Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
marijuana winning big at the polls. CO/MASS/wash pass (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hipple Long Ware & Peete
- Start date
Wingnut
Footballguy
Theres talk of Florida possibly becoming the first southern state to legalize medicinal marijuana in 2014. A local big shot attorney is spearheading the campaign to get the 680k signatures to get it on the ballot.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/florida-medical-marijuana_n_2915919.html
Florida Medical Marijuana Campaign Gets Backing From Top Democratic Fundraisers
ORLANDO, Fla., March 20 (Reuters) - Two top Democratic fundraisers in Florida have committed to providing the money and know-how to get the question of legalizing medical marijuana on the state ballot in 2014.
"I'm prepared to keep raising money and writing checks until I get the signatures to put it on the ballot," attorney John Morgan said late on Tuesday.
Morgan, who routinely hosts presidents and national political figures at his Orlando-area home, recently signed on as chairman of People United for Medical Marijuana-Florida, a grassroots campaign that operated on a shoestring until now.
Morgan was recruited by Ben Pollara, a lobbyist and fundraiser for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. Pollara recently became treasurer of the medical marijuana campaign.
By law, the campaign needs to collect signatures of almost 700,000 registered voters to get a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana on the ballot in November 2014.
Pollara estimated the campaign will cost $10 million.
Morgan, who put his money behind a successful 2004 constitutional amendment raising Florida's minimum wage, said he thinks he can recruit an "army of angels" to help gather the necessary signatures for the ballot initiative.
"I believe there is going to be kind of an uprising of people who have needed it in the past or had a loved one who needed it who are going to say I don't want this to happen to someone else," Morgan said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/florida-medical-marijuana_n_2915919.html
Florida Medical Marijuana Campaign Gets Backing From Top Democratic Fundraisers
ORLANDO, Fla., March 20 (Reuters) - Two top Democratic fundraisers in Florida have committed to providing the money and know-how to get the question of legalizing medical marijuana on the state ballot in 2014.
"I'm prepared to keep raising money and writing checks until I get the signatures to put it on the ballot," attorney John Morgan said late on Tuesday.
Morgan, who routinely hosts presidents and national political figures at his Orlando-area home, recently signed on as chairman of People United for Medical Marijuana-Florida, a grassroots campaign that operated on a shoestring until now.
Morgan was recruited by Ben Pollara, a lobbyist and fundraiser for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. Pollara recently became treasurer of the medical marijuana campaign.
By law, the campaign needs to collect signatures of almost 700,000 registered voters to get a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana on the ballot in November 2014.
Pollara estimated the campaign will cost $10 million.
Morgan, who put his money behind a successful 2004 constitutional amendment raising Florida's minimum wage, said he thinks he can recruit an "army of angels" to help gather the necessary signatures for the ballot initiative.
"I believe there is going to be kind of an uprising of people who have needed it in the past or had a loved one who needed it who are going to say I don't want this to happen to someone else," Morgan said.
grateful zed
Footballguy
:rasta:
Mile High
Footballguy
A proposal that could lead to the repeal of marijuana legalization in Colorado has gained momentum at the state Capitol.
The repeal would be linked to a measure on marijuana taxes that is expected to go before voters in November, according to legislators and advocacy groups involved in the discussions. The premise is that, if voters do not approve the taxes, then Amendment 64, the initiative passed just months ago to legalize marijuana, would be repealed. It's also possible that voters would be given a choice of repealing marijuana legalization if the taxes don't pass.
After only a few days of behind-the-scenes talks, the proposal emerged publicly Friday. The leaders of both chambers are receptive to the plan.
House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, called the plan "worth the conversation."
"I'm open to it," he said.
Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, went even further.
"I am absolutely supportive of the idea," he said.
The leaders' backing is significant since the measure faces a tough road out of the legislature. Because it could repeal a constitutional amendment, the proposal needs two-thirds support to go before voters. It must also navigate through an increasingly acrimonious atmosphere at the Capitol with only 12 days left in the session.
Just about everything surrounding the measure is, for now, uncertain and disputed.
Rep. Frank McNulty, a Highlands Ranch Republican who is involved in the repeal talks, said lawmakers who support the idea haven't agreed on final language for a repeal proposal. The plan hasn't been officially introduced, either.
