Oregon Law

Vikerus Forrest

Vikerus Forrest

Active Member
Someone needs to confront the Oregon recreational committee. There is language in there about denying people licenses based on morality... I think someone is playing god, or has an uncontrolled god complex. If no one will listen then god save us. Cause I'm trying to shine some light here and no one will speak up.


I URGE YOU to read the temporary rules setup by the committee. You will see the sections just like I did and think to yourself. "Who would judge my moral fiber, intelligence, and character just to approve a license?"

The answer being someone who used completely bogus language in place of sane rules based on past criminal activity... Please someone. Read it and tell me I am wrong.
 
Vikerus Forrest

Vikerus Forrest

Active Member
(2) The Commission may deny an initial or renewal application, unless the applicant shows good cause to overcome the denial criteria, if it has reasonable cause to believe that:
(a) The applicant:
(A) Is in the habit of using alcoholic beverages, habit-forming drugs, marijuana, or controlled substances to excess. (How exactly do they know you so well?)
(B) Has made false statements to the commission.
(C) Is incompetent or physically unable to carry on the management of the establishment proposed to be licensed. (Excuse me?)
(D) Is not of good repute and moral character. (This is pure fantasy.)

Source: Page 12
 
Alienwidow

Alienwidow

Well-Known Member
Vikerus Forrest said:
(2) The Commission may deny an initial or renewal application, unless the applicant shows good cause to overcome the denial criteria, if it has reasonable cause to believe that:
(a) The applicant:
(A) Is in the habit of using alcoholic beverages, habit-forming drugs, marijuana, or controlled substances to excess. (How exactly do they know you so well?)
(B) Has made false statements to the commission.
(C) Is incompetent or physically unable to carry on the management of the establishment proposed to be licensed. (Excuse me?)
(D) Is not of good repute and moral character. (This is pure fantasy.)

Source: Page 12
Click to expand...
Well just to argue the other side for a second,
A, producing medical grade meds being made by individuals using habit forming drugs and controlled substances usually, from what ive seen, arent usually the best quality meds.
B,
C,i would think they would be refering to an individual who cannot physically grow (more reason to increase competent growers plant counts to supply those that cannot physically do it for themselves ;)) .........however specific the needs of the patients will not be being met unfortunatelly more often with a dictated med program vs. a self perscribed and self tested medical treatment.
D, i believe theyd be talking about felony criminals here. They dont let those guys make other drugs so why let them make these?

Pick a battle, not three, and see if you can make a difference in my opinion.
 
Vikerus Forrest

Vikerus Forrest

Active Member
Sorry I don't accept gibberish in what is to become law. All three of those entries might be covering something important. But the way they are written will allow discrimination.

P.S. I don't fight, I make right.
 
Vikerus Forrest

Vikerus Forrest

Active Member
Alienwidow said:
...see if you can make a difference in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Your argument: (A, producing medical grade meds being made by individuals using habit forming drugs and controlled substances usually, from what ive seen, arent usually the best quality meds.)
Mine: In a fair market as it is meant to be in the US. All parties have the right to compete with whatever product they wish. There are limits as far as abusive product being sold to the public, but you can't just cut out the competition and justify that with the argument that addicts can't grow SAFE weed. It shouldn't matter the quality... That isn't for anyone but the consumer to judge. Or have we all forgotten what freedom is?

Your argument: (C, i would think they would be refering to an individual who cannot physically grow (more reason to increase competent growers plant counts to supply those that cannot physically do it for themselves ;)) .........however specific the needs of the patients will not be being met unfortunatelly more often with a dictated med program vs. a self perscribed and self tested medical treatment.)
Mine: These are the rules for recreational licenses, perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Your argument: (D, i believe theyd be talking about felony criminals here. They dont let those guys make other drugs so why let them make these?)
Mine: Morality is arguably the hardest thing to discern in a person. What is the vetting process? The wording alone will allow personal discrimination.
 
