Reader: Marijuana legalization advocates need to take a big toke of reality

Patricia Calhoun's on-site report about this week's Great Marijuana Legalization Debate has quickly become a platform for debate among folks representing all sides of the issue. Here's a strong post from a reader who feels some advocates are living in a fantasy world.

Anonymouse writes:

Seek professional help for your imbalance, it leaves you oblivious to the reality of the world we live in. You damage the entire MJ as well as MMJ movements with your childish antics.

Bring an initiative and I'll most likely sign your petitions if you have the organizational strength to even get that far. Please stop mischaracterizing the efforts of the one guy who has demonstrated his ability to get us to a better position.

Look, we all understand that you want carte blanche to grow all the weed you want wherever you want and sell it to kids tax free while giving the cops the finger and smoking a fatty behind the wheel of your fuck-the-man-mobile. Shit doesn't work like that.

For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.

My Voice Nation Help
18 comments
wtfk
wtfk

To quote Steve Martin, "Well, excuuuuuuuuse me!"  

Your extreme hyperbole aside, some of us think providing ridiculous limits (ever tried to grow "six plants" when law enforcement tells you they "have precedent" that cuttings are plants?) to law enforcement are a step backward for a substance that's basically harmless.

I'm pretty sure everyone you're making fun of supports keeping dangerous drivers off the streets, allowing the state to tax it at the same rates as any similar substance, such as tomatoes, and keeping children from having access to the product, all of which will be easier to do when there's a white market.

Fhfhf555f4d4eg36jf85kuffgf
Fhfhf555f4d4eg36jf85kuffgf

Should have never been regulated in the first place. If the hype was true Obama would have died on his first hit. Did not happen to him and does not happen to most of us.   

GetReal
GetReal

I for one don't support kids abusing ANY substances INCLUDING cannabis, but we adults should have free access to the safer alternative to alcohol.  If I am allowed to have an unlimited amount of alcohol that can kill me, them I should be allowed to have an unlimited amount of cannabis which cannot.  Stop the insanity!  How many more people have to die?

Also, I read all the time about the stupid and harmful things that drunks do.  I rarely read anything about problems that stoners cause. WTF????

Chris
Chris

He is right. Safer's regulation and soft tact make sense. The rest of them do kind of sound like this when you talk to them.

Boulder Med Cannabis
Boulder Med Cannabis

"You damage the entire MJ as well as MMJ movements with your childish antics."I keep hearing this said, and it's sounding like a buzz phrase to discredit part of the movement. It sounds like all sides behaved badly... but really, at Castlemans it's all the same people you always see at these things. Most Colorado patients are normal, mellow people who just want access to their meds without being in legal peril. 

CTI - file your stuff! quit complaining about what Safer is doing and just do your thing. If it's a better proposal and polls show it to be more popular, I bet Safer would withdraw theirs. 

Dan Pope
Dan Pope

I agree with this post in that I feel the fringe groups are misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to undermine the successful efforts and progress that have been made by SAFER. Why? I don't know. It defies logic.

LarryQ5
LarryQ5

Obviously this person has gone on to harder stuff.....see, it is a gateway drug afterall...

Wayne
Wayne

I forgot to add Jimmy Carter and the late Walter Cronkite to that list.

Wayne
Wayne

The credentials and intelligence of this blogger are questionable, at best.  Here are a list of very sober and highly acclaimed people who disagree with him/her:

Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general; Ernesto Zedillo,former president of Mexico; George Papandreou, former prime minister of Greece;César Gaviria, former president of Colombia; Fernando Henrique Cardoso, formerpresident of Brazil; George Shultz, US secretary of state under Ronald Reagan;Javier Solana, former EU high representative; Virgin tycoon Richard Branson;and Paul Volcker, chairman of the US Federal Reserve under Jimmy Carter.

@mmjalert
@mmjalert

Your rhetoric is, as you know, a gross misrepresentation of the worst of everyone's views.  No one person thinks all that, but probably lots of people think a little of it.  That's ok.  We'll sort it out without your help.

