The end of Recreational

[Wilksey]

Why is it "not gonna happen?" The man himself says he thinks it was a mistake and should be repealed.
Also it is profoundly disappointing that when discussing the one issue everyone on here should agree on, people just bring out the same tired partisan BS.

Are you that naive, or are you simply another political hack?

Here's how it works...

Worthless corrupt political party / politician "X" CLAIMS to be for / against issue "Y", HOWEVER, issue "Y" is pretty damn popular, so worthless corrupt political party / politician "X" rants and raves for / against issue "Y" but doesn't actually do anything about it so as not to incur the wrath of the people. All the worthless corrupt political party / politician wants to do is APPEAR like they are for / against issue "Y" to get / keep the votes of dumb ass naive voters that can't see through their bullshit.

That's why cannabis is STILL a schedule 1 drug despite 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Obama.

That's why medical marijuana programs STILL exist in states despite 8 years of Bush.

And that's why cannabis will remain legal in Colorado despite the rantings of an idiotic blow hard.

 

[Billy bangalot]

Are you that naive, or are you simply another political hack?

Here's how it works...

Worthless corrupt political party / politician "X" CLAIMS to be for / against issue "Y", HOWEVER, issue "Y" is pretty damn popular, so worthless corrupt political party / politician "X" rants and raves for / against issue "Y" but doesn't actually do anything about it so as not to incur the wrath of the people. All the worthless corrupt political party / politician wants to do is APPEAR like they are for / against issue "Y" to get / keep the votes of dumb ass naive voters that can't see through their bullshit.

That's why cannabis is STILL a schedule 1 drug despite 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Obama.

That's why medical marijuana programs STILL exist in states despite 8 years of Bush.

And that's why cannabis will remain legal in Colorado despite the rantings of an idiotic blow hard.

I get that, I just don't see why he's saying this in first place. There is nothing popular about saying you are going to reverse a popularly elected policy (marijuana legalization), particularly when there is pretty much zero blowback to that policy. Again who is he winning over with this? If anything it is persuading people who otherwise would not vote in this election (i.e. me) to vote against him. I mean almost no-one is passionately anti-legalization, and no-one would be like "I'm not voting for the republican b/c he did not specifically come out against legalization." Yet here is, making these statements, which only leads me to believe he is serious. I just can't figure out his angle.

Other point I would make, which concerns me, is that unlike, say presidents, who generally have to get shit past congress (which is at least part of why they never deliver on promises), the new governor could literally call or send a letter to the U.S. attorney and have A64 nullified in a matter of weeks. That is what worries me (putting it to a vote is a loser for the anti-legalization crowd).

I appreciate that many on here don't give a fuck and are apparently totally cool with doing lots of prison time for growing weed. I also totally understand that the dems/repubs are just two sides of the same corporatist/corrupt coin. However, A64 was a national breakthorugh, the fruition of a lot of people working and going to jail. It is the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition. I am not (nor should you) be willing to let all that be for nothing based on a hunch that the guy who is about to become Governor won't follow through on his promises.

 

[Billy bangalot]

that's grossly naive and borderline retarded based on the actions of republicans not only in colorado, but nationwide.

did 95% popular support for comprehensive background checks stop republicans from railroading that effort?

did the overwhelming popularity of ground zero first responders stop republicans from blocking health care for them for years?

does the majority (and growing) approval for marriage equality or recreational cannabis stop republicans from ardently opposing equality or freedom?

nope, nope, nope.

republicans (like you) are too stupid to learn from the past, hence why they want to revise it and forget it.

by the way, hickenlooper is still up in the polls.

Needless patisanship is needless. Protip - if you want to persuade someone, refrain from calling them names. Unless, as is obvious, you only want to reinforce your own views by belittiling the views of others. In which case, troll on elsewhere.

 

[Billy bangalot]

Smartest thing the right could do would be support it. They would sweep all three branches federally and many conservative gonvahs would reap the benefit. It would take voting block down substantially from the left. I'm writing in Ron Paul.

All comments and pictures posted by the entity known as packetloss314 are completely fiction and at times outright lies. All content was copied from the internet and all statements are from the mind of a lunatic

I completely agree as it pertains locally or even to the western states. Nationally though, I'm not sure the voting base of the right is there yet.

I am also voting for Dunafon. I prefer to vote for who I actually want to win. Voting for someone anti cannabis to make sure someone more anti doesn't win is just plain silly.

