Cannabis

[Bullbear]

Now the question is will the system drag its feet to prevent 788 from being on November ballot? I hop not but I'm skeptical.

[SSEiYah]

I'm glad its making it to the ballot.

I do not smoke, however I believe drug abuse should be treated as a medical condition, not a criminal issue. Marijuana seems pretty harmless compared to other illegal drugs for the most part which can really destroy lives. Still though, these "hard" drug users should be forced into state-sponsored-treatment, not prison. As for the cartels and dealers, keep putting them in prison, but stop worrying about the end users, they just need help getting clean and leading productive lives again.

I didn't vote for this one, 7% tax seems way to low, I'd like to see it around 20%.

Maybe someone can fill me in on what a pound of this plant sells for retail vs what it costs to produce. I feel it should be taxed at all levels, grower, distributor and retailer.

Put the majority of proceeds into education as we have a crisis on our hands since the oil/nat gas bust.

Just my 2 cents though.

[ctchandler]

To quote from Wiki on the case:

Bunty,
Not a good source since Wiki is modifiable by any one, I'm not questioning whether you are right or wrong, but there are much better sources.
C. T.

[Plutonic Panda]

Unless they are in a very professional or DOT regulated position, it seems everyone everywhere is always stoned out of their mind. You go to the grocery store and the cashier has red eyes, reeks of marijuana, and seems to be in a world of their own. In Portland you could hardly get on the MAX without your clothes being drenched in marijuana smell after a very short ride-- very embarrassing when you are on your way to work (and can get drug tested and suspended until results are back just based on odor of MJ). It's better off to be illegal but decriminalized, that way at least people don't light up in public, at work, and while driving.

It's also incredibly expensive for companies, here at my company (and many other DOT regulated jobs) we routinely lose 40% of new hires in Denver due to failed drug tests within 2 months of employment. This costs the company serious money as we are paying for the drug tests themselves, as well as the drug tests of their replacements, and for the first few weeks of the job for training and background checks and airport related tests -- all that do not add to productivity but are a direct cost with no return.

I bet the company spends about $1500 for each employee to go through all the required tests, fingerprints, background checks, and security clearances-- we hire 40-60 a month, and we lose almost half of those very soon after starting just due to failed drug tests for marijuana. That is serious money...

Not to mention the safety aspect of it. Nothing angers me more than someone potentially killing me or someone else at work with heavy equipment because they were smoking marijuana.

People clean up for two weeks to pass the initial drug test, then they are straight back on the dope and fail the checkup a month or two down the road. It's absolutely out of control.

Very interesting. I have not spent that much time in those states, but I do see the presence of marijuana more here in California than in Oklahoma which I expected. I tend to think it will be fad and as the years go by, you won't see many people smoking marijuana as you do now. I smoke cigars on occasion and when I get a head rush, my reaction time is impaired slightly, and the fact cigarettes are allowed for recreational use and not marijuana baffles me. I understand they affect people much differently, but if someone goes high to work that is on them. The government needs to limit it authority on people. There are obviously exceptions to that, but with drugs like marijuana, I don't think you should be required to have a prescription. I believe in live and let live.

It's fairly obvious if someone has been smoking. Marijuana, tobacco, alcohol are just a few things I think should be up to the person to decide if they want do it. It's called responsibility for people such as adults to make. I believe the minimum age for all of those things should be 21. Not that it will stop people younger from doing it, but it is a preventive measure.

I've witnessed first hand the effects of alcohol with getting into fights and I nearly was arrested a few nights ago in Santa Monica for getting into a brawl with this dude at a bar. I take responsibility for it happening, but I smoke maybe once every week or so and I don't usually like to get too high, but I have never encountered a case of violence, rage, or anyone getting hurt as a result of smoking marijuana. That personal experience. I'm sure it's happened? But as with anything, moderation is key here.

I do believe there are some negative effects of marijuana and I see people that smoke it every single day seem to be a little slow even when they aren't high after years and years, but that is their choice to make. They still have jobs. They still pay taxes. If it is your moral belief then that is something within yourself which is fine and I respect it, but don't impose it on others.

