# Oregon! First to legalize?



## hazeyindahead (Oct 29, 2007)

Im hearing a vicious rumor that full legalization of marijuana is on Oregons ballot this year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If passed, it would be sold in mainly in liquor stores, once again from what I hear...


So yeah, we should all move to OR so we can landslide this measure!!


----------



## mondaypurple (Oct 29, 2007)

it already happened.


----------



## hazeyindahead (Oct 29, 2007)

Wait, what? I think its happening again, my friend said it was in the oregonian, lol.


----------



## mondaypurple (Oct 29, 2007)

well, lets hope. and hope it's not bum-rushed by a bunch of smelly hippies.


----------



## 000420 (Oct 29, 2007)

*Oregon Cannabis Tax Act Initiative filed for 2010*



Oregon NORML and the Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp as "Oregonians for Cannabis Reform" will be campaigning for Initiative #2 in 2010 that would re-legalize cannabis & hemp in Oregon, sold through state liquor stores, with tax proceeds to benefit the General Fund. Oregon has the reputation of being a pioneer state; we're going to be the first state to re-legalize cannabis!


----------



## joemomma (Oct 29, 2007)

http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2010/002text.pdf

OMG! This has to be one of the coolest documents I've read!
I LOVE OREGON!


----------



## HopelessSinner (Oct 30, 2007)

yes it does not suck to live here


----------



## UncleSunny (Oct 30, 2007)

With the DEA's actions in the Medical Marijuana sense, I think that vendors would actually be afraid to sell it. Still, growers would be off the hook, unless this tax bill is some kind of underhanded way to increase the sentencing on marijuana crime. The first law against Marijuana was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Basically it made it legal to possess marijuana if you had the tax stamp, although the government only issued a small amount of these stamps. 
Also, if a drug is legal in a State, but still listed as a schedule 1 drug, the fed can harass shop owners and threaten them with legal action. In fact, a DEA agent can wait outside a State permitted marijuana store and arrest every person coming out. The charges may not hold, but they are still in their Federal rights to confiscate and detain. What we need is LESS FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT in how we live our lives.
I know that people will see through the Fed's lies and threats and still sell it, but if it becomes impossible for anyone to get the paperwork to sell it, then well, it's one more small step to victory, but a step none the less. On the flip side, the guy selling it without a license may even be in more shit than he would have been. The "less than an ounce" loophole may become obsolete because it's no longer drug trafficking, but tax evasion. 

They really fuck you for that.


----------



## joemomma (Oct 30, 2007)

UncleSunny said:


> With the DEA's actions in the Medical Marijuana sense, I think that vendors would actually be afraid to sell it. Still, growers would be off the hook, unless this tax bill is some kind of underhanded way to increase the sentencing on marijuana crime. The first law against Marijuana was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Basically it made it legal to possess marijuana if you had the tax stamp, although the government only issued a small amount of these stamps.
> Also, if a drug is legal in a State, but still listed as a schedule 1 drug, the fed can harass shop owners and threaten them with legal action. In fact, a DEA agent can wait outside a State permitted marijuana store and arrest every person coming out. The charges may not hold, but they are still in their Federal rights to confiscate and detain. What we need is LESS FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT in how we live our lives.
> I know that people will see through the Fed's lies and threats and still sell it, but if it becomes impossible for anyone to get the paperwork to sell it, then well, it's one more small step to victory, but a step none the less. On the flip side, the guy selling it without a license may even be in more shit than he would have been. The "less than an ounce" loophole may become obsolete because it's no longer drug trafficking, but tax evasion.
> 
> They really fuck you for that.


Ah, but in the case the shop owners are state sponsored. Not saying that the feds won't mess with the state agencies but that is a pretty sticky situation.


----------



## hazeyindahead (Oct 30, 2007)

Im so moving to oregon before this is put to vote ^_^


----------



## smkpt (Oct 30, 2007)

YAAA for living in oregon


----------



## 000420 (Oct 30, 2007)

smkpt said:


> YAAA for living in oregon



Oregon is sweet....I love it...not that I live here...ur..uh I mean there...hehe


----------



## hazeyindahead (Oct 30, 2007)

*sigh* I just dont want to get get my hopes up 

Must tell as many people about it as possible!!


----------



## krillianred (Oct 30, 2007)

hell i should move to oregon


----------



## NoCash (Oct 31, 2007)

Haha, I had been thinking about moving to Oregon! Now I guess it's my duty.


----------



## avlon06 (Oct 31, 2007)

are they putting an age limit on it?


----------



## Kant (Oct 31, 2007)

UncleSunny said:


> Also, if a drug is legal in a State, but still listed as a schedule 1 drug, the fed can harass shop owners and threaten them with legal action. In fact, a DEA agent can wait outside a State permitted marijuana store and arrest every person coming out. The charges may not hold, but they are still in their Federal rights to confiscate and detain. What we need is LESS FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT in how we live our lives.


i don't think less federal involvement is gonna come very soon. I truly think that the only way it will ever be legalized, either for medical use or general use, on the federal level will be through the states. the DEA has and will continue to do everything in their power to keep cannabis a schedule I drug because it is a substantial portion of their budget. What i mean by getting it legalized federally but through the states is this. Congress and the president and the Human Health Services (all three have the power to reschedule a drug), will only seriously reconsider rescheduling if a large portion if not a majority of states enact medical marijuana laws or decriminalization laws. the federal level government is increadibly unresponsive to the citizens so the only way they'll hear our voice is if more and more states start saying "F*** off feds".


