[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Haggar

Trulieve has spent $93,000,000 on trying to getting Amendment 3 passed. If the driving force behind this is a commercial enterprise selling MJ then it's hard to believe this is a good amendment. A single glass of alcohol can give one a pleasant feeling without being affected. MJ has an immediate effect physically and mentally. What we don't need are more people with diminished capacity in the world.

And we certainly don't need people smoking MJ is an open area where children can inhale it.

A single glass of rum will definitely affect me. Within minutes. Physically and mentally. A single glass of gin will have me puking on your shoes within minutes, physically and mentally. Prohibition doesn't work - people smoke and ingest THC already, and they already have the state's blessing to do so as long as they pay their 6-month fee and buy from an authorized store.

Cannabis is not just a smoked substance, it is also infused into edibles and tinctures, no smoke necessary at all. There are already local rules and laws regarding smoking. It doesn't matter WHAT is being smoked, and there's nothing stopping localities from adding stricter prohibitions for smoking products with THC in them.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by dougjb

Marijuana usage does not affect driving capability. This is an urban legend promoted by sheriffs so that they can keep their "bust" records high enough to justify the little work that the police do.

You only think it doesn't affect you because you are too stoned to notice. I vote total BS!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by opinionist

Amendment 4 eliminates parental rights to decide for a child and eliminates all abortion restrictions. Most pro-choice people want some limits. The lawyer-speak is intended to deceive.

It doesn't do that. Here's the entire text:

No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature's constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.

As you can see, it's in plain English, and is only two sentences. It included verbiage regarding parental notification.

Most pro-choice advocates (such as myself) are not looking for restrictions. In the State of Florida, there were exactly ZERO abortions performed on women in their third trimester for the years that Roe v. Wade was active. Most women in their 3rd trimester would more likely undergo a cesarean birth if medically safe for the woman, as long as the fetus was still viable. If the fetus isn't viable by the third trimester, then it doesn't matter how it's removed from the womb, it's not viable and is either already dead, or will die shortly after it's born. Women in their 3rd trimester - are in that 3rd trimester because they have CHOSEN to have their babies. They have chosen to NOT get an abortion. If they're in the 3rd trimester and end up needing an abortion, it's because their life is in danger if they don't.

I'm 100% in favor of saving the mother and sacrificing the unborn. That's how I was raised, my religion (Judaism) actually demands it. You always try to save the unborn. UNLESS the mother's life is in danger. Then you save the mother. Why? Because the mother has already proven that she can reproduce. The unborn has proven only that it has the potential to kill the fertile mother.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by It's Hot There

Science, not religion............a heartbeat begins and so does the slippery slope.

Easy solution:

As soon as the heartbeat starts at 6 weeks - if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant anymore, do a c-section on her and take the fetus out. You can put it up for adoptions and grow it in an incubator, courtesy of the taxpayer of course (since the woman has already said she doesn't want it and you shouldn't be forcing her to keep it).

Problem solved.

Of course, it's not until 17-20 weeks that a fetus heart has all 4 chambers and is fully developed. Until then it's just a fluttering of cells, and not an actual heart yet. But hey, science amirite?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by It's Hot There

If true, no one is talking about this.
This is fringe stuff.
Come on.

You need to get out more if you think no one is talking about this. It's a HUGE deal, has made not just national news but global news. Get out of your alt-media bubble and explore the world.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Pballer

There we go. The self righteous trying to push their religious beliefs on everyone. Kind of like the Christian Taliban.

Please don't encourage me to change my avatar again.....

[It's Hot There]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I got your point. Risk to the mother is a major portion of the argument. A woman died not long ago because se was banned from getting an abortion. Maybe you missed it. Some "news" outlets don't like to print/transmit information deemed counterproductive to the cause. Life and death issues are hardly "fring" in my world.

Obviously not.
Will talk slower.

No one is arguing when mommy's life is at risk.

Yes Amber died after taking an abortion pill.

