Glad marijuana question passed
This letter has not been edited.
Are you really that naive? The state law hasn't changed, neither has the federal law. More than 90 percent of the pot busts in Denver use those statutes anyway.
And the "lowest" priority? So if a cop sees you smoking pot and at the same time, someone robs a back across the street, which one do you really think the police are going to focus on?
Sorry Brian, pot is still illegal in the State of Colorado and the City of Denver.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 02:37 PMKeep writing them Denver Police! What a stupid initiative...
Posted by on November 13, 2007 03:48 PMStop wasting time and money going after weed smokers. The laws vs weed are based upon lies, prejudice and racism.
Suggested reading:
REEFER MADNESS: Eric Schlosser
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES: Jack Herer
drugwarfacts.com
it would be a good start to educate yourself about the BS legacy of anti-weed laws.
Racism???? How in the world can enforceing the law against the use of an illegal substance be racism?
This moronic inititive is only moving the legalization of this product closer to reality. One I can not wait for. Why? Because with the anti smoking bans in effect where are all these potheads going to go to smoke. LMAO. They will get the right to do it but will not have the right to smokeanywhere.
Posted by on November 13, 2007 06:00 PMThat all we need,the cops looking the other way allowing these dopeheads to drive under that shit.Pot is way worse than alcohol.
Posted by Keith on November 13, 2007 06:43 PMKeith chimed in:
"Pot is way worse than alcohol."Posted by Charles B on November 13, 2007 07:00 PMQuite possibly the dumbest thing ever written on this forum....
I tended bar for many years in the late 80s and early 90s. I can say this with certainty:
I never had to break up a fight or kick out any stoners.
Posted by Joanna on November 13, 2007 07:05 PMTo extrapolate from Joanna's comment: If we managed to get everyone in the world stoned then there would be no wars.....guaranteed!
Posted by observer on November 13, 2007 07:16 PMHow about smokers putting enforcement of the anti-smoking laws on the same, lowest level? It would pass in a New York Minute. The smoking nazis would have no one to cry to because there will never be anything less important than bothering people using a legal product in a private business. By the time the cops got there the only thing left would be the nazi and the complaint.
Posted by Pam Myyers Thornton, CO on November 13, 2007 08:04 PMJoanna, you worked in a bar that served pot?
Posted by on November 14, 2007 03:02 AMThis measure only servers to re-enforce the notion that Denver has been hijacked by the loonies that moved here from California. Colorado was once filled with people who had common sense, and now we must put up with idiots that believe drugs are in some way good for Denver. You may have hijacked Denver, but you won't get the rest of the state.
Posted by on November 14, 2007 04:17 AMI've talked to many police officers in south western Colorado Springs who think checking bars for smokers or tying up their precious time with calls about people smoking in bars is a detriment to their real job of and busting the truly serious criminals.
They hate being called the smoke police but understand it ,when they here it , as a normal reaction to a overly zealous law. There is no consistent enforcement of this trivial minded law any where in the state because the police don't know the law, it is not a priority, and see the law as as nothing other than a restrictional and pesky demand on their already to little time and resources.
In many small towns across Colorado there is no enforcement of this bogus law simply because the local cops don't want to hassle the very bars they go to after work to relax, have a beer and get in some PR time with the residents and pick up information they could not get anywhere else. Hint to legislators; Traditionally, bars and taverns have been one of the best sources for police intelligence on what's going on criminally.
How can the state pass a law that is sometimes unenforceable by time restrictions or choice, is not possible to consistently enforce in the first place and places a burden on everyone, including the police, that was unnecessary because all people needed to do was to choose to or not to, enter a smoking establishment.
This is nothing more than a law that takes personal responsibility away from the people and gives that inherent responsibility to the government to decide for them. Is this what our forefathers had in mind when they formed this republic, government controling people's lives. Hell no it wasn't, it was the exact opposite, people controling government and taking responsibility for their own actions.
We better remember that before else we will wake up one day and find we have not only have no self responsibility, but no control over government and no rights left either.