----------



## hazeyindahead (Nov 1, 2007)

Well, hopefully we will have a domino effect from Oregon


----------



## joemomma (Nov 1, 2007)

hazeyindahead said:


> Well, hopefully we will have a domino effect from Oregon


I think that is exactly what will happen. I think in other states law enforcement will be less excited about arresting people for something that is legal in another state, the fire will spread and it won't be long before state powers start telling the DEA to get fucked. Once several states have legalized then the fed will follow along and then the hold out states won't really have much of a choice. This will be greatly accelerated once other state governments start seeing the Oregon revenues from MJ tax.


----------



## asiankatie (Nov 1, 2007)

whoa whoa whoa what?! wait this HAS or HAS NOT been voted for yet.

how can they even do that. Its not legal in CA and people with medi cards get busted all the time. how are they gonna pull of selling it in stores to public.


----------



## Extrusion (Nov 1, 2007)

avlon06 said:


> are they putting an age limit on it?


considering you must be 21 or older to enter a liquor store i think it's safe to say yes, and that it will be 21.


----------



## rob the pot head (Nov 1, 2007)

C'mon Oregon maybe there's still hope for this country !


----------



## chief-menebudz187 (Nov 1, 2007)

yeah you guys better make a good impression out there in OR so the rest of this dam country can get tha ball rollin on that re-legalization what not. CANT WAIT


----------



## mondaypurple (Nov 1, 2007)

legalization would suck. decrminalize.


----------



## xenu (Nov 1, 2007)

joemomma said:


> Ah, but in the case the shop owners are state sponsored. Not saying that the feds won't mess with the state agencies but that is a pretty sticky situation.


Nothing "sticky" about it. The feds will go after anyone whoever makes the mistaken notion that "states rights" trump federal law, or the US Constitution.

But I'd like to congratulate them for getting a worthless law on the books, if they could get so many people to vote for it!

In all reality, you could have every person in every state vote for any marijuana law they want, but even if these laws passed at the local, state, and federal level, they'd unfortunately never be able to be realized as law. The Constitution in the US is pretty clear on it.

Nice dream, though!


----------



## Alex66 (Nov 1, 2007)

I live in Oregon. ...
We already have LEGAL medical pot. ...
No problem. ...
We don't need any more LAWS. ...
Tweekers are the problem. ...

Alex.


----------



## Kant (Nov 1, 2007)

joemomma said:


> I think that is exactly what will happen. I think in other states law enforcement will be less excited about arresting people for something that is legal in another state, the fire will spread and it won't be long before state powers start telling the DEA to get fucked. Once several states have legalized then the fed will follow along and then the hold out states won't really have much of a choice. This will be greatly accelerated once other state governments start seeing the Oregon revenues from marijuana tax.



so being the pessimist that i am....i don't know. i think before anyone on the federal level even considers a change (whether that means for mmj or legalization) it's gonna require at least half the states including all of the largest ones. so california , texas, new york, florida, illinois, ohio, pennsylvania; of those only cali has mmj laws. 

that having been said even if things changed the DEA actually has the power to reschedule it. they can't just arbitrarily reschedule but they can submit a requestion to Human Health Services (HHS), who will then study it and recommend a course of action to the DEA. The DEA then has the right to do anything they see fit. the only thing binding the DEA is if the HHS says it should not be controlled the DEA can't control it BUT if the HHS say it should be control as a schedule V drug the DEA has the right to schedule it at any classification it wants. so they could place it right back at schedule I.


----------



## xenu (Nov 2, 2007)

How many stupid people too high to read the Constitution does it take to legalize marijuana?

Did you know that there is NO SUCH THING as "legal" marijuana in the USA? The only use that could ever even be judged "legal" would be religious use, as that freedom is enshrined in the US Constitution.

Did you also know that marijuana is illegal in the US because of the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances? (The Great Timothy Leary defeated the Marijuana Tax Act a long time ago)

The UN Convention, of which the US is a signatory member, is an international agreement. An international treaty entered into by the US with almost the rest of the world. It was ratified by the government of the United States.

The US Constitution is quite clear about international treaties. Article Six of the US Constitution reads, in part:
"_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
_
This second clause says that laws and treaties ratified according to the Constitution are in fact the "supreme law of the land." All courts, local, state, and federal defer to the law of the US Constitution. Even state laws and constitutions are in fact subordinate to federal law.

Under the UN convention, criminal penalties are REQUIRED for cannabis possession and distribution. The DEA operates under federal law, AND the UN Convention. It is their CONSTITUTIONAL duty to enforce the (unpopular and unjust) federal laws on marijuana. Heck, the DEA can enforce marijuana laws in any country, it seems.

So, barring the US withdrawing from the UN, or a Constitutional amendment being made, there's no chance or way marijuana could EVER be "legal".

Decrim. is the best you can hope for.

I just keep thinking of all those times as a much younger man, when people would tell me "if you don't like the laws, then change them." They knew at the time that it was impossible. Some people are still inspired to try and change laws they can't do anything about. I'm glad that I was able to separate "idealism" from "bullchit". So many others can't.

