Prop 203 Arizona Medical Marijuana PASSES!!!

[Kregisen]

The closest race in Arizona since November 2nd, with Medical Marijuana bill losing by around 6,000 votes almost the entire time, has passed up the no votes by around 4,000, and apparently there are around 10,000 votes left to count.

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/11/12/Screen%20shot%202010-11-12%20at%207.50.23%20PM.png

It won!! I thought it was over days ago..

http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/13/arizonas-prop-203-appears-headed-for-victory-in-latest-counts/

This is a huge win in Arizona. I'm shocked.

[Inkblots]

Brick by brick, friends. We're slowly building up an edifice of liberty!

Thanks for the update: +rep

[Anti Federalist]

Awesome.

Great news!

[MyLibertyStuff]

Another victory!

[Humanae Libertas]

Arizona got it right, but CommieFornia can't get anything right.

[youngbuck]

This is good news. Hopefully it's one step closer to ending the war on drugs.

[libertybrewcity]

NICE! this is great news. I thought it was waayyy over a long time ago.

[Fredom101]

Arizona got it right, but CommieFornia can't get anything right.

Medical MJ is already legal in CA.

[squarepusher]

the MPP is aiming for 26 states for medical laws by 2012. This will obviously give a 50% lead and would be opening for Federal law changes

edit: currently with Arizona there are 15

[silentshout]

Great news!

[dannno]

Medical MJ is already legal in CA.

Yep, since 1996..

But it wasn't until 2004 when they started opening up clinics around the state dedicated to prescribing the herb. Then it EXPLODED and has almost and practically been legal for most adults who have almost any sort of desire and medical history (since cannabis treats nearly every medical condition or its side effects or the effects of drugs taken for said medical condition).

[james1906]

This is terrible. The people of Arizona hate children and love terrorism.

[AGRP]

I don't believe it. This has got to be a joke. Almost nothing this great ever happens.

[Tyr]

Yep, I was on the fence but this about does it. Goodbye s***hole Arizona, hello Utah!

[speciallyblend]

This is terrible. The people of Arizona hate children and love terrorism.

funny;)

[speciallyblend]

Yep, I was on the fence but this about does it. Goodbye s***hole Arizona, hello Utah!

stay the f out of colorado, so basically your saying you were brainwashed by 75 yrs of lies and must move to utah to save you from the evil marijuana!! get a life!! are you that clueless and ignorant of 5000 yrs of medicinal marijuana that you would ignore science! dam flatearthers!

[Tyr]

stay the f out of colorado, so basically your saying you were brainwashed by 75 yrs of lies and must move to utah to save you from the evil marijuana!! get a life!! are you that clueless and ignorant of 5000 yrs of medicinal marijuana that you would ignore science! dam flatearthers!

Umm.... What? I have a life, a very successful one at that. I am not brainwashed by anything(may want to look in the mirror on that one Jr, you're the one going off) nor am I moving somewhere to "save me" from weed. I am moving to escape the mentally deficient residents of this state, I am relocating because the state Government won't tell me I cannot refuse employment to potheads when I get my business built and I am relocating because really, this isn't a good place to raise children and it is only getting worse as witnessed by the passage of this moronic proposition.

If you don't like that I don't much care.

[Tyr]

stay the f out of colorado, so basically your saying you were brainwashed by 75 yrs of lies and must move to utah to save you from the evil marijuana!! get a life!! are you that clueless and ignorant of 5000 yrs of medicinal marijuana that you would ignore science! dam flatearthers!

Also left out in the above reply try actually reading a Proposition before going off on someone for not supporting it. Namely the progressive cost portion of it, millions of dollars despite this state being flat broke resulting in what, again? What happens when a state passes legislation and needs money to carry it out?

Once you're done with that read up on the business regulations involved. For example if I bust my ass, build up this successful company, decide to hire people now in addition to the other bull**** regulations I cannot refuse employment to someone who tests positive for THC as long as they possess a card. Two things on that....

1: If it's my business I should be able to refuse employment to whomever I choose. It's ironic so many Libertarians support this garbage bill despite it taking away that basic right as a business owner.

2: I'm sure it is news to the burnouts at NORML who drafted this crap, but in alot of employment fields your insurance rates are determined on several factors, one of which being a more affordable rate for a business who drug tests and makes serious effort to ensure their employers aren't on drugs that could impair their ability to operate vehicles, heavy equipment and dangerous machinery. As someone with experience in HR the costs of insuring someone on a drug, legal or not is extremely high. If you don't drug test it is extremely high.

Do the math. Cannot refuse to hire them, cannot terminate them, what's the result? Sky high insurance rates thus less money that I as an employer earned in my pocket in order to not discriminate and all that.

This bill is bunk. Wow great news, we can pay higher taxes to build dispensaries AND higher insurance rates to employ the users. For some reason i'm not excited about that.

[speciallyblend]

Umm.... What? I have a life, a very successful one at that. I am not brainwashed by anything(may want to look in the mirror on that one Jr, you're the one going off) nor am I moving somewhere to "save me" from weed. I am moving to escape the mentally deficient residents of this state, I am relocating because the state Government won't tell me I cannot refuse employment to potheads when I get my business built and I am relocating because really, this isn't a good place to raise children and it is only getting worse as witnessed by the passage of this moronic proposition.

If you don't like that I don't much care.

your still clueless ,my wife has to take 24 hr morphine and daily morphine and muscle relaxers and nerve pills yet you seem to be very brainwashed on marijuana! potheads are the ones that do go to work alcoholics are the ones that call in sick! the point is medical marijuana is very important and i wouldn't want you deciding what is best for my wife! I am glad medical marijuana is legal in Az ,it is safer then aspirin. you would seem good at making up a reason to fire someone so why are you complaining again! go take an aspirin ,it kills! you sound like a biggovgop republican! you obviously support government prohibition=big gov!! you cannot fire someone for marijuana is a cop out reason, the fact is there are mulitple reasons that you can fire someone that you yourself can make up legally!

