much they should take or even how much they are taking. Hopefully, as legalization progresses, there can be more guidance, or at least some sort of process that can create more trust in labeling.

Of course, none of that suggests we should be putting people in jail for it, which is really all these efforts are about right now.

I am guessing this will most likely fail at the polls. Something like 40-60 no. Based on what I saw from my city, county and ward pages on various social media. Very vocal no votes. As well as many religious groups.

I hope that is true, the first marijuana law has already been passed so we do not need another marijuana law

No more changing laws?

https://rehabs.com/pro-talk/fatal-marijuana-overdose-is-not-a-myth/

It's not zero. But considering that in a single variable analysis, it makes no sense to treat it differently than, say, Tylenol.

If anything, the real problem is that, for decades, it has essentially been illegal to posses it in any quantity that would allow for comprehensive and controlled scientific testing. Not that testing hasn't taken place, but it's been very limited due to it being a Schedule 1 federal substance. If anything, dosing seems to be a real question mark. I think a lot of people just don't know how much they should take or even how much they are taking. Hopefully, as legalization progresses, there can be more guidance, or at least some sort of process that can create more trust in labeling.

Of course, none of that suggests we should be putting people in jail for it, which is really all these efforts are about right now.

"However, if we remove all the cases which involved drug mixing and look only at those cases where a fatal dose of cannabis alone was present, we still have 18 deaths due to poisoning by cannabis alone in 2014."

That's an extremely small rounding error compared to the number of alcohol or tobacco deaths, so maybe not "none", but "pretty much none".

I hope that is true, the first marijuana law has already been passed so we do not need another marijuana law

I would like to know how recreational weed negatively affects you...

I was # 86 at my polling place at noon. Wife and I voted yes. We are in our 60s. I didn’t see anyone there voting that looked younger than us.

Bring in a "I voted" sticker to FIRE LEAF dispensary for a free joint.

I would like to know how recreational weed negatively affects you...

Owns a liquor store

Owns a liquor store

I don't know a single person who goes and buys alcohol and says "man, I wish weed was legal, I wouldn't by beer anymore"

If people want to smoke weed, they are already doing it now whether it is legal or not. This is just going to give law enforcement one less thing to ticket and bring in a f ton of tax revenue to the state.

The GOP got what they wanted. They wanted this on a ballot on a day no one cares about. Not a November or June general election. That alone should tell you all you need to know about whether they care about the extra tax revenue coming in.