As the US Constitution is written, there is no legal marijuana anywhere in the United States, despite how much you smoke that makes you think that "state rights" matters a fig in the whole scheme.

When it comes to marijuana, there is NO state rights, only the US Constitution and an international treaty that make cannabis criminal.


----------



## Kant (Nov 2, 2007)

xenu said:


> How many stupid people too high to read the Constitution does it take to legalize marijuana?
> 
> Did you know that there is NO SUCH THING as "legal" marijuana in the USA? The only use that could ever even be judged "legal" would be religious use, as that freedom is enshrined in the US Constitution.


that's actually not entirely true. there are 4 or 5 people still in the compassionate investigational new drug program who get a monthly tin of mmj from the federal gov't.


----------



## hazeyindahead (Nov 2, 2007)

Obviously xenu just feels like being an arguing stoner...

Fact is the law is up for votes, so lets see what happens.. right? Without having someone high and not so mighty taking everything out of proportion, as if taking steps in any direction of positive MJ rep is good.

So yes, I will go ahead and probably being residing in OR somewhere by the time this comes to vote.


----------



## joemomma (Nov 3, 2007)

> How many stupid people too high to read the Constitution does it take to legalize marijuana?


The same amount it takes to realize that the US has a fairly long tradition of violating treaties it signs. Just ask a native American. Treaties smeaties. Treaties are only worth the paper they are written on as long as that treaty has a value to the signers. Once the government figures a way that they can make assloads of money by legalizing it and not looking soft on crime they will. Once that happens the treaty becomes unprofitable and therefore unneeded.The US will turn it's back on that treaty.


----------



## Kant (Nov 3, 2007)

joemomma said:


> The same amount it takes to realize that the US has a fairly long tradition of violating treaties it signs. Just ask a native American. Treaties smeaties. Treaties are only worth the paper they are written on as long as that treaty has a value to the signers. Once the government figures a way that they can make assloads of money by legalizing it and not looking soft on crime they will. Once that happens the treaty becomes unprofitable and therefore unneeded.The US will turn it's back on that treaty.


....i don't know. even if the gov't gets a lot of money, you'll still have to get past the DEA because no matter what they'll be losing a buttload of money.


----------



## joemomma (Nov 4, 2007)

Kant said:


> ....i don't know. even if the gov't gets a lot of money, you'll still have to get past the DEA because no matter what they'll be losing a buttload of money.


I could not agree with you more. The DEA is the biggest proponent of prohibition. Why? Without the "demon weed" there is just not enough of an illegal drug problem to justify their huge budget.


----------



## hazeyindahead (Nov 4, 2007)

Yes, the DEA isnt making any money it is a money to waste deal with getting rid of drugs, the DEA would become MORE concentrated on dealing with more hardcore drugs if weed was legal.

The DEA would probably not get a budget cut at all, once they start having their full focus on the truly detrimental drugs, they can probably go a lot farther destroying those trafficking infrastructures.

Imagine a true dea crackdown on meth? Or fucking coke? Yeah... that would be a nice place for a bong rip


----------



## Kant (Nov 4, 2007)

hazeyindahead said:


> Yes, the DEA isnt making any money it is a money to waste deal with getting rid of drugs, the DEA would become MORE concentrated on dealing with more hardcore drugs if weed was legal.
> 
> The DEA would probably not get a budget cut at all, once they start having their full focus on the truly detrimental drugs, they can probably go a lot farther destroying those trafficking infrastructures.
> 
> Imagine a true dea crackdown on meth? Or fucking coke? Yeah... that would be a nice place for a bong rip


are you kidding? congress would look a the DEA's budget and say 'well you're spending X amount on preventing pot but since pot is legal now you don't need that money"


----------



## EarthlyPassions (Nov 6, 2007)

I truly believe that the DEA would simply scramble to slap 'cocaine' over all the anti-marijuana stuff that's out there and go on about business as usual.


----------



## hazeyindahead (Nov 7, 2007)

Kant said:


> are you kidding? congress would look a the DEA's budget and say 'well you're spending X amount on preventing pot but since pot is legal now you don't need that money"


Right because that would be a predictable thing to do for a slipper slope to worse drug enforcement across the board, instead of just marijuana.

If the dea isnt spending the full budget they are given, for getting rid of MJ, ON getting rid of MJ, then they have problems already.


----------



## Dankfish (Nov 10, 2007)

im accually moving back to oregon soon
so many people have asked me to buy herbs at bus stops and on the MAX train lol


----------



## GrowItGreen (Nov 10, 2007)

Just to jump back a few pages where someone said it would take a lot of major states to legalize before the fed's would and that California was the only state where there was med mari laws. I think that is what is wrong with people in their 20's to early 30's in this country (US) we breed ignorance and laziness, no one desires to do anything even if it is typing words in a search engine...there are a few states that have med mari laws and a few that have decrim poss so while Cali may make news its not the only one just cause its the only one on the T.V. Also if you would have clicked the link and read the proposal you would see the age is 21 and it is for 2010...I know half of you are high but shit you don't even have to get up, just click. Also to add to the argument Alaska overturned a city decision to jail a man for possession of more than an ounce when state constitution said up to 4 ounces was legal in your home and city law made it illegal (I believe 4 ounces, maybe less), my point here is that states don't like to get punked and I personally believe that whether it be city or fed's if a state says it's legal, you appeal to a state judge or higher and you should win. JMO
Medical Marijuana Laws (according to NORML)
*Washington
**Oregon**California**Nevada
**Montana
**Alaska
**Colorado
**New Mexico
**Hawaii**Maryland
**Vermont
**Maine*Decriminalization (according to NORML)
*Oregon
**California
**Nevada
**Alaska
**Colorado**Nebraska
**Minnesota
**Mississippi**Ohio
**North Carolina
**New York
**Maine*

These lists do not include many of the states that offer conditional deals I.E. dismissal, probation or community service for first offense possession.
In closing please read the entire post before you attempt to sharp shoot my information.


