OT - Initiative 65 and Initiative 65a

[Lord McBuckethead]

First, this is some weak ass flippin propositions. Weed should be legalized fully, first and foremost.
Next, 65A gives literally no direction on how it would be applied, when it would be applied, etc. The only thing we can do is vote yes to Initiative 65.

Let me be clear, the state legislature complete failure to do their job is a joke. We vote for them to represent us in passing legislation. From flags to this, do your damn job. Bring a bill to the floor and vote you chicken shits. You need to go on voting record so we can see who is the problem.

Why does CA, WA, IL, and damn near half the country have rights we do not. So dang short sighted by a bunch of pussies.

[Lance Harbor]

Mississippi is gonna Mississippi.



First, this is some weak ass flippin propositions. Weed should be legalized fully, first and foremost.
Next, 65A gives literally no direction on how it would be applied, when it would be applied, etc. The only thing we can do is vote yes to Initiative 65.

Let me be clear, the state legislature complete failure to do their job is a joke. We vote for them to represent us in passing legislation. From flags to this, do your damn job. Bring a bill to the floor and vote you chicken shits. You need to go on voting record so we can see who is the problem.

Why does CA, WA, IL, and damn near half the country have rights we do not. So dang short sighted by a bunch of pussies.

[Maroonthirteen]

Last time I was in LA. There were weed clinics in shopping centers. With employees spinning MJ leaves on the sidewalk to lure you in for a free medical exam.

Vote no to both.

Then 65A on the 2nd Q.

[Quaoarsking]

Last time I was in LA. There were weed clinics in shopping centers. With employees spinning MJ leaves on the sidewalk to lure you in for a free medical exam.

Vote no to both.

Then 65A on the 2nd Q.

Last time I was in Seattle, people were just walking around on the sidewalks smoking joints. It was annoying as hell honestly.

But it's destructive to families to fine or lock up people for minor things like that, so vote Yes, 65, and then gather signatures for full recreational legalization and vote Yes on that too. It's the pro-family thing to do.

[parabrave]

Wrong Board for this crap/ Go to political board

[BeastMan]

Last time I was in LA. There were weed clinics in shopping centers. With employees spinning MJ leaves on the sidewalk to lure you in for a free medical exam.

Vote no to both.

Then 65A on the 2nd Q.


Uh big no there. 65a is a joke. Vote 65. It’s past damn time to give folks access to medical cannabis.

[defiantdog]

Not sure why the federal government doesn't treat it like alcohol.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Wrong Board for this crap/ Go to political board

Look bud, we have discussed this exact topic 20 times on this board. This isn't political. Discussions on legalization of anything, when the "politicians" refuse to tackle the issue directly makes it not political.

We need to have big boy conversations without it immediately dismissed as political. There are literally 100s of ways people can abide a chemical that changes either your state of mind or pain management. All legal ways. There is literally zero reasons why pot should be illegal. If anything, it could help everyone chill the hell out.

So yes to 65. No to 65A. This should be 100% legal for all over 21 years of age in MS.

[dawgoneyall]

Not sure why the federal government doesn't treat it like alcohol.

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

[Maroonthirteen]

65 is to vague. Oklahoma has 2,000 "treatment centers" and 1 in 12 Oklahoma residents have a medical marijuana card.

These shops are popping up in Arkansas now.

These shops will be all over MS if 65 is passed.

Even if you're for marijuana use, 65A at least allows the state to set some boundaries. So our towns don't have treatments on the town square and corners.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

Exactly. Let people make decisions, stop micromanaging their life as if you know what's best for everyone. No it doesn't matter if weed is "annoying" to you- imagine if you had guns taken away because some people were "annoyed" at gunshots? I'm "annoyed" at smokers, it shouldn't be banned. I'm "annoyed" at drunk people, doesn't mean beer and bars should be illegal. I'm "annoyed" at loud trucks and motorcycles, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

The other thing about all this is it isn't even a choice of "allowing people to have weed or keep them from it"... because weed (and all drugs for that matter) are so damned easy to get, the question is "will I force people to be felons to have weed, or allow them to do it safely?". Nobody in this board is going "God bless Daddy Gov't for keeping meth illegal or I'd run down to the CVS right now and smoke it right there in the parking lot", so why are we so afraid of if drugs are legalized? Why do we think there's masses of people waiting to rush the weed store, but who aren't hitting up a local dealer already?

