Cannabis

[bchris02]

I have no idea, but if 90% nationally supports it, then why do only 30 states approve of it ?

The Republican Party primarily and some Democrats for that matter.

[Bunty]

SQ797 is finally over the top. Needs to get over 150,000 to help discourage or survive a challenge.

[gopokes88]

The Republican Party primarily and some Democrats for that matter.

Neither.

Large scale societal changes like this are very very difficult to achieve in this country, and the system was intentionally designed that way. It's designed that way so the government becomes a large stable force that doesn't change with the direction of the winds. (It's why Trump won't get much of what he wants done, neither Obama for that matter. Power is too spilt up between federal, state, and local and across too many institutions Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) Good decisions are deeply ingrained into the fabric of society (Bill of Rights) while bad ones can take years and even wars to overcome. (Slavery) Fortunately bad ones in recent history have been overcome with large scale consensus, not wars. Not the 51% consensus, large scale 75%+ plus consensus.

[Bunty]

Group says it reached signature goal to put recreational marijuana on November ballot: http://www.koco.com/article/group-sa...allot/22584729

It took two months from the time SQ793 promoters submitted over 250,000 signatures to the time when the Governor Fallin signed it to put it on the November ballot. (SQ793 wants to okay opticians and optometrists to set up shop in any store, like Wal-Mart.) So it's hard to see how 796 and 797 gets on the ballot for November.

[bchris02]

Neither.

Large scale societal changes like this are very very difficult to achieve in this country, and the system was intentionally designed that way. It's designed that way so the government becomes a large stable force that doesn't change with the direction of the winds. (It's why Trump won't get much of what he wants done, neither Obama for that matter. Power is too spilt up between federal, state, and local and across too many institutions Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) Good decisions are deeply ingrained into the fabric of society (Bill of Rights) while bad ones can take years and even wars to overcome. (Slavery) Fortunately bad ones in recent history have been overcome with large scale consensus, not wars. Not the 51% consensus, large scale 75%+ plus consensus.

I agree, but I think the public opinion is there on marijuana. It remains illegal because the politicians are paid off by industries like Big Pharma and private prisons. When you think about it, to be able to mass incarcerate people for such a small non-crime is a huge boon for private prisons. Republicans use the Christian Right "we are protecting the moral fabric of society" argument to justify continuing to criminalize it and historically that has worked. In reality it's all about money. Democrats are typically more open to legalization on the surface but even many of them are bought and paid for or otherwise it would be legal in more blue states.

[gopokes88]

I agree, but I think the public opinion is there on marijuana. It remains illegal because the politicians are paid off by industries like Big Pharma and private prisons. When you think about it, to be able to mass incarcerate people for such a small non-crime is a huge boon for private prisons. Republicans use the Christian Right "we are protecting the moral fabric of society" argument to justify continuing to criminalize it and historically that has worked. In reality it's all about money. Democrats are typically more open to legalization on the surface but even many of them are bought and paid for or otherwise it would be legal in more blue states.

Which is why it’s legal in more than half the states and legislation will soon pass that sends regulation back to the states.

So I don’t really buy your argument. Large changes take time, no matter the issue no matter who’s in charge.

[jerrywall]

Yawn. The Christian Right boogieman again. Must be Tuesday. Sometimes the explanation is simply generation differences. But why accept that when you can demonize an entire group, right?

[jonny d]

I agree, but I think the public opinion is there on marijuana. It remains illegal because the politicians are paid off by industries like Big Pharma and private prisons. When you think about it, to be able to mass incarcerate people for such a small non-crime is a huge boon for private prisons. Republicans use the Christian Right "we are protecting the moral fabric of society" argument to justify continuing to criminalize it and historically that has worked. In reality it's all about money. Democrats are typically more open to legalization on the surface but even many of them are bought and paid for or otherwise it would be legal in more blue states.

Dude, please stop or move. You have a fetish for the Christian right? You talk about them in every post. I am a very Christian man who supports marijuana. I won't use it, but see no reason for it to be illegal. I get you hate everything Republican, but it doesn't make you morally superior. Quit taking shots. It makes it really hard to have discussions with you.