Rep. Dan Pabon, a Denver Democrat who has been involved in many of the discussions on marijuana at the Capitol this year, said the repeal idea would undermine good-faith efforts to regulate marijuana.
"I'd hate to see all the hard work we've done to protect public safety go to waste," Pabon said.
Tensions over the proposal are also high between supporters of marijuana legalization and a group working to restrict pot in Colorado. Back-to-back news conferences by the groups outside the Capitol on Friday devolved into direct exchanges of heated words between advocates on both sides.
"What this comes down to is extortion," Mason Tvert, one of Amendment 64's authors, said during his news conference. "The proposal to repeal Amendment 64 is extortion."
"If the taxes are passed in the fall," said Diane Carlson, a member of the marijuana-critical group Smart Colorado, "there should be no concern about the repeal. ... I don't see why everybody is so scared about being held accountable."
Amendment 64 legalized use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older in Colorado. It also allows marijuana to be sold in specially licensed stores, which could open at the start of 2014. Voters approved Amendment 64 in November with 55 percent support. It garnered more votes in the state than did President Barack Obama.
The amendment allows lawmakers to propose up to a 15 percent excise tax on marijuana to generate money for school construction, and lawmakers have also proposed a 15 percent special sales tax on pot to pay for regulation of marijuana stores. The tax proposals, contained in House Bill 1318, passed the House Appropriations Committee on Friday morning.
Lawmakers have publicly worried about how the tax plan, which could generate tens of millions of dollars annually, would fare with voters. If voters don't pass the plan, the fear goes, marijuana regulations will be underfunded and ineffective.
"Without this measure, we won't be able to implement a model that will ensure our communities can be kept safe," Rep. Jonathan Singer, the Longmont Democrat sponsoring HB 1318, said during a committee hearing Thursday.
McNulty said attaching the taxes to a repeal provision would give marijuana advocates "skin in the game" to push for the tax measure. Carlson agreed, calling a repeal threat "the only way of ensuring there will be tax money to fund the regulatory costs."
But representatives for Smart Colorado sent mixed signals as to whether they would urge voters to approve the taxes if they were tied to a repeal.
Tvert, meanwhile, said that if lawmakers are worried voters won't approve 15 percent excise and sales taxes, the tax proposals should be shrunk. He suggested a 10 percent sales tax, and cited a poll Amendment 64 backers commissioned that shows 77 percent support in Colorado for that level.
Several lawmakers have also suggested the proposed tax rates be lowered.
"I don't think the voters will accept that," Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, said during Friday's committee meeting of the 15 percent rate.
Singer, though, said — if voters approve the tax measure — lawmakers can ultimately set the rates at lower levels.
"This is our best educated guess on how to proceed," he said.
The repeal would be linked to a measure on marijuana taxes that is expected to go before voters in November, according to legislators and advocacy groups involved in the discussions. The premise is that, if voters do not approve the taxes, then Amendment 64, the initiative passed just months ago to legalize marijuana, would be repealed. It's also possible that voters would be given a choice of repealing marijuana legalization if the taxes don't pass.
After only a few days of behind-the-scenes talks, the proposal emerged publicly Friday. The leaders of both chambers are receptive to the plan.
House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, called the plan "worth the conversation."
"I'm open to it," he said.
Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, went even further.
"I am absolutely supportive of the idea," he said.
The leaders' backing is significant since the measure faces a tough road out of the legislature. Because it could repeal a constitutional amendment, the proposal needs two-thirds support to go before voters. It must also navigate through an increasingly acrimonious atmosphere at the Capitol with only 12 days left in the session.
Just about everything surrounding the measure is, for now, uncertain and disputed.
Rep. Frank McNulty, a Highlands Ranch Republican who is involved in the repeal talks, said lawmakers who support the idea haven't agreed on final language for a repeal proposal. The plan hasn't been officially introduced, either.
Rep. Dan Pabon, a Denver Democrat who has been involved in many of the discussions on marijuana at the Capitol this year, said the repeal idea would undermine good-faith efforts to regulate marijuana.
"I'd hate to see all the hard work we've done to protect public safety go to waste," Pabon said.
Tensions over the proposal are also high between supporters of marijuana legalization and a group working to restrict pot in Colorado. Back-to-back news conferences by the groups outside the Capitol on Friday devolved into direct exchanges of heated words between advocates on both sides.