[speciallyblend]

Also left out in the above reply try actually reading a Proposition before going off on someone for not supporting it. Namely the progressive cost portion of it, millions of dollars despite this state being flat broke resulting in what, again? What happens when a state passes legislation and needs money to carry it out?

Once you're done with that read up on the business regulations involved. For example if I bust my ass, build up this successful company, decide to hire people now in addition to the other bull**** regulations I cannot refuse employment to someone who tests positive for THC as long as they possess a card. Two things on that....

1: If it's my business I should be able to refuse employment to whomever I choose. It's ironic so many Libertarians support this garbage bill despite it taking away that basic right as a business owner.

2: I'm sure it is news to the burnouts at NORML who drafted this crap, but in alot of employment fields your insurance rates are determined on several factors, one of which being a more affordable rate for a business who drug tests and makes serious effort to ensure their employers aren't on drugs that could impair their ability to operate vehicles, heavy equipment and dangerous machinery. As someone with experience in HR the costs of insuring someone on a drug, legal or not is extremely high. If you don't drug test it is extremely high.

Do the math. Cannot refuse to hire them, cannot terminate them, what's the result? Sky high insurance rates thus less money that I as an employer earned in my pocket in order to not discriminate and all that.

This bill is bunk. Wow great news, we can pay higher taxes to build dispensaries AND higher insurance rates to employ the users. For some reason i'm not excited about that.

testing positive for thc doesn't mean your under the influence! are you for or against ending 75 yrs of lies on marijuana yes or no? you use terms that were used by the 75 yrs of lies!! nobody says potheads burnout, those are only from fake movies cheech and chong or talking points from a failed drug war!

[speciallyblend]

note most companies do not test unless there is an accident,since the cost to test and monitor your employees out ways the costs or savings you would get from the insurance companies ,many companies have stopped drug testing for cost savings!! example any ski resort company and many 500 companies have changed policy to test only at hire and if accident occurs on the clock! that protects your end!

[dannno]

Try, I agree with you philosophically. I would agree, let's say, that there shouldn't be a law that states that you cannot let go of employees simply for coming to work on time every day.. But why would you do that, if you have a good reason to fire them then do it for that! Sure, a boss should be able to say, "Look Bryan, you've been coming to work on time every day.. what's up with that? You're fired".. yes, they should have every right to do that, but the question is, why would they?

Why on earth would you fire somebody simply for testing positive for THC? Sure, you should be able to, but there are already lots of groups of people that get that type of protection.. the fact is all of those laws should be abolished, but it's not going to happen on group at a time. So as more 'groups' exist more will inherently be added to the system.

That's no reason to deny medical marijuana to patients who can better their lives from it, it's not worth it.

You want to throw people in wheelchairs in jail, put them in a friggin cage just so you can fire potheads JUST for being potheads, and not because, well, maybe those particular individuals who happen to use cannabis don't do a very good job according to your standards? Doesn't make any sense.


Not to mention, I would bet that you've been fed misinformation, I would bet that people who operate heavy equipment and drive for a living are excepted from that whole thing. They tried to push the same lies here in CA about Prop 19 and they were simply wrong. Go back and do some research, I'd be curious to see if they lied in AZ about the same thing.

[speciallyblend]

Umm.... What? I have a life, a very successful one at that. I am not brainwashed by anything(may want to look in the mirror on that one Jr, you're the one going off) nor am I moving somewhere to "save me" from weed. I am moving to escape the mentally deficient residents of this state, I am relocating because the state Government won't tell me I cannot refuse employment to potheads when I get my business built and I am relocating because really, this isn't a good place to raise children and it is only getting worse as witnessed by the passage of this moronic proposition.

If you don't like that I don't much care.


"mentally deficient residents of this state" and your moving to utah??? trys my best to contain my laughter:) and i am not even stoned! that is the capital of mentally deficent residents!

[heavenlyboy34]

We of the People's Republic of Arizona appreciate your kind sentiments. :) ;)

[speciallyblend]

We of the People's Republic of Arizona appreciate your kind sentiments. :) ;)

where in az are you?

[dannno]

Tyr, I also agree that the medical cannabis industry should be privatized and not funded by the state.. but look at Utah, they have State run Liquor stores!!

So you're moving from one area where cannabis will be run by the state, to an area where liquor sales are run by the state yet they still cage people for using cannabis as a medicine..

And I will also say that Utah having state run liquor stores is better than having a prohibition on liquor, so logic would follow that AZ having state run cannabis dispensaries is certainly better than prohibition as well.

[speciallyblend]

Try, I agree with you philosophically. I would agree, let's say, that there shouldn't be a law that states that you cannot let go of employees simply for coming to work on time every day.. But why would you do that, if you have a good reason to fire them then do it for that! Sure, a boss should be able to say, "Look Bryan, you've been coming to work on time every day.. what's up with that? You're fired".. yes, they should have every right to do that, but the question is, why would they?

Why on earth would you fire somebody simply for testing positive for THC? Sure, you should be able to, but there are already lots of groups of people that get that type of protection.. the fact is all of those laws should be abolished, but it's not going to happen on group at a time. So as more 'groups' exist more will inherently be added to the system.

That's no reason to deny medical marijuana to patients who can better their lives from it, it's not worth it.

You want to throw people in wheelchairs in jail, put them in a friggin cage just so you can fire potheads JUST for being potheads, and not because, well, maybe those particular individuals who happen to use cannabis don't do a very good job according to your standards? Doesn't make any sense.


