Legalized marijuana backers to take cause to Salem

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) - Rebuffed by voters, proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana use in Oregon will take their cause to the Legislature, but persuading lawmakers will be a longshot.
Rep. Peter Buckley, co-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Wednesday there will be a discussion of why Measure 80 failed, but odds are against the Legislature coming up with something like it to refer to the voters — even if it were patterned on the successful measure passed in Washington state.
However, there may be support for state licensing of growers and distributors of medical marijuana to address concerns over growers selling their excess on the black market, said Buckley, D-Ashland.
"A lot of us have the shared goal of making the medical marijuana more professional and transparent," he said. "I don't want greed to kill the medical marijuana program."
Buckley said another measure is being drafted that would direct the Oregon Health Authority to research which strains of marijuana are most effective against specific ailments.
Voters turned down Measure 80 by 55 percent to 45 percent. Even with no campaign, it passed in Oregon's most liberal counties — Multnomah, Lane, Benton and Lincoln — but lost everywhere else. Even counties were medical marijuana use is highest, such as conservative Josephine County, voters turned it down.
"The patients are afraid and the growers want to keep the gravy train going," said Paul Stanford, the owner of a string of clinics where patients can get a doctor to authorize medical marijuana cards and chief petitioner of Measure 80.
Marijuana advocate and attorney Leland Berger said bringing medical marijuana under control is just where legalization supporters want to start.
There are three or four legislative proposals being developed by supporters to more strictly regulate growing and distributing medical marijuana to address concerns over growers selling their excess pot on the black market, he said.
Berger conceded there were legitimate concerns over the specifics of Measure 80, such as the makeup of an oversight committee. But supporters hope that with 45 percent of voters saying yes to Measure 80, even with virtually no campaign, lawmakers will agree that the logical next step would be to apply new regulations over medical marijuana to all marijuana.
"The fact is, that there are probably around 300,000 or 400,000 Oregonians using cannabis recreationally and that is not going to change," said Berger. "There are places that distribute medical cannabis, and that is not going to change.
"The question for the Legislature initially, and if they don't take action for the people, is are we safer, and is it better for the community, if this is allowed to happen in an unregulated fashion, or should we adopt some reasonable regulations to control it," Berger said.
Oregon's marijuana legalization measure failed while measures in Washington state and Colorado passed.
Stanford blamed the loss on the lack of financial support from national marijuana advocacy organizations, and that lack of support on negative news coverage of him. But the director of one of those organizations said Stanford's measure was poorly written and early polling showed it had little chance of winning, though support appeared to build closer to election day.
Instead, the political arm of the Drug Policy Alliance in New York threw money to the Colorado and Washington campaigns, which offered much more responsible measures and better chances of winning, said executive director Ethan Nadelmann.
Nadelmann said taking the issue to the Legislature was a good strategy, but he expected that once a better measure is put before voters, more along the lines of those in Colorado and Washington, it will pass.
"I anticipate all sorts of people will be wanting to do this in Oregon in the next two or four years," he said. "I will do all I can to see that Oregon gets to vote on an initiative like the ones in Colorado and Washington.
"These were about responsible regulation of marijuana. These were not pro-pot. This was very much about people saying, 'We need to stop arresting people, we need to have police focus on real crime and take this out of the hands of criminals, and have the resulting tax revenue for government."
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Its a shame the measure didn't pass. The proponents should be repeating non-stop how much tax money is wasted to harass, prosecute and jail marijuana users - until people get sick of hearing it and do the right thing (legalizing).
If the backers want to get serious, they will draft a bill without the debatable recitals, without the self-regulation through a newly created, OLCC-type, regulatory agency, and without the anti-competitive restraint of trade features. Keep it simple. Should adults be able to smoke pot without going to jail? Can they grow a plant for their own use? Will those who provide it to minors go to prison? Will employers still be permitted to prohibit being stoned while at work? Those are the only important questions.
