Amendment 1: Florida water and land conservation initiative.
http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Water_and...%282014%29
Amendment 2: Florida right to medical marijuana Initiative.
http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Right_to_...%282014%29
Amendment 3: Florida Prospective Judicial Vacancies
http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Prospecti...%282014%29
How do you plan on voting and why? Non-Florida residents feel free to tell us how you would vote and why?
For me I'm voting against Amendment 1, I'm for private ownership of land period. The way it reads to me, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but they want to expand the funding dedicated to purchasing land for the state (parks, recreational, preserves things like that). While on the surface that sound's great we all like the parks and preserves (I'm a huge outdoors man camping all the time!) the idea of allocating MORE money for the state to buy land isn't something I'm backing.
On Amendment 2 I'm a solid yes, legalize and tax it just like alcohol and tobacco. I get the term medical doesn't exactly legalize it but it's a step in the right direction. I find the entire war on drugs a waste of time, money, resources and a total failure on all fronts. I'll vote against it any chance I get. Besides if they legalize it maybe I can legally grow some on my property and make some money selling it to the clinics.
Amendment 3 is confusing but as I understand it, they want us to approve Governors appointing judgeship that are not yet vacant but expected to become vacant in the near future, even possible after there term as governor is up? I'm voting no unless someone can explain the purpose for it better to me. My default position is No.
What says you?
The Tennessee legislature Republicans won't even let a medical marijuana bill get out of committee. The only law on the books allows a 4 year study of CBDs. The problem is that the cannabis used in that study must be grown by the agricultural school at Tennessee Tech, and that must be approved by the DEA, which has maintained a monopoly on sanctioned marijuana cultivation. It all boils down to another money grab.
Word is they installed new carpet in the state capitol building, the old one worn thin by dragging knuckles.
Vote Yes on Amendment 2, if it passes I may move back to Florida.
Quote:Amendment 1: Florida water and land conservation initiative. http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Water_and...%282014%29
Amendment 2: Florida right to medical marijuana Initiative. http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Right_to_...%282014%29
Amendment 3: Florida Prospective Judicial Vacancies http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Prospecti...%282014%29
How do you plan on voting and why? Non-Florida residents feel free to tell us how you would vote and why?
For me I'm voting against Amendment 1, I'm for private ownership of land period. The way it reads to me, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but they want to expand the funding dedicated to purchasing land for the state (parks, recreational, preserves things like that). While on the surface that sound's great we all like the parks and preserves (I'm a huge outdoors man camping all the time!) the idea of allocating MORE money for the state to buy land isn't something I'm backing.
On Amendment 2 I'm a solid yes, legalize and tax it just like alcohol and tobacco. I get the term medical doesn't exactly legalize it but it's a step in the right direction. I find the entire war on drugs a waste of time, money, resources and a total failure on all fronts. I'll vote against it any chance I get. Besides if they legalize it maybe I can legally grow some on my property and make some money selling it to the clinics.
Amendment 3 is confusing but as I understand it, they want us to approve Governors appointing judgeship that are not yet vacant but expected to become vacant in the near future, even possible after there term as governor is up? I'm voting no unless someone can explain the purpose for it better to me. My default position is No.
What says you?
I am voting yes on Amendment 1. I don't think everything needs to be divvied up among private interests. There is a public interest in saving and adding to state parks and preserves, so they're not turned into garbage dumps or resorts.
Yes on 2.
No on 3.
1. I'm in favor of protecting the environment in the state, especially the springs, which are an amazing natural resource. However, I saw the waste that results from a policy like this when Brevard county did their own fund for purchase of 'endagered' lands. Several of the purchases were from cronies at double the assessed value. Then a bureaucracy was set up to 'manage' the lands (and the public was never given access). In one case the management consisted of clearing an island of 60-year old Australian Pines, because they were not native. Of course the fauna that had adapted to that habitat were now out of luck.
2. Should be legalized, not just for medicinal reasons. But, as Eric said, this is a start.
3. Eric, the reason for this amendment (as I understand it) is so that a judgeship won't be vacant for a long time, which delays the schedule. But the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' theory might apply here.
Quote:I am voting yes on Amendment 1. I don't think everything needs to be divvied up among private interests. There is a public interest in saving and adding to state parks and preserves, so they're not turned into garbage dumps or resorts.
Yes on 2.
No on 3.
I see where you can make an argument for Amendment 1 but between the Feds, the State and the Counties, government of some form already owns 33% of Florida.
