Marijuana: George Soros link to Amendment 64 claimed, disputed

Categories: Marijuana

george soros wikipedia.jpg
George Soros.
Billionaire George Soros is a frequent conservative target for donating big bucks to liberal causes (of course, conservatives have munificent billionaires of their own -- but that's another story). Now, Smart Colorado, a group opposing Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, sees Soros's fingerprints on the pro-pot campaign, citing as evidence a recent fundraising letter for the Drug Policy Alliance. The DPA counters by denying that Soros has donated to Amendment 64 thus far -- although his contributions would be welcomed.

The letter, which also includes a collection of "Drug War Facts" and quotes from the likes of former President Jimmy Carter and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, begins with Soros promoting the idea of an open society. Then, after talking about his past, including escapes from the Nazi and communist occupations of his native Hungary, he asserts that "here in our own country, nothing so resembles the closed society than the tragic failure known as the war on drugs."

He adds that "the war on drugs has all the characteristic of a closed society: the absolute powers claimed by the authorities, the attempt to silence critics rather than engage them, and, of course, the human costs that inevitably result -- our failure to deal with addiction, the violent crime our drug polices have spawned, and more."

In light of these views, Soros writes that he supports "an exceptional group called the Drug Policy Alliance," and he urges the reader of the letter to do the same.

Thumbnail image for vote no on 64 graphic.jpg
A graphic from the Smart Colorado website.
According to Smart Colorado spokeswoman Laura Cohen, this letter was widely distributed in the Denver area earlier this month -- timing that, in her view, suggests a tie to Amendment 64, which is on the November 2012 ballot.

"It appears that the pro-marijuana legalization campaign may be relying on the agenda and the funding from an out-of-state billionaire," Cohen maintains in a statement provided to Westword. "In 2010, Mr. Soros donated $1 million to a similar attempt, California's Proposition 19."

Is there a Soros connection to Amendment 64? Only an indirect one at this point, says Art Way, manager of the Drug Policy Alliance's Colorado branch. He confirms the legitimacy of the letter, noting that "we send out quite a few of those in a year." Likewise, he acknowledges DPA's support of the ballot initiative. However, he goes on, "Mr. Soros has not given to the campaign so far. We would accept any donation from him, but that's not the case right now."

Page down to read more about George Soros and Amendment 64:


My Voice Nation Help
184 comments
IcePick
IcePick

As soon as 18 year olds learn to vote people might care, until then... yawn.

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

This is prop 19 all over again A64 does not give them free reign to do whatever they want so they don't like it.  A64 tries to create a regulatory system with RULES and because of those rules they come on here and bad mouth A64 . I really dont get what you guys want . 

IcePick
IcePick

A64 Legalizes marijuana for recreational adult use.  It will not increase any funding for law enforcement contrary to the below post written by a shill who is trying to turn us all against A64. Read the amendment for yourself and you will see that A64 is a logical next step after all the success HB10-1284 and HB11-1043 have brought.  A64 is exactly what we need to challenge the Federal government which I presume most of us want to do (excepting the shills).  

 

Specifically these laws have largely removed the black market drug cartels from the marijuana trade and one hundred thousand patients are now free to purchase medicine from highly regulated store front retailers.  While many are mom and pop operations some of the larger multi-store operations have really driven the price down from the old black market prohibition days.  Now your grandmother can go to a retail store similar to a pharmacy to pick up her medicine instead of relying on unreliable corner drug dealers for the medicine she needs; and she can now afford the not-covered-by-any-insurance meds.

 

Yes on A64, it's good for the children it's good for Colorado. 

 

The only people against A64 are people who think:

1) marijuana is harmful, which it is not; there is simply no evidence of this.

2) recreational marijuana sales will decrease alcohol sales, this is true.

 

Yes on A64!

 

NO-ON-64
NO-ON-64

Amendment 64 creates unlimited funding for law enforcement to go after those users wo have 1 ounce + 1 seed or more and more than 3 flowering plants.

 

Don't fund your enemy and expect things to work out OK.

 

Donkey Hotay may be an ass, but he is so much smarter than all of you A64 supporters who have 1) never read the amendment 2) never read HB1284 which the amendment is based on 3) never talked to a dispensary owner to see how all this "legitimization" is helping his business.

 

Just say NO to more pot cops!