----------



## RomperStomper (Nov 12, 2007)

GrowItGreen said:


> Just to jump back a few pages where someone said it would take a lot of major states to legalize before the fed's would and that California was the only state where there was med mari laws. I think that is what is wrong with people in their 20's to early 30's in this country (US) we breed ignorance and laziness, no one desires to do anything even if it is typing words in a search engine...there are a few states that have med mari laws and a few that have decrim poss so while Cali may make news its not the only one just cause its the only one on the T.V. Also if you would have clicked the link and read the proposal you would see the age is 21 and it is for 2010...I know half of you are high but shit you don't even have to get up, just click. Also to add to the argument Alaska overturned a city decision to jail a man for possession of more than an ounce when state constitution said up to 4 ounces was legal in your home and city law made it illegal (I believe 4 ounces, maybe less), my point here is that states don't like to get punked and I personally believe that whether it be city or fed's if a state says it's legal, you appeal to a state judge or higher and you should win. JMO.


I'm freaking out so bad.

Holy Shit Right Now!!!

All these words just made me trip balls!


----------



## Kant (Nov 13, 2007)

GrowItGreen said:


> Just to jump back a few pages where someone said it would take a lot of major states to legalize before the fed's would and that California was the only state where there was med mari laws. I think that is what is wrong with people in their 20's to early 30's in this country (US) we breed ignorance and laziness, no one desires to do anything even if it is typing words in a search engine...there are a few states that have med mari laws and a few that have decrim poss so while Cali may make news its not the only one just cause its the only one on the T.V. Also if you would have clicked the link and read the proposal you would see the age is 21 and it is for 2010...I know half of you are high but shit you don't even have to get up, just click. Also to add to the argument Alaska overturned a city decision to jail a man for possession of more than an ounce when state constitution said up to 4 ounces was legal in your home and city law made it illegal (I believe 4 ounces, maybe less), my point here is that states don't like to get punked and I personally believe that whether it be city or fed's if a state says it's legal, you appeal to a state judge or higher and you should win. JMO
> Medical Marijuana Laws (according to NORML)
> *Washington
> **Oregon**California**Nevada
> ...


I was the one who said it and when i said california was the only state to have mmj laws, I meant that california was the only state among the top 7 most populous states to have mmj laws. So unless the electoral college is abolished, politicians with presidential aspirations will pay the most attention to these states because they have the most electoral college votes. If they all had mmj laws then it becomes all the more important for politicians to listen to these people if they want their votes.


----------



## GrowItGreen (Nov 13, 2007)

Kant said:


> I was the one who said it and when i said california was the only state to have mmj laws, I meant that california was the only state among the top 7 most populous states to have mmj laws. So unless the electoral college is abolished, politicians with presidential aspirations will pay the most attention to these states because they have the most electoral college votes. If they all had mmj laws then it becomes all the more important for politicians to listen to these people if they want their votes.


Well to be honest I saw your post and my post was not directed towards yours, you where quite accurate in your statement, you listed the lager states population wise and said Cali was the only one with Medical Marijuana Laws, which is correct. Further more only one other state you listed even has decrim of possession in effect. So I would agree that it would take a lot to get Med Mari Law in Federal and this will probably not happen soon. I personally think it is more likely to go the decriminalization route than Medical Mari myself. Reason being that around 206 of 538 electoral votes belong to states with either Medical Mari Laws or Decrim of poss laws. Also last I checked I think they were saying that it was Clinton then Obama in the their current polls (how they determine this before a vote is cast is beyond me) and both have stated they are for some sort of Decriminalization or at least reducing the severity of punishment of non violent drug charges.

Just to be more clear I was more so directing the last post to the people that couldn't click the link to read about the Oregon proposal but had questions clearly outlined in the proposal and the person that said, how can Oregon do this Cali is the only state with Medical Marijuana Laws.

Finally while I am writing anyway,



RomperStomper said:


> I'm freaking out so bad.
> 
> Holy Shit Right Now!!!
> 
> All these words just made me trip balls!


Was that really even worth writing? Not that the other two posts you put up have any real content but wow, I felt really sorry for you when I read that....I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Kant (Nov 13, 2007)

I honestly think it's going to get go medical before general use. I think that even for people who oppose marijuana find it hard to say no to a cancer patient than to say no to a healthy person. I also think there's a stronger push going on for medical use than for general use.


----------



## GrowItGreen (Nov 13, 2007)

I think that would be more logical to have medical use first but I think that in all honesty most politician don't really care. They see decriminalization as a way of freeing up space in prisons and freeing up tax dollars. That is the only reason that I think decriminalization will be around the corner or at least something close to decrim.