"What this comes down to is extortion," Mason Tvert, one of Amendment 64's authors, said during his news conference. "The proposal to repeal Amendment 64 is extortion."
"If the taxes are passed in the fall," said Diane Carlson, a member of the marijuana-critical group Smart Colorado, "there should be no concern about the repeal. ... I don't see why everybody is so scared about being held accountable."
Amendment 64 legalized use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older in Colorado. It also allows marijuana to be sold in specially licensed stores, which could open at the start of 2014. Voters approved Amendment 64 in November with 55 percent support. It garnered more votes in the state than did President Barack Obama.
The amendment allows lawmakers to propose up to a 15 percent excise tax on marijuana to generate money for school construction, and lawmakers have also proposed a 15 percent special sales tax on pot to pay for regulation of marijuana stores. The tax proposals, contained in House Bill 1318, passed the House Appropriations Committee on Friday morning.
Lawmakers have publicly worried about how the tax plan, which could generate tens of millions of dollars annually, would fare with voters. If voters don't pass the plan, the fear goes, marijuana regulations will be underfunded and ineffective.
"Without this measure, we won't be able to implement a model that will ensure our communities can be kept safe," Rep. Jonathan Singer, the Longmont Democrat sponsoring HB 1318, said during a committee hearing Thursday.
McNulty said attaching the taxes to a repeal provision would give marijuana advocates "skin in the game" to push for the tax measure. Carlson agreed, calling a repeal threat "the only way of ensuring there will be tax money to fund the regulatory costs."
But representatives for Smart Colorado sent mixed signals as to whether they would urge voters to approve the taxes if they were tied to a repeal.
Tvert, meanwhile, said that if lawmakers are worried voters won't approve 15 percent excise and sales taxes, the tax proposals should be shrunk. He suggested a 10 percent sales tax, and cited a poll Amendment 64 backers commissioned that shows 77 percent support in Colorado for that level.
Several lawmakers have also suggested the proposed tax rates be lowered.
"I don't think the voters will accept that," Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, said during Friday's committee meeting of the 15 percent rate.
Singer, though, said — if voters approve the tax measure — lawmakers can ultimately set the rates at lower levels.
"This is our best educated guess on how to proceed," he said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Taxing the sale of MJ is extremely popular, especially among non-smokers. Not sure why they think the proposed tax in CO won't pass.
Dr. Gobbler
Footballguy
What's the tax there on alcohol? Make it the same. Problem solved.
But it looks like Colorado taxes alcohol at 2.9%. 30% seems a little over the top compared to that. So it's reasonable to think it'll be tough to pass given the fact the voters already approved 15%
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
While the tax is excessive, smokers should support it , as the alternative is is back to illegal status. The choice is pay 30% more or risk going to jail, it's a pretty clear choice. It may be blackmail by the politicians, but you've got to keep it legal from a smoker's perspective.
Non-smokers should support it regardless, because they aren't paying it.
It would be ironic if anti-tax non-smokers end up voting it down on principle.
Non-smokers should support it regardless, because they aren't paying it.
It would be ironic if anti-tax non-smokers end up voting it down on principle.
Dr. Gobbler
Footballguy
Can someone tell me what the tax on alcohol was when prohibition of alcohol was repealed?
I did a quick search but couldn't find it.
Might be a good jumping off point to see if taxes were high at first and subsequently came down.
I did a quick search but couldn't find it.
Might be a good jumping off point to see if taxes were high at first and subsequently came down.
Jobber
Footballguy
I agree. They need to look at the big picture. If MJ legalization takes off, there's the potential of neighboring states having cheaper product. Perhaps forcing CO th rethink the rate.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
I haven't bothered to keep up with a state that is 2k away but are you nto allowed to grow your own there? Why would anybody buy weed if you can grow it yourself. Besides being lazy?
Dr. Gobbler
Footballguy
The same reason people buy tomatoes, corn, broccoli.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Fair point.Dr. Gobbler said:
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
I grow my own. I call it The Cornic.Dr. Gobbler said:
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
The Ref
Footballguy
Passed by the Senate Executive Committee without any changes
Now for the full Senate.
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Saw this due to a couple of god-fearing, uptight righties voicing their outrage on fb.
