Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Medical MJ

Re: “Presidential Potential

According to section 36-2856 3. Localities could only restrict smoking or production if it was "injurious to the environment or otherwise is a nuisance to a considerable number or persons" I don't see how a localotie could make people register to grow their 6 personal plants with that.

0 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by None on 10/08/2016 at 10:58 AM

Re: “Online Opportunities

I highly recommend to purchase cannabis online. I enjoy the great deals and discounts they offer and if you are ordering products with free shipping tag, then you are lucky.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Penny Preciado Preciado on 10/06/2016 at 5:31 PM

Re: “Presidential Potential

No to 205, No to Carbon Taxes, No to Democrats, No to Colo-Californication of Arizona. Yes to 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights Preservation and No to Illegal Aliens, inadequately vetted Refugees that AZ Taxpayers are stuck paying for !!!!

12 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by HillaryforOrangeSuit on 10/06/2016 at 9:30 AM

Re: “Presidential Potential

Does anyone understand if you sign up to grow at your residence it is quite possible that with today's visual maps. On all LEO computers when looking at a map that the addresses that have licenses appear in green strips. Well watching a child go into one of these highlighted addresses would constitute a possible felony?

Would that Be a wrong analogy? One is to think just what are we voting for with existing agencies they have in place rules and restrictions that would apply across the board.


13 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by concerned on 10/06/2016 at 8:51 AM

Re: “Presidential Potential

If you ask or listen to any of these questions asked to Arizona Political Director for the Marijuana Policy Project, Carlos Alfaro. His response is

"That"s up to the rules committee but I doubt that is the intent"

Vote for this a sucker, living in a suckers reality, talking about being suckered, and what being suckered for decades has done, talking about what a sucker needs to exist. Can't figure that not all hands are helpings

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Carpet Baggers on 10/06/2016 at 8:24 AM

Re: “Presidential Potential

let's take a minute just to ponder some of the ramifications to prop 205. I will take the easiest single one the 6 plant rules to be made. With some of the provisions in the prop allowing some areas to restrict home growing. Just how would that come to be regulated ?

1- To grow your own regulations would mean accounting for people that are growing a registration of sorts.
2- This would include a license/fee for a tag.
3- Registering for a tag you will sign an affidavit stating that you are growing and have it in a concealed/contained.
4- Following regulations you will state no minor children
5- Will have to list all occupants of the home.
6-Will open information on license holders and occupants of the home. To third party vendors mortgage/ins companies zoning authorities etc. etc. No medical protections of privacy are gone.
7- Will ask that all compliance officers be licensed in good standing with the Department of Public Safety be law enforcement.
8- When signing this affidavit you will be forfeiting your right of warrant search.
9- Board can and will deputize all DPS Law enforcement to access it's data base like DMV. I needed can call a compliance officer and gain entry any time of day or night no warrant no nothing.
10- Upon entry for compliance accompanied by a LEO. Might notice a grandchild while grandma as a few plants in the basement under lock and key. BOOM INSTANT 3 FELONIES AND 1 A CLASS 3
11- A home growing has a acquaintance arranged to visit by LEO goes inside and bang here is compliance with a warrantless search.
12- If other LEO agencies they will be able to bill the MDLC for service to assist.
13- One can be fined by the administrative div of MDLC like DMV. Following non compliance with agreement when obtaining a license/tag
14 -Tag will have a date and time limit if it dies to bad you should go to the dispensary in the first place. won't be allowed to clone

With all of this is why they threw in the 6 plant rule at the 11 hr. Who would want to jeopardize themselves to all that by admitting they grow. So they do it without registration then that is way past simple posession manufacturing posession weight. This just all promotes not to grow not worth the risk and costs

This is the kind of stink that has been going on for years.
Voting for prop 205 just says yea we need more stigmatize citizens.

With Arizona being a laboratory of experimental study and to do it they are now second class citizens not covered by Bill of Rights. today's "Jim Crow Law"

Just why are MPP and Holyoak so obtuse on what rules are ?
Sorta of like there are parts of this contract that will be filled out later. And to think some think this is good for the people and sign that.

And to give up all of those rights of a citizen so you can grow 6 plants. The board can even limit strains and check for compliance if caught growing out of permitted strain felonies.

10 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Carpet Baggers on 10/06/2016 at 8:10 AM

Re: “Presidential Potential

My concern about approving this new law is that there are pages of "legalese" I don't understand, especially about the opponents to this change in law. The proposed law seems to involve creating two new agencies in state government. Is this an opportunity to add an additional layer of law enforcement that Ducey could turn into his much wanted "Border Police?"

8 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by tiredofpc on 10/06/2016 at 3:57 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

The prohibition factions would love nothing more than defeat this initiative. The squabbling between pro marijuana factions are what they want. Only the big headlines matter. We can work the details out later. This is what has hampered CA from legalizing the past election cycles. Only progress and national headlines matter.

5 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Desertwind99 on 10/02/2016 at 2:19 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

So we are going to let the states, the "States of Deplorables" be the guinea pigs watch to see what happens.

Simple; Threats from the Justice Department on each state enforced by the DEA. Absolutely no protections for state to state trade, no protections on banking rules and oversight, no FDA protections on possible contaminates, no regulations like tobacco. No legal grounds in federal court for anything it is simply illegal.

This is wait and see how it goes WTF !!! I dont support trump but I will vote against this kind of garbage see how it fucking goes WTF a state of deplorables.