[Bunty]

Dude, please stop or move. You have a fetish for the Christian right? You talk about them in every post. I am a very Christian man who supports marijuana. I won't use it, but see no reason for it to be illegal. I get you hate everything Republican, but it doesn't make you morally superior. Quit taking shots. It makes it really hard to have discussions with you.

He doesn't necessarily mean people like you. He most of all means legislators Oklahomans repeatedly elect, such as anti pot Sen. Lankford. He will probably be senator for as long as he desires. I don't expect any of the 7 Oklahoma legislators in DC to vote yes on any pro federal marijuana bills. But then many people, like you, vote to keep them in office. So I don't blame him for taking shots. Surely there are Oklahoma Republicans who could be better legislators at the federal level. Except for Sen. Inhofe, who wisely chose not to take a direct stand on SQ788, I can't think of anything my Republican legislators in DC have done for my area. Hopefully, bchris02's complaints about the Oklahoma Christian Right and their reps will become out of date in the not too distant future.

I won't mind being proved wrong should any of the Oklahoma legislators in DC finally decide to change their prohibition happy minds on marijuana. I wouldn't be surprised that when Republicans vote, they think there are more important issues to consider than how a candidate feels about legalizing marijuana.

[jonny d]

He doesn't necessarily mean people like you. He most of all means legislators Oklahomans repeatedly elect, such as anti pot Sen. Lankford. He will probably be senator for as long as he desires. I don't expect any of the 7 Oklahoma legislators in DC to vote yes on any pro federal marijuana bills. But then many people, like you, vote to keep them in office. So I don't blame him for taking shots. Surely there are Oklahoma Republicans who could be better legislators at the federal level. Except for Sen. Inhofe, who wisely chose not to take a direct stand on SQ788, I can't think of anything my Republican legislators in DC have done for my area. Hopefully, bchris02's complaints about the Oklahoma Christian Right and their reps will become out of date in the not too distant future.

I won't mind being proved wrong should any of the Oklahoma legislators in DC finally decide to change their prohibition happy minds on marijuana. I wouldn't be surprised that when Republicans vote, they think there are more important issues to consider than how a candidate feels about legalizing marijuana.

I am not one of those who voted for any of our current DC reps or senators. I voted against them. I used to love Lankford. I have known him since I was in middle school (Falls Creek, which he was a huge part of then). But his views are so different than mine. But I also know I am in the minority on that.

[jerrywall]

Its gonna be stormy tonight with a risk of tornadoes. Darn those religious folks.

[emtefury]

Can the pro marijuana folks help me out. This is a serious question. I am not trying to play gotcha or anything like that. I am trying to understand the mindset why smoking cigarettes is bad but marijuana is just fine health wise.

In 1990s brought big tobacco where states sued for billions, which Oklahoma has TSET. The lawsuits were cigarettes were bad for you because they were addictive and smoking was bad for health especially lungs. It causes higher rates of cancer, second hand smoke and all that stuff.

In regards to smoking marijuana, what is the difference between smoking cigarettes and smoking marijuana in regards to health. In 1950s health journals said smoking cigarettes were good for you.

Are we going to have big marijuana in 40 years and she the companies for billions.

Am I missing something. Is marijuana any healthier than cigarettes in how it effects the body through smoke to the lungs? How about second hand smoke.

[jerrywall]

Ok, first of all, anything you breath can have health consequences. However, there are people for whom smoking is the best way to consume. People dont understand the nausea of chemo. But yes, they should take measures to prevent second hand smoke to others.

[BBatesokc]

... I am trying to understand the mindset why smoking cigarettes is bad but marijuana is just fine health wise. ...
Am I missing something. Is marijuana any healthier than cigarettes in how it effects the body through smoke to the lungs? How about second hand smoke.

Couple of things; From my exposure to medical marijuana use (almost exactly one year ago I began treatment for stage 3 cancer of the head and neck) I have found that there is no conclusive information that second hand marijuana smoke has harmful effects on others (*from the ALA; "...there is no data on the health consequences of breathing secondhand marijuana smoke..."). Additionally, there is very limited information, and none that I could find, that conclusively shows smoking marijuana casually has the same negative effects on the smoker's lungs.

Regardless, the list of positive effects for medical marijuana (smoking or otherwise) is long indeed. I choose not to smoke it (I obtained my marijuana illegally from a state that allowed recreation use) and instead relied on edibles, creams and patches.

