End Prohibition Colorado! Yes on 64

[Wanion]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/12-days-go-l atest-poll-shows-colorado-s-amendment-64-regulate-marijuana-
gaining

If any state is going to legalize and regulate Marijuana, it's most likely Colorado this year. There is more support a week before final results than any other time in history.

I live in Colorado, and I voted YES to Amendment 64!!!

[Entice]

I don't have much to add, other than I hope that this starts a controversy that will make it's way up to the national level. There's no reason why marijuana should still be illegal.

[Wanion]

At 10/26/12 04:07 PM, Entice wrote: I don't have much to add, other than I hope that this starts a controversy that will make it's way up to the national level. There's no reason why marijuana should still be illegal.

That's the most important part about all of this. Many states have proposed but failed, but if Colorado is indeed the first (and by the looks of it, things are looking up) it will no doubt be the stepping stone to full legalization across the country.

[JMHX]

Passing this in Colorado puts it in direct opposition to Federal law, which will certainly spark some court cases. That said, I'm hopeful turnout on this draws out young and disproportionately Democratic voters who also tip Colorado in the Democrats' favor.

Seriously though, do you guys do anything in Colorado besides shooting up with your marijuana needles?

[Memorize]

At 10/26/12 04:21 PM, JMHX wrote: Passing this in Colorado puts it in direct opposition to Federal law, which will certainly spark some court cases. That said, I'm hopeful turnout on this draws out young and disproportionately Democratic voters who also tip Colorado in the Democrats' favor.

It still amuses me that there are still people like you who exist who believe that the Democrats are any different than the Republicans before (like Mr. Bush 3rd Term- Obama).

Seriously though, do you guys do anything in Colorado besides shooting up with your marijuana needles?

Proof that people like you only care about certain civil liberties when you can use it to obtain power.

If you really cared about people being arrested for non-violent crimes, then you wouldn't have used it as an excuse to get all giddy over getting Democrats in power who've only seemed to run in the opposite direction by banning smoking even in your own home.

[JMHX]

At 10/26/12 04:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 04:21 PM, JMHX wrote:

It still amuses me that there are still people like you who exist who believe that the Democrats are any different than the Republicans before (like Mr. Bush 3rd Term- Obama).

I don't think I implied this with what I said.

Seriously though, do you guys do anything in Colorado besides shooting up with your marijuana needles?

Proof that people like you only care about certain civil liberties when you can use it to obtain power.

If you really cared about people being arrested for non-violent crimes, then you wouldn't have used it as an excuse to get all giddy over getting Democrats in power who've only seemed to run in the opposite direction by banning smoking even in your own home.

What? The last part of the comment was a joke. Humor. Marijuana needles. You know? Not to be taken as a statement of fact. And again, I never implied I supported smoking bans. If you asked instead of just going full-forward on the assumption train, that might help.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/26/12 04:21 PM, JMHX wrote: Passing this in Colorado puts it in direct opposition to Federal law, which will certainly spark some court cases.

And the Federal Law will prevail, it's already been decided. The Federal Drug enforcement laws preempt state laws to the contrary. As well they should.

That said, I'm hopeful turnout on this draws out young and disproportionately Democratic voters who also tip Colorado in the Democrats' favor.

Last time this sort of coat-tailing hurt the campaign against Prop 8.

[Memorize]

At 10/26/12 04:42 PM, JMHX wrote:

What? The last part of the comment was a joke. Humor. Marijuana needles. You know? Not to be taken as a statement of fact. And again, I never implied I supported smoking bans. If you asked instead of just going full-forward on the assumption train, that might help.

Then maybe you should be taking a closer look at those democrats you want to be in power so much.

Every single one of them have only ever talked about legalizing marijuana, yet these are the same people who make it illegal to smoke in bars or in your own home while marijuana continues to remain illegal.

You want to legalize marijuana in Colorado... great! But do you actually believe it'll change anything? Marijuana has been decriminalized in many parts of the country, yet that still has stopped Obama from conducting over 3 TIMES as many raids as Bush despite claiming he wouldn't go after those areas.

And since that Supreme Court you love so much has already Unconstitutionally upheld these Federal Drug laws with their flimsy excuse that Federal law trumps the State, what then is stopping the federal government from ignoring that state law?

[Memorize]

At 10/26/12 05:25 PM, Memorize wrote: yet that still has stopped Obama from conducting over 3 TIMES as many raids as Bush despite claiming he wouldn't go after those areas.

hasn't* stopped Obama...