LarryQ5
LarryQ5

I keep trying to abuse cannabis, but I always fall asleep first....

CoreyDonahue
CoreyDonahue

Here you go Dan

MOTION FOR REHEARINGJune 22, 2011Colorado Secretary of State Attn: Title Board1700 Broadway, Suite 200Denver, CO 80290Phone: (303) 894-2200, press “3”Fax: (303) 869-4861Web: www.sos.state.co.usEmail: initiatives@sos.state.co.us

Dear Sirs:

Pursuant to CRS 1-40-107 (1), this is a motion for rehearing on the ballot title and submission clauses for proposed initiatives 2011-2012 #29 through 2011-2012 #36 – "Use and Regulation of Marijuana". I am a registered elector in the state of Colorado. I believe the titles and submission clauses set by the Title Board at their hearing on June 15, 2011 do not fairly express the true meaning and intent of the proposed initiatives.

I. The title is misleading.The title contains the phrase "providing for the regulation of marijuana in a manner similar to the use of alcohol." This is misleading to voters, as the proposed initiatives more closely model the Medical Marijuana Code than the Alcohol Code. I propose changing that language to "providing for the regulation of marijuana in a manner similar to medical marijuana with enforcement through the Department of Revenue."

1) The word "alcohol" is only mentioned twice in the proposed ballot initiatives. In 1 (a), it says it shall be "taxed in a manner similar to alcohol". In 1 (b), it says marijuana shall be "regulated in a manner similar to alcohol", but in only 5 different areas: a person will need to show proof of age to purchase marijuana; sales to minors shall be illegal; driving under the influence of marijuana shall be illegal; "criminal actors" will not be allowed to sell marijuana; and marijuana will be subject to additional regulations "to ensure that consumers are informed and protected."

2) The Medical Marijuana Code is mentioned repeatedly in the proposed initiatives. Section 5 (a) (II) states that a person "licensed under the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code" shall have a discounted licensing fee for a retail marijuana store. Section 5 (b) states that the Department or Revenue shall have as a "primary consideration" whether or not the applicant for a marijuana retail store is licensed under the "Colorado Medical Marijuana Code" and has "complied consistently" with the "Colorado Medical Marijuana Code." This means if you have a license for a medical marijuana retail store, you are almost automatically guaranteed a license for a retail marijuana store. This indicates the clear intent of the proponents to model their initiatives after the Medical Marijuana Code, not the Liquor Code. Licensed retail medical marijuana stores are given preferential treatment because they are already assumed to be in compliance with the bulk of regulations that will be promulgated for retail marijuana stores. There are no similar provisions for preferential treatment or discounted licensing fees for retail liquor stores, as there would be if these initiatives intended to regulate marijuana in a manner "similar to alcohol."

3) The proposed initiatives give broad power to regulate retail marijuana stores to the Department of Revenue, which also controls medical marijuana licensing in the state. Even though the DOR does oversee alcohol as well, marijuana is much more similar to medical marijuana than it is alcohol, so it is logical to assume the DOR will use its broad powers to create rules which model its medical marijuana rules, not its alcohol rules.

4) The proposed initiatives set a limit on possession of marijuana by consumers of 1 ounce and 6 plants. However, there is no limit on the amount of alcohol that can be purchased in a retail alcohol store. This is a fundamental difference in the regulation of the two products. If alcohol consumers were only allowed to purchase one ounce of vodka at a time, it would require an entirely different set of regulations. The Liquor Code would be far different from the one we have today. This fundamental difference in quantity limits means it would be misleading to voters to say marijuana was regulated in a manner "similar to alcohol" under the proposed initiatives. This misleads the public into thinking that there are no limits on marijuana possession, just as there are none on alcohol

5) The proposed initiatives will likely result in the need for the Department of Revenue to create a database of marijuana consumers, so that they can track their purchases to make sure that consumers are not exceeding the limits. There is no such database required for liquor store sales.

