U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should Colorado Legalize Marijuana?
Yes 164 76.64%
No. 50 23.36%
Voters: 214. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2012, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Yeah, that "movement" is called getting a majority in both Houses of the US Congress to pass legislation to change the law and getting the President to sign it--a task which is apparently too much trouble for the "pot legalization" crowd to undertake. The last time a bunch of states decided that duly-enacted Federal laws should be ignored because they weren't popular in some states and that those "dissenting" states "would show the Federal government the error in its ways" by flagrantly passing laws that violated the Federal laws, it led to the bloodiest war in US history--the Civil War--that nearly destroyed the country.
This is exactly how we do things. Get enough popular support for a issue one state at a time then when the national law is changed there is very little if any out cry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2012, 08:43 AM
 
1,051 posts, read 1,575,619 times
Reputation: 1883
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Yeah, that "movement" is called getting a majority in both Houses of the US Congress to pass legislation to change the law and getting the President to sign it--a task which is apparently too much trouble for the "pot legalization" crowd to undertake. The last time a bunch of states decided that duly-enacted Federal laws should be ignored because they weren't popular in some states and that those "dissenting" states "would show the Federal government the error in its ways" by flagrantly passing laws that violated the Federal laws, it led to the bloodiest war in US history--the Civil War--that nearly destroyed the country.
Jazz.... read your history. What's happening with the state by state marijuana legalization efforts is exactly how the prohibition of alcohol was finally eliminated. It happened on a state by state basis. Lest we forget that the founding fathers viewed our states as "laboratories of democracy". That's why you will always see a certain level of tolerance for initiatives by states that choose not to toe the federal line on certain issues. The civil war is an apples & oranges argument. The states with marijuana legalization of some type on today's ballot have not banded together to secede & form a new government and do not threaten the union of states with dissolution in any way. And no, that's not the last time anybody in any state has ever thumbed their nose at the fed. Arizona/Jan Brewer ring a bell?

Bottom line is, none of our elected leaders in DC have the cojones to really support what the people want with regard to marijuana so democracy gives the people the opportunity to decide for themselves.... in their state. Support for legalization of recreational marijuana use nationwide passed 50% for the first time last year and MMJ support is above 70%...nationwide. If our leaders won't do it in Congress, then we the people will.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 09:51 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,095,377 times
Reputation: 9065
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoButCounty View Post
Jazz.... read your history. What's happening with the state by state marijuana legalization efforts is exactly how the prohibition of alcohol was finally eliminated. It happened on a state by state basis. Lest we forget that the founding fathers viewed our states as "laboratories of democracy". That's why you will always see a certain level of tolerance for initiatives by states that choose not to toe the federal line on certain issues. The civil war is an apples & oranges argument. The states with marijuana legalization of some type on today's ballot have not banded together to secede & form a new government and do not threaten the union of states with dissolution in any way. And no, that's not the last time anybody in any state has ever thumbed their nose at the fed. Arizona/Jan Brewer ring a bell?

Bottom line is, none of our elected leaders in DC have the cojones to really support what the people want with regard to marijuana so democracy gives the people the opportunity to decide for themselves.... in their state. Support for legalization of recreational marijuana use nationwide passed 50% for the first time last year and MMJ support is above 70%...nationwide. If our leaders won't do it in Congress, then we the people will.

That's crap--a bunch of revisionist history. In case you hadn't noticed, during Prohibition, the Federal government asserted itself in a huge way to enforce the Prohibition laws, which is exactly what they should have done. Prohibition was repealed when a sufficient majority was voted into office in the US Senate and House to secure repeal and a sympathetic President was elected to sign the legislation that sent the repeal Amendment to the states for ratification. That's how our representative democracy works.

As for Arizona, the Governor and Legislature there enacted legislation because the Federal government IS NOT enforcing Federal laws that the Executive Branch of the Federal government (led by the President) is bound by their oaths of office to enforce. In that case, the state was trying to compel that Feds to enforce duly enacted Federal law. In truth, the President should have been impeached for his Administration's failure to enforce the existing US immigration laws.

The marijuana issue is just the opposite of both cases that you have cited. Colorado's marijuana initiative is not meant to compel the Feds to enforce existing law--it openly violates that law. It is the people who favor marijuana legalization who don't have the "huevos" to get the job done. Whatever the polls may say, they have not convinced a majority in the US Senate and US House to enact legislation to send to the President for signature to decriminalize marijuana. Until they do that, they are nothing but a bunch of lawbreaking whiners for whom I have no respect. When they moan that those bad ol' legislators won't listen to them, that is the failure of the marijuana-legalization crowd to make a cogent argument for legalization, not the fault of the legislators.

I am vehemently opposed to Amendment 64 because it is nothing but a flagrant violation of federal law that can be squashed like an insect by the Federal government at any moment--creating a huge and expensive financial morass for the State of Colorado (meaning Colorado taxpayers) to pay for. It is a completely stupid and ineffective way to effect public policy.