[David]

Bunty,
Not a good source since Wiki is modifiable by any one, I'm not questioning whether you are right or wrong, but there are much better sources.
C. T.

While that is true, the barrier for entry for making lasting edits to wikipedia is fairly high. There are controls in place to revert random vandalism, and beyond that there is a fair chance whatever page you edit (especially if it is a popular one) has someone interested in the subject who watches it, will get an alert if you screw something up, and will go clean up after you.

[ctchandler]

David,
I stand by my original statement. I use Wikipedia for fun facts, never for anything serious. Any source that can be edited is not a source in my opinion.
C. T.

[jerrywall]

7% tax seems way to low, I'd like to see it around 20%.

I'll agree with you on recreational use, but we're talking about medical needs. As it is, I'm not happy with taxing what would essentially be prescription drugs, as someone who suffers from seizures, chronic pain, and liver disease. All of which could be helped with medical marijuana.

[Zuplar]

I'll agree with you on recreational use, but we're talking about medical needs. As it is, I'm not happy with taxing what would essentially be prescription drugs, as someone who suffers from seizures, chronic pain, and liver disease. All of which could be helped with medical marijuana.

I know in Colorado if you have a prescription, like any other prescription drug, the rates and taxing is very different.

[David]

David,
I stand by my original statement. I use Wikipedia for fun facts, never for anything serious. Any source that can be edited is not a source in my opinion.
C. T.

That's an unfair stance to hold other people too, especially since any page on the internet could potentially be edited depending on who hosts it and controls the content. Nothing that could be linked in a forum post is any more or less reliable than wiki when you get down to it.

[TU 'cane]

Wikipedia is good enough for fun and basic facts like CT said. Anything passed that needs to be referenced. I like Wikipedia and I understand changes are harder to make than they used to be, but everyone who modifies those articles are subject to their own biases as well. If anything, treat it like any other website or source.

Regarding SQ788, it would seem the state is already providing excuses for why it may not appear on the November ballot.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5515176

[jerrywall]

I know in Colorado if you have a prescription, like any other prescription drug, the rates and taxing is very different.

Yeah, most states I've seen have two rates, one for medicinal, and one for recreation. I read a good study talking about DC's rate, and how they might have to adjust it to combat illegal/unregulated sales. The trick is the balance, since you have to be competitive with illegal sales.

[jerrywall]

Regarding SQ788, it would seem the state is already providing excuses for why it may not appear on the November ballot.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5515176

All I see is clarification of the process. Is there something I'm missing, or are you reading into something I'm not?

[David]

There is a lot of room in that process as listed for the state to drag its feet too long to get it on the November ballot. If all of the following needs to happen by Friday:

“As required by law, the secretary of state's office will send a report on its findings to the Oklahoma Supreme Court,” the secretary of state's office said in a news release.

“The state Supreme Court determines whether the number of signatures counted is sufficient for the proposal to be placed on an election ballot.”

Oklahoma's attorney general is then given five business days to review the ballot title.

“If the proposed title is found noncompliant, the attorney general has 10 business days to submit a rewritten ballot title,” the news release said. “The next step will be notification to the press to announce publicly that any member of the public can, within 10 business days, challenge the signatures and/or the proposed ballot title. When the measure has cleared all legal hurdles, it can qualify to be placed on a ballot for a vote of the people.”

Then I'll be really surprised to see it on the ballot. Does anyone really expect Scott "sue Colorado for their legal pot" Pruitt to get his part of the process done in 2 days when he could legally stretch it out to 15? For that matter, if there is a mandatory 10 day period for a member of the public to challenge the signatures or ballot title, is November even possible?

[jerrywall]

It may be better if it is on the ballot in June, IMO.

[Bunty]

There is a lot of room in that process as listed for the state to drag its feet too long to get it on the November ballot. If all of the following needs to happen by Friday:



Then I'll be really surprised to see it on the ballot. Does anyone really expect Scott "sue Colorado for their legal pot" Pruitt to get his part of the process done in 2 days when he could legally stretch it out to 15? For that matter, if there is a mandatory 10 day period for a member of the public to challenge the signatures or ballot title, is November even possible?

