Cannabis

[bchris02]

I will never quite understand why some would oppose it but I can promise you there will be a bunch that do.

A lot of people see medical marijuana as just a smokescreen for recreational, which they view as immoral and sinful and therefore it should be illegal. You should check out all of the angry comments on Dan Fisher's Facebook when he announced support for it from his religious supporters.

This is by and large a generational issue. If this is to pass, young people need to get out to vote. The older generation will be out in force to vote against this.

[Bunty]

I will never quite understand why some would oppose it but I can promise you there will be a bunch that do.

I think much of the opposition comes from people who were born to be blessed with always good health and have no personal experience with chronic diseases that may be difficult to treat. They can't relate to other people who can't say the same.

[Thomas Vu]

I think much of the opposition comes from people who were born to be blessed with always good health and have no personal experience with chronic diseases that may be difficult to treat. They can't relate to other people who can't say the same.

Another explanation, weirdos who align their moral compass with what the govt thinks.

[ctchandler]

Another explanation, weirdos who align their moral compass with what the govt thinks.

Bunty used a broad brush. I have COPD, and am on 5 liters of oxygen 24/7 and also A-fib and I pass out often. I am for medical marijuana but have never used any marijuana because it's illegal. When it's legal, I will jump right in. As for aligning my moral compass, I repeat, it's illegal, change the laws. I don't speed for the the same reason. It's pretty simple really.
C. T.

[BBatesokc]

Bunty used a broad brush. I have COPD, and am on 5 liters of oxygen 24/7 and also A-fib and I pass out often. I am for medical marijuana but have never used any marijuana because it's illegal. When it's legal, I will jump right in. As for aligning my moral compass, I repeat, it's illegal, change the laws. I don't speed for the the same reason. It's pretty simple really.
C. T.

Sorry to hear of your medical issues. That said, I obviously have a different perspective on 'laws.' Laws are words on paper that often change and in doing so often completely contradict themselves with the passage of time. Some laws protect us and some laws limit our freedoms. I've personally never followed a law simply because "it's the law." And, I only consciously break a law if I'm willing to face the consequences. Do I speed on occasion? Yep, if I can safely do so and it puts me with the current flow of traffic. When I moved to Edmond the first thing I did was put chickens in my yard. When a guy with the city stopped and inquired I told him to do what he had to do ( I knew I was facing nothing more than a fine). He never did anything (4 years later, they are now legal to have them). And so on. Same for marijuana.

Never been a huge fan of the stuff myself. Did it some in high school and again a few times in college. I personally don't like the feeling it causes (same reason I don't drink). But, I really didn't like the obvious smell it left on the user and those around them. 'Edibles' were not a thing I was aware of back then.

I recently went through cancer treatment at Stephenson Cancer Center (stage 3 head and neck). It was grueling with daily radiation for 35 days and brutal chemo.

I didn't hesitate to go to Colorado and purchase marijuana legally there - as edibles (hard candy). It was highly recommended by others going through my same treatment. As a result, I never threw-up (not a single time) during treatment and I could actually go to sleep when I needed to rest. This while the "but, but, but, it's against the law" folks were vomiting constantly and staring at the ceiling in pain every night. I also credit the HTC hard candies for my ability to not have to have a feeding tube surgically placed in me (85+% of patients do). Two months post treatment and I can eat whatever I want and you'd never know I went through treatment - minus the 25 pounds I lost.

I simply found the laws too hypocritical to be followed. It was legal for my doctors to prescribe opioids and run the very real risk of addiction (I was given the option of as much oxycodone and hydrocodone as I wanted). But I couldn't have a hard candy that ran zero risk of addiction and is perfectly legal over the counter in other states. I told my wife, I was perfectly willing to accept the consequences if the government wanted to prosecute me for my rational decision.

I was a supporter of medical use (and even recreational use) marijuana long before my cancer diagnosis. Having experienced the benefits first hand, I'm even more of an advocate. That said, it's still not 'my thing.' And I disclose my use of it publicly here, because when my treatment ended, so did my use of THC. So, if the gov't wants to use this admission as a basis to raid my home - go for it, it's all clear here. But, if my cancer returns, I'll do the same all over again.

