Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53

Thread: OT - Initiative 65 and Initiative 65a

  1. #41
    Senior Member Lord McBuckethead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    12,980
    vCash
    3086
    And I don't even smoke weed.
    Downvotes_Hype

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,830
    vCash
    3400
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead View Post
    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.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,830
    vCash
    3400
    Quote Originally Posted by jbjones View Post
    65A is a poorly thought out attempt by the gov't to muddy the waters. Period. Typical MS politics.

    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.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator BeastMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    7,504
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnson85 View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Senior Member StateDawg44's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,144
    vCash
    4098385
    Quote Originally Posted by BeastMan View Post
    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.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Cooterpoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    11,578
    vCash
    52714
    Quote Originally Posted by Extendedcab View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,830
    vCash
    3400
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooterpoot View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    Senior Member shoeless joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,635
    vCash
    3129
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooterpoot View Post
    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

  9. #49
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,651
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgoneyall View Post
    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.

  10. #50
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Madison, MS
    Posts
    958
    vCash
    3187
    Quote Originally Posted by shoeless joe View Post
    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.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    678
    vCash
    3700
    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"

  13. #53
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,651
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by Extendedcab View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.