Cannabis

[jerrywall]

Correction, there was an initiative. Forgot it failed.

[stick47]

You just can't admit that you were incorrect can you? It is not what I believe it says, the ruling speaks for itself. I'm done with you.

I'm not the one who began his contribution to this section of this thread with

this ruling does not have much of a practical effect.

so all you're doing now is trying to claim some petty 'victory' out of that. As mentioned, on the line "e" of the Federal form it asks if you are a user of illegal drugs. MJ is illegal everywhere per the Federal Govt so no, you can't legally buy a gun if you use MJ. BTW Where the heck is Bunty on this subject?

[TU 'cane]

Related:

Kratom (I never heard of it before this story) is being moved to schedule 1. And apparently, per this story, it's a pain killer used by some people to avoid becoming addicted to pharmaceuticals.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5520134

[Bunty]

Related:

Kratom (I never heard of it before this story) is being moved to schedule 1. And apparently, per this story, it's a pain killer used by some people to avoid becoming addicted to pharmaceuticals.

http://m.newsok.com/article/5520134

Thanks to backlash from not allowing a means to give feedback, the DEA decided to delay putting Kratom on Schedule 1. It's pretty stupid to do that. It makes research more difficult to determine its bad as well as good effects. The most worst thing most likely to happen from self doctoring on Kratom is an upset stomach from taking too much. However, there is some risk to being addicted to Kratom, like when used to get off opioids, but at least the danger of accidentally taking a fatal overdose is quite unlikely. Nearly all the small number of deaths associated with Kratom were also associated with other drugs in the blood stream. Aspirin is associated with more deaths, many from successful suicide attempts. I never heard of anyone trying Kratom for suicide.

[Bunty]

The medical marijuana petition cleared the protest period with no problem. Only thing left is to see if Pruitt's rewrite of the ballot title can be rewritten and determine a date for it to be on the ballot, which can be no later than Nov. 2018. Since if passed, the state legislature can abolish or neuter it, I won't be surprised if another medical marijuana petition comes out for medical marijuana to make it a law under the state constitution. But will be surprised if it is attempted without adequate funding to gather signatures.

[jerrywall]

I'm sure the title will be rewritten somewhat. From what I've seen, it's fairly common for some back and forth on the ballot title, to get the language constitutionally sound.

As for the legislature... I'd be surprised if they acted on this, if it passes. I'm not optimistic about the vote, to be honest, but if by some chance it passes (and especially if it passes overwhelmingly) then I can't imagine the legislator using up political capital to overrule the will of the people.

[Bunty]

Not by a wide margin, but I do think legal medical marijuana would pass in Oklahoma, because I haven't seen a poll that opposed doing that. But I'm not confident that if it passed, the legislature would not mess with it, since it's not a conservative medical marijuana plan, due to no restrictions on ailments treated, and cultivation is allowed, along with dispensaries. That is also why I don't think voters would pass it by a wide margin. Interesting, though, that nobody wanted to protest the successful results of the petition. Also if Arkansas voters can legalize medical marijuana in November, then surely Oklahoma can by 2018. The expense of over 1 million needed for a special election is cited as the reason why it can't be sooner. However, that can be countered by the tax revenues raised by sales of medical marijuana would eventually pay for the election. It would be taxed at 7%.

I don't think that rec marijuana, like in Colorado, can be legalized in Oklahoma for quite some time, like in less than 5 to 10 years. A 2015 poll showed only 31% of Oklahomans would approve of doing that. Passage of SQ 780 and 781 will be steps in the right direction, though, for state drug policy.

[TU 'cane]

Nat'l Guard raids elderly woman's home over a single Marijuana plant:

http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaR...100116-5074664

[TU 'cane]

Fallin's task force calling for lighter sentences for drug related crimes; cites necessity due to OK prisons being overcrowded amidst a call for more prisons in the state:

http://m.newsok.com/governors-task-f...6?rotator=true

First, this state does not need more prisons.
Second, the drug laws need to be relaxed.

[Bunty]

Nat'l Guard raids elderly woman's home over a single Marijuana plant:

http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaR...100116-5074664

LOL, Reefer Madness still rules!

[bchris02]

It looks like the days if legal cannabis in some states may be coming to an end.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politi...ald-trump-pot/

I know a lot of people don't agree with recreational or even medical marijuana usage from a moral and religious standpoint but there is no argument that the benefits outweigh the negatives of legalization and a majority of Americans now support legalization including 74% of Millennials. The divide on this is more generational than a left vs right issue (conservatives under 35 tend to favor legalization while those over 35 tend to oppose it). I can't see a lot of people supporting this move by Trump, beyond the pharmaceutical industry, the private prison industry, and the Southern Baptist Church.

The most ironic thing about this is this comes only a day after Trump was touting "states rights" on LGBT issues.

