Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I disagree. An idiot is an idiot. Besides, there are millions of non-"dope addled idiots" that are straining the system.
It is only your intense bias that causes you to separate idiots into groups. It allows you to label them which in turn allows you to show off that intense hatred and bias, which apparently gives you great pleasure.
Correct, there are idiots and then idiots with their idiocy enhanced by dope. Takes idiocy to higher plane.
First, I didn't quote any news. I quoted a real life situation that I experienced, along with what an OBN agent told me personally.
But its no longer the case yet you implied it is. I am sure a 100 year old could talk about the days of prohibition and their personal experiences but what does that have to do with today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo
Second, you can't grow cannabis plants in your yard, regardless of the new law. They must be grown inside, in an area that is secured from minors.
Yes you can. In fact I believe you cannot grow it indoors. You seem confused. This is from the new law:
7. All patient license holders are eligible to home grow their own marijuana subject to the limitations on amounts imposed by the state question. All home grown medical marijuana must be behind a fence under lock and key and not visible from any street.
Commercial growers have to grow indoors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo
Third, don't underestimate how rabid and corrupt the Oklahoma government is. I got more than a lifetime dose of it after living there for over 55 years. If you have a paid for house and a MM card, you better be squeaky clean. If anything, law enforcement will be even MORE rabid now that a huge source of income for them has been partially diminished by the new law.
I left there 5 years ago and haven't looked back.
All states have asset forfeiture laws they just vary as to how they are allowed to be used. And of course the feds do it too.
The government is bad everywhere. Don't kid yourself.
7. All patient license holders are eligible to home grow their own marijuana subject to the limitations on amounts imposed by the state question. All home grown medical marijuana must be behind a fence under lock and key and not visible from any street.
Commercial growers have to grow indoors.
I finally found a reference to this, but not in the law. It was part of a proposed amendment that was called "questionable and challengeable.”
If it is written in the actual law using this language, please post a link so that I can study it.
The wording "behind a fence under lock and key" is much too vague to stick. It implies that even just a 2 foot tall fence with a tiny gate and lock would comply with the law as long as it isn't visible from the street, so it is quite circumspect to me. Especially since the wording on commercial grows goes so far as to require all external locks be equipped with biometric access controls.
I sense many more changes to the Oklahoma law coming over the next few months.
I finally found a reference to this, but not in the law. It was part of a proposed amendment that was called "questionable and challengeable.”
If it is written in the actual law using this language, please post a link so that I can study it.
The wording "behind a fence under lock and key" is much too vague to stick. It implies that even just a 2 foot tall fence with a tiny gate and lock would comply with the law as long as it isn't visible from the street, so it is quite circumspect to me. Especially since the wording on commercial grows goes so far as to require all external locks be equipped with biometric access controls.
I sense many more changes to the Oklahoma law coming over the next few months.
Its really more on a local level as far as growing goes. Below details how many of the cities are dealing with it:
Here is the OMMA website. Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority. The state tried to change everything right after it passed but public outcry got them to back off. They are not expected to make changes until next year. 600 entities filed for dispensary licenses. Thus far there is no limit.
As with all Mega-Industries that HATE the thought of legal cannabis, they wield ENORMOUS power, because their lobbyists have virtually unlimited funds to buy the votes of the lawmakers. Illegally and under the table, of course. It has been this way for decades.
This state of affairs is why I continue to stand by my premise that cannabis will not be legalized federally even if public support for it were to reach 90%. There is just too much money on, err, under, the table.
No, it will require the voters in this country to move legalization up on their priority list high enough so that prohibitionists start losing their seats in Congress. It will only take a few. After that, the rest will realize that we're serious about this, so they'll suddenly POP (Pivot on Pot).
They will have to find another source of income to replace all the lobbyist money and perks that will be lost. Isn't that just terrible?
Im not sure why so many people believe the pharma industry is so powerful or influential over the Govt...It was 2012 that the DEA/ US Govt cracked down HARD on opioid painkillers, to the extent now, hardly any doctor will write a script for them, fearing DEA raiding their offices and taking their licenses away.
Before these laws, opioid prescription drugs were flying off the shelves, they could barely keep up with demand, some pills were selling on the street for $120+ for ONE SINGLE PILL!!
