Measure 2: Marijuana Legalization

[SDMF]

It’s hard to accept that a plant with no side effects is illegal

And that's exactly where the "Pro MJ" crowd loses folks who haven't made up their mind every time.

Plain and simple, if the benefits outweighed the risks AND the will for legalization was as great as the "Pro" crowd would lead anyone who'll listen to believe, then the growers and distributers would get together and fund the clinical studies to prove their claims.

Right now the efficacy/benefits claims rank right up there with the "Shake Weight" and other late-night infomercials in trustworthiness.

 

[NPO_Aaron]

And that's exactly where the "Pro MJ" crowd loses folks who haven't made up their mind every time.

Plain and simple, if the benefits outweighed the risks AND the will for legalization was as great as the "Pro" crowd would lead anyone who'll listen to believe, then the growers and distributers would get together and fund the clinical studies to prove their claims.

Right now the efficacy/benefits claims rank right up there with the "Shake Weight" and other late-night infomercials in trustworthiness.

If that’s the case, why are doctors who are prescribing it for medical use not having their licenses revoked for prescribing the equivalent of a shake weight? The efficacy isn’t what’s up for debate anymore, it’s weather adults should be able to make the decision to utilize or not utilize it for themselves.

As for studies and research, it’s out there, It just takes some effort to research it and judge it’s validity for yourself. Fun fact about a lot of medical studies, they are funded by companies who stand to benefit from their findings. Look up how coke funded a research facility in the university of Colorado in order to downplay the negative effects of too much sugar. Cannabis growers and distributors will never have the funds necessary to fight the opposition of the large pharmaceutical companies who are in direct competition with it. Science is big business baby.

 

[SDMF]

If that’s the case, why are doctors who are prescribing it for medical use not having their licenses revoked for prescribing the equivalent of a shake weight? The efficacy isn’t what’s up for debate anymore, it’s weather adults should be able to make the decision to utilize or not utilize it for themselves.

As for studies and research, it’s out there, It just takes some effort to research it and judge it’s validity for yourself. Fun fact about a lot of medical studies, they are funded by companies who stand to benefit from their findings. Look up how coke funded a research facility in the university of Colorado in order to downplay the negative effects of too much sugar. Cannabis growers and distributors will never have the funds necessary to fight the opposition of the large pharmaceutical companies who are in direct competition with it. Science is big business baby.

The efficacy IS up for debate, especially by folks who actually understand and are able to dissect how efficacy is determined.

Double-blinded, randomized, multi-center, placebo controlled studies. You'll need an "N" above 1K and a CI of 95% or higher.

The problem is that you can't get the "Pro's" to get together to fund the above for 1-2 slam-dunk indications. So instead you get:

"This product is not intended to treat or cure any disease."

That's currently the level "research/studies" in MJ-land.

I'm of the mind that since the vast majority of clinical studies for medication are performed at University aligned health systems, growers/distributers would easily recruit 10K + college students to volunteer to be part of the studies, gratis. The problem with doing the real work, is that you have to then publish the real results.

 

[DakotaGreg]

No victim, no crime.
End all prohibitions. Murder and theft can still be illegal.

 

[Slappy]

And that's exactly where the "Pro MJ" crowd loses folks who haven't made up their mind every time.

Plain and simple, if the benefits outweighed the risks AND the will for legalization was as great as the "Pro" crowd would lead anyone who'll listen to believe, then the growers and distributers would get together and fund the clinical studies to prove their claims.

Right now the efficacy/benefits claims rank right up there with the "Shake Weight" and other late-night infomercials in trustworthiness.

Crimina

The efficacy IS up for debate, especially by folks who actually understand and are able to dissect how efficacy is determined.

Double-blinded, randomized, multi-center, placebo controlled studies. You'll need an "N" above 1K and a CI of 95% or higher.

The problem is that you can't get the "Pro's" to get together to fund the above for 1-2 slam-dunk indications. So instead you get:

"This product is not intended to treat or cure any disease."

That's currently the level "research/studies" in MJ-land.

I'm of the mind that since the vast majority of clinical studies for medication are performed at University aligned health systems, growers/distributers would easily recruit 10K + college students to volunteer to be part of the studies, gratis. The problem with doing the real work, is that you have to then publish the real results.

It's also important to acknowledge that this type of research is illegal except in very limited circumstances, so it's disingenuous to claim that the research doesn't exist when the illegal status is the most significant factor in that.

Dealing with anything cannabis related remains problematic even in legal states since it remains against federal law. For example, there are major issues with banks handling cannabis money.

Big pharma also has a vested interest in making sure a product like this is not available, and anyone who thinks otherwise after watching the opiod epidemic and the COVID pandemic and COVID drug failures is ignorant.

 

[Sluggo]

Here’s what you legalize everything folks are missing. There is no personal responsibility anymore and the libs like to take from the successful (hard working, disciplined) and give to the unsuccessful. So we can’t just let Jimmy crawl inside a bottle or walk around stoned his whole life and suffer for it, others have to pay for his housing, meals, cell phone, electricity, etc.

 

[espringers]

Well I'm a firm "yes". But, I am a bit concerned just based on this poll. Last time the yays were leasing the nays approximately 6 to 4 on this site I think and it lost 6 to 4. The measure is written much better this time and the gap has closed. Strange.

 

[espringers]

Also, just throwing this out there for future polls... don't throw in these "none of the above" or kitchen sink type options. They serve no purpose other than to skew results. If folks wanna pick an option, they can pick a viable option or just not participate. My 2 cents.

 

[NG3067]

I’m a firm no for recreational, but a yes for medical, and agree it should be more accessible(medical). If you want North Dakota to become like some of those shit hole states, pass the same types of laws and we will get there bit by bit.

 

[leier12]

I am 100% for medical, and leaning more towards the yes for rec use. I do have concerns about rec use though and its directly at public safety on the roads. Obviously you can smell and do breathalyzer tests to test if someone is drunk and driving, but how do you test if someone is under the influence of MJ and driving? I was firm on the stance until there is an accurate way to determine this is would be against rec MJ. Does anyone here know if there is quick tests to accurately determine in someone is high, similar to alcohol

 

[Twitch]

I’m a firm no for recreational, but a yes for medical, and agree it should be more accessible(medical). If you want North Dakota to become like some of those shit hole states, pass the same types of laws and we will get there bit by bit.

There are arguments for and against that make sense but that one doesn’t hold a lot of water for me. If you think homeless hippies are going to flock to a state with conservative values that’s -20 below zero like 6 months a year to smoke weed in like the 30th state to legalize it when they can go to places like Oregon, Cali, or Colorado I would think that’s a touch on the silly side

 

[risingsun]

If said person is eating chips or munchies while driving said person was/ is certainly high. AKA DWTM Driving with the munchies!!!

 

[Freedom]

Just got done voting, don't see it passing with the biased fiscal note

 

[DakotaGreg]

Even if there was no health benefits, Id still want to end prohibition due to the principles of negative rights and self ownership. Thats the moral argument side of liberty.
"Vices are not crimes." - Lysander Spooner

The other side of the coin is economic liberty. Ending the state monopoly on ownership of substances which creates violent enforcement (high taxation to pay for such enforcement), militarization of police, artificially high street prices, shady products, and cartels. Versus letting the market compete for consumers with transparency, safety, competitive prices, treatment, and research.

 

[svnmag]

 

[701FishSlayer]

60/40 it goes down in smoke

 

[Davey Crockett]

The nights still young , it could still go up in smoke 60/40 .

 

[Traxion]

SD passed it a few years ago but our governor and legislature found a way around the will of the people to put it on the ballot again. It did not pass this time. I’m not a fan of mj but this process has made me lose faith in the government.

How’d ND turn out?

 

[Rowdie]

Went down 45 to 55

 

[Lapper]

Defeated 55-45%