Illinois Medical Marijuana Bill FINALLY Passes The House!

Crohnie

Crohn's Warrior
The Illinois House of Representatives FINALLY passed (This was the 4th attempt in 6 years) a Medical Marijuana Bill! This is only the first hurdle, but by FAR, the hardest. The Illinois Senate is expected to pass it and Illinois Governor Quinn has indicated he would support it! :rockon:
 

Crohnie

Crohn's Warrior
So freakin excited! I watched the debate on a live stream. It was passionate, but civilized and intelligent.
 
Crohnie,

satyrday

Well-Known Member
Abe is lighting one up right now in the great grow room in the sky. Sorry, vaping one up.
 
satyrday,
  • Like
Reactions: Crohnie

rufus

Active Member
So freakin excited! I watched the debate on a live stream. It was passionate, but civilized and intelligent.

I didn't watch, but have a hard time believing anyone civilized or intelligent would be on the side of continuing cannabis prohibition.
 
rufus,

OO

Technical Skeptical
I didn't watch, but have a hard time believing anyone civilized or intelligent would be on the side of continuing cannabis prohibition.
That's a pretty poor mentality to have going into a debate.

Consider the implications of your statement and why some would be offended. I for one know intelligent and civilized folk who are on the side of continuing prohibition. But they are living in their IDEAL, just as you are yours. Just because someone believes that one should refrain from adulterating their brain chemistry doesn't mean they aren't intelligent or civilized. They just have a different opinion (that people shouldn't have dominion over their own bodies). While I don't agree with them (in fact I am vehemently opposed to their ideals, and believe that RESPONSIBLE people should have more privileges than those who are obviously irresponsible), I certainly can't categorize them like you have.

That "us versus them" mentality is what allowed the nazi's to do such despicable things to those who were born slightly different than them, and is also what is responsible for our pathetic-minded two-party system that our founders necessarily warned against.


:peace:

Chronie, I am very stoked, political change seems to be occurring like dominoes falling.
 

rufus

Active Member
I respect them as misinformed human beings, don't get me wrong. No one should be able to look at the facts and then willingly choose to continue the mistake that is cannabis prohibition. It's fundamentally wrong. Its an injustice to be corrected, not debated. I've never heard a rational argument on behalf of continuing this failed policy.
 
rufus,

Crohnie

Crohn's Warrior
I am SO proud of my Illinois representatives. There were a number of House members that spoke today who had voted NO on previous bills who spoke out strongly in favor of HB 1. The results of the 2012 elections also helped put in place a group of Representatives that was more favorable to a Medical bill. As a result, the bill passed today 61-57 in the Illinois House of Representatives.

Quite true, rufus! HERE! HERE! :clap:
 

OO

Technical Skeptical
I respect them as misinformed human beings, don't get me wrong. No one should be able to look at the facts and then willingly choose to continue the mistake that is cannabis prohibition. It's fundamentally wrong. Its an injustice to be corrected, not debated. I've never heard a rational argument on behalf of continuing this failed policy.
You're completely missing the point. You are belittling those who you disagree with, which means they will surely ignore anything you have to say no matter how valuable.

Their opinion is DIFFERENT than yours, not WRONG. That's the thing about opinions, they can't be right or wrong, because they are SUBJECTIVE. You may disagree with their opinion, but that makes their opinion no less correct than yours.

Rational arguments can absolutely be made for cannabis (or any mind altering substance for that matter) prohibition. I won't agree with them most likely, and neither will you most likely, but someone will. Think of the person who has been neglected for their early life due to a parenting figure who found drugs more appealing than taking care of those they are responsible for. I can easily see a person from this background being opposed to the allowance of ANY mind altering substance. That being said, I know of different people who both grew up in this same environment, and came to the opposite points of view, and both are very vocal about their opinions.

You should learn to value a society which allows differing opinions, such as the one you're living in.