'Big pharma' wasnt powerful enough to lobby its way out of these laws, which killed some of its most popular selling drugs at the time..Gee, I dont think a powerful industry would ever allow Govt to do that, especially not without a big long drawn out court battle.
I want to preface by saying I know not all conservatives are against legalization. However, the primary resistance to legalizing cannabis at this time is coming from the Republican Party, specifically the donor class and the religious right.
Why is this one of those issues where the typical "small government" narrative does not apply? Why is it that we need a big nanny-state government to protect ourselves from the devil's lettuce? Is it because conservatives simply detest weed because it's more commonly associated with liberal sectors of the American populace? Is it because they believe it is sinful? Do conservatives genuinely believe that the War on Drugs is working and that locking up non-violent marijuana users is a good idea? Conservatives hate when liberals compare weed to alcohol and tobacco but it's a very good comparison. Recreational use is a vice and weed has medicinal properties for some people and conditions.
I'm not saying marijuana is harmless. I think the risk factors are overblown but it isn't completely harmless. However, just because there are risks associated doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal. Why do Republicans typically think otherwise?
Why should any drug be illegal to possess?
There is clearly a social risk/harm profile for every drug. Many people feel that marijuana falls on the wrong side of that risk model, in spite of the user political agitation to the contrary. Its no more complicated than that.
PS: framing support for laws that you dislike as "nanny-statism" doesn't help your argument. Civilization requires laws.
How do the beer, liquor and wine industries feel about legalization? Not sure how much power they wield in Congress but marijuana could eventually erode their profit margins. Once the general public figures out that it's safer and more fun to get a little high from marijuana than to get catatonic from drinking alcohol, they may have a problem.
Well when you look back to prior to prohibition of either booze or drugs. Booze was still the drug of choice, the use of one doesn't preclude the use of another. They have different effects that may be more or less preferable at particular times. Further alcoholic beverages are not just consumed for their alcohol, sure you can get s**tfaced on 30 year old single malt, but you don't often intend it, same thing applies to wines, beers, etc. Culturally of course alcohol and celebration are pretty synonymous.
Marijuana has entirely different uses (and let's be fair depending of varieties selected has different intoxication levels, from mindwarp to slight buzz). I don't think we'll ever reach a situation where we toast the bride an groom passing a big Bob Marley MJ Stogie to the right.
Ultimately I suspect alcohol use would be unaffected don't because alcohol has a benefit of plausible deniability. We can all claim we never intended to get hammered on booze, just have a few beers. Pot you can't really make that claim, smoking some Bruce Banner is going to get you seriously baked and you might struggle to claim lack of intent.
There is clearly a social risk/harm profile for every drug. Many people feel that marijuana falls on the wrong side of that risk model, in spite of the user political agitation to the contrary. Its no more complicated than that.
PS: framing support for laws that you dislike as "nanny-statism" doesn't help your argument. Civilization requires laws.
Govt does not have the Constitutional right to create or enforce ANY drug laws...if it ever went to the SC, they would loose.
You are right about society needing laws, but its something else entirely when those laws are created and enforced to benefit criminal organizations or as a means to generate a revenue stream.
I want to preface by saying I know not all conservatives are against legalization. However, the primary resistance to legalizing cannabis at this time is coming from the Republican Party, specifically the donor class and the religious right.
Why is this one of those issues where the typical "small government" narrative does not apply? Why is it that we need a big nanny-state government to protect ourselves from the devil's lettuce? Is it because conservatives simply detest weed because it's more commonly associated with liberal sectors of the American populace? Is it because they believe it is sinful? Do conservatives genuinely believe that the War on Drugs is working and that locking up non-violent marijuana users is a good idea? Conservatives hate when liberals compare weed to alcohol and tobacco but it's a very good comparison. Recreational use is a vice and weed has medicinal properties for some people and conditions.
I'm not saying marijuana is harmless. I think the risk factors are overblown but it isn't completely harmless. However, just because there are risks associated doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal. Why do Republicans typically think otherwise?
Not this one ! I'm all for it. Not only for medical purposes , but recreational and for textiles (hemp).
Although I'm not really a true Conservative other than I generally vote R, so I get lumped in with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
