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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2013, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Colorado
11,628 posts, read 7,203,216 times
Reputation: 20946

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
"I bet this video has been posted already. But yeah, stoned driving is not drunk driving... heck, it probably isn't even in the top 5 most dangerous things people do while driving.

I am not worried on Colorado's roadways.
"


^^^^ Stoned driving isn't too great either, call a cab.

2 Sent To Hospital In Fiery Crash, Explosion[/quote]

Every article I can find merely mentions that the driver may have been "on drugs." It does not say WHICH drugs. This is VERY significant. He could have been on meth, or acid, molly, heroin, crack...if someone finds an article that definitively states what "drugs" he was on, I'd like to know. I'm curious.

But no, driving stoned isn't the best idea. My point was that in my opinion, if one were to do some sort of a statistical study, I'm betting one would find that fewer stoned people (although still some) would be inclined to attempt to drive stoned in the first place, when compared to the number of drunk people who would insist that they are not too drunk to drive, when actually they are. That's just an observation.

The only thing I ever did while stoned, that I regretted later, was waste a whole bunch of time that could have been spent more productively.

As far as the whole "laws permitting pot use fly directly against the Feds and are illegal" thing...the way I see it, one can argue Supremacy Clause vs. Tenth Amendment all day until one is blue in the face. Fact is, if we waited until the highest body of government changed policy before anything could change at the lower levels, nothing would ever change at all. All kinds of changes in social ideology and the law of the land start with a division in opinions at lower levels, and eventually work their way up. And frankly...I want to see a Federal government that works for its people, not a bunch of people that live in the shadow of an almighty Federal government. I'm also highly skeptical of the assertion that our representatives in DC are in fact representative of the people at all. I think most of them are puppets, bought and paid for by the powerful big-money-elite of our nation, or rather, our world. And their interests are almost never my interests. Seeing change happen despite them gives me hope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-06-2013, 05:10 PM
 
1,006 posts, read 1,861,266 times
Reputation: 1556
Quote:
Originally Posted by coloradoalimony View Post
Colorado and Washington law *are* in direct conflict with Federal law, as are the laws in every state that allow medical or recreational marijuana. .
Except that the feds don't have the power to set policy for the states except in constitutionaly designated areas, of which marijuana law is clearly not one. So how can the state law be in conflict with an illegal Federal law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2013, 06:51 PM
 
3,147 posts, read 2,931,284 times
Reputation: 1858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
"


^^^^ Stoned driving isn't too great either, call a cab.

2 Sent To Hospital In Fiery Crash, Explosion

Every article I can find merely mentions that the driver may have been "on drugs." It does not say WHICH drugs. This is VERY significant. He could have been on meth, or acid, molly, heroin, crack...if someone finds an article that definitively states what "drugs" he was on, I'd like to know. I'm curious.

But no, driving stoned isn't the best idea. My point was that in my opinion, if one were to do some sort of a statistical study, I'm betting one would find that fewer stoned people (although still some) would be inclined to attempt to drive stoned in the first place, when compared to the number of drunk people who would insist that they are not too drunk to drive, when actually they are. That's just an observation.

The only thing I ever did while stoned, that I regretted later, was waste a whole bunch of time that could have been spent more productively.

As far as the whole "laws permitting pot use fly directly against the Feds and are illegal" thing...the way I see it, one can argue Supremacy Clause vs. Tenth Amendment all day until one is blue in the face. Fact is, if we waited until the highest body of government changed policy before anything could change at the lower levels, nothing would ever change at all. All kinds of changes in social ideology and the law of the land start with a division in opinions at lower levels, and eventually work their way up. And frankly...I want to see a Federal government that works for its people, not a bunch of people that live in the shadow of an almighty Federal government. I'm also highly skeptical of the assertion that our representatives in DC are in fact representative of the people at all. I think most of them are puppets, bought and paid for by the powerful big-money-elite of our nation, or rather, our world. And their interests are almost never my interests. Seeing change happen despite them gives me hope.

I am not advocating stoned driving, simply pointed out that there are more dangerous activities to partake in while behind the wheel... and these things are common on the roadways.

Again, this law does not make me any more worried about driving on Colorado's roads, if someone is going to hit me it is far more likely they are texting, eating, doing makeup, tired... etc.

ETA:It appears that I meant to respond to Elan, but the quotes got messed up.

