Map breaking down Oklahoma medicinal marijuana vote by county

[bugo]

^^^

Dana Rohrabacher sponsored that? What's he been smoking? He's usually reliably conservative.

Cannabis reform is a non-partisan issue. It is popular amongst Democrats, Republicans and independents. And the Reefer Madness crowd is shrinking day by day. I just don't understand why HB is so authoritarian about cannabis. I take it personally when a person says they want to prevent me from getting my medicine. Maybe HB should smoke a bowl. It is an effective treatment for gout.

[bugo]

Well, it looks like the old family (dad's side) stomping grounds of McCurtain County voted against 788 -- although I know one cousin who's got a few patches of grow on the property (the family's got about 2 square miles and change down there, mostly forest) -- and has had for at least 25 years!  But the county in general is rock-ribbed Republican (although before the '64 Civil Rights Act it was rock-ribbed Southern Democrat!), so a stance against legalization (damn hippies!) is hardly surprising!

I find it interesting that Haskell County, which rejected 788 by a margin of 59%-41% is an island of red surrounded by a sea of green. Is Haskell County especially conservative for some reason?

[Road Hog]

Marshall County voted against – by one vote out of more than 7,500 cast.

[bugo]

It's still remarkable that 57% of the voters in Oklahoma of all places approved the measure. That's over 500,000 'yes' votes. Quite amazing.

[adventurernumber1]

^^^

Dana Rohrabacher sponsored that? What's he been smoking? He's usually reliably conservative.

Cannabis reform is a non-partisan issue. It is popular amongst Democrats, Republicans and independents. And the Reefer Madness crowd is shrinking day by day. I just don't understand why HB is so authoritarian about cannabis. I take it personally when a person says they want to prevent me from getting my medicine. Maybe HB should smoke a bowl. It is an effective treatment for gout.

Exactly. This attitude of "You're not harming me or anyone else, but I don't agree with what you're doing, so I am going to try to stop you legally" is simply not sustainable. We have to move past that. You have every right to strongly dislike weed and discourage people from using it, but you do not have the right to legally stop people from using it (when they are not harming anybody else) just because you don't like weed. There's a lot of people in this country who love weed and use it, and making them criminals for it is absolutely wrong. Why spend all our stinking tax money on incarcerating innocent pot smokers in prison, who do not deserve to be there. If weed is legal, and it even has a tax on it, then the government would get money, rather than lose money, and there would sure as hell be less injustice. Sometimes I wonder if weed would do anything to ease my many ailments (mental and physical) - some of which weed has been shown to help with. But I don't even have the option, and it's not feasible for me to do so until the government gets its freaking act together and permanently legalizes it federally once and for all. Marijuana has truly been shown to do wonders to people. I know, there's a chance of negative effects such as impaired memory and processing speed (in the long-term), but there are countless medical benefits, and pot does not come even remotely close to being as dangerous as most other drugs. Even alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. Weed legalization shouldn't be a partisan thing. It should be something that we can all get behind, since it is injustice in the legal system (same as when Alcohol was illegal during the Prohibition era in the early 20th Century). People who use alcohol and weed who are not harming other people do not deserve to be criminalized. It is now (and has been for quite a while) time for a change.

[abefroman329]

It is an effective treatment for gout.

So is weight loss and an improved diet, in many cases.

[kphoger]

This attitude of "You're not harming me or anyone else, but I don't agree with what you're doing, so I am going to try to stop you legally" is simply not sustainable. We have to move past that. You have every right to strongly dislike weed and discourage people from using it, but you do not have the right to legally stop people from using it (when they are not harming anybody else) just because you don't like weed.

There's more nuance to the issue than just that.  Harder drugs remain illegal because the risk of users harming other people and also degrading society as a whole is too high to be tolerated.  If, for example, smoking marijuana is demonstrated to increase a person's likelihood of doing meth, then the societal effect of using meth can come into the conversation about legalizing marijuana:  legal access to marijuana means that it can come to be seen as harmless, which can in turn lead to an increase in its use, which can in turn–if the aforementioned connection were demonstrated–lead to an increase in meth use, which can in turn have detrimental effects on others around them and perhaps society as a whole.  (Please bear in mind that I'm not actually saying smoking marijuana increases a person's likelihood of doing meth.  I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make that sort of argument, either for or against.  I'm merely offering one way in which the issue isn't simply a case of individual liberty.)