Alienwidow

Alienwidow

Well-Known Member
Vikerus Forrest said:
Your argument: (A, producing medical grade meds being made by individuals using habit forming drugs and controlled substances usually, from what ive seen, arent usually the best quality meds.)
Mine: In a fair market as it is meant to be in the US. All parties have the right to compete with whatever product they wish. There are limits as far as abusive product being sold to the public, but you can't just cut out the competition and justify that with the argument that addicts can't grow SAFE weed. It shouldn't matter the quality... That isn't for anyone but the consumer to judge. Or have we all forgotten what freedom is?

Your argument: (C, i would think they would be refering to an individual who cannot physically grow (more reason to increase competent growers plant counts to supply those that cannot physically do it for themselves ;)) .........however specific the needs of the patients will not be being met unfortunatelly more often with a dictated med program vs. a self perscribed and self tested medical treatment.)
Mine: These are the rules for recreational licenses, perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Your argument: (D, i believe theyd be talking about felony criminals here. They dont let those guys make other drugs so why let them make these?)
Mine: Morality is arguably the hardest thing to discern in a person. What is the vetting process? The wording alone will allow personal discrimination.
Click to expand...
im mostly on your side on this matter. I was just playing devils advocate so you could see another side of it. Discrimination is a fact of life. Like if you dont have a degree in medicine they wont hire you to do heart surgery. Discrimination or common sense? If marijuana is moving tward being classified as a medicine and a recreational stimulant, i would believe the powers that be would like to keep production in the hands of the people they trust will not poison the community for profit, or sell to outside parties or "give" it away. In otherwards they cant just let the leash all the way out at once. Its all baby steps with the industry but were making headway. Ive been to large scale government grows and me and my friend couldnt even get a bud to go home and dry to smoke. The owner said he would go to the dispensary and buy us some and drop it off. Theyre tightly controlled and they want people who will not try and break the laws theyre making so felons are out i guess.
 
B

Brian Ho

New Member
I agree Alienwidow. The rules on granting Recreational Marijuana licenses from OLCC for Producers, Processors and Retail sellers is much the same as for their licenses in similar positions in the Liquor business. The license fee for anything marijuana related is $3750 to $4750 for a 3 year term, liquor licenses are $400 per year and complete background checks are done for both.
Part of the background check is consulting neighbors and business associates about behavior, debt etc. that is Part D (if you are an ass to your neighbors or business associates you probably will not get a license). I live in Oregon and have friends in both Medical Marijuana and Recreational fields. The Medical (OMPP) is controlled by OHA, the Recreational is controlled by OLCC and the rules and fees are differant between them because the recreational side is done for profit, hence the sales tax on it. The security requirements for the place you want to have licensed are very expensive if starting from a bare-bones little store front or small warehouse, so there is a lot more involved to being granted a recreational license.
Note: Under the recreational law a person 21 and over can have up to 8 ounces of bud and grow 4 plants at their household, you can have unlimited seeds, can legally give another 21 and over person up to 1 ounce of bud, can only purchase 1/4 ounce per day per retail outlet.
 
Vikerus Forrest

Vikerus Forrest

Active Member
What happens if you just have vindictive neighbors?

I'm not saying all this is a bad idea. But when you write law shouldn't the rules be more explicit?
"Is not of good repute and moral character."

This just doesn't sound of legal quality to me. It needs to be more direct about what they mean so that committee members can't fudge someone they simply don't like. It's all about fairness. I'm for all the rules but they need to be written so people under them are safe from unjust discrimination.
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Vikerus Forrest said:
What happens if you just have vindictive neighbors?

I'm not saying all this is a bad idea. But when you write law shouldn't the rules be more explicit?
"Is not of good repute and moral character."

This just doesn't sound of legal quality to me. It needs to be more direct about what they mean so that committee members can't fudge someone they simply don't like. It's all about fairness. I'm for all the rules but they need to be written so people under them are safe from unjust discrimination.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not those same conditions are in place for all licensed medical personnel. Maybe not those exact words but the exact principle. Check it out. It's a last ditch measure to maintain as much control over you in every way as they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top