Colorado: Marijuana Amendment Will Be On Ballot

The Daily Times-Call ^ | August 17, 2006

[pageonetoo]

I mean it's bad enough your debate positions are so unpopular and your arguments so weak....

Maybe you didn't notice, that in this article, there are THOUSANDS of state citizens who wish to have a REFERENDUM. Do you have any idea what that means?

It means that "all politics is local!" (is that a good enough cliche' for you? If the citizens of that community (State of Colorado, which defined means the citizens of the area!) whish to allow for the use of marijuana, it will not be the end of civiliztion. As noted, you state your ability do excell in college while using the demon weed.

Your arguments wreak. They defy all intentions of our founding documents. You want to make it about all drugs, but again, this is just about marijuana. Read the article and just say no, or yes!

[pageonetoo]

...and by the way, my cliche' is well-recognized to those who bother to become literate!

[11B40]

I am curious as to your view of what the WOD has accomplished to date and what would be accomplished by continuing the WOD. What have we gotten for our trillion dollars?

[Jorge]

Oh God, all the weirdos are coming out of the woodwork now.
You have to try to do better than this. Really.

[youthgonewild]

Our War on Drugs is the real joke. Is there any other harmless thing that personally offends your delicate sensibilities that you'd like to ban? Maybe you don't like brussel sprouts, you can send the Feds to raid anyone eating them.

[pageonetoo]

Oh God, all the weirdos are coming out of the woodwork now.

That's what I've been tryin' to tell you, but you keep on repeating the same tired crap. You wish to impose your personal views on others. We get it, now go away!

[pageonetoo]

What have we gotten for our trillion dollars?

Petty much the same thing we get for our education dollars: nothing much!

[Sir Gawain]

Anecdotal evidence post quota reached. Further logical fallacies no longer required on thread!

[Sir Gawain]

The idea that Govt shouldn't be involved in drug use enforcement is totally nuts.

Strawman. Drug laws should be enforced at the state level. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional.

[rottndog]

Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, isnt this in conflict with Federal Law?

Medical marijuana laws conflicted with the feds too, but the courts agreed with the states.

[rottndog]

No one argues better against the WOD than the people who see its' failures day in and day out from the inside.

Those guys (LEAP) have a lot of guts speaking out, but then again people firmly grounded in their principals usually do.

[rottndog]

It's a sad state of the pro-marijuana movement when the best line they can come up with is: "alcohol is worse."

Actually, it's one of the BEST arguments for marijuana decriminalization. All of the terrible things people like you say about marijuana can be doubly said about alcohol, and alcohol is legal.

If prohibition didn't work with alcohol, what makes you think it will work with marijuana?

[rottndog]

The pro-marijuana movement has always been sad, and impotent, probably reflecting the passive useless disposition of most pot heads.

Being for marijuana decriminalization/legalization does not make one "pro-marijuana". There is a huge difference, and you shouldn't group us all together.

FYI, I, and many other people like myself, have never used and do not intend to use marijuana or any other illicit narcotics. I argue against the federal WOD because it is blatantly unconstitutional, and it is now and will continue to be an abject failure. Prohibition has not and will not ever work, and the Feds have no business engaging in it.

[Nate505]

Why on earth would the government tax themselves out of the market? That's just stupid.

[muir_redwoods]

"I've been here longer than you have.

Congratulations."

You were the one rude enough to ask

[traditional1]

"Why on earth would the government tax themselves out of the market? That's just stupid. "

Are you living below ground, and not tuned into the news?

Look at the taxes on cigarettes, and tell me again how the gubmint has "taxed themselves out of the market".....

[Huck]

I would assume that folks who believe in States' rights wouldn't make an exception for a pet issue they may or may not agree with.

It's not so much a question of states' rights. It's a question of enumerated Federal powers. But it's a moot point because that argument was already lost.

But then again, look at the anti-smoking nazis.

By anti-smoking nazis I assume you mean people who vote to restrict smoking in public places? I don't get what that has to do with this issue at all. It's certainly not a "states rights" issue, since the cigarette laws are state laws.

The question with pot isn't where you can smoke it, but CAN you smoke it.

[Wolfie]

Let me know when they get around to arresting adults for possession of Camels.

[tacticalogic]

Now the ONDCP will come in to organize the campaign to defeat it, and the proponents will get to watch their federal tax dollars subsidize the opposition.

[TKDietz]

"Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, isnt this in conflict with Federal Law?"

States can and often do have laws that are different than federal laws. Federal law enforcement enforce federal laws and local law enforcement enforce state laws. Most all arrests made in this country are made pursuant to state laws by local law enforcement. Federal law enforcement are pretty specialized and there really aren't that many out there arresting people compared to the numbers of state and local police, sheriff's deputies, etc. There is a pretty darned good argument that the feds don't have the constitutional authority to have and enforce a lot of the laws they have, but that's another topic altogether. If a state were to do away with their laws criminalizing possession of small amounts marijuana, very few people would get arrested for it in that state because the feds would be the only ones enforcing their ban on simple possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Would it be illegal for states to do this? No. What could the feds do about it? I imagine what they would do is figure out ways to deny the offending states federal funding. They sure as heck won't go hiring enough federal law enforcement officers to keep arresting people for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana in states that do not have such laws.