Marijuana: Pot tax critics represent small minority, says Amendment 64 co-author

anti.marijuana.taxation.rally.20.205x205.jpg
Last week, opponents of Proposition AA, the measure to establish tax rates for recreational marijuana, staged a rally at Civic Center Park at which adults 21 and over who attended were given free joints. In the days that followed, board members of Colorado NORML came out against Prop AA, too.

Does that mean support for the proposal is soft? Not in the view of attorney Brian Vicente, a marijuana advocate and co-author of Amendment 64.

"There isn't growing opposition to the tax measure," he writes via e-mail. "There is simply vocal opposition from a very limited group of individuals."

anti.marijuana.taxation.rally.1b.jpg
Photo by Alex Brown
Miguel Lopez at the anti-marijuana-taxation rally at Civic Center Park last week.
Vicente responded to our inquiry after the Civic Center rally but before the NORML board made its announcement. Since then, we've reached out to see if he wanted to add anything to his remarks; if and when we hear back from him, we'll update this post.

As we've reported, Proposition AA calls for a 15 percent excise tax on retail marijuana sales, plus a 10 percent state sales tax that can be increased to 15 percent if revenues fall short of covering costs. Given standard sales taxes and additional taxes applied by local governments, taxes on marijuana are likely to be in the 30-40 percent range.

This level seems excessive to Miguel Lopez, who organizes the annual 4/20 celebration and put together the "free joints" rally, and attorney Sean McAllister, a NORML board member. But Vicente, a co-chair of the fledgling Yes on Proposition AA campaign, sees them as reasonable.

brian.vicente.photo.vertical.300x480.jpg
Brian Vicente.
"Sure, no one likes paying taxes," he acknowledges. "And given a straight choice between higher priced marijuana and lower priced marijuana, it is easy to say that you want lower prices. This is especially true if you are given a free joint as part of the pitch.

"But this isn't simply about whether individuals want or don't want to pay an extra 10 percent on marijuana above the 15 percent excise tax included in the language of Amendment 64," he continues. "This is a question of whether marijuana will or won't be available in retail stores for consumers to purchase safely. The federal government has said that they will not interfere with our regulated system if -- and only if -- we demonstrate that there are 'necessary resources' to enforce the regulations. That is what Proposition AA will provide. It will protect our regulated system from federal interference."

Referring again to the "free joints" rally, Vicente allows that "the fringe opponents to Proposition AA may feel good about their principled stance against any tax on marijuana, but they simply don't seem to understand that they may be throwing out the buds with the bong water.

"Of course, we have seen this act before and know that the sentiments only run so deep," he goes on. "Miguel Lopez was one of the most vocal opponents of Amendment 64, yet was one of the first people to celebrate the initiative becoming law on the steps of the Capitol. Maybe after Proposition AA passes, he will be one of the first people in line to pay for a regulated gram of marijuana."

More from our Marijuana archive: "Marijuana: Colorado NORML board opposes recreational pot tax measure."

My Voice Nation Help
49 comments
groundskeeperwilly
groundskeeperwilly

in term of legalization, welcome to the real world. booze and nicotine are taxed at nearly 200% and pot head don't seem bothered  by that.. How bout pot get zap with that same structure?

I am all for legalized weed and MMJ, but at a minimum recreation use should provide something in return. you potheads don't get your cake and eat it too,  

Personally i'd like to see all marijuana laws dropped, farmers allow to grow it like tobacco, and sell it on the open market. Put  things like MS13 out on their asses and kick them out of Pueblo and back to Honduras, but you anti-taxers need to realize the cost of tax protests is the criminal element. 

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!   People against excessive taxation are not on the fringe.  They have always been the majority.   Most tax increases are denied by the voters, even when the tax is minute.  And where are these yes on tax people--did 6 people attend their press conference?  

So I ask everyone I talk to if they will vote for the tax and not a single person has said yes to me since passage of 64.  Initially they thought the excise tax for schools had passed when 64 passed.

