Cannabis

[Jersey Boss]

Democrats had 60 seats in 2009. That supermajority was ended in 2010 when Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts after the death of Ted Kennedy, taking the Democratic majority to 59.

Out of 2 years the Dems had that 60 vote majority for a total of 72 days. Al Franken was not seated till July of 09.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111t...tates_Congress

[king183]

Just for fun, I compared results from the 2018 MMJ vote to today’s vote. If the turnout was the same today as it was in 2018, the Yes campaign would have had to garner 70% of the “gap” votes to win. In other words, it’s highly unlikely higher turnout would have altered the outcome, at least when comparing to the 2018 vote, which had high turnout due to the competitive party primaries that year.

There were 326,754 more votes cast in 2018 than were cast today. Those are what I’m calling the gap votes. To alter the outcome 229,497 (70%) of those votes would have had to go to Yes, with 97,257 (30%) going to No.

In 2018, Cleveland County went 65% for Yes; Oklahoma County went 63% for Yes; and Tulsa went 63% for Yes.* Thus, even if it turnout was as high as 2018 AND all the gap votes voted like those three counties did in 2018, today’s YES vote would have still lost by a large margin.


*Those three counties accounted for 44% of the total 2018 vote.

[king183]

Out of 2 years the Dems had that 60 vote majority for a total of 72 days. Al Franken was not seated till July of 09.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111t...tates_Congress

That correct. But so what? You said they didn’t have 60 seats. They did have 60 seats and they used it to great effect in those 72 *working* days, including passing the Affordable Care Act. To paraphrase you: 60 seats is more than 59. It’s okay to admit you were mistaken after calling out someone for spreading misinformation.

[Jersey Boss]

They had 60 seats for 72 days. That is also a caveat. 59 seats for most of 2009 and all of 2010. They did not pass the ACA during those 72 days however. ACA passed in 2010 using reconcilliation.

[king183]

They had 60 seats for 72 days. That is also a caveat. 59 seats for most of 2009 and all of 2010. They did not pass the ACA during those 72 days however. ACA passed in 2010 using reconcilliation.

Buddy, take the loss here. They (THE SENATE) passed the ACA in December of 2009 on a party line vote of 60-39.

[king183]

https://twitter.com/apseanmurphy/sta...NhJ3FK0I7f0fSg

Not sure how to embed tweets, but that is from the AP’s Sean Murphy. The Yes campaign spent $4.9 million vs the No campaign spending $219,000, according to campaign finance reports.

[Jersey Boss]

Buddy, take the loss here. They (THE SENATE) passed the ACA in December of 2009 on a party line vote of 60-39.

No pal, it passed the Senate 56-43 in March of 2010 through Reconcilliation. Read about it here.
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heal...ACA)%20(%20Pub.
Here is a timeline of the ACA.
History of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) | eHealth
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/res...e-care-act-aca

[Scott5114]

I think what it really comes down to is that there is a decent chunk of the electorate that gets off to telling people they can't do things. It doesn't matter what it is, they just enjoy telling people they can't do what they want. I'm not really sure how you fix that.

[king183]

No pal, it passed the Senate 56-43 in March of 2010 through Reconcilliation. Read about it here.
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heal...ACA)%20(%20Pub.

Since you’ve shown you’re incapable of admitting you were wrong and you keep digging deeper, I’m not going to waste time any additional time explaining to you the difference between the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the Senate passed in 2009 and ultimately became law. I remember this stuff like it was yesterday since my entire professional life at the time revolved around it. On the other hand, your quick-finger Googling and scan of Wikipedia in a vain hope to find an out betrays your lack of understanding of the legislative history and process. And that’s fine! Because you don’t need to have that knowledge. Instead, all you had to do was say, “Sorry, BoulderSooner, you were correct and I was mistaken. I’m sorry for accusing you of spreading misinformation. Here’s some nuance I would like you to consider about what you called a filibuster proof majority.”