BUT with the caveat of knowing that having a dissenting opinion does not make someone wrong.
 

rufus

Active Member
That's like saying being against slavery is an opinion. Well, sure it is, I guess. I'm pretty sure we still eventually collectively realized that opinion was wrong and corrected the mistake as a society.

You have misjudged my relationship with my fellow man. I am a very understanding person and I am more than capable of thinking about it from the other point of view and it's still very clear in this instance.

This issue just isn't up for debate, much like slavery shouldn't be up for debate again even though some people would argue for it.

We have an obligation to fix a mistake of this magnitude, not pretend it might be allowable.
 

Crohnie

Crohn's Warrior
Fortunately, more than 80% of the American people now believe that medical cannabis should be legal. Time for our so called representatives to catch up with the represented.
 
Crohnie,

OO

Technical Skeptical
That's like saying being against slavery is an opinion. Well, sure it is, I guess. I'm pretty sure we still eventually collectively realized that opinion was wrong and corrected the mistake as a society.

You have misjudged my relationship with my fellow man. I am a very understanding person and I am more than capable of thinking about it from the other point of view and it's still very clear in this instance.

This issue just isn't up for debate, much like slavery shouldn't be up for debate again even though some people would argue for it.

We have an obligation to fix a mistake of this magnitude, not pretend it might be allowable.
The Rules said:
General Posting Guidelines

  • Do not state opinion as fact. We don’t want to spread misinformation.
All issues are open for debate in our society, because we have freedom of speech. It's what makes this country great. You can have a dissenting opinion and not be persecuted for it. If you really believe in what you say, that the issue is not open for debate, then what should be/is the punishment for debating the issue?

A possible reason that slavery is no longer fiercely debated is that people are no longer considered property in our country.

But the ideas you claim are not open for debate are still debated, want to guess why? Because mental sovereignty is not a liberty we possess. You DO NOT have the right to decide what you want to put into your own body, and in many cases you WILL be persecuted for doing so. I don't think it is right, but it is the reality we live in. Try to tell anyone that has been arrested for these sort of crimes that it is not allowable, I'm sure they will tell you otherwise, as will all of those who persecute you.

If you want to fix what you claim is a problem, who is stopping you? Everyone possesses amazing ability to change what they choose, but they have to dedicate themselves. I don't think your current view of reality will allow that to happen. If you want proof, look at the actions of Harry J. Anslinger, and you will see just how possible it is for a single individual to form public opinion on an issue like the one you represent.

I will stand behind you if you choose to venture down the path of righteousness, but you must first acknowledge that you are not living in a world that represents your ideal as you seem to believe it does. A good starting point is to stop misjudging your fellow man and categorizing him as lacking in civility or intelligence simply because he believes that prohibition is the correct path. If you can't overcome this obstacle, you chances of success are near nil.
 
OO,

rufus

Active Member
The American public didn't stand a chance against the last 80 years of bad information they were fed. They were betrayed by people they trusted, in positions of high authority, under false pretenses and we're still suffering from the culturally disorienting affects of their malicious deception. It was a crime against the rights of the American people.

We've got it all wrong when we fall into the old worn out tracks we've inherited, stating things like "should medical cannabis be legal". That shouldn't be the question at all. The question is when should an otherwise law abiding citizen lose their rights.

Because that's what your condoning and authorizing by supporting any law which criminalizes your fellow man.

You're saying you think they have crossed a line which justifies their life to be ruined, their door to be kicked in, their family stolen, their body shackled and caged.

That's not something to be taken lightly. We should only wish that upon those who truly are criminals, otherwise the law loses its meaning and purpose.

By saying something is a crime, it means the individual becomes a criminal, losing their freedom.

Cannabis is a plant with a multitude of purposes, none of which should ever necessitate an individuals loss of freedom.

The criminality of cannabis is a mockery of the justice systems role and the role of law enforcement.