Having said all of that, the fact that the issue is mainly one of individual liberty is precisely why it shouldn't surprise anyone that a lot of conservatives support legalization.  That's because a lot of conservatives are politically libertarian.

[abefroman329]

This attitude of "You're not harming me or anyone else, but I don't agree with what you're doing, so I am going to try to stop you legally" is simply not sustainable. We have to move past that. You have every right to strongly dislike weed and discourage people from using it, but you do not have the right to legally stop people from using it (when they are not harming anybody else) just because you don't like weed.

There's more nuance to the issue than just that.  Harder drugs remain illegal because the risk of users harming other people and also degrading society as a whole is too high to be tolerated.  If, for example, smoking marijuana is demonstrated to increase a person's likelihood of doing meth, then the societal effect of using meth can come into the conversation about legalizing marijuana:  legal access to marijuana means that it can come to be seen as harmless, which can in turn lead to an increase in its use, which can in turn–if the aforementioned connection were demonstrated–lead to an increase in meth use, which can in turn have detrimental effects on others around them and perhaps society as a whole.  (Please bear in mind that I'm not actually saying smoking marijuana increases a person's likelihood of doing meth.  I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make that sort of argument, either for or against.  I'm merely offering one way in which the issue isn't simply a case of individual liberty.)

Having said all of that, the fact that the issue is mainly one of individual liberty is precisely why it shouldn't surprise anyone that a lot of conservatives support legalization.  That's because a lot of conservatives are politically libertarian.

The evidence to support the "gateway drug" theory is scant and, speaking from personal experience, if it does exist, it's because of the "try it once and your life will be over!" hysteria we push on teenagers (as in "well, they said getting drunk/smoking weed once would mean my life is over...I did it once...my life isn't over...what else can I try?!"

And I don't support the legalization of harder drugs, but it'd be difficult to argue that legal alcohol sales haven't led to public nuisances, yet here we are.

[vdeane]

The evidence to support the "gateway drug" theory is scant and, speaking from personal experience, if it does exist, it's because of the "try it once and your life will be over!" hysteria we push on teenagers (as in "well, they said getting drunk/smoking weed once would mean my life is over...I did it once...my life isn't over...what else can I try?!"

Not to mention that one can never really be sure of what they're getting when buying from the black market.  One could try to buy marijuana and find that it's been cut with meth and get addicted despite never even wanting to try meth (I actually read of a case of this happening).  A well-regulated dispensary would not have this problem.

[SectorZ]

This attitude of "You're not harming me or anyone else, but I don't agree with what you're doing, so I am going to try to stop you legally" is simply not sustainable. We have to move past that. You have every right to strongly dislike weed and discourage people from using it, but you do not have the right to legally stop people from using it (when they are not harming anybody else) just because you don't like weed.

There's more nuance to the issue than just that.  Harder drugs remain illegal because the risk of users harming other people and also degrading society as a whole is too high to be tolerated.  If, for example, smoking marijuana is demonstrated to increase a person's likelihood of doing meth, then the societal effect of using meth can come into the conversation about legalizing marijuana:  legal access to marijuana means that it can come to be seen as harmless, which can in turn lead to an increase in its use, which can in turn–if the aforementioned connection were demonstrated–lead to an increase in meth use, which can in turn have detrimental effects on others around them and perhaps society as a whole.  (Please bear in mind that I'm not actually saying smoking marijuana increases a person's likelihood of doing meth.  I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make that sort of argument, either for or against.  I'm merely offering one way in which the issue isn't simply a case of individual liberty.)

Having said all of that, the fact that the issue is mainly one of individual liberty is precisely why it shouldn't surprise anyone that a lot of conservatives support legalization.  That's because a lot of conservatives are politically libertarian.

Libertarian = conservative that can mind their own business

[Road Hog]

This attitude of "You're not harming me or anyone else, but I don't agree with what you're doing, so I am going to try to stop you legally" is simply not sustainable. We have to move past that. You have every right to strongly dislike weed and discourage people from using it, but you do not have the right to legally stop people from using it (when they are not harming anybody else) just because you don't like weed.

