Fuck yeah amendment 64

First of all, I have never smoked weed, nor do I ever intend on doing so. However, I did vote for Amendment 64 for quite a few reasons.
1. The government can make money through its regulation.
2. We are spending too much on the "war on drugs."
3. If alcohol is legal, then marijuana should too.
4. The prohibition of marijuana makes it more appealing for those looking to rebel.
5. When the laws were enacted against marijuana, they had serious racist connotations against Mexican-Americans.
6. One less way for the justice system to criminalize minor behaviors.
7. Hopefully, (if it is adopted nationally) will put a dent in the cartels budget, since they get about 80% of their revenue from marijuana.
8. Finally, as a Libertarian, I am almost always in favor of something if it gives the government less control.

Honestly, most of the people who are against the amendment have some political beef with those who are presenting the legislation. And for those who bring up the point on the federal law: the legislation had to be proposed somewhere in the process. We are not seeing any movement on the federal house/senate level, so maybe if our representatives see that they have the support of the people, then they will start to migrate in that direction.

tobin sanson wrote: He* Just because someone has the long, flowing mullet of a young Joan Jett doesn't make them a woman.

Touche! That was completely on accident. My apologies to Lynn.

But... Back to Lynn:

Lynn S wrote:I don't believe I ever said all pot smokers end up in rehab. You all are getting pretty worked up, that's not good for your health.

You're damn right I'm going to get worked up! and you're going to catch an earful because you jumped into a hot topic with the wrong attitude!

Allow me to share your OPENING LINE:

Lynn S wrote:I work in the rehab business, if any of you stoners want a bed saved at the facility I work at just let me know.

Condescendingly referring to everyone on here as "stoners" and implying that we're going to end up in your drug rehab because we use marijuana - not a very tasteful opener. Do you think you're better than everyone because you don't smoke?? I appreciate an argument from the other side, but get your ducks in order before you attack a group who is now the MAJORITY.

tobin sanson wrote:@RockyMtnTed Dude ... What he said was that the "majority of the people I with" (drug addicts and alcoholics who are currently in or have graduated from rehab) started using with pot. Does he work with you and the rest of the pot-smoking society? I think not. It was hardly implied that every single person who has ever smoked some weed will go to rehab. I suggest you get "yer" head out of "yer" ass, sir.

TOBIN! DUDE!!! BRO! BRAH!!!!

Do you know what implied means? Lynn said "the majority of people I work with started by using marijuana, JUST SAYING."

And before that he said would save all the stoners "a bed in his rehab facility."

Pretty obvious to me that Lynn is trying to imply that smoking pot will lead you to harder drugs and eventually rehab. Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits is it, dude? I know youre only 19 but I swear reading comprehension was on the SAT's....

Any one think there should be laws governing getting high while your getting high (off the ground)? I mean High squared could be exponentially bad.

Jake Carroll wrote:1. The government can make money through its regulation. 2. We are spending too much on the "war on drugs." 3. If alcohol is legal, then marijuana should too. 4. The prohibition of marijuana makes it more appealing for those looking to rebel. 5. When the laws were enacted against marijuana, they had serious racist connotations against Mexican-Americans. 6. One less way for the justice system to criminalize minor behaviors. 7. Hopefully, (if it is adopted nationally) will put a dent in the cartels budget, since they get about 80% of their revenue from marijuana. 8. Finally, as a Libertarian, I am almost always in favor of something if it gives the government less control. .

Your point 1. and 8. are contradictory...
We would all hope the government will be able to utilize the money more beneficially than foreign cartels though.

Ben Sachs wrote:Don't feed the koolaid-drinkers. Most anyone in the rehab or law enforcement industries is going to to view weed as "evil". Their industries depend on this viewpoint to stay as profitable as they are. Lets just celebrate the end of a long and ridiculous PROHIBITION, and not regress into some debate about addiction.

Thank you Ben.

I was ecstatic until I read Lynn's post. You brought me back to my celebration ;-)

Thank you.

Ha, It was a math joke. Apparently it wasn't funny. Being a climber I am well aware of the history.

Also, Colorado has been the weed mecca for a long time, more than Amsterdam. This is just the politics following the people. I personally am psyched for this.

Lynn S wrote:Having worked with addicts and alcoholics for over 7 years I can only give you my experiences. A majority of my clients, most of whom are under 25, started with pot and many of those also using alcohol. In my work experience, hearing the clients stories, for them pot was a "gateway" to other substances. My intent is not to preach, I'm just sharing my experience working with people that are struggling with addiction and pot has been a launching point for them. I feel like now in Colorado we have made this even more accessible. I also don't think that the cartel/violent crime reduction rate will prove valid. The cartels are not going anywhere and there are just bad people out there who will continue to do bad stuff. Enough of this, I'm going to Rifle, one last sunny fall day!

