View Full Version : Amendment 64 Poll
GilpinGuy
11-04-2012, 02:53
How are you voting on 64 (Colorado marijuana legalization)?
Since there are only 2 options on the ballot, there are only 2 here.
I have not yet read the wording of the question (but will before Tuesday) so I unsure how I'm voting.
does someone want to give me the cliff notes?
does it decriminalize pot? or make it legal?
does it call for new taxes generated by the sale and distribution?
and how is the .gov involved (if at all)?
I'm completely against .gov involvement/regulation...they 'eff up everything they touch
I'm completely against the taxing of the sale and distribution..I'm for starving the beast called government
and finally I'm against the decriminalization, but for the legalization
and I should note, I have no dog in this fight. I haven't smoked anything in 25 years
tmleadr03
11-04-2012, 08:27
Duuuude, I'm like you know totally ok with like you know... what was the question? heh heh heh
This is a duplicate thread. http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=65391&page=13
Since the medical marijuana issue falls into an interesting area of being federally illegal yet ok from a state stand point. I believe that if this passes the Fed's are not going to turn a blind eye anymore.
wctriumph
11-04-2012, 13:00
It's time to legalize Marijuana and control (?!) it as we do other drugs.
Of course there will need to be a state bureaucratic office set up to consume the dollars taken in from taxing the stuff. Then the Fed's will want a part of the cash to keep their war on drugs out of the state.
It all starts with the first domino pushed and the rest will follow.
TEA
We will get even dumber as a state if we legalize that shit.
I voted Yes. the taxes on it will supposedly be used to help colorado education. If Obama and Romney want to fund schools with tax dollars and make college more affordable, here is the way to do it.
the college kids will save money not only by having cheaper and legal weed, but with cheaper education. My taxes should not have to be raised 1 cent in order to help with education funding. Not my income at state or federal level and certainly not my property taxes. The schools don't have to bother passing or asking for any more mill-levys either.
I hate how the .gov taxes everything that you want to do...drink, smoke, drive, camp, hunt, etc...but the end result, when the funds are managed correctly and used as they designed, can make a huge impact. Just look at the division of wildlife. the pittmann robertson act. When they are handled responsibly, those tax dollars give generations of quality access to state and federal lands and keep outdoor activities at a reasonable cost.
If they can manage this correctly...say by putting me in charge of the whole damn thing, it can be managed to help schools out immensely, provide schools and kids with anti-drug classes and responsibility with drugs and alcohol. We know kids smoke weed and drink already. the point is that if they choose to do so, they need to do it responsibly and know the avenues to take to get a DD, call a cab, think ahead, know the limits etc.
Not only that, but I believe there would be more than enough of a surplus of cash to set it aside in the event of a rainy day...something the .gov needs to learn to do. there are good and bad times. in the good times put some away and live within the means of the system, in the bad times there is a cushion to fall back on to instead of pillaging from the citizens pockets in their time of hurt as well.
The police would not need to have as big of staffing helping to further reduce our tax issues, the prison system and judicial system would see a decline from pot related issues, private business has a new avenue to make money and get people jobs which brings in more tax revenue.
I can't see any real negatives. Anyone who remotely thinks they are something of a libertarian should be voting absolute YES. why should the .gov further restrict what we can and can't put in our bodies?
If you think this is a gateway to having your kids smoking weed like crazy and it is going to be everywhere all the time...you might have more of a parenting issue. weed IS everywhere. same with cigarettes and alcohol. Good kids that are raised right are going to know not to break the law (they are under 18 or 21 whatever the law decides is legal for smoking/alcohol).
