Attention Citizens of Oregon

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by Verdurous, Apr 12, 2014.

  1.  ​
     ​
     

     
  2. Also, this:
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Are they putting a cap on the amount of plants can be grown recreationally this time? They probably would have been right there with us and CO had they capped the number the first time
     
  4.  
    Funny, on my birthday.
     
  5. If one can demonstrate that a certain number of plants endangers minors or public safety, then a limitation could be enforced. Otherwise, there's no rational reason for a limitation regardless, so there isn't an arbitrary number of plants inherent to the proposed amendment I-21. I-22 on the other hand does include a limitation of 24 plants and 24 ounces for noncommercial use in the sense that anything more than that would require a license.
     
  6. #7 Jmosley, Apr 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2014
    First off, it may not appear so but I do hope it passes. Anything is better then my 0 legal recreational plants.

    Cap makes sense to me even if only to make the general public feel a bit better about the law. Colorado's 6 plants is cool and all but really isn't much. Even if it gets capped fairly high at like 15-20 per adult or something then there is plenty for a household + some. Then "they" are happy and we are happy. Compromise is a wonderful thing.

    No cap just seems like a bizarre wish to me. Not even a 200 plant, 2000plant cap? I'm all for growing enough to get yourself by but risking a great moment like these amendments because we don't want be limited at all is a gamble I personally wouldn't take.
     
  7. I'd have deep reservations supporting something that puts the power into the hands of a governor with deep, deep ties to the medical community to set up a ten member board to oversee everything related to pot and hemp. Big funnel right to big pharma is the outcome I expect. Maybe others have a different take...
     
  8. Arbitrary caps are damaging, even if they make the uninformed feel better about the law. Such a cap would make it impossible to utilize hemp for noncommercial use, since the fiber harvested from a small number of plants would make any endeavor ridiculously inefficient. People keep trying to makes these arbitrary, rash conclusions without justifying themselves when the issue desperately needs to be evaluated holistically. We're talking about the Oregon Constitution, Oregon constitutional law, here, not statutory law. Anything written into the Oregon Constitution has to be well thought out, clear, and well-justified. That's why the amendment includes a provision for state regulation, but doesn't establish any regulatory definitions, such as what should be an acceptable number of plants. That's something that needs to be handles in statutory law, where it can be easily amended and include specific distinctions, such as a differentiation between hemp and marijuana cultivated for consumption.
     
    It probably seems bizarre to you because you're not looking at the whole picture. You're rashly assuming that the sole purpose someone might have cannabis plants is to "get them by" consumption-wise, when that's just not the case. Also, noncommercial is not synonymous with personal use. Personal use is use by one person while noncommercial use means it's simply not for sale. What if a spiritual organization wants to have a grow-op and give herb out to its members? What if a family member with a large plot of land wants to do the growing for his entire family, rather than just himself?  Why should I have to go out and get a license and be taxed up the ass if I just want to grow and give it away to my family. You have no right to have your hands in my wallet. The government should only have the power to regulate commerce, not noncommercial operations like that simply because an arbitrary limit "sounded good." That's a taking a gamble with personal liberty, one that you shouldn't be content with.
     
    False. Medical marijuana isn't touched by either of these initiatives. Both explicitly state the OMMA is to remain in full effect, exempting medicinal users from regulations put into place by the new commission. The board will oversee commercial marijuana cultivation and sale only.
     
  9. You're dead on. Big picture isn't my thing, I completely ignored the hemp aspect. Ignorant? Sure someone's got to do it though.

    If it fails this time, hopefully for the third round the need to not be restrained what so ever goes away. All or nothing tends to end with nothing.
     
  10. They needn't outright attack the medical laws. Just so long as whatever goes into place severely limits it or damages the overall production and sale capabilities. That is what ALL of these state initiatives are doing, whether labeled as "medical" or "recreational." They act as legal roadblocks and marketplace controls.
     
    And given NOTHING has changed from a legal perspective at the Fed level, everything is subject to change at any moment. So pretending that there are protections in all of this is based on nothing.
     
