Push to sell marijuana in Oregon

18 posts / 0 new

PORTLAND, Ore. – A new push to sell marijuana in stores kicked off in Oregon Monday.

If supporters can get the initiative on the ballot and approved by voters, it would allow any adult over 21 to buy pot at a state licensed store or grow it in Oregon.

Supporters of the idea say it would generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the state each year.

I think this is a great idea myself but I wondered what others thought about it. Especially Capital1 since this is his state.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/118824839.html

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Comments

I wrote this to Capital1 earlier:

Hey man,

Your city needs money.

I'll work free, and grow you the best medical cannabis anyone has smoked since 1974, bring in 3 million dollars in profit the first year, and the little hamlet you preside over will be saved.

All I need is a place to live, and grow. (pun intended)

Let's make a deal.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Especially Capital1 since this is his state.

Not My state, I just live here.

My thoughts, ultimately, I don't care one way or the other.

If asked during my candidates forum. "Did you inhale?" Yes I did. Long and Hard and Often. 20 years ago..

But this is Oregon, and I do so love democracy. It would not be the first time Oregon has rebuffed federal laws, in our often voted on Right to Die issue. But marijuana is still a federally controlled substance. So Even if it did pass, 50/50 chance. You would still have to come to terms with the Feds. If it’s anything like the Right to die, IF it passes, We’ll have vote on it at least 1 more time.

It has failed multiple times in the past...

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote anonymous green:

I wrote this to Capital1 earlier:

Hey man,

Your city needs money.

I'll work free, and grow you the best medical cannabis anyone has smoked since 1974, bring in 3 million dollars in profit the first year, and the little hamlet you preside over will be saved.

All I need is a place to live, and grow. (pun intended)

Let's make a deal.


Well... since I've outed...

Fairview already has the 1 big idea that I am personally working on.

http://ussranger.org/

Carrier on the Columbia: USS Ranger's future in Fairview

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am

The Ranger story seems pretty cool. I got to see some older navy vessels last time I was in Boston and the place was packed. It should do pretty well out there. Good luck and maybe the next time I head to Idaho I'll pop on over and check it out.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

That is a big idea for sure, but have you explored the environmental hazards that exist in these decommisioned ships?

The plan won't work, and the ship won't even fit under the railroad bridge blocking its egress.

Don't get sucked into this Capital1, or you'll disappear with the money that gets sucked into it as well.

Let me grow weed on the site. No environmenal damage if done right, low start-up costs, guaranteed profits.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

A strong local Sheriff, DA and city attorney can hold off a horde of federal pinkertons.

The science behind cannabis prohibition is an absolute, racist lie.

Don't throw out the golden goose and pollute the bathwater with a poisoned aircraft carrier.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

You're dreaming if you think the locals can hold off the Feds. See CA.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote anonymous green:

That is a big idea for sure, but have you explored the environmental hazards that exist in these decommisioned ships?

They are in thier phase III application now. Which includes an enviromental impact study.

The plan won't work, and the ship won't even fit under the railroad bridge blocking its egress.

A problem, Not an insurmountable problem.

Don't get sucked into this Capital1, or you'll disappear with the money that gets sucked into it as well

Hasn't cost us a dime yet. We don't get involved until AFTER. Bridge and Phase III issues are dealt with.

Let me grow weed on the site. No environmenal damage if done right, low start-up costs, guaranteed profits.

Make it legal and I'll take it to council.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote anonymous green:

A strong local Sheriff, DA and city attorney can hold off a horde of federal pinkertons.

The science behind cannabis prohibition is an absolute, racist lie.

Don't throw out the golden goose and pollute the bathwater with a poisoned aircraft carrier.

Oregon is already on the top 10 pot growning states in the country.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote Capital1:

[quote=anonymous green]

Make it legal and I'll take it to council.

hey man, you are the government, you make it legal!

Or give me a city attorney and I'll devastate the federal case against it in court.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote DynoDon:

You're dreaming if you think the locals can hold off the Feds. See CA.

I've seen California, and the cannabis industry from the inside. The medical cannabis bait-car was parked on its streets and then the doors locked and the cops and code enforcers rushed in.

I've been holding off the feds from me, personally, the entire time.

The science is a lie. The laws are anti-competitive garbage designed to get more of the left off the voting rolls. The feds case won't stand up in court, and with a defendant like me, who will be on an immediate hunger strike if they are ever foolish enough to arrest me, or rule against the truth in court, they don't stand a chance.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

You have to understand why the powers that be will never legalize marijuana. Without marijuana being illegal-there is no drug war. There would only be a drug skirmish. Without MJ, drug use numbers drop from the tens of millions to the thousands. Govt, drug testing companies, DARE, DEA, etc could never justify spending billions to fight only meth, heroin and cocaine. What would happen to all those police auctions of confiscated property? Too much job security on the line I'm afraid.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Hey Man,

That's a big part of my case. That they're making a federal case out of it.