Posted by Allen Campbell on November 14, 2007 06:10 AMWould you rather run into a drunk or a stoned person? Easy answer.
Posted by giggleswhensheshigh on November 14, 2007 07:54 AMThe problem is not with the pot smokers.The problem is what goes on behind the scenes so the pot smokers can get their drug.
Gangs,murders,territory fights,smuggling more over the border,shooting police in Mexico and Border Patrol agents,corruption,selling it is illegal,the list can go on.
Do you think the smugglers are going to smuggle small bags at a time over the border to Denver?
The end does not justify the means.
Pot smokers are pretty harmless,but I wouldn't want them driving. They will get mad if they can't find their roach clip though.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on November 14, 2007 08:13 AMAnon at 6pm writes:
Racism???? How in the world can enforceing the law against the use of an illegal substance be racism?
___________________________________
If you educate yourself on the history of the outlawing of weed, you'd understand that racism played no small part in the efforts to make weed illegal.
AMEN writes:
The problem is not with the pot smokers.The problem is what goes on behind the scenes so the pot smokers can get their drug.
Gangs,murders,territory fights,smuggling more over the border,shooting police in Mexico and Border Patrol agents,corruption,selling it is illegal,the list can go on.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's not an unvalid point, but you have to know that nearly 50% of the Pot used in America is grown RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA...some estimates say it's $40 billion per year crop...a lot comes down from Canada.
So, please spare us weed smokers support terrorism...
and, should weed be legalized, all that associated crime would evaporate...tax revinues would increase, prison populations would decrease...new products (hemp based) would become available...it takes 20 acres of trees to produce the same amount of paper as one acre of hemp...and that's just the tip of the iceburg...
weed laws are BS, period.
Posted by Grim Reefer on November 14, 2007 08:42 AMSimple, get the tobacco zealots involved and they will ban all the dirty rotten no good things that go on in the drug scene, that's what they do oh so well after all, ban things that is. And, while their at it, they can explain why they created the growing blackmarket in cigarettes by banning tobacco use in bars and taverns and increasing their cost by imposing more taxes on tobacco in the same way they created the blackmarket in liquor by banning it's use in bars and taverns during that wonderful time of prohibition, which spawed the rise and financial empire of organized crime.
Bans always create blackmarkets and it's inevitable that it will grow into a powerful criminal element in society with the violence and carnage that goes hand in hand with it that will expand as well and,of course, you will be more than willing to pay higher taxes to fund a federal blackmarket smoke agency, or worse, a bureau with it's bureaucratic ways of almost catching the criminals you empowered by passing the smoking ban.
Have a nice day, oh, and you might want to get a better job or at least a second job. You're going to need the extra money to pay for all of that bureaucratic help, but what the hell, it's the patriotic thing to do, isn't it?
Posted by Allen Campbell on November 14, 2007 09:11 AMGrim reefer, way to answer anon 6 p.m.'s question. Why not answer the question instead of saying: well, look it up, man. Apparently marijuana does affect memory, and not for the better.
I'm surprised this initiative passed. Usually potheads are very difficult to mobilize, as a voting base. By the time they put down the bong to go to the polls, they generally get sidetracked and go to Taco Bell =-)
Posted by Like, whoaa man! on November 14, 2007 09:20 AMI have seen plenty of people that get violent when using marijuana. Like any substance, it effects all users differently. And what the hell, does "lowest priority mena?" All laws are supposed to be enforced equally. Stoners writing and voting for a foolish initiative...what is the world coming to?
Posted by on November 14, 2007 09:54 AMGet Real said some stuff:
The problem is not with the pot smokers.The problem is what goes on behind the scenes so the pot smokers can get their drug.Gangs,murders,territory fights,smuggling more over the border,shooting police in Mexico and Border Patrol agents,corruption,selling it is illegal,the list can go on.
That's a great breakdown of the negative effects of prohibition.
Pot smokers are pretty harmless,but I wouldn't want them driving.
That's why it's illegal!
Posted by Charles B on November 14, 2007 11:00 AMSorry, that was for Can I Get An Amen...