Wilfredo Ledezma
Footballguy
In Las Vegas, Mayors Go Rogue on Pot Legalization
by Matt Taylor Jul 6, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
A conference of mayors unanimously calls on the federal government to butt out of marijuana policymaking.
782
inShare
105
Last week in Las Vegas, mayors nationwide told Uncle Sam to let Americans go green.
If only it were that easy.
Advertisement run by NORMAL in 2002. (NORML)
The 180 elected officials attending the annual meeting of the U.S. conference of mayors in Sin City unanimously adopted a resolution urging the federal government to let states and localities make their own marijuana policy. The bipartisan sponsors—including, along with the usual suspects, leaders like Jean Robb, the Tea Party–backed conservative mayor of Deerfield Beach, Florida—seemed to show that the war on the war on drugs is now in full sway, a process that has accelerated since voters in Colorado and Washington state embraced weed legalization at the polls last fall.
The mayors, who claim to know a thing or two about tight budgets and wasted public-safety dollars, don’t want the feds to impose new enforcement burdens on already-strapped police forces and are also keeping an eye on the potential revenue from taxing the always in-demand substance.
So they’re stepping into the void left by a Department of Justice that has essentially been silent on the legalization measures. Attorney General Eric Holder promised a response “relatively soon” way back in February, but has gone mum since then. Perhaps encouraged by that silence, politicians have become increasingly vocal in trashing the war on drugs like never before, a line of criticism that taps into growing liberal and libertarian distrust of the Obama administration’s expansion of the surveillance state and drone warfare.
Considering the messy realities of regulation, the local leaders are offering to take the lead from the federal government, effectively letting cities and states emerge as legalization laboratories.
“It’s akin to the spirit in the country today relative to gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage and so forth,” says William Euille, the first African-American mayor of Alexandria, Virginia, and a co-sponsor of the resolution. “People have come to realize that we need to stop punishing people who want to live their lives a little bit differently.”
The mayors stress that they are joined not in advocating any particular approach to marijuana—be it decriminalization, medicinal programs, or full legalization—but simply in calling on Washington to let local communities decide the matter for themselves. And while gay-rights advocates might bristle at the comparison (which Bill Maher makes regularly on his HBO show Real Time) of their fight for equality before the law with the push for legal pot, Euille is right about one thing: public opinion has moved sharply in favor of both causes over the past few years. Even some longtime foes who maintain that marijuana is a “gateway drug” and that its association with criminality is inextricable concede that they are swimming against the tide, and that it is only a matter of time before some form of legalized pot is a reality of urban life in America.
“People have come to realize that we need to stop punishing people who want to live their lives a little bit differently.”
“The horse is out of the barn,” William J. Bratton, the former police commissioner for New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston, told The Daily Beast in an interview. Though Bratton sees the trend toward legalization as “unfortunate,” he says it’s really just a question of the details at this point, and in particular what the regulatory infrastructure will look like. On that front, he expects police chiefs, regardless of any resolutions their bosses have signed, to be frustrated by the new order.
“It's phenomenal in a country that is so fanatical about ensuring purity of prescription drugs that the regulations governing marijuana are clearly laughable for their lack of effectiveness,” he says, referring to the medical-marijuana laws that have created a certain amount of chaos in Los Angeles, the city council there voting at one point to ban dispensaries entirely before voters moved to restore them at the ballot box, scaring lawmakers into repealing the ban.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has dismissed medical marijuana as a “hoax” and been criticized for the pot-related arrests, overwhelmingly of young black and Hispanic men, resulting from his controversial “stop and frisk” program, perhaps appropriately did not attend the conference. “You live with it,” Bratton said of the prospect of an independent inspector general overseeing the NYPD, which he said was inevitable given the electorate’s outrage about the racial impact of marijuana arrests. “Is crime going to basically all of a sudden go out of control? I don’t think so.”
But the mayors who sponsored the resolution said they did so out of frustration with the slow pace of the federal debate on drug policy, and a belief that the long arms of D.C. shouldn’t constrain their respective cities on social questions like this one. As for what the new regulatory environment might look like, Mark Kleiman, UCLA professor and Washington state’s “pot czar,” says he likes the idea of experimenting with different drug laws but has doubts about local politicians possessing the knowledge or resources to set up an effective regulatory scheme.