*edit to say this was all in response to Crohnie so far...
 
rufus,

OO

Technical Skeptical
The American public didn't stand a chance against the last 80 years of bad information they were fed. They were betrayed by people they trusted, in positions of high authority, under false pretenses and we're still suffering from the culturally disorienting affects of their malicious deception. It was a crime against the rights of the American people.

We've got it all wrong when we fall into the old worn out tracks we've inherited, stating things like "should medical cannabis be legal". That shouldn't be the question at all. The question is when should an otherwise law abiding citizen lose their rights.

Because that's what your condoning and authorizing by supporting any law which criminalizes your fellow man.

You're saying you think they have crossed a line which justifies their life to be ruined, their door to be kicked in, their family stolen, their body shackled and caged.

That's not something to be taken lightly. We should only wish that upon those who truly are criminals, otherwise the law loses its meaning and purpose.

By saying something is a crime, it means the individual becomes a criminal, losing their freedom.

Cannabis is a plant with a multitude of purposes, none of which should ever necessitate an individuals loss of freedom.

The criminality of cannabis is a mockery of the justice systems role and the role of law enforcement.
None of this matters to those you wish to convince, trust me on this, I've worn this one through and through when speaking with them at length.

You would benefit from an amended approach. My preferred approach is seeking a permissions based system which parallels many aspects of a licensing system.

My approach addresses many concerns of those who are opposed to the legislation you favor.

Your failure is that you either won't recognize, or choose to ignore that their arguments are necessarily different than yours. Your points may convince those who already are swayed towards agreeing with a civil liberties based argument, but absolutely fails to address the concerns of those who do not imbibe/ those who have witnessed tragedy at the hands of those who were irresponsible with their drug use. It is because of this that you will not succeed at convincing others that you have a favorable solution.

Take off your blinders, and step into the shoes of another. Maybe in the future you will manage to convince someone of the merits of legalization, or so I sincerely hope.

OTOH, you could take a debates course, or self-study on the topic, I believe you will be much happier with your ability to change the opinion of another if you do.
 
OO,

rufus

Active Member
All issues are open for debate in our society, because we have freedom of speech. It's what makes this country great. You can have a dissenting opinion and not be persecuted for it. If you really believe in what you say, that the issue is not open for debate, then what should be/is the punishment for debating the issue?

A possible reason that slavery is no longer fiercely debated is that people are no longer considered property in our country.

But the ideas you claim are not open for debate are still debated, want to guess why? Because mental sovereignty is not a liberty we possess. You DO NOT have the right to decide what you want to put into your own body, and in many cases you WILL be persecuted for doing so. I don't think it is right, but it is the reality we live in. Try to tell anyone that has been arrested for these sort of crimes that it is not allowable, I'm sure they will tell you otherwise, as will all of those who persecute you.

If you want to fix what you claim is a problem, who is stopping you? Everyone possesses amazing ability to change what they choose, but they have to dedicate themselves. I don't think your current view of reality will allow that to happen. If you want proof, look at the actions of Harry J. Anslinger, and you will see just how possible it is for a single individual to form public opinion on an issue like the one you represent.

I will stand behind you if you choose to venture down the path of righteousness, but you must first acknowledge that you are not living in a world that represents your ideal as you seem to believe it does. A good starting point is to stop misjudging your fellow man and categorizing him as lacking in civility or intelligence simply because he believes that prohibition is the correct path. If you can't overcome this obstacle, you chances of success are near nil.

I admit my initial post was deserving of your tone and angle of perception. So it's understandable that you would continue to think we are at odds here. I apologize for being so careless with my words and I also appreciate you taking the time to shoot the breeze with me over these interwires. I like that you have diagnosed me and seem to want to help me succeed somehow. I didn't even realize I was trying to do anything other than chuckle at the idea of hearing someone sell a turd sandwich. Because that what it feels like when you listen to anyone who can't see past the mistake. You can patronize them all day and hear their side....and it falls short. It's bogus. Otherwise I agree with you completely.

None of this matters to those you wish to convince, trust me on this, I've worn this one through and through when speaking with them at length.

You would benefit from an amended approach. My preferred approach is seeking a permissions based system which parallels many aspects of a licensing system.

My approach addresses many concerns of those who are opposed to the legislation you favor.

Your failure is that you either won't recognize, or choose to ignore that their arguments are necessarily different than yours. Your points may convince those who already are swayed towards agreeing with a civil liberties based argument, but absolutely fails to address the concerns of those who do not imbibe/ those who have witnessed tragedy at the hands of those who were irresponsible with their drug use. It is because of this that you will not succeed at convincing others that you have a favorable solution.

Take off your blinders, and step into the shoes of another. Maybe in the future you will manage to convince someone of the merits of legalization, or so I sincerely hope.

OTOH, you could take a debates course, or self-study on the topic, I believe you will be much happier with your ability to change the opinion of another if you do.

I don't really favor legislation of any sort, just the removal of any criminal penalties associated. So you think people should need some sort of permission ? Interesting.

I find your perception of my failure rather curious. I'm only pointing out the reality of lies and failure, and you seem to want to turn that on me, as though perhaps this lie and failure is acceptable because some people fail to recognize it needs correcting.

You mistook me mentioning one thing for me attempting to sell an idea. I can sell the idea all day if that's what you want. Because that's how obvious it is. That's how blatant the nonsense is. It's an open and shut case. I think you know that. It sounds like you're well versed. I just made the mistake of letting you think I was trying to convince anyone and for that I owe you an apology.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of humanity. How can you possibly believe what you're saying, implying that it might be acceptable ?
 
rufus,

OO

Technical Skeptical
I admit my initial post was deserving of your tone and angle of perception. So it's understandable that you would continue to think we are at odds here. I apologize for being so careless with my words and I also appreciate you taking the time to shoot the breeze with me over these interwires. I like that you have diagnosed me and seem to want to help me succeed somehow. I didn't even realize I was trying to do anything other than chuckle at the idea of hearing someone sell a turd sandwich. Because that what it feels like when you listen to anyone who can't see past the mistake. You can patronize them all day and hear their side....and it falls short. It's bogus. Otherwise I agree with you completely.


I don't really favor legislation of any sort, just the removal of any criminal penalties associated. So you think people should need some sort of permission ? Interesting.

I find your perception of my failure rather curious. I'm only pointing out the reality of lies and failure, and you seem to want to turn that on me, as though perhaps this lie and failure is acceptable because some people fail to recognize it needs correcting.

You mistook me mentioning one thing for me attempting to sell an idea. I can sell the idea all day if that's what you want. Because that's how obvious it is. That's how blatant the nonsense is. It's an open and shut case. I think you know that. It sounds like you're well versed. I just made the mistake of letting you think I was trying to convince anyone and for that I owe you an apology.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of humanity. How can you possibly believe what you're saying, implying that it might be acceptable ?
I don't think we are at odds, we have similar opinions, just different understandings of how changing the circumstances surrounding them is best achieved.
Apology accepted with the terms that you are sincere, it's an important part of life to not see people with different opinions as the enemy.
I haven't diagnosed you so much as I have myself and why my arguments failed so critically when they were from the same points as yours.
If you're patronizing someone, don't expect their view to be changed, patronization will only polarize those who are of a differing perspective. You might see it as bogus, but try and think to the last time someone with an opinion different than yours was patronizing towards you, it's not too difficult to see why you would fail at changing the opinion of another if you did so.

I find the permission based system being the best compromise. In fact I see it as being closer to the IDEAL than just pure lack of enforcement. This is because it is conditional upon showing you are responsible, which is something I feel is undervalued in our society. Furthermore, I don't see a high likelihood of decriminalization bringing about resolution that is mostly free of extremist conflicts. I do, however, see the possibility of my system bringing about acceptance from most perspectives, especially since it so well addresses the wide array of dilemma associated with the use of drugs.