[Bullbear]

yah its interesting that "states rights" isn't a concern in this area.. hmmm wonder if this has something to do with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.6c461fc47d8f

[bchris02]

yah its interesting that "states rights" isn't a concern in this area.. hmmm wonder if this has something to do with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.6c461fc47d8f

With most people on the far right it seems that, "states rights" only applies to red states and only applies to the evangelical agenda (anti-LGBT, anti-public education, etc). This is a politically dumb move for Trump as he likely won't get much support for going after cannabis outside the Bible Belt. Red states that are not politically dominated by evangelicals don't have an issue with legalization. Alaska is a very red state and they have legalized. It wouldn't surprise me if swing states in the Midwest like Ohio, Wisconsin, etc start legalizing soon.

[David]

The most ironic thing about this is this comes only a day after Trump was touting "states rights" on LGBT issues.

More like five minutes later, from what I understand both issues were covered in the same press conference.

[bchris02]

More like five minutes later, from what I understand both issues were covered in the same press conference.

Hopefully this gets more press coverage and enough pushback that Congress decides to fix it. Cannabis legalization is an issue where liberals and libertarian-leaning conservatives can agree. The major force against it is the religious right.

In Oklahoma, the way alcohol prohibition was finally repealed in 1959 is the state had a governor that decided to enforce prohibition and that put pressure on the state to finally repeal it. With 8 states now allowing recreational marijuana and much of the country allowing at least medical, hopefully there is enough opposition that Congress can be persuaded to consider the issue. I think it would pass the House of Representatives. The Senate would be a bit more difficult but I can see it passing there as well. If not, hopefully we get a new Democratic Congress in 2018 that will have the guts to do what needs to be done and decriminalize it federally.

[jerrywall]

The FDA classifies drugs, not the Congress, and nationally decriminalizing it would actually violate an international treaty and UN agreement. The closes thing we can come to without a new treaty is the fed not enforcing it.

[bchris02]

The FDA classifies drugs, not the Congress, and nationally decriminalizing it would actually violate an international treaty and UN agreement. The closes thing we can come to without a new treaty is the fed not enforcing it.

I guess now is the time for Trump to put his money where his mouth is. Who cares about the UN. America first. Will it happen? Not likely.

[ctchandler]

I am not opposed to legalization of marijuana, but the fact is, it is against federal law. Change the law and allow the states to decide. The DOJ is responsible for enforcing laws and they have no right to pick and choose which ones to enforce. Just my opinion, but I believe it is in line with how things should be handled.
C. T.

[jerrywall]

I guess now is the time for Trump to put his money where his mouth is. Who cares about the UN. America first. Will it happen? Not likely.

That's fine, as long as we accept that the moment we ignore our treaties and UN agreements, everyone else can too.

[bchris02]

That's fine, as long as we accept that the moment we ignore our treaties and UN agreements, everyone else can too.

With countries around the world legalizing marijuana, like Spain, Portugal, and soon to be Canada, why is the US still bound by that agreement if other countries are not adhering to it?

[jerrywall]

With countries around the world legalizing marijuana, like Spain, Portugal, and soon to be Canada, why is the US still bound by that agreement if other countries are not adhering to it?

So we should renegotiate it in that case. But we shouldn't just ignore our treaties.

[TheTravellers]

If the feds decide to crack down on marijuana, it's going to unleash a sh*tstorm from the states that have legalized it, as well as the states that were thinking about it (the population will definitely revolt, and some of the politicians, most likely). It will not end well, and may actually force a rescheduling of marijuana (which should've already happened).

Not sure what treaty and UN agreement you're talking about, jerry, I didn't see any reference to that a while ago (a year or so, I think) when the FDA was looking at rescheduling MJ and I would've thought it would've come up then. But you're mentioning decriminalization, which is different from rescheduling, so may not apply.

[jerrywall]

If the feds decide to crack down on marijuana, it's going to unleash a sh*tstorm from the states that have legalized it, as well as the states that were thinking about it (the population will definitely revolt, and some of the politicians, most likely). It will not end well, and may actually force a rescheduling of marijuana (which should've already happened).

Not sure what treaty and UN agreement you're talking about, jerry, I didn't see any reference to that a while ago (a year or so, I think) when the FDA was looking at rescheduling MJ and I would've thought it would've come up then. But you're mentioning decriminalization, which is different from rescheduling, so may not apply.

It's the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs from 1961. It defines the schedules of drugs and requires signatory countries to follow those schedules and to follow the WHOs drug classifications. So basically, to not break the treaty we'd need the WHO to reschedule marijuana. Which, they probably would if we asked, since we pressured them to classify it as schedule IV.

[bchris02]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/support-...all-time-high/

61% of Americans now support legal marijuana and 76% of Millennials do. How soon will our laws start reflecting that? Gay marriage was nowhere near this popular when it started being legalized. Come on Texas, Missouri, Arkansas...legalize already!

[d-usa]

The "War on Gays" wasn't near the moneymaker that the "War on Drugs" is.