Not to mention, I would bet that you've been fed misinformation, I would bet that people who operate heavy equipment and drive for a living are excepted from that whole thing. They tried to push the same lies here in CA about Prop 19 and they were simply wrong. Go back and do some research, I'd be curious to see if they lied in AZ about the same thing.

colorado is a right to work state,so they do not need a reason! seems people in az could approach this angle if things bother them that much! make it a seperate issue if it is that much of an issue for folks to move out of the state,but to be honest an employer can create a reason to fire you and be legal. the idea you cannot fire some because they smoke marijuaua is not really true. if you truly want to fire someone you will find another reason or just make one up that is legit!. You could fire them for punching in 1 minute late or taking a longer lunch. you can always fire someone for any reason you want to find and be legit!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

where in az are you?

North Phoenix, not too far from Scottsdale (about 10 miles or so from the Phoenix/Scottsdale border).

[Tyr]

Try, I agree with you philosophically. I would agree, let's say, that there shouldn't be a law that states that you cannot let go of employees simply for coming to work on time every day.. But why would you do that, if you have a good reason to fire them then do it for that! Sure, a boss should be able to say, "Look Bryan, you've been coming to work on time every day.. what's up with that? You're fired".. yes, they should have every right to do that, but the question is, why would they?

Why on earth would you fire somebody simply for testing positive for THC? Sure, you should be able to, but there are already lots of groups of people that get that type of protection.. the fact is all of those laws should be abolished, but it's not going to happen on group at a time. So as more 'groups' exist more will inherently be added to the system.

That's no reason to deny medical marijuana to patients who can better their lives from it, it's not worth it.

You want to throw people in wheelchairs in jail, put them in a friggin cage just so you can fire potheads JUST for being potheads, and not because, well, maybe those particular individuals who happen to use cannabis don't do a very good job according to your standards? Doesn't make any sense.


Not to mention, I would bet that you've been fed misinformation, I would bet that people who operate heavy equipment and drive for a living are excepted from that whole thing. They tried to push the same lies here in CA about Prop 19 and they were simply wrong. Go back and do some research, I'd be curious to see if they lied in AZ about the same thing.


First to "specially"blend: When you can string a coherent sentence together without the use of insults I will respond to you. If you cannot then go smoke your dope in the corner and go away.

Danno: As stated previously I used to work in HR at my former employer as a Project Manager/Field Superintendent. It has alot to do with as I stated, insurance rates. If you own and are operating heavy equipment, dangerous machinery and/or require a company vehicle to be used, despite the shortbus candidates proclamations you save money through drug testing.

In fact the way things are getting with liability insurance you have to do it. If you don't the rates are higher. If an employee injures someone, or themselves or causes damage while having a drug in their system the rates will sky rocket unless you have a procedure set up. That isn't some anti-dope propaganda, it is how things work. Now take into account this new legislation. Can't refuse employment to them, can't fire them which means discontinuing drug testing altogether OR risking something happening. You think the liability company cares that your employee has a card? Absolutely not. They care that they can now rape you in rate hikes as well as leave you holding the bag if anything does happen.

That said, as the saying goes besides that little fact of life as a business owner I should be allowed to set whatever standard I want. If I don't meant someone like the clown hurling insults towards me in this thread who cannot even speak coherently 1: I shouldn't have to and 2: The Government under no circumstances should force me. That is simply a matter of principle.

I however ask you Danno to please refrain from the hyperbole. I don't want to throw poor old people in wheelchairs nor terminal patients into prison "just so I can fire someone." I have no problem with cancer patients nor HIV patients, terminal patients ect having access to it. I have an issue with my taxes going up to pay for it so anyone with "chronic headaches" can go to their Homeopathic hippy "Doctor" and get a card. I have an issue with being told I have to accept users for employment giving them special treatment because they found a Doctor to prescribe them pot.

Let's be honest here Danno, someone with a SERIOUS debilitating disease isn't likely to be out in the work force attempting to find a job. If their illness is so bad they need multiple drugs to function every day they're unlikely able to work every day, much less operate heavy equipment and do physical, labor intensive work 10' in the ground. I'm not concerned with them even applying much less having to hire them. HOWEVER check the entire proposition. If you complain to a doctor you have serious pain daily, any kind of Doctor, you qualify for a card. If you tell them you have a headaches and the only thing that cures it is sparking up, you guessed it you qualify. If you tell your Doctor you're vomiting and can't stop unless you smoke dope... Yep, you qualify.

This Prop isn't about terminal patients, it never was. It is about your garden variety pothead having a taxpayer funded legal loophole to smoke dope and not get arrested nor lose their job.

It's interesting, here I am on Ron Paul Forums, a Right Wing website and under attack because I don't approve of more business regulations nor having to pay increased taxes to build pot dispensaries at a cost of over $5 million dollars, Conservatively, based off of the numbers provided by the propositions sponsors. Incredible.

[Kregisen]

First to "specially"blend: When you can string a coherent sentence together without the use of insults I will respond to you. If you cannot then go smoke your dope in the corner and go away.

Danno: As stated previously I used to work in HR at my former employer as a Project Manager/Field Superintendent. It has alot to do with as I stated, insurance rates. If you own and are operating heavy equipment, dangerous machinery and/or require a company vehicle to be used, despite the shortbus candidates proclamations you save money through drug testing.

In fact the way things are getting with liability insurance you have to do it. If you don't the rates are higher. If an employee injures someone, or themselves or causes damage while having a drug in their system the rates will sky rocket unless you have a procedure set up. That isn't some anti-dope propaganda, it is how things work. Now take into account this new legislation. Can't refuse employment to them, can't fire them which means discontinuing drug testing altogether OR risking something happening. You think the liability company cares that your employee has a card? Absolutely not. They care that they can now rape you in rate hikes as well as leave you holding the bag if anything does happen.

That said, as the saying goes besides that little fact of life as a business owner I should be allowed to set whatever standard I want. If I don't meant someone like the clown hurling insults towards me in this thread who cannot even speak coherently 1: I shouldn't have to and 2: The Government under no circumstances should force me. That is simply a matter of principle.