Alcohol is legal, cheap, easy to find, and addictive. If someone develops a problem with it we say it's their fault. We don't say "well that's why Gov't should have kept prohibition in place; to protect people like this". If you can't handle alcohol responsibly it's up to you to avoid it, don't take away our Saturday beer.

Before someone calls me biased, I've never done a drug in my life

[dawgoneyall]

Wrong Board for this crap/ Go to political board

This is not a political thread.

I am for medical use for legitimate reasons (that is a very controversial issue) ....only until a "high" driver can be made accountable for meeting me on a highway can recreational use be allowed (field test for level of intoxication ). If users would only use at home I am fine but only a DA would think that it would not be used or under the influence while driving.

[LC Dawg]

Our government in Mississippi has once again failed us by making it come to this initiative instead of handling it themselves. Now I see a lot of legislators are saying vote NO and also vote 65A. They want total control.
I was really pleased that Mississippi joined the 20th century by voting out the flag and I really hope we can join the 21st century by adopting Initiative 65.
I am in my 50s and a lifelong Mississippian. My wife suffers from seizures and has been harmed immensely by legal opioid prescriptions for chronic pain. If this initiative fails it will probably push us out of the state.

[Cooterpoot]

I'm voting for 65. Tired of having to get it other places.

[BeastMan]

65 is to vague. Oklahoma has 2,000 "treatment centers" and 1 in 12 Oklahoma residents have a medical marijuana card.

These shops are popping up in Arkansas now.

These shops will be all over MS if 65 is passed.

Even if you're for marijuana use, 65A at least allows the state to set some boundaries. So our towns don't have treatments on the town square and corners.

65 isn’t vague. You’ve bought in to the propaganda. Don’t be a sheep my brother. It absolutely will not be on every street corner. It will be like liquor stores but even less so b/c there would be significantly less prescribed users than drinkers. Even if you’re gonna play that card that they can’t be zoned, and they will, the market will not allow an over saturation of stores especially in a Covid economy. Econ 101

One thing I want everyone against it to think about.... All the opposition talking points, not a single one talks about the efficacy of the medicinal use. All fear tactics about crime and pot shops on every corner etc.... That tells you all you need to know. They think we’re dumb. I hope enough of us aren’t.

[Quaoarsking]

65 is to vague. Oklahoma has 2,000 "treatment centers" and 1 in 12 Oklahoma residents have a medical marijuana card.

These shops are popping up in Arkansas now.

These shops will be all over MS if 65 is passed.

Even if you're for marijuana use, 65A at least allows the state to set some boundaries. So our towns don't have treatments on the town square and corners.
Not seeing the problem with "treatments on the town square and corners." Alcohol and tobacco are sold in every gas station and grocery store and society doesn't crumble. A lot higher than 1/12 of Mississippians use either or both of those.

[Cooterpoot]

If you needed it, you'd vote for it. People that need it should be able to get it without breaking laws. I'm lucky to have people who can help. I see Madison acting a damn fool over it. I've seen one particular Baptist preacher's post opposing it all over the place. They all make up bullshit to try to convince people. The damn Health Dept will oversee it and the state will make about $6M a year. They're basically copying Arizona. Vote 65!!

[Dannyripms]

I have a buddy thats 48, lift weights every day of his life. Got a 32inch waist. He tore his tricep and during surgery they trapped the ulnar nerve. Now he is in constant pain, migraines, can't use one hand, etc. I really think cannabis might help his pain. Pain pills don't really help nerve pain. He pops them like crazy plus pain pills are very addictive and bad for you. I hope cannabis is a blessing for him.

[Fury]

Yes to 65. No to 65A. Should be legalized recreational also.