I think it's great that there are people like you that try and help others who are struggling with addiction. There are a lot of people out there that need help. But you can't honestly believe that legalizing marijuana is going to increase the number of people that get hooked on crack, meth or heroine.

It reality, legalizing it may even help. That way an adult that wants to smoke a joint to relax after work (as opposed to having a beer) doesn't have to hang out at some dealer's apartment or buy a bag of who knows what from the guy on the corner. Instead he can safely go and get a quality product from a legal store - and even pay taxes on it!

The US has about 5% of the worlds population but incarcerates 25% of the worlds prisoners. Nearly 1% of our population in in jail! For the 50 years before Nixon, it was more like one tenth of a percent. Then the war on drugs happened. Now there are over one million arrests for marijuana every year.

I don't need to tell you how many tax dollars are spent on arresting, trying and jailing people for the use of marijuana. It's absurd.

I also don't need to tell you how much money "for profit prisons" are making these days. And I don't even want to think about how much of those profits get kicked back to the politicians that keep these drugs illegal.

Bottom line is that the Federal Government is now a money making machine. It is organized crime, plain and simple. Criminalization of drugs is just one of many ways that the people in control are using the American public as their own personal slaves.

Congratulations to CO and WA for stepping up and giving the Federal Government a big FU. I only hope that other states will follow suit with marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, etc.

Jason N. wrote: Where did you see that?

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote

Midway down the page:
--
Questions about regulation and enforcement still abound. The first recreational stores would be slated to open in January 2014 and would be separate from existing medical marijuana dispensaries. Local governments could ban marijuana sales, and employers could still bar employees from using the drug.
--

The tenses of the article make it apparent that most of it was written before the measure passed.

Ryan Williams - AMEN BROTHER!

It's also worth pointing out that 64 also allows us to grow hemp (defined as marijuana plants with less than .3% THC content). Now we have a whole new industry of fast-growing hemp for clothes, paper, industrial supplies, etc in Colorado.

Why we've been cutting down trees to make paper products for so long is beyond comprehension.

Colorado is doomed:

youtube.com/watch?v=MnGzl-O…

Proof

I am going to name my first plant "Hippie Longstockings". Second "Grassputin".

Garrick Muehlnickel wrote:I am going to name my first plant "Hippie Longstockings". Second "Grassputin".

PM me if you want to learn how to make those plants taste delicious! For a small, one time payment of $19.95 you could be the proud... ;-)

I can honestly say that this has been the biggest reason that I regret leaving the US. We saw this coming - legalization for medicine and now for recreation. A lot of money to be made and a lot of people to serve - and now it can be done legally!

I actually had a question about the law: it states that you can have up to one ounce, or up to 6 plants, 3 of which can be mature flowering plants. Seeing as a single plant can produce far more than 1oz of bud (not to mention a big batch of butter from the trimmings), how do those restrictions fit in together?

The plants are to be kept " privately in a locked space". You can carry a ounce. The best line in the amendment is , "and give as a gift up to one ounce to other citizens twenty-one years of age or older". Johnny Appleseed is all grown up!!!

Ian Stewart wrote:I actually had a question about the law: it states that you can have up to one ounce, or up to 6 plants, 3 of which can be mature flowering plants. Seeing as a single plant can produce far more than 1oz of bud (not to mention a big batch of butter from the trimmings), how do those restrictions fit in together?

That is a good question. I've read "An individual of at least 21 years of age is permitted to carry in possession a total of an ounce." I assume that to mean carry on your person. I haven't read anything about how much finished product you are allowed to keep from your six plants. What happens when you're finished drying all the bud and you've got a pound of weed at your house from your own plants. What happens if the cops decide to weigh it before it's dry? Does having the yield from six plants constitute probable cause for a cop to enter your house?

A lot of questions. I haven't read the law though.

Garrick Muehlnickel wrote:The plants are to be kept " privately in a locked space". You can carry a ounce.

Are there other limits for how much product you have "locked up"?

(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.

chufftard wrote: Why isn't alcohol the gateway drug? Or sudaephedrine, or painkillers? Why pick the one substance that has been proven again and again to have zero chemical dependency? One can make the case that thc can lead to psychological dependency, but again, why weed and not alcohol?

Indeed...if anything our culture of "better living through chemistry" and the for profit perscription culture brought about by the pharma companies is the gateway AND the cause.

You don't hear about whole towns and families desperately strung out on pot, but instead it's all oxy which is perscribe at will in strong doses.

IMO most of the reason why it's illegal is because of the pharma companies, legacy conspiracies from the oil and paper families, media driven false perception and other unrational thought processes. There is minimal evidience to show WHY it should be illegal, esepcially when we sell toxin loaded cigarettes to anyone over 18.

Money is the name of the game folks...Gateway schmateway. Like Chuck D said..."don't believe the hype".