I however ask you Danno to please refrain from the hyperbole. I don't want to throw poor old people in wheelchairs nor terminal patients into prison "just so I can fire someone." I have no problem with cancer patients nor HIV patients, terminal patients ect having access to it. I have an issue with my taxes going up to pay for it so anyone with "chronic headaches" can go to their Homeopathic hippy "Doctor" and get a card. I have an issue with being told I have to accept users for employment giving them special treatment because they found a Doctor to prescribe them pot.

Let's be honest here Danno, someone with a SERIOUS debilitating disease isn't likely to be out in the work force attempting to find a job. If their illness is so bad they need multiple drugs to function every day they're unlikely able to work every day, much less operate heavy equipment and do physical, labor intensive work 10' in the ground. I'm not concerned with them even applying much less having to hire them. HOWEVER check the entire proposition. If you complain to a doctor you have serious pain daily, any kind of Doctor, you qualify for a card. If you tell them you have a headaches and the only thing that cures it is sparking up, you guessed it you qualify. If you tell your Doctor you're vomiting and can't stop unless you smoke dope... Yep, you qualify.

This Prop isn't about terminal patients, it never was. It is about your garden variety pothead having a taxpayer funded legal loophole to smoke dope and not get arrested nor lose their job.

It's interesting, here I am on Ron Paul Forums, a Right Wing website and under attack because I don't approve of more business regulations nor having to pay increased taxes to build pot dispensaries at a cost of over $5 million dollars, Conservatively, based off of the numbers provided by the propositions sponsors. Incredible.

First off, sorry about speciallyblend....he shouldn't be rude like that to any member, much less someone who just joined the site. The last thing we want is someone leaving because other people can't talk without being a jerk.


The bill is far from perfect. I've thought about the part in the bill where employers can not fire someone based off of them testing positive for htc. Your insurance example is a good argument.

HOWEVER, for practical reasons we can't simply keep voting out every bill until it's 100% perfect. Prop. 19 in Cali had TONS of regulation and taxes in it, but it was still worth voting for because it's better than what we have now. Same thing here. Every state that gets medical marijuana legal means every state is one step closer to legalizing it for everyone.

I haven't done the research of how much taxpayer money is used to build the dispensaries, or how much the state will get back in revenue off the cards and sale of pot....but it will never be legalized for everyone in arizona until it's partially legalized like this first.

Once it's legalized for everyone, the amount of money saved from no longer arresting everyone on it is huge....BILLIONS every year for the nation, and a fair percentage of that is in arizona. Not to mention, whether we like it or not, marijuana WILL be taxed. That tax revenue will also bring in BILLIONS a year. Also, we're in Arizona.....legalizing marijuana, even partially, is going to hurt the drug cartels. They definitely hate that this passed.


Again, it's not a perfect bill, but what bill is? Overall it's a good first step to more freedom and less wasteful spending on the war on drugs.


By the way welcome to RPF. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

It's interesting, here I am on Ron Paul Forums, a Right Wing website and under attack because I don't approve of more business regulations nor having to pay increased taxes to build pot dispensaries at a cost of over $5 million dollars, Conservatively, based off of the numbers provided by the propositions sponsors. Incredible.

This site isn't necessarily "Right Wing". We have a number of members who are "Left Wing", anarchists, socialists, apolitical, agorist, etc. In my experience, a whole lot of folks here reject the false left/right paradigm altogether.

[speciallyblend]

sorry i am to busy checking folks in to worry about my sentences ,deal with it!! or go sit on a stick!

[speciallyblend]

This site isn't necessarily "Right Wing". We have a number of members who are "Left Wing", anarchists, socialists, apolitical, agorist, etc. In my experience, a whole lot of folks here reject the false left/right paradigm altogether.

i am no right-winger for sure!! I cannot stabnd right-wingers. they are what is wrong with the gop along with the neo-cons usually one in the same! willdo my best to right worser english for the english nazis:)

[Kregisen]

This site isn't necessarily "Right Wing". We have a number of members who are "Left Wing", anarchists, socialists, apolitical, agorist, etc. In my experience, a whole lot of folks here reject the false left/right paradigm altogether.

Agreed, libertarians are in the center of the political spectrum, and the vast majority here are libertarians. (with various others here and there, and that's fine)

[Tyr]

First off, sorry about speciallyblend....he shouldn't be rude like that to any member, much less someone who just joined the site. The last thing we want is someone leaving because other people can't talk without being a jerk.


The bill is far from perfect. I've thought about the part in the bill where employers can not fire someone based off of them testing positive for htc. Your insurance example is a good argument.

HOWEVER, for practical reasons we can't simply keep voting out every bill until it's 100% perfect. Prop. 19 in Cali had TONS of regulation and taxes in it, but it was still worth voting for because it's better than what we have now. Same thing here. Every state that gets medical marijuana legal means every state is one step closer to legalizing it for everyone.

I haven't done the research of how much taxpayer money is used to build the dispensaries, or how much the state will get back in revenue off the cards and sale of pot....but it will never be legalized for everyone in arizona until it's partially legalized like this first.

Once it's legalized for everyone, the amount of money saved from no longer arresting everyone on it is huge....BILLIONS every year for the nation, and a fair percentage of that is in arizona. Not to mention, whether we like it or not, marijuana WILL be taxed. That tax revenue will also bring in BILLIONS a year. Also, we're in Arizona.....legalizing marijuana, even partially, is going to hurt the drug cartels. They definitely hate that this passed.


Again, it's not a perfect bill, but what bill is? Overall it's a good first step to more freedom and less wasteful spending on the war on drugs.


By the way welcome to RPF. :)

Thank you for the welcome. No need to apologize for the actions of another individual, you're not their keeper. Besides it'll take quite a bit to run me off. :D

[Tyr]

This site isn't necessarily "Right Wing". We have a number of members who are "Left Wing", anarchists, socialists, apolitical, agorist, etc. In my experience, a whole lot of folks here reject the false left/right paradigm altogether.


