[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 12119
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.

The predictions of fire and brimstone have failed to materialize. Most Coloradoans, including the governor, recognize that the law is working. — Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project

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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 69.

#2. To: Deckard (#0)

none of Hickenlooper’s worst fears were realized.

To the bitter disappointment of moralistic statists.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   13:36:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: ConservingFreedom (#2)

"none of Hickenlooper’s worst fears were realized."

Had he feared being sued by Nebraska and Oklahoma because Colorado's "legal" marijuana was crossing over into their "illegal" states, that fear would have been realized.

But he doesn't give a FF.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-17   19:01:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#3)

Had he feared being sued by Nebraska and Oklahoma because Colorado's "legal" marijuana was crossing over into their "illegal" states, that fear would have been realized.

But he doesn't give a FF.

Why should he? The suit is going nowhere: www.denverpost.com/news/c...otus- denies-oklahoma-and-nebraskas-proposed-lawsuit-against

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-17   19:55:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: ConservingFreedom (#5) (Edited)

"The suit is going nowhere"

Should it go nowhere? Don't the citizens of Nebraska and Oklahoma have a valid point? Don't they have a right to protect their children from drugs crossing from an adjacent state?

If noxious smoke was drifting from Colorado to other states, must that be allowed also? What about factories dumping pollutants into rivers that flow to other states?

We can stop that behavior but not drugs?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-18   10:03:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: misterwhite (#32)

Should it go nowhere?

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

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-18   11:57:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-18   13:21:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

So unregulated legal pot will less negatively impact other states?

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-18   14:12:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: ConservingFreedom (#49)

"So unregulated legal pot will less negatively impact other states?"

I never said it should be unregulated. I said Colorado shouldn't regulate it because they've shown they're incapable.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-18   17:00:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: misterwhite (#57)

I never said it should be unregulated.

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.”'

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-18   17:20:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)

“Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.”

Keep going, dullard.

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.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-05-18   17:26:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Roscoe (#61)

Keep going

That's where the source I quoted stopped, halfwit.

Colorado's affirmative authorization

That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot. Do try to keep up.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-18   17:31:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#62)

"That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-18   17:45:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: misterwhite (#64)

Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization

Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-18   17:47:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: ConservingFreedom (#66)

"Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such."

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-18   18:52:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 69.

#73. To: misterwhite (#69)

Colorado cannot be forced to enforce federal law. Nor can Colorado be forced to write state laws making marijuana illegal.

Agreed.

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.

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 know what? I'm with you on this one. Colorado should NOT re-establish penalties. Let's see what REAL Libertarian freedom is like.

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".

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-05-19 11:52:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 69.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com