As of 9:00 this morning, 45% of the Oregon voters who cast their ballot, amounting to nearly 684,000 individuals, voted for the legalization of marijuana, despite the measure being perceived as flawed in its details, and the campaign in support of it being extremely underfunded. Yes, the measure was defeated, but 700,000+ people [as it will be after the tally is complete] voted for the legalization of personal possession and use of marijuana! That is an impressive showing and perhaps it is time that the anti-legalization law makers reconsider their position. i believe that the Oregon measure would have passed, as legalization measures in Washington and Colorado did, if it hadn't had the perceived flaws in its details it did. Now, its only a matter of writing a better drafted law, or measure, and time!
This comment has been deleted
 @cavtrooper !00% BS study.... Key words COULD!
 @Funky-Munky You mean like drunk driving COULD cause deaths? lol
 @cavtrooper Several decades ago, I worked for a line-driver moving furniture across the nation. Since he was independent, he would get a letter in the mail notifying him of when to take his next drug test...which gave him more than enough time to get the THC out of his system.Â
Â
On the road, after going through truck scales and inspection points, he would fire up a doobie like clockwork and just drive for hundreds of miles. He's logged millions of miles over the years and has won several safe driving awards.Â
Â
Kind of ironic, isn't it?
 @Funky-Munky I believe the term is non sequiturd...
Â
 @cavtrooper Are you feeling alright? Where did you pull that comment out of your buns? (good grief)
 @Funky-Munky lol... spoken like a true doper
 @cavtrooper I empathize with the kids because education should come first before substance abuse or recreational use. I enjoy facts pertaining to the medical fields studies. Too many half baked studies with little factual information. Habitual vs. recreational is often overlooked when conducting these studies. In addition the numbers of those studied while using marijuana remains minimal.
 @Funky-Munky See, you miss the point. I want it legal. We waste millions of dollars to trying to stop it. Make it legal I say. But, let the kids who will be using it, know what the risks are.Â
 @cavtrooper Hey.. It will be alright. It's your right to name call, but it only proves my point that you're desperate to convince others about an incomplete study as being fact. Kleenex? :D)Â
I live in Washington State where local, state and others are crying their little eyes out pertaining to the passage of recreational use of marijuana. The L.E. is actively pursing a major grow op. where I live and now they are sniveling they don't know what to do about their investigation that has been going on for a month. I bet their idea of a major grow op. consists of a few plants in a garage etc.! Since the initiative 502 passed none of us fully understand anything pertaining to legalization whatsoever.
Alcohol is way worse, so are fat people taxing our health care system.
 @Bob6 so let them kill themselves just like marijuana smokers will from the smoke.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @HarryJuku I think marijuana users are idiot for smoking it. That said, make it legal and let them kill themselves as they wish.Â
 @cavtrooper how does marijuana kill exactly? I desperately want to know this
I'd love to educate you on cannabis consumption Cavtrooper but your hostility and negative connotones are allowing for you to steep in your own ingnorance.Â
Â
Go have a wonderful day, you are begging to be ridiculed further.
 @cavtrooperThis is a really bad argument you have. No element in marijuana is poisonous and has any lingering effects on the lungs. Do you know you breathe in more poison everyday (aka carbon monoxide) than you would ever in a lifetime of smoking pot?
 @Jk19 Do you think you can inhale a foreign substance into you lungs and not have any effect on them? It may be "safer" than cigarettes but its not safe.Â
 @HarryJukuyeah, like maybe educating our voters. A little door knocking reading the psalms of science and agriculture could go a long way.
We have spent billions of $$$ trying to educate our children to reject drugs, yet the pot heads want to set up a cash cow drug industry to legitimize drug addiction. Let 'em go up to Washington since the morons there voted to just say yes to drugs. Oh, and for all the bongers among you, how are going to pass the pee test for employment? And how are you going to deal with the Feds?