Fair enough.

[dannno]

I personally wouldn't worry about your insurance rates. If it becomes a problem, it will start costing big corporations lots of money and they will fix that part.

Oooorrrrr... insurance companies will find that those who employ medical cannabis patients and operate heavy equipment do so more safely and they will give lower rates for testing positive for THC.

Next thing you know you'll be heading down to the dispensaries to find people to employ. I don't know how much luck you will have, though, pretty sure most of them already have jobs.

[speciallyblend]

Agreed, libertarians are in the center of the political spectrum, and the vast majority here are libertarians. (with various others here and there, and that's fine)

don't speak for me, for the record he can stay the f out of colorado;)

[Tyr]

I personally wouldn't worry about your insurance rates. If it becomes a problem, it will start costing big corporations lots of money and they will fix that part.

Oooorrrrr... insurance companies will find that those who employ medical cannabis patients and operate heavy equipment do so more safely and they will give lower rates for testing positive for THC.

Next thing you know you'll be heading down to the dispensaries to find people to employ. I don't know how much luck you will have, though, pretty sure most of them already have jobs.


Oh i'm not worried about my rates, as I previously said I am relocating out of the state and building my business elsewhere.

As for heading down to the head shops for employees? That would be a cold day in hell. :)

[silentshout]

Oh i'm not worried about my rates, as I previously said I am relocating out of the state and building my business elsewhere.

As for heading down to the head shops for employees? That would be a cold day in hell. :)

Interesting...do you also consider a pharmacy to be a head shop?

[Imperial]

I think this debate needs some injection of facts rather than claims of fact thrown in. Both sides have brought forward good points, particularly Tyr and Danno. So I hope to simply illuminate some of the facts.

From the Arizona DHS:


A "qualifying patient" is defined in Proposition 203 as a person who has been diagnosed by a physician
(a doctor of medicine, osteopathy, naturopathic medicine, or homeopathy) as having one of the
following debilitating medical conditions:
Cancer
Glaucoma
Positive status for human immunodeficiency virus
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
Hepatitis C
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Crohn's disease
Agitation of Alzheimer's disease
A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition that produces any of the following:
Cachexia or wasting syndrome
Severe and chronic pain
Severe nausea
Seizures (including those characteristic of epilepsy) or
Severe and persistent muscle spasms (including those characteristic of multiple
sclerosis)

The bill also adds that the DHS can add other illnesses if necessary. The vague portions are "Severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, and severe and persistent muscle spasms". The actual bill makes clear the goal is to give it to those with "debilitating medical conditions" (I would quote it more thoroughly but it is in Adobe). Will some abuse this system? Probably.

I guess here we have to way the Type I versus Type 2 errors. A type I error would be if we fail to allow one with an actual debilitating medical condition to use marijuana. A type II error would be if we allow somebody to use marijuana if they do not actually have a debilitating medical condition.

I find the impact of Type I, that is preventing someone who really needs this from using it, more disturbing than that of type II. I am sure that is why the vague portions I mentioned above were included- for those with really vague or rare diseases, they may need the drug despite not exhibiting one of those diseases listed.

Tyr's argument that it will penalize others in society, like himself, adds another aspect to the argument. Should he be penalized for the risk of a type 2 error? This definitely adds more consequences to the Type II error. But does it outweigh those who would be excluded by a stricter standard?

We can argue the law could have been written better. It could have maybe added a clause creating an office that examines special cases- although that still creates risk of politicization (particularly in relatively conservative Arizona), it does reduce the risk of a Type I error while allowing for stricter enumeration.

But that would 1) make a bureaucratic mess and 2) more importantly, is not the law we have. Considering the law that was presented, the ethical question rested in the hands of a voter. In this case they have a very trade-offy question: allow those with real debilitating medical conditions to not get access to critical treatment or hurt business owners who could be penalized by insurance companies (nobody should really care about the potheads themselves using it recreationally, as they don't really impact society as a general rule with their use). I as a voter would likely err on the side of those with debilitating medical conditions, but the law definitely needs cleaning up.

[dannno]

Hah, well, good luck with your business..

Some of the most innovative, talented and successful people I've known toke up, even some I know in Utah. Hope you don't end up screening out your best potential employees.

[Tyr]

I think this debate needs some injection of facts rather than claims of fact thrown in. Both sides have brought forward good points, particularly Tyr and Danno. So I hope to simply illuminate some of the facts.

From the Arizona DHS:


The bill also adds that the DHS can add other illnesses if necessary. The vague portions are "Severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, and severe and persistent muscle spasms". The actual bill makes clear the goal is to give it to those with "debilitating medical conditions" (I would quote it more thoroughly but it is in Adobe). Will some abuse this system? Probably.

I guess here we have to way the Type I versus Type 2 errors. A type I error would be if we fail to allow one with an actual debilitating medical condition to use marijuana. A type II error would be if we allow somebody to use marijuana if they do not actually have a debilitating medical condition.

I find the impact of Type I, that is preventing someone who really needs this from using it, more disturbing than that of type II. I am sure that is why the vague portions I mentioned above were included- for those with really vague or rare diseases, they may need the drug despite not exhibiting one of those diseases listed.

Tyr's argument that it will penalize others in society, like himself, adds another aspect to the argument. Should he be penalized for the risk of a type 2 error? This definitely adds more consequences to the Type II error. But does it outweigh those who would be excluded by a stricter standard?

We can argue the law could have been written better. It could have maybe added a clause creating an office that examines special cases- although that still creates risk of politicization (particularly in relatively conservative Arizona), it does reduce the risk of a Type I error while allowing for stricter enumeration.

