Ark. medical marijuana group submits signatures

Aug 14, 2012 | Posted by: What- | Full story: www.sfgate.com

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) Backers of an initiative that would legalize the use of medical marijuana in Arkansas submitted more than 74,000 additional signatures Monday to the secretary of state's office, though only about a quarter of them need to be valid to get the issue on the November ballot.

The group Arkansans for Compassionate Care was given time to gather more signatures after it submitted 65,413 names on July 5. Only 36,495 names from that batch were certified as being from registered voters, leaving organizers shy of the required 62,507 verified names.

The group's treasurer, Melissa Fults, said organizers learned more about the process after submitting its first batch of signatures. This time, she said, they made sure that volunteers and paid canvassers asked people when and where they last voted before asking them to sign the petition to help ensure the signees were registered voters.

"I don't think there's much of a chance we won't" make the Nov. 6 ballot, Fults said.

The secretary of state's office must verify the signatures and is expected to rule within 10 days on whether the proposal qualifies for the ballot.

But the measure has drawn a tepid response from politicians. Gov. Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, both Democrats, have said they won't actively oppose the measure but that they probably won't vote for it. Spokesmen for Beebe and McDaniel said Monday that their positions have not changed.

The conservative Arkansas Family Council opposes the measure, arguing that marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law, which trumps state law. The group's director, Jerry Cox, didn't immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.

Comments
1 - 20 of 37 Comments Last updated Aug 28, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
VOTE NOVEMBER 6th

Paragould, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 14, 2012
 
Your vote counts!!!
guest

Paragould, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

"The conservative Arkansas Family Council opposes the measure, arguing that marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law, which trumps state law. The group's director, Jerry Cox, didn't immediately return a message seeking comment Monday."

I thought conservatives were for states rights?

Where does the constitution say that the federal government can outlaw marijuana?

Where does the constitution mention marijuana?

Silly conservatives only follow their supposed beliefs consistenly when it wouldn't lead to consequences that they don't like.

Ask the American Family Council about Act 1, which was on the last ballot and got voted in and then got ruled unconstitutional, and they will cry states rights.

Pfft.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

This is for medical marijuana ONLY. The stoners are celebrating thinking this will open the doors to legalize anytime/anywhere use. Hate to disappoint them.
guest

Paragould, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 14, 2012
 

Judged:

3

ThomasA wrote:
This is for medical marijuana ONLY. The stoners are celebrating thinking this will open the doors to legalize anytime/anywhere use. Hate to disappoint them.
You obviously don't know how hard (or rather easy) it is to get a prescription for it in the states that it is legalized in. Got migraines? Hate to disappoint you.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously don't know how hard (or rather easy) it is to get a prescription for it in the states that it is legalized in. Got migraines? Hate to disappoint you.
Why bother to get a prescription? There's plenty on the streets from a friend of a friend,etc.

“Built like a ”

Since: Aug 08

North Korean missile!.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 14, 2012
 
I think it taste great and leaves Your breath mint-fresh.
Smacking

Sioux Falls, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Vote for OBAMA ! Dope for everyone.
guest

Paragould, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 15, 2012
 
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>Why bother to get a prescription? There's plenty on the streets from a friend of a friend,etc.
Why shift from the crime of the streets to legality of a prescription? That's kinda the point of bothering with the whole endevor.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 15, 2012
 
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why shift from the crime of the streets to legality of a prescription? That's kinda the point of bothering with the whole endevor.
The medical MJ legalization is not as easy as some may think. To ever implement a nationwide program,there will have to be a regulated(Big Brother) program to regulate the grade and THC content from coast to coast. The stoner community can see every body growing in their backyards, but that won't be the case. Without quality control and strict regulation by legal growers,the quality would vary as the THC levels and a doctor in Tennessee would not have the same quality dispensed as a doctor in Texas,or Arkansas. The MJ industry will be similar to the liquor and drug industry with controls on quality and an accounting of every ounce grown for tax purposes, and it taxing will be on the level of alcohol which runs fifty to sixty per cent in some states.