[Fader21]

There is a field sobriety test for other substances besides alcohol. The problem with it is there is not a secondary test such as the intocxilyzer 8000 to test for a person being intoxicated. Also only about less than .05 % of Dui officers are able to do the other substances field sobriety tests. The other thing is the only way to find out if someone is intoxicated by another substance is to pee or blood test. Which you can only get through consent or warrant with no consequences for refusing. Also as backed up as the crime lab is. It will take longer for the results to come back.

[Maroonthirteen]

I haven't bought into anything. I've seen it with my own eyes in other states.

[Tbonewannabe]

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.
Don't police do field sobriety tests? Breathalyzers aren't 100% accurate and there are times that people are arrested without failing one. What do police do now if someone is driving while high? Just because it is legal doesn't mean they can't arrest you for driving impaired.

That is a very weak argument for keeping it illegal.

[dawgoneyall]

Might not be such a weak argument when it?s your butt or your fAmily killed

[Jarius]

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.


This doesn't make any sense. Weed being legal would not make it legal to drive high. If they already are not able to test for it DUI wise, then what difference would it make for weed to be legal? It's not like you can't find weed extremely easily if you want it anyway.

[Cooterpoot]

Might not be such a weak argument when it?s your butt or your fAmily killed

You never hear about people getting killed by someone smoking weed. They fall asleep in a drive thru maybe. And anyone can smell it and have their cars searched. Besides, if killing someone on the road is the issue, alcohol and scripts will far exceed the weed concerns. People ride around on pain killers already and there's no sobriety test for those either, plus they're addictive as hell.

[BeastMan]

Being a Libertarian I don't think anything should be illegal as long as that "thing" doesn't adversely affect another against their will. Weed should not be made legal until a field test is available for high (drunk) drivers. They have to be made responsible for their actions. There is an on site field test for alcohol. Pretty sure dope heads who have accidents and kill people have violated my "against their will" part of my tenet.

Hell...if people want to use heroin and die....that is their choice...as long as it doesn't adversely affect another against their will.

This is the absolute worst mj take you can possibly have. There are 2 types of DUI. Regular DUI and DUI other. DUI other covers every single substance not named alcohol including numerous legal substances including opioids & Xanax as well as your illegal drugs like cocaine, crack, meth, etc.... There are literally thousands upon thousands of DUIs given where drivers refuse the breathalyzer and field sobriety test. You know why? Cops are vigorously trained to identify impaired drivers. They do it every single day. DUI others, just like regular DUIs, do not have to have a roadside test. If you?ve ever been to a DUI trial you?ll see when they put the officer on the stand. 100% of the time you?re going to get testimony that says, Through ____ years of training and experience i could tell with my expert opinion the driver was impaired?. As long as there was no procedural loopholes its a closed case after that phrase 95% of the time.

When you know the current law, how it?s applied, and how it?s applied in court it?s impossible to have the take that they need a roadside test first. If you don?t think a cop can tell someone is barbecued behind the wheel, you have a police problem, not a lack of test problem.

Y?all keep these coming. There isn?t a single talking point that I can?t debunk but it?s easy when it?s propaganda.

[jbjones]

65A is a poorly thought out attempt by the gov't to muddy the waters. Period. Typical MS politics.

https://tibbee-creek.com/images/65v65a.png

[StateDawg44]

Lolz at Mississippians who think 65 or anything of the likes will pass.

MS will be last at getting with the times (per usual) and reaping the tax revenues amongst medical benefits.

[FISHDAWG]

This is the absolute worst mj take you can possibly have. There are 2 types of DUI. Regular DUI and DUI other. DUI other covers every single substance not named alcohol including numerous legal substances including opioids & Xanax as well as your illegal drugs like cocaine, crack, meth, etc.... There are literally thousands upon thousands of DUIs given where drivers refuse the breathalyzer and field sobriety test. You know why? Cops are vigorously trained to identify impaired drivers. They do it every single day. DUI others, just like regular DUIs, do not have to have a roadside test. If you?ve ever been to a DUI trial you?ll see when they put the officer on the stand. 100% of the time you?re going to get testimony that says, Through ____ years of training and experience i could tell with my expert opinion the driver was impaired?. As long as there was no procedural loopholes its a closed case after that phrase 95% of the time.