Posted by Charles B on November 14, 2007 11:01 AMPrecisely CB. That's why the have DUI rather than the old DWI, to cover ALL forms of intoxication. Something many people forget when they use the I don't want them driving argument.
Some people seem to think if pot is made legal, all of a sudden we'll have hoards of high people on the roads.
Truth is the number probably won't change at all.
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 11:30 AMDear Can I get an AMEN! - if you think pot is still smuggled into this country you are not paying attention. The best weed in the world is grown right here in the US of A - the only smuggling going on is between states. A good deal of the weed available in Colorado is grown right here - why do you think they call it "weed"... it grows just about anywhere.
Posted by connie szeflinski on November 14, 2007 11:43 AMThat may be true for Colorado connie, but the border states are seizing record amounts of pot being smuggled in from Mexico.
Last month alone AZ set a new high (so to speak).
Legalizing pot would have a huge impact on reducing the illegal trafficing.
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 12:10 PMGrim Reefer tries to answer thequestion of why enforceing the law is racial. Well he fails. Hw did not answer the question nor approach it even. He submits that historically it shows that the enforcement of this law is racially based. Where are these facts I ask. Where are the stats to demonstrate this assurtion.
If we use his logic on laws being racial. Thgen we break down which minorities are in jail over which crimes then it is safe to say the following. Car theft is ok for hispanics. White collar crimes like embezelling is ok for whites, and finally murder is ok for blacks.
This makes no sense what so ever as the justice is supposed to be blind. But if it makes Refeer happy then any one of hispanic desent take his car, any white steal his bank account and identity, and any black person out there feel free to kill him or his family. After all we do not want to be racial do we.
[DISCLAIMER: NOT ADVOCATING ANY HARM ON THIS POTHEAD]
Posted by on November 14, 2007 12:39 PMSounds like the rural areas are overloaded with common sense.
Maybe the smoking nazis from Boulder will take it upon themselves to go out to those areas and teach them. Best they not do that during hunting season though.
Posted by Pam Myyers Thornton, CO on November 14, 2007 01:31 PMBefore all you Potheads rejoice, remember just because the dopes in Denver approved this so-called lowest priority police enforcement it is still illegal in Denver and subject to state and Federal laws and prosecution and the lazy Denver Police Dept. is setting itself up for a retaliation from the state and federal goverment and law abiding citizens. Also anytime you legalize a drug you open up the door for more drug abuse and the same problems that result as they do with alcohol. Safer Denver. Famous last words.
Posted by on November 14, 2007 01:50 PMKeep it illegal!!!!
Making it legal would ruin my profits.
Posted by basement garden guy on November 14, 2007 02:07 PMA show on the history channel about the history of pot as a banned drug made the case that it was mostly blacks at the time smoking dope and the gov't wanted a way to crack down on them.
Posted by on November 14, 2007 02:58 PMTruth is the number probably won't change at all.
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 11:30 AM
Whoa nellie. Maybe KW really is a libertarian. I agree with his assessment. Thanks for the dose of realism bud. Maybe we aren't different species after all.
Posted by Wes on November 14, 2007 03:13 PMSo true Wes. That's why I consider myself a moderate conservative with lebertarian tendancies.
You're not the first person I've found myself agreeing with after being on opposite sides most of the time.
If I was the far rightwinger that some here think I am then this would never happen.
See ya on the next thread!
Posted by KW on November 14, 2007 03:49 PMAlso anytime you legalize a drug you open up the door for more drug abuse and the same problems that result as they do with alcohol. Safer Denver. Famous last words.
Posted by on November 14, 2007 01:50 PM
This is an unsubstantiated claim. Where is the research to support this claim or is it just more Neocon lies to control other people.
Posted by Wes on November 14, 2007 03:49 PMWes
The only thing that controls your mind are probably drugs and breaking the law. The left wingers need drugs to be able to look at themseves in the mirror in the morning because they know how messed up their thinking really is.
You're all the proof I need to substantiate my claims.
Posted by on November 14, 2007 04:19 PMOK fine..you lazy @$$'s...
Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. V, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).
The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:
Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.
