Amendment 64

Like tying cig taxes to medicaid?\

If you don't care...then let it go through. I suppose the feds mandated we wear pink pants on Sunday, there would be some that would believe that writing a different state law would be a bad idea. Yeah, that's hyperbole...just sayin.

Cannabis does not qualify to be a Schedule 1 drug at the Fed level...it does not meet the criteria

If it was reclassified accurately as states are letting it be known by popular vote, many issues would be simply be resolved and go away

Like the alcohol prohibition, people are going to consume one way or another and is much less detrimental to society and one's health...in fact it has proven cancer fighting chemicals

tax it

Recent studies have concluded cell phone use/texting are about 7 times more distracting /accident causing than alcohol while driving..why not deal with that?

Keeping it illegal benefits the black market just as the Kennedy and Rockefeller politicians benefited financially from bootlegging during the alcohol prohibition ...

I agree that taxes from cannabis sales should not be tied to school funding but it will not stop me from voting YES

It's a start

BEST
IDEA
EVER

Vote yes on 64

It's not hyperbole unfortunately. It's reality. It's what happened with drinking age laws and speed limit laws.
These things should be state by state decisions but they're not. Our damn over grown Fed government gets their hands in everything. If Colo passes this, Feds will cut funding to colo or start doing raids of dispenceries.
Fed law trumps state law. Sad but true.
That and the fact that this poorly written amendment does tie cannibus revenue to school funding. They lost me right there.

P.s. does the current "illegal" status of cannibus prevent any of you from sparking up as much as you want to? I didn't think so.

It's bad enough that kids (and sometimes their parents) go into major debt to pay for secondary education. But sure... let's put our kids' primary education on the credit card, too. This state (along with many others) has become too bond-crazy in the past 20 years, floating a bond for every big development project they wanted badly, but couldn't pay for.... with many of the bonds performing way, way below expectation. Who picked up the slack on those bad bonds? Taxpayers. Now counties, specifically Jefferson with Amendment 3A and 3B, want to follow suit.

As MeterPig stated, cigarette and alcohol taxes pay for many state services with revenues from lotteries and gambling paying for parks and recreation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using the addition revenue from taxing legalized marijuana for schools or whatever else the state needs.

This whole "Reefer Madness" bias towards pot is almost 100 years old and it's time put it to bed and treat it like the much more deadly alcohol and cigarettes that are legal and plentiful.

They tried the raids in California, didn't work... the state didn't back down and it didn't result in any Federal funding cuts and it's highly doubtful the raids would happen here and extremely unlikely any funding cuts could get past both the House and Senate.

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides
Our damn over grown Fed government gets their hands in everything. If Colo passes this, Feds will cut funding to colo or start doing raids of dispenceries

Sound like you are high on something other than cannabis....quite the perveted imagination of future events


P.S. Is the sky going to fall down too? Pls let us know where and when it will start ....some people may want to ^4.20 ^and watch


P.S.S. Food for thought = would it be more effective if parents would take their students smart phones away and follow up on classes taken / homework / attendance rather than students standing around outside checking their phones every few seconds, etc than providing more school funding ?

Last time voters approved more Jeffco funding they rebuilt athletic fields, parking lots, etc...kids still ouside standing around rathert than being in thier new Lekewood HS classrooms learning something

Vote Wisely

Vote NO on 3A and 3B

Ok... we're having a civil conversation. Let's not start throwing rocks, boys

Just chill out and smoke a doob folks

The Dude made a good point. Allow me to amplify it:

Uncle Sam is already a hostile, sloppy drunk and chain smoker - addicted to the "sin-taxes" generated by alcohol and tobacco sales. The last thing we need is to addict him to pot as well. I have yet to see ANY government body act responsibly with public spending and debt. Adding another tax base will mean increased spending, fraud and corruption...... not the reduction of other taxes.

As people grow wiser and stop drinking, smoking and toking, the taxes on those substances will increase to make up for the revenue loss. Once a certain taxation level exists, the black market will thrive once again. And then taxes on everything we have trouble doing without will be established or increased.

I have no problem with folks using pot, for recreation or medication - as long as those people will still be liable for their actions/inactions. Same goes for using alcohol, cocaine, heroin or any other mind-altering substance. Legalizing sales, using taxation FOR ANY PURPOSE as justification, is dangerous insanity.

Yes it does. And even if this passes I still won't smoke, because my employer will surely side with federal law. I will not smoke until it is legal federally. I vote yes because it is a start to fight the laws on the books.

How much money are we spending to lock up people who smoke, use, an grow pot? How much is the government spending to keep drug cartels filthy rich? How many more people will die over this fabricated black market?

It's illegal under federal law to dispense pot. Where are the massive raids? The Feds know that the states have to cooperate or their power is gone. People have to believe the king has clothes.

