Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GinWithJennifer t1_iueeqea wrote

Ok, I made a post the other day asking where to vote and to red pill me on these questions

Please explain to me what the hell it actually means or does. I interpreted it to mean it was a tax increase on dispensaries. It's worded so weirdly I have no idea what it is even for.

6

GinWithJennifer t1_iuf7bb6 wrote

Give me the quick run down

2

VoijaRisa t1_iuf8fab wrote

It's a constitutional amendment that legalizes marijuana use at the state level.

It creates a licensing process for manufacturers, processors, and retailers, as well as carving out a special kind of "micro-business" license for small businesses that are reserved for communities traditionally harmed by the "war on drugs". Taxes would be set at 6% and local communities could add an additional 3%. This is lower than in many other states (including IL) which would probably help increase the amount of business.

It also provides for the expungement of records for those previously convicted of non-violent marijuana related crimes. For those already released, expungement is automatic. Those current in prison would need to file a petition for release.

It allows for personal possession and use and includes protections against being fired or the subject of search for possession or use.

The criticisms against it are that businesses already holding medical marijuana licenses would get first dibs at the new licenses and thereby may not allow for much new entry into the market.

The other is that it does not provide automatic expungement of records for those currently in prison - only those already out. This is due to how the laws regarding expungement are written - not because the creators of the amendment didn't want to.

Overall, this is an excellent bill in my opinion and, if you're in favor of legalization, there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon.

18

GinWithJennifer t1_iuf8qpb wrote

So, yes or no

It makes it recreational and decriminalizes it?

3

VoijaRisa t1_iuf90yk wrote

Yes. But as always, only at the state level. It would still be illegal under federal law. However, the feds would have to enforce such as Missouri police would no longer have the authority to do so under this law.

10

Restricted_Access_06 t1_iuhz081 wrote

Also there are huge legal and civil consequences for state level and down law enforcement assisting any federal law enforcement in the state (thanks to gun owners) so there would be zero federal enforcement of MJ laws here.

2

mrsdex1 t1_iuft2dw wrote

The purpose is laid out on page 17. ..

  1. Legalize with limits 21 and over

  2. Allow Gov't to control production

  3. Prevent arrests for for those 21/over within Legal possessions limits

  4. Remove Commercial production from illicit market

  5. Prevent revenue from going to criminal enterprise.

−1

GinWithJennifer t1_iufx6e3 wrote

Works for me

6

mrsdex1 t1_iug635r wrote

Can't wait to arrest legacy growers eh?

−6

GinWithJennifer t1_iug6qk9 wrote

Idek what that means. If it decriminalizes it and regulates it then it sounds good to me

3

mrsdex1 t1_iug7ugr wrote

No snark, full on prohibition didn't solve points 4, and 5. This language won't either.

Do we really need to continue to learn these lessons?

−3

GinWithJennifer t1_iugc9s1 wrote

I have no idea what you're talking about.

5

mrsdex1 t1_iugcnsv wrote

Ok, so what do you think points 4 and 5 mean?

1

GinWithJennifer t1_iugcxkm wrote

Prevent crime and transition society to a safer more regulated product.

I don't use so it will not affect me fortunately. It seems like a liberal policy mostly from what I can tell

5

mrsdex1 t1_iuggpey wrote

Prohibition was never successful at stopping the legacy market, how do you think this legilstation will move the legacy market towards the regulated market now fully under control of the MO gov't?

The NAACP has said to vote no on this legislation, because they know who will continue to be arrested.

1

GinWithJennifer t1_iugx0p8 wrote

Thats basically what happened in legal states. It became legal and illicit trade lost a lot of its profit margin. Money is what makes the illegal market function. If the legal market is competitive then they can operate legally. I even watched a podcast by a kingpin that was getting big just as Washington was legalizing. He said the only money in it then was transporting it to states where it was still illegal and after he got out of jail and many more states had legalized he said that was still very much the case in his opinion. That's just one guy I guess but that see s pretty consistent with most states right? The legal businesses replace the illegal ones and a new main stream culture props up and thrives and newer better products emerge.

Decriminalize it and let the market thrive and it probably lead to better for everyone in the very long run. The type of fear mongering you seem to be doing is a lot like people said about Colorado (or maybe I'm confusing it with New Mexico) just before it became the first state to legalize. None of the things people predicted negative came true in Colorado and almost as soon as the state saw this influx of money they changed their tune super fast.

Just let this be the beginning of a better system than what we already have. Isn't it always talked about how the medicinal experiment is just a pathway to recreational? Because people that wanna do it are just gonna do it anyway and medicinal is just the stepping stone t recreational and more positive olicies and stuff can follow.

3

mrsdex1 t1_iuhcwqt wrote

We gotta stop arresting people for weed. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp.

1

GinWithJennifer t1_iuhp1ta wrote

That's what I want tho

3

Esb5415 t1_iuhpoqr wrote

And that is what this amendment does.

2

GinWithJennifer t1_iuhs4wk wrote

Yall are confusing me

2

Esb5415 t1_iuhs8jx wrote

What do you have questions about? I'd be happy to try to offer unbiased information about the amendment, with sources.

1

GinWithJennifer t1_iuhsiv9 wrote

Alright well it sounds like it decriminalizes pot so I'm gonna vote for it

3

mrsdex1 t1_iuk4n54 wrote

You can't decrim while protecting regulated cannabis profits.

The two concepts are incompatible.

1