Keep believing whatever your cult is telling you to believe. The rest of us have a mind of our own and are not brainwashed into what religion and government tells us. There are the freedoms given to us by the constitution and a right to step up and challenge our government is one of them.
@PortlandEastside @PortlandEastside your kids are your problem, nanny-statist, and the "bongers" I know are already professional, college-educated and own property, or, like my dad, they're retired. Also, unless you work for some other corporation or union, you probably don't take a pee test. So go fatten your kid up on ice cream, caffeine drinks and television and keep preaching to us about how much better you are than everybody else. Odds are you're overweight and not feeding your kids properly. Also, you let them watch too much TV. Loser.
 @Playanekes  @PortlandEastside  Wow! Testy eh?
 @PortlandEastside Good point! If pot is legal how can they prevent you from getting a job or fire you from your present job for a failed pee test? Do we really want pot head building airplanes?
 @oodathunked Easy some employers already ban hiring workers that smoke cigarettes.... even if they smoke them in their off time! :(
 @oodathunked  @PortlandEastside Sorry to tell you, but the "potheads" are a lot more educated and responsible than you want to believe.
 @oodathunked Absolutely!!! Not high on the job of course, but if they want to spend their free time relaxing and smoking pot to ease their stress then more power to them.
 @Jk19 So,,,,, it's OK if your heart surgeon is smoking pot?
the final days of prohibition. NICE !!! Didnt work for alcohol, doesnt work for pot.
Pot addicts didnt get their way in Oregon.
@sortbait booze addicts did but that doesn't bother you people much. As long as they don't prohibit YOUR drug of choice, right? Cheers! A toast! It's Miller Time...
Regardless of the merits of the issue, Stanford's attempt to shove this down the voter's throats, against their will, is reprehensible.
This comment has been deleted
 @SerenityWowz  @felines99 It is sheer arrogance to claim that if the voters were better informed, or if someone other than Stanford were behind the measure, the voters would have passed it. It is blatantly unfair to assume that you know what the voters would have wanted were the circumstances different. Everyone needs to play by the rules -- not try to subvert them when things don't go their way.
Â
@felines99 You love trying to get the last word in don't you?  I did refute, and there is no winner here - because you are unable to be convinced of anything but your own drivel.
Â
I never refused the outcome of the vote, not once, pal. Â Â Â
Â
You deny any legislation on the matter while only acknowledging the vote. They are two avenues that can be had here - you can't seem to get that through your think skull, pal.
Â
On one hand you agree with me that it should be legal, but on the other you won't allow for any legislation on the matter because you seem to think that the vote is the end.
Â
I opted for more public education on the matter and to try for legislation, itâs not being shoved down anyoneâs throat. To restrict further discussion on legislation is in direct conflict with the systems we have in place, and thatâs your argument - its weak, incredibly.
Â
I firmly believe you are nothing more than an internet bully, and someone when in the public eye and not hiding behind an avatar wouldn't have the courage of your convictions to claim you are wrong to allow for one path in government but not the other.
Â
You consistently are trying to use the voters for the crutch of your argument, the voters year after year through more education and insight are finally seeing that prohibition needs to end, its closing on the 50% mark. And you would deny this new found knowledge to the people now supporting the end of cannabis prohibition as well as those individuals trying to educate their communities on cannabis and hemp. Legislation is the next step, like it or not, pal.
Â
No sour grapes here, I pity your behavior and false claims of what I can and can't refute. You are making yourself look bad, cheers - pal.
Â
Iâm looking forward to reading your retort or your pre-emptive end zone dance, Iâm sure it will mirror the rest of your clamoring.Â
 @OliverNicholas P.S. The reason you are "done speaking with" me is that you cannot refute any single argument which I so clearly presented. If you could, you would have tried. Sour grapes, pal.
