Do a lot of people in CO smoke pot? Should MJ be legal? (Evans: income, property tax) - Colorado - Page 46 - City-Data Forum

jazzlover · 11-07-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josseppie

There is a key distinction between the two. The "anti-gay" amendment 2 used the constitution to take away rights from a group of people while amendment 64 expands rights. It is going to be interesting to see the federal reaction to this but I think it will not be the same as it was when Colorado passed amendment 2 especially since the national dialogue is different as well.

You should re-read the last sentence of mine that you quote above. If you accept my premise that both Amendment 2 and the marijuana initiative violate Federal law, then if follows that if the Court uses the Supremacy Clause to strike down one, the precedent that sets will be used to argue in favor of striking down the other. If the Courts should ignore case law in case after case where the Supremacy Clause has been upheld, and make a ruling that flies in the face of the Supremacy Clause (highly unlikely, in my opinion), then the door would be left open for the states to pass all kinds of laws that openly violate Federal law, including some real ugly ones like Amendment 2. A lot of people like it when the Courts "go off of the reservation" and issue rulings that support their position or when the Courts ignore a clearly illegal, but popular law when there is no Constitutional basis to do so, but that also opens the door for abuses in other areas of law that can really hurt people and undermine the whole basis of our Constitutional Republic.

I should also note that the Executive Branch of government--where I spent a good part of my career as a public official--does not have the legal discretion to selectively administer or enforce only the laws which are popular and ignore the ones that are not. That is a violation of the oath of office of those official positions. As such an official, I regularly had to enforce laws and regulations with which I personally disagreed--but I swore an sacred oath on a Bible that I would uphold all of the laws and the Constitution, not just the parts that I liked or that were popular. I don't envy the position in which Amendment 64 has placed Colorado officials who have to implement it. On one hand, they have to go through the process of adopting the Amendment at the state level because, until the courts overturn it, the Amendment is a binding state Constitutional provision--with all of the expense, difficulties and potential liability created by the Amendment--while those officials know full-well that the Amendment violates Federal law and will likely by struck down. Not to mention the fact that those state officials could actually be found to be criminally prosecutable and civilly liable for violation of Federal law if the Feds successfully argue that the Amendment is null and void. There are some criminal lawyers that I know who say that, technically, state officials involved in the implementation of Amendment 64 could actually be federally charged under the RICO statutes. I'm really glad that I'm not in that position.

Josseppie · 11-07-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzlover

You should re-read the last sentence of mine that you quote above. If you accept my premise that both Amendment 2 and the marijuana initiative violate Federal law, then if follows that if the Court uses the Supremacy Clause to strike down one, the precedent that sets will be used to argue in favor of striking down the other. If the Courts should ignore case law in case after case where the Supremacy Clause has been upheld, and make a ruling that flies in the face of the Supremacy Clause (highly unlikely, in my opinion), then the door would be left open for the states to pass all kinds of laws that openly violate Federal law, including some real ugly ones like Amendment 2. A lot of people like it when the Courts "go off of the reservation" and issue rulings that support their position or when the Courts ignore a clearly illegal, but popular law when there is no Constitutional basis to do so, but that also opens the door for abuses in other areas of law that can really hurt people and undermine the whole basis of our Constitutional Republic.

I should also note that the Executive Branch of government--where I spent a good part of my career as a public official--does not have the legal discretion to selectively administer or enforce only the laws which are popular and ignore the ones that are not. That is a violation of the oath of office of those official positions. As such an official, I regularly had to enforce laws and regulations with which I personally disagreed--but I swore an sacred oath on a Bible that I would uphold all of the laws and the Constitution, not just the parts that I liked or that were popular. I don't envy the position in which Amendment 64 has placed Colorado officials who have to implement it. On one hand, they have to go through the process of adopting the Amendment at the state level because, until the courts overturn it, the Amendment is a binding state Constitutional provision--with all of the expense, difficulties and potential liability created by the Amendment--while those officials know full-well that the Amendment violates Federal law and will likely by struck down. Not to mention the fact that those state officials could actually be found to be criminally prosecutable and civilly liable for violation of Federal law if the Feds successfully argue that the Amendment is null and void. There are some criminal lawyers that I know who say that, technically, state officials involved in the implementation of Amendment 64 could actually be federally charged under the RICO statutes. I'm really glad that I'm not in that position.

We will see if the federal government agrees with you as the governor is going to meet with them in the next month or so. My bet is they will do little if anything and this will be the dawn of a new era in Colorado. Either way I still don't see the connection between the anti gay amendment and this one and you are the only one bringing up a connection and I have been watching and listening and reading the news on the topic.

CarsonCityKid · 11-07-2012, 02:46 PM

Well congratulations to all the pot smokers out there on your victory. I hear they're talking about moving Burning Man to Colorado now.

piyf · 11-07-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaggerLee22

Worst move E V E R !
What in the world are you guys thinking over there?
Sad.

What's sad is people buying into Reefer Madness. Prohibition is the problem. How did alcohol prohibition work out? All it does it make the substance worth more than gold and a black market run by cartels.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

Dunbar42 · 11-07-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I should also note that the Executive Branch of government--where I spent a good part of my career as a public official--does not have the legal discretion to selectively administer or enforce only the laws which are popular and ignore the ones that are not. That is a violation of the oath of office of those official positions.

And yet the federal government has chosen to selectively go after the ever expanding list of states that have legalized medical marijuana use. If it's such a black and white issue than why hasn't the federal government come down much harder on these states? There's no reason to think it will be any different for CO or WA now that they've legalized it for recreational use. I think it's highly unlikely that a second term Obama would defy the will of CO voters in a swing state that may be critical to the next democratic president candidate getting elected (or not.) It remains to be seen if they use the DEA and IRS to intimidate commercial growers and retail establishments selling it (as in the case of medical marijuana.) One thing is for sure, the feds don't have the manpower to arrest individual users for possession and that alone is a huge step forward. If the feds are dead-set on making sure all of the profits from recreational marijuana sales go to the drug cartels than so be it. But at least the state won't be wasting money and law enforcement resources arresting and prosecuting people for simple possession.

mommabear2 · 11-07-2012, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

I never thought about it that way but maybe that's what John Denver was singing about.

Well in the song he does say, "friends around the campfire and everybody's HIIIIIIIIIIIGH." I guess he was right.

piyf · 11-07-2012, 08:01 PM

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
- Albert Einstein