M3, yea or nay?

[JayKay]

Yes and when a cancer patient can’t eat give them some edibles that will make them hungry or feel better without the side effects of the pills.

When my aunt died of bowel cancer last week (funeral is tomorrow), I don't think inducing the munchies would have done much for her.

But now we're talking about medical use again. I have always been for allowing it for medical purposes.

 

[Enslow]

The problem with the medical only marijuana approach is people will cheat the system just like opioids. There really aren’t any easy answers haha.

 

[Glass]

Sigh, I oughta know better than to re-join this argument.

No, I have not been in any marijuana shops. As a recovering alcoholic, I have no desire to visit such a place - nice and clean - or otherwise.

I'm not saying "nobody should be able to go, because I don't go..". I'm just imagining me in such a place, and someone could yell "hypocrite" and I'd be like "umm, I'm doing research".

All of a sudden Bill Clinton and Jim Baker make perfect sense.

Switching gears (and most importantly), my stance remains the same. I can't see any benefit to any person - at least not any logical benefit in MY mind - to any person regarding using marijuana recreationally. I fully recognize that many people, on this site and elsewhere, WANT to use recreationally, but I don't see their desire as a reason for me to vote to change an existing law.

Between you and I and a fence-post, if it were legal, and the topic was making it illegal, I'd probably have to say I don't want changes.

In my mind, the fact that there is an opioid epidemic is no reason to make this (currently illegal) drug legal. That's like saying we need to raise the speed limits, because there aren't enough parking ramps. I get however, that you're saying we use the resources we currently use for policing pot, on a more troublesome epidemic. I get that you're thinking "with all the money we save by letting people smoke, we can go after the more dangerous drugs".

Personally, I think that that's BS.

For those who think that by letting people legally smoke pot, we are going to have LESS drugs around..? I don't buy that for a minute either. In my opinion, and experience, pot is just one of many gateway drugs. You can roll your eyes and call me dumb, but I have been around. Maybe some people smoke pot and never do anything else. Maybe some can still function and be a productive member of society yada yada yada. But a lot can't and don't. For a lot of people, smoking pot is one step in a long series of steps, leading into addiction and piss-poor decision making, loss of self, loss of family, loss of freedom.

People say pot is harmless. WAY different than those hard drugs. Nobody goes from pot to meth or coke or heroin right? All those people on those bad drugs, they all wanted to be on those bad drugs. They did that on purpose, right? You ask them when they're on the other side, in recovery (if they're still alive) and they'll tell you that they never meant to be in the gutter. They never meant to lose their family and job. Again, I'm not saying that all pot smokers end up like this. But some do.

I also want to be clear, that my rhetoric and language are not coming from some anti-pot brochure, or from listening to Bob Wefald. These are my first-hand observations.

Jaykay

I respect your opinion. I am obviously a firm yes on this and have seen the benefits of it. I guess vote with your heart. I was also opposed to any form of pot use, from when I was young though adult hood. Basically I had a very poor opinion of anyone who did it up until a few years ago. Funny how life change can affect your views on things. My mom had stage 4 glioblastoma (aka a death sentence), she did chemo, and radiation, and surgery, all failed. we talked about getting her some weed off the streets to try as a last ditch effort but she was tired at that point. Now there is some research that suggest RSO oil and specific strains really have positive affects on glio patients. maybe if i would have tried she would be here, but probably not. A year or so after she passed is the first time I gave it a try for my chronic pain, changed my life. I did a 180 on my views, all based on circumstance. I dont agree with everything in the bill, and I guess if we have to wait another 2 years for a more clear one I will, but I would really like to have some relief and stop relying on booze. I was on all the opioid BS for years, I could go to the doc today and they would load me up on pain pills and muscle relaxers if i wanted to.....thats how bad my pain is, but I refuse to do that to my family and myself.

Interesting article on opioids and pot.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...use-lower-in-states-that-eased-marijuana-laws

 

[Enslow]

When my aunt died of bowel cancer last week (funeral is tomorrow), I don't think inducing the munchies would have done much for her.