The drug war is a house of cards designed so that Nixon's spies could operate under a legal framework.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

I've been watching the drug war since Nixon. Let me add that the CA growers are against legalization to keep their profits higher. Sorry dude-too many powerful entities are tied to marijuana criminalization to let it become fully legal. Only the end user cares and benefits.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Here's another big reason it will never be legalized. You can kill someone and they don't take your house or car.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/law-368149-government-federal.html

By STEVEN GREENHUT / For the Register

"SACRAMENTO – Few groups of "sinners" are singled out in biblical accounts more than "tax collectors," who were not merely state agents collecting revenue that taxpayers rightfully owed to the government. They were the source of particular loathing because they were extortionists, who profited personally by shaking down as much money as possible from citizens.

The Gospel accounts provide an early lesson in the dangers of marrying the profit motive with governmental power. The possibility for abuse is great. Yet, throughout the United States, government agencies increasingly rely on "civil forfeiture" to bolster their strained budgets. The more assets these modern-day tax collectors seize, the more money they have for new equipment and other things.

If one peruses court documents, one will find lawsuits with names such as "The People v. One 1999 Buick." In criminal proceedings, the government must prove wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt before gaining the power to incarcerate an accused person. But local governments realize that, under civil forfeiture laws, they can seize houses, cars and cash based on a low standard of evidence.

POLITICAL CARTOONS:

60 cartoons on Harry Reid, dirty politics and the economy

If, for instance, your neighbor borrowed your green Buick and was driving it when he sold some marijuana to an undercover agent, the law enforcement agency can seize the car. The owner might not have done anything wrong, but the car was, indeed, used in the commission of a crime.

Activists point to instances where the government has become more creative in pursuing assets – homes, cars, bank accounts – based on minor violations of the ever-expanding criminal code. One organization points to the case where the government tried to seize the tractor of a farmer accused of running over an endangered rat. As the number of regulatory crimes grows, the cases in which the government can seize assets grows along with it.

Columnist George Will wrote this year of a case in Massachusetts where law enforcement was attempting to confiscate a family's motel because of allegations that some visitors there dealt drugs from their rooms. "The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize it, sell it for perhaps $1.5 million and give up to 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department, whose budget is just $5.5 million. The [owners] have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime."

As Will notes, police have an incentive to exaggerate allegations of criminal activity given their financial incentive for taking the property. Massachusetts, he reported, has more stringent civil-forfeiture standards than federal law, so the town's police department was, as Will put it, "conniving with the federal government" to use federal standards, instead. In essence, the city's police are violating state law so they can more easily grab the motel.

A similar situation exists in California. Local police agencies don't like that our state allows them to keep only 65 percent of the proceeds from their forfeitures and imposes additional hurdles beyond federal law.

"Through a federal program called 'equitable sharing,' however, California police are evading strong state law and turning property over to the federal government for forfeiture," explains the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that defends property owners.

"Federal law has lower standards for forfeiting property and provides a larger share of proceeds to the police – as much as 80 percent. Due to this incentive to circumvent stricter state law in favor of more profitable federal law, from 2002-09, forfeitures in California under federal law outpaced those under state law by about two to one."

That statement from the IJ was issued in support of Assembly Bill 639, sponsored by Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton. The bill, which passed the Assembly but is essentially dead in the Senate this year, intends to close the loophole that encourages state and local agencies to bypass state forfeiture law.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office complained that the bill's "only purpose is to make it impossible for state/local law enforcement agencies [to use] federal asset-forfeiture procedures."

Other law enforcement groups, including the California District Attorneys Association, likewise complained about the burden the law would place on government agencies.

But Americans should be more concerned by laws that place an unfair burden on the rights of citizens than on burdens placed on government agencies. We should all be concerned that district attorneys – who are, by law, supposed to pursue justice first and foremost – are perpetrating abuses of property rights so that they can fill their coffers with money that comes primarily from people who have not been convicted of any crime.

Norby's proposed law is modest – it requires a court order before agencies can transfer forfeiture cases to the federal government. It insists that such cases involve true violations of federal law, such as interstate commerce. It doesn't ban the use of civil forfeiture, but requires California agencies to follow California law. If anything, far broader reforms are needed so that no government can use shoddy standards to take private property to supplement their budgets.

There is something terribly disturbing about this "policing for profit" trend, especially in our current world, where the number of laws keeps proliferating. We've all become accustomed to police increasing their ticket-writing to backfill their budgets, but asset forfeiture takes the profiteering to a new and disturbing level. Agencies know that it's so costly for people to fight their forfeiture proceedings that many victims simply cede the property without a fight. That's wrong.

Unfortunately, California's legislators are far more concerned about funding the state's enormous government than they are about protecting the rights of Californians. In the Gospels, Jesus urged tax collectors to collect no more than authorized. In California, it's going to take far more than an admonition to get officials to follow state law."

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

Just as they did in California a few years ago, you can be sure the for-profit prison industry in the US will be sending citizens united bucks to fight this initiative in Oregon. They feel threatened with the potential loss of future "customers" if these marijuana decriminalization or legalization efforts succeed and spread to other cities or states.

Earlier this summer, Chicago joined the ranks of American cities that have decided to end the prohibition of marijuana as a cost saving measure. This Oregon bill goes even further than the Chicago change.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/06/chicago-city-council-votes-43-2-decriminalize-small-amounts-pot

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

It's good to see they are studying it, voluntarily.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system