That is what legislation is for, you can't say you respect one part of the democratic process and deny other functions of our political system, you are now denying it all. Â
Â
As far as your fanatical rage over the misspelling of a word or the smallest of grammatical errors proves my point further, your insistent need to bully people with your nonsensical pseudo-intelligence and point out the most minor of flaws to distract from the entirety of your failed argument. Â
Â
I'm done speaking with you, nothing but obnoxious white noise. Resorting to name calling in a last ditch effort to reinforce a failing argument is your modus operandi. You may thump your chest alone, Pal.
Â
 @OliverNicholas You are pompous, arrogant, and not-too-bright, and here's why:
Â
a. I am not a prohibitionist. The term "prohibitionist" refers to those who favored outlawing alcohol in the 1920's.
b. "You harbor much negativity." Such as what??? Simply because I oppose marijuana legalization??? I am FOR a pot-free environment for our young people. How is that negative??? You are simply manipulating the English language to suit your particular prejudices.
c. "appauling ignorance". You cannot even spell the word "appalling", so it would seem that YOU are the ignorant one. HAH!!!
d.  Re the continued education re cannabis: where did I state that I opposed such education, because I do NOT. I have a hunch that your notion of cannabis education differs from mine, however.
e. Yes, pompous distortion. Benjamin Franklin was not talking about marijuana legalization when he made his famous statement re freedom and security.
f. "I can furnish more knowledge if you like . . . ." I seriously doubt that, based on all that you have written so far.
g. "I can read a lot of fear in your words" should read "I can read a lot of fear INTO your words", since that is just what you are doing -- reading fear into my words where none exists. I have no fear regarding this issue. I have no children to worry about, and I have never considered cannabis to be "evil". It's getting legalized everywhere else, so I'm quite certain that it will become legal in Oregon as well. Big deal. I think that will be a mistake, but I certainly do not "fear" that happening. It will not impact my life in any way, so what's there to fear??? IDIOT.
Â
My original statement stands: it is reprehensible for someone to try to cram a defeated measure down the voters' throats. That is the true "end of story." CAPICHE???
You habor much negativity, thank you for sharing your true colors. I have a healthy respect for the democratic process, but I have no respect for prohibitionists of your sort, you are by default an enemy of personal freedom. Restricting personal sovereignty through your narrow view and appauling ignorance seems to be your calling, good - I enjoy your sort, it gives me fervor for debate!
Â
Im not arguing that it didnt fail, Im arguing for the continued education on cannibis/hemp. You don't seem to want to hear anything but yourself, I can read a lot of fear in your words.
Â
Pompous distortion? one of our founding fathers - Benjamin Franklin uttered something similar, unpopular but truthful. Im sure you would have been a zealous fan of a fellow by the name of Edmund Burke, I hold court with Paine. Â
Â
I can furnish more knowledge if you like, although I feel it may be wasted - you seem to know it all, have a good evening my little prohibitionist extraordanaire.
Â
PERIOD, End of story.
Â
P.S.
I think you dropped these (!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Â
Â
 @OliverNicholas  @felines99 Reel it in, pal!!! "You equally have no right to claim that it wasn't based on the ignorance of the voters and their knowledge of cannabis and/or industrial hemp." I don't HAVE to furnish a reason the measure was defeated because I am not trying to shove a defeated measure down the electorate's throats. The proponents of marijuana legalization are the ones who are trying to do that!  Additionally, I know that I voted against the measure on the merits of the issue. And, since polls indicate that a sizable number of people oppose the legalization of marijuana on the merits, I know that I was not alone in voting against it for that reason. For those opposed to legalization on the merits, it would not make ANY difference how much money was spent on the campaign or who headed the campaign -- PERIOD. The rest of your argument is fallacious since you cannot put marijuana in the same category as alcohol. End of story. And additionally, you cannot equate efforts to control marijuana with "state violence"!!! So your pronouncement re sacrificing freedom for security is a pompous distortion. (!!!)
@felines99 Flaws in your argument, you state "How dare you assume that the people failed to pass this measure because of a lack of funding or because they did not like the proponent of the measure?"