[Thomas Vu]

Bunty used a broad brush. I have COPD, and am on 5 liters of oxygen 24/7 and also A-fib and I pass out often. I am for medical marijuana but have never used any marijuana because it's illegal. When it's legal, I will jump right in. As for aligning my moral compass, I repeat, it's illegal, change the laws. I don't speed for the the same reason. It's pretty simple really.
C. T.

It's not as simple as it appears to be. Speeding puts other people in danger. There'd also be nuance if it were legal. For example, you could smoke marijuana in your living quarters, but you could still get pulled over for driving under the influence.

If you want to accept pain, and not utilize a form of treatment just because the government says you're not allowed to then that's okay too.

[ctchandler]

It's not as simple as it appears to be. Speeding puts other people in danger. There'd also be nuance if it were legal. For example, you could smoke marijuana in your living quarters, but you could still get pulled over for driving under the influence.

If you want to accept pain, and not utilize a form of treatment just because the government says you're not allowed to then that's okay too.

When I say pretty simple, I'm really talking about breaking the law and paying a fine. I don't waste my money for driving too fast. Also, I was raised funny. I went to Amsterdam and planned to smoke some marijuana while I was there because I thought it was legal. Turns out, it isn't legal, it is "tolerated" by law enforcement. So I didn't try it. I was thrilled when Colorado legalized it and since my London friend has a sister in Colorado, I had planned to go there and give it a shot. Unfortunately, I was diagnosed with COPD and have a new umbilical cord (oxygen hose) that prevents me from traveling. As far as "want to accept pain", I don't want to accept pain but I won't (intentionally) break a law. As you said, "that's okay too". We all make choices and that's just the way my mother raised me. And I don't judge, if you (or anyone) wants to use marijuana, have a ball! You won't hurt me or my feelings.
C. T.

[Thomas Vu]

You're right. I'm interested in the step ahead and rather than making it about whether or not to follow the law or not, I'm more interested in why the law exists in the first place.

[pw405]

You're right. I'm interested in the step ahead and rather than making it about whether or not to follow the law or not, I'm more interested in why the law exists in the first place.

Some say it was made illegal to give police more reasons to jail hippies & minorities. From Harry Anslinger, the head of (what became) the DEA:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

Others feel that there is a conspiracy type situation with Big Pharma. That if cannabis were to become legal, it would put a dent in Big Pharma's pockets.

People also believe that "Big Beer" lobbies hard against cannabis legalization because if people are getting stoned, they won't get as drunk. From my experiences in college, this is far from the truth. Many people love getting drunk and high.

I look at the situation like this: The most powerful government in the history of civilization has spent decades & Billions of tax payer dollars trying to "get weed off the street". It never sticks. Weed remains available in all cities. Why, you might ask? Simple market forces. Let's say the DEA busts the largest pot dealer in OKC. What happens? A supply shortage. The supply shortage creates new incentives to fill the void. New people become drug dealers. The black market is, after all, a market.

In my mind, keeping cannabis illegal is nothing more than a stance to indicate you support the black market and want cartels to remain in power. Illegal pot is not taxed, is sold to children, and has zero regulation.

Let's let police focus on more pressing matters. Let's collect tax on this market. Let's create jobs for new stores, growers, breeders, and supply shops. Let's improve the lives of cancer patients, chronic pain patients, veterans, and the elderly.

Or?... We can spend our tax dollars arresting people who are within proximity of the flower of a particular plant.

A quote that may resonate with the more religious groups: "When god put cannabis on this earth, he didn't need the government to step in and correct his mistake".

[bchris02]

Some say it was made illegal to give police more reasons to jail hippies & minorities. From Harry Anslinger, the head of (what became) the DEA:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

Bingo.

While Big Pharma, the private prison industry, Big Beer, etc all may have various levels of influence in terms of why it stays illegal, bottom line is that it's illegal because the fundamentalist churches are against it. Marijuana is typically associated with things that white-bread fundamentalist evangelicals detest, specifically the hippie movement and social liberalism. Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign and the demonization of marijuana during the 1980s also still strongly echoes among conservatives. Even today, my guess is that cannabis consumers are more liberal and less religious on average than the general population. I like the quote about "God created cannabis and didn't need government to correct his mistake" but it doesn't hold water with most conservatives since they will bring up how today's cannabis has many times more THC in it than the natural plant did. How true that is, I am not sure, but it's an argument you hear often from the religious crowd for why it should stay illegal.