When considering the latest poll on taxes that Vincente said in Boulder at the A64 Q&A,  has over 70% support--what was the question?

Was it --  Would you vote yes to tax pot?

or was it  -  Would you vote yes on a 25%-30% tax on pot?  

And since when does 'legal' pot require four times the budget of the entire CBI budget?  FOUR TIMES THE CBI BUDGET!   All rapes, murders, molesters and violent crimes combined are 4 times LESS important than enforcing pot prohibitions? Really? 

And 40 times the Liquor Enforcement budget that regulates over 14,000 liquor licenses every year?

And after the DoR just received and F on the state audit on the 3 year MMJ program that blew over 10 million and enforced not a law--should we really be giving them 4 times this amount after receiving the F? 


NO on ANY additional taxes.  All herbs in Colorado are taxed with good old retail sales tax.  The state needs to learn how to manage the windfall of just that tax on cannabis.  Just because they got away with that great MMJ extortion does not put them in the position to do it again. 

And let's not forget--Cannabis Prohibition 1937 was created by a Marijuana Tax Stamp--A PROHIBITIVE TAX.   

Also can anyone name a single 'industry' other than MJ in the country that begs for (over) regulation and (over) taxation of themselves and their products and customers?????  Anyone?  




Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

"This is a question of whether marijuana will or won't be available in retail stores for consumers to purchase safely."

Then pitch the 15% as advertised in A64. Fuck the "because we can openly screw you" taxes.

Ganjasocial
Ganjasocial

Look, (a possible total of) 30-40% in taxes is absolutely ridiculous. And for such a high state excise tax, it really does limit the potential of local communities to add (and benefit from) their own excise tax. And there is the fear that over-taxing cannabis will keep people out of stores and on the black market. And if Coloradoans (and tourists) are purchasing their cannabis illicitly, then that's a lot of tax revenue lost altogether. 
Cannabis consumers have been paying far far too much for their ganja throughout prohibition. We don't deserve this in the era of legalization. And in order for cannabis to be a "safer alternative," we need it to be comparable in price to beer. A six pack should be more costly than an eighth. 

Free-the-Weed
Free-the-Weed

LIES! LIES! LIES!

Brian Vicente is one of the biggest LIARS in the state - worse than the DEA themselves! First, he promotes A64 as "legalization" and an "end to prohibition", when in reality it has resulted in more than 200 pages of new marijuana laws in the state (with penalties still to be announced.) Then, he promotes A64 as "like alcohol", but supports a tax more than 30 times the average tax on alcohol! He also supported the 5ng THC/DUI standard, which will make it so much easier to lock people up for cannabis crimes. How on earth does this person think that anyone believes anything he says?

Vicente willingly admits that they need the new taxes TO PAY FOR MORE POLICE!!! Oh, except now he calls the "regulators", but they still carry a gun and they can still arrest you for any crime under the laws of the state. Vincente's TAX will create the LARGEST POLICE FORCE in Colorado history -- the new "Marijuana CRIMINAL Enforcement Division."

How can he call it "legalization" when we are getting MORE POLICE, MORE LAWS, MORE HANDCUFFS and MORE PENALTIES for pot crimes? Not one marijuana criminal offense has been erased from the books under A64, and the LIES CONTINUE!!!

Look at the lies still to this day on the Sensible website: "Together, we have made history, ending 75 years of marijuana prohibition under Colorado law. It means that you, your friends and your loved ones who use cannabis for recreational purposes are no longer processed as criminals by our state."
http://sensiblecolorado.org/besensible/

"Ending prohibition"???? Oh, except for those that have 1.00000001 ounces of weed, or those that have 7 plants, or anyone under 21 or anyone without an RFID chip on their weed.

"No longer processed as criminals"???? Oh, except for those that have 1.00000001 ounces of weed, or those that have 7 plants, anyone under 21, and anyone with 5ng of THC in their blood after their blood is forcibly extracted by the police, with Vicente's approval. 