I will explain my ideal system further if you are interested.

The part about failure is the assumption that you didn't come here just to vent. I guess I was mistaken. I don't really see the point of having a strong opinion if you can't convince someone of an opposing viewpoint, similarly I don't see the point of being as salesperson if you can't convince someone who isn't already sold. What's the point of convincing someone who is already sold? Might as well sell your product online.

It might be blatant and obvious to you, because you are evaluating from the civil rights perspective, not the "what's the worst that can happen?" perspective, which has many concerns your argument will not address. If we assume you are anti-gun for a moment, it's like me saying guns should be legal for everyone because it's your right as long as you don't use them to harm others. Right now you would be thinking "but what about those who are not responsible with guns, or those who are mentally unstable."

In my ideal it isn't acceptable, but we don't live in my ideal, we live in reality.
 
OO,

SD_haze

Well-Known Member

The historic moment in the Illinois House of Representatives! This was the fourth attempt to pass a medical marijuana bill in Illinois. The fourth time was the charm. Enjoy!
WOW
At the very end it goes from (@ 0:13)
62 to 56 ==> 61 to 57

One last dude changed his vote... to try to swing it at the end? And it still passes :rofl::party:
 
SD_haze,
  • Like
Reactions: Crohnie

Crohnie

Crohn's Warrior
WOW
At the very end it goes from (@ 0:13)
62 to 56 ==> 61 to 57

One last dude changed his vote... to try to swing it at the end? And it still passes :rofl::party:
If you watch closely, the YES votes go to 63 for a few seconds. The last minute wavering has happened every time the bill has come up for a vote in the past. The 4th time was the charm.
 
Crohnie,

Doug

Just passing time
I heard all the MM that will be available will be only grown by the state. You will not have the opportunity to grow your own. How do you guys feel about that?
 
Doug,

Crohnie

Crohn's Warrior
I heard all the MM that will be available will be only grown by the state. You will not have the opportunity to grow your own. How do you guys feel about that?
Being able to grow your own was included in previous versions of the bill. Unfortunately, it was one of the major reasons that those previous bills didn't pass in Illinois. So, it was removed this time and the bill passed. I'm not thrilled with it, but I don't believe in "making perfect the enemy of the good."
 
Crohnie,

pakalolo

Toolbag v1.1 (candidate)
Staff member
Being able to grow your own was included in previous versions of the bill. Unfortunately, it was one of the major reasons that those previous bills didn't pass in Illinois. So, it was removed this time and the bill passed. I'm not thrilled with it, but I don't believe in "making perfect the enemy of the good."

Be careful what you wish for. Here's an example of why: Massachusetts Issues New Marijuana Regulations (Cannabis Now). The same sort of duplicity with sourcing is happening here in Canada as well, just the details differ. Once MMJ has passed, legislators with mixed feelings will have no trouble opposing any further relaxation of prohibition.
 
pakalolo,

satyrday

Well-Known Member
Be careful what you wish for. Here's an example of why: Massachusetts Issues New Marijuana Regulations (Cannabis Now). The same sort of duplicity with sourcing is happening here in Canada as well, just the details differ. Once MMJ has passed, legislators with mixed feelings will have no trouble opposing any further relaxation of prohibition.
There is so much creativity in the chaos of the underground herb market of today. I am very concerned about what this shit will be all about that you have to buy from ultra government controlled grow ops. What will they modify in and out of the plant?
 
satyrday,
  • Like
Reactions: Doug

OO

Technical Skeptical
There is so much creativity in the chaos of the underground herb market of today. I am very concerned about what this shit will be all about that you have to buy from ultra government controlled grow ops. What will they modify in and out of the plant?
If you want an argument to convince others, try arguing from a government mandated monopoly perspective. They will usually agree with free market arguments.
 
OO,
Top Bottom