Marijuana Update: Petition nets 110,000. KATU goes undercover.

Three news items on changes and challenegs to Oregon’s Medical Marijuana Laws.

1. Petition nets 110,000
The Coalition for Patients’ Rights turned in signatures this week to create statewide system of medical marijuana dispensaries and it lays out a regulatory path for producers. They turned in 110,000 early signatures and needed 83,000 to qualify. The measure allows the State’s Human Services Dept. to examine the effects of medical marijuana. You can read more on the organiztion here from the Patient’s Rights Coalition and more on the measure here.

2. KATU-2 goes undercover
Below is a video of an undercover reporter applying for medical marijuana

3. Cannibus Cafe closes
At the same time this week it was announced that Portland’s nationally headlined Cannabis Cafe, will close after only being opened for 6 months. Apparently there is conflict among a local marijuana rights group and the landlord. The Cafe plans to re-open in a new location in a few month. Read more here.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 08:21 | Posted in Measure 37 | 16 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    One will expect to hear the imminent cry out there about concerns of a State unilaterally taking on the responsibilities of federal law. I am sure there will be great concerns about abuse under the law, say people getting a medical marijuana card who really have no medical need.

    Curious we don’t hear the same outcry that we hear about the AZ law.

    • valley p

      “I am sure there will be great concerns about abuse under the law, say people getting a medical marijuana card who really have no medical need.”

      Yes, I am greatly concerned that someone might smoke pot just to get high as opposed to drinking a few martinis or guzzling a 6 pack. It keeps me up at night just thinking about it.

      “Curious we don’t hear the same outcry that we hear about the AZ law.”

      Maybe because a cop pulling someone over for looking Hispanic is a bit different than some dude smoking pot in his own home?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Maybe because a cop pulling someone over for looking Hispanic

        And if you are making analogies like this we know you have not read the bill. If you did you would know why if this happened it would be the biggest pay day in that persons life.

        Will you ever read it? Nope, that would require critically thinking about what your leaders have told you. Better to just go with the party line and keep the mind turned off.

        • valley p

          Right. I forgot the part about: “You failed to signal at a turn 3 miles ago amigo. Please show me your papers.”

          Now it is perfectly legal right?

          • Anonymous

            Are you implying that an officer of the law might misuse and abuse his powers? Outrageous!!!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            No, he is implying that citizens never win civil cases brought against a municipality. Obviously an idiotic comment on the face of it but even more so if one has read the AZ law which again, Dean has not as evidenced by the comment.

            This is why the example,while ridiculous, is a good illustration of predictive behaviour. Dean hasn’t read the law and wont read it. Obviously that is clear to anyone who actually has read the law.

            Do we hear about citizens winning civil cases because of police departments abusing power with any regularity?

            Reasonably often – both federally (we all remember the Reno justice department) and locally (Eugene virtually has a cashiers window where people go and collect)

            Is there reason to suspect that citizens would win cases against AZ with respect to the new law given all the attention focused on it and an army pro bono lawyers lwaiting in the wings to make their bones?

            Yep.

            Would Dean deny the objective reality of that?

            Obviously.

            It an opportunity to score political points, and in that regard Dean is very steadfast. If it is the party line, don’t question, obey.

          • valley p

            Rupert, you can be forgiven on this issue because you apparently were born on third base and think you hit a triple. I doubt you have ever been harassed by a cop in your life. Having grown up with a summer home on a beach, hobnobbing with celebraties, it just would not occur to you that less fortunate people have different experiences with law enforcement.

            Sure, some cop will inevitably overstep with the wrong Hispanic, maybe one who is a lawyer or has a dad who is one, and there will be a suit and some public money will be paid out. What that has to do with the question at hand is beyond me. Does it mean people won’t be harassed? No. Does it mean this law will be applied equally regardless of skin color? No. Certain people by virtue of their ethnicity are going to be targeted by cops. Some will actually be illegally in the country. Many or most will be citizens. The clear intent of this law is to go after Hispanics.

          • Harry

            Hey Dean-wit (aka Dem wit, thank you Bob Clark!), did you read the bill?

            Janet did not, nor did the AG. But Harvard Law man Obama did, right before he went into the caucus of 41 senators, and got his head handed to him. Read the bill, you dimwit, I mean dean wit!! Remove your ignorance and gain some knowledge! Read the bill, oh ignorant one, because now that your messiah has read the bill, you must also imitate him.

            Oh and read the articles about how your messiah needs to take a Valium pill, since he is so thin-skinned he could not even have a brief 90 minute session with 41 people (90% who have more experience than he does) without losing his cool, and getting testy.

            Obama-messiah, yes, how is the messiah’s approval ratings now?

          • valley p

            No Harry, I have not read the bill. I have read about the bill. It tells cops to check on the immigration status of people they have contact with if they have a reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.

            So, which ethnic group do you think will be subject to that reasonable suspicion? Norwegians? And what means will cops use to make contact? Experience says, whatever way they choose.

            And by the way, you need to work on your insults. Is that really the best you can do?

  • Jack

    Medical Pot– Bull sh*************************. They just want to get HIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. It’s always been about Legalizing the Gateway drug. Put on those Grateful Dead Records.

    • Dan

      Ridiculous….it is that very statement that continues the useless and costly war on drugs.

      Good job for showing your ignorance.

      gateway drug….oh my god. Please get “reefer madness” out of your youtube line up.

  • Bob Clark

    This might be a good thing for fiscal conservatives. If the number of stoners grows, then there’s a good chance more Dem wits will have a harder time filling out their ballots and getting them to the proper box. It’s pretty certain these stoners would tend to be in the Dem wit class of voters.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Well, drug use does promote apathy so you might be right.

      Frankly that would be a really good thing these days. The country can’t take a whole lot more of the dopey ideas we see coming out of the Democratic party these days. Its going to take a generation to pay off the mistake that is the Obama tab as it is.

  • none

    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    https://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

    LEAP Statement of Principles

    1. LEAP does not promote the use of drugs and is deeply concerned about the extent of drug abuse worldwide. LEAP is also deeply concerned with the destructive impact of violent drug gangs and cartels everywhere in the world. Neither problem is remedied by the current policy of drug prohibition. Indeed, drug abuse and gang violence flourish in a drug prohibition environment, just as they did during alcohol prohibition.

    2. LEAP advocates the elimination of the policy of drug prohibition and the inauguration of a replacement policy of drug control and regulation, including regulations imposing appropriate age restrictions on drug sales and use, just as there are age restrictions on marriage, signing contracts, alcohol, tobacco, operating vehicles and heavy equipment, voting and so on.

    3. LEAP believes that adult drug abuse is a health problem and not a law-enforcement matter, provided that the abuse does not harm other people or the property of others.

    4. LEAP believes that adult drug use, however dangerous, is a matter of personal freedom as long as it does not impinge on the freedom or safety of others.

  • Jack

    Dan—You SELF CENTERED Ignorent ***** HIPPIE

  • Pingback: van cleef and arpels inspired jewelry()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)