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

These are the same arguments I hear every time a legalization bill come forward . George Soros, terminator seeds,  Monsanto, scary corporate take overs of marijuana.  Blah Blah Blah .. Same Scare Tactics different bill . 

PR420
PR420

Soros is one of the primary funders and also sits on the board of the DPA which controls the drug policy foundation which gives grants to MPP the primary authors of A64. MPP gives grants to both Sensible and SAFER. Mason was picked and groomed by Steve Fox of MPP and SAFER was invented by Steve Fox. All of the so called national drug policy groups are primarily funded by the same people. George Soros, Peter Lewis, George Zimmer and John Sperling to name a few. None of these groups are grass roots activists, they are lobbyist organizations staffed by attorneys and lobbyists whose propaganda is designed to mainly benefit their employers a handful of billionaires who seek to secure the extremely profitable drug market for themselves. A64 has very little to do with civil rights, prohibition in the context of the war on the poor and or protecting children. A64 has every thing to do with monopolizing drug profits via a highly regulated market that is to cost prohibitive for the average citizen to own a business. A64 does not regulate like alcohol nor does it end prohibition. This was stated by the proponents themselves at their own title board hearings which is a matter of public record. Soros controls the DPA and the DPA controls the smaller organizations via funding. It is simply a game of semantics to suggest other wise. Soros also has a vested interest in the Latin American countries which produce the majority of imported drugs including marijuana via his holdings in interoil. This is the same agenda as Plan Columbia. But most people are to lazy to read any thing let alone A64. Those who claim it does protect children clearly have zero comprehension of what A64 does and how drug laws are implemented and enforced in Colorado and who are the primary victims of marijuana laws. Those poor young African american and latino males 18 - 20 will be provided zero relief under A64. A64 will not stop 10,000 arrests a year and will actually increases arrests as stated by Art Way on video at a A64 gathering. Which was the most honest statement by that campaign thus far. A64 gives people the false notion prohibition will be over when in fact 98% of the laws created to enforce marijuana prohibition will remain on the books exposing a misinformed public to those very same laws combined with an increased marijuana supply. Do the math and do your homework before voting this November.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

Why does a "harmless plant that never killed anyone" need Big Government Regulation, Restriction and Criminal Enforcement Control?

 

Surrender Early, Surrender Often -- it's the slacker's credo.

 

 

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @IcePick 

 

You really do live in an alternate universe, devoid of reality, inhabited only by your self-delusions.

 

-- If marijuana is not harmful, why do you need to keep it from teenagers as A64 does?

 

-- If marijuana is not harmful, why do you need to keep it from 10s of thousands of ADULTS age 18 >21 as A64 does?

 

-- If marijuana is not harmful, why do you need the Government to Regulate it LIKE deadly alcohol?

 

-- If marijuana is not harmful, why do you put such pathetically puny 1 (one) ounce limits on possession, as A64 does?

 

-- If marijuana is not harmful, why do you need to enforce an absurd, unsustainable 3 (three) flowering plant limit on individuals who want to grow their own, as A64 does?

 

 

You = Fail Again, loser.

 

 

 

 

 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @NO-ON-64 You spew lies -- Amendment 64 does not contain any such provisions.  By all means, read the Amendment!

IcePick
IcePick

 @NO-ON-64 Ok "no to more pot cops" and "yes on A64 because it doesn't increase the number of pot-cops".

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @polyrican420 

 

Im I understanding you correctly ? You think that there needs to be an 18+ clause put on AB64?  "Those poor young African american and latino males 18 - 20 will be provided zero relief under A64."Oh man. I love this one .. Can you  imagine if SAFER put an 18+ clause in A64. OMG!!  Parent advocacy and religious groups would be saying that Mason Tvert wants to give "THE CHILDREN" drugs. Are you crazy, do you think before you say things polyrican420 You really think that the ok sold anywhere Alcohol is 21+ and the evil devil weed that is after your children is going to be 18+ ?  Think polyrican420 Think . Sorry but in America the legal age to get high is 21.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @RobertChase 

 

-- How many people over 21 have been arrested in Colorado for growing only 3 (three) flowering pot plants ?