These LIES HAVE TO END!!! Please write to the Pueblo County Commissioners, who hired Vicente as a consultant and who therefore help funds these LIES and ask them to FIRE VICENTE immediately.

http://county.pueblo.org/form/contact-us

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear Pueblo County Commissioners:

Brian Vicente, the consultant you hired to advise you on the new marijuana laws, is a proven liar and should be fired! He lied about A64 being "legalization" and an "end to prohibition" as many cannabis crimes continue to be enforced to this day. He lied that A64 would regulate cannabis "like alcohol", as alcohol is not tracked with RFID chips and is not limited to sales of one ounce at a time. Vicente is actively supporting the Prop. AA tax issue, which will create taxes that are more than 30x higher than the alcohol tax. Vicente supports hiring more police to go after marijuana users. It says right on his website that people who use cannabis will "no longer processed as criminals by our state". He knows this is a LIE! Anyone who has 1.0000001 ounces of cannabis, or 7 plants, or who is under 21, or who has 5ng of THC in their blood, will all still be "processed as criminals by the state." Please stop funding this LIAR who is attacking and misleading ALL cannabis consumers and businesses in the state. Pueblo County can no longer afford to pay for this liability and should stop supporting these LIES!!!!

http://county.pueblo.org/form/contact-us

JimTom
JimTom

Anybody that pays the cartel a dime for weed is an idiot. If you don't know someone growing it  takes about a minute to find one. anyone that supports this bullshit A64 cartel controlled weed sales is going to get what they voted for, highly overpriced and taxed trash weed. It is a shame there are so many idots in this state that will just go ahead and waste their money on this bullshit cartel controlled by the few that had the money to make sure they retained control of the "legal" weed market. I have some real frosty shit ready for harvest this week and if you knew me you could get it for less than cartel pricing and TAX FREE.

Monkey
Monkey

Between the 10% state sales tax and additional local sales tax, consumers of warehouse weed will pay at least 15% on every purchase, until they raise the tax next year. If these consumers spend $750 on weed per year, they will be paying more money in taxes per year than they would have spent on a $100 possession ticket per year, back when they did that. I've possessed over an ounce for the last 25 years, and have never received such a ticket. 

So, it's like paying a possession ticket for every 3 ounces you buy in a retail store. That's less than a month supply for me. Instead of paying the government when/if you get caught, now you pay them every time you buy it. Is that privilege worth the price? Grow your own, or pay someone with skill to do it for you, and avoid all taxes and tickets. The only ones in favor of additional taxes are those in the industry, the rest of us are free to ignore an industry that wants us to pay for their regulations, and vote no.

Us stoners used to say, overgrow the government. Now that we've done that, and can continue to do so without threats from local police, the new saying is, overgrow the industry, because they want to tax us for small amounts of weed more than the government/police ever did.

Che Harness
Che Harness

That's not true. But I used to pay more than twice what I do now because of black market value. From that perspective, this excessive tax rate seems fine. Other than that it is just criminal, and I don't believe in a governments right to tax "undesirable behavior". As far as I'm concerned, legislators who didn't actively fight against complete prohibition, for the past 4 decades need to have their bank accounts confiscated for violating people civil rights on this issue. But I'll compromise and just settle for legality and the same advertising and sales rights that apply to every other product this country sells.

stuka1
stuka1

"There is simply vocal opposition from a very limited group of individuals."

That is a lie.

 "Sure, no one likes paying taxes,"

This isn't about having to pay taxes. This is about the legislature attempting to foist outrageous taxes on The People.


" This is especially true if you are given a free joint as part of the pitch."

The free joint ploy has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 "This is a question of whether marijuana will or won't be available in retail stores for consumers to purchase safely."

 BULLSHIT.  The stores will open January 1st whether the outrageous taxes pass or not.  Vicente is making an obvious feint at EX-legislator' John Morse's  attempt to blackmail the people into passsing this tax.  A64 IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THIS BULLSHIT TAX PASSING. DON'T LET ANYONE LIE TO YOU ABOUT THIS.