But that would 1) make a bureaucratic mess and 2) more importantly, is not the law we have. Considering the law that was presented, the ethical question rested in the hands of a voter. In this case they have a very trade-offy question: allow those with real debilitating medical conditions to not get access to critical treatment or hurt business owners who could be penalized by insurance companies (nobody should really care about the potheads themselves using it recreationally, as they don't really impact society as a general rule with their use). I as a voter would likely err on the side of those with debilitating medical conditions, but the law definitely needs cleaning up.


Good stuff Imperial.


I would argue that the intent all along was to create problems for one or the other. As you have pointed out this bill was framed as an all or nothing. Either accept all of THIS or deprive the terminal of a medication. It is a step towards legalization and acceptance of the widespread use. This bill burdens as many as possible while opening it up for abuse. It's intentional. Next will be the "let's just legalize it" argument.

[muzzled dogg]

/me gets brownies recipe out

[Fredom101]

Yep, since 1996..

But it wasn't until 2004 when they started opening up clinics around the state dedicated to prescribing the herb. Then it EXPLODED and has almost and practically been legal for most adults who have almost any sort of desire and medical history (since cannabis treats nearly every medical condition or its side effects or the effects of drugs taken for said medical condition).

Actually it was just since 04. The 96 vote which OVERWHELMINGLY passed got turned over by a judge the day after the election unfortunately. That's why our system does not work, despite the rhetoric, and we are NOT the government as so many like to claim.

[dannno]

Good stuff Imperial.


I would argue that the intent all along was to create problems for one or the other. As you have pointed out this bill was framed as an all or nothing. Either accept all of THIS or deprive the terminal of a medication. It is a step towards legalization and acceptance of the widespread use. This bill burdens as many as possible while opening it up for abuse. It's intentional. Next will be the "let's just legalize it" argument.

Wow, so you really are anti-liberty. Do you not realize that ending the war on drugs is one of the major goals of our movement?

Why do you want to throw people in jail for growing and using a plant that has been utilized by humans for at least 5,000 years? It's pretty much completely harmless, you can't overdose, stoned drivers are generally safer than sober drivers.. Tons of industrial uses.. There is no good reason to keep this plant illegal. None.

By the way, it already has widespread use, it just isn't legal. Do you give your employees at least 1 hour notice before giving them their piss tests? Do you know how many drug tests I've passed while taking bong tokes on the way to the test? It's soooo easy.. I wonder how many amazing employees you've had who toked on the weekends, or even in the evenings, or perhaps even before work and you never knew about it :confused:

[oyarde]

This site isn't necessarily "Right Wing". We have a number of members who are "Left Wing", anarchists, socialists, apolitical, agorist, etc. In my experience, a whole lot of folks here reject the false left/right paradigm altogether.

Correct , it is all here , look no further !! :D , better than the side show when I was a kid , a five legged cow has nothing on this board !!

[oyarde]

Wow, so you really are anti-liberty. Do you not realize that ending the war on drugs is one of the major goals of our movement?

Why do you want to throw people in jail for growing and using a plant that has been utilized by humans for at least 5,000 years? It's pretty much completely harmless, you can't overdose, stoned drivers are generally safer than sober drivers.. Tons of industrial uses.. There is no good reason to keep this plant illegal. None.

By the way, it already has widespread use, it just isn't legal. Do you give your employees at least 1 hour notice before giving them their piss tests? Do you know how many drug tests I've passed while taking bong tokes on the way to the test? It's soooo easy.. I wonder how many amazing employees you've had who toked on the weekends, or even in the evenings, or perhaps even before work and you never knew about it :confused:

WEED NEEDS LEGALIZED , TIME TO WIND DOWN THE FAILED AND EXPENSIVE WAR ON DRUGS . The real problems with these laws from what I see , are that an employer should still be able to determine what they will allow . The law in California probably would have passed .

[Travlyr]

Since the original intent of passing legislation to make marijuana illegal was to make hemp illegal, will legalizing industrial hemp follow this legislation?

[dannno]

WEED NEEDS LEGALIZED , TIME TO WIND DOWN THE FAILED AND EXPENSIVE WAR ON DRUGS . The real problems with these laws from what I see , are that an employer should still be able to determine what they will allow . The law in California probably would have passed .

Well I agree with you, but I think people who use cannabis as medicine shouldn't be treated any different than someone with a Xanax prescription. Xanax is more likely to cause accidents on the road and with heavy equipment.. If people who have Xanax prescriptions aren't allowed to get fired, then it seems that it should only be fair that cannabis users get treated the same way, right?

I still of course agree that ALL that stuff should be abolished, and that employers should be able to hire whoever they want and fire whoever they want, but in the mean time, what is wrong making herb a medicine just like others? Somebody might think, hmm, I can take Xanax and my employer can't fire me.. but if I smoke herb then he can.. that is a moral hazard. My point is we should work to abolish the hiring issues separately from allowing cannabis as a medicine, especially since it seems to be holding things up.

[Kregisen]

Good stuff Imperial.


I would argue that the intent all along was to create problems for one or the other. As you have pointed out this bill was framed as an all or nothing. Either accept all of THIS or deprive the terminal of a medication. It is a step towards legalization and acceptance of the widespread use. This bill burdens as many as possible while opening it up for abuse. It's intentional. Next will be the "let's just legalize it" argument.

That's the idea. $13,600,000,000 every year stolen by U.S. taxpayers to pay for locking people up for putting stuff in their own bodies.

Not to mention the drug cartels will never be stopped until drugs are legalized. Anyone who has taken economics knows this....you can take out supply, but you can never touch demand, and when there's a high demand for something, the rewards will always outweigh the risks. That's why there's so much violence on the U.S./Mexico border.

There's a reason why gangs controlled the U.S. in the 1930's during alcohol prohibition, and Al Capone was making $100 million during it.

