This is an interactive map breaking down the yes and no votes for SQ 788 by county. If you click on a county, it will give you the number of yes and no votes and percentages.
Cleveland County got the highest percentage of yes votes with almost 65%. Oklahoma, Tulsa and Cherokee counties all passed the measure by over 60%.
Northwestern Oklahoma overwhelmingly voted no. Beaver County voted no by over 70%. Other counties that voted no are McCurtain, Ottawa, Atoka and for whatever reason, Haskell County which is surrounded by green.
Muskogee County voted yes by a 56%-43% margin, proving that Merle Haggard was wrong.
Cherokee County voted yes by a margin of 62%-38%. Cherokee County is where Tahlequah is located. The Cherokee Nation is headquartered there and there is a college there and I'm sure that had a lot to do with why it was so strongly in favor of 788.
This is a good example of the bipolar nature of Oklahoma. It isn't nearly as conservative as some might think. As the older generation dies off, acceptance of cannabis will only increase. June 26, 2018 was a great day for the state of Oklahoma and freedom in general.
http://oklahomawatch.org/2018/06/27/mapping-the-medical-marijuana-vote-by-county/
Quote from: bugo on December 20, 2018, 10:09:08 AM
Cleveland County got the highest percentage of yes votes with almost 65%.
I would be a little surprised if we hadn't! Norman has taken to the green stuff quite well–there's tons of cannabis places here. CBD+ has at least a half-dozen locations in town, possibly more. There's usually at least one cannabis place in the strip mall connected to the side of each 7-11.
Since you brought up the Cherokee Nation, it highlights an interesting contrast with the Chickasaws. Their headquarters is in Ada, Pontotoc County, which just barely voted No on the measure. But most of the counties in their service area voted Yes. The Chickasaw Nation issued an executive policy statement (I cannot remember if it was signed by Governor Anoatubby or one of his deputies) essentially saying that they are going to ignore SQ 788 and direct tribal police to enforce federal law, still terminate employees for medical marijuana usage, etc. If I were a tribal legislator, I might be concerned about my re-election after seeing this map.
I feel like a feasible political strategy for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2020 could be to ignore Trump altogether and make the campaign a national referendum on marijuana legalization. Most of the people who would be wildly opposed to this would be voting Republican anyway, and it would activate a whole lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote. The turnout for the primaries held the same day as SQ 788 was much, much higher than any previous midterm primaries.
Quote from: bugo on December 20, 2018, 10:09:08 AM
This is a good example of the bipolar nature of Oklahoma. It isn't nearly as conservative as some might think.
I think at one point it
was nearly as conservative as everyone thought, it's just been changing. Norman's always been pretty liberal (and I think Tulsa has been too but you'd know better than me), but Oklahoma City has swung pretty hard left only over the past decade or so. When OKC and Tulsa work at cross purposes, like in the most recent governor's race, the conservatives win by virtue of owning the balance of the state. When OKC and Tulsa are on the same side of an issue, like with SQ 788, the liberals win. So the challenge for liberals is to keep up their momentum in OKC. Ironically, the Republican-established, business-friendly MAPS projects have helped with that, since they've made downtown OKC a desirable place to live for those of a more liberal bent!
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
I feel like a feasible political strategy for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2020 could be to ignore Trump altogether and make the campaign a national referendum on marijuana legalization. Most of the people who would be wildly opposed to this would be voting Republican anyway, and it would activate a whole lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote. The turnout for the primaries held the same day as SQ 788 was much, much higher than any previous midterm primaries.
I'm not so sure it's even going to be a viable campaign strategy by then, with as quickly as things may be moving. As of today, with a signature on the farm bill, both CBD and hemp are legal again. In addition, the only real stumbling block for marijuana legalization (or even decriminalization at that) was Sessions, and now he's gone (and I'm rather glad he is - never liked him much anyway). Plus, you have a lot of Democrats who oppose legalization (think the Fraternal Order of Police) and there are Republicans (libertarian bent) who are all for legalization.
I try to avoid political threads, but I'll chime in on this one. First, regarding Oklahoma, everyone I have met from there seems pretty middle of the road, so I was always shocked when I saw a sea of red there. Twenty years ago, most of Eastern Oklahoma was blue, although Bill Clinton never carried the state. That is all I am going to say about the politics of it, lest I run foul with the mods.
Here in Michigan, we legalized it for recreational use in November by a (roughly) 55-45 margin, and it was split between the liberal parts of the state (Kalamazoo, Lansing, Detroit, Ann Arbor), and the conservative parts of the state (Ottawa County, rural southwestern Michigan, rural Northern Michigan). I had dabbled with marijuana a few years ago, but found using certain paraphernalia to be cumbersome because I don't have the best coordination due to my autism. My mother gets cbd oil from a friend and makes cookies and brownies with it, and I started using those and ever since I have started using, I have not had a bipolar episode, heard any voices, or had much anxiety. Eating a single cookie doesn't get me really high, and I can pretty much function if I don't fall asleep. I plan on talking to my doctor next month about it to make sure it isn't going to interfere with my meds, but I don't think it will because I haven't had any problems thus far (I use approximately once a week).