So why not improve our education system, decriminalize something most agree is not as bad as alcohol, free up our police to enforce more pertinent laws, and gain some freedom while were at it?
speedysst
11-04-2012, 13:38
First of all it should ABSOLUTELY NOT be a Constitutional ammendment. It can be handled statuatorily. Second, funding schools by selling drugs seems a bit nefarious. Third, are people prepared to legalize meth and/or heroin because pot MIGHT be a gateway drug? It may not be but if it turns out that it is, then the push to legalize harder drugs and "tax" them will happen. Also, if all this bullshit is legalized because Americans are obsessed with intoxicants (this includes energy drinks), then NO tax funding for addiction treatment. Just my .02.
jerrymrc
11-04-2012, 13:41
Now we can look at dueling 64 polls. Who's going to win? [LOL]
Now we can look at dueling 64 polls. Who's going to win? [LOL]
[ROFL2]
First of all it should ABSOLUTELY NOT be a Constitutional ammendment. It can be handled statuatorily. Second, funding schools by selling drugs seems a bit nefarious. Third, are people prepared to legalize meth and/or heroin because pot MIGHT be a gateway drug? It may not be but if it turns out that it is, then the push to legalize harder drugs and "tax" them will happen. Also, if all this bullshit is legalized because Americans are obsessed with intoxicants (this includes energy drinks), then NO tax funding for addiction treatment. Just my .02.
why, gambling helps fund community colleges. amendment 50 passed in 2008. the $$ has been short of predictions but there is still a supply of money helping educate the youth in CO.
Please post any medical data that says Pot is a gateway drug? What about alcohol? is it a gateway drug to pot, or ecstasy, or unplanned pregnancy?
How about the personal responsibility? Why does the .gov need to tell you what you can out into your own body as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. There can be restrictions on where it can be smoked, how it is transported, not bringing it onto school property...much like concealed carry laws except that we are making a criminal safe zone by telling people they can't bring their weed into an elementary because they can't smoke it inside to defend the kids if a guy starts shooting up the place...
We are already taxed on gas, soda, you get taxed/raped very year on your license plates, you get taxed to live where you want, own what you want, drink what you want etc.
I agree on no tax funding for addiction treatment, medical problems that arise from over use, or actions taken while under the influence of said drugs/intoxicants. That is about personal responsibility. If you are responsible with your habits and make sound decisions, it shouldn't be an issue.
Why shouldn't taxes from weed be used for treatment? It'd be a much better use than just chucking people into jails and prisons. Plus, just telling someone, "hey guy, just be responsible." isn't going to solve any real substance abuse issues.
I'm not on board with the extra taxes, or the state only considering this because they know they'll make money off the taxes, but as far as uses go, treatment isn't the worst way to use the money. If you eliminate treatment, then the government will just use the money on something else that you agree just as much with.
Bailey Guns
11-04-2012, 14:14
Not necessarily against it. But I'm against it as a constitutional amendment. No.
Why shouldn't taxes from weed be used for treatment? It'd be a much better use than just chucking people into jails and prisons. Plus, just telling someone, "hey guy, just be responsible." isn't going to solve any real substance abuse issues.
I'm not on board with the extra taxes, or the state only considering this because they know they'll make money off the taxes, but as far as uses go, treatment isn't the worst way to use the money. If you eliminate treatment, then the government will just use the money on something else that you agree just as much with.
How far will this "treatment" be expanded? is there a timeframe, a dollar limit, a one time only plan? Their actions have consequences that need to be paid for out of pocket, not with tax dollars. Should we force everyone to pay more taxes because a select few can't handle their responsibilities? Should your guns have more taxes placed on them to help murder suspects get treatment?
People that have a drinking or drug or addiction problem can be helped, but it can go far beyond what is fair to the others. The taxes should be used for schools and keeping students educated to make good life choices and let them know their actions have consequences and they need to be responsible adults. That or put away into savings for the bad times, or to reduce other taxes.
How far will this "treatment" be expanded? is there a timeframe, a dollar limit, a one time only plan? Their actions have consequences that need to be paid for out of pocket, not with tax dollars. Should we force everyone to pay more taxes because a select few can't handle their responsibilities? Should your guns have more taxes placed on them to help murder suspects get treatment?
That's just the hang up. Should people with kids in schools be paying to have them get a good education? No matter what the money goes to, the argument can be made that the people receiving that money for services should be paying for it themselves.