More and more people are waking up to te fact that the Feds have very limited power as was intended by our founders.

I won't smoke because of my responsibilities at work and at home. Things may change decades down the road. I hope my children grow up in a country that values their freedoms not imprison them for it.

Wow thats a bizarre argument. Motorcycling should be illegal. The government taxes sales of motorcycle, parts, safety gear, and gas. The government can as a result spend more money. Therefore motorcycling should be illegal

<center> [SIZE=+1]Deaths per year from: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]tobacco=340,000-395,000 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Alcohol (not including accidents)=125,000+ [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Drug overdose (prescription)=14,000-27,000 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Drug overdose (illegal)=3,800-5,200 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Marijuana=0[/SIZE]






<table class="wikitable"><caption><big>Annual U.S. motorcycle deaths</big></caption> <tbody><tr> <th>Year</th> <th>Deaths</th> </tr> <tr> <th>1994</th> <td>2,320</td> </tr> <tr> <th>1995</th> <td>2,227</td> </tr> <tr> <th>1996</th> <td>2,161</td> </tr> <tr> <th>1997</th> <td>2,116</td> </tr> <tr> <th>1998</th> <td>2,294</td> </tr> <tr> <th>1999</th> <td>2,483</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2000</th> <td>2,897</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2001</th> <td>3,197&#8224;</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2002</th> <td>3,244</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2003</th> <td>3,661&#8225;</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2004</th> <td>4,028</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2005</th> <td>4,576</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2006</th> <td>4,837</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2007</th> <td>5,174</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2008</th> <td>5,312</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2009</th> <td>4,462</td> </tr> <tr> <th>2010</th> <td>3,615<sup id="cite_ref-DOTHS811363_2-1" class="reference">[3]</sup></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">&#8224; some NHTSA lists show 3,181
&#8225; some NHTSA lists show 3,714</td></tr></tbody></table></center>

Isn't Amendment 64 kinda like a 2012 Boston Tea Party?

I'd prefer Fed reclassification without taxation, school funding, etc but this is a start

P.S. Poking the fire evey once in a while stirs it up a bit...

Jim and I agree on something. Someone buy a lotto ticket.

We agree that riding motorcycles is fun and shouldn't be outlawed.

So I have several thoughts on this issue.

1. the wife and I already voted, and voted No on it

2. a few of the reasons I voted No (oddly I think that it should eventually be legalized)

A. medical marijuana was a joke, it was an end run by the pro-pot crowd to allow pot users to fake illness/injury and smoke legally. I would bet a years salary that at least 50% of the MMJ crowd are fakers. I have a friend who's been smoking it since he was 18, he's never had an injury/illness in his life, yet he went to a Dr. who specializes in this and convinced him he had chronic back pain atnd pot alleviates it, he claimed he hurt his back snowboarding....he's never been on skis let alone a snowboard.

B. I've had several recent debates/arguments on other forums. The most common argument from them, it doesn't impair your driving or motor skills. When you point out cases where they are wrong, they will argue that something else caused it and not pot.

3. The man's name is Mike (not using his full name on here, although once I relate this story, some people might know him). May 5th, 2012 while riding his 3 week old chopper for the first time, he was hit head on. The kid that hit him, was 21 yrs old, and stoned out of his gourd on pot as well as having a car full of pot he was transporting. So much so that he didn't even know he hit him, witnesses had to stop him from trying to drive away. Mike spent the next 2 months and 20 days in the hospital. Almost 3 weeks of that he was in a coma. He had over a dozen surgeries during that time, including one that set a record for the amount of work surgeons had to do. His list of injuries: An aortic dissection for which he had heart surgery, an open pelvic fracture for whih...
c he had the largest open reduction internal fixation the Sweedish doctors have ever performed, a bladder injury, a severe scalp laceration (see photo), issues with the tracheotomy which he needed, cervical fusion of C5 through T2, left rib fractures, left humeral fracture, right radius fracture, and a fracture of his big toe.

He was given last rites the day he was brought in. He was readmitted to the hospital this morning because do to serious complications, he could not walk/get up with out help and is urinating blood. He has several pins, screws, plates, bolts holding his body together, if all goes well he might be able to start riding again in two years. According to the pro-pot crowd, marijuana had nothing to do with the accident, it was a fluke. The kid was driving on the wrong side of the road.

4. Legalizing marijuana will hurt the cartels in Mexico...really, and repealing prohibition would shut down moonshiners, yet ATF makes dozens of arrests every year of moonshiners, and it's 2012.

5. There is no legitamate way to determine in an instant, like a breathalyzer for alcohol if someone is under the influence during a traffic stop.

6. There is no set standard of what is considered under the influence, imparied, etc. and while the state has attempted to impose a standard, the pro-pot crowd has resisted claiming the number is arbitrary.

