United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Governor who called legalization 'reckless' now says Colorado's pot industry is working
Source:
L.A. Times
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na ... 60516-20160516-snap-story.html
Published: May 17, 2016
Author: David Kelly
Post Date: 2016-05-17 12:55:09 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 12160
Comments: 97
When Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana four years ago, one of the move's chief critics was Gov. John Hickenlooper. The moderate Democrat said that if he could "wave a magic wand" to reverse the decision, he would. Then he called voters "reckless" for approving it in the first place, a remark he later downgraded to "risky." “Colorado is known for many great things,” Hickenlooper said. “Marijuana should not be one of them.” But the governor’s views have softened. During a recent panel discussion at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, he said that despite opposing the legalization of pot, his job was to “deliver on the will of the people of Colorado.” “If I had that magic wand now, I don’t know if I would wave it,” he said. “It’s beginning to look like it might work.” It was the latest in a series of comments Hickenlooper has made signaling what looks like an evolution of his views on marijuana. In April last year, during an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Hickenlooper said legal weed was “not as vexing as we thought it was going to be.” And during an appearance on "60 Minutes," he predicted that Colorado might “actually create a system that could work” in successfully regulating marijuana. Why the change? “The predictions of fire and brimstone have failed to materialize,” said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national group working to reform pot laws. “Most Coloradoans, including the governor, recognize that the law is working.” From the start, Hickenlooper saw the legalization of marijuana as a great national experiment, something utterly new in this country and fraught with potential public health and safety issues. He fretted about a potential rise in drug use among children and was clearly uncomfortable with an amendment directly conflicting with federal law, which considers pot an illegal drug on par with cocaine. There were plenty of snags at first. Marijuana edibles proved especially problematic because few people had experience with them. High-profile overdoses made national news. Just last week a lawsuit was filed against the maker of a marijuana-laced candy, alleging the product triggered a "psychotic episode" that caused a man to kill his wife in 2014. Still, none of Hickenlooper’s worst fears were realized. Colorado is booming. The state has a 4.2% unemployment rate, one of the best in the country. High-tech companies are moving in. Small towns across the state, some once teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, have been saved by tax revenues from pot dispensaries. And the $1-billion-a-year cannabis business will pump $100 million in taxes into state coffers this year. Andrew Freedman, director of marijuana coordination for Colorado, said the governor’s views reflect a growing sense of optimism about how the industry is regulated. “In the short run, there have been a lot fewer public safety and health issues than the governor feared in the beginning,” said Freedman, who is often referred to as the state’s marijuana czar. “In the beginning, we had problems with edibles and hash oil fires but now, for the most part, Colorado looks a lot like it did before legalization.” Marijuana consumption has not changed much from pre-legalization levels and there has been no significant increase in public health and safety problems, he said. As for the $100 million in tax revenue, Freedman noted, that's out of a $27-billion state budget. Some 70% of the money is earmarked for school construction, public health initiatives and other projects. The rest goes back into regulating the industry. “The governor has called this a grand experiment from the beginning. He looks at data points as he goes along and I think he’s pleasantly surprised that there were not as many challenges as he thought,” Freedman said. “He would say the jury is still out on this experiment but he’s optimistic.” Some are less circumspect. “The state’s image is actually rising. We were just ranked as the best place to live in America,” Tvert said. “The idea that businesses would not relocate here or conferences wouldn’t be held here was untrue. In fact, attendees at conferences are now offered pot tours as day trips.” Kelly is a special correspondent based in Denver.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-33) not displayed.
.
.
.
#34. To: misterwhite (#30)
Another point … One article touts that Colorado had a $53 million dollar increase in taxes off the sale of legalize marijuana. Legalization proponents consider that to be “found money.” To that, I say … bullshit. They fail to consider that hospitalizations involving patients with marijuana exposures and diagnoses increased from approximately 803 per 100,000 to 2,413 per 100,000. So what Colorado is really doing, it is “stealing” $53 million from insurance companies, Medicare and Medicate for their increased costs to cover the radical increase in those hospitalizations. Money is not being created, it is just changing hands … robbing Peter to pay Paul.
"Even though SCOTUS declined to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska's pot suit against Colorado, the plaintiff states can still take their case to U.S. District Court" The dullard didn't even read the article he posted. And the two states are already moving to join a pending suit in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
The U.S. aims to stop the flow of illegal drugs from Mexico into this country. Nebraska and Oklahoma should be able to stop the flow of an illegal drug from Colorado into their states.
Continue to hammer Colorado with lawsuits ... fire with both barrels.
Dr. Andrew Monte, a toxicologist at the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Colorado, said he's not surprised to see an increase of hospital and ER visits related to marijuana use. "When the availability of any drug goes up," you see more hospital visits, said Monte, who was not involved in the new study. "That goes for a new high blood pressure drug to marijuana." Monte, who co-wrote a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on marijuana tourism in February, said there are usually three reasons people come to the ER after using marijuana. He said in his experience, people come in for treatment if they exacerbate underlying symptoms with the drug, for example, irritating their lungs if they have asthma, for cyclic vomiting related to high concentrations of THC ingestion and general intoxication from marijuana. The smallest group is made up of "people who come in intoxicated," Monte said. "We only see one or two for marijuana intoxication. I would say disproportionately we see edible agents lead to more intoxication." From above :“In the short run, there have been a lot fewer public safety and health issues than the governor feared in the beginning,” said Freedman, who is often referred to as the state’s marijuana czar. “In the beginning, we had problems with edibles and hash oil fires but now, for the most part, Colorado looks a lot like it did before legalization.” The dullard didn't even read the article he posted. Did I say "has reached the end of the road" or did I say "is going nowhere", dullard and coward? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "determine if the visit indicated possible marijuana exposure or used a diagnosis /billing code indicating marijuana. Use of these codes does not mean that the visit is motivated by marijuana exposure but simply that it is a possibility." [emphasis added] - cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/...rts/2016-SB13-283-Rpt.pdf A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yes: "A decision in the Plaintiff States’ favor will hinder Colorado’s ability to channel demand for recreational marijuana into a regulated and monitored market. This is more likely to aggravate, rather than subdue, the cross-border trafficking on which the Plaintiff States’ allegations of injury rest. The Plaintiff States seek to invalidate only those laws that enable Colorado to regulate the supply side of its recreational marijuana market. Compl. at 28–29 (seeking invalidation of only COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, §§ 16(4) and (5) and related statutes and regulations, which authorize marijuana-related facilities and empower the State to strictly regulate them). They do not challenge Colorado’s authority to legalize marijuana generally, nor do they seek an order compelling Colorado law enforcement officials to take any particular actions against marijuana traffickers. They in fact disclaim any intent to do so: “Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.” Br. in Supp. at 15." - coag.gov/sites/default/fi...usbriefoppositionneok.pdf A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Are you saying there's a difference between those two expressions?
Of course - one can be in motion without getting any closer to one's desired destination. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. That's the problem. Colorado is NOT channeling demand for recreational marijuana into a regulated and monitored market. If Colorado is unable, or unwilling, to regulate it's own industries to the point where it's negatively impacting other states, then that right to regulate should be removed.
I agree. Now, back to my question. What's the difference between "has reached the end of the road" and "is going nowhere"?
Right. (Wink...Wink) It more of a POSSIBLITY they all had ingrown toenails. (Snicker).
Being in motion means one hasn't reached the end of the road; not getting any closer to one's desired destination means one is going nowhere. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Marijuana "exposure" doesn't mean the visit was in any way caused by marijuana - oxygen "exposure" is at 100% for hospital/ER visits.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So unregulated legal pot will less negatively impact other states? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. This is even funnier and more ridiculous, the second time I read it. Marijuana is made legal … hospital visits increase fourfold … and we are suppose to believe that the increase in the hospital visits has no correlation with marijuana being made legal, but maybe with ingrown toenails.
Right ... Sure. Got it. Oh, BTW - how many people are admitted to the hospitals from "exposure" to oxygen?
What's funny and ridiculous is that you think this is what the report said. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Not "from" - "with". And I already told you the answer: 100%. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. It has already gone to another court. Nice foot shot.
Obama enforces federal law differently in different states as the potheads cheer him on.
Where it will continue to go nowhere. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I never said it should be unregulated. I said Colorado shouldn't regulate it because they've shown they're incapable.
consider source
His feelings.
That's where the suit would leave it - as I already quoted: 'They do not challenge Colorado’s authority to legalize marijuana generally, nor do they seek an order compelling Colorado law enforcement officials to take any particular actions against marijuana traffickers. They in fact disclaim any intent to do so: “Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.”' A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Keep going, dullard.
That's where the source I quoted stopped, halfwit. That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot. Do try to keep up. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Too dim to find and read the actual decision. So predictable.
Colorado's regulation of pot legalized the manufacture, possession, and distribution of it. Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization and places marijuana under federal control.
What "decision"? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level. It remains as illegal as ever. Hypothetically, a President Trump could decide to enforce the Federal law and to withdraw any and all form of Federal benefits to renegade states, or perhaps the Federal government could charge, try, and convict the Governor for aiding, abetting, facilitating, or promoting the citizenry of Colorado in the violation of Federal laws. That there is no State criminal statute against pot does not change the fact that there is a Federal statute that President Obama is failing to enforce. A different president may choose to fully enforce the Federal law. Or not.
Nope. Colorado actually legalized it for those 21 and older. No penalties. You can grow it, buy it, smoke it, carry it around and give it to friends. It is still, however, illegal at the federal level but Obama has said the DOJ will not enforce federal law in states that legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use. Yes, Trump can change that policy. I hope he does. And I agree with you that the Governor of Colorado should be arrested and charged with sedition, along with anyone in the state legislature who voted for legalization.
Once again you're putting words in my mouth. Ending regulation ends the Colorado legalization program. The federal government would then be responsible for enforcing federal marijuana laws in Colorado. Colorado cannot be forced to enforce federal law. Nor can Colorado be forced to write state laws making marijuana illegal. But then you'd have a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner. You know what? I'm with you on this one. Colorado should NOT re-establish penalties. Let's see what REAL Libertarian freedom is like.
Nope. Colorado has no authority to override Federal law. Pot is unlawful today in all 50 states. It is just that the Obama Administration is not enforcing the law. It is no more legal than open borders or sanctuary cities. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-21/chapter-13/subchapter-i/part-d/section-841/ §841. Prohibited acts A (a) Unlawful acts Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or (2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance. (b) Penalties Except as otherwise provided in section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: (1)(A) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving— (i) 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; (ii) 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of— (I) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; (II) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers; (III) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (IV) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in subclauses (I) through (III); (iii) 280 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base; (iv) 100 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP); (v) 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); (vi) 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- [ 1- ( 2-phenylethyl ) -4-piperidinyl ] propanamide or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide; (vii) 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana, or 1,000 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight; or (viii) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers; such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $10,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $50,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $20,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $75,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits a violation of this subparagraph or of section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title after two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense have become final, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without release and fined in accordance with the preceding sentence. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 10 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this subparagraph. No person sentenced under this subparagraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein. (B) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving— (i) 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; (ii) 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of— (I) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; (II) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers; (III) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (IV) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in subclauses (I) through (III); (iii) 28 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base; (iv) 10 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP); (v) 1 gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); (vi) 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- [ 1- ( 2-phenylethyl ) -4-piperidinyl ] propanamide or 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide; (vii) 100 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana, or 100 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight; or (viii) 5 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers; such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 5 years and not more than 40 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $5,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $25,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $8,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $50,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposed under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 8 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this subparagraph. No person sentenced under this subparagraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein. (C) In the case of a controlled substance in schedule I or II, gamma hydroxybutyric acid (including when scheduled as an approved drug product for purposes of section 3(a)(1)(B) of the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000), or 1 gram of flunitrazepam, except as provided in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D), such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 3 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 6 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under the provisions of this subparagraph which provide for a mandatory term of imprisonment if death or serious bodily injury results, nor shall a person so sentenced be eligible for parole during the term of such a sentence. (D) In the case of less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 50 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight, 10 kilograms of hashish, or one kilogram of hashish oil, such person shall, except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000 if the defendant is an individual or $2,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 2 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. (E)(i) Except as provided in subparagraphs (C) and (D), in the case of any controlled substance in schedule III, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000 if the defendant is an individual or $2,500,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. (ii) If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. (iii) Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 2 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. [...] (Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §401, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1260; Pub. L. 95–633, title II, §201, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3774; Pub. L. 96–359, §8(c), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1194; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§224(a), 502, 503(b)(1), (2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2030, 2068, 2070; Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §§1002, 1003(a), 1004(a), 1005(a), 1103, title XV, §15005, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–2, 3207–5, 3207–6, 3207–11, 3207–192; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §§6055, 6254(h), 6452(a), 6470(g), (h), 6479, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4318, 4367, 4371, 4378, 4381; Pub. L. 101–647, title X, §1002(e), title XII, §1202, title XXXV, §3599K, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4828, 4830, 4932; Pub. L. 103–322, title IX, §90105(a), (c), title XVIII, §180201(b)(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1987, 1988, 2047; Pub. L. 104–237, title II, §206(a), title III, §302(a), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3103, 3105; Pub. L. 104–305, §2(a), (b)(1), Oct. 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 3807; Pub. L. 105–277, div. E, §2(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–759; Pub. L. 106–172, §§3(b)(1), 5(b), 9, Feb. 18, 2000, 114 Stat. 9, 10, 13; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, §3005(a), title IV, §4002(d)(2)(A), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1805, 1809; Pub. L. 109–177, title VII, §§711(f)(1)(B), 732, Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 262, 270; Pub. L. 109–248, title II, §201, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 611; Pub. L. 110–425, §3(e), (f), Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4828, 4829; Pub. L. 111–220, §§2(a), 4(a), Aug. 3, 2010, 124 Stat. 2372.)
I was referring to your statement, "Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level". They did not. They legalized it at the state level. You are correct that pot remains illegal in all 50 states at the federal level.
Trump: "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/29/trump-wants-marijuana-legalization-decided-at-the-state-level/ A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Agreed. That's what the suit calls for: an end to the regulation - "affirmative authorization" - of pot but not its legality ("Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana"). You're not with me on this one because I don't want pot legal for children (nor does pot being sold anywhere by anyone strike me as a good idea). But again, that's what the suit calls for - which is why my answer to "Should the suit go nowhere?" is "yes". A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I'd like to see that (and a whole lot of others issues) decided by each state, too. But it wouldn't work. Already the legal marijuana in Colorado is being found in the surrounding states where it remains illegal.
Comments (75 - 97) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#35. To: misterwhite (#32)
#36. To: misterwhite (#32)
#37. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#35)
And the two states are already moving to join a pending suit in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
#38. To: Gatlin (#34)
They fail to consider that hospitalizations involving patients with marijuana exposures and diagnoses increased from approximately 803 per 100,000 to 2,413 per 100,000.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#39. To: Roscoe (#35)
"Even though SCOTUS declined to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska's pot suit against Colorado, the plaintiff states can still take their case to U.S. District Court"
#40. To: Gatlin, Deckard, misterwhite (#34)
hospitalizations involving patients with marijuana exposures and diagnoses increased from approximately 803 per 100,000 to 2,413 per 100,000.
#41. To: misterwhite (#32)
Should it go nowhere?
#42. To: ConservingFreedom (#39)
"Did I say "has reached the end of the road" or did I say "is going nowhere",
#43. To: misterwhite (#42)
Are you saying there's a difference between those two expressions?
#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
"A decision in the Plaintiff States’ favor will hinder Colorado’s ability to channel demand for recreational marijuana into a regulated and monitored market."
#45. To: ConservingFreedom (#43)
"one can be in motion without getting any closer to one's desired destination."
#46. To: ConservingFreedom (#40)
Use of these codes does not mean that the visit is motivated by marijuana exposure but simply that it is a possibility."
#47. To: misterwhite (#43)
Of course - one can be in motion without getting any closer to one's desired destination.
#48. To: Gatlin (#46)
#49. To: misterwhite (#44)
If Colorado is unable, or unwilling, to regulate it's own industries to the point where it's negatively impacting other states, then that right to regulate should be removed.
#50. To: ConservingFreedom (#46)
#51. To: ConservingFreedom (#48)
Marijuana "exposure" doesn't mean the visit was in any way caused by marijuana - oxygen "exposure" is at 100% for hospital/ER visits.
#52. To: Gatlin (#50)
hospital visits increase fourfold
#53. To: Gatlin (#51)
how many people are admitted to the hospitals from "exposure" to oxygen?
#54. To: ConservingFreedom (#39)
did I say "is going nowhere"
#55. To: Gatlin (#37)
Continue to hammer Colorado with lawsuits ... fire with both barrels.
#56. To: Roscoe (#54)
It has already gone to another court.
#57. To: ConservingFreedom (#49)
"So unregulated legal pot will less negatively impact other states?"
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#56)
go nowhere
#59. To: misterwhite (#42)
Are you saying there's a difference between those two expressions?
#60. To: misterwhite (#57)
I never said it should be unregulated.
#61. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
“Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.”
Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion. Just that Colorado's affirmative authorization of the manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana presents a substantial obstacle to Congress's objectives under the CSA to establish a national, comprehensive, uniform and closed statutory scheme to control the market in controlled substances in order to prevent the abuse and diversion of those substances.
#62. To: Roscoe (#61)
Keep going
Colorado's affirmative authorization
#63. To: ConservingFreedom (#62)
That's where the source I quoted stopped, halfwit.
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#62)
"That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot."
#65. To: Roscoe (#63)
Too dim to find and read the actual decision.
#66. To: misterwhite (#64)
Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization
#67. To: misterwhite, ConservingFreedom (#64)
Colorado's regulation of pot legalized the manufacture, possession, and distribution of it. Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization and places marijuana under federal control
#68. To: nolu chan (#67)
"Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level. It remains as illegal as ever."
#69. To: ConservingFreedom (#66)
"Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such."
#70. To: misterwhite (#68)
Nope. Colorado actually legalized it for those 21 and older. No penalties. You can grow it, buy it, smoke it, carry it around and give it to friends.
Prohibited acts A - 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2013)
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
#72. To: misterwhite (#68)
Yes, Trump can change that policy. I hope he does.
#73. To: misterwhite (#69)
Colorado cannot be forced to enforce federal law. Nor can Colorado be forced to write state laws making marijuana illegal.
But then you'd have a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner.
You know what? I'm with you on this one. Colorado should NOT re-establish penalties. Let's see what REAL Libertarian freedom is like.
#74. To: ConservingFreedom (#72)
(Edited)
"Trump: "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state"
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]