 

"The federal government has said that they will not interfere with our regulated system if -- and only if -- we demonstrate that there are 'necessary resources' to enforce the regulations. That is what Proposition AA will provide.:

 THAT IS A LIE.  Regulation is provided for in A64 by the licensing fees that shops pay. END OF FUCKING STORY. ANYTHING ELSE IS PILE-ON, ADD-ON GREED.

"It will protect our regulated system from federal interference."

THAT IS A LIE. VICENTE HAS FALLEN IN WITH THE LYING PROHIBITIONIST FEAR-MONGERS WHO CLAIM THAT THE FEDS WILL STEP IN IF YOU DON'T PAY TAXES THROUGH YOUR ASS. IT'S A LIE.


"the fringe opponents to Proposition AA may feel good about their principled stance against any tax on marijuana, but they simply don't seem to understand..."

 Opponents to Prop AA are NOT "the fringe" at all.  The American people do not take kindly to frivolous and punitive taxes being levied upon us.

 "that they may be throwing out the buds with the bong water."

What a pathetic, stupid, idiotic thing to say. 

 "Of course, we have seen this act before and know that the sentiments only run so deep," 

More wishful thinking.

"Miguel Lopez was one of the most vocal opponents of Amendment 64, yet was one of the first people to celebrate the initiative becoming law on the steps of the Capitol."

It seems to escape this idiot that the people celebrate LEGALIZATION, and A64 was the only legalization measure on the ballot.   Arrogant as hell to thins we celebrate the highly flawed A64, rather than LEGALIZATION itself.

"Maybe after Proposition AA passes, he will be one of the first people in line to pay for a regulated gram of marijuana."

Same thing.  Vicente has gone off the rails  Is he on the Turdstone's payroll now?  He sure as fuck talks like it.


 

 

Che Harness
Che Harness

Regulate it like alcohol doesn't mean tax it excessively because you don't like how the vote turned out.

Corey Donahue
Corey Donahue

Welcome back to the black market, I will be selling year round tax free!!!!

Steven M Palmer
Steven M Palmer

10 years ago you people would have gladly paid 100% tax on weed if they allowed it. Now you've got weed and you're bitching about high taxes on it?

Mile_Hi_Dave
Mile_Hi_Dave

"There isn't growing opposition to the tax measure," he writes via e-mail. "There is simply vocal opposition from a very limited group of individuals."


Really?  I know a whole bunch of folks and we are definitely not on the "fringe'", people that didn't even attend the BS "protest", that will be voting NO on this.  We don't mind paying taxes, but the greed has gotten in the way...  How many employees does the LCB have?  At what cost??  The taxes the voters agreed to is enough to give schools $40M, not to fund every other thing on the legislators'/council members wish lists!!!

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@groundskeeperwilly You're seriously disturbed. "You potheads don't get your cake and eat it too."

  • Not everyone who has a use for pot is a "pothead." In fact, some of us are patients who gave up on the medical system because it got fascist on us. A64 will allow us to remain under the RADAR and keep our medicine.
  • What is this "cake" you speak of? The right to put what we want into our bodies? We're reversing damage from 75 years ago!
  • Regardless of what the activity is we're talking about, confiscatory taxation is out of line, and it's just as bad for any other substance. This is a place to draw the line. Your response could be seen as "slave on slave violence," where you're angry because the other slaves aren't whipped as hard as you are. Not wanting a pile of taxes doesn't make it "anti-tax." As I posted elsewhere, they shouldn't have gotten greedy, and should have written a ballot measure for the 15% excise tax that was originally advertised (and I'm pretty sure everyone would have accepted the going rate for a sales tax.)


As for the having all pot laws dropped, I agree--especially at the federal level, where the government is harder to keep in check. 

I have no idea why you claim "the cost of tax protests is the criminal element." Tax protests always come with confiscatory taxation. It's sad taxpayers have let taxation get as bad as it is. If taxes were only around 10% of our expenses, I don't think anyone could complain, and as one Christian put it, "Why should I give the state any more money than I give God?"