----------



## wicked1503 (Nov 13, 2007)

Oregon will be the first........maybe in 15 yrs. but the first.


----------



## Kant (Nov 13, 2007)

GrowItGreen said:


> I think that would be more logical to have medical use first but I think that in all honesty most politician don't really care. They see decriminalization as a way of freeing up space in prisons and freeing up tax dollars. That is the only reason that I think decriminalization will be around the corner or at least something close to decrim.


i actually don't think politicians care one way or the other about the prison pop. they listen to the DEA who claim they are doing a good job spit out a bunch of number and move on. politicians have old stead-fast beliefs and DEA support so there's no incentive to change.


----------



## GrowItGreen (Nov 14, 2007)

Maybe, I just think its all about the money, it costs tens of thousands of dollars to house a person in jail/prison, so if your state gives out 90 days for possession it could cost the state 10K per person per 90 days and with how bush is running up the deficit they have to get money from somewhere. Just my opinion. 

But I do hope that the proposition goes through in Oregon and has a domino effect but I guess we will all just have to wait and see.


----------



## Kant (Nov 15, 2007)

GrowItGreen said:


> Maybe, I just think its all about the money, it costs tens of thousands of dollars to house a person in jail/prison, so if your state gives out 90 days for possession it could cost the state 10K per person per 90 days and with how bush is running up the deficit they have to get money from somewhere. Just my opinion.
> 
> But I do hope that the proposition goes through in Oregon and has a domino effect but I guess we will all just have to wait and see.


well it is about the money, it's always about the money. But as far as the politicians are concerned it's a good use of the money. those billions of dollar keep "dangerous drug addicts" off the street. Another reason it's going to go medical first is because it's harder to put that label on someone with cancer or aids. politically speaking you can't speak ill of a person with a terminal disease(no pun intended). Personally i think it would be a good thing if it went to them first. Obviously oregon already has mmj laws so that's good.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 15, 2007)

Kant is correct when he says it is all about money.

We_stoners,etc_do not have the organization the booze & drug manufacturers have. These are the people, who thru their surrogates, seek the insure their position by fighting every initiative, that is put forward to decriminalize_easier to do this than make it legal_anything to do with weed. Look at how their fought against Medical Marijuana.

It is not a big leap of faith to conclude that sales of booze & prozac would crash if weed were legal, so therefore,

If we, are ever to prevail and get the law changed, WE would have to organize and get lobbyists and/or make enough campaign donations were the politicians would realize that to ignore our requests would cost them financially.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I'm probably wrong.


----------



## smokinherb (Nov 17, 2007)

yeah im glad i live in oregon, but man i hope this passes


----------



## granitestate (Nov 18, 2007)

i also feel that new england is a very progressive area. Maine and massachucetts have decrim laws (many friends busted in each state merely got a ticket for possession under an ounce). I also know that New Hampshire had a vote in their last congressional elections on the ballot that would have decrim'ed, but all the people that would support it were too dumb or stoned to show up. I think many things have to change for the legalization to occur (and i also agree that just decrim would be better). For this to truly work on a country wide basis we would need to get much more organized, and shed the sterotype that many non-users see. Its the non-users that would need convincing, we already know all about jane. And until the fed acknowledged decrim/legalization legislation, we would all be at the whim of the feds. Their laws trump all state and city laws, read the constitution, its good stuff. America has lost its spirit, no one fights for things anymore, no one rallies. No one sets up marches, no one speaks to the masses. Only for greed does this country mobilize in mass-effect. See waht happens when i dont smoke, i ramble, damnit


----------



## Dankfish (Nov 20, 2007)

weed wouldnt be as much fun if it was legal lol
if it does eventually become legal it shouldnt be sold in stores..


----------



## xenu (Nov 20, 2007)

There's NOTHING decrim about Massachusetts. If your friends did get a "ticket" for the misdemeanor, it must have been only a roach. I know people who have been busted for weed, one with the only prior being possession more than ten years before.

One got a years probation. Less than half gram. He had the prior possession.

The other one was offered a plea: The DA would drop the multiple felony charges for scale, papers, roach clips and a glass pipe (found in his car and also on his person) for a guilty plea and six months to serve in a state prison. He had more than a pound, and the court found the scale was illegally obtained by the police. They told him it wouldn't be difficult to argue that he was dealing without the scale.


----------



## granitestate (Nov 20, 2007)

was your friend under tha age of 21? My friend was just down in the cape, he was talkin to his friend about goin to burn one, there were two staties standin behind them they didnt see that fucked with em. "you two come with me blah blah blah". they got real shook then the cops jus started laughing an said it was fine he was jus bustin their balls, an even if they did get caught it was only a fine. SOOO, if ur under 21 an got busted then yea, cuz ur a minor in possession of a controlled substance. but if ur friend was over 21, then he got raped by the DA


----------



## granitestate (Nov 20, 2007)

decrim laws are usually for anything less then an oz. Obvbisouly if any law enforcement catches with a pound, scale an all that shit, pos. with intent. Thats obvious, in ANY state. And i think canadas decrim laws are for only a certain amount too. so thats not even a valid argument, thanks


----------



## ViRedd (Nov 20, 2007)

Well, you Oregonians can get your hopes up, but don't hold your breath. If the Oregon state legislature legalized marijuana, the Feds would cut off all federal funds to your state. No highway funds, no education funds, no federal welfare funds ... NO funds. 