There's more nuance to the issue than just that.  Harder drugs remain illegal because the risk of users harming other people and also degrading society as a whole is too high to be tolerated.  If, for example, smoking marijuana is demonstrated to increase a person's likelihood of doing meth, then the societal effect of using meth can come into the conversation about legalizing marijuana:  legal access to marijuana means that it can come to be seen as harmless, which can in turn lead to an increase in its use, which can in turn–if the aforementioned connection were demonstrated–lead to an increase in meth use, which can in turn have detrimental effects on others around them and perhaps society as a whole.  (Please bear in mind that I'm not actually saying smoking marijuana increases a person's likelihood of doing meth.  I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make that sort of argument, either for or against.  I'm merely offering one way in which the issue isn't simply a case of individual liberty.)

Having said all of that, the fact that the issue is mainly one of individual liberty is precisely why it shouldn't surprise anyone that a lot of conservatives support legalization.  That's because a lot of conservatives are politically libertarian.

Libertarian = conservative that can mind their own business

People don't see it politically, but in reality politics is a two-dimensional plot. You have your typical left-right on the x-axis, but there is also a y-axis concerning libertarian vs. authoritarian. Oklahoma certainly has a libertarian bent. Right now the focus is on the x-axis and Trump swinging way out there past Bermuda. But Trump is also way authoritarian and if his failures continue, his cult will start to chafe.

[abefroman329]

This attitude of "You're not harming me or anyone else, but I don't agree with what you're doing, so I am going to try to stop you legally" is simply not sustainable. We have to move past that. You have every right to strongly dislike weed and discourage people from using it, but you do not have the right to legally stop people from using it (when they are not harming anybody else) just because you don't like weed.

There's more nuance to the issue than just that.  Harder drugs remain illegal because the risk of users harming other people and also degrading society as a whole is too high to be tolerated.  If, for example, smoking marijuana is demonstrated to increase a person's likelihood of doing meth, then the societal effect of using meth can come into the conversation about legalizing marijuana:  legal access to marijuana means that it can come to be seen as harmless, which can in turn lead to an increase in its use, which can in turn–if the aforementioned connection were demonstrated–lead to an increase in meth use, which can in turn have detrimental effects on others around them and perhaps society as a whole.  (Please bear in mind that I'm not actually saying smoking marijuana increases a person's likelihood of doing meth.  I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make that sort of argument, either for or against.  I'm merely offering one way in which the issue isn't simply a case of individual liberty.)

Having said all of that, the fact that the issue is mainly one of individual liberty is precisely why it shouldn't surprise anyone that a lot of conservatives support legalization.  That's because a lot of conservatives are politically libertarian.

Libertarian = conservative that can mind their own business

People don't see it politically, but in reality politics is a two-dimensional plot. You have your typical left-right on the x-axis, but there is also a y-axis concerning libertarian vs. authoritarian. Oklahoma certainly has a libertarian bent. Right now the focus is on the x-axis and Trump swinging way out there past Bermuda. But Trump is also way authoritarian and if his failures continue, his cult will start to chafe.

One of my college profs described the political spectrum as being horseshoe-shaped. And he's right, the far left and far right have some things in common. Anti-vaccination and anti-fluoridated water, to name two.

[hbelkins]

People don't see it politically, but in reality politics is a two-dimensional plot. You have your typical left-right on the x-axis, but there is also a y-axis concerning libertarian vs. authoritarian. Oklahoma certainly has a libertarian bent. Right now the focus is on the x-axis and Trump swinging way out there past Bermuda. But Trump is also way authoritarian and if his failures continue, his cult will start to chafe.

There's a political spectrum test making the rounds out there. I took it recently and my results were this:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=6.0&soc=1.64

I think some of the questions asked to arrive at the libertarian/authoritarian score are a bit suspect.

What surprised me was that both Trump and Hillary are in the same quadrant.

I freely admit to having libertarian leanings on economic and fiscal issues, but I'm also a believer in the civil society, and law and order (not the TV show, but I'm a fan of it), so I guess that makes me a bit of an authoritarian if you're talking about social/cultural issues.

[triplemultiplex]

There's a political spectrum test making the rounds out there. I took it recently and my results were this:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=6.0&soc=1.64

That seems pretty accurate having read your posts for many years now. 

What surprised me was that both Trump and Hillary are in the same quadrant.

I think people tend to overestimate the 'extremism' of a political adversary.

