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)
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:35 PM
 
1,512 posts, read 1,572,224 times
Reputation: 579

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado^ View Post
I support 64, but do not condone smoking of any kind in public places.
Those aren't contrary. 64 maintains the illegality of public consumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:44 PM
 
3,103 posts, read 2,833,622 times
Reputation: 4029
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Homogenizer View Post
Those aren't contrary. 64 maintains the illegality of public consumption.
Yes, exactly. Just showing my support for people who don't want second hand smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 13,966,653 times
Reputation: 6327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado^ View Post
Yes, exactly. Just showing my support for people who don't want second hand smoke.
Aww, why deny the free high?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 07:39 PM
 
1,059 posts, read 1,634,577 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I don't think a state would be able to tax something that's against Federal law. The state could become an accessory to a Federal crime.
Taxing marijuana been done for years in every MMJ state. It's also been settled that state employees cannot be prosecuted for violation of federal law if they are acting in accordance with state law. Arizona atty general pursued this angle with the federal govt when it's MMJ initiative was passed a few years back. The courts threw it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 09:58 AM
 
Location: San Diego
34,914 posts, read 31,952,177 times
Reputation: 19380
What will happen is the same thing that went on in CA. EVERYONE got into growing weed and calling it MM. So much so that the Feds clamped down on it. The fake permits, etc. out the window and all dispensaries sans a few got shut down hard. If you want to get in on it you better do it fast cause it won't last long.


CA was the testing grounds and the lab rat and it's pretty hard to get a prescription for weed now. Even harder to find "legal" dispensaries, as in "ain't gonna happen".

This all took place in one year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:52 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,525,426 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
And I'm betting many, probably most Colorado residents would agree. I really think smokers need to keep in mind that the reason for their victory was not that the state is so full of smokers that it's hippie heaven, but rather that Colorado is full of libertarians who want small government and the freedom for people to make their own choices. But don't think for a minute that means any Coloradan is going to let you walk all over their freedoms, including the right to live a pot-free lifestyle if they choose.

I just really think it's amazing how uncommon common sense can be... People just need to respect each other. Smokers need to keep it in their own homes and not pollute the airspace of non-smokers. Non smokers need to not judge people if their actions aren't impacting your way of life. It's really not that hard.

As far as businesses and employers go, this too is reasonably simple. An employer concerned with this being problematic needs to put a zero tolerance clause into the employment offer which prospective employees need to sign as a condition of employment. You test hot, you're fired, and it's totally legit because YOU AGREED TO IT IN WRITING. Beyond that, if a company doesn't want to test for pot, then people can be terminated for attendence issues or poor performance of their job duties, the same as a non-smoker who has job issues can be fired. (I know this topic is more the other convo thread but I don't feel like writing a seperate post.) If a pot smoker doesn't have job performance or attendence issues, then it shouldn't be a problem...

I swear, there's a lot of stuff being talked about that people are making more complicated than it needs to be...
This is where I fall off the train with libertarians sometimes. To me if people want to smoke pot or do drugs or whatever, I really don't care. What I do care is when other citizens have to be impacted by another persons behavior and especially ends up having to pay in some way for it.

Along with liberty you have to have self responsibility and respect for others and that's were some of these people fail into the cracks. They want to do whatever they want but don't want to pay their own bills, police their own space and not invade other people's space.

We also don't need to take away the right for employers not to have employees on a psychoactive drug like this and to have the ability to fire them if need be.

Personally I think pot is a poor choice. It alters your state of mind over time, reduces your IQ and impairs your cognitive ability. It is also a heavy carcinogen that impacts one health much more severely than cigarettes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 01:01 PM
 
3,103 posts, read 2,833,622 times
Reputation: 4029
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
Personally I think pot is a poor choice. It alters your state of mind over time, reduces your IQ and impairs your cognitive ability. It is also a heavy carcinogen that impacts one health much more severely than cigarettes.
Not really. Maybe if it's abused to the point the person is high all day every day for years on end.

Any smoking it is the most stupid way to ingest. Granted that is how the vast majority chooses to use it, but it's is their choice.

Vaporizers are better in every way. They make your cannabis last twice as long (so you save money in the long run) and there is no smoke. The vapor tastes just like the plant smells.

We shouldn't just be looking at the lowest common denominator. I mean we're not voting to make Alcohol illegal because of DUI's and the local drunks hanging out in the park.

Responsible users of cannabis should not be penalized because of a few bad apples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 01:08 PM
 
3,103 posts, read 2,833,622 times
Reputation: 4029
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
What will happen is the same thing that went on in CA. EVERYONE got into growing weed and calling it MM. So much so that the Feds clamped down on it. The fake permits, etc. out the window and all dispensaries sans a few got shut down hard. If you want to get in on it you better do it fast cause it won't last long.


CA was the testing grounds and the lab rat and it's pretty hard to get a prescription for weed now. Even harder to find "legal" dispensaries, as in "ain't gonna happen".

This all took place in one year.
CA had it tough with the DEA cracking down on the black market fronting as MMJ, but Colorado didn't have is so bad. It will be legal for everyone over 21 so there will be a reduced black market. But if criminals set up shop in CO with large grow areas with the intent to traffic across state line and/or to minors, then I support the DEA going after them with all they got.

Alcohol is legal and there is no black market. And shops can ID to keep it out of the hand of minors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 01:19 PM
 
3,103 posts, read 2,833,622 times
Reputation: 4029
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdumbgod View Post
Aww, why deny the free high?
I guess your just joking, but for all the chicken Little's reading... you can't get stoned just from walking through someone else second hand smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Dallas
5,599 posts, read 4,903,883 times
Reputation: 16440
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightdoglover View Post
I would look forward to serious tax revenues. Massachusetts voted yes for medical marijuana (which I think is largely a crock as medicine) but I am very interested in revenues for the state.
However, Mass. voted by 51-49 not to allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication for terminal patients (a la Oregon) and I am most distressed by that.
I don't like being around potheads any more than I like being around drunks. I believe people can have the occasional smoke just like the occasional beer, and the same percentage will go over the cliff into abuse. I just wanna see the tax revenues no matter what.
Not a crock. Especially for arthritis, with no bad effect to your liver like NSAIDS will cause.
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 03:27 PM.

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