But now we're talking about medical use again. I have always been for allowing it for medical purposes.

How do you know that? I went through hospice with my mother and father for cancer. Hospice opioids worked on my dads cancer pain but my mothers ovarian cancer she suffered. She asked the doctors for medical marijuana at one of her oncology appts because it was now legal. She was told that marijuana was dangerous and then given a script of hydrocodon.

- - - Updated - - -

I am sorry to hear about your aunt though. Bowel cancer that’s terrible.

 

[SDMF]

Another serious question regarding M3 passage that I honestly just haven't thought about:

"How will growers protect their crop?"

How does a person go about keeping people out of a quarter section of MJ?

 

[Bfishn]

Yes so basically everyone is for medical but our leaders will basically never let it happen, so what are the the voters who all supported medical overwhelmingly supposed to do? Are we supposed to continue to let our leaders do what ever the hell they want even after it has been overwhelmingly approved by voters? Some times you have to burn this bitch to the ground to get progress, i feel like this is one of those times.

Notice how they are trying to do the same shit as when they thought the property tax measure was going to pass. All of the sudden they are trying to make it look like they are actually going to do something with Medical in hopes we will "trust" them and not pass recreational. Fuck that, fool me once you old bastards!

 

[Glass]

I should state that my medical issues are not covered under the ND medical weed. Mainly cause they have no clue what is wrong with me. Im 34, have had pain since I was 13, have had every test conducted on me, every scan, lost pints of my blood for tests, seen ever specialist I can see from here to the west coast and still NOTHING.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Can someone explain this to me? I've been told a number of times by legislators that the medical marijuana measure, as passed, would have been impossible to put into law because it was so poorly written and contradicted itself in a number of places.

While I don't always agree with these legislators, I do have a lot of respect for them.

There were small changes that needed to be made to the medical law. Some technicalities I think like not legalizing paraphernalia or something. Legislature used this excuse to completely gut the previous measure. Citizens measure required dispensaries to be non profit and locally owned, also allowed multiple dispensaries in a geographic area, which would provide competition and a variety of products for patients. They intentionally created a monopoly in each city in ND and also monopolized growing, allowing only 2 growers in the whole state. Further more it allowed/encouraged out of state pot businesses to become involved and completely eliminated the option for patients to grow their own meds, likely the only way many users would be able to afford cannabis. They jacked entry prices into the business so high, only an elite few could even consider producing or selling product. They cut back significantly on who will be allowed to use medical, qualifying conditions.

There are literally THOUSANDS of strains of cannabis and they affect different people differently. One of the cornerstones for any medical or legalization scheme is allowing people to grow their own meds or product, this would keep retailers honest and not allow them to charge exorbitant prices. This was removed of course, no patient or caregiver can produce cannabis to treat their own condition any longer. This is a plant, one that takes some skill to grow, but not enough to justify paying 100's of dollars / oz....

 

[Whisky]

Another serious question regarding M3 passage that I honestly just haven't thought about:

"How will growers protect their crop?"

How does a person go about keeping people out of a quarter section of MJ?

It's grown in warehouses/greenhouses

- - - Updated - - -

There were small changes that needed to be made to the medical law. Some technicalities I think like not legalizing paraphernalia or something. Legislature used this excuse to completely gut the previous measure. Citizens measure required dispensaries to be non profit and locally owned, also allowed multiple dispensaries in a geographic area, which would provide competition and a variety of products for patients. They intentionally created a monopoly in each city in ND and also monopolized growing, allowing only 2 growers in the whole state. Further more it allowed/encouraged out of state pot businesses to become involved and completely eliminated the option for patients to grow their own meds, likely the only way many users would be able to afford cannabis. They jacked entry prices into the business so high, only an elite few could even consider producing or selling product. They cut back significantly on who will be allowed to use medical, qualifying conditions.

So if they did all of that before, why can't they do the same to m3 if it passes?