Last edited by jazzlover; 11-06-2012 at 10:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 10:52 AM
 
Location: The 719
13,631 posts, read 21,489,347 times
Reputation: 13287
I agree with Jazz on this and the main reason I voted "no" on 64 is because it was a horribly written amendment;
  • If passed, it may "expose Colorado consumers, businesses, and governments to federal criminal charges and other risks"... such as seizure of their money and property.
  • They will be forced to do cash-only transactions to avoid federal banking laws.
  • "Federal scrutiny and competition from retail marijuana establishments could jeopardize the existing medical marijuana system."
  • "Because the provisions of Amendment 64 will be in the state constitution and not in the state statutes, where most other business regulations appear, there may be unintended consequences that cannot be easily remedied." "...the measure, despite its stated intent, could create conflicts with existing employment, housing, and other laws and policies that ban the use of illegal drugs."
For example, if you want/need to use medical marijuana for the alleviation of pain/nausea/etc., you'd better not be on probation or parole because if you are... despite being a cancer/MS/etc sufferer... then you done tore up your right-to-medical-marijuana-ticket.

It's just a badly written and conceived amendment... coming once again from Colorado! Surprise surprise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 11:04 AM
 
1,512 posts, read 1,526,217 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
When they moan that those bad ol' legislators won't listen to them, that is the failure of the marijuana-legalization crowd to make a cogent argument for legalization, not the fault of the legislators.
Doesn't this position assume intellectual honesty on the part of the legislators, and doesn't the enormous amount of money involved in maintaining the drug war suggest that legislators have little motivation to be intellectually honest about this subject?

And as Americans, aren't we obligated to resist injustice by any means necessary except violence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 11:34 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,095,377 times
Reputation: 9065
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Homogenizer View Post
And as Americans, aren't we obligated to resist injustice by any means necessary except violence?
There is nothing legally "unjust" about the marijuana laws, anymore than than there is anything legally "unjust" about the 75 mph speed limit on the Interstate highways. Disagreeing with a law does not make the law "unjust'" in our governmental/legal system. When a law is duly enacted in this country, it is deemed to be legally "just" until the courts deem it to violate the provisions of the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Bend, OR
3,296 posts, read 8,197,447 times
Reputation: 3316
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Everybody forgets that all the President (whomever that will be) has to do is actually obey his oath of his office--to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States (and not just to selectively uphold the laws he or she agrees with and ignore the rest)--and the whole Amendment 64 issue is a moot point. The proposed Amendment violates Federal law and would be overturned in a second if the Federal government actually enforced the Supremacy Clause. If the Amendment passes, I fully expect a lawsuit to be filed to compel the Federal government to enforce that Supremacy Clause and declare the Colorado Constitutional Amendment a violation of Federal law. That would not be the first time that a Colorado Constitutional Amendment that clearly violates Federal law gets struck down.

Whether one agrees with the Federal marijuana laws or not, those laws remain in effect. The fact that the Obama administration has refused to enforce them is, in fact, a violation of the President's Oath of Office that is an impeachable offense--if anyone in this country actually believes in the rule of law, anymore. When everyone in the country, from the President on down, thinks that duly enacted laws only have to be obeyed when it is convenient or pleasant, we are only a short step from anarchy.
What I don't understand is that everyone is blaming Obama for not getting involved in state matters, but yet, these same people support Romney and his campaign that believes the state and private sector know what's best! I'm sure though, if he were to win this election, he would be heavily involved in the MMJ and legalization laws in those states. Talk about hypocrisy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 11:42 AM
 
1,512 posts, read 1,526,217 times
Reputation: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
There is nothing legally "unjust" about the marijuana laws, anymore than than there is anything legally "unjust" about the 75 mph speed limit on the Interstate highways. Disagreeing with a law does not make the law "unjust'" in our governmental/legal system. When a law is duly enacted in this country, it is deemed to be legally "just" until the courts deem it to violate the provisions of the Constitution.
I think that in order for your argument to be sound, you must begin with the premise that whatever the government does is just until a court decides otherwise. But that's contrary to American values. And the proof that that is contrary to American values is the fact that the Revolution was fought.

According to your values, it seems that the Revolutionaries would have went to a British court to settle their disputes and accept the ruling as just.

I don't need a judge to tell me that slavery is unjust. I don't need a judge to tell me that jetting mercury into ground water is unjust. And I don't need a judge to tell me that responsibly using a drug is unjust.

The American government has no moral authority, but that's what you're suggesting, isn't it? If the American government is acting immorally, then we can't go to the American government to ask it to cease its immorality. We must use whatever means necessary, except violence, to resist.

Last edited by The Homogenizer; 11-06-2012 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 11:44 AM
 
3,186 posts, read 5,452,602 times
Reputation: 1818
What was your question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131
I am really interested to see if Colorado passes this or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top