That's just the hang up. Should people with kids in schools be paying to have them get a good education? No matter what the money goes to, the argument can be made that the people receiving that money for services should be paying for it themselves.
I'm all for that. Pay for service. no taxes taken out at all from my income or where I live. Only taxes should be on what I use. the programs that never get used will suffer, the ones that are over-used and underfunded will see gains. things will equal out.
That would help the schools a lot, because the damn illegals with 4 families to a home and only paying property taxes for 1 house would not get the benefit of free school for their kids, a lot of which get extra attention in ESL classes. Each kid has to pay to play type of thing. The legal families that choose to have more kids know they will be paying more for school. Just like todays parents worrying about paying for college....you just no longer have 18 years to figure out how to pay for it.
Is that fair? some say no. but is it also fair that people who never had kids have to pay for education through their property taxes?
UNFORTUNATELY....that isn't the way this will work out and will not happen. so in the mean time, tax the weed, use the funding to offset the cost of educating our youth and put the rest away for a rainy day.
I don't think any funding should go to college though. Too many people already go to college as it is, and they are only encouraging more. That's a different conversation though.
Too many people already go to college as it is
- I don't even know where to begin on that one! [ROFL1]
I believe they are making it an state amendment because if it was just a law then Federal > State. I do not know how Federal law stands up against a states constitution (assuming that it isn't an unconstitutional amendment), but I assume that is why it is an amendment.
Here is an article about Portugal (http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7), they decriminalized everything years ago and this talks about the results they are seeing.
- I don't even know where to begin on that one! [ROFL1]
College is way overrated. Someone with years of experience, even having worked for the same company they are applying with, is ALWAYS passed over for someone with ZERO experience, but a college degree. Even when the degree is something like communications or sports medicine which isn't even close to related to the job. I don't know about you, but college has had zero effect on my capability to perform any of the jobs that I've ever held, with the one exception that I wouldn't have qualified for the jobs without the degree. I'm very glad that I went to the cheapest University that I could find.
Aloha_Shooter
11-04-2012, 19:43
I believe they are making it an state amendment because if it was just a law then Federal > State. I do not know how Federal law stands up against a states constitution (assuming that it isn't an unconstitutional amendment), but I assume that is why it is an amendment.
Here is an article about Portugal (http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7), they decriminalized everything years ago and this talks about the results they are seeing.
I think they went the amendment route because they knew this wouldn't even get out of committee as legislation. Regardless of how you/I/Ron Paul thinks things should be, state constitution doesn't trump federal law except as a PR exercise.
College is way overrated. Someone with years of experience, even having worked for the same company they are applying with, is ALWAYS passed over for someone with ZERO experience, but a college degree. Even when the degree is something like communications or sports medicine which isn't even close to related to the job. I don't know about you, but college has had zero effect on my capability to perform any of the jobs that I've ever held, with the one exception that I wouldn't have qualified for the jobs without the degree. I'm very glad that I went to the cheapest University that I could find.
I agree completely with you Irving. I went to a largely unknown state school in GA. Well, it is at least mostly unknown outside of Georgia, mainly because they don't have a football program yet... Nevertheless, it was under 5K a year at the time. I may have learned a little from a background/historical and "theory" standpoint and definitely "grew up" some, but I can't pinpoint anything I learned in college that has had a definite impact on my ability to do my job(s) since graduating.
Just having a diploma provides a certain level of expectation in the eyes of an employer. Other than that, I think the experience and mental fortitude of the applicant is far more valuable. I could not be happier about going to school where I did. It kept me from having to take on any debt burden and avoid the whole financial "catch up" game after graduating.
Was going to vote for it until I saw the "taxes collected goto schools"
Sin taxes are not going away and thats what this would create. In my book though a sin tax should only pay for eliminating that sin, not a general revenue stream.
SuperiorDG
11-14-2012, 14:09
FORT COLLINS - Following Colorado's marijuana legalization from Amendment 64, Boulder's district attorney is dropping all drug-possession cases against anyone older than 21 who is caught with less than an ounce of pot or marijuana paraphernalia.