Well I admire your idealism. However, if weed is criminalized when beauprez wins, I'll be pointing the finger at you. (I'll still buy ya a beer though!)

 

[Billy bangalot]

Are you that naive, or are you simply another political hack?

Here's how it works...

Worthless corrupt political party / politician "X" CLAIMS to be for / against issue "Y", HOWEVER, issue "Y" is pretty damn popular, so worthless corrupt political party / politician "X" rants and raves for / against issue "Y" but doesn't actually do anything about it so as not to incur the wrath of the people. All the worthless corrupt political party / politician wants to do is APPEAR like they are for / against issue "Y" to get / keep the votes of dumb ass naive voters that can't see through their bullshit.

That's why cannabis is STILL a schedule 1 drug despite 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Obama.

That's why medical marijuana programs STILL exist in states despite 8 years of Bush.

And that's why cannabis will remain legal in Colorado despite the rantings of an idiotic blow hard.

FWIW, I am really hoping you are right.

 

[Billy bangalot]

The Dems are just trying to get the stoners off of the couch. Scare tactics IMO. Anyway, fuck all of them and the horses they rode in on. If it goes illegal again it'll just mean higher prices for growers... but it won't happen.

Except you do not see this in ads. According to the ads, abortion/birth control is the only issue in either race (so sick of ads). Neither party is touching this issue. Really, neither candidate for governor is going to be much different than the other. Beauprez just says he is vagully more "pro-business/anti-regulation", but I haven't seen much in the way of substantative policy differences. i can see almost no difference between them, even in their own representations of their positions. Until it comes this issue. Granted Hick is pissy and juvenile (IMO) on this issue, and hearing him talk about it makes my skin crawl (own it you pussy!). However, he says he won't seek to end it. But the other guy is outright saying he wants to reverse it. So all else being equal, why shouldn't I at least vote against the guy who is flat out saying he won't let legalization go on?

 

[packetloss314]

I completely agree as it pertains locally or even to the western states. Nationally though, I'm not sure the voting base of the right is there yet.



Well I admire your idealism. However, if weed is criminalized when beauprez wins, I'll be pointing the finger at you. (I'll still buy ya a beer though!)

With over 55% national support .....I'd say the right has a chance to reconnect with the younger population and get those votes....

All comments and pictures posted by the entity known as packetloss314 are completely fiction and at times outright lies. All content was copied from the internet and all statements are from the mind of a lunatic

 

[packetloss314]

Otherwise those votes belong to the left...

All comments and pictures posted by the entity known as packetloss314 are completely fiction and at times outright lies. All content was copied from the internet and all statements are from the mind of a lunatic

 

[Jus Naturale]

Since there is not a positive conflict with federal law, I doubt the efficacy of inviting a lawsuit (which would have to be prosecuted by the current administration's Department of Justice). It would simply be a giant waste of taxpayer money, both in the prosecution and the mandatory defense by the State AG. No self-respecting Republican would support such a waste. Moreover, since A64 is in the State Constitution, it cannot be undone by state courts or the state legislature. From my perspective, rec is perfectly safe unless and until a strong social conservative wins the Whitehouse. Of course, that's just my half-cent.

Cheers!

 

[dito27]

Well I admire your idealism. However, if weed is criminalized when beauprez wins, I'll be pointing the finger at you. (I'll still buy ya a beer though!)

I didn't vote for him

 

[Billy bangalot]

Since there is not a positive conflict with federal law, I doubt the efficacy of inviting a lawsuit (which would have to be prosecuted by the current administration's Department of Justice). It would simply be a giant waste of taxpayer money, both in the prosecution and the mandatory defense by the State AG. No self-respecting Republican would support such a waste. Moreover, since A64 is in the State Constitution, it cannot be undone by state courts or the state legislature. From my perspective, rec is perfectly safe unless and until a strong social conservative wins the Whitehouse. Of course, that's just my half-cent.

Cheers!

Sorry I did not see this reply till just now.