Quote:1. I'm in favor of protecting the environment in the state, especially the springs, which are an amazing natural resource. However, I saw the waste that results from a policy like this when Brevard county did their own fund for purchase of 'endagered' lands. Several of the purchases were from cronies at double the assessed value. Then a bureaucracy was set up to 'manage' the lands (and the public was never given access). In one case the management consisted of clearing an island of 60-year old Australian Pines, because they were not native. Of course the fauna that had adapted to that habitat were now out of luck.
2. Should be legalized, not just for medicinal reasons. But, as Eric said, this is a start.
3. Eric, the reason for this amendment (as I understand it) is so that a judgeship won't be vacant for a long time, which delays the schedule. But the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' theory might apply here.
I'm all for protecting the enviroment as well, I just don't think that's the purpose nor will be the outcome of the State owning more of the land in Florida.
Yes on #1 - I don't trust the politicians and businessmen to leave any Florida to our children and grandchildren.
No on # 2 - Eric, I can't believe you're falling for this. It's poorly written, will allow all kinds of sleazy types to take advantage of it, and it's a blatant attempt of John Morgan to draw "young people" (i.e., Democrats) to the polls in hopes they'll vote for his buddy Tan Charlie. And it's not necessary.
??? on # 3 - I'm still not sure of it's purpose, so I passed.
Quote:Yes on #1 - I don't trust the politicians and businessmen to leave any Florida to our children and grandchildren.
No on # 2 - Eric, I can't believe you're falling for this. It's poorly written, will allow all kinds of sleazy types to take advantage of it, and it's a blatant attempt of John Morgan to draw "young people" (i.e., Democrats) to the polls in hopes they'll vote for his buddy Tan Charlie. And it's not necessary.
??? on # 3 - I'm still not sure of it's purpose, so I passed.
I'm sure it is poorly written doesn't change that I want to end the war on drugs period. Any step towards ending the pointless war on drugs I'm going to support. Mentioning John Morgan funny story.
I listen to a lot of "talk radio" (shocker), they ran an add on there by John Morgan and the pitch was "keep government out of our lives!" an obvious appeal to the right and those who oppose government oversight. The next day I was looking for music and ended up on 101.9 (orlando pop station but it appeals heavily towards the black community) anyways the pitch was "fight back against oppressive laws against minorities!" I laughed since the law wouldn't really change either of those situations.
But in the end my vote on Amendment 2 is about trying to end the war on drugs.
Quote:Yes on #1 - I don't trust the politicians and businessmen to leave any Florida to our children and grandchildren.
No on # 2 - Eric, I can't believe you're falling for this. It's poorly written, will allow all kinds of sleazy types to take advantage of it, and it's a blatant attempt of John Morgan to draw "young people" (i.e., Democrats) to the polls in hopes they'll vote for his buddy Tan Charlie. And it's not necessary.
??? on # 3 - I'm still not sure of it's purpose, so I passed.
Just curious, why do you say #2 is poorly written. Not being argumentative, I don't live in Florida and haven't read much about that amendment.
Quote:I'm sure it is poorly written doesn't change that I want to end the war on drugs period. Any step towards ending the pointless war on drugs I'm going to support. Mentioning John Morgan funny story.
I listen to a lot of "talk radio" (shocker), they ran an add on there by John Morgan and the pitch was "keep government out of our lives!" an obvious appeal to the right and those who oppose government oversight. The next day I was looking for music and ended up on 101.9 (orlando pop station but it appeals heavily towards the black community) anyways the pitch was "fight back against oppressive laws against minorities!" I laughed since the law wouldn't really change either of those situations.
But in the end my vote on Amendment 2 is about trying to end the war on drugs.
Voting for John Morgan is voting to end the war on drugs? Are you that desperate?
I'm all for disbanding the army that is fighting the war on drugs, but this isn't the way to do it. It's a stupid law advocating a stupid policy using a phony emotional appeal. No offense, but if you support Amendment #2 you're a sucker.
I always vote "no" on all amendments because I'm change resistant.
Quote:Just curious, why do you say #2 is poorly written. Not being argumentative, I don't live in Florida and haven't read much about that amendment.
Have you read the amendment? It's not written tightly enough to make clear who will benefit and who will administer the "medical" marijuana.
Please research the arguments against it, as they can explain it better than I (it would take me a while, as I'm no speed typist).
