Mother Mary vs Mary Jane
- Thread starter ArcherSPS
- Start date
That's an interesting question. If the courts are going to "fix" the problem that you can't meet the literal requirements now, at the very least, I would think that means that no more than 25% of the needed signatures can come from any one congressional district. I wonder if the 65 initiative meets that burden.
No. The fact that it is not is what should be criminal. 67% of US adults support legalizing marijuana. 90% for medical use.
View attachment 18514
View attachment 18515
Last edited:
I can't understand why anyone would be against it. Well, aside from backwards *** MS voters and Baptist's and those are generally one and the same. MS holds back MS.
Looks like all MSU sports fans will qualify for medical marijuana**
The measure defines debilitating medical condition as "cancer, epilepsy or other seizures, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cachexia, post-traumatic stress disorder, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic or debilitating pain, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, glaucoma, agitation of dementias, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, sickle-cell anemia, autism with aggressive or self-injurious behaviors, pain refractory to appropriate opioid management, spinal cord disease or severe injury, intractable nausea, severe muscle spasticity, or another medical condition of the same kind or class to those herein enumerated and for which a physician believes the benefits of using medical marijuana would reasonably outweigh potential health risks.
The measure defines debilitating medical condition as "cancer, epilepsy or other seizures, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cachexia, post-traumatic stress disorder, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic or debilitating pain, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, glaucoma, agitation of dementias, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, sickle-cell anemia, autism with aggressive or self-injurious behaviors, pain refractory to appropriate opioid management, spinal cord disease or severe injury, intractable nausea, severe muscle spasticity, or another medical condition of the same kind or class to those herein enumerated and for which a physician believes the benefits of using medical marijuana would reasonably outweigh potential health risks.
Because they are politicians and crave control over people and things that shouldn't be controlled. It'll cause a lot of lost 'revenue' that is stolen through asset forfeiture.
Because we don't need to be addressing tax provisions for a particular product in the constitution. If you want to do a constitutional initiative, it needs to be something that belongs in the constitution. Like the state shall not criminalize recreational drugs, or if they want to be specific, the recreational or medicinal use of marijuana.
If you want to address particular tax issues that are not general principles, do the work and get it passed through the legislature.
IF the marijuana people hadn't gotten greedy by wanting to lock favorable tax treatment in the constitution, then it would be more of a no brainer, although it still has a lot of stuff that belongs in a statute and not the constitution.
But...but yaw yaw yaw backwards Baptists yaw yaw yaw. Get out of here with your suggestion that a carefully crafted piece of legislation designed for the people could be tainted by greed, or poorly written.***
This is it. I am 100% for weed, medicinal and recreational, but I am voting against this.
I’m Baptist and all for medical marijuana as are almost all of my baptist friends. Stop stereotyping.
I’m in disagreement that the medical proponents got greedy with taxes. You realize who they're going up against? This is the state government. You give them any leeway with any money and you can 100% guarantee it will get squandered. I like the way it was written. Screw these politicians.
I’m a deacon in a baptist church, and I fully support medical marijuana and the decriminalizing weed in general.
This bill worries me greatly because all the benefits seem to go to the cannabis industry and very little to the state. This also seems like a really weird thing to write into your constitution. I will vote no, no, and 65A and hope someone crafts a bill that benefits the state and it passes in the coming months.
This bill worries me greatly because all the benefits seem to go to the cannabis industry and very little to the state. This also seems like a really weird thing to write into your constitution. I will vote no, no, and 65A and hope someone crafts a bill that benefits the state and it passes in the coming months.
You’re either being intentionally dishonest or your post makes no sense in reasoning. If you’re 100% for rec & med like you say you wouldn’t deny sick people medicinal choices over a silly tax qualm. I can’t imagine standing up in an arthritis clinic and telling those in pain, “Hey guys I’m 100% giving y’all better, safer medicine but I voted against it because of legislative in and outs.” GT17O
This. The legislature has known this was coming for a long time and has chosen to do absolutely nothing about it. Don't cry about where the tax money goes now when you could have done this on your own at any time and directed where that money would go (i.e. into your pockets). They made their beds, now the people may make them lie in it.
I agree with this. It’s very poorly written and I guess this was their way of trying to get medical marijuana out there but I’m not very comfortable with the structure.
It's not about the state government having or not having money. If you want the state government to have less money, reducing the sales or income tax would be a much better place to start than selecting one product for favorable tax treatment.