[Boop]

https://twitter.com/apseanmurphy/sta...NhJ3FK0I7f0fSg

Not sure how to embed tweets, but that is from the AP’s Sean Murphy. The Yes campaign spent $4.9 million vs the No campaign spending $219,000, according to campaign finance reports.

That 4.9 million went to waste for nothing and $219,000 is a steal

[Jersey Boss]

Since you’ve shown you’re incapable of admitting you were wrong and you keep digging deeper, I’m not going to waste time any additional time explaining to you the difference between the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the Senate passed in 2009 and ultimately became law. I remember this stuff like it was yesterday since my entire professional life at the time revolved around it. On the other hand, your quick-finger Googling and scan of Wikipedia in a vain hope to find an out betrays your lack of understanding of the legislative history and process. And that’s fine! Because you don’t need to have that knowledge. Instead, all you had to do was say, “Sorry, BoulderSooner, you were correct and I was mistaken. I’m sorry for accusing you of spreading misinformation. Here’s some nuance I would like you to consider about what you called a filibuster proof majority.”

I admitted I was wrong. I also provided 2 different cites showing it was passed through Reconcilliation with the last Senate vote 56-43.
Pot meet kettle.

[BG918]

So when does this go back on the ballot? General election in November 2024?

[Anonymous.]

That 4.9 million went to waste for nothing and $219,000 is a steal

The YES campaign even spent money on a banner plane to fly around the state with 'VOTE YES ON SQ820' for days leading up to the vote.

IMO, the issue was the money was spent on the wrong demographics. Stop spending money trying to convince rural Oklahoma to flip from NO to YES. The votes to win already exist in the cities, you just need to spend the money getting them aware/educated to go out to vote. Why was there basically zero social media presence trying to stir up young voters, who mostly all already support the YES vote?

You need money going towards people posting up on campuses, outside concerts, going into bars, educating on registration, finding polling places, transportation to polls, etc.

The key to progress is young people.

[G.Walker]

People who are upset that it didn't pass or people who are happy that it didn't pass need to realize this:

1. People who want to smoke are going to smoke regardless, whether its legal or illegal or have a card.
2. Its so easy to get a Medical Marijuana card its ridiculous.
3. Its not about accessibility. Its about money. Making it legal would of raised the price for weed exponentially.
4. Current dispensary owners don't have to hassle with accounting to pay state taxes.
5. The current system is fine, the only one losing out is the State. Dispensary owners are still going to make money, and people who really want to smoke can get a card.

[Pete]

I'm not surprised at all at the resounding defeat.

The average voter has witnessed the crazy amount of dispensaries everywhere and smelled pot smoke all over town. They have also read endless press about lawlessness, organized crime and a bunch of other negative news. You have to remember that a huge amount of the electorate have spent their entire lives thinking weed was 'wrong' and then overnight it was seemingly everywhere.

Among the people I know, the general feeling is that it's all out of control and the current situation was made possible by constantly sneaking through loopholes or just straight-out violating the existing laws. And if you know anyone in Oklahoma involved in this business, it makes you all the more distrustful.

If anything, we are going to see bills introduced and likely passed to clamp down on all this. I expect a pretty strong backlash, especially with this new mandate.

[David]

I'm not surprised at all at the resounding defeat.

The average voter has witnessed the crazy amount of dispensaries everywhere and smelled pot smoke all over town. They have also read endless press about lawlessness, organized crime and a bunch of other negative news. You have to remember that a huge amount of the electorate have spent their entire lives thinking weed was 'wrong' and then overnight it was seemingly everywhere.

Among the people I know, the general feeling is that it's all out of control and the current situation was made possible by constantly sneaking through loopholes or just straight-out violating the existing laws. And if you know anyone in Oklahoma involved in this business, it makes you all the more distrustful.

If anything, we are going to see bills introduced and likely passed to clamp down on all this. I expect a pretty strong backlash, especially with this new mandate.