Nationwide, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men.
Source: Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000), from their website at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm.
If hemp were legally cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the United States and world today!
(Popular Mechanics February 1938; Mechanical Engineering, February, 1938; U.S. Department of Agriculture Reports 1903, 1910, 1913.)
In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis - and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies - stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.
Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80% of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.
*Author's research (Jack Herer: 'The Emperor Has No Clothes) and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.
also from the book:
Blatant Bigotry
Starting with the 1898 Spanish American War, the Hearst newspaper had denounced Spaniards, Mexican-Americans and Latinos.
After the seizure of 800,000 acres of Hearst's prime Mexican timberland by the "marihuana" smoking army of Pancho Villa,* these slurs intensified.
*The song "La Cucaracha" tells the story of one of Villa's men looking for his stash of "marijuana por fumar!" (to smoke!)
Non-stop for the next three decades, Hearst painted a picture of the lazy, pot-smoking Mexican - still one of our most insidious prejudices. Simultaneously, he waged a similar racist smear campaign against the Chinese, referring to them as the "Yellow Peril."
From 1910 to 1920, Hearst's newspapers would claim that the majority of incidents in which blacks were said to have raped white women, could be traced directly to cocaine. This continued for 10 years until Hearst decided it was not "cocaine-crazed Negroes" raping white women - it was now "marijuana-crazed Negroes" raping white women.
Hearst's and other sensationalistic tabloids ran hysterical headlines atop stories portraying "Negroes" and Mexicans as frenzied beasts who, under the influence of marijuana, would play anti-white "voodoo-satanic" music (jazz) and heap disrespect and "viciousness" upon the predominantly white readership. Other such offenses resulting from this drug-induced "crime wave" included: stepping on white men's shadows, looking white people directly in the eye for three seconds or more, looking at a white woman twice, laughing at a white person, etc.
For such "crimes", hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and blacks spent, in aggregate, millions of years in jails, prisons and on chain gangs, under brutal segregation laws that remained in effect throughout the U.S. until the 1950s and '60s. Hearst, through pervasive and repetitive use, pounded the obscure Mexican slang word "marijuana" into the English-speaking American consciousness. Meanwhile, the word "hemp" was discarded and "cannabis," the scientific term, was ignored and buried.
The actual Spanish word for hemp is "canamo." But using a Mexican "Sonoran" colloquialism - marijuana, often Americanized as "marihuana" - guaranteed that few would realize that the proper terms for one of the chief natural medicines, "cannabis," and for the premiere industrial resource, "hemp," had been pushed out of the language.
*********************************************
There, Jesus...satisfied?
Posted by Grim Reefer on November 14, 2007 04:28 PMAgain...learn for yourselves!!
Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser
The Emperor Has No Clothes by Jack Herer
DrugWarFacts.Org
The research is out there..and if you're honset and look through it and educate yourself, you can only come to the conclusion that weed laws are, indeed, BS.
Based on racism and corporate greed...but then again, what could be more American than that?
Posted by Grim Reefer on November 14, 2007 04:35 PMsmokign pot is evill thats why i only smoke pole
Posted by Keith on November 14, 2007 04:55 PMSomeone said the following:
"Also anytime you legalize a drug you open up the door for more drug abuse and the same problems that result as they do with alcohol."
So you're advocating making alcohol illegal? Or are you for legalizing pot?
It seems to me you need some consistency in your position mate...
Posted by Charles B on November 14, 2007 05:22 PMLet's get real about this.
In Colorado, the average penalty a person possessing an ounce of marijuana will face is a $100 fine - no jail time - comparable to a speeding ticket.
The difference, of course, is that a person possesing an ounce of pot for use in a private residence does not represent an identifiable or immediate danger to anyone else. A person speeding does.
When you get right down to it..the government knows that marijuana users aren't a clear a present danger and is just using very arbitrary laws on what intoxicants can be legally imbibed to get their hands in our wallets.
They get their money from alcohol users through taxes, licenses, fees, etc. Not nearly enough to make up for the cost that alcohol has on our society - drunk driving, domestic violence, etc.