I am in no way against Amend. #2 because of religious convictions or because I'm anti-dope (please smoke responsibly!).
And I'm not even getting into the argument that all such amendments should be denied, as the Constitution is not the proper place for this. The Legislature should be dealing with this - but being politicians ...
Quote:Voting for John Morgan is voting to end the war on drugs? Are you that desperate?
I'm all for disbanding the army that is fighting the war on drugs, but this isn't the way to do it. It's a stupid law advocating a stupid policy using a phony emotional appeal. No offense, but if you support Amendment #2 you're a sucker.
Who's voting for John Morgan? I was talking about the commercial and how it wasn't really addressing anything with the amendment.
You still have yet to give us a reason WHY anyone should vote no on 2. Unless your argument is just pots bad so it shouldn't be legal, but I don't think that's the stand your making.
Quote:Have you read the amendment? It's not written tightly enough to make clear who will benefit and who will administer the "medical" marijuana.
Please research the arguments against it, as they can explain it better than I (it would take me a while, as I'm no speed typist).
I am in no way against Amend. #2 because of religious convictions or because I'm anti-dope (please smoke responsibly!).
And I'm not even getting into the argument that all such amendments should be denied, as the Constitution is not the proper place for this. The Legislature should be dealing with this - but being politicians ...
http://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Right_to_...%282014%29
If anything I'd argue the amendment doesn't go far enough, But where is this loose language about it not defining who will benefit and administer marijuana? It clearly says it would only be legal in Florida if prescribed by a medical doctor and is only legal for use by the person specified in the script. It would essentially have the same controls as all the pharmaceuticals. It would still be prohibited for Floridians to use marijuana for recreational use.
Already voted early via mail.
Yes on 1
Yes on 2
No on 3
I feel a little twinge in my back....
Quote:Have you read the amendment? It's not written tightly enough to make clear who will benefit and who will administer the "medical" marijuana.
It's very clear on both those points. You will never find an amendment like this go into minute detail. The Florida Department of Health will attend to the details.
There will be abuse, and there will be fraud. The benefits to those needing medical cannabis far outweigh those risks.
Quote:It's very clear on both those points. You will never find an amendment like this go into minute detail. The Florida Department of Health will attend to the details.
There will be abuse, and there will be fraud. The benefits to those needing medical cannabis far outweigh those risks.
Doesn't really matter if there is abuse or fraud it'll be decriminalized in the next decade.
Quote:Voting for John Morgan is voting to end the war on drugs? Are you that desperate?
I'm all for disbanding the army that is fighting the war on drugs, but this isn't the way to do it. It's a stupid law advocating a stupid policy using a phony emotional appeal. No offense, but if you support Amendment #2 you're a sucker.
Morgan is pushing Amend 2 for one reason and one reason only. He knows that Democrats have lost the youth vote with their incompetence and he's hoping his push for weed legalization will get all the stoners off their couches when they otherwise would veg out of this election. As a collateral benefit they'll vote straight Ds through their fog-covered brains. Benefit to Moran, I mean, Morgan? He gets to avoid tort reform with more Ds in the legislature. Self-serving to the core, but what else do we expect from a lawyer?
Quote:Morgan is pushing Amend 2 for one reason and one reason only. He knows that Democrats have lost the youth vote with their incompetence and he's hoping his push for weed legalization will get all the stoners off their couches when they otherwise would veg out of this election. As a collateral benefit they'll vote straight Ds through their fog-covered brains. Benefit to Moran, I mean, Morgan? He gets to avoid tort reform with more Ds in the legislature. Self-serving to the core, but what else do we expect from a lawyer?
I know personally dozens of Libertarians that are voting for Amendment 2 and I guarantee you not a single one is voting Democrat. Morgan is a tool but that doesn't change the reality of the situation, we are wasting millions fighting a war on drugs. It shouldn't really be that controversial that at least marijuana is a stupid line in the sand to draw.
Quote:I know personally dozens of Libertarians that are voting for Amendment 2 and I guarantee you not a single one is voting Democrat. Morgan is a tool but that doesn't change the reality of the situation, we are wasting millions fighting a war on drugs. It shouldn't really be that controversial that at least marijuana is a stupid line in the sand to draw.
Republicans could reel in a lot of undecided voters if they would endorse decriminalization of cannabis use and cultivation.
On the other hand, the irony of legalizing something then imposing a tax on it might make their heads explode.