“Return of the the Dark Ages”

Since: Mar 08

Margaritaville, AR.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

ThomasA wrote:
This is for medical marijuana ONLY. The stoners are celebrating thinking this will open the doors to legalize anytime/anywhere use. Hate to disappoint them.
So true. Why not legalize it for recreational purposes as alcohol is. If they go the medical route it will be eons before it is ever legalized in this state. If it is legalized for recreational purposes the people who really need it medically will be able to get it also, just as they can get alcohol.
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Nothing Jives wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. Why not legalize it for recreational purposes as alcohol is. If they go the medical route it will be eons before it is ever legalized in this state. If it is legalized for recreational purposes the people who really need it medically will be able to get it also, just as they can get alcohol.
You still have the nagging problem of not being able to have it in your system if you have a job that carries workman's compensation. Medical MJ patients would not be at work and would have to test clean before returning. With alcohol,a BAT will tell what percent is in your system, in the case of MJ,without an accurate 99.9% field test to determine when and not just positive or negative, the old rules for zero tolerance will have to stand. If you have no job, sponge off mommy and daddy,or you'r rich, light'em up and have at it.
not so fast
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 16, 2012
 
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> The medical MJ legalization is not as easy as some may think. To ever implement a nationwide program,there will have to be a regulated(Big Brother) program to regulate the grade and THC content from coast to coast. The stoner community can see every body growing in their backyards, but that won't be the case. Without quality control and strict regulation by legal growers,the quality would vary as the THC levels and a doctor in Tennessee would not have the same quality dispensed as a doctor in Texas,or Arkansas. The MJ industry will be similar to the liquor and drug industry with controls on quality and an accounting of every ounce grown for tax purposes, and it taxing will be on the level of alcohol which runs fifty to sixty per cent in some states.
Yeah, because every once of liquor that is "produced" in the United States is accounted for for tax purposes...is that supposed to be a joke?

Also, I don't know about your "cost to cost" talk, but your declarations isn't how it is in the states where it is legal...why would it be dramatically different here?
not so fast
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 16, 2012
 
Nothing Jives wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. Why not legalize it for recreational purposes as alcohol is. If they go the medical route it will be eons before it is ever legalized in this state. If it is legalized for recreational purposes the people who really need it medically will be able to get it also, just as they can get alcohol.
So true. But alcohol was legalized for "medical" purposes during prohibition too...want to get drunk legally back then, got a prescription from a doctor for a 1/5th of wiskey...maybe this will follow the same route.
not so fast
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 16, 2012
 
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> You still have the nagging problem of not being able to have it in your system if you have a job that carries workman's compensation. Medical MJ patients would not be at work and would have to test clean before returning. With alcohol,a BAT will tell what percent is in your system, in the case of MJ,without an accurate 99.9% field test to determine when and not just positive or negative, the old rules for zero tolerance will have to stand. If you have no job, sponge off mommy and daddy,or you'r rich, light'em up and have at it.
Workman's compensation is just concerned with ILLEGAL drugs, so there wouldn't be that "nagging problem" if it was legalized.
guest
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 16, 2012
 
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> You still have the nagging problem of not being able to have it in your system if you have a job that carries workman's compensation. Medical MJ patients would not be at work and would have to test clean before returning. With alcohol,a BAT will tell what percent is in your system, in the case of MJ,without an accurate 99.9% field test to determine when and not just positive or negative, the old rules for zero tolerance will have to stand. If you have no job, sponge off mommy and daddy,or you'r rich, light'em up and have at it.
The determining factor for legalizing beer or not wasn't is there a test that can measure its levels in someone in real time. There wasn't such a test back then. Why would this be any different? There are even some drugs that they virtyally can't test for now, like LSD, but everyone isn't flocking to that.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