For what it's worth, I did not vote for A64 because I predicted this sort of fiasco. Never give the government odd jobs. You'll find they consistently redefine the job and deliver something entirely different than called for at a much higher cost than expected--a cost not measured merely in taxation.

JDGM
JDGM

@KathleenChippiwhat was the question?

Was it --  Would you vote yes to tax pot?

or was it  -  Would you vote yes on a 25%-30% tax on pot? 

The question always was would you support up to 30 percent taxes. It was right there in the language people voted on. If the voters didn't read what they voted on it's their fault for being willfully ignorant.


The lack of personal responsibility in your little world is frightening.

Pete420
Pete420

@Cognitive_Dissident Wonder why Vincente would say something like that? It certainly does seem like he is trying to scare voters into voting for Prop. AA Here is what the Blue Book, that will go out to voters in October, says about that issue:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742
"Regardless of whether the measure passes, beginning on January 1, 2014, existing medical marijuana stores will be eligible for a retail marijuana license unless a city or county has imposed a ban."

Now who is lying, the state election group that wrote the Blue Book, or Brian Vincente?

Free-the-Weed
Free-the-Weed

@Monkey Yes, and under Vicente's regime, we will have the LARGEST POLICE FORCE IN COLORADO HISTORY! They are not going to be counting RFID chips, they are going to be going after growers like Monkey and other cannabis users who have the audacity to be "non-compliant" with the new "legalization" scheme. NO MORE FUNDING FOR POT COPS!!!

JDGM
JDGM

@stuka1

"Miguel Lopez was one of the most vocal opponents of Amendment 64, yet was one of the first people to celebrate the initiative becoming law on the steps of the Capitol."

It seems to escape this idiot that the people celebrate LEGALIZATION, and A64 was the only legalization measure on the ballot.

No, Miguel said all along that 64 wasn't legalization, yet he was still one of the first to be on national TV celebrating 64's victory for what it was: 64s Victory. He's a fucking hypocrite waffle and the only people who will listen to him are brain-dead burnouts for the promise of a free joint. He's an opportunist, not an activist.

stuka1
stuka1

@Steven M Palmer "10 years ago you people would have gladly paid 100% tax on weed if they allowed it."

Bullshit. 

"Now you've got weed and you're bitching about high taxes on it?"

Wrong.  We are going to shitcan this proposal come November.  And why are you here crying because A64 passed?  Don't you have something better to do than troll here?

Monkey
Monkey

@Steven M Palmer You're a fucking idiot! 

BillyDean
BillyDean

@Mile_Hi_Dave But but but...I thought this was supposed to be the golden goose? 

That fact that you didn't see this coming just shows how poorly thought out this whole movement was.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

"requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana"


I see an excise tax.


"TAXED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO ALCOHOL"


One wouldn't expect a far greater tax than on alcohol.


"THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT AN EXCISE TAX TO BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED BY A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY TO A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE AT A RATE NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PERCENT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2017 AND AT A RATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THEREAFTER"


I see a tax--an excise tax--of less than 15% to start. This is what I believe anyone who read it expected. I don't know what lies were told. All my quotes come directly from A64 language.

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@JDGM @KathleenChippi  

Ignorance abound, but not over here.  See, A64 doesn't contain a 30% excise tax.  Try reading section 5 (D).  Apparently you don't know what you voted against.

5  (d) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT AN EXCISE TAX TO BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED BY A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY TO A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE AT A RATE NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PERCENT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2017 AND AT A RATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF ALL TAXES LEVIED. PROVIDED, THE FIRST FORTY MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE RAISED ANNUALLY FROM ANY SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE FUND CREATED BY ARTICLE 43.7 OF TITLE 22, C.R.S., OR ANY SUCCESSOR FUND DEDICATED TO A SIMILAR PURPOSE. PROVIDED FURTHER, NO SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA INTENDED FOR SALE AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.