15 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Carpet Baggers on 10/01/2016 at 9:45 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

Now Chelsea's a doctor. Amazing what being a Clinton can do.

7 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by CW13 on 10/01/2016 at 6:25 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

Don't be so sure. Just look what the Affordable Card Act has done to health insurance. Five billion dollars in losses the first year. That Bill wasn't perfect either. Get your head out of the smoke, toker.

8 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Hide from reality? on 10/01/2016 at 5:01 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

Who wins are the people themselves. This man neglects to mention that each person over 21 has the right to grow six plants, which, if you are smart and time your crops and know your product and invest your time, is plenty. No bill will ever be perfect, and the people reading this article and the local propaganda are losing touch. Why don't you read the bill and stop reading someone else's speculation? Hey, you can stop reading this commentioned now and smoke a nice bong or joint.

4 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by Choke Weed Everyday on 10/01/2016 at 1:20 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

This is like the lottery, you can't win unless you play. It's hard to see who's winning here.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Jim Kelly on 09/29/2016 at 10:01 PM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

Chelsea Clinton speaks on marijuana:

During a speech at the Youngstown State University in Ohio last weekend, Chelsea Clinton said that there is new evidence to suggest that marijuana could be fatally interacting with other drugs.

"But we also have anecdotal evidence now from Colorado, where some of the people who were taking marijuana for those purposes, the coroner believes, after they died, there was drug interactions with other things they were taking," she said when asked about Hillary Clinton's position on marijuana research.

Chelsea Clinton's spokeswoman added that the Democratic nominee "has said we should allow states that have reformed their marijuana laws to act as laboratories...

9 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Mary Jane on 09/29/2016 at 3:05 PM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

No on 205. This bill has been crafted for specific rea$on$ that don't benefit the public.

19 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Big Money or Drugs? on 09/29/2016 at 2:05 PM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

Here is the Debate Between Maricopa County attorney Bill Montgomery and MPP & Holyoak on prop 205.

I will have to give some considerations to Bill as when he speaks he represents on how authority acts and represents itself. Bill words can reflect in current ongoing litigation on hundreds of avenues.

Holyoak does not have that burden and is not responsible for anything really but let's get this going to so how it looks.

This debate has been broken up and editorialized to just a few sound bites this is it in the entirety. If you are really concerned watch it. You will see the stories 90% of the marijuana convictions are for posession simply just not true. Just what liability does Arizona Political Director for the Marijuana Policy Project, Carlos Alfaro have to lose ? nothing he gets paid either way he is a political hack.

The debate;

17 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Carpet Baggers on 09/29/2016 at 12:32 PM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

And just what are dark money factors could you please elaborate?

I bet if this passes and the departments & employees will be civil servants. That is the staff that would go to makeup the department and all of it's divisions. these people are represented in the work force by Civil Service and labor union agreements. We already have these agencies.

Right now we have a right to work state. But does not include government workers as they are in both labor represented with employment. I propose all workers in the dispensaries, growers, processors, caregivers, bud tenders, be union represented.

If all workers were represented and limited as the amount of outlets and licenses given. Why can't they pay start at living wage of $20.00 to start with retirement and 401k contributions ? Yea I bet the colors on the camillian change quickly. It would be money the patient paying out the "hmmmm" progressive owner's pocket would this be considered then DARK MONEY going against representation?

I bet we will hear that they can't do it and afford to keep the prices they are. But the truth is, it is a limited price fixed market commodity that dark money has 2 sets on the board. And 4 community activist that are clamoring for hand outs how's that for DARK money.

Let's tie legislative pay to Marijuana tax and pay every legislature $100.000 annually and a staff and office cost to cap @$ 250.000. that would be 31,500,000. That's the achilles heel to dark money people what they represent dont need income. It is directed through Government contracts and departments. It is there in the back side.

With estimated tax revenue @$123 million at current prices and burden leaving 91 million for schools operating costs. Just think this would give Guadalupe, Gila Bend, Willcox, Havasupai, Sierra Vista, Page, San Luis, Douglas, all equal representation not just the rich PHX dark money center. That keep the money in PHX.

16 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Carpet Baggers on 09/29/2016 at 11:58 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

I was ready to vote Yes, but now I'm conflicted!

10 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Judy Camello Kuhel on 09/29/2016 at 11:19 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

OK, so once again we’re getting someone telling us to go ahead and vote for something that is not perfect, but it’s better than nothing. How soon you forget the Proposition 123 fiasco. Here’s a thought, if the legislators cannot write legislation that is good for the people, then perhaps they need to be FIRED! Sure you have to wait until they are up for re-election, but stop putting people into office that only write legislation for their dark money benefactors.

24 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by sgsmith on 09/29/2016 at 9:25 AM

Re: “Prop 205: Let’s Make a Deal

The legal act of prop 205 is called " Marijuana Regulation & Taxation" It is just that simple.

It is surprising that the total annually going to education has grown from 40 million to 55 million in just 6 months.

We have The Arizona Political Director for the Marijuana Policy Project, Carlos Alfaro stating what he believes.

I would base my decision to build a new police dept, licensing dept, revenue collection dept, administrative civil court, (with the legal ability to levy fines and liens against property)

ON THIS BAGHDAD BOB'S idea of what might happen not an administrator but a salesman the Joe Isuzu of legislation.

21 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Carpet Baggers on 09/29/2016 at 8:56 AM

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation