Posted on 12/10/2012 1:33:01 PM PST by Morgana
DENVER — Go ahead and bust out the Cheetos and Goldfish, Colorado. Marijuana is now legal in the Centennial State.
Just over a month after the citizens of Colorado voted in overwhelming favor of Amendment 64 to legalize marijuana for recreational use, Governor John Hickenlooper signed the Executive Order that makes an “official declaration of the vote.”
What does it mean?
(Excerpt) Read more at kdvr.com ...
I'm sure you voted for it...Along with all the liberal hippy morons. If the left favors something, that should instantly raise a red flag. And to the left marijuana is a sacred cow, so why would you as a conservative join hands with them on it?
Another idiots responds to me in 3,2,1...
Friend, people have been smoking and ingesting marijuana in all sorts of forms for thousands of years. Even some of our illustrious Framers smoked it.
I quit fogging my brain with that stuff forty years ago, but I'm not so naive as to believe that my personal preference makes me better than someone who still partakes.
I also don't drink on work days or evenings, but that's a personal choice to keep my head clear on those days. I don't fault anyone who has a few beers after work, and I couldn't care less if someone wants to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home, either. If they show up on one of my jobs hungover from either one, they're fired.
It was nice talking to you too.
And if we're going by tradition, the effective criminalization of marijuana is actually more recent than Prohibition by a couple of decades.
Personally, and in the spirit in which this nation was founded, I'd like to see marijuana totally de-criminalized across the country. That would put the drug cartels out of the marijuana business overnight.
That said, I don't mind keeping the laws on the books that make it a crime to distribute it for sale. I also don't want to see Uncle Sam set up a legal regime for the manufacture and sale of the product for tax purposes, like they did with alcohol.
Let folks grow the stuff for their own consumption and leave 'em be.
You good with federal law trumping state law?
“I advise strongly against such a course of action however, and I take no legal responsibility if you go and ingest a pound of yew-berries and drop dead. “
LOL. Wow. Thanks. Big relief.
You've got the internet at your fingertips. Use it to find out how inaccurate your above statement is. Marijuana has been in continual use by humans since before recorded history.
Here's just one of thousands of references: Ancient Egypt
One more: Use of Cannabis in The Ancient World
In some cases yes,in others,no.I support laws that are reasonable,responsible and necessary.Laws that,all things considered,serve the greater good.Of course many Federal laws are Barbara Streisand.But I live in a state whose laws are *usually* Barbara Streisand so I,better than some,understand that not all state legislatures are equally respectable.I have *very* strong opinions on *this* general subject that are the result of having seen drug related death and destruction that's hard to imagine.So in *this* case,no I don't."Greater good",that's the name of the game for me.
Bam!
Get the government out of it. Like everything else they touch, their influence only brings pain, death, and misery to all involved.
Humans have been ingesting marijuana throughout history, and no government will ever stop it. Governments can, however, destroy the lives of individuals who partake of it, and provide the basis for the ongoing illegal drug trade to make billions of dollars annually.
Simple answer: if marijuana is as legal as alcohol, then the precedents established for alcohol tests kick in. For example, airline companies are perfectly within their rights to bench any pilot or co-pilot that's drank in the last 24 hours. Trucking companies are likely obligated to bench a driver that's had enough of a tipple to make the breathalyzer frown on them. I believe those rights extend to the right to fire for chronic reprobates. As a general rule, if alcohol testing is permitted then marijuana testing would be.
One interesting unknown (to me, anyway) is welfare recipients. Does a state or municipality have the right to test for drunkenness, or does it violate a welfare recipient's "rights?" If the former, then they can be tested for marijuana use.
“I have *very* strong opinions on *this* general subject that are the result of having seen drug related death and destruction that’s hard to imagine”
OK. I respect that. You expect to see any measurable increase in drug related death and destruction now that a state - not the feds - has taken control of the legality of smoking a plant?
I’ve seen this play out, too. We’ve got other things to worry about besides somebody smoking a joint.
You're right. It's amazing how little some folks commenting here, know about the history of marijuana and US law. There wasn't a criminal industry based upon this simple plant until the mighty US government in all its wisdom decided to try prohibition yet again. It's like they learned nothing from their failures the first time around.
I only clicked on this thread to see if anybody yet, said Rocky Mountain High.
Foist today! Cheers.
Yes, it is. Of course, there's a different irony in the fact that all mind-altering substance were legal in 1900 - all of them, including heroin - and 1900 was like, well, 1900.
Widespread welfare does introduce a different dynamic, but that's a dynamic all its own. The Controlled Substances Act has not prevented the welfare culture from getting out of hand. Nor would Prohibition have, come to think of it. It's cold comfort to know that you've been flash-mobbed by fifty clean and sober ferals.
The way I see it, there are two arguments that the drug prohibitionists rely upon with regards to the welfare culture:
Get the government out of it. Like everything else they touch, their influence only brings pain, death, and misery to all involved.
Humans have been ingesting marijuana throughout history, and no government will ever stop it. Governments can, however, destroy the lives of individuals who partake of it, and provide the basis for the ongoing illegal drug trade to make billions of dollars annually.
Yep, excellent points.
They work, but in the negative. The “side” effects are more prominent than their marketewd purpose, and most of the side effects are quite life shortening.
More to the point, there isn’t even one drug for which there isn’t an effective and safe herbal or dietary therapy that should be the preferred approach.
My body no longer responds to poison ivy/oak in any discernable way, after over four decades of stomping through it. Its been more than 20 years since it has affected me even minimally.
You’re fast on the pickup!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.