Amendment 64...

[hatidua]

I'm more afraid of the IRS then the feds.

The IRS boys are feds...

[HoneyBadger]

Only a weak person allows any form of substance to control them, be it alcohol, pot or other chemicals.

You win the internet for the night!

[lead_magnet]

Legalize it.

A: Safer pot for the people (kids) smoking it.
B: The potential for violence from somone under the influence is WAY less than ETOH
C: Cops have better things to do
D: Reduction of crime steming from pot seekers (believe it or not this happens ALOT) ie. burglaries, robberies, etc.

And no, I don't smoke pot. I'm a grown-up and I have things to do. These people need to act like adults and do coke like the rest of us.

*sigh* I shouldn't even have to say this, but the above is a joke, and a stolen one at that. /modsafteydisclaimer

[Great-Kazoo]

The IRS boys are feds...

Actually like the FEDERAL Reserve, they are not, a subsidiary of yes.

[SA Friday]

I will vote no simply because this should not be a state constitution amendment. It should be handled at a lower level. I personally want to see it done, but I would like to see it handled more like gambling establishments. I don't want a coffee house on every corner, but I wouldn't mind seeing secular locations. This would promote tourism and lessen permanent relocation to solely smoke dope. I would also like to see this law promote the growing of hemp as a cash crop in the state. It would give CO a literal monopoly on the production and use of hemp in this country. The potential for industrial and agricultural growth would be highly stimulating for the entire state.

[Zundfolge]

It would give CO a literal monopoly on the production and use of hemp in this country. The potential for industrial and agricultural growth would be highly stimulating for the entire state.

No, it wouldn't.

It will STILL Be illegal at the Federal level folks ... all passing Amendment 64 will do is cause massive legal conflicts between the CO State government and the Feds (so I guess it could be considered a subsidy to those poor trial attorneys) and it will make Colorado even more of a magnet for pot smokers (most of which vote Democrat and thus skew every other aspect of Colorado government to the left ... that will probably eventually mean an end to Colorado as a very gun friendly state among other things). Lord knows we don't need even more Californians moving here.

I'm all for legalization, but it has to be legalized at the Federal level FIRST, then the states can decide if they want it there.

[roberth]

No, it wouldn't.

It will STILL Be illegal at the Federal level folks ... all passing Amendment 64 will do is cause massive legal conflicts between the CO State government and the Feds (so I guess it could be considered a subsidy to those poor trial attorneys) and it will make Colorado even more of a magnet for pot smokers (most of which vote Democrat and thus skew every other aspect of Colorado government to the left ... that will probably eventually mean an end to Colorado as a very gun friendly state among other things). Lord knows we don't need even more Californians moving here.

I'm all for legalization, but it has to be legalized at the Federal level FIRST, then the states can decide if they want it there.

Yup. Either we get it legalized at the federal level or we do away with federal enforcement and the DEA, then we the individual states decide if they want the dopers or not.

[buckshotbarlow]

only reason why i voted no was because they didnt break down how the revenue was going to be spent. if they would of had a cleaner break down then i would of voted yes.

[ringhilt]

I personally voted this amendment down.
Two reasons:
First, they made it a state constitutional amendment. This is not a constitutional topic. It is simply a statutory item and if legalized would be regulated just like alcohol. But Colorado is fricking insane and puts EVERYTHING in the state constitution. stupid in my opinion. This alone is enough reason to vote it down.

Second, the only reason they want to legalize it is for the tax revenue. Not for freedom for the individual. Or the right to own your own body and do with it as you wish. (as long as you do no harm to anyone else).
They just want the money. I will not participate in a scheme to increase the states tax revenue. They have enough money, just stop wasting it on useless items. We the citizens live on a budget, why can't the government? In general the government needs to stop being a helicopter nanny and but out of our lives and limit itself to common good items.

My $1.02 on this topic.

[centrarchidae]

I voted no.

This didn't belong in the constitution. It's a simple change to statute, or it should have been.

The funding formula didn't belong either, and especially not the pandering "school construction" crap.

Had the question merely been "Colorado Revised Statute 18-18-406(1) is hereby repealed in its entirety, yes or no?" I'd have voted 'yes' without hesitation.

ETA: The Feds didn't just up and repeal Prohibition one day. They did it after several years of states repealing their own state-level prohibition laws and refusing to enforce Federal law, and telling the Feds "It's yours, not ours." Kind of like what Montana and Tennessee tried to do with the NFA in the last 2-3 years.