[JMHX]

At 10/26/12 05:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 04:42 PM, JMHX wrote:

Every single one of them have only ever talked about legalizing marijuana, yet these are the same people who make it illegal to smoke in bars or in your own home while marijuana continues to remain illegal.

Yep. Most of them, anyway.

You want to legalize marijuana in Colorado... great! But do you actually believe it'll change anything? Marijuana has been decriminalized in many parts of the country, yet that still has stopped Obama from conducting over 3 TIMES as many raids as Bush despite claiming he wouldn't go after those areas.

Nope, it hasn't. And I don't expect Colorado will stop it, either. But I'm a fan of incrementalism.

And since that Supreme Court you love so much has already Unconstitutionally upheld these Federal Drug laws with their flimsy excuse that Federal law trumps the State

That 'flimsy law' is called federalism.

[Memorize]

At 10/26/12 05:37 PM, JMHX wrote:

That 'flimsy law' is called federalism.

It's so wonderful to know that you support an Unconstitutional law being held up with a bullshit "constitutional" excuse.

[JMHX]

At 10/26/12 06:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 05:37 PM, JMHX wrote:

That 'flimsy law' is called federalism.

It's so wonderful to know that you support an Unconstitutional law being held up with a bullshit "constitutional" excuse.

Yeah, well, Anti-Federalists had their day. Shut down decisively by the Congress and the states assembled in 1789. the Congress and the White House in 1828 and the Congress, the White House and the Army 1860.

[Memorize]

At 10/26/12 06:15 PM, JMHX wrote:

Yeah, well, Anti-Federalists had their day. Shut down decisively by the Congress and the states assembled in 1789. the Congress and the White House in 1828 and the Congress, the White House and the Army 1860.

Then quit pretending like you're against state nullification when you're clearly wishing for it.

[RacistBassist]

At 10/26/12 04:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And the Federal Law will prevail, it's already been decided. The Federal Drug enforcement laws preempt state laws to the contrary. As well they should.

May I ask why you feel that this should be the case, especially regarding something as hypocritical as our current national drug laws?

[JMHX]

At 10/26/12 06:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 06:15 PM, JMHX wrote:

Yeah, well, Anti-Federalists had their day. Shut down decisively by the Congress and the states assembled in 1789. the Congress and the White House in 1828 and the Congress, the White House and the Army 1860.

Then quit pretending like you're against state nullification when you're clearly wishing for it.

Who's wishing for state nullification? I think you're getting ahead of yourself and mixing terminologies. My hope is that Colorado passes a law in direct conflict with the federal statutes, which then kicks in the federalism situation -- we go through the court system and then one of the two laws is struck down.

State nullification, at least as it has always been meant by the people who crafted it in the 19th Century, puts the state legislature in the position of deciding if a federal statute is valid. This is most certainly not the case in Colorado. The state legislature isn't saying "this law is legal and we are disavowing federal authority." They're most likely going to end up going through the federalist system to either uphold or strike down the law. If they REALLY wanted to be nullifiers, they'd just ignore the Supreme Court altogether.

[Warforger]

At 10/26/12 04:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/26/12 04:21 PM, JMHX wrote: Passing this in Colorado puts it in direct opposition to Federal law, which will certainly spark some court cases.

And the Federal Law will prevail, it's already been decided. The Federal Drug enforcement laws preempt state laws to the contrary. As well they should.

de jure sure, but not de facto. What will probably happen is what happened with Medicinal Marijuana in California, the state will enforce state laws and the Federal government will enforce Federal laws. This of course cripples the flexibility of Federal officials as now state and local officials will not cooperate.

[Memorize]

At 10/26/12 10:11 PM, JMHX wrote:

Who's wishing for state nullification? I think you're getting ahead of yourself and mixing terminologies. My hope is that Colorado passes a law in direct conflict with the federal statutes, which then kicks in the federalism situation -- we go through the court system and then one of the two laws is struck down.

Considering it was all 4 liberals who sided with the Federal Government in going after a woman who was legally growing marijuana in California, and that Obama has conducted almost 4 times as many drug raids as Bush, why would you ever expect for Unconstitutional Federal Drug laws to ever be struck down?

News Flash: The Supreme Court is a life time job.

[JMHX]

At 10/27/12 01:06 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/26/12 10:11 PM, JMHX wrote:

Considering it was all 4 liberals who sided with the Federal Government in going after a woman who was legally growing marijuana in California, and that Obama has conducted almost 4 times as many drug raids as Bush, why would you ever expect for Unconstitutional Federal Drug laws to ever be struck down?

News Flash: The Supreme Court is a life time job.

You're really fixated on trying to drive home this "liberal" thing, even when I'm just trying to point out the process by which Colorado would contest its claim. I get it, you don't like Obama/librulz/etc. We can drop that zealotry now.

And as far as SCOTUS striking down the federal statutes? I have no idea, and since I doubt either of us works on the clerk staff of the Supreme Court, I don't think speculation gets us much of anywhere. Let's see if the law passes first, then we can consider the inevitable challenges and counter-challenges. It's going to take years in the court system, at any rate.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/26/12 06:51 PM, RacistBassist wrote: May I ask why you feel that this should be the case, especially regarding something as hypocritical as our current national drug laws?

Because this is how the system is supposed to work. A Constitutional Federal law always preempts a state law.

You want the State to win because you like the issue. I want to state the lose because I don't like the issue.

At 10/26/12 10:11 PM, JMHX wrote: Who's wishing for state nullification? I think you're getting ahead of yourself and mixing terminologies. My hope is that Colorado passes a law in direct conflict with the federal statutes, which then kicks in the federalism situation -- we go through the court system and then one of the two laws is struck down.

Already been to court and SCOTUS determined that marijuana laws are part of the Federal government's over-arching scheme of drug control and crime prevention across state lines and therefore any conflicting law is preempted. Can't remember the case and too lazy to look it up.

[JMHX]

At 10/26/12 10:11 PM, JMHX wrote: Who's wishing for state nullification? I think you're getting ahead of yourself and mixing terminologies. My hope is that Colorado passes a law in direct conflict with the federal statutes, which then kicks in the federalism situation -- we go through the court system and then one of the two laws is struck down.

Already been to court and SCOTUS determined that marijuana laws are part of the Federal government's over-arching scheme of drug control and crime prevention across state lines and therefore any conflicting law is preempted. Can't remember the case and too lazy to look it up.

That's fine, SCOTUS jurisprudence changes with the wind. Sometimes people are humans, sometimes they're property. Sometimes they don't have standing to file, sometimes they get their own busing and integrated schools. Depends entirely on the makeup of the court at the time.

[Thecrazyman]

At 10/26/12 04:07 PM, Entice wrote: I don't have much to add, other than I hope that this starts a controversy that will make it's way up to the national level. There's no reason why marijuana should still be illegal.

I personally don't think that anything that grows on the ground should be illegal, why is that? If it grows on the ground then what's the point in getting rid of it in the first place?

That answer is simple, there's no point in illegalizing marijuana due to the fact it simply grows on the natural ground itself. But if it's a group of plants (like trees) that are dying of disease that only affects such plants and tend to spread it among other plants well that's a whole different story, only then such infected plants need to be dealt with before it gets worse, if allowed to get worse will only do us more harm then good to the ecosystem in it's wake.

That said, whatever naturally grows on the ground shouldn't be illegal no matter what it is, this is why marijuana must be re-legalized for that very reason.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/29/12 04:32 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: That said, whatever naturally grows on the ground shouldn't be illegal no matter what it is, this is why marijuana must be re-legalized for that very reason.

That has got to be the laziest excuse for legalization I have ever hear. My guess is you smoke a LOT of marijuana to dull your mind this hard.

[sjsyami]

At 10/29/12 12:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/29/12 04:32 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: That said, whatever naturally grows on the ground shouldn't be illegal no matter what it is, this is why marijuana must be re-legalized for that very reason.

That has got to be the laziest excuse for legalization I have ever hear. My guess is you smoke a LOT of marijuana to dull your mind this hard.

its simple,its people who overthink the problem that caused it in the first place, with common sense, do people who break laws care if its there no... they(pot smokers) are going to do it any ways,i'd rather have a serial killer or a rappist put in jail with the tax payers dollar then some stupid kid who wanted to be "rebellous"

[Camarohusky]

At 10/29/12 09:13 PM, sjsyami wrote:

i'd rather have a serial killer or a rappist put in jail with the tax payers dollar then some stupid kid who wanted to be "rebellous"

Perfect example of the style and depth of thought that gets toked away on Marijuana.

[Entice]

At 10/29/12 10:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Perfect example of the style and depth of thought that gets toked away on Marijuana.

Where are you going with this?