When you know the current law, how it?s applied, and how it?s applied in court it?s impossible to have the take that they need a roadside test first. If you don?t think a cop can tell someone is barbecued behind the wheel, you have a police problem, not a lack of test problem.

Y?all keep these coming. There isn?t a single talking point that I can?t debunk but it?s easy when it?s propaganda.

I think there already is a test ... I don't know this for fact but I have heard there is a breathalyzer now for pot

[FISHDAWG]

There is a field sobriety test for other substances besides alcohol. The problem with it is there is not a secondary test such as the intocxilyzer 8000 to test for a person being intoxicated. Also only about less than .05 % of Dui officers are able to do the other substances field sobriety tests. The other thing is the only way to find out if someone is intoxicated by another substance is to pee or blood test. Which you can only get through consent or warrant with no consequences for refusing. Also as backed up as the crime lab is. It will take longer for the results to come back.

I've heard there is now a breathalyzer for pot that is available to law enforcement ... I don't know this for fact, just something I heard from someone that should know. Mississippi has some unusual laws and omissions - like it's legal to drink and drive as long as you're below the legal limit (thereby nullifying an open container law that so many other states have in place) ...... but hey, cannibalism isn't illegal in Mississippi.
Caveat - these are things my Georgia wife throws at me from crap she claims to have read ... I really don't know for fact

[BeastMan]

I think there already is a test ... I don't know this for fact but I have heard there is a breathalyzer now for pot

They’ve been testing some. There aren’t any in MS. It’s not even needed. You ever heard them talk about needing an opioid breathalyzer? Nope.

[Extendedcab]

Uh big no there. 65a is a joke. Vote 65. It?s past damn time to give folks access to medical cannabis.

If doctors were prescribing cannabis under prop65, then possibly, but that is not the case. Prop65 is to create/open cannabis shops where all you need is a card to get in. This is the first step to legalizing marijuana in general. Follow the money!

Vote No!

[StateDawg44]

I've heard there is now a breathalyzer for pot that is available to law enforcement ... I don't know this for fact, just something I heard from someone that should know. Mississippi has some unusual laws and omissions - like it's legal to drink and drive as long as you're below the legal limit (thereby nullifying an open container law that so many other states have in place) ...... but hey, cannibalism isn't illegal in Mississippi.
Caveat - these are things my Georgia wife throws at me from crap she claims to have read ... I really don't know for fact

I think the problem with those things is how far back they can test and what is the window of impairment from weed. Hell smoking a bowl doesn't last nearly as long as eating a mild edible. And they are totally different highs

Say I smoke a bowl at 8pm. Wake up the next morning and get pulled over at 10am for speeding. No way am I even remotely impaired still. But if the test goes back 24-48 hours you're toast.

I know you aren't claiming to know the answer. But we are a long way from having a legal limit and a system of determining whether someone is too impaired to drive while high or not. It's easy for legislation to put a cap on alcohol content in each can or serving. How do you account for the difference between dirt weed and some potent ass Sour Diesel and how long each one lasts?

[BeastMan]

If doctors were prescribing cannabis under prop65, then possibly, but that is not the case. Prop65 is to create/open cannabis shops where all you need is a card to get in. This is the first step to legalizing marijuana in general. Follow the money!

Vote No!


https://media.tenor.com/images/81f2c97cbb77237e97f47bf63260f631/tenor.gif

[FISHDAWG]

I think the problem with those things is how far back they can test and what is the window of impairment from weed. Hell smoking a bowl doesn't last nearly as long as eating a mild edible. And they are totally different highs

Say I smoke a bowl at 8pm. Wake up the next morning and get pulled over at 10am for speeding. No way am I even remotely impaired still. But if the test goes back 24-48 hours you're toast.