I realize different people have different opinions on the subject, and I realize that it effects different people in different ways, so I am strictly speaking for myself.
CBD oil won't get you high–the high comes from THC, which is a completely different chemical also found in marijuana. CBD oil contains only trace amounts of THC that couldn't be filtered out when extracting the CBD.
As mentioned above, CBD is also entirely legal at the federal level now, so it's legal even in places with no medical marijuana (unless they specifically voted to ban it, which would be strange, since as stated before you can't get high off of CBD).
They've done an impressive job in OK of turning the ballot win into weed stores. That was six months ago and from what I've seen, they will outnumber casinos in a matter of weeks. :awesomeface:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2018, 12:10:11 AM
They've done an impressive job in OK of turning the ballot win into weed stores. That was six months ago and from what I've seen, they will outnumber casinos in a matter of weeks. :awesomeface:
A good part of that is because CBD oil was legalized by state law before that. Local businessmen jumped at the chance to set up CBD stores and, when SQ 788 passed, it was natural to just become a dispensary too.
A bunch of dispensaries have popped up in Tulsa and several more are opening in the next few months. Unfortunately, there aren't going to be any in southeastern Oklahoma. There is one in Shady Point and one is opening in Talihina. There's even going to be one in Guymon.
Quote from: Brandon on December 20, 2018, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
I feel like a feasible political strategy for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2020 could be to ignore Trump altogether and make the campaign a national referendum on marijuana legalization. Most of the people who would be wildly opposed to this would be voting Republican anyway, and it would activate a whole lot of people who wouldn't otherwise vote. The turnout for the primaries held the same day as SQ 788 was much, much higher than any previous midterm primaries.
I'm not so sure it's even going to be a viable campaign strategy by then, with as quickly as things may be moving. As of today, with a signature on the farm bill, both CBD and hemp are legal again. In addition, the only real stumbling block for marijuana legalization (or even decriminalization at that) was Sessions, and now he's gone (and I'm rather glad he is - never liked him much anyway). Plus, you have a lot of Democrats who oppose legalization (think the Fraternal Order of Police) and there are Republicans (libertarian bent) who are all for legalization.
What in the hell makes you think cops are Democrats? The FOP endorsed Trump and all the Blue Lives Matter neighborhoods in Chicago (Sauganash, Edison Park) voted heavily for him. As for legalization, I don't know the stances of LEOs at the organizational level, but I've heard many individuals say enforcing laws against marijuana is a waste of their time.
The notion that any Republican would chance losing the support of the Christian Right by actively working towards legalization is ludicrous.
A Republican legislator in Oklahoma tried to gut 788 but was thwarted. He was up for election in June and he lost. The citizens of Oklahoma are ready for medicinal marijuana and even the Republicans know. They seem to have accepted it and I am cautiously optimistic that they won't change the law significantly. Cannabis is hot right now and everybody is jumping on the bandwagon. Several notorious drug warriors have flip flopped and now support it. Hopefully it will be federally legalized next year and the shackles will be off. Cannabis legalization has become bipartisan.
Here's a map showing the vote total and percentage for SQ 788 in Tulsa County. I am happy to report that my precinct voted in favor by over 70%.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/sq-find-out-how-your-precinct-voted/html_f9ccfb31-9a53-520b-9f6a-ec388682bdba.html
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2018, 04:40:52 PM
Since you brought up the Cherokee Nation, it highlights an interesting contrast with the Chickasaws. Their headquarters is in Ada, Pontotoc County, which just barely voted No on the measure. But most of the counties in their service area voted Yes. The Chickasaw Nation issued an executive policy statement (I cannot remember if it was signed by Governor Anoatubby or one of his deputies) essentially saying that they are going to ignore SQ 788 and direct tribal police to enforce federal law, still terminate employees for medical marijuana usage, etc. If I were a tribal legislator, I might be concerned about my re-election after seeing this map.
I was randomly looking at different places on Google Maps earlier and got to thinking about how Ada's half loop bypass is a freeway while Tahlequah's semi-full loop bypass is a surface road.
Quote from: ce929wax on December 20, 2018, 06:26:24 PM
I had dabbled with marijuana a few years ago, but found using certain paraphernalia to be cumbersome because I don't have the best coordination due to my autism. My mother gets cbd oil from a friend and makes cookies and brownies with it, and I started using those and ever since I have started using, I have not had a bipolar episode, heard any voices, or had much anxiety. Eating a single cookie doesn't get me really high, and I can pretty much function if I don't fall asleep. I plan on talking to my doctor next month about it to make sure it isn't going to interfere with my meds, but I don't think it will because I haven't had any problems thus far (I use approximately once a week).