Smoking was not my preference and it would not have been a good choice. My medical treatment plan included huge doses of Cisplatin (chemo) and daily 15-minute, 3 target, radiation of my head and neck for 35 consecutive days. The radiation causes phlegm that you can't even imagine and smoking marijuana would most likely make it even worse. My throat was also so raw I often coughed up bloody bits of throat tissue. So, while smoking marijuana is often excellent for chemo patients, you have to take the entirety of their treatment plan into consideration.

For me, marijuana addressed some very critical issues; anxiety (I didn't use a feeding tube - over 80% of patients with my cancer use a PEG tube - and just the thought of trying to take in calories orally was almost as unbearable as the pain of actually doing it). It helped me to maintain my appetite (I needed to consume 2,500 - 3,000 calories a day - and even at that pace I lost around 50 pounds). It alleviated nausea. It made it possible to relax enough to sleep. For me it eliminated the need to take the laundry list of opioids I had been prescribed (Oxy, Hydro, Morphine, etc.) and therefore I did not have to worry about side effects, organ damage or addiction. And best of all, unlike with opioid use, I could get up an drive myself to treatment every day and then go to work and then home.

While cigarettes address none of those issues and come with their own laundry list of negative side effects for the user, and those around them, marijuana's list of known effects is overwhelmingly positive.

While I chose not to smoke marijuana, I know many cancer patients for whom smoking was their best method of delivery of the drug.

[barrettd]

Can the pro marijuana folks help me out. This is a serious question. I am not trying to play gotcha or anything like that. I am trying to understand the mindset why smoking cigarettes is bad but marijuana is just fine health wise.

In 1990s brought big tobacco where states sued for billions, which Oklahoma has TSET. The lawsuits were cigarettes were bad for you because they were addictive and smoking was bad for health especially lungs. It causes higher rates of cancer, second hand smoke and all that stuff.

In regards to smoking marijuana, what is the difference between smoking cigarettes and smoking marijuana in regards to health. In 1950s health journals said smoking cigarettes were good for you.

Are we going to have big marijuana in 40 years and she the companies for billions.

Am I missing something. Is marijuana any healthier than cigarettes in how it effects the body through smoke to the lungs? How about second hand smoke.

Isn't part of all the TSET and lawsuits the fact the cigarette companies knowingly added something to the tobacco that made it addictive? Seems I saw that in one of the recent TSET PSAs. It seems like they aren't naturally addictive, and the cigarette companies engineered them to rewire the brain of a smoker to make them near impossible to quit.

[bchris02]

Dude, please stop or move. You have a fetish for the Christian right? You talk about them in every post. I am a very Christian man who supports marijuana. I won't use it, but see no reason for it to be illegal. I get you hate everything Republican, but it doesn't make you morally superior. Quit taking shots. It makes it really hard to have discussions with you.

Well when it comes to this particular subject they are relevant because it's typically the most religious authoritarian politicians (the ones preaching family values) that are also the most anti-cannabis. Religious people tend to think that any criticism of the religious right is an attack on them but that isn't the case. The issue isn't religion. It's politicians that use religion as a wedge and as a tool to control others and as a cover for corruption. Anyways, this will be my last post on this topic for now.

[TheTravellers]

Can the pro marijuana folks help me out. This is a serious question. I am not trying to play gotcha or anything like that. I am trying to understand the mindset why smoking cigarettes is bad but marijuana is just fine health wise.

In 1990s brought big tobacco where states sued for billions, which Oklahoma has TSET. The lawsuits were cigarettes were bad for you because they were addictive and smoking was bad for health especially lungs. It causes higher rates of cancer, second hand smoke and all that stuff.

In regards to smoking marijuana, what is the difference between smoking cigarettes and smoking marijuana in regards to health. In 1950s health journals said smoking cigarettes were good for you.

Are we going to have big marijuana in 40 years and she the companies for billions.

Am I missing something. Is marijuana any healthier than cigarettes in how it effects the body through smoke to the lungs? How about second hand smoke.

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smo...cigarette.html

"There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous."

As for marijuana, when bought illegally, who really knows what's in it pesticide-wise, etc., but odds are there aren't more than 600 chemicals (with dozens of them that are carcinogens and/or poisonous) in/on it. When bought legally (medical or recreational), I'm guessing there are restrictions as to what can be put in/on it, but not totally sure about that.