“I don't think that total deference to local control is going to work well because of the race-to-the-bottom problem,” he says, expressing fear that one or two states or cities with weak regulations might take over the market in the same way that Delaware has become ground zero for the credit-card industry. In a worst-case scenario, the profit motive means any nascent marijuana industry would encourage excessive use and even target children, much as Big Tobacco did before such tactics were banned in the 1990s.
Which is to say that all sorts of sticky details still need to be worked out. But in the meantime, these mayors are trying to advance the conversation.
“I happen to have a relative who has glaucoma and has used marijuana to great relief,” says Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman. “The reality is that we as mayors work with the people,” she said, while members of Congress in Washington “don't really know the heartbeat of what’s going on every single day.”
by Matt Taylor Jul 6, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
A conference of mayors unanimously calls on the federal government to butt out of marijuana policymaking.
782
inShare
105
Last week in Las Vegas, mayors nationwide told Uncle Sam to let Americans go green.
If only it were that easy.
Advertisement run by NORMAL in 2002. (NORML)
The 180 elected officials attending the annual meeting of the U.S. conference of mayors in Sin City unanimously adopted a resolution urging the federal government to let states and localities make their own marijuana policy. The bipartisan sponsors—including, along with the usual suspects, leaders like Jean Robb, the Tea Party–backed conservative mayor of Deerfield Beach, Florida—seemed to show that the war on the war on drugs is now in full sway, a process that has accelerated since voters in Colorado and Washington state embraced weed legalization at the polls last fall.
The mayors, who claim to know a thing or two about tight budgets and wasted public-safety dollars, don’t want the feds to impose new enforcement burdens on already-strapped police forces and are also keeping an eye on the potential revenue from taxing the always in-demand substance.
So they’re stepping into the void left by a Department of Justice that has essentially been silent on the legalization measures. Attorney General Eric Holder promised a response “relatively soon” way back in February, but has gone mum since then. Perhaps encouraged by that silence, politicians have become increasingly vocal in trashing the war on drugs like never before, a line of criticism that taps into growing liberal and libertarian distrust of the Obama administration’s expansion of the surveillance state and drone warfare.
Considering the messy realities of regulation, the local leaders are offering to take the lead from the federal government, effectively letting cities and states emerge as legalization laboratories.
“It’s akin to the spirit in the country today relative to gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage and so forth,” says William Euille, the first African-American mayor of Alexandria, Virginia, and a co-sponsor of the resolution. “People have come to realize that we need to stop punishing people who want to live their lives a little bit differently.”
The mayors stress that they are joined not in advocating any particular approach to marijuana—be it decriminalization, medicinal programs, or full legalization—but simply in calling on Washington to let local communities decide the matter for themselves. And while gay-rights advocates might bristle at the comparison (which Bill Maher makes regularly on his HBO show Real Time) of their fight for equality before the law with the push for legal pot, Euille is right about one thing: public opinion has moved sharply in favor of both causes over the past few years. Even some longtime foes who maintain that marijuana is a “gateway drug” and that its association with criminality is inextricable concede that they are swimming against the tide, and that it is only a matter of time before some form of legalized pot is a reality of urban life in America.
“People have come to realize that we need to stop punishing people who want to live their lives a little bit differently.”
“The horse is out of the barn,” William J. Bratton, the former police commissioner for New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston, told The Daily Beast in an interview. Though Bratton sees the trend toward legalization as “unfortunate,” he says it’s really just a question of the details at this point, and in particular what the regulatory infrastructure will look like. On that front, he expects police chiefs, regardless of any resolutions their bosses have signed, to be frustrated by the new order.
“It's phenomenal in a country that is so fanatical about ensuring purity of prescription drugs that the regulations governing marijuana are clearly laughable for their lack of effectiveness,” he says, referring to the medical-marijuana laws that have created a certain amount of chaos in Los Angeles, the city council there voting at one point to ban dispensaries entirely before voters moved to restore them at the ballot box, scaring lawmakers into repealing the ban.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has dismissed medical marijuana as a “hoax” and been criticized for the pot-related arrests, overwhelmingly of young black and Hispanic men, resulting from his controversial “stop and frisk” program, perhaps appropriately did not attend the conference. “You live with it,” Bratton said of the prospect of an independent inspector general overseeing the NYPD, which he said was inevitable given the electorate’s outrage about the racial impact of marijuana arrests. “Is crime going to basically all of a sudden go out of control? I don’t think so.”