 

[Lycanthrope]

Another serious question regarding M3 passage that I honestly just haven't thought about:

"How will growers protect their crop?"

How does a person go about keeping people out of a quarter section of MJ?

How do farmers keep people out of their sweet corn patch, etc? When anyone can grow something, its value decreases substantially. Sure there will be rippers, but normal precautions should help most people. Some states require plants to be grown in a greenhouse, out of public sight, some require them to be locked up. Nothing is foolproof, but why risk getting busted for burglary and theft when all you really need to do is plant a seed?

- - - Updated - - -

It's grown in warehouses/greenhouses

- - - Updated - - -



So if they did all of that before, why can't they do the same to m3 if it passes?

Oh they CAN, but in this bill, to remove anything thats specifically granted they will need 2/3 vote and legislators know there was very little approval for what they did last time. To add basic changes like a tax, etc, all they need is 50%, so those kinds of changes arelikely, but gutting it would be VERY unpopular and most of them realize this.

 

[Achucker]

Question. How is voting yes on m3 sticking it to the legislature? It sounds to me that you are saying screw you to the population that agrees with the medical but disagree with the recreational group. Isn't there a less destructive way to get a more favorable result for medical mj?

 

[Bfishn]

Question. How is voting yes on m3 sticking it to the legislature? It sounds to me that you are saying screw you to the population that agrees with the medical but disagree with the recreational group. Isn't there a less destructive way to get a more favorable result for medical mj?

Its forcing their hand and showing them that we are tired of being lied to and dicked around, What do you suggest?

I know a fair amount of people including my own parents who have never smoked weed and are voting yes for this very reason.

 

[Davey Crockett]

Question. How is voting yes on m3 sticking it to the legislature? It sounds to me that you are saying screw you to the population that agrees with the medical but disagree with the recreational group. Isn't there a less destructive way to get a more favorable result for medical mj?

At this point I honestly don't think so. At least not for a long time given the past experiences.

 

[LBrandt]

I can't believe the vote is dead even.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I can't belive the vote is dead even.

Im surprised also given the results of the old MJ poll. I think it just goes to show that the anti groups throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars and many lies at this is having an effect, unfortunately...

 

[Achucker]

Its forcing their hand and showing them that we are tired of being lied to and dicked around, What do you suggest?

I know a fair amount of people including my own parents who have never smoked weed and are voting yes for this very reason.

Wouldn't voting out the guys who are not forward thinking on this issue out and voting in people who will take the medical seriously get things to change. I know the down fall to this would be we have to wait for them to do something and they only meet every two years. I thought that was how democracy works. Not citizens vs government. We elected them. I think the real problem is to have a legislative session more than every other year. This isn't the age of telegraph and snail mail. We get things done and we need a legislature to meet annually to get things done.

 

[LBrandt]

The non voters are waiting to see who throws the most cash.

 

[Davey Crockett]

I can't belive the vote is dead even.

What I would like to see is another quick poll after this topic and poll have run their course and actually see if openly talking and debating an issue has any significant value one way or the other in the end or if it would be another tie. I know I have entered into a few discussions with a mindset and after looking at the issue from all angles have changed my mind.

 

[Muley14]

So if they did all of that before, why can't they do the same to m3 if it passes?

This is a little off topic but I feel this is one of the problems with the initiated measure process. The measures need to be well written (not like measure 3), thought out (not like measure 1), have thorough understanding of current laws (not like measure 2) and have clear intent and impact (not like measure 1).

There are complaints that the legislature just screws things up but now they are being asked to fix the next thing. How about some personal responsibility when posing these measures? Initiated measures can be very dangerous if done poorly.

 

[Davey Crockett]

Right, I can agree. So Medical weed and opioids are more intertwined..... Rec weed has nothing to do with it, IMO.

(Enter the argument about sticking it to the legislators with M3)

Ok, Here goes. If you are ok with dictatorship and being treated like a puppet on a string go for it, I won't jump on that bandwagon , Not now ~ not ever.