[bugo]

I've never heard of cannabis that was cut with meth. First, methamphetamine is a pale colored powder while cannabis is mostly green plant material and you could easily see the powder if it were in a bag of weed. They also has completely different effects from each other. I've heard of weed cut with wet/sherm/angel dust/PCP/"embalming fluid" but not speed. I've also heard of the "primo" which is cocaine sprinkled on top of marijuana but the blow is usually added by the smoker at the time it is smoked. I've never bought meth so I have no idea how much it costs but I would guess that it is more expensive than weed, thereby making it unprofitable to taint cannabis with it.

[Duke87]

The evidence to support the "gateway drug" theory is scant and, speaking from personal experience, if it does exist, it's because of the "try it once and your life will be over!" hysteria we push on teenagers (as in "well, they said getting drunk/smoking weed once would mean my life is over...I did it once...my life isn't over...what else can I try?!"

Not to mention that one can never really be sure of what they're getting when buying from the black market.  One could try to buy marijuana and find that it's been cut with meth and get addicted despite never even wanting to try meth (I actually read of a case of this happening).  A well-regulated dispensary would not have this problem.

More importantly, there is the problem of correlation not implying causation.

A person who tries drug A may be more likely to try drug B than someone who has not tried drug A, but this doesn't mean there is anything in particular about drug A that leads to this progression. Keep in mind that "people who have tried drug A" is a self-selected group of individuals who have already demonstrated a higher willingness to try drugs than the population as a whole. And of course once people  try one drug, this naturally produces some level of desensitization to trying more.

"Gateway drugs" are simply the drugs that are most accessible, and therefore most likely to be what people try first.

[hbelkins]

I've never bought meth so I have no idea how much it costs but I would guess that it is more expensive than weed, thereby making it unprofitable to taint cannabis with it.

I've never bought either, but my understanding is that if you buy meth from a dealer, you'll pay a pretty good sum for it. However, meth has become so easy to make from readily-obtainable ingredients available at any local dollar store, that I'm not surprised at its proliferation. Seems like it would be easier and cheaper to make your own than to buy it.

I've also noticed that an in increasing number of trafficking arrests in this area, people are being caught with meth, heroin, or illicit prescription drugs, in addition to marijuana.

[Takumi]

I've never bought meth so I have no idea how much it costs but I would guess that it is more expensive than weed, thereby making it unprofitable to taint cannabis with it.

I've never bought either, but my understanding is that if you buy meth from a dealer, you'll pay a pretty good sum for it. However, meth has become so easy to make from readily-obtainable ingredients available at any local dollar store, that I'm not surprised at its proliferation. Seems like it would be easier and cheaper to make your own than to buy it.

I've also noticed that an in increasing number of trafficking arrests in this area, people are being caught with meth, heroin, or illicit prescription drugs, in addition to marijuana.

There are also over-the-counter nasal inhalers that straight up have a variant of meth in them (levmetamfetamine).

[kphoger]

More importantly, there is the problem of correlation not implying causation.

A person who tries drug A may be more likely to try drug B than someone who has not tried drug A, but this doesn't mean there is anything in particular about drug A that leads to this progression. Keep in mind that "people who have tried drug A" is a self-selected group of individuals who have already demonstrated a higher willingness to try drugs than the population as a whole. And of course once people  try one drug, this naturally produces some level of desensitization to trying more.

"Gateway drugs" are simply the drugs that are most accessible, and therefore most likely to be what people try first.

Alcohol is the real gateway drug anyway, and its legalization isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

(and white zin is the gateway drug into the wine world)

[wxfree]

Am I correct in my understanding? that the provision in federal law preventing prosecution of marijuana sales according to its federal ban is one that must be renewed every year.  If, at some point in the near future, that provision were not renewed, then all of these states permitting medical or recreational marijuana sales would suddenly find themselves in a sticky situation.

I don't think there's any such provision, I think Obama's DOJ simply announced they wouldn't enforce federal law in states with some form of legal marijuana and Trump's chose to continue that. I'm surprised the latter did, given Sessions' famous "good people don't smoke marijuana"  statement, but they did.

↓  See below  ↓

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

This is commonly referred to as the Rohrabacher—Farr Amendment, and it took effect in December 2014.  My assumption is that states are added to the list whenever new ones have passed legalization legislation since the last renewal.

That's an element of appropriations bills, which appropriate money and attach strings to it.  This is one of those strings.  Appropriations are limited by the Constitution to two years, but they're usually for shorter periods.  The amendment expires with each bill it's attached to.  The current spending bill expires at the end of September and has the provision in place.