But the mayors who sponsored the resolution said they did so out of frustration with the slow pace of the federal debate on drug policy, and a belief that the long arms of D.C. shouldn’t constrain their respective cities on social questions like this one. As for what the new regulatory environment might look like, Mark Kleiman, UCLA professor and Washington state’s “pot czar,” says he likes the idea of experimenting with different drug laws but has doubts about local politicians possessing the knowledge or resources to set up an effective regulatory scheme.
“I don't think that total deference to local control is going to work well because of the race-to-the-bottom problem,” he says, expressing fear that one or two states or cities with weak regulations might take over the market in the same way that Delaware has become ground zero for the credit-card industry. In a worst-case scenario, the profit motive means any nascent marijuana industry would encourage excessive use and even target children, much as Big Tobacco did before such tactics were banned in the 1990s.
Which is to say that all sorts of sticky details still need to be worked out. But in the meantime, these mayors are trying to advance the conversation.
“I happen to have a relative who has glaucoma and has used marijuana to great relief,” says Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman. “The reality is that we as mayors work with the people,” she said, while members of Congress in Washington “don't really know the heartbeat of what’s going on every single day.”
Wilfredo Ledezma
Footballguy
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/medical_marijuana_bill.html
By Noelle Crombie, The Oregonian
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 06, 2013 at 4:10 PM, updated July 06, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Email
The Oregon House on Saturday passed a bill legalizing medical marijuana retail establishments, moving what has been a booming but legally hazy industry squarely into the mainstream and handing medical marijuana advocates a major victory.
House Bill 3460, now headed to Gov. John Kitzhaber’s desk, creates a registry of businesses that sell the medical marijuana. Patients have long sought retail access to cannabis, arguing the state’s rules — grow your own marijuana or have someone do it for you — are unrealistic.
Legislative approval comes a year after an investigation by The Oregonian showed that scant state regulation of medical marijuana allowed widespread diversion to the black market.
The vote means Oregon joins a dozen other states that allow medical marijuana dispensaries or retail outlets.
Oregon voters have twice defeated ballot initiatives creating a regulated dispensary system, but that hasn’t deterred the state’s medical marijuana industry. Multnomah County law enforcement has largely looked the other way when it comes to these establishments, but police in other counties, such as Jackson, Washington and Malheur have cracked down on the sale of medical marijuana out of retail storefronts.
Details about how the registry will work need to be worked out by the Oregon Health Authority, but here’s a quick rundown of what the passage of HB 3460 means for Oregon:
Q: Does the new law mean existing medical marijuana storefronts are now state-sanctioned?
A: Not yet. The Oregon Health Authority, which oversees the state’s medical marijuana program, has until March 2014 to draft rules on security, marijuana testing and other issues. Initially, the bill included a provision potentially limiting criminal liability for existing medical marijuana clubs and collectives. Oregon prosecutors successfully lobbied to strip that protection from the bill.
Q: How much will it cost to buy marijuana in one of these facilities?
A: Operators can set their own prices. The price may reflect the costs of “doing business, including costs related to transferring, handling, security, insuring, testing, packaging and processing usable marijuana and immature marijuana plants and the cost of supplies, utilities, rent or mortgage.”
Q: Will medical marijuana producers be paid?
A: Yes. Operators of a medical marijuana facility may reimburse state-registered cannabis growers for the same expenses listed above.
Q: Can anyone operate a medical marijuana facility?
A: The person responsible for the facility must be an Oregon resident. People convicted of felony manufacturing or delivery of a controlled substance are prohibited.
Q: Are these establishments subject to inspection?
A: The law allows the Oregon Health Authority to perform inspections “at any reasonable time.”
Medical Marijuana
Continuing coverage of medical marijuana by The Oregonian's Noelle Crombie.
Q: What information will police have about these establishments?
A: Law enforcement may verify whether a facility is registered with the state.
Q: Will producers of marijuana-infused brownies, cookies, candies and other edibles be required to register with the state?
A: The law does not address makers of marijuana-infused products.
Q: How much will registration cost?
A: The Oregon Health Authority expects to charge each establishment $4,000 a year.