 

..

teddy
teddy

 @DonkeyHotay Lets just say its not ... Lets say its hmmmm just as good as Amsterdamthat's not good enough ? minus the 18+ that they allow in Amsterdam

because you are not going to get that in the united states .Colorado is better then Amsterdam ?My point is your not going to get this free for all bill that you want man .Not going to happen.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

So why is marijuana so harmful and dangerous that ADULTS age 18->21 should be DENIED ANY LEGAL ACCESS under A64 ?

 

.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen "See... I think ..."

 

Fail again.

 

Keep suck suck sucking on that bong, Gary Blowmen.

 

.

 

.

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

@DonkeyHotay Here is a great facebook for you http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-No-on-64/345335655525306 ... Go over to their team and talk your trash over there. That's were you belong, trader !From the No on 64 website  Protect Our Kids, Vote No on 64 

Christina Blair Colorado teacher

"Those of us on the front lines -- parents and teachers -- are opposed to Amendment 64 because we understand how hard it is for kids to get ahead these days and how legalizing marijuana for recreational use could make it even harder, especially for at-risk kids..."Twenty percent of drug-related, emergency department admissions in Denver in 2010 were attributed to marijuana use, compared to 18 percent for cocaine and less than 8 percent for heroin, according to the Denver Office of Drug Strategy.These are your people ! These are the same people spreading lies about A64 just like you do ! Go sit down with your Anti Cannabis friends and kill A64 Shame on you !  

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @DonkeyHotay See... I think you really don't like Cannabis and you are here to pretend you do . You come on here throw insults at people and really you don't have any valid argument what so ever. You are a little kid that needs to grow up !  

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @IcePick 

 

And the drugs you don't use are "bad drugs", right?

 

And those who possess or grow an amount of marijuana more than you are "bad criminals", right?

 

Noted.

IcePick
IcePick

 @DonkeyHotay Uh huh and the judges you don't agree with are "activist judges" right?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @IcePick 

 

HipTip: If you want to "send a message" then pick up the phone and call John Walsh, or write a letter to Eric Holder, or submit petition signatures to Michele Leonhart, or stage a Million Stoner March on Washington DC ... 

 

Only clueless callow clowns would attempt to send "messages" to the Feds by permanently amending the State Constitution with dysfunctional, unsustainable, ineffective, worthless turd like A64.

 

The Colorado Constitution isn't a "message board", you daft dipshit.

 

.

IcePick
IcePick

 @DonkeyHotay You are mistaken.  What A64 changes is the message sent to the Fed.  

 

The message becomes clearer with each and every law/regulation/rule we support.  This amendment is the next logical step in overturning prohibition because, unfortunately, the world does not yet know that marijuana is far less dangerous than __________________ (fill in the blank with whatever you want).

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @IcePick 

 

It makes no "statement"

 

You will never end prohibition -- especially when you are stupid enough to CONTINUE prohibition with such absurd initiatives.

 

You = Message FAIL.

IcePick
IcePick

 @DonkeyHotay  It does change something.  It makes a statement to the Federal Government that we are going to end prohibition.  It may not be the best written amendment but it certainly is a step in the right direction.  For the sake of Colorado (a state Donkey does not live in) you MUST vote YES on A64!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @teddy 

 

Surrender Early, Surrender Often -- it's the stoner-slacker's creed.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @IcePick  @teddy 

 

In reality, A64 doesn't change anything for the benefit of real-world marijuana users and growers.

 

 

IcePick
IcePick

 @teddy Not if he just sits at his computer all day.  Changing laws requires actual effort.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @IcePick 

 

A64 = CONTINUES CRIMINAL PROHIBITION of MARIJUANA.

IcePick
IcePick

 @DonkeyHotay Given a choice between regulation and prohibition the vote will be clear.  We, in Colorado, prefer regulation to prohibition.

 

Yes on A64!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @IcePick 

 

 

A64 = continuation of criminal prohibition of marijuana.

 

.

IcePick
IcePick

 @DonkeyHotay  @Gary_Bowlmen But it did not set up a regulatory framework for any retail stores or production facilities to operate which is why we need A64.  What part don't you comprehend?

IcePick
IcePick

 @DonkeyHotay It shouldn't and the way to get to the place we want to be, ending prohibition, is to vote YES on A64!

 

Stick it to the man.

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @DonkeyHotay First you were going on about age nonsense then you found out Ab64 does not supersede prior decrim laws.  Now its "well why change the amount ?"  