[jerrywall]

Just because there hasn't been enough research doesn't mean there's not similar risks to smoking marijuana as there is to smoking cigarettes. The american lung association has a pretty clear view on this.

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smo...ng-health.html

I'm not saying folks shouldn't be allowed to do this, just like they're allowed to smoke tobacco and drink. But let's not act like these activities are harmless. It doesn't take medical experts to recognize that any time you're breathing in smoke, regardless of the source, you're risking damaging you're lungs, developing bronchitis, and more. Even breathing in smoke from a campfire can cause health issues.

So folks have to balance the risk and reward scenario. Personally, if someone is going through chemo and other cancer treatments, if it makes their life more tolerable, and it's the best method for them, I say go for it. For my epilepsy and other issues, I'll probably stick with other methods.

[onthestrip]

Can the pro marijuana folks help me out. This is a serious question. I am not trying to play gotcha or anything like that. I am trying to understand the mindset why smoking cigarettes is bad but marijuana is just fine health wise.

In 1990s brought big tobacco where states sued for billions, which Oklahoma has TSET. The lawsuits were cigarettes were bad for you because they were addictive and smoking was bad for health especially lungs. It causes higher rates of cancer, second hand smoke and all that stuff.

In regards to smoking marijuana, what is the difference between smoking cigarettes and smoking marijuana in regards to health. In 1950s health journals said smoking cigarettes were good for you.

Are we going to have big marijuana in 40 years and she the companies for billions.

Am I missing something. Is marijuana any healthier than cigarettes in how it effects the body through smoke to the lungs? How about second hand smoke.

Inhaling any smoke isnt good. But there are major differences. Pot doesnt have the harmful chemicals in cigarettes. You also dont have people smoking a pack of pot joints a day, pot smokers might not breathe in the amount of smoke in a month that a cigarette smoker will in a day. Also, tobacco is way more addictive than pot. Lastly, you dont have a few big corporations marketing pot like they did cigarettes back in the day. The pot market is made up of smaller growers and suppliers and they arent promising what cigs used to promise. People actually find benefits and relief in pot, not sure anyone found much of that in cigs.

[OKCRT]

Inhaling any smoke isnt good. But there are major differences. Pot doesnt have the harmful chemicals in cigarettes. You also dont have people smoking a pack of pot joints a day, pot smokers might not breathe in the amount of smoke in a month that a cigarette smoker will in a day. Also, tobacco is way more addictive than pot. Lastly, you dont have a few big corporations marketing pot like they did cigarettes back in the day. The pot market is made up of smaller growers and suppliers and they arent promising what cigs used to promise. People actually find benefits and relief in pot, not sure anyone found much of that in cigs.

Excellent points and very true.

[emtefury]

Thanks for the information and insight folks on cigarettes vs marijuana. Very helpful.

[Bunty]

Much government funding for marijuana research set out to prove how bad on health marijuana can be. This study by Dr. Taskin was to prove smoking marijuana causes lung cancer, but failed to do so. However, the risks of heavy, long-term marijuana smoking were inconclusive.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...-us/ar-AAv2EXD

[Pete]

This document shows who contributed to the anti-788 campaign.

Notable:

Forward OKC (OKC Chamber of Commerce) $165K
Devon Energy $100K
Continental Resources $100K
Chichasaw Nation $100K
Gulfport Energy $50K
Chesapeake Energy $25K
Loves $25K
Arvest Bank $25K
Dolese $25K
Enable Mistream $25K
OG&E $25K
IBC Bank $20K
BancFirst $10K

Click here to view or download the file directly.

[HangryHippo]

Our energy overlords apparently hated 788.

[PhiAlpha]

Our energy overlords apparently hated 788.

Its not just energy companies that hated it. Half the companies Pete listed are in other fields. Generally companies don’t like marijuana legalization of any kind because it is in conflict with and will complicate their drug policies. That’s not an energy industry specific issue but given the fact that a large portion of work in that industry involves large groups of people operating very large, complicated and dangerous machinery, it’s not really surprising that they would be against legalizing any substance that could alter someone’s state of mind or reaction time if used, even under a medical pretense, on the job. Other states that have legalized it have seen similar corporate backlash.