It remains unclear whether the Larimer County District Attorney's Office plans to do the same.
Boulder DA Stan Garnett announced his decision via Twitter this morning, and a spokeswoman said prosecutors in Colorado are obligated to drop cases if they don't think a jury may convict. Garnett's decision is effective immediately.
The voter-approved Amendment 64, which legalized small amounts of recreational marijuana for adults, takes effect early next month. So even though pot-possession today remains illegal under state law, potential jurors are likely to take the impending change into consideration, Garnett's spokeswoman said.
"If you don't believe you can get a jury to convict, you have an ethical obligation to not go forward with a case," said Catherine Olguin, a spokeswoman for Garnett. "He doesn't believe he can get a jury to convict. And one of the standards prosecutors must meet... is that they have a reasonable belief that they can get a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt."
Read the full story on The Fort Collins Coloradoan. (http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121114/NEWS01/311140030/Citing-Amendment-64-Boulder-DA-begins-dropping-pot-cases?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)
(Copyright © 2012 Fort Collins Coloradoan, All Rights Reserved)
FORT COLLINS - Following Colorado's marijuana legalization from Amendment 64, Boulder's district attorney is dropping all drug-possession cases against anyone older than 21 who is caught with less than an ounce of pot or marijuana paraphernalia.
It remains unclear whether the Larimer County District Attorney's Office plans to do the same.
Boulder DA Stan Garnett announced his decision via Twitter this morning, and a spokeswoman said prosecutors in Colorado are obligated to drop cases if they don't think a jury may convict. Garnett's decision is effective immediately.
The voter-approved Amendment 64, which legalized small amounts of recreational marijuana for adults, takes effect early next month. So even though pot-possession today remains illegal under state law, potential jurors are likely to take the impending change into consideration, Garnett's spokeswoman said.
"If you don't believe you can get a jury to convict, you have an ethical obligation to not go forward with a case," said Catherine Olguin, a spokeswoman for Garnett. "He doesn't believe he can get a jury to convict. And one of the standards prosecutors must meet... is that they have a reasonable belief that they can get a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt."
Read the full story on The Fort Collins Coloradoan. (http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121114/NEWS01/311140030/Citing-Amendment-64-Boulder-DA-begins-dropping-pot-cases?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)
(Copyright © 2012 Fort Collins Coloradoan, All Rights Reserved)
So more silver lining... It's starting to free up the court system a bit... I can't really come up with any argument against that.
I anticipate that the Fed's official response will be something along the lines of, "Legal weed or continued Federal funding, your choice." Has anyone said that yet?
I'm guessing that 20 years from now we'll be able to look back on this and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Teufelhund
11-14-2012, 22:32
I anticipate that the Fed's official response will be something along the lines of, "Legal weed or continued Federal funding, your choice." Has anyone said that yet?
Define "extortion."
Define "extortion."
Did the Feds not give Louisiana the very same ultimatum when it came to raising the legal drinking age to 21 years-old?
Teufelhund
11-14-2012, 23:49
I'm pretty sure they did. I think that still qualifies as extortion, but it's not like you can run and tell on them.
OneGuy67
11-15-2012, 11:23
Did the Feds not give Louisiana the very same ultimatum when it came to raising the legal drinking age to 21 years-old?
The official term is "unfunded mandates". If you want fed money, you must do what fed wants.
Rust_shackleford
11-15-2012, 12:26
The official term is "unfunded mandates". If you want fed money, you must do what fed wants.
Like being bribed with your own money.
OneGuy67
11-15-2012, 12:41
Like being bribed with your own money.
It could be considered that way. The money sent to the feds does a lot of different things. There are so many ways in which local, county and state govt entities can get a piece of the money. In the example mentioned by Irving, the feds stated they would withhold highway maintenance funds if the state didn't raise their legal drinking age to 21. They have done that with other mandates as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.