Aside from the fact that an EXCISE tax of up to 15% is mentioned, A64 was not TABOR compliant so no tax was actually voted on by the people. 

And an EXCISE tax on ANY federally illegal substance is constitutionally infirm.  Case law says it's illegal to even go to ballot.  

Too bad the general assembly maxed out the excise # and then added another 10-15% SIN TAX and got greedy. 

"The lack of personal responsibility in your little world is frightening."  

What does that even mean?  You understand I campaigned against A64 for the last 2 years?  From BEFORE their title board hearings and on?  Please educate yourself before you try to sound 'smart' on a blog.  

Clearly your post shows you haven;t read the constitution or can;t understand it and you have no clue who I am. 


JDGM
JDGM

@KathleenChippi"Initially they thought the excise tax for schools had passed when 64 passed."

Then it is the voter's fault for not understanding how Colorado law works. 

You can't really believe that people don't have a responsibility on their own to research the things they vote on or that it's entirely the fault of the campaign if people aren't smart enough to do some research into the laws they vote to regulate themselves. 

stuka1
stuka1

@JDGM   You can hate on Lopez all you want, I don't care.  *I* said "the people".  

"....and the only people who will listen to him are brain-dead burnouts for the promise of a free joint."

You seem to be listening to him. Or do you base your judgment of what he says and does on complete ignorance?

JimTom
JimTom

@stuka1 It will be great to see A64 repelled because it can't be pay for itself.

stuka1
stuka1

@BillyDean   We saw this bullshit coming.  I and a lot of other folks voted for A64 KNOWING that we could shitcan any and all extraneous and frivolous bullshit taxes under TABOR. Go cry over the failure of prohibition somewhere else.

stuka1
stuka1

@JDGM   Go fuck yourself, punkass. You don't speak for what I intended to say, and I wasn't "trying" to say anything other than exactly what I said.  Go play on the fucking train tracks with JuanLeg.

JDGM
JDGM

@stuka1

Bullshit. You were trying to say that MIguel was celebrating "legalization" then backpedaled hard when called out on it by trying to explain that you weren't arguing for Miguel, you were arguing for everyone else that celebrated (which wasn't the topic of the conversation)

Quit acting like a little bitch and own up to your ignorance and mistakes for once.

stuka1
stuka1

@Drew  Excuse me?  JD threw a strawman at me and I responded.  Nothing at all to "calm down" about. Go mind your own fucking business, troll.

Drew
Drew

@stuka1

Calm down. Just because the donkey is gone doesn't mean you have to fill his aggro little troll shoes.

hbogey31
hbogey31

@stuka1

@JimTom

English is a figurative language; you seemed to figure the fuck out what he was trying to say so please STFU grammar Nazi. These are forums for “comments” not novels or even articles, comments dipshit, that's all, grammar is not relevant as long as you get the message.

JimTom
JimTom

@stuka1 @JimTom Funny how you always understand what I am trying to say and never have a rebutal.

stuka1
stuka1

@JimTom   Perhaps you were trying to say "grammar"...? 

PS: Punctuation saves lives!

Let's eat Grandma!

Let's eat, Grandma!

JimTom
JimTom

@Drew I guess the issue is grammer not the tax issue.

stuka1
stuka1

@Drew JimTom doesn't put much stock in facts. hth

Drew
Drew

@JimTomA64 won't be repealed if the tax measure isn't passed. Please try and pay attention if you're going to try and discuss the situation.

stuka1
stuka1

@JimTom   It will be great to see you get to a remedial English course, as your grammar and usage is repelling. Of course, I can understand if you can't be pay for it. 

stuka1
stuka1

@JDGM  I voted for the only legalization measure on the ballot, you fucking idiot. What is this 30% bullshit you are babbling about?  Did you even read the amendment, moron?

JDGM
JDGM

@stuka1 So you voted FOR up to 30 percent in taxes, but never really intended for that to happen. Be sure and remember that next time a politician fails to live up to their promises and you feel like complaining.



Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...