Marijuana Legalization In Oregon (Eugene: 2015, dangerous, store)

[Rob Allen]

Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal

I see several local cities presumptively voting in taxes on marijuana (many of them arguing over whether medical marijuana should be included in the taxation). But I got the Voter Handbook the other day and reading through the measure text, it specifically bars taxation below the state level. Presumably the local cities employee legal council - what are they reading in that I don't see?

They believe that the measure prohibits cities from taxing pot after the measure takes effect, but that pre-existing taxes will be grandfathered and remain in effect. I expect these city taxes to be challenged after the measure passes.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal

That isn't going to stop the blackmarket. It's like legalizing alcohol and telling people "no, you can't buy a sixpack of cheap beer, you have to buy $400 a bottle scotch."

Or "To buy that same six pack of cheap beer legally, it is going to cost you twice as much for the same stuff because of the taxes."

Given the choice to keep buying from their cheap black market beer guy, or pay twice as much to get it in a liquor store, they would choose the cheap black market guy whenever possible.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by Rob Allen

They believe that the measure prohibits cities from taxing pot after the measure takes effect, but that pre-existing taxes will be grandfathered and remain in effect. I expect these city taxes to be challenged after the measure passes.

As I read it, there is a specific provision in the measure that repeals (or nulls) and "ordinances and charters" - I expect that means the taxes would be removed as well.

[scottinpdx]

Originally Posted by pdxMIKEpdx

IMHO, it might as well be legal, marijauna is pretty mainstream now anyways.

Better then having a bunch of meth addics running around.

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Not with standing the many studies that debunk the "gateway theory", some 40% of Americans claim to have tried cannabis at least once. If it were a gateway drug, as you KNOW it is, then please explain why we don't have 140 million Americans addicted to cocaine and heroin?

I used to smoke weed and hang out with a lot of potheads years ago. I have never done anything beyond somking weed and the same with all the people I used to hang out with. I never bought into the idea that it was a gateway drug.

[CosmicWizard]

scottinpdx wrote: I never bought into the idea that it was a gateway drug.

It IS a gateway drug to ice cream, cookies, and pizza!

[haggardhouseelf]

If they could develop a variety of marijuana that didn't stink to high heaven I wouldn't care one way or the other if measure 91 passes or not. To each their own. But if it passes, I can only imagine things are going to get really stinky really quick - and the smell gives me dry heaves, which are no fun. There are already parts of Eugene I have trouble walking through, because they always smell like skunk...

[pdxMIKEpdx]

I hope that Oregon does the right thing and bans "edibles".

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by haggardhouseelf

If they could develop a variety of marijuana that didn't stink to high heaven I wouldn't care one way or the other if measure 91 passes or not. To each their own. But if it passes, I can only imagine things are going to get really stinky really quick - and the smell gives me dry heaves, which are no fun. There are already parts of Eugene I have trouble walking through, because they always smell like skunk...

If the smell of marijuana gives you dry-heaves, you may want to consult a medical professional. I have never heard of that issue in my life.

It is weird to me that you are ok with locking up peaceful people based on an odor.

I have seen people gag at the scent of liquor, should it be banned?

The smell won't increase, people who want to smoke pot already smoke pot.

Originally Posted by pdxMIKEpdx

I hope that Oregon does the right thing and bans "edibles".

So you would be ok with using violence to put people in cages for choosing to consume a certain chemical in a certain way?

Edibles are fine. They are less damaging to the user than smoking.

Do you advocate that Jello-shots and sweetly flavored or brightly colored liquor should be banned because the color or flavor might be attractive to minors?

[PNW-type-gal]

In the local paper there is a story of a woman (who has lived in her house more than 30 years) who has a new neighbor who is a certified medical marijuana grower with a plot that is probably 10'x15'. She is allergic to the plants (breaks out in hives, verified by an MD/allergist). She also complained about the smell and several other people in her neighborhood of small old houses on tiny lots agreed that the smell is noxious and "skunky."

So it is apparently an actual thing. And an argument for minimum lot sizes (or agricultural zoning) for larger pot grows.

I can't imagine one or two plants would be an issue, but I can see that a larger crop would be - I am extremely allergic to blooming lilacs, for instance, and the one neighbor who has a small bush isn't that much of a problem (I just walk quickly through) but the neighbor down the street with the "forest" of lilac trees, I can't even walk that way when they are in bloom.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal

In the local paper there is a story of a woman (who has lived in her house more than 30 years) who has a new neighbor who is a certified medical marijuana grower with a plot that is probably 10'x15'. She is allergic to the plants (breaks out in hives, verified by an MD/allergist). She also complained about the smell and several other people in her neighborhood of small old houses on tiny lots agreed that the smell is noxious and "skunky."

So it is apparently an actual thing. And an argument for minimum lot sizes (or agricultural zoning) for larger pot grows.

I can't imagine one or two plants would be an issue, but I can see that a larger crop would be - I am extremely allergic to blooming lilacs, for instance, and the one neighbor who has a small bush isn't that much of a problem (I just walk quickly through) but the neighbor down the street with the "forest" of lilac trees, I can't even walk that way when they are in bloom.

Should that person be put in prison for peaceful behavior of growing a lilac forest?

The above poster is saying that because they find the smell to be nauseating, (A problem that affects well less than 1% of people, I assume.), that they are not going to vote for measure 91.

That is advocating putting peaceful people in jail because of a smell.

Also, they make the assumption that everyone will go out and start smoking if it passes, increasing the smell. In Colorado, I smell absolutely no more pot smoke or plants growing than I did before legalization passed. I have heard it is the same in Washington.

All the people who want to peacefully smoke pot and not harm anyone are already doing it. This measure just makes it so that they can't be thrown in jail or fined for their peaceful actions.

(I am allergic to grass pollen. If it were illegal to grow grass for hay, and a bill was put forth to legalize it, I would vote yes. It is unreasonable to support tyranny (or not support freedom) for people who are committing peaceful actions because you have an allergy or reaction, especially a rare one.)