There is also a racial aspect to it. This is clear when you see how unevenly enforced marijuana laws are.

[pw405]

Bingo.
There is also a racial aspect to it. This is clear when you see how unevenly enforced marijuana laws are.

To me, this is the biggest tragedy of prohibition. Statistics show that white & black population use marijuana at roughly the same rate, but black users are something like 400% more likely to be arrested for it. As a white male, I'll never know first-hand what that discrimination is like, but I can only imagine how disenfranchised it would make somebody feel.

There are so many reasons that cannabis shouldn't be illegal. Please encourage everybody you know to REGISTER and vote for the state question. I've been spreading the word and trying to get as many people as possible to register. With OK's abysmal voter turnout, we DO have a chance to get this passed. Especially important to discuss with older voters as well. One doesn't have to like getting high in order to see the problems illegal cannabis creates for our law enforcement and criminal justice system in general.

Many people know somebody who has been effected by the opiate epidemic. I've lost two friends, and seen about a dozen or so via Facebook network who have died. In states where marijuana is legally available, statistics are showing a decrease in opiate related deaths & use rates. The US needs every tool available to fight the opiate epidemic, and cannabis is valuable in this fight. The opiate epidemic isn't limited to young liberals.

I would even be ok with an additional tax on cannabis if it helped fund the state government.

The most powerful weapon against the cartels is to end prohibition.

[pw405]

Sorry to hear of your medical issues. That said, I obviously have a different perspective on 'laws.' Laws are words on paper that often change and in doing so often completely contradict themselves with the passage of time. Some laws protect us and some laws limit our freedoms. I've personally never followed a law simply because "it's the law." ...

I recently went through cancer treatment at Stephenson Cancer Center (stage 3 head and neck). It was grueling with daily radiation for 35 days and brutal chemo.

I didn't hesitate to go to Colorado and purchase marijuana legally there - as edibles (hard candy). It was highly recommended by others going through my same treatment. As a result, I never threw-up (not a single time) during treatment and I could actually go to sleep when I needed to rest. This while the "but, but, but, it's against the law" folks were vomiting constantly and staring at the ceiling in pain every night. I also credit the HTC hard candies for my ability to not have to have a feeding tube surgically placed in me (85+% of patients do). Two months post treatment and I can eat whatever I want and you'd never know I went through treatment - minus the 25 pounds I lost.

I simply found the laws too hypocritical to be followed. It was legal for my doctors to prescribe opioids and run the very real risk of addiction (I was given the option of as much oxycodone and hydrocodone as I wanted)....

I was a supporter of medical use (and even recreational use) marijuana long before my cancer diagnosis. Having experienced the benefits first hand, I'm even more of an advocate. But, if my cancer returns, I'll do the same all over again....

Wow, I had no idea you were battling cancer BBates... wish you all the best. What an incredible story. In my opinion, obeying unjust laws is a VERY American thing to do.

A loved one I know is currently going through Chemo (breast cancer) and having a really rough go. She is miserable, but too afraid to try cannabis as remedy because she doesn't want to "get in trouble". So sad.

[ctchandler]

Wow, I had no idea you were battling cancer BBates... wish you all the best. What an incredible story. In my opinion, obeying unjust laws is a VERY American thing to do.

A loved one I know is currently going through Chemo (breast cancer) and having a really rough go. She is miserable, but too afraid to try cannabis as remedy because she doesn't want to "get in trouble". So sad.

I lost my wife to breast cancer (metastasized to the liver) in October, 2005 and she wouldn't even take the narcotic that was prescribed. I think it was mainly because as a nurse, she was not a fan of the drug. In her last day and a half, I was instructed by hospice to give her an eyedropper of morphine every two hours. It did make her last day easier.
C. T.

[ctchandler]

You're right. I'm interested in the step ahead and rather than making it about whether or not to follow the law or not, I'm more interested in why the law exists in the first place.

Actually, "why" is immaterial, if it needs to be changed/eliminated, that's what we should be concerned about. I see mixed results from Colorado but that's not exactly the state to use as a measuring stick. For selfish reasons, I'm ready for a change in Oklahoma but I'm afraid I won't live long enough to see it happen.
C. T.