ThomasA wrote:
This is for medical marijuana ONLY. The stoners are celebrating thinking this will open the doors to legalize anytime/anywhere use. Hate to disappoint them.
It will be just like any other drug. Someone will go to the dr. with an imaginary illness and the stupid dr. will prescribe Medical marijuana and the patient will take it to the streets and sell it. Seen it happen with prescription pills.
These same people will send it all over the U.S. to get money. I know someone who buys it from someone who gets it from California.
I don't understand why they don't legalize it. People are gonna use it anyway no matter how much we disagree. If they don't smoke pot, they will drink alcohol and have a much worse outcome.
This is gonna be passed eventually, so why put off the inevitable?
ThomasA
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

not so fast wrote:
<quoted text>
Workman's compensation is just concerned with ILLEGAL drugs, so there wouldn't be that "nagging problem" if it was legalized.
It will still be up to a company to set rules for use on their premises. KNOWING the rules,you wouldn't apply for a job with a company that tests and risk getting caught and fired. The government can never say that a company has to accept employees having company banned substances in their system. When that day comes,you will have to drop requirements for employee liability coverage as the cost would be prohibitive and either force companies out of business or to relocate south of the border.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 17, 2012
 
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>It will still be up to a company to set rules for use on their premises. KNOWING the rules,you wouldn't apply for a job with a company that tests and risk getting caught and fired. The government can never say that a company has to accept employees having company banned substances in their system. When that day comes,you will have to drop requirements for employee liability coverage as the cost would be prohibitive and either force companies out of business or to relocate south of the border.
It's that way now with alcohol. No one tests for it but you know when someone is drinking at work. If the boss knows he will probably fire you. If you are high on pot, people know it and the boss will find out and you will be out the door. So, they test for pot but can't test for alcohol, can they?
ThomasA

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Maizy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's that way now with alcohol. No one tests for it but you know when someone is drinking at work. If the boss knows he will probably fire you. If you are high on pot, people know it and the boss will find out and you will be out the door. So, they test for pot but can't test for alcohol, can they?
When an employee is suspected of either alcohol or drug use,we send to a med lab for testing right then and there. It's for their protection and ours. If an employee is injured on the job,they are either tested at the hospital or the industrial medicine office. That's a requirement of workman's comp. If said employee is drunk or stoned,or shows MJ in their system against company policy, it establishes a defence to protect the company from a frivolous lawsuit by the fired employee. DON'T APPLY AT A PLACE THAT TESTS FOR DRUGS OR ALCOHOL!!!!What's so hard to understand about that?
not so fast

Paragould, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Aug 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text>It will still be up to a company to set rules for use on their premises. KNOWING the rules,you wouldn't apply for a job with a company that tests and risk getting caught and fired. The government can never say that a company has to accept employees having company banned substances in their system. When that day comes,you will have to drop requirements for employee liability coverage as the cost would be prohibitive and either force companies out of business or to relocate south of the border.
I'm not sure that companies can "set the rules" for what prescription drugs their employees can take at home. I'd like to see some reference for that. Also, lots of people apply for jobs KNOWING that they are doing something that they risk getting caught and fired for. Do you think that employers could ban the use of alcohol or tobacco by employees at home? Apparently you do. Again, I'm not so sure about that. And that "the cost would be prohibitive" talk doesn't cut it either, as besides being baseless in principle, the workmans compensation in Arkansas is state run, and not a private insurance program.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Little Rock Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
AR Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 19 min guest 29,622
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 46 min Aryan Barbarian 18,825
AR More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Ark (Jan '11) 1 hr Ancient Do Do 9,866
house for sale 10 hr nicelady 1
Midtown Billiards Tue Patron 1
can anyone tell me who this is? Tue guest 2
Rapist/Illegal Alien loose in Little Rock, Arka... Tue Magadala 1
•••
•••
•••

Little Rock Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Little Rock People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Little Rock News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Little Rock
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••