Marijuana Oil Bill Passes KY Senate

JSteez4205

JSteez4205

aka Gordon NugzB
pakalolo said:
Kentucky is obviously the left-leaning liberal state of the two.
Click to expand...
Wow never thought I'd read that.. KY more of a left-leaning liberal state of the two.. Ky has Always been a very right-leaning conservative Bible Belt state, which is what makes this bill passing all the more remarkable! I love it. Things are finally starting to happen in the Blue-Grass state and I'm ready.. We're trying to push through medical marijuana as well.. With our agricultural representation already seen via tobacco crop cultivation, it only makes sense we start cultivating a plant that helps people rather than harm them..
 
C No Ego

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
someone with authority in that state found out about cannabis and woke up and realized someone they care about can benefit from the oil. that is how it works, now they will do what needs to be done to get access.

once someone knocks on your front door you either let them in or leave them on the porch...
 
C No Ego,
Snake Plissken

Snake Plissken

Transcendentalist
As happy as I am that autistic children and people who suffer from seizures are able to find relief from cannabis - I am sick of everyone (especially lawmakers) thinking that these are the only conditions that should be considered. These guys want to write the law based on a couple damn sanjay gupta specials.

In my state, while they do accept pain, nausea and cachexia - there are very few qualifying conditions/diseases which are accepted. I have a disease that will never go away, that many drs feel could be alleviated by using cannabis - yet they won't add chronic pancreatitis. Here they are stuck on cancer/glaucoma, like the newbies are stuck on autism/seizures - because it was more 'relevant' at the time.

When they draft these laws towards certain very limited criteria, I believe that they are doing a disservice to all patients who don't fit into their box. I get why these issues strike a chord w/ the common person, but wish these guys were more all inclusive. I mean really, drs and researchers have been coming out in support of medicinal marijuana for a long time now and they don't listen - but the second gupta does a mainstream show the legislatures want to jump on board and draft policy accordingly?
 
pakalolo

pakalolo

Toolbag v1.1 (candidate)
Staff member
Snake Plissken said:
As happy as I am that autistic children and people who suffer from seizures are able to find relief from cannabis - I am sick of everyone (especially lawmakers) thinking that these are the only conditions that should be considered. These guys want to write the law based on a couple damn sanjay gupta specials.

In my state, while they do accept pain, nausea and cachexia - there are very few qualifying conditions/diseases which are accepted. I have a disease that will never go away, that many drs feel could be alleviated by using cannabis - yet they won't add chronic pancreatitis. Here they are stuck on cancer/glaucoma, like the newbies are stuck on autism/seizures - because it was more 'relevant' at the time.

When they draft these laws towards certain very limited criteria, I believe that they are doing a disservice to all patients who don't fit into their box. I get why these issues strike a chord w/ the common person, but wish these guys were more all inclusive. I mean really, drs and researchers have been coming out in support of medicinal marijuana for a long time now and they don't listen - but the second gupta does a mainstream show the legislatures want to jump on board and draft policy accordingly?
Click to expand...

You are expressing the reasons why I will not support medical cannabis. It's a regulatory trap that will screw everyone who falls outside the boundaries they draw. It opens the door to even harsher penalties for recreational users, and even worse, for people who need it but who don't qualify.
 
Snake Plissken

Snake Plissken

Transcendentalist
pakalolo said:
You are expressing the reasons why I will not support medical cannabis. It's a regulatory trap that will screw everyone who falls outside the boundaries they draw. It opens the door to even harsher penalties for recreational users, and even worse, for people who need it but who don't qualify.
Click to expand...

Can't say I don't understand your point or totally disagree. The 'regulatory trap' was exactly what I was thinking about when reading the article.

I do feel a lot of the problem is w/ how poorly drafted these bills are. The only real solution is decriminalization. While I believe it should be legal for recreational use, I do think medical need supersedes recreational play. A recreational user is not going to suffer and potentially die w/o it.

I, also, will not support a recreational bill that doesn't have precise language protecting medical users and grower rights separately. I don't think Wa or Co would have recreational use right now if medical use didn't pave the way.
 
grokit

grokit

well-worn member
The main thing I dislike about mmj is that if the "authorities" ever decide to change their mind, patients would be on a list they have of "criminals". Unfortunately we're still all criminals in the eyes of the federal government, with the exception of ptsd military veterans. Good for the VA.

Otoh, without mmj, mj decriminalization would not be happening as it is now.

In a more perfect world, we would be able to see realistic, non-political comparisons between mj, booze, and tobacco, with special attention paid to the health benefits of vaporizing vs. smoking/combustion.
 
Last edited:
MinnBobber

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
Good job for all that pushed it thru. Like others have said, it isn't wide enough on what is allowed but maybe it is a first step.
Here in MN we are fighting the same battle. Our proposed law sounds just like yours, for seizures, but our governor said he'll veto it as law enforcement doesn't support it.
 
Snake Plissken

Snake Plissken

Transcendentalist
MinnBobber said:
Good job for all that pushed it thru. Like others have said, it isn't wide enough on what is allowed but maybe it is a first step.
Here in MN we are fighting the same battle. Our proposed law sounds just like yours, for seizures, but our governor said he'll veto it as law enforcement doesn't support it.
Click to expand...

That's fucking ridiculous. when did law enforcement start dictating state rights? Their job is to enforce the law, not mandate it. It used to be that whatever stupid decision leo came to on the side of the road, you would have your day in court and the judge could decide how to interpret circumstances.

A few years back a semi drove me into a ditch. Since I left tread marks trying to escape the situation, and the trucker didn't, I got cited. Once in court, the judge said that was stupid but that he only had the power to knock off up to 25% of the fine (which he did). Outraged, I questioned him on who was really dictating law in this situation, and he confirmed it was the cop on the street. When did this happen? In what other situations does this happen?
 
MinnBobber

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
Snake Plissken said:
That's fucking ridiculous. when did law enforcement start dictating state rights? Their job is to enforce the law, not mandate it. It used to be that whatever stupid decision leo came to on the side of the road, you would have your day in court and the judge could decide how to interpret circumstances.

A few years back a semi drove me into a ditch. Since I left tread marks trying to escape the situation, and the trucker didn't, I got cited. Once in court, the judge said that was stupid but that he only had the power to knock off up to 25% of the fine (which he did). Outraged, I questioned him on who was really dictating law in this situation, and he confirmed it was the cop on the street. When did this happen? In what other situations does this happen?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is totally f'in ridiculous. Cops enforce the law, not make the law. So for medical MJ they should be listening to the medical community which has huge numbers of supporters. MMJ seems to have potential for a HUGE list of diseases.
 
Dr. Soxhlet

Dr. Soxhlet

SOLO Vaporized Cannabis is my Best Medicine
Snake Plissken said:
That's fucking ridiculous. when did law enforcement start dictating state rights? Their job is to enforce the law, not mandate it. It used to be that whatever stupid decision leo came to on the side of the road, you would have your day in court and the judge could decide how to interpret circumstances.

A few years back a semi drove me into a ditch. Since I left tread marks trying to escape the situation, and the trucker didn't, I got cited. Once in court, the judge said that was stupid but that he only had the power to knock off up to 25% of the fine (which he did). Outraged, I questioned him on who was really dictating law in this situation, and he confirmed it was the cop on the street. When did this happen? In what other situations does this happen?
Click to expand...

Snake Plissken said:
Can't say I don't understand your point or totally disagree. The 'regulatory trap' was exactly what I was thinking about when reading the article.

I do feel a lot of the problem is w/ how poorly drafted these bills are. The only real solution is decriminalization. While I believe it should be legal for recreational use, I do think medical need supersedes recreational play. A recreational user is not going to suffer and potentially die w/o it.

I, also, will not support a recreational bill that doesn't have precise language protecting medical users and grower rights separately. I don't think Wa or Co would have recreational use right now if medical use didn't pave the way.
Click to expand...

It paved the way, but now the politicians and the Liquor Control Board wants to dismantle Medical Marijuana in Washinton State. A lot of changes have been proposed and even passed by one house, but none of them are good for patients. Plant count goes from 15 to 6, Possession Limits from 24 oz. to 3 oz., Oil reduced fron 72 oz. to?? Affirmative defence in court--Gone. Only "regular doctors" will be allowed to make recommendations, businesses that primarily get their revenue from making recommendations will not be allowed. The last time I tried to talk to my "regular" doctor about cannabis, he tried to get me into rehab....clueless.
The Catholic church just took over administration of half the area hospitals, so this does not surprize me.
I saw this stuff coming which is why I Did Not vote for I-502. Seemed to me the whole thing was crafted by law enforcement and politicians. And a 5 nanogram threshold for impaired driving. More revenue for the State-----Isn't that what all this is about---People don't matter, only money.
I've sent emails the legislature and Liquor Control Board in the hope public pressure will sway them.
So there's another target on my back!!!
 