I know you aren't claiming to know the answer. But we are a long way from having a legal limit and a system of determining whether someone is too impaired to drive while high or not. It's easy for legislation to put a cap on alcohol content in each can or serving. How do you account for the difference between dirt weed and some potent ass Sour Diesel and how long each one lasts?

I had the same exact questions and was told the test went back about 24 hours - which really wouldn't help anything at all - except for that jurisdictions revenue ... at least MS decriminalized simple possession I'm told

[RezDog7]

65 isn’t vague. You’ve bought in to the propaganda. Don’t be a sheep my brother. It absolutely will not be on every street corner. It will be like liquor stores but even less so b/c there would be significantly less prescribed users than drinkers. Even if you’re gonna play that card that they can’t be zoned, and they will, the market will not allow an over saturation of stores especially in a Covid economy. Econ 101

One thing I want everyone against it to think about.... All the opposition talking points, not a single one talks about the efficacy of the medicinal use. All fear tactics about crime and pot shops on every corner etc.... That tells you all you need to know. They think we’re dumb. I hope enough of us aren’t.

You mean like vape shops. I'm out.

[BeastMan]

I know you aren't claiming to know the answer. But we are a long way from having a legal limit and a system of determining whether someone is too impaired to drive while high or not. It's easy for legislation to put a cap on alcohol content in each can or serving. How do you account for the difference between dirt weed and some potent ass Sour Diesel and how long each one lasts?

They account for it the same way they do for every single other substance. This is a made up issue. Where is the push for benzo roadside testing? Where I live doctors write scripts for Xanax, Valium, and klonopin like pez and NO ONE says a word about they’re impaired driving.

Here is MS law since y’all refuse to read what I keep telling y’all

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT REQUIRED:

(a) Driving/Operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or "common law" DUI (usually no BAC test results available, or the BAC test results are ruled inadmissible): the prosecution must prove impairment, that is "commonly understood to mean driving in a state of intoxication that lessens a person's normal ability for clarity and control." Leuer v. City of Flowood, 744 So. 2d 266, 269 (Miss. 1999);

(b) Driving/Operating under the influence of any other substance: the prosecution must prove impairment;

(c) Driving/Operating under the influence of any drug or controlled substance which is unlawful under the Mississippi Controlled Substances Law: the prosecution must simply prove that one was "under the influence" in this narrow context, and there is no "per se" requirement if any toxicological test was given;

(d) Driving/Operating with an alcohol concentration .08% or more for persons twenty-one (21) or .02% or more for persons who are below the age of twenty-one (21); has an alcohol concentration of .04% or more for persons operating a commercial motor vehicle: the prosecution must prove the accuracy of the machine, that the machine's operator was certified, and that all proper procedures were followed in the administration of the test.

[Lord McBuckethead]

You never hear about people getting killed by someone smoking weed. They fall asleep in a drive thru maybe. And anyone can smell it and have their cars searched. Besides, if killing someone on the road is the issue, alcohol and scripts will far exceed the weed concerns. People ride around on pain killers already and there's no sobriety test for those either, plus they're addictive as hell.

Agreed. Pills and alcohol is definitely more dangerous than weed ever has been, including in states that have had this legalized for damn 10 years. If alcohol is legal and taxed, pills are legal and widespread due to over medication, then weed should be 100% legal.

[Lord McBuckethead]

You mean like vape shops. I'm out.

Funny thing, you really do not see that many Vape shops anymore. Maybe 1 or 2 per town. If you have an issue with shops, then pay day loan services should all be shut down. They do more to harm your community both from a property value standpoint and from its preditory practices than weed shops ever would.

[Lord McBuckethead]

If doctors were prescribing cannabis under prop65, then possibly, but that is not the case. Prop65 is to create/open cannabis shops where all you need is a card to get in. This is the first step to legalizing marijuana in general. Follow the money!

Vote No!

Even if all of this is true, still vote yes. Nothing you said convinces me this shouldn't be legal in our United States of America. This should be legal in every single way, and taxed the shit out of it.