7. MMJ has been a borderline failure in some cities, with users blantantly and regularly violating the law. Including the prohibition on using the product at the point of purchase and then driving off. I have a friend who lives across the street from a facility in G. Junction, he regularly watches people go in, buy, and come out and smoke it in the parking lot and then attempt to drive off. He's watched a few good wrecks happen as a result. I've seen this on Broadway a few times, including watching one guy get in a car with a baggy that he bought from a facility, light up in the car (he was a passenger) and share the joint with the other 3 people in the car. Followed them from Alameda and Broadway to about Littleton Blvd and Broadway, by the time we got there, maintaining their lane was a joke for the driver. 911 was called and Littleton PD did stop them.

I have some sympathy for this argument. Should it be legal? Tough freaking question because it comes down to is it harmful (studies have mixed results but a consensus is that it mildly affects intelligence, memory and attention) and how harmful does something have to be before it is illegal. Alcohol and Tobacco are harmful and legal. Lots of things are harmful and legal.

As a country we have to pass a law that pretty much covers 300 million people (minus any senators of course, or anyone that didn't inhale) and everyone reacts differently. I know folks I would happily get into a car with after they had been smoking all day and there are folks I wouldn't allow out of a padded room if they had been within 20 feet of a joint. I think the future is likely to include limited legalisation with safeguards against impairment whilst driving and working (in certain jobs). If folks want to sit on their back porch and smoke I have no issue with that, if they want to get in a car, you better be able to pass an impairment test just like for alcohol. If we do it sensibly then it could work out ok. It might even reduce crime but it does need to be done in a manner whereby it isn't the thin end of the wedge.

I believe strongly in peoples rights, but also in their responsibilities not to impinge on others freedoms and rights.

Something else to point out. I'm a truck driver, random testing for drugs/alcohol is a way of life. Sadly drug use among truckers has been on a slight uptick for the last few years, as has accidents related to this. We really don't need to add fuel to the fire.

In the Netherlands many of these drugs are legal, few years back on one of the trucking message boards, a member from Germany posted a link to statistics which showed a 60% increase in drug use among truck drivers, and a 90% increase in truck accidents inwhich these drugs were found in the drivers system in levels which showed they were a contributing factor.

Finally, I notice when people say no one has ever died from marijuana or that it doesn't effect your motor skills. Until such time as each and every person on the planet is exactly the same, has the exact same physical, mental, emotional, etc. makeup, this is a falicy. The same holds true with alcohol and prescription drugs. Few years back the trucking company I work for did one of these alcohol/driving classes you see on tv in conjunction with State Patrol. Where they have you drink and drive on a controlled course. One of my co-workers downed 6 beers, blew a .25 on the breathalyzer, yet continued to walk, talk, and drive like he was sober. While at the same time, another driver after 2 beers was under the table drunk. Until his back surgery in April, my father was taking 2 10/600mg percocets every 4 hrs, well over the maximum allowed doseage, for 2 years for pain alleviation. He could walk, talk, drive, work (he's an exterminator), climb ladders, etc. perfectly fine. He's also 5'10, 270 lbs, whereas my 5'2 140 lb wife is out cold after one percocet. For the record, from the time he was first issued the prescription, he was taking percs at that level.

So much for every drug effecting everyone the same.

You shouldn't work safety related jobs while high.

You shouldn't drive while high.

I agree with that.

I really don't think passing 64 will legalize marijuana in the state, but it will put more pressure on the feds to do something.

I also don't think legalizing it will get a lot more people smoking before work or driving while high.

People that do it now will probably still break the law.

People that don't smoke because it is against the law, probably won't get high and drive or go to a safety related job high.

This is a democracy. You can't outlaw everything that may lead to a bad outcome sometimes.

Part of having a democracy is taking chances.

A few states legalizing it won't make cartels, border wars, destructive no-knock raids, or innocent deaths go away. If local growers can't keep up with demand, and assuming federal law will prohibit any kind of interstate trade, supply will be tight and there will still be opportunity for the cartels. If anything the mix of legal and illegal, federal and state, could make law enforcement even more of a tangled, expensive nightmare...

I read an editorial the other day that made the argument that without the feds, purity standards, ensuring legality of importation and supply, tax collection, etc, would be difficult, if not impossible for isolated states alone to implement effectively. As much as I would like to champion state's rights on this issue I have to admit I agree with that stance.

I'm glad to see pot advocates being more honest, going beyond the wink and a nod 'medicine' argument- a positive for their cause. It may take a long time, but every time this appears on a ballot they've made a small, but perhaps inexorable step toward national legislation...

Not a hot-button issue for me, but I voted 'no'. This amendment isn't ready for prime time.