[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by GATORBILL66

Save Florida! No on 3 and 4. Yes on the rest.

Of course! Because you say so. 🤭

[jimmy o]

Originally Posted by Normal

Native American reservations (Seminoles) will capitalize first, this would be well ahead of statewide commercialization. State licensed stores will have to sell at controlled prices much higher than the “Res” price. Eventually the two markets will compete, but the real smoke screen will be the origin of your marijuana purchase. Consumers overwhelmingly will opt for the best product for the best price. Why shouldn’t they?

Eventually marijuana prices will decrease because of competition with other sources (Native American and others) and the saturation of the market.

Marijuana is already everywhere, so what would be the purpose of repeating Colorado’s Amendment 64 mistake?

Oh boy, we get the toll on its youth like other states are getting. Increased use and high school expulsions for possession. Is that a good thing?

I’m for leaving things just as they are.

The amendment has zero effect on high school expulsions. It’s illegal now for them, and the amendment with age of 21 keeps it that way.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by RoseyRed

YES! totally agree! The focus should be on the violent offenders, not the young population that makes a minor mistake and pays for it the rest of their lives.

You are aware that many of the "violent offenders" are members of the young population, are you not? I was an innocent child and made a minor mistake. I still have the scar. If you can't do time, then.... you know the rest.

[MorTech]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

Simply put: A potential person is not an actual person. Personhood begins at birth.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JRcorvette

Most people will vote for something or someone based on Feelings and not Facts!

Depends upon how you feel about the facts.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by MorTech

Simply put: A potential person is not an actual person. Personhood begins at birth.

OK!

[It's Hot There]

Originally Posted by MorTech

Simply put: A potential person is not an actual person. Personhood begins at birth.

PERFECT example of murder.

Mother is in labor, the head is showing..........go in and terminate.

WOW, sick people.

[dewilson58]

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.

Thanks for starting this thread.

It truly shows peoples' colors.

Surprised it has survived the political &/or religion sniff test.

[jjombrello]

You are not correct on this. I just finished the AARP Driving Course, and it states: " Marijuana affects psychomotor skills and cognitive functions critical to driving, including vigilance, drowsiness, time and distance perception, reaction time, divided attention, lane tracking, coordination, and balance." Not much different from driving while drunk. It is more difficult to determine if one is impaired while using marijuana, in the same way done for alcohol, as the blood concentration of marijuana active component, THC, does not closely correlate with how impaired a driver might be. But, impaired they are.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by 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.

Amendment #4 is only 2 sentences.

[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by skarra

The price of freedom. I like freedom.

I'm no fan of any drug including alcohol, but I do believe people should be free to live their lives as they want. Bad behavior is what needs to be outlawed.

well that amendment doesn't do that. What it does do is actualy nothing. There will still be a backchannel for weed no matter how or in what way you legalize it. The bill as it sits has severe flaws, and actually the only 2 that are at war are 3 & 4 and if you take the time to read them in entirety you will notice that all these commercials are BS. They both have severe flaws and should be voted down.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by opinionist

"This amendment does not change the legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion."

The "notification of a parent" can happen after the fact. You are being deceived by the lawyer-speak.

Did the word "before" trip you up? Notification is required BEFORE a minor has an abortion. That's why they put that word into the amendment. It's already the law, the amendment won't change it.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by nancyre

If a child can survive outside of the mother at 20 weeks, then it is a human being at that point and deserves all protections at that point. Likewise if the mother's life is in danger to carry to term then the availability of the process needs to be there.

If the "child" can survive outside the mother at 20 weeks, and the mother chooses, along with her licensed medical provider, that she cease to be pregnant, then they should induce labor or have a c-section and allow that 20-week-old child be BORN.

If she doesn't want that 20-week-old "child" then she shouldn't be responsible for it. Stick it in an incubator and have the Dept. of Child Health services (or whatever it's called down here in Florida) put it into foster care, or up for adoption, and the State can cover the costs of its medical care until it's adopted.

[Pballer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

If the "child" can survive outside the mother at 20 weeks, and the mother chooses, along with her licensed medical provider, that she cease to be pregnant, then they should induce labor or have a c-section and allow that 20-week-old child be BORN.

If she doesn't want that 20-week-old "child" then she shouldn't be responsible for it. Stick it in an incubator and have the Dept. of Child Health services (or whatever it's called down here in Florida) put it into foster care, or up for adoption, and the State can cover the costs of its medical care until it's adopted.

This State only cares about the unborn. Once you are born, you are on your own.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by MorTech

Simply put: A potential person is not an actual person. Personhood begins at birth.

I believe personhood begins at viability. If a woman is in her 8th month of pregnancy and is NOT in labor, and there's something wrong with the placenta that would kill mom if she doesn't have that baby early - then she should be induced or a c-section performed. Not aborted.

If, on the other hand, something is wrong with the baby and their heart isn't pumping, their kidneys are misshapen, their pancreas not formed enough to function after birth, their brain stem still hasn't fully attached, or their cerebrum never grew enough for the baby to be born and live independent of machinery - even if this isn't discovered until the 9th month - then abort, not birth. That baby is UNviable.

Whether a child can be removed from the womb and live without machinery, or live at all - that to me is what determines personhood.

In addition, there are problems with wording on some laws in this country that imply that a doctor performing a D&C on ANY woman - could be charged with a crime.

D&C is a common method of abortion between the first and second trimester. It is ALSO how I was able to ensure that the doctors had gotten ALL of the cancerous cells from my cervix. I had to have a D&C twice a year for a couple of years after the cone laser surgery. If a doctor ran the risk of being arrested for performing this surgery on me, I might have been dead. I wasn't pregnant at any point during this period in my life. But the procedure itself is up for judgment in some parts of the country.