Marijuana WILL be legalized within the next decade in pretty much every state...there's no stopping that. Unfortunately though, I don't think any other drugs like meth or cocaine will ever be legalized, and because of that, we'll be wasting billions of taxpayers money locking people up and supporting the drug cartels all while denying U.S. citizens the right to their bodies. Awesome.

[Tyr]

Wow, so you really are anti-liberty. Do you not realize that ending the war on drugs is one of the major goals of our movement?

Why do you want to throw people in jail for growing and using a plant that has been utilized by humans for at least 5,000 years? It's pretty much completely harmless, you can't overdose, stoned drivers are generally safer than sober drivers.. Tons of industrial uses.. There is no good reason to keep this plant illegal. None.

By the way, it already has widespread use, it just isn't legal. Do you give your employees at least 1 hour notice before giving them their piss tests? Do you know how many drug tests I've passed while taking bong tokes on the way to the test? It's soooo easy.. I wonder how many amazing employees you've had who toked on the weekends, or even in the evenings, or perhaps even before work and you never knew about it :confused:

1: No, I am anti drug legalization.

2: The protocols we used were legitimately random. Arrive on the jobsite, tell someone to fill the cup up. There were plenty of firings and between you and I? I enjoyed telling druggies to take their tools and go down the road. The same methods will be implemented in my company. As much as you want me to go "shucks I guess i'll just hire some dopeheads" it's NOT happening. If I find out they're going down the road, end of story.

[Tyr]

That's the idea.


Maybe yours, but not mine.

[low preference guy]

1: No, I am anti drug legalization.


i'm curious, why are you here? last time i checked, this wasn't theprohibitionforum.com

[dannno]

1: No, I am anti drug legalization.

Ok, so you are anti-personal liberty. You want to sponsor somebody to put a gun to my head and put me in jail for growing and sharing a natural plant that has literally thousands of really good uses. That is not only monumentally bad for society, but it is immoral and wrong. You can hire and fire whoever you want. If you discriminate against people solely based on cannabis use rather than performance, then it will be detrimental to your business, less the whole de-incentive with your insurance deal. That is your business, I'll leave you to it, I'm not going to try to force you to make better or worse business decisions. But if you're saying you want to put a gun to my head and tell me what plants I can and cannot grow and for what use, then I'm going to have a problem.




2: The protocols we used were legitimately random. Arrive on the jobsite, tell someone to fill the cup up. There were plenty of firings and between you and I? I enjoyed telling druggies to take their tools and go down the road. The same methods will be implemented in my company. As much as you want me to go "shucks I guess i'll just hire some dopeheads" it's NOT happening. If I find out they're going down the road, end of story.

No, you aren't listening, I'm saying "your loss".

Those guys you let go could have potentially improved your profit margin drastically had you given them the chance to perform. If they didn't perform, then you could always let them go for not performing, right?

Ya, I understand, you have the moral hazard of the insurance company in case somebody gets hurt, that in and of itself is a valid concern.. but I'll bet $420 you don't test for Xanax or Vicodin and all the other prescription drugs which are much worse for you than herb.. Ya, that's great business practice :rolleyes:

[Lucille]

This is the third time we've passed medical marijuana in AZ.


Since the original intent of passing legislation to make marijuana illegal was to make hemp illegal, will legalizing industrial hemp follow this legislation?

That certainly should be the case. Someone needs to make it happen! I don't know why the rez's don't assert their sovereignty more often on issues like this.

[Kregisen]

Maybe yours, but not mine.

It's good that we attract people from both sides of the political spectrum, but why do you wanna be here if your believes are 100% opposite of ours?

The basis for the drug argument is the basis for EVERY argument. If you don't believe in personal liberty, freedom, and the right to own your own body (the government does not own it, therefore has no right to dictate what you do with it as long as you don't harm others), then you also have to believe in huge taxes, the right of the government to ban anything it wants, including fast food, tv, video games, junk food, alcohol, etc.


It's sad to know people don't believe in self-ownership.

[tremendoustie]

Whohoo!

[tremendoustie]

1: No, I am anti drug legalization.

2: The protocols we used were legitimately random. Arrive on the jobsite, tell someone to fill the cup up. There were plenty of firings and between you and I? I enjoyed telling druggies to take their tools and go down the road. The same methods will be implemented in my company. As much as you want me to go "shucks I guess i'll just hire some dopeheads" it's NOT happening. If I find out they're going down the road, end of story.

I support your freedom to hire and fire whomever you choose. What you don't have a right to do is assault (arrest) someone simply for consuming something you don't personally approve of. You own your business. You don't own other people's bodies, and as long as they don't harm others, what they do with them is none of your business.

[Tyr]

i'm curious, why are you here?


It's good that we attract people from both sides of the political spectrum, but why do you wanna be here if your believes are 100% opposite of ours?


I was unaware herd conformity was a requirement to post here.

How about this, why do you support Ron Paul? He is Pro-Life and that, much like the lame drug "argument" is taking away a females "right" to kill her child, err I meant to say "own her body." Why support someone whose beliefs are 100% opposite of yours?

It's interesting, the hypocrisy of both of your statements. Because I am against the legitimizing of irresponsible behavior and the tolerance of drug use obviously I cannot be a Constitutionalist, noninterventionalist, small gov't, states rights advocate who while disagreeing with Ron Paul on a few issues still fully support him and fully agree with him in others? Am I getting this right? Interesting.

If it is a requirement to be a Libertarian Party sycophant let me know, like I said I didn't see it in the rules when I joined. If that's the case I guess I better leave then, aye?

[teacherone]

stick around tyr.

i like your style.

[Tyr]

stick around tyr.

i like your style.

Thank you, I appreciate that! :D

[dannno]

I was unaware herd conformity was a requirement to post here.

It isn't required to post here, but continuing to believe that you have the right to tell other people how to live their life is so extremely antithetical to liberty that it is odd you would be able to wrap your head around the other liberty oriented positions you claim to have.. which makes me believe that you aren't really fully educated on why fiscal and individual liberty are both so important and both so intertwined.