This is my main concern about this SQ failing, in the end it might turn out that trying for recreation and failing was a big mistake and the situation should have been left alone.

[Pete]

This is my main concern about this SQ failing, in the end it might turn out that trying for recreation and failing was a big mistake and the situation should have been left alone.

I can almost guarantee it.

And now the governor and state legislators will use this mandate to start pushing the line in the other direction. That will likely win a lot of points with their electorate and the momentum will keep building.

I've said for a long time that pushing for recreational use will backfire in a big way.

[Boop]

So when does this go back on the ballot? General election in November 2024?

Maybe in 10 years? I really doubt they will bring it back on the ballot next year since it failed in a landslide

[G.Walker]

This says it all:

Me: "Are you voting on SQ820 to legalize marijuana for recreational use?"
Average person who doesn't watch the news: "Isn't it already legal in Oklahoma?"

[Boop]

This says it all:

Me: "Are you voting on SQ820 to legalize marijuana for recreational use?"
Average person who doesn't watch the news: "Isn't it already legal in Oklahoma?"

True but funny enough, you said the same people who voted the first time will vote again and it will pass only for it to fail so you were wrong on that one so I hope it will teach you a vaulable lesson, just because it passed the first time does not mean it is going to pass the second time

[G.Walker]

Yes I admit I was wrong on that assumption. The turnout was not as strong.

[Boop]

Yes I admit I was wrong on that assumption. The turnout was not as strong.

Yeah, I just think people just did not know about it, it should have been on the ballot in the general election and it would have been a much stronger turnout but honestly, I think it would have still failed though

[chssooner]

Massive fail by the yes on 820 committee. Hardly any advertising. No explaining the major differences between this and 788. Basically ignoring print media in their advertising for this is almost criminal.

[jerrywall]

Massive fail by the yes on 820 committee. Hardly any advertising. No explaining the major differences between this and 788. Basically ignoring print media in their advertising for this is almost criminal.

Which is nuts, because from what I read there was a fair amount of money coming into the Yes campaign from out of state groups (such as justice reform orgs).

[onthestrip]

The fact the election was delayed until March had almost nothing whatsoever to do with the loss. A quick glance at the precinct and county results and comparing them to 2018 would show you that; large percentages of people who voted yes in 2018 are voting no this time. This question is getting OBLITERATED. Larger turnout *might* have improved the vote margin for yes by 2 points, but it would still be destroyed.

People who make the “delayed vote” argument simply don’t understand why people voted no and apparently don’t want to. It’s easier to make the simplistic argument. Read the politico article that was posted earlier. It’s a good examination of the nuances. The reporter interviews people who supported medical marijuana in 2018 and even some current dispensary owners who are opposed to 820 for a variety of reasons. None of them have to do with “the election was delayed until March.” The fact is it didn’t have the support in large part due to rural opposition (hell, it’s barely winning the cities and ultimately may not.

The idea that having the election in November would have made the difference, when Kevin Stitt absolutely demolished his opponent on the strength of rural Oklahoma voter support, which is the same constituency killing this SQ, is hilarious.

Exactly. When it was on the ballot simply wasnt going to make a difference. It was a blowout.

The nice thing about this election result is that it makes me more excited about moving out of state.

Umm ok. Guess you missed we overwhelmingly passed the most permissive medical MJ measure a few years ago. But I guess this makes us backwards again?

The Bible Belt is not ready for recreational marijuana, plain and simple. That's why it failed in Arkansas. That's why it failed in Oklahoma.

Then what do you say about Missouri passing recreational. These takes are way over-generalized and dont consider any nuance.

Massive fail by the yes on 820 committee. Hardly any advertising. No explaining the major differences between this and 788. Basically ignoring print media in their advertising for this is almost criminal.

It obviously wouldnt have mattered. They coulda spent $5 million more and wouldnt have made a difference.