6) Marijuana is illegal under Federal Law, and thus cannot be regulated like alcohol, a legal substance. To say it is "similar to alcohol" misleads voters into thinking that marijuana is legal under federal law.

7) Marijuana consumers risk federal arrest and therefore will have need for more privacy rules than alcohol consumers.II. The titles include an impermissible catch phraseThe phrase "similar to alcohol" is a catch phrase used to appeal to the emotions of people who want marijuana to be treated with leniency. The use of this catch phrase will mislead voters into thinking that the regulation will be similar to alcohol. However, because of the substantial differences between marijuana and alcohol regulation outlined above, it is clear that marijuana will be treated much stricter than alcohol and much more similarly to medical marijuana by the Department of Revenue. The use of a catch phrase is forbidden in titles. It will mislead voters into voting in favor of a leniency in laws similar to alcohol, when in reality they will be voting for much greater scrutiny and stricter regulations than retail liquor stores. Medical marijuana is now regulated stricter than plutonium in Colorado.In conclusion, the titles as set are misleading and contain an impermissible catch phrase. I request that my Motion for Rehearing be granted, or, alternatively, for the Title Board to amend the titles of the proposed initiatives to state "providing for the regulation of marijuana in a manner similar to medical marijuana with enforcement through the Department of Revenue."

Sincerely,

Corey Donahue

Certificate of ServiceThe above Motion for Rehearing was emailed to the proponents of the initiativesMason Tvert, SAFER <mason@saferchoice.org>Brian Vicente, Sensible <brian@sensiblecolorado.org></brian@sensiblecolorado.org></mason@saferchoice.org>

Boulder Med Cannabis
Boulder Med Cannabis

really? you are so wasting your time. please go work on:

1. raising money to fight 1284 w/KC.2. help CTI get their proposal on the ballot.3. presenting yourself in a way we can be proud of.

don't fight people in the movement for christsake. there are plenty of idiots that are NOT pro cannabis to fight. even if the safer version isn't what you like (an I sure as hell don't) I will likely still vote for it. Go do the work! Fighting others who are doing the work is not acceptable any more.

How the hell is it going to work when Mason and Brian file the same shit against the CTI proposal? It's so fucken frustrating that nobody who really cares about cannabis has figured out how to work with others as well as jackrobs like Josh Stanley and Wanda. ARGH!

LarryQ5
LarryQ5

Damn! Just woke up....did I miss anything?

David
David

If at first you don't succeed ;-)

CoreyDonahue
CoreyDonahue

I understand what your saying.

1. I have been helping Kathleen.2. We are and will continue to debate the People of Colorado's initiative. 3. Don't worry you will.

As for fighting people in the movement is the last thing I want to do, however I think that the initiative I am protesting in front of the title review board is not legalization by any stretch of the imagination. I counted, on the first reading, 48 ways the initiative I am protesting limits the peoples freedoms and that's before it allows the MMED to create even more rules to limit our freedoms. To masquerade this as legalization or even regulation, Rico had better regulation language, is a lie and I can not and will not sit by as someone lies to my face hence my antics.  As for fighting people who do the work I have not. I am fighting the bad initiative and the people who support it. These people supporting the initiative I am protesting were nowhere to be found at any of the government meetings that took place which stripped the people of Colorado of their constitutional rights. 

Those two can try and file a rehearing on us but because we will vet our language we will not have to worry about having misleading or out right lies in our, and I do mean yours, mine and the people of Colorado's, language and title because we will not have to lie to the people of Colorado as to our true intention.  The people who care are working together we do disagree but we are moving forward. The jackals you mention and the people who support language in our Constitution are are either are owned and paid to support this by people from NY, DC and Cali or will sell themselves and their principals out for a quick buck as the last two people you mentioned have clearly and repeatedly done this.

As you are also passionate about this what are some of your Ideas about how legalization should go down? 

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...