There is no state law specifying a deadline as to when a state question can go on the Nov. ballot. The Friday deadline was an arbitrary decision set from the governor. So please call the governor and Attorney General's offices and tell them to put SQ788(Medical Marijuana) on the November 8th ballot!

Governor Mary Fallin's office: 405-521-2342
Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office: 405-521-3921

[Bullbear]

There is no state law specifying a deadline as to when a state question can go on the Nov. ballot. The Friday deadline was an arbitrary decision set from the governor. So please call the governor and Attorney General's offices and tell them to put SQ788(Medical Marijuana) on the November 8th ballot!

Governor Mary Fallin's office: 405-521-2342
Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office: 405-521-3921

I believe Tuesday is the actual hard stop for them to get it printed on ballot to comply is what I read yesterday. I could be wrong.

[jerrywall]

There is no state law specifying a deadline as to when a state question can go on the Nov. ballot. The Friday deadline was an arbitrary decision set from the governor. So please call the governor and Attorney General's offices and tell them to put SQ788(Medical Marijuana) on the November 8th ballot!

Governor Mary Fallin's office: 405-521-2342
Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office: 405-521-3921

I still think that's a mistake. A later special election would be better than the general election in November. I'm 100% sure it fails if on the November ballot.

[Bunty]

I still think that's a mistake. A later special election would be better than the general election in November. I'm 100% sure it fails if on the November ballot.

Then Fallin and Pruitt should be glad to have 788 on the ballot, since it seems they're strongly against it. Why would it fail in Nov.? Because lots of conservative church people will be motivated to turn out and vote yes for the return of the Ten Commandments and pro capital punishment, but will vote NO for medical marijuana?

[jerrywall]

Then Fallin and Pruitt should be glad to have 788 on the ballot, since it seems they're strongly against it. Why would it fail in Nov.? Because lots of conservative church people will be motivated to turn out and vote yes for the return of the Ten Commandments and pro capital punishment, but will vote NO for medical marijuana?

And presidential elections have a larger turnout, the majority is conservative, and will likely vote no.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'll agree with you on recreational use, but we're talking about medical needs. As it is, I'm not happy with taxing what would essentially be prescription drugs, as someone who suffers from seizures, chronic pain, and liver disease. All of which could be helped with medical marijuana.

+1. I would support a 20% tax on recreational.

[Jersey Boss]

And presidential elections have a larger turnout, the majority is conservative, and will likely vote no.

Or the flip side there could be a greater turnout of people interested in modernizing this law. In 2012 when CO had recreational on the ballot, voter turnout of registered voters was 66.57%, one of the greatest in the 50 states.
Conversely voter turnout of registered voters in 2012 of Oklahoma voters was 48.47%. The players in the AG office, and Governors office are wrestling with this I'm sure. This issue on the ballot could very easily increase voter turnout that also elects a Dem or two in the legislature.
http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-c...%20Turnout.pdf

[ctchandler]

That's an unfair stance to hold other people too,

David,
That's why I said, "in my opinion". The CBS website can't be edited by me or any other non CBS journalist, Wikipedia can. We can agree to disagree and still be friends.
C. T.

[Plutonic Panda]

David,
That's why I said, "in my opinion". The CBS website can't be edited by me or any other non CBS journalist, Wikipedia can. We can agree to disagree and still be friends.
C. T.

CBS can be hacked. Anytime you get online you are subject to false information. Wikipedia is a great tool if you know how to use it. Read the article and verify using the sources and links posted at the bottom. It is up to you to further decide how credible the website listed is.

[Bunty]

This quote from a Tulsa World article appears to explain the Friday deadline: "The State Election Board in a May 13 letter to Gov. Mary Fallin said it needed all the ballot information by Friday in order to meet printing, testing and federal legal requirements for mailing ballots overseas."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagela...6d1d27925.html

[Bunty]

Also to quote from Joe Dorman why the petitions did not come out sooner: "The group was working on writing new language and it took a while. The final draft was approved the morning of the day we filed the language. We were trying to get language which we were as confident as possible would hold up to a legal challenge."