I lived in Oregon for a year while working there. I used to drink Jack Daniels. The first time I went to a state liquor store I was really suprised to find that Jack cost about 30% more than the private stores charge in California. So, buying your MJ from a controlled state store wouldn't be any great shakes either. 

My impression of Oregon, other than the beauty of nature in all her glory, was not good. It seems like a "make-work" state. I mean, you can't even pump your own gasoline there. The Salem area looks like a city full of welfare reciepients. Most of the women are grossly over weight. And, I found out why they named the capital Salem. Its because people don't drive their cars there ... they sail 'em. I've never seen so damned much rain in my life! If you're a hunter, or like to fish, the place is great. Other than that, what's there?

Just as a point of interest, when Prop. 215 (Medical MJ) was on the ballot here in California in 1996, the largest lobbying group trying to prevent its passage was the California Correctional Officer's Union. Their salaries depend on throwing drug offenders into prison ... and if you're a correctional officer, who would want to stop that? 

Vi


----------



## Natanis (Nov 20, 2007)

Well whatever happens I'll continue honing my skills so that I can have a nice little retirement business in 20 years.... Move off the grid and live off the my 401k and whatever I can grow and sell to the booming legal reefer market. )


----------



## granitestate (Nov 20, 2007)

if they legalized it tho, the governemt would grow and sell it. I think theyd see it as too much of a risk for private buisness to handle. There will never be a canabis production/distributing corporation like budweiser or miller with beer. itd be sweet if it was, but i dunno if id trust the companies, probly use a ridiculous amount of nutes, and bad ones at that. whatevers cheapest. decrim would be the shit tho, the laws are still on the books, but disregarded, or not really enforced. like jay-walking.


----------



## earlymorninstonepeomp (Nov 20, 2007)

i say let one. thats 1 local, state or fed tell me i'm within my rights and i'll i'll give em a case to base their lawsuits on. If everyone thought this was a "dream", we'd put our tails between our legs and smoke in closets forever.


----------



## GrowItGreen (Nov 21, 2007)

granitestate said:


> if they legalized it tho, the governemt would grow and sell it. I think theyd see it as too much of a risk for private buisness to handle. There will never be a canabis production/distributing corporation like budweiser or miller with beer. itd be sweet if it was, but i dunno if id trust the companies, probly use a ridiculous amount of nutes, and bad ones at that. whatevers cheapest. decrim would be the shit tho, the laws are still on the books, but disregarded, or not really enforced. like jay-walking.


I hate to revisit my previous point but if you actually were to read the proposal it says that people would apply for grow licenses and then in turn sell to the state and MJ would be sold only in state liquor stores.


----------



## granitestate (Nov 21, 2007)

reading helps, true haha. i think it would be more regulated than it leads on to be tho. then again i just dont trust the government at all, call me crazy


----------



## VictorVIcious (Dec 20, 2007)

joemomma said:


> http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2010/002text.pdf
> 
> OMG! This has to be one of the coolest documents I've read!
> I LOVE OREGON!


I didn't read it all, I don't like it at all. Bid , buy from everyone equitably, etc. Anyone else?CA: Activists Think Time is Right To Legalize Pot - Marijuana.com VV


----------



## VictorVIcious (Dec 21, 2007)

smokinherb said:


> yeah im glad i live in oregon, but man i hope this passes


Ok, you live in Oregon and you hope this passes. That will not get it done. We just went through the process for a Medical Marijuana Inititive in Michigan, we are waiting for the board of Canvessors to certify those signatures. 
The way I am reading this is that this is an initiative, to put the proposal on the ballot for 2010. Between now and then they will have to collect a fair amount (Not sure what that is in Oregon, in Michigan it was 304,101) of signatures from registered voters, to accomplish this. Many campaigns, in fact most, pay people to collect signatures. It is a lot of work, often seems thankless, you would be a part of writing new law. 
Please, if you live in Oregon contact the organization and ask if they need help gathering signatures. VV


----------



## inforce (Jan 8, 2008)

80,000 signatures is all thats needed. I am moving. to. oregon.


----------



## Growbot (Jan 9, 2008)

i've lived in oregon, and before there's a big exodus there, you should know something. oregon is a VERY expensive place to live!!! everything costs more in oregon! i wanted to get my motorcycle endorsement on my license, it was like $80. and that was in addition to my regular fee. same with food too.


----------



## inforce (Jan 9, 2008)

Avoiding jailtime versus paying 4 bucks for a gallon of milk.. ill take the milk! Nah i know where your coming from. Everyone should make sure they have a job secured before they move, wages are nice there too to make up for it. At least mine are (i set tile in houses for a living) , so ill be okay. But a regular kid might have trouble.

Watch the hippie movement start again and everyone heads to Oregon ahahha.


----------



## hazeyindahead (Jan 23, 2008)

This is gonna be great!!

I already have a job in OR! my gf has an interview for an OR job tomorrow!! YAAAAY!


----------



## inforce (Jan 24, 2008)

viva oregon! I cant wait to move to portland. Heard it was a cool city!