How about this, why do you support Ron Paul? He is Pro-Life and that, much like the lame drug "argument" is taking away a females "right" to kill her child, err I meant to say "own her body." Why support someone whose beliefs are 100% opposite of yours?

Aha, so what you're saying is that abortion IS harming somebody else? So libertarians DO have justification to be pro-life and stop a mother from harming her child/fetus?

Of course, that is a matter of personal opinion. When does life start? Some people believe it MUST be at conception, others believe it is when the baby is born, and most other sensible (imo) people agree that it is probably somewhere in between. So when does the government start to protect this 'life'?

These are all difficult questions that each individual must deal with, and a lot of it seems to coincide with faith for some reason. My point is, there is no definitive answer, and so this question should be decided by states and/or local communities since that is where the Constitution has charged that crimes be dealt with.




It's interesting, the hypocrisy of both of your statements. Because I am against the legitimizing of irresponsible behavior and the tolerance of drug use obviously I cannot be a Constitutionalist, noninterventionalist, small gov't, states rights advocate who while disagreeing with Ron Paul on a few issues still fully support him and fully agree with him in others? Am I getting this right? Interesting.

There is no hypocrisy except in your own beliefs. If you can justify government telling an individual what plants they can and cannot grow or consume, then you cede ALL personal liberty and any concept of "small government" flies out the window. The government can tell you what foods to eat, they can put you on a diet, they can tell businesses what to do, because, after all, we wouldn't want businesses to engage in 'bad behavior' that might hurt the business.. We need government here to look out for everybody and make decisions for us all!!




If it is a requirement to be a Libertarian Party sycophant let me know, like I said I didn't see it in the rules when I joined. If that's the case I guess I better leave then, aye?

You don't have to leave, you just need to consider that when you fight for drug laws, you are fighting for ALL forms of government tyranny, because when you give the government power to go beyond it's Constitutional limits, or you give state government the power to tell individuals what they can or cannot consume, you are trading liberty for safety. And you know the saying, those who attempt to trade liberty for safety deserve neither.

[dannno]

Not to mention, the policies you support actually increase drug use, drug deaths, drug crime and drug problems:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/22/drug-decriminalization-in-port

You should really educate yourself on the topic. There is absolutely no excuse to be a drug warrior in this day and age with all of the information out there.

[tremendoustie]

Because I am against the legitimizing of irresponsible behavior

You mean irresponsible behavior like attacking people because they consume something you don't personally approve of?



and the tolerance of drug use

While you're at it, why don't you attack people who make other decisions you consider irresponsible -- like eating too much fast food, not exercising, spending too much, drinking, smoking cigarettes, participating in risky sports, etc.

Why, if anyone lives their lives in a way you don't approve of, you might as well just lock them in a cage. After all, apparently you own everyone else's body, mr tyrant.

[Rael]

Smoke 'til you CHOKE, High 'til you DIE!

[Kregisen]

I was unaware herd conformity was a requirement to post here.

Read my post. I said we have people from both sides of the political spectrum, but why do you want to be here if your views are so far away from ours? Maybe you just like debating....that's how I am. I've joined forums and groups of causes I'm 100% against, just to debate.


How about this, why do you support Ron Paul? He is Pro-Life and that, much like the lame drug "argument" is taking away a females "right" to kill her child, err I meant to say "own her body." Why support someone whose beliefs are 100% opposite of yours?

Libertarians are 50/50 on abortion. If the fetus has rights, then it's murder and should not be legal. I'm pro-life and believe the fetus has rights and should be protected. That's 100% different than the war on drugs. Somebody putting something in their own body on their own property does not affect me, and is none of my business, and I don't own their body, therefore I can't force them not to do it.

Without a sense of logic like this backing up someone's political arguments, they have no idea what they really believe. This is why many republicans are big-government yet claim to be small government.....most want to be small government in areas of their personal lives, and big government in areas where they aren't affected. (2nd amendment, taxes, church, some drugs = yes. some other drugs, homosexuality = no.)




It's interesting, the hypocrisy of both of your statements. Because I am against the legitimizing of irresponsible behavior and the tolerance of drug use obviously I cannot be a Constitutionalist

We have laws against irresponsible behavior. Reckless driving, laws against murder, stealing, assault, etc. The reason why those are laws is because they protect the victim. There is no victim when someone puts something in their body. It's also very hard to be a constititionalist imo, because the Constitution never grants the federal government authority to regulate people's bodies. There's a reason alcohol prohibition required a constititonal amendment.



If it is a requirement to be a Libertarian Party sycophant let me know, like I said I didn't see it in the rules when I joined. If that's the case I guess I better leave then, aye?

I'm not in the LP. I'm a Republican. (and a Conservative)

I don't think anyone here wants you to leave, we're just all bamboozled as to how you can be pro-liberty on some issues and anti-liberty on others.

[majinkoola]

Tyr will come around on the drug issue, if he stays very long. I didn't really have a strong opinion on it when I heard about RP in 07, but after 3+ years of listening to various people it makes too much sense.

The best argument IMO comes from history. Prohibition on alcohol didn't work, which is why the country repealed it (I am assuming you are not in favor of prohibition of alcohol, if you are this will be tough). What happened during prohibition? People still drank. Gangs popped up though. Governments spent more money on tracking down these gangs.

What will happen after the prohibition of drugs ends? Gang activity will go way down. They won't be able to make money like they did. The gov't can lay off a bunch of the police force, with the remaining doing productive things like preventing violent crimes. People will still do drugs. Hemp will be able to be grown as a crop, which has other uses (this has nothing to do with drugs really).

I definitely don't think you should be forced to employ anybody for any reason. Nobody else here will think that either, so that shouldn't be an argument you use against this.