I am writing as your constituent in [City], Oregon, to express my concerns about HB 3000’s ban on synthetically derived cannabinoids by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC).
The Current Problem
The OLCC has banned all artificially derived cannabinoids based on health concerns, specifically worries over consumers ingesting or inhaling the residue of chemicals used to process CBD into other cannabinoids. While I understand the intent to protect consumers, this blanket prohibition creates several significant issues:
I am writing to urge you to consider the full legalization of drugs in Oregon—not merely decriminalization, but a comprehensive shift away from criminal enforcement and toward a public health approach. The current strategy of criminalizing drug use continues to waste valuable police resources, fails to address the root causes of addiction, and diverts funding from effective solutions.
Despite years of debate and reform, Oregon continues to allocate significant law enforcement resources to the policing of drug possession and use[1]. Even after the partial decriminalization under Measure 110, recent legislative changes have returned us to a system where police are once again tasked with arresting individuals for minor drug offenses[3]. This approach has proven ineffective at reducing drug use or overdoses, and it diverts officers from addressing violent crime and other public safety priorities.
Behind the prison bars lies a tragedy so absurd it seems fictional. Imagine a world where suicide attempts come with a bill, prisons are built on toxic waste dumps as if radiation were part of the sentence, and the government tells you that with a felony record you’re too dangerous to kill bugs professionally but could theoretically run the country. In “Seven Facts About Mass Incarceration That Sound Like April Fools’ Day Hoaxes, But Aren’t,” we journey through America’s justice system—a place where “inmate welfare funds” buy fitness trackers for guards, where the average pretrial detainee makes less annually than what’s required for bail, and where nearly half of all Americans have had an immediate family member incarcerated. Laugh to keep from crying as we explore a system so darkly comedic that reality has outdone satire. Because sometimes the cruelest jokes aren’t jokes at all—they’re policy.
The judge’s approach to religious sincerity in the Jensen case provides a practical example that aligns with Carse’s understanding of religion.
The Judge’s Determination of Religious Sincerity
#
In the court document, the judge states: “At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of several witnesses to establish the sincerity of their religion. The court found the witnesses credible and ruled that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim under the Utah RFRA.”
I am writing to express my concerns about current copyright policies.
The landscape of academic publishing and information access has transformed with the
advent of artificial intelligence. Institutional policies remain rooted in an outdated
paradigm. Recent developments highlight this disconnect: major AI companies are
training language models on vast collections of academic literature and books.
As reported in January 2025, both American and foreign companies are using bulk text collections.1
This technological revolution in how knowledge is processed and utilized demands a fresh
examination of our approach to academic access. While I fully support protecting
intellectual property rights and compensating creators fairly, the current system
creates barriers to legitimate academic inquiry and learning.
We don’t make lettuce illegal because it might be contaminated
with salmonella. We regulate it. We should be doing the same
for Federally legal hemp-derived cannabinoids. The state can
mandate independent lab testing for contaminants.
2025 Jan 08 UPDATE: OLCC clarified that Oregon prohibits the sale of artificially derived cannabinoids. There is no prohibition against possession. You can verify this by visiting Chapter 845 and searching for “penalty.”
Oregon’s approach to regulating synthetically derived cannabinoids has evolved significantly in recent years. Initially, the focus was primarily on controlling their sale and distribution, while possession was treated as a minor infraction under Measure 110, which broadly decriminalized drug possession.
Drug regulation should not be a criminal matter, but addressed by health care providers. I urge the DEA to drop this attempt to schedule more substances.
Personal Liberty: At the heart of the decriminalization movement lies the principle of individual autonomy. Adults should have the right to choose what they put into their own bodies, as long as their actions don’t harm others. Criminalizing personal drug use infringes on this fundamental freedom, treating individuals as criminals for making private choices.
August 15, 2025