[Lord McBuckethead]

And I don't even smoke weed.

[Johnson85]

First, this is some weak ass flippin propositions. Weed should be legalized fully, first and foremost.
Next, 65A gives literally no direction on how it would be applied, when it would be applied, etc. The only thing we can do is vote yes to Initiative 65.

Let me be clear, the state legislature complete failure to do their job is a joke. We vote for them to represent us in passing legislation. From flags to this, do your damn job. Bring a bill to the floor and vote you chicken shits. You need to go on voting record so we can see who is the problem.

Why does CA, WA, IL, and damn near half the country have rights we do not. So dang short sighted by a bunch of pussies.

First, if the legislature has failed to do their job, campaign to vote them out or lobby and get the law you want passed. Don't 17 things up because you're not getting your way at the moment.

Second, 65A not giving direction is closer to what a constitutional provision should look like. You don't lock in tax rates for a particular product in the constitution. You don't set up a new regulatory entity and funding mechanism in the constitution. What happens if the 7% doesn't fund the new government agency you are setting up? And why lock yourself in to a particular regualtory structure with a new government entity? Think maybe there could be some savings available by putting that responsibility under an existing agency? Tough shit unless you can get the constitution amended.


If you want to put in a constitutional provision saying the government has no right to criminalize what people voluntarily choose to put in their body, that would be a proper initiative. Probably wouldn't pass unfortunately cause people love to get into other people's business.

[Johnson85]

65A is a poorly thought out attempt by the gov't to muddy the waters. Period. Typical MS politics.

https://tibbee-creek.com/images/65v65a.png

In other words, the people pushing 65 are trying to improperly put what should be a statute into the constitution, whereas 65A is closer to what should be in the constitution while leaving more specific policy decisions to statute and regulation where they belong.

[BeastMan]

In other words, the people pushing 65 are trying to improperly put what should be a statute into the constitution, whereas 65A is closer to what should be in the constitution while leaving more specific policy decisions to statute and regulation where they belong.

Our MS politicians cannot be trusted to regulate it.

[StateDawg44]

They account for it the same way they do for every single other substance. This is a made up issue. Where is the push for benzo roadside testing? Where I live doctors write scripts for Xanax, Valium, and klonopin like pez and NO ONE says a word about they?re impaired driving.

Here is MS law since y?all refuse to read what I keep telling y?all

DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT REQUIRED:

(a) Driving/Operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or "common law" DUI (usually no BAC test results available, or the BAC test results are ruled inadmissible): the prosecution must prove impairment, that is "commonly understood to mean driving in a state of intoxication that lessens a person's normal ability for clarity and control." Leuer v. City of Flowood, 744 So. 2d 266, 269 (Miss. 1999);

(b) Driving/Operating under the influence of any other substance: the prosecution must prove impairment;

(c) Driving/Operating under the influence of any drug or controlled substance which is unlawful under the Mississippi Controlled Substances Law: the prosecution must simply prove that one was "under the influence" in this narrow context, and there is no "per se" requirement if any toxicological test was given;

(d) Driving/Operating with an alcohol concentration .08% or more for persons twenty-one (21) or .02% or more for persons who are below the age of twenty-one (21); has an alcohol concentration of .04% or more for persons operating a commercial motor vehicle: the prosecution must prove the accuracy of the machine, that the machine's operator was certified, and that all proper procedures were followed in the administration of the test.

So alcohol is ok though? Why no zero tolerance on alcohol which is proven tenfold to be so much more dangerous to operate a vehicle amongst countless other things alcohol leads to. It's not even close to comparison. Every label you listed is man-made and could easily be changed. What about people who are prescribed to Xanax or whatever drug you want to list? Take one daily in the morning and drive yo self to work. All good now though right?

Because it all goes back to money. Big pharma has lobbyists in every politician's pocket. Citizens can't just grow a prescription of pills so the gov't knows where the money is and can get theirs still.