  11. Neither of the proposed initiatives severely limits or damages anyone's ability to produce or sell medical marijuana. Our legislation is written in a way that would allow dispensaries to continue selling medical marijuana as they are as well as begin selling for recreational use. The difference would be that cardholders wouldn't be subject to the new taxes or limitations established by the regulatory board, only new recreational customers would be subject.
     
    I encourage you to review Oregon Initiative 21. It does not create any legal roadblocks or instate any marketplace controls. It is literally the model legislation for marijuana legalization.

    Considering the DEA factually does not have the funding or manpower necessary to take over the amount of policing done by state and local law enforcement, and that there exists federal guidelines to not focus resources on individuals in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, there's really no change in the amount of protection offered by the OMMA. Also, the situation in Washington and Colorado clearly suggests that individual recreational users will be just as low on the DEA's list of priorities. Acting like ending prohibition at the state level will offer no protection to marijuana users in that state is fallacious and well refuted, even if the legal, rather than just logistical, aspect merely exists at the state level.
     
  12. You see that little dog avatar? DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
     
  13. Go stick you head back into the sand in Florida and worry about your own fucked up state for a bit.
     
  14. That's the same net effect of the CO and WA laws. The are not set up to support demand and largely prop up the black market.
    And the same people that bankrolled that are going to bankroll this. But you're still expecting different results. That's cute.
     
    You don't think that DEA budgets and iniatives aren't fluid and can't be changed at any time? They can call it "homeland security" and carry on unfettered in a heartbeat. Pay attention.
     
    When cannabis' only acceptable form is from big pharma, and nothing has been done to change prohibition and it can actually be escalated at any time, your assumptions of state protections go waaaay too far. Taking their word on "enforcement priorities" at the state level is a fool's paradise.
     
  15. Are all 1400 of your posts this enlightening? You're the one that follows me around like a prohibitionist puppy fetching every ball I throw you. LOL!
     
  16. #18 Verdurous, Apr 28, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2014
    What's the same net effect of the CO and WA laws? Your ambiguous generalizations are really unconvincing. You're jumping to all of these conclusions without offering any reasons for why you think Oregon's proposed initiatives are so similar to CO and WA's legislation, when they're even very different from each other.
     
    No, I know for a fact that the DEA's budget is not fluid enough to replace the thousands of officer's employed by the State of Oregon and local municipalities in order to take over the level of cannabis prohibition enforced by them. Your speculation that they might call it a matter of homeland security and that would change that fact is baseless. I could just as easily speculate that the Governor of Oregon would command the Oregon Army National Guard to step in and protect law-abiding dispensaries from harm, effectively initiating a civil war, but that doesn't sound any more realistic.
     
    I'm only describing the legal and logistical effects this legislation would have, not speculating any federal response, which is a different issue entirely that is non-specific to Oregon's proposed initiatives, which I must remind you are the actual topic of this thread. If you believe such legislation will lead to some dystopian tragedy, then so be it, but I don't see any evidence or convincing rationale so far that actually indicates that's any more than mere speculation.
     
    Again, PLEASE READ THESE INITIATIVES. They have nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies. If you disagree, please quote which exact clauses you believe give any power to pharmaceutical companies. Until you can do so, please stop with the lies, misinformation, and please try to stay on topic.
     
  17. Gee, you could start by looking up who's making the largest financial push behind these laws if you're going to start preaching about reading things. CO, WA, OR. SOROS. You were saying?
     
  18. I live in Oregon and have my MMJ card. I exercised every last possible option I could before my doctors insisted upon cutting me open. I decided to try medical marijuana as a last resort (against my doctors' wishes), and guess what? IT WORKS. For me, MMJ has been a miracle. I feel like I'm medicating with botanical Jesus.
     
    I don't care about the fact that "the new laws wouldn't even touch medical marijuana." That's what they said in Washington, and look what's happening up there now.
     
    http://tokesignals.com/wa-proposes-taking-away-patient-home-grows-shutting-down-dispensaries/
     
    http://kuow.org/post/could-legalized-pot-hurt-washington-s-medical-marijuana-industry
     
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/21/with-pot-legal-the-days-of-washingtons-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-are-numbered/
     
    http://www.businessinsider.com/legalization-could-hurt-medical-marijuana-in-washington-2014-1
     
    So much for not fucking touching medical marijuana, amirite? I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan.
     

Share This Page