----------



## GrowItGreen (Jan 27, 2008)

Has anyone attempted to find out what the requirement for cultivation will be? As far as on the individual and the zoning of land. Since the proposed law is fairly vague only stating that qualified persons license will state where they are authorized to grow(more or less). I know that I lived in a place where tattooing was illegal until a few years ago and when they legalized it it was a year or so before anyone could get a tattoo because there was no property zoned for tattooing. Could be the same thing maybe?


----------



## GrowItGreen (Jan 28, 2008)

Well just to see if there was any clarification available I contacted the S.O.S. office asking about licensing requirements to cultivate if the law was passed (I.E. requirements on a person and/or land as far as zoning). They responded with this (which was not very helpful)....
*
"*Hi *******,
*The initiative you reference has not yet been approved for circulation,
which means that the proponents of the change have not yet even begun
gathering signatures for the petition. If they gather enough valid
signatures[82,769] by July 2010, it will be on the November 2010 ballot. Until
then, it's premature to say that it will be voted on in 2010.

As for your questions, those answers are probably best posed to the
proponents of the initiative, who you can find by clicking here:
Search Criteria Form, and then
selecting IRR #2 from the 2010 list. Their own interpretation, though,
may be different than the interpretation made by the appropriate agency
if the law passes.

Sincerely,

Scott Moore
Chief of Communications
Oregon Secretary of State's Office
503-986-2368"*

So I would imagine they are not really happy to see this even proposed. But here is his email if you would like to bother him with questions [email protected]. 
Just thought it was kind of funny
GIG


----------



## inforce (Jan 28, 2008)

In my opinion it will go through. Theres enough people to vote it
in for a ballot vote. I dont think he sounded pushy or anything..
sounded to me like he just was saying the "politcally correct vanilla
response." To be expected unless your talking to him personally. 
I think he has a *.txt file on his desktop and whenever a letter 
comes in inquiring about that I think he cut and pastes it.

I know I would if I were him. =) Im sure he has a different and
a biased opinion as every does in person. Biased in which direction..
I cant tell from that letter.


----------



## We1 (Feb 1, 2008)

OMG! what will happen to Oregon!!! It will become more populated than California!!!! Do they have an economic plan For when 1,000,000,000,000 hippies sudden;y move to Oregon?


----------



## We1 (Feb 1, 2008)

What will happen to all the money from the rest of the country?
It will be deserted!


----------



## hazeyindahead (Feb 2, 2008)

And all the states will fall to a domino effect of legalization just to keep their economies in balance just for stoners to live in their state, lol.


----------



## rezo (Feb 2, 2008)

if this happens i will buy land in oregon definetly i thought prop 215 was cool for us here in ca. but legalization yessssssssss!!


----------



## rezo (Feb 2, 2008)

if marijuana becomes legal in the u.s. the value of weed will go to zero. if pot growers / smokers are free to share their experience and ideas with other smokers / growers more weed will grow in abundance all across the nation . remember its not alcohol its not manufactured . it grows and if it grew everywhere it would eventually lose its street value. there will always be the guy who just wants to go buy it but most smokers will grow their own and share it with others. thats why its not legal (not because its dangerous like they claim). i cant wait for the day to grow bud in my front yard or my neighbors .


----------



## faser (Feb 13, 2008)

so is marijuana leagal in oregon or not


----------



## Redrum (Feb 13, 2008)

xenu said:


> ....Did you also know that marijuana is illegal in the US because of the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances? ...


This is the same Org that started getting pissed off over the Vending Machines in Cali.

I feel we should kick the UN to the curb anyways.. hell from what I understood we arent paying our UN Dues anyway. No pay no play


----------



## ZenMaster (Feb 13, 2008)

Redrum said:


> This is the same Org that started getting pissed off over the Vending Machines in Cali.
> 
> I feel we should kick the UN to the curb anyways.. hell from what I understood we arent paying our UN Dues anyway. No pay no play


The reason marijuana is from purely political reasons. I have heard and read the different origins of the criminalization of marijuana, but the History Channel's take it in is the most enlightening.

In short, the primary reason for marijuana being criminalized was in effort to stigmatize and deport Mexican immigrants who had been a great labor force during the 1920s but then were a burden during the Great Depression. Marijuana became guise for the United State's persecution for unwanted Mexican immigrants who were now a liability. That was a long time ago, but the U.S. doesn't want to admit this and will keep up the charade till this day due to pride.

Also, the War on Drugs is criticised for costing billions of dollars and over populating jail systems. However, what people do not consider is how much money has been gained over it. People's homes, cars, and money has been seized due to this "war" and all that is profit for the state or police station. Why decriminalize it if you get to auction off people's assets for money? Need less corrupt politicians or more enlightened ones.

I am not saying all drugs should be decriminalized, sorry ya'll, but I defend marijuana vehemently. I have seen to much go wrong with all the other, "harder" stuff and first hand seen the dangers they possess.