I'm glad you found something that helps you and gives you a higher quality of life. Cannabinoids like CBD and THC are wonder drugs and treat dozens and dozens of conditions well and with few side effects. The buzz is nice but medical marijuana patients use cannabis for health reasons and not to "get fucked up". There's a difference between a pothead and a patient. Fortunately, public opinion has radically shifted and continues to shift in favor of medical cannabis and there isn't as much of a stigma as there once were. The ironic thing is that a lot of the anti-cannabis types are older and would benefit greatly from the healing powers of the weed.
And as Scott said, CBD oil won't get you high. It has very, very little THC in it and you would have to drink something like a gallon to get high off of it, and you would vomit before you had a chance to absorb any THC. CBD isn't psychoactive in the way other cannabinoids are.
Quote from: kphoger on December 28, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
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.
Quote from: abefroman329 on December 28, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
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 ↓
Quote from: COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015 (House of Representatives - May 29, 2014)
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.
^^^
Dana Rohrabacher sponsored that? What's he been smoking? He's usually reliably conservative.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 08, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
^^^
Dana Rohrabacher sponsored that? What's he been smoking? He's usually reliably conservative.
Some conservatives want to legalize marijuana because legalizing it removes a regulation, and they want fewer regulations.
Alternatively:
QuoteWhat's he been smoking?
He wants to legalize it because he's been smoking it.
Quote from: 1 on January 08, 2019, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 08, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
^^^
Dana Rohrabacher sponsored that? What's he been smoking? He's usually reliably conservative.
Some conservatives want to legalize marijuana because legalizing it removes a regulation, and they want fewer regulations.
Or, you know, because they actually have a consistent definition of "individual liberty."
Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2019, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 28, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
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.
Quote from: abefroman329 on December 28, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
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 ↓
Quote from: COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015 (House of Representatives - May 29, 2014)
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.
Ah. Thanks for this. "Because he couldn't" seems like a good explanation for why Sessions didn't have the DEA go around raiding medical marijuana dispensaries.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 08, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
^^^
Dana Rohrabacher sponsored that? What's he been smoking? He's usually reliably conservative.
As long as they are not driving or operating heavy machinery while high, pot smokers are of no harm to you or anyone else. Why criminalize people who innocently smoke weed (which is, by the way, one of the least dangerous drugs out there), when they're just minding their own personal business. The United States cannot call itself the stewardess of freedom when countless people are being unjustly locked up for something so harmless. We built this country on the idea of freedom, and it started out quite far from it (with slavery and reduced rights, human rights violations and all that). We have come a long way since then, but there are still many instances of deprivation of freedom in this country, and this is one of them. Marijuana being illegal (and not only that, but classified as a Schedule I Drug) is one of the most asinine laws currently in the legal system. This should have been fixed half a century or more ago (or even better, never made illegal in the first place). If you dislike weed and aim to abstain from it, that is your choice. But if someone does choose to use weed, that is their choice (and they should have the legal freedom to do so, recreationally or medically), as long as they are not harming anyone else. This is 2019 now, and the country needs to wake up.
Depending on whose version of history you listen to, marijuana was criminalized back in the day either to secure profits for big tobacco or else to put Mexican immigrants in jail.
Outlawing cannabis plants was a convenient way to eliminate hemp as a competitor for paper pulp.
And the "Drug War" was Nixon's excuse harass, intimidate and jail the part of the population that opposed him politically. It's in the tapes in his own words from his own face.
Yeah, the explanations for the mere existence of Reefer Madness are (a) it was secretly funded by the pulpwood industry to kill the nascent hemp industry and (b) marijuana was just a means to the end of showing teens gone wild.
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!
Quote from: hbelkins on January 08, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
^^^
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.
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2019, 08:04:29 PM
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?
Marshall County voted against – by one vote out of more than 7,500 cast.
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.
Quote from: bugo on January 08, 2019, 11:56:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 08, 2019, 02:20:35 PM
^^^
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.
Quote from: bugo on January 08, 2019, 11:56:42 PMIt is an effective treatment for gout.
So is weight loss and an improved diet, in many cases.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 09, 2019, 12:51:22 AM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2019, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 09, 2019, 12:51:22 AM
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.
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 09, 2019, 02:28:48 PM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2019, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 09, 2019, 12:51:22 AM
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
Quote from: SectorZ on January 11, 2019, 04:09:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2019, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 09, 2019, 12:51:22 AM
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.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 11, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 11, 2019, 04:09:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2019, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 09, 2019, 12:51:22 AM
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.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 11, 2019, 07:07:47 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2019, 03:31:55 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2019, 03:31:55 PMWhat 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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on January 09, 2019, 02:28:48 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2019, 03:06:49 PMI'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.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 06, 2019, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2019, 03:06:49 PMI'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).
Quote from: Duke87 on May 05, 2019, 06:19:56 PM
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)
Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2019, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 28, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
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.
Quote from: abefroman329 on December 28, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
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 ↓
Quote from: COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015 (House of Representatives - May 29, 2014)
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.