[It's Hot There]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Easy solution:

As soon as the heartbeat starts at 6 weeks - if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant anymore, do a c-section on her and take the fetus out. You can put it up for adoptions and grow it in an incubator, courtesy of the taxpayer of course (since the woman has already said she doesn't want it and you shouldn't be forcing her to keep it).

Problem solved.

Of course, it's not until 17-20 weeks that a fetus heart has all 4 chambers and is fully developed. Until then it's just a fluttering of cells, and not an actual heart yet. But hey, science amirite?

Sad you can make light of it.

You are creating your own definition, Not talking 6 weeks.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by It's Hot There

Sad you can make light of it.

You are creating your own definition, Not talking 6 weeks.

That's the law. It's called the Heartbeat Bill. It's illegal in Florida to get an abortion after 6 weeks, because that is when a fetal heartbeat can be detected with an ultrasound. That is the REASON Florida's ban on abortions is for any pregnancy past 6 weeks and 0 days.

Not my definition, that's Florida's definition. Florida says it's a baby once you can hear the heart beat, at 6 weeks. So I say - let any woman who doesn't want the baby after 6 weeks, have the baby safely removed from her womb.

The problem with this logic - is that it's not logical. The 6 week abortion ban is religious horsecrap that has no basis in science. If it was a baby at 6 weeks, then a woman should be able to GIVE BIRTH to it. Induce labor and let the 6-week old "baby" be born.

If you can't do that, then maybe - it's not a baby yet, and you're not killing an unborn baby when you have an abortion at 7 weeks, or 8, 9, even as late as 17 weeks. You're removing a fetus - a combination of cells growing inside a female person, that is 100% dependent on that person. It cannot survive outside the person. It can't breathe on its own, its brain can't yet function, its digestive system is not yet functioning, it can't eat, it can't drink. Until such time as it can be BORN - it is a growth. Nothing more or less.

[AMB444]

No to abortion EVER unless mother's life is endangered.

No to Beavis and Butthead pot smokers. Go to Denver for your spring break. We don't need all that extra crap on our beaches. We have enough problems with alcohol abusers on our roads and beaches and creating problems.

[Sabella]

If proposition 4 passes, why should taxpayers be the ones footing the bill for this to be done?

[Rocksnap]

Question is, how is this whole post even allowed on here? Since it’s a very political subject, at a minimum?

[Ksarracco]

Thank you. I absolutely agree. Let police (and parents) do their jobs. Not in favor of most amendments introduced. Look at Colorado and California. Don’t want it.

[rawiatt]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

I am guessing that half of the Voters in Florida go to the Booth having little knowledge of the Amendment process.

1 The amendments are for a change in the Florida State Constitution.
2 It takes a 60 % affirmative to make the change effective.
3 Who proposed the submittal of the Amendment for vote

The change to the constitution can negate the existing laws by superseding them.

New laws cannot override the constitution.

Given the above, are you ready to vote yes.

As an example, there are current laws against drugs. Amendment 3 wants to legalize Marijuana for more than medical uses.

Comments say that can provide an opportunity for new tax revenue, elimination of bad Marijuana etc.

My question is how I do as an elector get any benefit. Do I want a contractor coming to the house with a Marijuana high? What rights do I have if I suspect he is under the influence, but it is legal. Is my auto mechanic high? Can I get money back if they are not performing correctly. Is there a legal limit or test that would apply to users and responsibility. I know that some would say that the same applies to alcoholics. Well two wrongs don't make a right.

There is no current reason to pass this amendment without knowing how the above will be protected.

Quite frankly, all of the amendments have this flaw. They are special interest solutions to problems not well thought out. Why should we enshrine them in our constitution?

I agree. I am not in favor of legalizing pot at all.

[CODYCAT]

I’m 78 and can probably count the number of elections I didn’t vote in on one hand. Having seen hundreds and hundreds of amendments it seems that the longer confusing ones it’s always good to vote against them. Someone is usually trying to put something over on you. When something is bad for you and they are telling you it’s good something is going on.