I am interested what you think a "positive conflict" with Fed law is and why this would not be such a case. There is a Fed statue saying weed is illegal, there is a State Constitution amendment saying it is legal. Looks like a conflict to me, and everyone in Con Law 101 knows who wins that one. While the administration as such may not want to pursue a lawsuit to shut down legal weed, I will bet you dollars and donuts that there is at least one US atty who has already drafted the complaint and Motion for Summary Judgement. These are career US attys who have been indoctrinated to fight the drug war and absolutely hate that the administration is holding them back. As for the State having to defend it, please see the situation in Pennsylvania (I think?) where the AG refused to defend a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. So if it's a clear loser, looks like State AGs have the ability to not defend it.

As for no "self respecting republican" being against such a waste, (self respecting politicians? - I guess no-one else respects them!) it will be most interesting to see how the DC legalization pans out, as it must be OK'ed (or at least not stopped) by the US Congress, and guess which party the people saying they will kill it are from?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/dc-approves-pot-legalization-112549.html

Anyway, hopefully the results yesterday in Oregon, DC, and Alaska will dampen the social conservative push to re-criminalize. Those votes, IMO, really helped out the Colorado situation, as we are no longer the sole outlier and shows that even far right states (Alaska) are down with legalization.

Cheers,

Billy

 

[Jus Naturale]

A positive conflict means that both laws cannot be complied with at the same time. So, in this case, if Colorado law said everyone had to possess marijuana and federal law says no one can possess marijuana, then there would be a positive conflict. You literally could not do both at the same time. But instead, Colorado law says you can possess, etc., and not violate state criminal law, but federal law says no possession. Technically, one can comply with both at the same time.

Short on time, but let me know if it's still not clear and I'll try to clarify.

Cheers!

 

[GroErr]

Doesn't matter. Most of us were growing and smoking long before it was legal and will continue to do so regardless if it's legal or not. At least I will, I pay very little attention to what the government does or tells me. For the most part I live my life exactly how I want.

If murder and rape were legalized tomorrow, I'm not going to kill or rape anyone, because that's not what I do. The same thinking can be applied to marijuana laws and every other law. With the exception of the IRS, I pay no mind to government laws.

I wouldn't let a stranger on the streets come up to me and tell me how to live my life. Politicians are strangers, I don't know them and have never met them in my life. They don't pay my bills or do anything for me, thus I don't pay their demands on how to life my life any mind anymore than I would a crazy homeless person giving me orders of living life.

Furthermore, both parties are scum. Republicans want to tell people who they can fuck, marry, what kind of drugs they can do. Democrats want to dictate what kind of firearms, if any, we are allowed to have and constantly trying to extort more money from people under the guise of helping the poor. Politicians in general are pieces of shit, the lot of them.

^^^ Ditto, have said much the same in other forums. In Canada we have a bull-shit medical MJ program which I won't have any part of. I've been growing weed for 30 years and no government or law is going to tell me what I can or cannot do to produce my own meds. The best advice I can offer is to stay out of any government program that requires any sort of registration. That way you stay under the radar as I have and do whatever YOU think is right. I am a tax paying, civil and for the most part law abiding person who doesn't hurt anyone (unless they try hurting me or my family). I grow my own weed and I don't give a rats ass what any politician, cop or judge think about it.

 

[blackforest]

So it appears republicans are going to sweep the elections, and have promised to end rec. weed. Although the article below says they will put this to the voters, my money is on the new governor inviting the feds to file a lawsuit to have A64 declared invalid due to conflict with federal law.

Fun while it lasted I guess

http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/10/10/bob-beauprez-repeal-marijuana/21235/

You are a FN idiot. Nobody is trying to repeal amendment 64 in all reality. Like anyone wants to put anyone in a cage for smoking cannabis anymore. The fear mongering BS train derailed. It's time for a reality check.

 

[Billy bangalot]

A positive conflict means that both laws cannot be complied with at the same time. So, in this case, if Colorado law said everyone had to possess marijuana and federal law says no one can possess marijuana, then there would be a positive conflict. You literally could not do both at the same time. But instead, Colorado law says you can possess, etc., and not violate state criminal law, but federal law says no possession. Technically, one can comply with both at the same time.

Short on time, but let me know if it's still not clear and I'll try to clarify.

Cheers!

Ah I see, thank you. So State law does not compel one to violate the federal law. Clearly, if it did, court intervention would be necessary. Still, I think my point stands, namely that this would not be some long drawn out court case. It's fairly clear cut legally. All it takes is for someone with standing to get it into court. The only thing stopping that is the politics of the situation.