[Thomas Vu]

Actually, "why" is immaterial, if it needs to be changed/eliminated, that's what we should be concerned about. I see mixed results from Colorado but that's not exactly the state to use as a measuring stick. For selfish reasons, I'm ready for a change in Oklahoma but I'm afraid I won't live long enough to see it happen.
C. T.

You're right. You win. Congratulations.

[ctchandler]

You're right. You win. Congratulations.

Thanks I think. Not sure how I'm winning. I hope you are right though. Maybe I will live long enough. I am approaching a day that I didn't think would happen. Wednesday I will have lived as long as my dad. With my C. O. P. D. and A-fib I didn't think I would. I suppose I should knock on wood, anything can happen in two days. And no, I'm not a pessimist nor am I superstitious, so knocking on wood isn't something I plan on doing.
C. T.

[OKCRT]

So if the vote passes when will the 1st dispensary open in OKC?

[jerrywall]

I don't know who will be first because a lot of the details have to be ironed out, but my cousin has multiple locations on the west coast and two giant greenhouses (all legal of course) and if this passes I'll be partnering with him to expand in Oklahoma as quick as I can.

[Bunty]

The proposal does not allow cities to totally ban dispensaries. It would be a good idea to see if your candidates for legislator are okay with that and other parts of the proposal before you vote in November. I'm kinda afraid legislators will try to put restrictions on it that aren't justified.

[pw405]

The proposal does not allow cities to totally ban dispensaries. It would be a good idea to see if your candidates for legislator are okay with that and other parts of the proposal before you vote in November. I'm kinda afraid legislators will try to put restrictions on it that aren't justified.

This is also a concern - even if we pass it, some gung-ho legislator (ie, Ralph Shortey, sick bastard) will pass legislation that will prohibit sales near a school/church/park. Don't even get my started on how idiotic that is. Alas, this is OK State government we're talking about, so I'm positive something stupid will happen even if the state question passes.

That said - the cannabis issue raises a rather interesting point from a legislative perspective - if the people can get state questions on the ballot, then vote for them without their legislators going through the process of submitting a bill and getting legislative voting support - then why even bother with the middle man?

[OKCRT]

This is also a concern - even if we pass it, some gung-ho legislator (ie, Ralph Shortey, sick bastard) will pass legislation that will prohibit sales near a school/church/park. Don't even get my started on how idiotic that is. Alas, this is OK State government we're talking about, so I'm positive something stupid will happen even if the state question passes.

That said - the cannabis issue raises a rather interesting point from a legislative perspective - if the people can get state questions on the ballot, then vote for them without their legislators going through the process of submitting a bill and getting legislative voting support - then why even bother with the middle man?

The people should demand that the laws are no more/less strict as liquor laws. Or they should be the same as any Pharmacy like Walgreens or CVS. It is the will of the people not the will of some crack pot churcher save the world type.

[jerrywall]

This being said, what's wrong with limiting sales near churches and schools? We do that with liquor.

[pw405]

This being said, what's wrong with limiting sales near churches and schools? We do that with liquor.

I suppose the issue I take with it is... why bother?, or more specifically, what problems are solved by implementing a law like this? Just seems like a ploy by the uber religious to make it more difficult for those businesses to find suitable locations. I can understand why we wouldn't want bar patrons driving through a school zone, as the chances of an intoxicated person intersecting with a school crossing are higher. But since you wouldn't be able to consume cannabis on premises, to me a dispensary isn't much different from Walgreens/CVS. We let people buy Oxycontin, Lortab, Amphetamines, Subutex, Xanax, Valium, Ambien etc etc etc. without an arbitrary distance from a school/church, so I don't think that a cannabis dispensary should be held to any different standard than a typical drug store.

[BBatesokc]

This being said, what's wrong with limiting sales near churches and schools? We do that with liquor.

Personally? Because it's pretty pointless IMO.

Example: Olivet Baptist Church in OKC at NW 10th and N. Klein Ave. You can stand at the door of the church and see the liquor store connected to the 7-11 at Western and 10th. What purpose does this serve?

You can see it at this Google Street link.

[jerrywall]

I agree the church thing is sort of pointless, but it's also harmless. Obviously it hasn't prevented liquor stores from popping up everywhere. The school limitation makes sense to me. I don't think the proper place for a liquor store or a billboard promoting tobacco or strip clubs belongs right across the street from a school. I've got no problem with Christie's Toybox, but wouldn't want it next to my kid's elementary either.