----------



## Oregonbud4life (Mar 6, 2008)

ViRedd said:


> My impression of Oregon, other than the beauty of nature in all her glory, was not good. It seems like a "make-work" state. I mean, you can't even pump your own gasoline there. The Salem area looks like a city full of welfare reciepients. Most of the women are grossly over weight. And, I found out why they named the capital Salem. Its because people don't drive their cars there ... they sail 'em. I've never seen so damned much rain in my life! If you're a hunter, or like to fish, the place is great. Other than that, what's there?
> Vi


How dare you speak of Oregon this way. Myself being 17yo thinks that hiring people at gas stations is a good way for me to get a job. On the other hand I'm not quite sure where you found all these grossly overwieght women. Possibly jogging down the streets of Salem?




I have lived in Oregon my whole life and never seen flooding, i think u are just a hater.I say all you stoners DO come to Oregon and we get this shit legalized!


----------



## boooky (Mar 6, 2008)

Would be nice FEDs would have a field day. The way I look at it these days come get me the people will see some day soon then ill get my fat daddy check from uncle sam for throwing me in a prison for a plant.

You can only lock up so many peoples dads,moms,sisters and brothers before we call them on there bull shit.


----------



## KindBud420 (Mar 6, 2008)

mondaypurple said:


> well, lets hope. and hope it's not bum-rushed by a bunch of smelly hippies.


LOL Why does everyone say that?
Hippies arent the only people who smoke weed and id doubt tehy would all go to one state just to smoke. Their so many different type of people who are stoners...not just hippies


----------



## boooky (Mar 6, 2008)

KindBud420 said:


> LOL Why does everyone say that?
> Hippies arent the only people who smoke weed and id doubt tehy would all go to one state just to smoke. Their so many different type of people who are stoners...not just hippies


They said hemp in the law the hippies are gonna come for cheap necklaces and flip-flops.


----------



## Virulent Amoeba (Mar 9, 2008)

xenu said:


> Nothing "sticky" about it. The feds will go after anyone whoever makes the mistaken notion that "states rights" trump federal law, or the US Constitution.
> 
> But I'd like to congratulate them for getting a worthless law on the books, if they could get so many people to vote for it!
> 
> ...


The beauty of the US constitution is it CAN be amended!




Your Grandfather said:


> If we, are ever to prevail and get the law changed, WE would have to organize and get lobbyists and/or make enough campaign donations were the politicians would realize that to ignore our requests would cost them financially.


in 5 letters.....NORML Marijuana Law Reform - NORML


----------



## kronicsmurf (Mar 29, 2008)

Wow i hope they do then maybe other states will adopt their laws hell yeah woohoo Oregon.


----------



## kronicsmurf (Mar 29, 2008)

In response to whoever made the hippy remark. you should remember one thing. hippies are probably responsible for some of the good weed people smoke today. and they practiced their rights openly and defiantly regardless of the laws. GO HIPPIES Oregan is Calling


----------



## newbie45 (Mar 30, 2008)

i know a guy who lives in alaska and he said its aloud to grow 4 plants at a time with only 2 flowering and only 4 usable ounces of marijuana. but the only problem is the environment would make it almost impossible to grow


----------



## joemomma (Apr 18, 2008)

kronicsmurf said:


> In response to whoever made the hippy remark. you should remember one thing. hippies are probably responsible for some of the good weed people smoke today. and they practiced their rights openly and defiantly regardless of the laws. GO HIPPIES Oregan is Calling


You are correct kronic but the one about cheap necklaces and flip flops was hilarious!


----------



## greenerthenyouthink (Apr 22, 2008)

I am from oregon the great northwest I hope this is true holy shit I love it [email protected][email protected]!!!!!


----------



## LowRider82 (Apr 22, 2008)

forget Amsterdam, I'm going to Oregon if this gets passed.


----------



## hazeyindahead (Apr 23, 2008)

LowRider82 said:


> forget Amsterdam, I'm going to Oregon if this gets passed.



You should try going to Oregon BEFORE it gets passed, so you can vote on it too!


----------



## outrunu (Apr 24, 2008)

Vote hell....They have until July 3 (I think) of this year to get the 83,000 sigs. Thats basically 2 full months with a week thrown in. If they aren't on the way now they are pooched. If you live in Oregon, you need to contact them and get petitions and get out and get them signed, otherwise; everyones just pissin into the wind ..JMHO


----------



## hazeyindahead (Apr 25, 2008)

outrunu said:


> Vote hell....They have until July 3 (I think) of this year to get the 83,000 sigs. Thats basically 2 full months with a week thrown in. If they aren't on the way now they are pooched. If you live in Oregon, you need to contact them and get petitions and get out and get them signed, otherwise; everyones just pissin into the wind ..JMHO





Wasnt it also mentioned that there was a required 300,000 signatures required to run the medical marijuana act??

Sooo... out of those 300,000 how many do you think would sign for this bill to be voted?


----------



## mythic (May 21, 2008)

They are shooting for 2010 apparently. I doubt anything like this will be on the ballot in 08.

www.CannabisTaxAct.Org, Cannabis Tax Act, Restore Hemp, Hemp Energy, Hemp Food, Hemp Paper, Hemp Body Products, Hemp Fiber, Cannabis as Medicine, Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp, CRRH, Oregon NORML, OCTA, HempStalk, The Hemp and C

mythic


----------



## tyeee (Jul 8, 2008)

Man, i really hope this thing gets going..im gonna go look more into this.


----------



## inforce (Jul 9, 2008)

I am moving.
*fuck I live in Utah anyways.. any place is better than here!


----------

