Cannabis

[OkieHornet]

Being unfamiliar with MJ, will you still be able to get the same effects / results from other kinds of MMJ? If so, how? Edibles? Gummies? Oils?

[jedicurt]

They did it. Not that anything else was expected. This is the Bible Belt.

https://newsok.com/article/5600886/d...re-pharmacists

Well... the state board of health just gave enough signatures for the recreational marijuana petition. and probably enough support for it to pass in November. A pissed off electorate is a is often a voting electorate.

[tyeomans]

They did it. Not that anything else was expected. This is the Bible Belt.

https://newsok.com/article/5600886/d...re-pharmacists

What a crock of ****......

[MagzOK]

[QUOTE=bchris02;1039444]https://kfor.com/2018/07/10/doctors-...cal-marijuana/

The key line is "Hausheer says she’s convinced Oklahoma voters didn’t fully realize the implications of State Question 788, which passed June 26 with nearly 57 percent of the vote."

An absolute insult toward all of us who voted for the SQ.

[tyeomans]

Being unfamiliar with MJ, will you still be able to get the same effects / results from other kinds of MMJ? If so, how? Edibles? Gummies? Oils?

That I don't know. Smokable form will provide patients with the quickest form of relief. Others have to take time to digest and get into the system.

[BridgeBurner]

They did it. Not that anything else was expected. This is the Bible Belt.

https://newsok.com/article/5600886/d...re-pharmacists

Unbelievable but totally believable at the same time. What actions can a normal citizen take against this board decision or the composition of the board members in general? It seems pretty ridiculous the freedom they have to edit and make (possibly illegal?) last minute changes to a state question.
"She cautioned board members that the two new rules they added to the proposed rules might not be allowed under the state question, inviting a court challenge."

[bchris02]

[QUOTE=MagzOK;1039456]

https://kfor.com/2018/07/10/doctors-...cal-marijuana/

The key line is "Hausheer says she’s convinced Oklahoma voters didn’t fully realize the implications of State Question 788, which passed June 26 with nearly 57 percent of the vote."

An absolute insult toward all of us who voted for the SQ.

It's the Oklahoma way. Big money and religious leaders know best and everyone is just supposed to take it up the a**. They did the same thing with criminal justice reform, it's just that those were constitutional amendments and much more difficult to dismantle.

[bchris02]

"She cautioned board members that the two new rules they added to the proposed rules might not be allowed under the state question, inviting a court challenge."

A court challenge is probably what's coming.

[tyeomans]

Unbelievable but totally believable at the same time. What actions can a normal citizen take against this board decision or the composition of the board members in general? It seems pretty ridiculous the freedom they have to edit and make (possibly illegal?) last minute changes to a state question.
"She cautioned board members that the two new rules they added to the proposed rules might not be allowed under the state question, inviting a court challenge."

I would like to know this as well. What can we do?

[BoulderSooner]

The state question was poorly written and vague. I don’t think it mentioned smoking at all.

[tyeomans]

The state question was poorly written and vague. I don’t think it mentioned smoking at all.

Do all other states with MMJ allow smoking, or are we going to be the first to ban it completely?

[jedicurt]

https://newsok.com/article/5600886/d...re-pharmacists

from the news ok article

Julie Ezell, the Health Department’s general counsel, presented the rules to a packed board room and to members of the public watching in an overflow room and online. She cautioned board members that the two new rules they added to the proposed rules might not be allowed under the state question, inviting a court challenge.

so their own general counsel advised them against this... won't take much in court to fight it

[tyeomans]

from the news ok article


so their own general counsel advised them against this... won't take much in court to fight it

My only question is how will they know if this is not allowed under the state question? Who makes this decision, and how is that decision rationalized?

[Dustin]

[d-usa]

I would imagine that pharmacists might be prohibited from distributing a Schedule 1 substance, regardless of what the state law says.

Did anybody check with the Board of Pharmacists?

[jedicurt]

I would imagine that pharmacists might be prohibited from distributing a Schedule 1 substance, regardless of what the state law says.

Did anybody check with the Board of Pharmacists?

this is correct. it is why separate dispensaries are set up and not using traditional pharmacies

[jedicurt]

My only question is how will they know if this is not allowed under the state question? Who makes this decision, and how is that decision rationalized?

it will be a judge. and perhaps all the way to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. But this is pretty clear... Section 1 Article A of the State question clearly separates all the types of marijuana this would allow.. and their own General Counsel said it probably is against it.

[Bunty]

They did it. Not that anything else was expected. This is the Bible Belt.

https://newsok.com/article/5600886/d...re-pharmacists

So it's like recreational joints are safer than medical joints. Once again, this odd American custom that you have to legalize medical marijuana before you can legalize recreational marijuana is the height of ridiculousness. Just blame it on the Feds. However, if things become more rational by the DEA taking marijuana off of Schedule 1 or better, yet, an act of Congress decriminalizes marijuana, then the state health department and opponents of SQ788 will look all the more ridiculous and oppressive. It will be interesting to see if November elections significantly changes things toward the more rational in 2019.

[BoulderSooner]

it will be a judge. and perhaps all the way to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. But this is pretty clear... Section 1 Article A of the State question clearly separates all the types of marijuana this would allow.. and their own General Counsel said it probably is against it.

And yet doesn’t say one word about smoking it.

[tyeomans]

And yet doesn’t say one word about smoking it.

But it includes plants and leaves which they are trying to ban......

[jedicurt]

And yet doesn’t say one word about smoking it.

well what else is the medical way to consume the 3 ounces of marijuana on your person that the license allows in Section 1 Article A subsection 2... subsection 5 talks about concentrated marijuana and having once ounce of it... and subsection 6 talks specifically about the amount of edible marijuana you can have...

you are correct, it doesn't specifically say the word "Smoke"... but how does one consume marijuana that is not part of an edible, nor concentrated?

[BoulderSooner]

Make brownies?

[jedicurt]

Make brownies?

no where in the state question 788 does it state that it is legal to make or own edibles. only to purchase them, and there is a statement specifically about the amount of edibles one is able to have on their person.

So now you are adding items that are not specifically mentioned in the state question.

So if it is specifically stated that it is legal to purchase marijuana and have up to 3 ounces, and does not explicitly give the ability to create edibles from the purchased marijuana... then how does one consume the purchased marijuana.

[HangryHippo]

Make brownies?

He specifically said "...that is not part of an edible...". Christ, you're dense when you think you're trying to make a point.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I imagine this will be challenged in court pretty quick. Ignored the will of the people here.