With weed I could grow, harvest, and safely partake however I please without a trace of it ever happening and no money exchanged. I could even barter with it and the gov't not know. Gov't just wants to get their kick back and don't know how to get it in this case. Even though the state would make an unbelievable amount of money on sin tax and whatever other tax they want to put on it. People will gladly pay that instead of risking being prosecuted for something so stupid and as harmless as a minute amount of weed.

Not to mention it would take the unmeasurable amount of wasted time police spend on trying to make arrests on weed charges and allow them to focus OUR money and time on actual drug problems. That list goes on and on.

But wait, add to the fact that many politicians also make money off private prisons and cramming as many people as they can in there so they can get paid per inmate. Why on earth would they want to take money out of their own pockets when it all just circles back to them by not changing.

[Cooterpoot]

If doctors were prescribing cannabis under prop65, then possibly, but that is not the case. Prop65 is to create/open cannabis shops where all you need is a card to get in. This is the first step to legalizing marijuana in general. Follow the money!

Vote No!

The damn Dr. has to approve your card, as does the state health dept. That argument is laughable. Drs are pissed because it cuts into their pain management clinics paydays. Others are pissed because they want in it more. It'll hurt the pill mills.

[Johnson85]

The damn Dr. has to approve your card, as does the state health dept. That argument is laughable. Drs are pissed because it cuts into their pain management clinics paydays. Others are pissed because they want in it more. It'll hurt the pill mills.

It's probably going to allow a decent amount of basically recreational use based on other states that have gone down this road. And that's fine. We don't stop people from using medicine because some people are going to use it recreationally. Well, actually, we do. We deny lots of people opioids and even things like sinus medicine. But that's because people mainly act like ass holes when they vote and they should stop doing that.

We need to put a statutory scheme in place as one of the first orders of business this session.

[shoeless joe]

The damn Dr. has to approve your card, as does the state health dept. That argument is laughable. Drs are pissed because it cuts into their pain management clinics paydays. Others are pissed because they want in it more. It'll hurt the pill mills.

First off, I’m for legalized marijuana and I’ve never smoked it in my life, but one argument against the card I’ve heard is how easy it would be to counterfeit and there’s no registry or any way for an officer to know if your card is legit. Thoughts?

This will not affect my vote as I’ll be a yes and leaning heavily toward 65

[Tbonewannabe]

Might not be such a weak argument when it?s your butt or your fAmily killed

So if someone is pulled over high right now , do the cops just let them go? No they don't, they have testing to see if they are impaired.

Marijuana being legal wouldn't change what the cops do already.

Also, my aunt lived several years because my sister was able to help her with her chemo. She would not have survived without certain items that doctors in Alabama couldn't prescribe.

[TUSK]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cIePqdz03A

[Extendedcab]

First off, I’m for legalized marijuana and I’ve never smoked it in my life, but one argument against the card I’ve heard is how easy it would be to counterfeit and there’s no registry or any way for an officer to know if your card is legit. Thoughts?

This will not affect my vote as I’ll be a yes and leaning heavily toward 65

I agree, it will be very easy to forge a card. While I agree that the medical profession is "highly influenced" by the pharmaceuticals, I still trust doctors to provide me the very best information available about my health and how to treat any issue. At least they have studied the human body and medicine unlike the pot shop owners! Unlike Cooter, I will not put my trust in a damn pot shop.

[Fader21]

Breathalyzers are very suspect. Even the road sides are only admissible in court only to prove alcohol was present not the number. Yes Weed has killed numerous people. I have worked 5 auto accidents were someone has been killed with be under the influence of THC. Like I said earlier the problem is you only have very very very few LEOs in the state who know what to look for with someone being under the influence of another substance besides alcohol. That's why you don't have "as many deaths"

[Tbonewannabe]

I agree, it will be very easy to forge a card. While I agree that the medical profession is "highly influenced" by the pharmaceuticals, I still trust doctors to provide me the very best information available about my health and how to treat any issue. At least they have studied the human body and medicine unlike the pot shop owners! Unlike Cooter, I will not put my trust in a damn pot shop.

The problem is big pharma made it impossible to do research on what medical benefits can be had from Marijuana.