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 11-07-2012, 06:18 AM
 
Location: Southwest Arkansas
770 posts, read 628,153 times
Reputation: 815

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Colorado legalized pot!!!
Rockey Mountain HIGH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2012, 06:46 AM
 
4,891 posts, read 9,018,756 times
Reputation: 8367
Worst move E V E R !
What in the world are you guys thinking over there?
Sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 06:54 AM
 
1,052 posts, read 1,583,285 times
Reputation: 1883
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
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 Prohibition was repealed when a sufficient majority was voted into office in the US Senate and House to secure repeal and a sympathetic President was elected to sign the legislation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.
Sorry Jazz..... that's crap & you lose. Get over it. The people have spoken. If all supreme laws were to be obeyed to a "T", we wouldn't even exist as a country. There would have been no American Revolution. The American people as a whole support legalized marijuana and the politicians are way behind them. As Americans we have a right & a duty to challenge unjust laws. That's part of being American. And non-listening legislators are the exact reason this process took place the way it did. When the legislators won't listen, you take a different route. To insist that the pro legalization efforts couldn't make a cogent argument belies your lack of understanding of this entire issue. Legislators at both the state & federal level have no cojones when it comes to marijuana. It's been one of the true "third rails" of politics so the people were forced to take matters into their own hands. Hope all of the politicians learned a lesson from this and actually listen when their constituents express their opinions.

And guess what, the fed can't squash any of the approved legalization initiatives because they lack the resources and the political will. Did you not wonder why the administration was so silent on these initiatives. Attempts to squash any of this will cause a tremendous amount of blowback & bad press.

This genie is out of the bottle and can never be put back in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:26 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,193,673 times
Reputation: 9067
Go toke up and continue to delude yourself, soButt. First thing that is going to happen is someone is going to go to Federal Court to obtain an injunction to prohibit the initiative from being actually put into force. They will argue that the initiative violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Just as was the case with the folks that legally challenged Colorado's Amendment 2 of a few years ago that essentially violated the Federal anti-discrimination laws, they will likely win and the marijuana legalization initiative will be declared unconstitutional.

If by some slim (and very stupid) chance that the marijuana initiative actually gets enacted, all it will take to get things really interesting is for some stoner high on "legal" marijuana to kill someone on the public highways. All hell will break loose because the victim's family will sue the living hell out of not only the stoner (who probably doesn't have any money, anyway), but the state for allowing the stoner to legally buy an intoxicating drug for recreational use that remains illegal at the federal level. I'm sure the Colorado Attorney General is pondering that eventuality right now, and it probably has a lot to do with why Gov. Hickenlooper opposed the Amendment.

Whatever else you may be, soBut, you are completely ignorant about the law. I'm not even an attorney (but I know plenty about law) and I could tear you apart in a Courtroom.

Oh, and as a gay, Josseppie should not be celebrating this, either. If the marijuana initiative is allowed to stand a Supremacy Cause challenge, there would be nothing to stop a new "anti-gay" Amendment 2 to be voted in by the Colorado voters and possibly survive a court challenge invoking the Supremacy Clause. A good attorney would point to the marijuana law and say, "Well, you allowed the marijuana law that violated the Supremacy Clause to stand, so why not this one?" Ugly case law has a nasty way of showing up in unexpected places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica, CA
1,626 posts, read 3,135,840 times
Reputation: 730
The supremecy clause challenge is nonsense. Recreational use of marijuana is legal in your state, get over it.

"The Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws...Even under national alcohol prohibition, which unlike the federal ban on marijuana was authorized by a constitutional amendment, states were free to go their own way. They could decline to pass their own versions of the Volstead Act (as Maryland did), repeal them (as a dozen states, including Colorado and Washington, did while the 18th Amendment was still in force), or simply refrain from prosecuting people under them (which was common in the wetter districts of the country). The question is not whether a state could change its own laws," Caulkins et al. write. "Rather, the question is how the conflict with the continued federal prohibition would play out."

Colorado and Washington Have Legalized Marijuana. What Now? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,504,006 times
Reputation: 9292
Mike from back east wrote: We'll know in 30 hours.

Now we know!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Northern MN
3,869 posts, read 12,572,881 times
Reputation: 3546
jazz insert gun instead of car.
Guns kill and they kill in the hands of drunks and stoners .
Yet we can still buy them and get drunk.

Yes, I agree there should be stiff penlites for driving stoned kind of like driving drunk? The drunk has no money or insurance to pay for the damages.
But Booze is still legal.

See the similarity and the flaw to your argument?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:56 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,193,673 times
Reputation: 9067
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofarmer View Post
jazz insert gun instead of car.
Guns kill and they kill in the hands of drunks and stoners .
Yet we can still buy them and get drunk.

Yes, I agree there should be stiff penlites for driving stoned kind of like driving drunk? The drunk has no money or insurance to pay for the damages.
But Booze is still legal.

See the similarity and the flaw to your argument?
Wrong again, snofarmer. Not comparable. Guns are legal at the federal level and so is alcohol. Marijuana is not.

As to Dunbar's gobbledegook, here is the actual Supremacy Clause (my emphasis added in bold):

Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
There is nothing ambiguous about it. If a state law or constitutional provision violates federal law, judges "shall" (which, in legal terms means "must" or "will," not "may") be bound to follow federal law. End of argument.

Last edited by jazzlover; 11-07-2012 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Northern MN
3,869 posts, read 12,572,881 times
Reputation: 3546
The states were allowed to set their own speed limits to,
Until the Govt set a national speed-limit of 55mph.
How did they get compliance?
They threatened to withhold funds.

We will find out shortly what the fed intends to do about it.

In the mean time it's a start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Northern MN
3,869 posts, read 12,572,881 times
Reputation: 3546
I'm right in comparing them to the dangers you posted.
driving drunk is illegal so is unjustified killing with a gun. But it still happens.

The law does not change that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Wrong again, snofarmer. Not comparable. Guns are legal at the federal level and so is alcohol. Marijuana is 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