Q: What does the law mean for the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program?
A: More staff and more work. The Legislative Fiscal Office expects the registry system will require hiring four employees, including two who will inspect establishments for compliance with zoning and other requirements.
Q: How will this new registry be funded?
A: State officials expect registration fees will generate $900,000 in the first two years, covering the cost of staff and other expenses.
Q: Can anyone walk into one of these medical marijuana establishments and buy cannabis?
A: No. Only Oregon medical marijuana patients are allowed. Recreational marijuana use is not legal in the state.
Q: Now that medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives and other outlets are legal in Oregon, does that mean they can open anywhere?
A: The law restricts facilities from operating within 1,000 feet of a school or 1,000 feet of another facility. They may only operate in farm or commercial zones but can’t be in the same location as a medical marijuana grow site. The League of Oregon Cities, which endorsed the bill, noted it doesn’t block municipalities from adopting their own ordinances on medical marijuana outlets. Q: How many outlets will operate under the new law?
A: Officials expect to register about 225 outlets in the first two years.
Q: What about the quality of marijuana sold in retail outlets? Will the product be tested?
A: Yes. The new law requires medical marijuana sold by one of these state-licensed outlets be tested for mold, mildew and pesticides. The law doesn’t address rules for facilities that perform such testing, themselves a cottage industry in Oregon.
-- Noelle Crombie
By Noelle Crombie, The Oregonian
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 06, 2013 at 4:10 PM, updated July 06, 2013 at 10:48 PM
The Oregon House on Saturday passed a bill legalizing medical marijuana retail establishments, moving what has been a booming but legally hazy industry squarely into the mainstream and handing medical marijuana advocates a major victory.
House Bill 3460, now headed to Gov. John Kitzhaber’s desk, creates a registry of businesses that sell the medical marijuana. Patients have long sought retail access to cannabis, arguing the state’s rules — grow your own marijuana or have someone do it for you — are unrealistic.
Legislative approval comes a year after an investigation by The Oregonian showed that scant state regulation of medical marijuana allowed widespread diversion to the black market.
The vote means Oregon joins a dozen other states that allow medical marijuana dispensaries or retail outlets.
Oregon voters have twice defeated ballot initiatives creating a regulated dispensary system, but that hasn’t deterred the state’s medical marijuana industry. Multnomah County law enforcement has largely looked the other way when it comes to these establishments, but police in other counties, such as Jackson, Washington and Malheur have cracked down on the sale of medical marijuana out of retail storefronts.
Details about how the registry will work need to be worked out by the Oregon Health Authority, but here’s a quick rundown of what the passage of HB 3460 means for Oregon:
Q: Does the new law mean existing medical marijuana storefronts are now state-sanctioned?
A: Not yet. The Oregon Health Authority, which oversees the state’s medical marijuana program, has until March 2014 to draft rules on security, marijuana testing and other issues. Initially, the bill included a provision potentially limiting criminal liability for existing medical marijuana clubs and collectives. Oregon prosecutors successfully lobbied to strip that protection from the bill.
Q: How much will it cost to buy marijuana in one of these facilities?
A: Operators can set their own prices. The price may reflect the costs of “doing business, including costs related to transferring, handling, security, insuring, testing, packaging and processing usable marijuana and immature marijuana plants and the cost of supplies, utilities, rent or mortgage.”
Q: Will medical marijuana producers be paid?
A: Yes. Operators of a medical marijuana facility may reimburse state-registered cannabis growers for the same expenses listed above.
Q: Can anyone operate a medical marijuana facility?
A: The person responsible for the facility must be an Oregon resident. People convicted of felony manufacturing or delivery of a controlled substance are prohibited.
Q: Are these establishments subject to inspection?
A: The law allows the Oregon Health Authority to perform inspections “at any reasonable time.”
Medical Marijuana
Continuing coverage of medical marijuana by The Oregonian's Noelle Crombie.
Q: What information will police have about these establishments?
A: Law enforcement may verify whether a facility is registered with the state.
Q: Will producers of marijuana-infused brownies, cookies, candies and other edibles be required to register with the state?
A: The law does not address makers of marijuana-infused products.
Q: How much will registration cost?
A: The Oregon Health Authority expects to charge each establishment $4,000 a year.
Q: What does the law mean for the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program?
