Montana Medical Marijuana Act officially gutted (Billings: gated, legal, safe)

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by Reziac

There are just as many if not more Democrat control freaks. It's hardly a uniquely GOP failing. They just want to control different things. Having lived 28 years in California, which is almost totally Democrat-ruled, I saw plenty of that firsthand.

But to address this more generally -- personal crusades and agenda-based initiatives nearly always make for bad law, often with seriously negative unintended consequences. Indeed, I think the fact that pro-legalization legislation has often been pushed as someone's agenda has not helped the cause, because a lot of the more-mature voters don't like being an agenda's puppet, even if they might otherwise agree with it.

In fact, in my time in CA, land of numerous ballot initiatives, only once did I see a ballot initiative that wasn't at root a special interest or personal agenda. I've come to believe ballot initiatives are a very bad way to approach legislation, because it's too easily subject to this sort of agenda-pushing, and it depends on every voter having a thorough understanding of what they're voting on, which especially with inexperienced voters is a damn poor bet.

Again, to be clear, I'm willing to point out party affiliations here to the extent that, in fact, the repeal of the Medical Marijuana Act was, at its very roots, a Republican venture in the state's legislature. In doing that, I'm not asking people to start voting for Democrats, but rather just to be aware that, in Montana's case, the voting majority has not put pro-liberty Republicans in charge. You said yourself, and I agree totally, that this is a libertarian vs authoritarian issue, and again, I know too that the Dems in Montana and (and pretty much everywhere else in the U.S.), have not been good on legalization.

I have mixed feelings about the initiative process as well--I'm leery of direct democracy in general, but it's our only avenue on the marijuana issue because the rulership in Montana won't change much in 2016; if anything, I think it may stand a high chance of getting even worse.

[Reziac]

On a related note:

Opinion: Young people need to know of changes to MIP law | Last Best News

[The-White-Baron]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Some people are just totally against recreational drugs, end of argument.

And then they have a smoke and nice glass of wine with their dinner.

I think the issue is largely a generational disconnect. Us older folks grew up when "illegal drug use" mostly meant heroin addiction, and death by overdose was not uncommon, and they scared us good in school (probably a good thing). Pot was the hippie drug, and the hippie scene never really penetrated midwestern culture so was mostly an unknown. Fastforward to the present and that perception is still applied -- ANY "illegal drug" is automatically lumped in with heroin, and worse, the meth problem.

I think it's important to understand this when arguing the case for legalization.

It's a lose-lose situation UNLESS you absolutely de-regulate the growing of hemp! A Colorado dope law will not solve anything. Here's why:

Starting right now. The problem is the dope-slingers introduce these young kids into meth. I used to think the gateway-theory was a scare-mongering story used to justify strict laws but the reality is when these kids start on the soft stuff they slide into the next one and the next one. So there's that.

But if it's legalized (and taxed to be more accurate) then they don't go near the dope-slingers (dealers) right???
True enough for the most part, BUT the damage the modern marijuana stuff does to the brain is much worse than the milder stuff the hippies were on back in the 60s!

Unless you are allowed to grow your own and don't want the DEA or whatever Montana has as the equivalent you don't know what you are using with medicinal dope.

[Reziac]

You don't know what you're using with grew-your-own either. You can guess based on experience, but you can't KNOW.

The only way to really know is through laboratory analysis.

Which would be a lot easier to achieve if the durn stuff was legal from top to bottom. Grow some of the variety of your choice (I gather some are much stronger than others), send a sample to the lab, learn out what the correct dosage is for what YOU are growing, instead of wild-ass-guessing it. Require testing and strength labeling for any that's sold, same as we do alcohol (what do you think that "NN percent alcohol" label IS, anyway??)

[The-White-Baron]

Originally Posted by Reziac

You don't know what you're using with grew-your-own either. You can guess based on experience, but you can't KNOW.

The only way to really know is through laboratory analysis.

Which would be a lot easier to achieve if the durn stuff was legal from top to bottom. Grow some of the variety of your choice (I gather some are much stronger than others), send a sample to the lab, learn out what the correct dosage is for what YOU are growing, instead of wild-ass-guessing it. Require testing and strength labeling for any that's sold, same as we do alcohol (what do you think that "NN percent alcohol" label IS, anyway??)

What i'm saying is you have a better idea of the stuff you'd smoke if you grew it yourself than buying from a scummy dealer or even a pot-shop in Colorado etc.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by The-White-Baron

What i'm saying is you have a better idea of the stuff you'd smoke if you grew it yourself than buying from a scummy dealer or even a pot-shop in Colorado etc.

Well, that's a point -- tho if the dealers are legal and their product standardized and appropriately labeled for THC content, the problem goes away. Otherwise ... well, for the potency of grow-your-own you'd still have to determine by experience or trial and error. Do you really know where those seeds came from, or how potent the parent plant was? probably not.

Still, once standardized it shouldn't be that much more difficult than growing a desired variety of beans.

[Montguy]

Well, I guess it's time for some updates.

A third ballot initiative, I-182, is in the signature gathering process and has been since right about the 17th of April. This one, sponsored by the Montana Cannabis Industry Association, simply aims to restore the medical marijuana industry under an improved regulatory framework. My understanding is that the MTCIA is keeping very careful distance from the legalization measures, CI-115 and I-178. I've signed for legalization and will gladly sign to improve medical--I'd love to see all three on the ballot, but even just 182 would be sufficient for me.

Full ballot language for I-182: http://sos.mt.gov/elections/2016/Bal...sets/I-182.pdf

And then some unfortunate news out of Bozeman today as the feds again target Montana's largest medical marijuana dispensary:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...a83ae0daa.html

Breaking: DEA Raiding Montana

And then, if you're down for some fun fiction, here's some riveting prohibitionist folklore from the sponsor of I-176, Steve Zabawa (be sure to check out the comments section while you're at it). Published just today in the Billings Gazette:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opin...7c16442e7.html

Steve and his political allies will be thrilled that the DEA has returned. Striking coincidence, especially if you followed SB 423 in 2011, that his garbage would be published in Montana's largest newspaper just hours before a federal raid...

Anyway, stay tuned, people!

[Reziac]

Wouldn't it be ironic if this Zabawa fellow's house got raided...

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Wouldn't it be ironic if this Zabawa fellow's house got raided...

I really just think that Mr. Zabawa's company should be limited to 3 vehicle sales per quarter and subject to review, inspection and seizure of assets by x, y and z governmental agencies for any reason, at any time.

But to think that this cretin holds the ear of so many elected officials in this state...totally sick.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Montguy

I really just think that Mr. Zabawa's company should be limited to 3 vehicle sales per quarter and subject to review, inspection and seizure of assets by x, y and z governmental agencies for any reason, at any time.

What's good for the goose... You can't harsh restrictions on just one type of business without creating second-class citizens. So, yes, I agree that any time unusual restrictions are imposed on any type of business, those same restrictions should be applied equally to ALL businesses, and then we'll see how viable it really is.

BTW, remember this argument next time some HSUS shill proposes limits on dog breeders... let's likewise limit ranchers to.. oh, say, 25 cows, and assume that they're scum who require constant review, inspection, and threat of seizure of assets, lest they decide to neglect their livelihood.