 

[Billy bangalot]

You are a FN idiot. Nobody is trying to repeal amendment 64 in all reality. Like anyone wants to put anyone in a cage for smoking cannabis anymore. The fear mongering BS train derailed. It's time for a reality check.

With all due respect (which is not much since you start out calling me a fucking idiot), but there is a lot of Cali/Colorado echo chamber i here. Weeds illegal in in 46 states.

Walking into a dro store in those states is pretty much PC to arrest you and take away your home. Shit like this: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/25232377/dea-raids-womans-shorewood-home-after-she-shops-at-garden-center, still happens everyday.

Indeed, it was only a few weeks ago that some folks right here in Denver were "put in a cage" for weed. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26814523/denver-police-feds-conduct-large-scale-raids-marijuana

Soooooooo yeah just cause the battle was won here in Colorado does not mean shit in the big scheme of things. While I freely admit to being fairly paranoid, this is not "fear mongering." If I were saying smoking weed gave you ebola, that would be fear mongering. I am simply aware of reality outside the Colorado/Cali stoner "it's all good" bubble and would like other to be slightly more aware of how truly tenuous the position that the legalization movement is and that vigilance is necessary to preserve these gains.

 

[Billy bangalot]

^^^ Ditto, have said much the same in other forums. In Canada we have a bull-shit medical MJ program which I won't have any part of. I've been growing weed for 30 years and no government or law is going to tell me what I can or cannot do to produce my own meds. The best advice I can offer is to stay out of any government program that requires any sort of registration. That way you stay under the radar as I have and do whatever YOU think is right. I am a tax paying, civil and for the most part law abiding person who doesn't hurt anyone (unless they try hurting me or my family). I grow my own weed and I don't give a rats ass what any politician, cop or judge think about it.

Obviously, the movement would not be where it is but for people not giving a shit about weed laws. Still, ain't it nice to walk into a grow store and not get your house raided? Your point about MMJ is exactly why rec weed is so great. No names on a list. I am baffled by people who are totally down with giving their names and addys to the state. Here, have some evidence of my illicit activities!

 

[GroErr]

Obviously, the movement would not be where it is but for people not giving a shit about weed laws. Still, ain't it nice to walk into a grow store and not get your house raided? Your point about MMJ is exactly why rec weed is so great. No names on a list. I am baffled by people who are totally down with giving their names and addys to the state. Here, have some evidence of my illicit activities!

Yeah, it sucks having to hide in the shadows, I'm all for legalization if it includes growing your own but not counting on it. Our programs here went backwards from medical grow & buy licenses to buy-only from government approved ops. (Legally) sick people are having to pay up to $300/zip for crap weed now, some are still able to grow but that's potentially ending next year. You can buy street weed cheaper and better quality from the right source. Unless and until it's fully legalized I'm staying in the shadows. Even then if there's a registration program I won't be on that list either. Folks that were registered in the old program here were threatened by Health Canada (a-holes) last year when the new program came in, if they didn't provide proof that they destroyed plants by the date they had set, they'd be ratted out to the RCMP, how's that for being on a freak'n government list, fuck that.

 

[Yodaweed]

Yeah, it sucks having to hide in the shadows, I'm all for legalization if it includes growing your own but not counting on it. Our programs here went backwards from medical grow & buy licenses to buy-only from government approved ops. (Legally) sick people are having to pay up to $300/zip for crap weed now, some are still able to grow but that's potentially ending next year. You can buy street weed cheaper and better quality from the right source. Unless and until it's fully legalized I'm staying in the shadows. Even then if there's a registration program I won't be on that list either. Folks that were registered in the old program here were threatened by Health Canada (a-holes) last year when the new program came in, if they didn't provide proof that they destroyed plants by the date they had set, they'd be ratted out to the RCMP, how's that for being on a freak'n government list, fuck that.

Wow that's fucked, I hope that doesn't happen here in Colorado I would really be bummed if they turned on us like that.

 

[GroErr]

Wow that's fucked, I hope that doesn't happen here in Colorado I would really be bummed if they turned on us like that.

Yeah, that's why I recommend for anyone on either side of the border to really think about it if signing up to any med program that requires registration. You never know when the next idiots come in and change the rules, then you're an easy target It's full legal or under the radar for me. If it's ever fully legalized there should be no registration and it would be difficult if not career-ending to try and change things back or regulate it too much. The one consistent thing about politicians is 99.99% are more interested in self-preservation, that you can always count on.