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @DonkeyHotay Here we go now 1oz isn't enough first it was age now its amount .  You are killing me Donkey  

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Mmmm = IcePick attempting to hide from his SHAME.

 

 

So why REDUCE the amount from the current statutory 2 (two) ounces to only 1 (one) ounce in A64?

 

Why increase the age to 21 from current statutory 18 as A64 attempts to do ?

 

Do tell.

Mmmm
Mmmm

 @DonkeyHotay What part of decriminilized do you not comprehend?

 

Even if a64 passes, the 18-20 year olds would still be protected by those decriminalization measures. a64 does not supersede those laws.

 

Damn man, do some fucking research.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

Boy, you've really got the full retard act down to perfection.

 

The COLORADO LEGISLATURE ALREADY DECRIMINALIZED recreational marijuana for EVERYONE over 18 ... years ago!

 

What part don't you comprehend?

 

.

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @DonkeyHotay I swear to god you are lame Do I have to tell you this again? The legal age to get high recreationally in America is 21 .. I agree with you that pot is harmless for me and you but the vast majority of voters who don't smoke cannabis are going to see that you support giving kids drugs and vote NO !!! OCTA:   regulating cannabis will help keep cannabis away from children and ensure marijuana is only sold to adults over the age of 21.Washington Initiative 502The initiative would legalize use of marijuana products purchased from state authorized sources for adults 21.... You are not going to get be able to get a 21+  legalization, regulation bill on the ballot.  Marijuana like it or not has the stigma or being the evil drugs that gets your kid  addicted to heroin .  Show me a non medical legalization or regulation bill that has a 18+  clause attached to it.   

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

Do tell ... how does the same "harmless miracle plant that never killed anyone" morph into something dangerous, harmful and evil if the person smoking it does not have a medical referral, or if that person happens to be only 20 years old.

 

You ain't the sharpest tack in the box, are you Gary?

 

Smoke much pot ?

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @DonkeyHotay   Your F'N joking me your going to compare A20 (Amendment 20) a medical marijuana bill to A64 OMG . 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @teddy 

 

 So you're a lazy slacker who is willing to surrender OTHER PEOPLE's rights -- just so you can claim some pathetic empty symbolic victory?

 

HipTip: A20 passed, and included ALL Adults age 18+, even included minors with parental permission, and allowed for good faith increases in limits via an affirmative defense. 

 

A64 offers NONE of the above.

 

The Colorado Statutes that ALREADY decriminalized recreational marijuana did so for ALL ADULTS age 18+ ... and it was passed by the stodgy old conservative LEGISLATURE, and allows 2 (two) ounces.

 

Your pathetic A64 kicks 10s of thousands of Adults <21 to the gutter, offering them NO protection and NO legal access to ANY amount of marijuana ... and then retards the amount to 1 (one) ounce for those over 21.

 

We get it, you're a lazy loser-slacker who preemptively surrenders and then concocts lame excuses for your lassitude and cowardice.

 

teddy
teddy

@DonkeyHotay

No you asked me why  18+ isnt on the bill and i told you . THE BILL WOULD BE DEAD BEFORE IT GOT ANYWHERE. I dont get you man ! What do you want ?Do you want to be treated the same as alcohol or not ?Sounds like to me you dont support legalization sounds to me like you like the current market the way it is .

Your not going get this dream marijuana bill that you want. so keep dreaming kid .

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @teddy 

 

So A64 isn't written FOR marijuana users and growers, it's written by ex-alcoholics FOR law enforcement and prohibitionists, eh?

 

Only an idiot would beg THE GOVERNMENT to REGULATE, RESTRICT and TAX anything they actually cared about.

 

You = that idiot.

 

.

teddy
teddy

 @DonkeyHotay  I really have to explain to you why people would freak out if there was an 18+ clause on AB64 . Question for you how old are you and how long have you been keeping an eye on politics ?Cause to even ask me that question really shows me you don't have any idea how politics work .

Furthermore Dont ask me this question go ask Religious, Anti drinking and driving(MADD), parent advocacy groups, politicians, law enforcement community .... all the people that would be attacking A64 from the start so it would never see the light of day. They would have a field day with it !Show me legalization bill that is up right now that has a 18+ clause in it .......

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...