Last edited by Xander_Crews; 09-06-2013 at 07:00 PM.. Reason: It appears that I meant to respond to Elan, but the quotes got messed up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2013, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,838,766 times
Reputation: 9316
Sonic_Spork wrote: Seeing change happen despite them gives me hope

Also, we are beginning to see that THEIR power is not as great as we once BELIEVED it to be. As we discover ways to dissolve the fear that has been programmed into our minds, our freedom increases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2013, 12:27 AM
 
1,163 posts, read 1,198,614 times
Reputation: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALIFRE View Post
This just in...Great News!

Dateline: 8-29-13

"The Department of Justice said today it will not seek to block or substantially alter adult-use marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington State at this time, a major win for the cannabis industry that signals a tipping point in the government’s approach to the drug.

Attorney General Eric Holder told the governors of both states that the DOJ will take a hands-off approach to the new recreational cannabis programs for now and will work closely with them to ensure regulations on the industry address any federal concerns.

The DOJ also issued new guidelines for federal prosecutors when it comes to enforcing marijuana laws, saying they should focus mainly on crimes such as the distribution of marijuana to minors, driving while intoxicated, drug trafficking by gangs and cartels, and marijuana cultivation on public lands".
It's great news if you're so happy about the immediate impact on your own personal desires, but not so great if you care that this administration picks and chooses which laws it enforces.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2013, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,838,766 times
Reputation: 9316
Seeker5in1 wrote: not so great if you care that this administration picks and chooses which laws it enforces.

EVERY administration picks and chooses which laws it enforces. This is nothing new under the sun!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,838,766 times
Reputation: 9316
10 Signs The Global Elite Are Losing Control

10. Cannabis liberation: Many reading this will think marijuana legalization is a superficial development. However, it is a major signpost that the elite's grip is fading. Enormous resources have been spent to keep cannabis illegal. Cannabis has been a powerful medicine for physical, mental, and spiritual health throughout the ages. This single plant represents a huge threat to the power structures and their industries, hence its seemingly senseless illegality. The approaching global reversal of the tyrannical policy of prohibition is the first of many concessions to come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 11:26 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,529,511 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
It's great news if you're so happy about the immediate impact on your own personal desires, but not so great if you care that this administration picks and chooses which laws it enforces.
The pot smokers are running around like suddenly Colorado is some sort of Amsterdam on steroids and that is not the case at all. What I see happening already is Colorado going from a very up and coming state in the 1970's to 1990's to it unraveling with societal decay and destruction, similar to California. You don't build prosperous societies with everyone stoned and collecting checks from the government.

It's still illegal at the Federal level and when you have a government that enforces or not enforces things on a whim, I would not be in a big rush to be a test case.

I see it all the time with the ATF and guns. They can pass some regulation that makes this or that illegal, a wrong rivet or weld there, a wrong hole there, too many foreign parts and now with NFA trusts and what they are trying to pass now, suddenly what was legal is now illegal and don't bend over for the soap.

I think the big issue we have right now in the USA and with the states is way too many rules and regulations and because government now is so unwieldy and big, one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,838,766 times
Reputation: 9316
wanerroo wrote: I think the big issue we have right now in the USA and with the states is way too many rules and regulations and because government now is so unwieldy and big, one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.

I tend to you agree with you on this. I've often thought that we'd be better off if the USA was broken into a half dozen smaller countries/regions, based on common interests and beliefs, bonded together with a common currency, under a federal goverment with greatly reduced, and very limited power. If this is what we-the-people truly wanted, we could make it happen peacefully.

The USA is simply too big to govern it without making millions of people very unhappy at any moment in time. The way it is now, part of the population gets to be slightly better off under a democratic administration while the republicans b*itch and moan, then the next time around part of the population gets to be slightly better off under a republican administration, while the democrats b*itch and moan. It's just not working very well, IMO.

The current situation with Syria is such an abomination that thankfully, almost no one believes the lies of chronic liars like Obama, McCain, and Kerry ( interesting: 1 president and 2 wannabees ).

Last edited by CosmicWizard; 09-09-2013 at 12:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 02:49 PM
 
599 posts, read 832,697 times
Reputation: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocaseco View Post
Except that the feds don't have the power to set policy for the states except in constitutionaly designated areas, of which marijuana law is clearly not one. So how can the state law be in conflict with an illegal Federal law?
This is a stupid argument. The Feds don't have the constitutional authority to impose EPA regulations, either. They can't impose Federal highway standards. They can't impose Federal food safety rules...they can't, they can't, they can't.

But they do. Good luck fighting them.

If the Feds want legal pot eliminated, they will do it. They have a hundred tools to do so. For example, an example that has ALREADY been used, tested in the courts, and blessed, they could simply remove all Federal highway funding from any state with legal marijuana, the same leverage they used to get every state to raise the drinking age to 21.

Game over.
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. The time now is 08:05 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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