Â
You equally have no right to claim that it wasn't based on the ignorance of the voters and their knowledge of cannabis and/or industrial hemp.
Â
D.A.R.E. recently removed cannabis from their programs and were stated as saying that "Our children need to be given accurate, truthful education on the drugs and on the dangers and benefits."Â Most people were raised to think cannabis was dangerous and in some circles even evil. The stigma needs to go, and so will the crime element once its legal.
Â
All of the other violence that surrounds the (non-alcohol, non-tobacco) drug trade is fundamentally a REACTION to that initial state-sponsored violence. Prohibition renders contracts unenforceable and makes it impossible for competitors to use the courts or the police to challenge intimidation or settle disputes. There are plenty of legal businesses that might love to âkill the competition,â but that only becomes a viable strategy under the black market conditions that prohibition creates. (Note that nobody from Coke or Pepsi has their decapitated corpse hung from a bridge as a result of the so-called âCola Wars.â)
Â
Prohibition also raises the prices of illicit drugs and hence their profitability. (Econ 101: risk demands compensation.) This only increases sellersâ incentives to do âwhatever it takesâ to capture market share. Today you donât see rival beer distributors engaging in deadly shoot-outs over turf, but you USED TO â during alcohol prohibition.
Â
Run a Google image search for âU.S. homicide rate graphâ (not all together in quotes). Take a look at the murder rate before, after, and during alcohol prohibition (1919-1933). Then read some current news out of Mexico (pretty much any news will do). Spot a pattern? The use of state violence to address what is really a medical and health issue (as well as a matter of personal choice) has been a disaster. And it needs to stop.
Â
If you voted to continue prohibition you by definition are voting for continued violence and the perpetuation of a black market for cannabis. Anyone willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little supposed security isn't deserving of either!
Â
 @SerenityWowz  @felines99 If, for example, someone loses a child as a result of drunk driving, and he/she thinks the laws should be changed to allow for more severe sentences for those convicted of drunk driving, it is entirely appropriate for that person to lobby the legislature to get the laws changed on sentencing drunk drivers. That is simply one example out of thousands where someone goes to the legislature to get a law enacted or changed. However, if one goes to the people and the people say "no" to changing a certain policy, the next step is to rewrite your proposal and take it to the people to vote on again. How dare you assume that the people failed to pass this measure because of a lack of funding or because they did not like the proponent of the measure??? I voted against it because of the issues involved, and I'm CERTAIN that many other Oregonians did as well. You have absolutely no right to claim that it was defeated for reasons other than the merits of the issue. Playing by the rules means you must go back to the drawing board and come up with another version for the people of Oregon to vote on. The bottom line: THE VOTERS OF THIS STATE SAID "NO", AND THAT DECISION MUST BE RESPECTED. That is the American way.
 @felines99 That is what voting is for.
What's the rush? Â Washington is going to have to spend their money on the inevitable Federal Challenges - Â work out the system details - They'll have to pay for all the court time spent reconsidering MJ related cases as well as all the money spent cleaning out the jails of pot offenders... Â
Â
Let Washington go through the rigors of figuring this out and WE WILL WATCH CLOSELY to see what they do well, and how we could improve on their efforts. Â So why rush it here in Oregon?
If a person was engulfed in flames would you help put out the fire or wait until it burns out?
 @OliverNicholas Depends on who that is LOL!  Actually,  I fail to see the connection between your question and my post.
Instead of going to Salem to get them to push your deceptive campaign, why don't you go to Washington and Colorado and learn how to do it right?
 @Scotty9 The reality in Washington State nothing whatsoever has changed pertaining to the passage of I-502! Nobody understands the Federal Governments position whatsoever and there has been NO comment by our leaders whatsoever. Our leaders are cowards and are afraid to say anything besides I dunno. If the Federal Government overrides the voters wishes what does that say about the Federal Government?
 @Scotty9 Too stoned?