A: More staff and more work. The Legislative Fiscal Office expects the registry system will require hiring four employees, including two who will inspect establishments for compliance with zoning and other requirements.
Q: How will this new registry be funded?
A: State officials expect registration fees will generate $900,000 in the first two years, covering the cost of staff and other expenses.
Q: Can anyone walk into one of these medical marijuana establishments and buy cannabis?
A: No. Only Oregon medical marijuana patients are allowed. Recreational marijuana use is not legal in the state.
Q: Now that medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives and other outlets are legal in Oregon, does that mean they can open anywhere?
A: The law restricts facilities from operating within 1,000 feet of a school or 1,000 feet of another facility. They may only operate in farm or commercial zones but can’t be in the same location as a medical marijuana grow site. The League of Oregon Cities, which endorsed the bill, noted it doesn’t block municipalities from adopting their own ordinances on medical marijuana outlets. Q: How many outlets will operate under the new law?
A: Officials expect to register about 225 outlets in the first two years.
Q: What about the quality of marijuana sold in retail outlets? Will the product be tested?
A: Yes. The new law requires medical marijuana sold by one of these state-licensed outlets be tested for mold, mildew and pesticides. The law doesn’t address rules for facilities that perform such testing, themselves a cottage industry in Oregon.
-- Noelle Crombie
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I am so sick of the Feds prioritizing marijuana.
Hooper31
Footballguy
Governor Quinn signed the bill yesterday.Saw this due to a couple of god-fearing, uptight righties voicing their outrage on fb.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Time for the DEA to declare victory and disband.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Uruguay, on the other hand, just went in the other direction.
Highlights:
1. Uruguayan citizens may purchase up to 40 grams monthly from licensed pharmacies for personal use
2. Citizens may grow their own
3. The legislation was passed despite the fact that the majority of voters opposed it. Think about that.
**Edit -- legislation has passed in the House, hasn't gone to the Senate yet. Sorry. rk
Highlights:
1. Uruguayan citizens may purchase up to 40 grams monthly from licensed pharmacies for personal use
2. Citizens may grow their own
3. The legislation was passed despite the fact that the majority of voters opposed it. Think about that.
**Edit -- legislation has passed in the House, hasn't gone to the Senate yet. Sorry. rk
Last edited by a moderator:
They had some ####### Chief of Police from the 'burbs on WGN talking about how the cops were all against it. Not one single follow up question on whether they were also against other prescription pain killers.
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
Sanjay Gupta makes a big flip/flop, in a good way, on the issue. On the front page of CNN right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html?c=homepage-t
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html?c=homepage-t
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Police chiefs don't want to be losing the ability to seize all of that guilty property.
:stating the obvious:
Sand
Footballguy
Now you know that this is going mainstream - DC is going to mandate that dispensaries hold back 2% to subsidize pot access for poor patients.
Buckfast 1
Footballguy
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado released a statement today regarding federal marijuana enforcement in Colorado.
This is perhaps the biggest news on federal marijuana policy in our lifetimes.
It sounds like the feds will take a hands off approach towards local recreational marijuana businesses that are in compliance with state law and regulations.
This is perhaps the biggest news on federal marijuana policy in our lifetimes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
Huge step. Took too long, but don't it always?
When will they be handing out bags of Doritos.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yup, great news. Really feels like we're finally moving in the right direction on pot.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Looks like this isn't just for Colorado and Washington -- the feds are saying they're butting out of all the states where medical marijuana is legal.
General Malaise
Footballguy
This wouldn't have happened under GW Bush. So YEAH Obama!!!!
roadkill1292
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
What's the legal status in MD?Looks like this isn't just for Colorado and Washington -- the feds are saying they're butting out of all the states where medical marijuana is legal.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
Even more than those states who have already legalized in some form, I have to think this speeds it up for the states that were worried about going there. Dominoes are falling faster and faster.
Holder just went from "horrid" to "a tad better than awful" on the Uruk-scale of AGs.
Holder just went from "horrid" to "a tad better than awful" on the Uruk-scale of AGs.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Other encouraging news.... The Justice Department has decided not to challenge state laws in Colorado and Washington that allow recreational marijuana use.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579043023597697440.html?KEYWORDS=marijuana
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579043023597697440.html?KEYWORDS=marijuana
Similar threads