For nearly a decade medical marijuana has come up in committee in our legislature but has never advanced pass that stage. If our legislators wanted to do something they have had ample opportunities to do so. Now they, and others, are pissing and moaning because they will be cut out of the loop (See $$). Tough ****! You folks have kicked the can down the road for awhile, THAT'S why we have the constitutional amendment because they FAILED to act. Once aGain our legislators stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the needs of many of their constituents.
There's no legitimate reason to be against medical marijuana in general. There are legitimate reasons to be opposed to this initiative, though. It's too rigid.
What I struggle with is that these politicians saying "This isn't the right way to do this," are, in my opinion, correct. But we all know damn well they aren't going to do it the "right" way once this is defeated. So, I'm going to vote against it because it's not perfect while there are people legitimately suffering that can be helped if it passes? That's tough for me to do.
Or maybe you're just really bad at reasoning? By your logic, nobody could ever have a policy preference that they didn't think was worth putting in the constitution. I guess we could have a few thousand pages of constitution and fewer pages of statutes and regulations. Of couse with that many we'd have a lot of conflicting provisions, but we have those with statutes and many of them are not resolved by looking at constitutional provisions, but statutes are much more carefully drafted generally than constitutional initiatives.
Proponents of asset forfeiture and the private prison lobby are the biggest lobbies against Prop. 65. Also Prop. 65 cuts the legislators out of the $$ loop. That should answer your question.
65a sounds epically idiotic. If I’m terminally ill I’m asking for something much more potent than medical marijuana.
I appreciate the fact that you’d disclose that info and that you support. That shows the shift on this issue. Now, with all due respect I have to ask this question. Our politicians have done zero to bring this forward. The people spoke via an initiative to get this out. It took the power of the people to get here. Is it perfect? Nope. I’d argue it’s less imperfect than our politicians. All that said, why in the word would we shoot down a solid but imperfect initiative to give our politicians a crack at it? What in history says they’ll fix this issue with “better” legislation?
Who’s drafting it? The current politicians? 65a is a shell. They’ve never put anything up on this intentionally. They don’t deserve the opportunity at this point. 65 is imperfect but I’ll bet you whatever you want to bet 65 is better than anything MS politicians will ever write. You know and I know this isn’t “over” in MS until the fed government does it. Saying to trust MS politicians on THIS issue over 65 is an incredible leap of faith by y’all. Im comfortable with my reasoning.
Because they want to confuse the **** out of the voters. Just make it simple and vote YES on 65 (not 65A), like I intend to.
per typical ballot initiatives, I think that the wording is purposefully obtuse and without careful reading, checking the box you think you should check might not get the result that you hope to get
This. I strongly support 65. 65A is just the legislature's poison pill to kill 65. They did it on the MAPE funding initiative 42 with 42A, and they're doing it again here.
Ok, so I'm a Christian, and I'm against recreational use of any drug of any kind, including this one. However, I'm also a clinician who deals with drugs MUCH more powerful and habit-forming than marijuana on a daily basis. If marijuana is a viable option for pain control, seizure suppression, etc...(and I think there's enough evidence that it could be)....then I'm all for it under the right circumstances. That said, somebody give me the Cliff Notes' version of these two amendments. I couldn't care less about the political leanings...I just want to know which one I should choose, if either, if I support the controlled use of medical marijuana. Thanks in advance.
I'm for houses made of brick but against urns on every rooftop and columns on every building façade
Last edited:
Im voting yes because it will never get done by the legislature. Too bad we miss out on the extra tax revenue but we would just waste it on hand outs anyway
65 is the best shot for an actual medical program in this state. I have no expectation that the legislature will take the issue up any time soon on any meaningful level. With that said, there are issues related to taxation and embodying this program in the state constitution. 65A is the MS legislature's "alternative" which strictly limits qualifying medical conditions (i.e., interfering in the doctor-patient relationship) and lacks specificity as to how and when the program would be implemented. If 65A passes, rest assured the legislature will drag its feet in implementing the program, if it ever does. Other state have run into this situation in their MMJ programs.
Arkansas passed MMJ in 2016. Arkansans were finally able to buy mmj in summer 2019. You are correct
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 7 Preview: LSU Players to Know
-
02
Maroon and White
"We're in shape for it": Mississippi State S Kendel Dolby on LSU's tempo and offensive challenge
-
03
Maroon and White Football
"Everybody wants the same thing": Mississippi State's Magee and Prudhomme speak on offense changing gears through open week
-
04
Maroon and White
Mississippi State G Josh Hubbard selected Preseason All-SEC First Team
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Points of Focus: Mississippi State HC Jeff Lebby speaks on Week 7 "Reset"