Amendment 64...

[Ronin13]

The main issue I have is that it is illegal on a federal level- so if this passes and businesses are allowed to sell it doesn't that open the door to hurt our businesses during a time when we need business to boom? xring, you make a great point, even if it were legal federally and here, I still wouldn't use it- BTDT, didn't like what it does to me. I'll stay mostly opposed to legalization until they can figure out a way to prove someone's level of MJ-induced intoxication while driving and be able to punish much like with drinking and driving.

[Teufelhund]

Meh. I think this is just picking out one facet of the larger issue, which is the war on personal freedom. It is not the duty or right of any government body to mandate what a person can or cannot do to their own self.

Aside from that, the federal government is acting outside its authority by issuing and enforcing such laws on individual States. It is the (much ignored) responsibility of local LE to interdict when federal agencies overstep their jurisdiction. There is an organization of Sheriffs from across the country which meets in Vegas every year to demand such action and assumption of responsibility.

[ChadAmberg]

I will vote against Amendment 64.

Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.

It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").

THEN states can pass laws allowing it.

Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.

Actually my thought is this: Why do any states need any laws about it? If it's illegal at the federal level, isn't it a bit redundant to have it at the state level? Why not ban it at the county, city, and HOA level too then? This is the cause of so much confusion about MMJ and everything else. People think its perfectly legal because the state allows it then cry foul when the feds roll in.

Anyway, most of the time, laws should never be passed to allow something, only a very narrow prohibition of certain things.

Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.

I think California and Alaska at least have done this... but CA was infected already. You're right though, it will just hippify the state more.

[Rust_shackleford]

I will vote against Amendment 64.

Not because I oppose legalization of recreational use of MJ, actually I support that. But it has to be done correctly within the law.

It has to be "legalized" at the federal level first (if nothing else because frankly federal laws against MJ are another example of the abuse of the "commerce clause").

THEN states can pass laws allowing it.

Even then I will vote against them until there are several other states where its legal.


Whatever state legalizes pot first will become so over-run with liberal pothead idiots that every other aspect of politics, government, law and the economy will be ruined.

Since the vast majority of the hardcore pot crowd* are also socialist, gun control supporting idiots, they'll join the too-many liberals already here and make Colorado unlivable (and worse than California) in short order.


* those who would be motivated enough to relocate because of the law.

READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION!
Also the Federal Government has only
18 powers enumerated!


Time to get our states back. Over 50% of land in our state is owned by the Feds.

[Rust_shackleford]

Meh. I think this is just picking out one facet of the larger issue, which is the war on personal freedom. It is not the duty or right of any government body to mandate what a person can or cannot do to their own self.

Aside from that, the federal government is acting outside its authority by issuing and enforcing such laws on individual States. It is the (much ignored) responsibility of local LE to interdict when federal agencies overstep their jurisdiction. There is an organization of Sheriffs from across the country which meets in Vegas every year to demand such action and assumption of responsibility.

Here Here!

[Sawin]

READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION!
Also the Federal Government has only
18 powers enumerated!


Time to get our states back. Over 50% of land in our state is owned by the Feds.

I agree with your sentiment, but actually the Fed owns 36.2% of CO. It's way too high, but not "over 50%".

[TFOGGER]

Once, when we had a more polite society with personal responsbility, all form of things were criminalized that are now common. American society is heading in a scary direction. IMHO, legalization of pot will result in the proliferation of more designer drugs (Bath Salts, Smiles, etc.) by the criminal element, reduce our collective ability to produce and innovate and result in a higher percentage of people on the government dole. These will create increased burdens on those who try to live responsibly and earn their own way.

One flaw with your statement: Marijuana was not illegal until 1937 in the US. The main reason it was made illegal was that it was lumped in with hemp when the paper industry saw hemp as a threat. Regulation started in the 1860s, but the outright ban didn't come until much later.

[Rust_shackleford]

I agree with your sentiment, but actually the Fed owns 36.6% of CO. It's way too high, but not "over 50%".

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/p...W=588&imgH=450

[Sawin]

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/p...W=588&imgH=450

Yep, while that map is 100% accurate, the white space in between all those colors actually does add up to quite a bit.

See page 4 of this PDF from the Congressional Research Service in February. It breaks down all the states.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

[MarkCO]

One flaw with your statement: Marijuana was not illegal until 1937 in the US. The main reason it was made illegal was that it was lumped in with hemp when the paper industry saw hemp as a threat. Regulation started in the 1860s, but the outright ban didn't come until much later.

No flaw, just not stated well. Point is, from the 1900s through the 1960s, our legislatures tried to legislate morality by criminalization of a lot of things. Did not work then...does not work now. Now we are trying to enfold a lot of things through laws that may or may not belong at all. It is just a pendulum swing.