Last edited:
Snake Plissken

Snake Plissken

Transcendentalist
Dr. Soxhlet said:
It paved the way, but now the politicians and the Liquor Control Board wants to dismantle Medical Marijuana in Washinton State. A lot of changes have been proposed and even passed by one house, but none of them are good for patients. Plant count goes from 15 to 6, Possession Limits from 24 oz. to 3 oz., Oil reduced fron 72 oz. to?? Affirmative defence in court--Gone. Only "regular doctors" will be allowed to make recommendations, businesses that primarily get their revenue from making recommendations will not be allowed. The last time I tried to talk to my "regular" doctor about cannabis, he tried to get me into rehab....clueless.
The Catholic church just took over administration of half the area hospital, so this does not surprize me.
I saw this stuff coming which is why I Did Not vote for I-502. Seemed to me the whole thing was crafted by law enforcement and politicians. And a 5 nanogram threshold for impaired driving. More revenue for the State-----Isn't that what all this is about---People don't matter, only money.
I've sent emails the legislature and Liquor Control Board in the hope public pressure will sway them.
So there's another target on my back!!!
Click to expand...

I think the same thing sometimes. A six plant count is ridiculous. Here it is defined as '6 mature plants'. Anything over 12" qualifies as mature whether in veg or flower, not accounting for teens at all - they really could of used a botanist on the panel to explain the life cycle of a cannabis plant. The loss of an affirmative defense was lost here as well - which is huge. We have a 24 oz limit, regardless of what form it is in. Some growers can't grow inside and only do 1 outside crop a year. A 3oz limit would screw them.

Leo in southern Oregon has always been the biggest threat to mmj here, and they actually supported some of the legislation being drafted by some of these knuckleheads, it was so skewed in their favor. Mostly the attempt to include 'agricultural zoning' terminology - which would basically have shut down small grow operations.

The suggested changes you are referring to are exactly what I try to warn people about when dodgy bills are put out there. Once achieved, mmj/grower rights need to have separate, written, standalone protection even when recreational use is permitted. The gov doesn't want medical users to be self sufficient, they want them to stand in line w/ everyone else - paying ridiculous tax for often times subpar meds.
 
Dr. Soxhlet

Dr. Soxhlet

SOLO Vaporized Cannabis is my Best Medicine
Snake Plissken said:
I think the same thing sometimes. A six plant count is ridiculous. Here it is defined as '6 mature plants'. Anything over 12" qualifies as mature whether in veg or flower, not accounting for teens at all - they really could of used a botanist on the panel to explain the life cycle of a cannabis plant. The loss of an affirmative defense was lost here as well - which is huge. We have a 24 oz limit, regardless of what form it is in. Some growers can't grow inside and only do 1 outside crop a year. A 3oz limit would screw them.

Leo in southern Oregon has always been the biggest threat to mmj here, and they actually supported some of the legislation being drafted by some of these knuckleheads, it was so skewed in their favor. Mostly the attempt to include 'agricultural zoning' terminology - which would basically have shut down small grow operations.

The suggested changes you are referring to are exactly what I try to warn people about when dodgy bills are put out there. Once achieved, mmj/grower rights need to have separate, written, standalone protection even when recreational use is permitted. The gov doesn't want medical users to be self sufficient, they want them to stand in line w/ everyone else - paying ridiculous tax for often times subpar meds.
Click to expand...
The whole concept of plant counts is to make it easier for law enforcement to bust people. Here in Washinton State the commercial growers get an area, so many square feet. They don't have to worry about number of plants. Last year was the first time ever in my 64 years did I feel comfortable growing it outdoors. Huge plants in a greenhouse. The harvest lasted me about 8 months. Under the new rules I would no longer be allowed to do that. People have no idea what a struggle it is to grow these plants properly. I just want to grow my medicine and be left in peace.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Soxhlet,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
grokit

grokit

well-worn member
Dr. Soxhlet said:
I've sent emails the legislature and Liquor Control Board in the hope public pressure will sway them.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right/wrong (what happened to strikethrough?).
Maybe try writing the local newspaper(s) as well?
 
grokit,
pakalolo

pakalolo

Toolbag v1.1 (candidate)
Staff member
grokit said:
Sounds about right/wrong (what happened to strikethrough?).
Maybe try writing the local newspaper(s) as well?
Click to expand...

Strike-through has been moved to the Insert drop-down (rightmost in the Insert group in your toolbar). Don't blame FC, that's a change in the new version of xenForo.
:shrug:
 
pakalolo,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
syrupy

syrupy

Authorized Buyer
Caligula said:
And yet in California they are trying to pass a bill to ban it...
Click to expand...

It's interesting how the focus is on BHO. A few years ago here in CA, some dispensaries shied away from the "B" word. It seemed to have an association with production of narcotics (meth labs?). If you asked, they'd say their concentrates were all CO2 or some other method (wink wink). Nowadays they seem more open about just calling it bho. But if laws like that passed, people would just call it CO2.
 
syrupy,
Caligula

Caligula

Maximus
They specifically said it would be amended to include ALL solvent produced concentrates including co2.
 
Caligula,
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom