Denver MJ ''Smokeout' Is Mellow - No Riots or Mass Murders!

As most of us expected, the 4/20 annual marijuana smokeout occurred uneventfully yesterday with thousands gathered peacefully in a sun-drenched Denver Park, to the rhythms of trip-hop music played through booming speakers. Perhaps a third or more were tourist MJ users, who made the pilgrimage to Denver to partake of legalized weed (though, technically, it isn't supposed to be used out in the open - only in your little domicile.).  

As of 5 p.m. Sunday, Denver police had written only  47 marijuana-consumption citations. On Saturday, they issued 22 pot tickets. Though signs warned against smoking out in the open and organizers instructed people not to puff up, the predictable cloud of marijuana smoke arose like clockwork at 4:20 p.m Sunday.  Clearly, the laws that specifically forbid pot smoking in the park were not being enforced, and even the normally staid Denver Post proclaimed: "And that is how it should be at a pot rally with tens of thousands of people."  Indeed!

Despite the rising MJ mushroom puff cloud, the world didn't stop, the crowd didn't suddenly become a riotous mass of stoners, nor did they mutate into mass murdering zombies - as some hysterical voices predicted. (This, after a father of three shot and killed his wife in a tony Denver suburb three days ago, after consuming marijuana candy. More on this below). Nor did masses of the stoned climb up to the top of  buildings and dive off. (This was forecast after an African college student consumed a whole MJ cookie a few weeks ago and jumped off a four story landing.)

 Short of mayhem and suicide, the Nervous Nellies  fretted that the  nation's press would flock to the rally and photos from the big smoke-out would become the iconic image of Denver as they circulated around the web and the 24/7 cable world.. But lo and behold, Denver did not become a laughingstock and police didn't barge into the crowd to write $150 citations to anyone and everyone they could nab.

By all accounts this first major smoke out since Amendment 64 passed went even better than the most optimistic could forecast. The event, originally heralded as a rally for marijuana rights,   was really a celebration. Activists numbered among the crowd and they still believe there are matters to protest surrounding pot, even with legalization (such as whether Colo. employers can fire workers who smoke MJ on their own time, and whether landlords can prohibit it). But few who came to the park on Saturday and Sunday seemed to have activism in mind. This was a victory dance and one that will be taken note of in other U.S. cities.

"Give us this one day," said Lily Berryman, 18, of Fort Collins, who sported marijuana leaf sunglasses.

"Weed smokers aren't the type to get up all in your face," she said. "We do it at home or behind closed doors. So we just want this one day to smoke and have fun."

 This may well be so but issues still need to be dealt with in terms of MJ  content standardization, especially of edibles like cookies and candies. Also, more high profile warnings need to be made about mixing pot edibles with prescription drugs.  This came to light after a 44 year old mother of three was shot in the head several days ago even while she was on the phone to 911 reporting her husband's aberrant behavior.

Her husband had not long before purchased a bag of MJ candies and gobbled them down, despite having taken a powerful pain killer earlier.  Suddenly he went into hallucination mode - thought he saw "demons", and begged his wife to take the gun from his hand and shoot him. We don't know exactly what he saw but it's a good bet the mixture of drugs, THC and his weapon didn't add up to anything pleasant. Suddenly, as his wife reported to 911 he was pointing the gun at her, and he fired it. Since that incident, shrill warnings have erupted about MJ's dangers ....and maybe legalization wasn't such a great idea after all.

Which, of course, is nonsense, since the same thing could have occurred had the guy downed a fifth of Bourbon and mixed it with the same drugs. But when these alcohol-related incidents occur you barely hear about them,

The other aspect that needs to be addressed is the matter of standardizing potency of all edibles, in terms of the active MJ component, THC.  For example, the African college student had come to Colorado to partake of an edible MJ cookie, with his mates. He (and they) were warned by the store proprietor that each cookie contained 6 1/2 servings - based on the active component, THC. Hence, they were advised to break each cookie into six pieces and consume only one piece at a time. The college student instead took the whole cookie back to his room and gobbled it. (He had claimed he felt no effects, so kept on eating  -not waiting for the effects to surface).  He was unable to sleep properly and then at some point, awakened and jumped out his fourth floor hotel window.

Both these incidents are sad, and never should have happened. But they don't prove that Amendment 64 was a bad law, or that MJ stores ought to now be shuttered and banned. What they do show is that people need to show more discretion in their consumption of these products, and those who make them need to take more care to ensure the same amount of THC in an MJ cookie, is also disclosed in an MJ candy, and that proper lab tests have been conducted to ensure the quality is the same. Something is amiss if a person is left hallucinating after taking a half an MJ candy with 10 mg THC, but his bud has nothing happen to him having consumed the same. (In some recent press reports proprietors have admitted that the potency can and does vary wildly.)

New users, especially, have been advised to take it easy, especially with edibles.

Meanwhile, both wifey and I have agreed we've no intention to try anything "out of curiosity" or "to see what it's like".  We have our own 'drugs' of choice, namely ice cream and biscotti nibbles - with our coffee each morning.

That is about as radical as we plan to get, though we do wish the state's MJ experiment the best in proving to the nation it can work.

Mail Brane: Readers Seeking Answers to Questions

Q. I hope you can help! My husband, age 38, had  been diagnosed 2 years ago with aggressive prostate cancer (classified adenocarcinoma with stage T2(c) in biopsy) and had to have the radical prostatectomy or so he was told. The urologist told him he would need to begin penile rehabilitation as soon as the Foley catheter was removed but he refused. He said the pain was still too unbearable after the surgery and couldn't bear any erections from Viagra or whatever. To make a long story short his initial resistance to penile rehab - such as you described in your October 14 blog last year- became hardened. Gradually, he became incapable of getting any erections and his penis deformed. Much like you described. What can be done? Anything? - Barbara B., Orlando FL

A. At this stage it's doubtful since if the therapy isn't done soon after surgery and erections are allowed to lapse as you described, the tissue damage - due to lack of consistent blood flow - becomes permanent. There may be some surgery that can correct the deformation (I presume you mean the U-shape that Dr. John Mulhall describes in his book that I referenced in that Oct. blog) but the urologist would have to weigh in on that. This, of course, is a cautionary tale that those who have radical prostate surgery need to follow this  with penile rehab as soon as possible, though yes, there may be some residual pain. Your question also seems to imply that a radiation therapy treatment might have been better, but generally at the stage you described (T2c) it isn't an option.  Also, remember the effects of radiation increase over time, as tissues become hardened by the delayed radiation impact. This is also why it's essential to remain sexually active, whatever mechanism is employed.

Q. I was disheartened to read in your July 24 post that Colorado Springs had opted out of the marijuana retail business! Don't they know how much money they are losing? Are there any counties in the state that plan to implement the retail businesses? How many have opted out so far? - Clint, Pompano Beach FL

A. At last count some 57 communities in the state had opted out, but 21 remain in play -seeking rational ways to implement legal guidelines for MJ retail stores. Among those latter are Denver, and Aurora, CO. Almost to a tee, the opt- outs are in conservative counties, though they seem to forget they are flouting the voters' will by their opt out (and in many of those counties, Amendment 64 passed!)  I believe they might well pay at the polls next time any of the respective city council members come up for re-election. It never pays to piss off the voters! The mistake was probably making any "opt out" part of Amendment 64 in the first place. It gave too facile a way to deal with the nettlesome problem of how to regulate, where the controls would be and the level of taxation. It was a cheap way out, a cop out. So, I guess cities like Colorado Springs will have to keep on getting revenue from other sources, say like becoming or staying top national speed traps.

Q. Thanks for your post on being child free! (Aug. 18th). My husband and I were delighted to read and now feel much better about our childless choice. But how do you deal with nosey people that persistently inquire why we're childless? It really bugs me! - Delores, Sioux City, IA

A. Tell them: "Mind your own business, please!  Haven't you enough to do with your own time as opposed to meddling in others' lives".

Q. I've been wanting to join Mensa for a long time, but none of my past standardized tests (SAT in 1995, GRE in 2002) have been found acceptable. I dread taking the actual Mensa test because I hear it's a lot harder. Is this true? What can I expect? - Ricardo, Mt. Shasta, CA

A. It's not that big a deal. Below is an image from the U.S. Mensa site showing some of those taking a recent test.

The Mensa Admission Test takes two hours to complete and includes two tests featuring questions involving logic and deductive reasoning. If you score at or above the 98th percentile on either of the two tests, you'll qualify and be invited to join Mensa. Score below....well I understand there is a 5% society (The International High IQ Society) that accepts entrants at the 95th percentile level.

If you'd like a practice test (always a good idea) you can also get an idea if you're Mensa level by taking the home test, e.g. https://www.us.mensa.org/join/mht/

A more dated (1989) example which doesn't cost anything to see or assess can be found at this link:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-01-04/entertainment/8902220824_1_typists-chickens-eggs

Another shorter version with "Mensa-style" questions and answers:
http://www.agincourtpractice.co.uk/resources/mensa.htm

Q. I get a real kick out of your loopy brother (Mike) who thinks he's a Confederate raider or something. On clicking at the entry link to his blog on your August 8 post I see he always tries to appear this homespun dude with this "My friends" stuff. Who's he trying to fool? He's not friends with anyone! You just have to read his crappy blogs to see how disturbed he is. Any take on if and when he might change his blog again to be more tolerant? Also, what is this guy's damage? Was he dropped on his head as a kid?, Murray T., Norman, Oklahoma

A. I do agree that his 'my friends' intros are a bit over played. He likes to portray himself as this down home, relaxed type of southern dude but his own words and hateful content betray him. He's a raging maniac underneath the soft soap veneer, calling people "apes" (mainly blacks), "libtards", "c*nts" or worse.  As for being dropped on his head, no. But maybe in one too many fights where he took as many blows to the head as he delivered. We know, from looking at the NFL football head injuries that have come to the fore (e.g. Junior Seau), that repeated blows can have deleterious effects on the brain. This can lead to erratic behavior.  As for changing again, I could care less if he does or doesn't. It's his choice to make, and he has to deal with who and what he is. As an aside, it's really goofy and misplaced how he often makes lame invocations of our dad, when dad detested everything about Mike's hateful blog when he was alive.

Q. You mentioned doing a blog post soon on JFK and how he challenged the national security state. When can we expect it? Desmond, Portland, OR

A. That post is still in the process of preparation, as I'm juggling that with completing a book, that's due to launch in about 4 weeks, maybe sooner. The title is 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'  (to be published by iUniverse) and will be my final entry in my atheist series, showing how a rational atheism can lead to a Materialist conception of Being. Meanwhile, I am also trying to re-organize a science fiction novel on the Kennedy assassination, entitled, The Lancer Expedition. If all goes well it should be out by Nov. 1st, but hopefully sooner!

Q. When can we expect more interviews with your delightful sister-in-law Krimhilde? (Aug. 12 post) She has me considering joining Eckankar. - Molly D., London, UK

A. The next interview will probably be when I see Krimhilde again, perhaps next Spring. Will keep readers posted!

CO Springs City Council Punks Out of MJ Retail Shops

Despite all their bloviations, and professing "respecting the will of Colorado voters", five sellout political whores on the Colorado Springs City Council punked out yesterday and canceled out of any plans to set up marijuana retail shops.  Note these were basically the same lot that some months earlier approved fracking operations - thereby setting the stage for likely contamination of the COS water supply, while wasting tens of millions of gallons in a severe drought region. WTF is wrong with these assholes? Especially as Pueblo, to the south, approved the MJ retail shops and will now reap the mammoth tax largesse to help its community that the conserve morons to the north have foregone.

Residents of the Springs (and note the Amendment 64 vote passed in El Paso County that harbors the Springs back in November) will now travel to Pueblo to get their MJ, and btw, that will include the military that the local anti-MJ yokels are trying to protect. (The meme pumped by the cave-ins was that the local Military had insisted the retail shops be voted down. Look for their denizens to get stoked on more alcohol now, with more fistfights, brawls and fired rounds outside the night clubs near Tejon St. downtown!)


Protestors scream in protest in front of City Hall yesterday - the Council ignored them.

"Stunned" is the only word to describe local citizens - who saw again how the local Military complex spat on their votes - after the 5-4 vote to ban retail marijuana sales in Colorado Springs was read into the record.  Meanwhile, "strong" Tool, errrr.......Mayor Steven Bach, bellowed that this just had to be done or the city would "lose jobs". In fact, the city hasn't gained any jobs to speak of in years since its tech enclave collapsed ca. 2003 and hundreds had to find alternative work at Safeway or Walmart. With less money earned, the tax base shriveled up.

The only jobs the city has actually added have been military, which we need like a hole in the head.  These guys spend all right- mainly at the Px. At least 15,000 new military have been added since 2009 (mainly transfers from Ft. Hood, TX) and all they've done is drain city resources resulting in budget deficits, closed - shuttered schools, doused street lamps, weed-overgrown medians, and clogged roads - also worn down more often by the heavier traffic. The MJ retail shops offered a way to add badly needed revenues outside the military orbit, but the five assholes on City Council who voted against it decided to spit on the voters of the state.

 Subsequently, fifty proponents of MJ retail sales stormed out, with some angrily yelling, "I hope you're happy." The implication clearly being that we will see even more local deficits now, more streets unpaved, more street lights turned off and more schools closed. How stupid can local repukes be? Pretty fucking stupid! Especially as a number of them trotted out the canard that if approved, "a seedy element" would be attracted to the Springs. I have news for these dopes, without the affirming vote a black market and TRUE seedy element will take over, likely with MJ bought in Pueblo being resold here at higher prices on the sly.  Oh, and more Mexican cartel presence competing!

The decision came down to council member Val Snider, who was the swing vote to ban retail marijuana sales in the city - a surprise to proponents of Amendment 64. Snider had kept his views on the issue close to the vest over the past months and during recent public hearings. Snider, an at-large city council member, said he could not reconcile the conflict of allowing retail pot sales with federal law, which lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance.   This is a true copout since Obama has already gone on record saying that Justice Dept. would not interfere in state's amendments, laws passed by voters. It would be stupid to do so anyway, creating  a major liability for the political party associated with it.

Snider also claimed that allowing pot to be sold over the counter would send the wrong message to youth. This also is bollocks, since youth are already using tons of stuff - including alcohol, parents' meds and hair spray -all of which  they prefer over MJ, because of lower cost.  The only message Snider is sending to kids is that he believes they are as stupid as he is.


"Bottom line, I'm not convinced we need to make it more accessible," he said.

Bottom line, I think your time as a Council member is soon gonna end!

Colorado voters in November approved Amendment 64, which allows adults over 21 to possess one ounce of marijuana for recreational use. The law also allows stores to sell marijuana and other products made with marijuana, with a city's approval. Already more than 20 Colorado cities and towns - including Woodland Park, Green Mountain Falls and Castle Rock - have opted not to allow such sales.  All these have chosen to spit on the will of voters, and make no mistake, there will be a reckoning at the next election!


Council members Jan Martin and Jill Gaebler disagreed with Bach's take that approval would be a "job killer" , saying retail marijuana stores would create jobs.

"We want to bring economic development to this city - we can do that by having a vibrant downtown," Gaebler said.

"The younger generation has a vision of what the city should look like. We can do something different and special."

She meant different from the expansive military presence that dominates the city, from Fort Carson in the east to Peterson AFB and the Air Force Academy.  The city, indeed, embodies the meaning of the "military industrial complex" since it has tossed its hat in the ring with ever expanded military funds for useless wars. Now with the sequester, that spigot is drying up, and at least MJ offered an alternative.  Martin said she could not imagine making a decision that went against the voters of Colorado and Colorado Springs. She said Colorado Springs had an opportunity to be a leader.

"We did it with medical marijuana - cities all over the state look to us and our regulations," she said.

Outside the  council chambers, proponents of Amendment 64 stood disappointed. They had rallied outside City Hall with signs and chants and they gave passionate testimony, often quoting historic figures on the Constitution and citizen rights. But it wasn't enough to sway five council members.

"To see two at-large council members throw the vote of the community under the bus, I'm disappointed and angry," said Mark Slaugh, owner of iComply, a business that helps medical marijuana dispensaries follow state regulations.

Slaugh said the ban meant lost jobs and lost taxes for the city.

"It means we maintain the status quo, which hasn't been the greatest image from the outside looking in," he said.


Shaking off the sting of the vote, some proponents of Amendment 64 said they won't let the issue die. They could force it to a ballot in November 2014, which is allowed under the state law, said Jason Warf, legislative director for Colorado Springs Medical Cannabis Council.

"The city has woken a sleeping giant," he said. "I think we will see a lot of citizens up in arms. Going against the will of the voters, no matter what the subject, is never a big hit."

As I said, these dopes who voted in the negative will pay at the polls. Also, all the tools around the state that helped circumscribe the will of voters will see their terms soon ending.

You can make book on it!

ANTI-MJ Crusaders Busted By Misusing Academic Paper

Well, who would have thought? Barely a few weeks earlier the austerity fetishists were busted for trying to promote an academic paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff to justify massive spending cuts. But hey - it turned out the paper was flawed and the two turkeys that penned it didn't even know how to use a freakin' Excel Spreadsheet! (See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/04/reinhart-rogoffs-fuzzy-spreadsheet-math.html.

Now we also learn one of the leading anti-MJ groups in Colorado (Smart Colorado) has been similarly busted by attempting to invoke another academic paper to support overturning Amendment 64.

Like the austerity hawks (who btw would have trotted out 'Simpson -Bowles II' two weeks ago except the Boston marathon bombing blew them off he media's radar - since it was to have been unwrapped the same day) the scandalous anti-MJ crusaders have no shame. Diane Carlson- heading the bunch-  recently gushed:


"The latest research just confirms that marijuana proponents' promises to Colorado voters that Amendment 64 would be a financial gain to the state were empty. Even if voters approve the recreational-marijuana tax, the new pot market could be a net drain on the state's budget, the study indicates. That means funds for education, roads and other top priorities could be diverted to marijuana regulation"



Except it's all hyper-exaggerated bollocks. In fact, the study that Carlson referenced, by the Colorado Futures Center at Colorado State University, offers no serious evidence for such a claim. So it appears Carlson was swiping fairies or fairy tales out of thin air  -like a well-known knuckle dragging blogger we all know.  Denver Post columnist Vince Carroll adds (Denver Post, p. 5B today)


"It would indeed be scandalous if what the anti-Amendment 64 group said were true. ....Quite the contrary. The study actually provides estimates for annual marijuana tax revenues — $91 million from a special sales tax of 15 percent and $17.6 million from the existing 2.9 percent sales tax — that are far in excess of any conceivable regulatory or other expenditures related to legalization."


While the errors in the Colo. Futures study weren't blatant, as in the case of Reinhart-Rogoff, their omissions were definitely misleading, spawning  misuse by the rabid, anti-Amendment, anti-democracy enclaves. This arises because the Center at no point explained its report's "key finding", i.e. that "marijuana tax revenues may not cover the incremental state expenditures related to legalization,"


Indeed, columnist Carroll notes that he asked the report's authors, Charles Brown and Phyllis Resnick, for help. It turns out, according to Resnick, the finding represents more of a worry expressed by some lawmakers and members of the governor's implementation task force than any careful analysis of actual data.

In other words, the report's authors gave far too much ballast to subjective reservations by known Amendment 64 skeptics, including Hickenlooper. This isn't "research" it's a propaganda vehicle! Carroll, for his part, merits commendation for exposing what it was really about - thereby kicking the support out from under 'Smart-ass Colorado' and any other anti-MJ crusaders in the state that might consider invoking it.

Another major omission of the report, as noted by Carroll, is that it never tried to quantify overall social costs from Amendment 64. Meanwhile, as Carroll notes, there would be major social savings. He writes:


"After all, legalizing pot should reduce the number of violators processed through the courts. The Colorado Center on Law & Policy, a left-oriented group, projects "$12 million in instant savings for the year following legalization because of reduced criminal costs."

That is considerable and blows all the critiques of the anti-MJ loons into a cocked hat.

Of course, none of this should be construed to mean these anti-MJ goofballs will stop their efforts to overturn the will of voters. No, they won't do that any more than the austerity fetishists and Simpson-Bowles groupies will halt their efforts to massively cut spending! You see, it won't happen because in either case it is ideology which drives the respective agendas, not facts or hard data.

Stay tuned!

Reefer Madness Redux: Exploding Mike's Delusions About Amendment 64

Many readers may recall, or perhaps have seen,  the film "Reefer Madness" - a 1936  propaganda exploitation effort revolving around the melodramatic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try marijuana.  Their travails extend from a hit and run accident, to manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, and descent into madness.

The obvious purpose was to scare the living bejeezus out of any kid to not even think of trying "demon weed". The message was it would wreck young lives leaving them broken husks - much like modern Xtian fundamentalism has wrought on too many minds these days.


Anyway, the film was directed by Louis Gasnier and starred a cast composed of mostly unknown bit actors.

Originally it had been financed by a church group (Wouldn't ya know?) under the title "Tell Your Children". Its primary mandate was circulation and screening to parents as a  putative morality tale, attempting to teach them about the dangers of any cannabis use by their kiddies. Perhaps two decades later, any viewing of this dreck became so laughable that it emerged as a cult film - shown to audiences primarily as joke material. Which is rightly the niche to which it belongs.

Flash forward to today, and we still behold would-be propagandizing clowns - like a certain under-educated goober- who don't even bother to do minimal reearch before shooting from the hip concerning another state's MJ laws.   In this case, it seems like my dumb turd wannabe Rebel bro didn’t take long to take umbrage at my post about his MJ bloviations 3 days ago. True to his bellicose nature he came out firing…..but alas…..all scattershot, ending up hitting himself in his own fat ass.

I am not about to reference all his assorted BS, but focus in particular on two aspects:   1) His citation of lengthy recycled bollocks from a known anti-MJ crusader link about the “ill effects” of MJ on youth,  and (2) His claim that (in yesterday's blog post) I was "comparing apples and oranges" in highlighting the ill-effects, fatalities for DUI in FLA, over MJ -induced auto fatalities in Colorado.


Regarding (1), it doesn't take much Google searching even by a lamebrain to dredge up multiple anti-MJ sites (e.g. 'Smart Colorado'), then recycling their hogwash into a blog. That was essentially how Mikey consumed over two thirds of his last blog, by parroting one site and its "warnings" and  how MJ will  "tarnish" Colorado in multiple ways. All of these are exaggerated  fear- mongering Agitprop -much like "Reefer Madness"- and all have been shot down by MJ legalization backers and groups. Multiple times.  In Colo. we know such anti-MJ groups existed even before Amendment 64 became law, and I even referenced the efforts of Patrick Kennedy to form one of his own for a national campaign to halt any further state legislation to allow MJ, see: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/01/patrick-kennedy-useful-idiot-for-big.html  


I further noted that in taking this route Kennedy effectively became a useful idiot for Big PhrMA- much like Mike has become (albeit unconsciously) with his laughable anti-MJ, anti-Amendment 64 blogs. As far as the “risks” to teens, young people I cited a letter in the Denver Post which nailed such a red herring:  


“There are many freedoms adults often enjoy that are illegal for kids, including gambling, drinking, smoking, investing, driving, getting piercings and tattoos, getting married, staying out all night, going to many concerts, working a double shift, etc. Granted, many of these freedoms could be considered bad for adults, too, but the “bad for kids” trope is nothing more than a cudgel designed to stifle honest debate. An unregulated black market is most assuredly more harmful to kids than a regulated honest market, and Colorado enjoys many economic advantages from the tax revenue these freedoms bring when adults enjoy them responsibly”    


Of course, such points are way too subtle for a hammerhead like Mike! This stubborn tool- or more like a half tool and half fool, will always twist semantics to what suits his specious fundie agenda,  and bring in irrelevancies and red herrings since he lacks any argumentative ballast.


This brings up his second issue for which I insert here his nutso response from his blog, for reference:

---
"The FACT is that any would-be traveler is much more likely to be killed by a drunk in Florida than even sideswiped by an MJ user here in Colorado."

Hey, DUMBASS! That statement is true in any state! Why? DUHHHH....you idiot! Because alcohol has been legalized where MJ has NOT! When prohibition was in effect, deaths via drunk drivers were miniscule! Once it was repealed and made "legal," as time went by, alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and deaths SOARED! As did overall crime (e.g., domestic violence, robberies, murders, etc!). Y'all wanna see MORE of something negative from an abusive substance? JUST LEGALIZE IT!


Hence, if your Libtard Guv and other politicians in CO decide to keep MJ "legal," keep an eye on your state's impaired driving deaths and injury stats THEN! Okay? Then let me know what ya find! (oh yeah, toss in the stats on the overall crime rate as well)


----------------

Well, leave it to a brain damaged (at Parris Island) fucktard to restate the point I’d already made! I.e.


“Yes, the basis analog for the argument is different, but then he brought it on himself by harping on all the “ills” of pot use in Colorado – while neatly overlooking that marijuana is not the culprit in ANY state, rather alcohol is. “

But missing the boat as to the reason why! At the risk of getting even more subtle beyond his comprehension level, let me make this finer point: The WHOLE basis for Amendment 64 was the regulation of marijuana LIKE alcohol. The reason that the amendment surpassed (by a long way) the requisite number of petition signatures to get on last November's ballot -  was because intelligent people, prospective voters saw the value in this equivalent regulation, despite the fact MJ has not caused one CO fatality (all Mike’s speculations aside or taking biased factoids from his anti-MJ sites). Indeed, the virtues of pot, in NOT creating analogous DUI-type havoc on the roads, or other crimes, were largely what drove young voter turnout in the state and 2 to 1 votes for the Amendment!  In other words, DOH!!! - So long as alcohol consumption is legal in Colorado (and other states), criminalizing marijuana is fucking absurd!

In addition, people saw the economic benefits! If MJ is indeed regulated like alcohol then taxes would provide additional revenues! In a state drowning in debt because of too low state taxes, this is a godsend. In the case of Colorado Springs, for example, our medical marijuana businesses brought in nearly $1m in extra local tax revenues last year – enough to keep assorted gov’t functions going, including upkeep of parks and trails cleaned, street lights on and a few more schools open- as well as maintained. Does this matter? Ask the people who live here! One thing we DO know is that bringing in more military - as based at Ft. Carson- hasn't made a significant difference to state coffers! The drain on our schools, highways, hospitals has more than countered any tax revenue largesse.


Thus, the point this terminal idiot doesn’t grasp is that OF COURSE one is more likely to be killed in any state via DUI from excess alcohol BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHY EQUIVALENT REGULATION OF BOTH – AS DRUGS- SHOWS THERE IS LESS REASON TO BAN MJ THAN ALCOHOL! In other words, when both (legal) alcohol and MJ are forced under the same regulatory standards, then MJ wins the benefits column by a mile! (And I won't even belabor the proven benefits of cannabis for cancer patients, i.e. in finding their appetities after chemotherapy!)


But trying to explain this to a dumb, Bars 'n stars- toting wannabe Confederate (he was actually born in Milwaukee- a fact he can never change)  is like trying to explain differential calculus to ‘Sparky’ – wifey's and my  favorite backyard squirrel.


He also commits the logical fallacy of "slippery slope" when he claims if MJ is legalized across the nation, like alcohol  after prohibition – then we will all be on the highway to Hell with even more "evils", "abuses" etc.. We will have crazy MJ dopers running amuck just like drunks. But the stats again don’t support his fear mongering. We have had medical MJ for over five years now and no one is going nuts on the streets, despite the fact many more citizens likely avail themselves of it than really need it, i.e. for cancer or severe pain. But so WHAT?

As for the federal war on drugs and their prohibitions of a ‘schedule 1 substance’ even the most avid right wingers agree that all it has done is filled our prisons and at great cost, which we can no longer afford. This is also why a consistent majority of Americans support legalization for the nation. (By almost 55% to 45%)


The last irksome element of his endless gibberish is the nonsensical one that I am not entitled to be taken seriously if I cite links or info from state DMV urls to do with drunk driving stats, crimes, arrests! The reason? I never worked in law enforcement, or was a cop (like he was- though he spent most of his time beating in the heads of poor black sugar cane cutters in South Bay). But what does that have to do with the price of tea?

 In fact, the argument is as fucking stupid and deranged  as arguing that I have no right to blog on the Vietnam War, the wrongful way it was started or the atrocities committed, because I never served in the military. In like manner- though Mike is too dumb and blind to see it- his own pseudo-logic and arguments militate against him citing links to MJ from Colorado despite the fact he's: a) never been a lobbyist in the state, or b) has never been a legislator and doesn't know beans about the basis of Amendment 64. (Though again, he could learn and justify his blogs! But as in the case of evolution, the Big Bang, etc. he never does.)


In the end it's useless to try to argue or debate this character because he is totally ignorant of the basic parameters  that apply to the content of any worthwhile argument. In this case, it's the Amendment 64 basis and legalization framework - to regulate MJ like alcohol has been.  This being the case, there'll be no further engagements until he can show he can pass a basic test in logic, for which I provide a link here:

http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/08/basic-logic-test-can-fundies-even-get.html

My bet is that, like the biblical exegesis test, he will punk out. It's much easier, after all, to spout endless rubbish, ignorance and bullshit than it is to show he can truly engage on the same intellectual "battle field". Perhaps he ought to stick to the battlefields to which he's accustomed, i.e. bat and bottle fights in bars and .....with rogue gators in Lake Panosoffkee, FL.

Colorado Communities Seek to Use NIMBY Laws to Defeat Amendment 64

Barely three months after Amendment 64 passed in Colorado with nearly two thirds of the votes, one by one communities across the state are trying to peck it to death with idiotic "NIMBY" laws. This is totally nuts, plus it violates a STATE constitutional amendment. In principle, ALL these comunities are subverting the will of their own voters, and their "laws" are derelict and UNLAWFUL!  Douglas County and its associated burgs started this nonsense and has been joined by others. Now we also learn, in today's Denver Post, that the Greenwood Village City Council - undoubtedly packed with Village idiots, has jumped on the 'Ban the MJ in Our Burg' Bandwagon.

According to the Post story ('Greenwood Village Ordnance to Test Pot Legalization law'):

“An ordinance passed last month in Greenwood Village is poised to become a test case for how far cities can go to keep marijuana out of their communities after legalization.


In early January, the Greenwood Village City Council voted to ban use, possession and transportation of marijuana on city property. That is not so unusual, as numerous cities and counties have restricted marijuana after the passage of Amendment 64.

Here's the catch, though: The Greenwood Village ordinance defines city property to include all the public streets and sidewalks in the city. That makes it illegal even to drive through the city with an otherwise legal amount of marijuana in the car.


Because residents can't bring marijuana to their homes, the only way legally to possess marijuana in Greenwood Village is to grow it — and the City Council is expected to pass an ordinance soon that places strict controls on growing at home to address concerns about mold and fire hazards.

Greenwood Village City Attorney Tonya Haas Davidson said the ban is allowed under the marijuana-legalization law, which says "an entity who occupies, owns or controls property" can prohibit marijuana on that property. We own public property," she said. "So we just wrote the most restrictive ordinance we could."

And you also just landed yourself and your little burg in court, Madam! Because the parameters of the law were never intended to go THAT far- which if followed by every tinhorn town in the state, would effectively ban it everywhere and thence nullify the will of Colorado voters. In that case, we would have to deal with the reality of a fascist state!

Nor am I wrong on this, as these deluded cretins will soon learn.Brian Vicente, one of the authors of Amendment 64, said that interpretation will land Greenwood Village in court. He said streets and sidewalks aren't so much government property as public places where people should be able to exercise constitutional liberties.


"What they've done is invite inevitable, costly litigation," Vicente said. "This is a direct violation of the state constitution."

Amendment 64 legalizes use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older. It also allows for retail marijuana sales, although pot shops won't open for about another 11 months.

Cities can ban marijuana businesses, but not possession for private use, including in one’s own vehicle! This carries the community’s property rights way too far!

Why are so many communities doing this when they allow alcohol - with one hundred times the negatives of MJ -to be sold all over hell's half acre? Probably because these fools believe they are "protecting the children" when in fact the kids are likely going after dad's brandy maybe every afternoon.  City Council Member Leslie Schluter proved my point when she was quoted as saying:


"I think (marijuana) is a major threat to the welfare of especially our children!  You can't do this without making it more acceptable to those who are under age."


One of the best missives to smash the "protect the kids" codswallop was by a Denver Post letter writer 4 months ago. It was so brilliant that I saved it:

"“There are many freedoms adults often enjoy that are illegal for kids, including gambling, drinking, smoking, investing, driving, getting piercings and tattoos, getting married, staying out all night, going to many concerts, working a double shift, etc. Granted, many of these freedoms could be considered bad for adults, too, but the “bad for kids” trope is nothing more than a cudgel designed to stifle honest debate. An unregulated black market is most assuredly more harmful to kids than a regulated honest market, and Colorado enjoys many economic advantages from the tax revenue these freedoms bring when adults enjoy them responsibly. And rest assured, adults most certainly do enjoy them.


Intelligent, evidence-based arguments against passing Amendment 64 are hard to find, so these folks fall back to the emotionally charged, false argument that it’s “bad for kids.”

------

BINGO!

This letter nails it spot-on since the "kid danger" argument, which has often been resurrected lately, relies on impairing intellectual judgment by appeal to emotionalism and hysteria.

What the inveterate idiots raging against all MJ posession in the state don't grasp, is that they have effectively negated all further citizen initiatives and referenda if they succeed with their lawless laws. Because if they are allowed to side step the law in this case, it can be done in any other, for any referendum - no matter how ostensibly noble.

The people that voted for Amendment 64, which includes more than 3 in 4 who don't use it at all (we happen to believe in grass roots democracy, unlike the Nazis and their ilk against it)  must collaborate with the bill's authors and drag Greenwood Village and its Council, lawyers to court to make examples of them all. Nothing less will do and it will serve as a lesson to any and all other would be NIMBY fascists.

On the positive side: Two Greenwood  Village Council members had the intelligence and insight to vote against this bollocks. Jerry Presley was one of two council members who voted against the ordinance, and even declared the city shouldn't override the will of the state's voters. He went on:


"Any common-sense reading of Amendment 64 would say that the people, when they voted for it, did not believe the transport of marijuana on city streets should be illegal"

At least there is hope - a small amount - for some residual intelligence in the state of  Colorado. Let's hope we don't go down the low I.Q. rabbit hole of Mississippi and other secession minded states!

Advances on Many Fronts Following Passage of Colorado's MJ Law

Rep. Diana Degette has advanced the ‘Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act’ to exempt states like Colorado and Washington from the Federal Controlled Substances Act provision governing marijuana

Multiple advances are being made following the passage of Colorado's Amendment 64 on November 6th, allowing for the recreational use of marijuana (1 oz or under) for those 21 years or older. While the initial implementation phase is still about 30 days from now, legal progress is being made as lawmakers, DAs, prosecutors grasp that the PEOPLE have spoken and with a 55%-45%  clarity FOR recreational use and state regulated retail outlets.

Among the more noteworthy initiatives with possible national implications is U.S. Rep. Diana Degette's bipartisan legislation, introduced on Friday which would ensure the marijuana-legalization passing states are not overrun by federal interlopers seeking to overturn the laws ('DeGette Pushes Pot Bill', The Denver Post', Nov. 17, p. 4A). As Ms. Degette put it:

"My constituents have spoken and I don't want the federal government denying money to Colorado or taking other punitive steps that would undermine the will of our citizens."

Bingo! And I imagine this savvy lawmaker also grasps that any such draconian strategies will not be lost on the many youth who voted for the Amendment - as well as Obama and the Dems! 

Degette's legislation is coined 'The Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act'. 

Never mind the 'States' Rights' misnomer (states actually have prerogatives, not rights) the bill seeks to exempt states that have legalized pot from the marijuana provisions of the Federal Controlled Substances Act.  Interestingly, even one of the most conservative Republicans in Colorado, Rep. Mike Coffman, now stands behind the act where he once opposed it (prior to the election). As he noted (ibid.):

"I strongly opposed the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters given the passage of this initiative, and so I feel obliged to support this legislation."

All very noble and sincere-sounding, but I suspect a more powerful underlying reason is he saw the pro-initiative votes at 55% and realized they were more than most congressional reps up for re-election received, on either side of the aisle. Hence, those who joust against the implementation of the initiative are liable to be punished later - with their parties - at the polls!

Meanwhile, Degette's proposed legislation comes on the same day a handful of members from the state's congressional delegation were part of a coalition of lawmakers who sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to respect the new voter-approved laws in Colorado and Washington. In the letter, as the Post noted, all the lawmkers wrote that:

"it would be a mistake for the federal government to 'focus enforcement action on individuals whose actions are in compliance with state law".


Indeed. Of course, the subtext to that is Mr. Holder and his DOJ also showing they respect the rights of the voters proper.

As The Denver Post noted in its editorial 2 days ago, contrary to Gov. Hickenlooper's jokey take after 64's passage ("Let's not all go for the goldfish and cheetos now!") the citizens who voted for 64 were not loopy stoners, but stone-cold sober citizens who understood the prosecution of petty drug possession is a waste of resources, and additionally only adds terrible costs to not only enforcement but incarceration. Beyond that, it's hypocritical given MJ has not caused ONE single death while alcohol use in the state has caused hundreds of DUI incidents, more than half with fatalities. Beyond that, we all recognized that the legalized product in addition to the medical MJ dispensaries, provides badly needed revenues to the tune of over $170m a year.

Interestingly, 'Hick' (who has interests in a brew co.) wrote a letter to AG Holder, co-signed with Colorado AG John Suthers, not defending the voters' will like Diana Degette, but opting for a craven pitch that "emphasized punitive actions the feds could take like 'blocking the implementation of Amendment 64' and 'prosecuting growth and retail operations'" ('Kowtowing to Federal Authority', Vince Carroll in The Denver Post, today, p. 3D). Anyone wanna bet that Hick's tenure may not be overly long if he goes along with such a cowardly tack?

Finally, Degette's and Colorado lawmakers move comes two days after Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett made headlines when he announced his office "will dismiss any pending cases that deal with less than an ounce of marijuana. " (Denver Post, Nov. 16, 'Limits on Pot Prosecution', page 4A)  This was just before Denver prosecutors vowed to no longer charge those 21 and older for carrying less than an ounce of mairjuana.

Of course, the state still has its hardasses (as opposed to known conflict-of-interest clowns)  who will wait until the last minute and the last dog is hung to get off their keysters. One notable case is Weld County DA Ken Buck who said in a statement Thursday that his office has an obligation "to prosecute offenses that were crimes at the time they occurred". Recall this is the same character who ran for a Senate seat in '10 and insisted his same office would only prosecute rape cases if it could be shown they were "forcible rape". Hmmm.....anybody wondering why he lost?

Despite the usual state knuckledraggers like Buck,  progress is being made, and hopefully, once the law is fully implemented it will be seen that what has transpired was true citizen-mediated democracy in action. If our own democratic values and aspiration for other nations mean anything, this new law ought to stand!

Will The Will of the Voters Be Respected? Or Will the Feds Snuff It Out?

One of the frequent adverts appearing in Colorado weekly Independent papers for medical MJ. Now that Amendment 64 has passed, for the use of recreational pot by 2014, will the Feds respect the voters' will or spit on local democracy? (Note: this applies also in Washington state, which passed a similar amendment.)

As Amy Chua once observed in her strirring book ('World on Fire') about the West's fetish and yen to spread democracy to the world at large (especially to Muslim nations), you have to be prepared to live with whatever the result of the democratic outcome - irrespective of how much you may despise it. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite, who preaches democracy when it's convenient but rejects it whenever the result doesn't suit your fancy. Hence, when free and fair  elections were actually held in Lebanon some years ago, and Hezbollah prevailed, the West needed to shut the hell up, and not carp about a result that it had to know was at least a finite probability.  Again, if you are pro -Democracy, you are obliged to be consistent, not favor it only when your outcome is likely!

Now, fast forward to the recent U.S. election, and despite the skylarking of late night comedians about "Rocky Mountain Highs", an Amendment (64) has been voted on and passed in Colorado which allows citizens the recreational use of marijuana. This applies to all adults 21 and older, and is due to take effect in 2014, with recreational shops opening in addition to the already existing medical marijuana dispensaries.  Aleady the Feds appear to be getting nervous, though they shouldn't be - the PEOPLE have spoken after all.

As I noted in an earlier blog on this subject: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/09/feds-need-to-back-off-on-colorados.html  the Federal government needs to back off and get a grip. The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, after all, ensures unenumerated rights exercised by citizens. These are rights not specifically laid out or mentioned in the formal Constitution. In the case of Colorado Amendment 64, the state's citizens - by a 55% -45% determination, approved of a state constitutional amendment allowing for the recreational use of MJ. As I noted in the previous blog, this is not done via "States'  rights" since technically states have no rights, but rather exercised prerogatives. (see e.g. A Necessary Evil-A History Of American Distrust Of Government, Simon & Schuster, 1999, by Prof. Garry Wills ) Hence,  it's been done via the state prerogative of a citizen ballot issue, exercised from the natural rights of the state's citizens.

If then the Federal government were to barge in and stop it, under whatever ruse (say arguing that the law's retail sales section violates the U.S. Constitution because it "frustrates federal drug laws") then the federal government  (which like the states possesses no natural rights) is effectively abrogating the rights of Colorado's citizens. More to the point, it's asserting that its federal prerogative trumps the citizen's natural rights! But as Prof. Wills has noted, under no true constitutional premise can a prerogative - of either state or federal gov't - trump citizens' natural rights. If it does, one no longer has a true democracy or arguably even a republic!

Now, for the record, let me make clear as I have before, that I have no "dog" in this issue or fight. I have never used MJ even to simply pre-puff minus inhaling. My concern is not one out of any objective to get hold of or use pot (which I could've done to abate my cancer treatment symptoms - but never did) but rather the state's adherence to ballot measures, properly administered and voted upon. This is irrespective of whatever federal laws there are, which as I've also noted, are mostly there to protect Big PhRmA and the alcohol industry.  If corporate handouts, lobbyist interests were made more clear and transparent, it'd be seen this isn't an issue of kids getting "hooked" or any morality or legality but rather protecting the nascent corporatocracy.

Thus, pardon me while I howl with laughter on reading (actually in today's issue of The Barbados Advocate, p. 8) that former NIXON Drug Czar Robert Dupont "welcomes a confrontation". He basically says: 'Bring it on!' Are you kidding me?  Like all the other Nixonians (think Haldeman, Ehrlichmann, Chuck Colson et al and recall Nixon was impeached) he favors "confrontation" and opposes any legalization. He also says (ibid.): "I think it's time to resolve it".

Indeed. But HOW? In whose favor? If in favor of the federal gov't then essentially citizens wasted their time and effort in casting ballots for the measure, and democracy is spat upon. The gov't dislikes yet another outcome of democratic choice, boo hoo. And moreover, it does this to a state that desperately needs tax revenues (e.g. for educational funding) and so would plausibly terminate a business that could raise $100 m in annual revenues by 2017, this in addition to the $171 m in revenues already raised yearly by medical MJ dispensaries. So let me get this straight, if Dupont's spiel is to be believed (and btw, why is he even being quoted? He can't be part of Obama's DOJ!) the federal government floating in a sea of red ink is prepared to oust the means for a blue state to dig out of its own red ink - because it doesn't like the means of doing so? Gimme a break already

But the question of implementation remains with the need to assure the citizens' will is respected (as Gov. John Hickenlooper originally declared - after he initially beseeched voters not to 'overload on Cheetos') whle the feds' most ardent drug enforcers (likely still retained Bushies from 43's admin.) don't get their pants in too much of a twist over it.  According to today's Denver Post ('State Must Set Regulations' , p. 4A) Mr. Rob Kampia, the executive Director of the Marijuana Policy Project,  "will try to negotiate with the federal government on implementing the measure" and the emphasis will be on finding a method "least offensive in order to avoid a federal crackdown".

Meanwhile, a savvy reader in today's Post (a Dan Danbom, p. 30A) writes:

"I think we should follow the lead of the states that decided to 'opt out' of the federal health care law...and simply opt out of the federal drug laws that criminalize marijuana."

Maybe, but it would do to remind Mr. Danbom that the feds would likely then try the gambit invoking the Commerce clause, i.e. the law's retail sales section violates the U.S. Constitution because it "frustrates federal drug laws".  What I see then, is maybe the U.S. drug laws are the problem and need to be changed. All they're doing now is massively adding to our national debt by forcing the incarceration of tens of millions for petty drug "crimes" and thereby wasting resources that could be going for education, infrastructural repair or other more pressing needs. Again, it's a matter of national priorities! In the same way, our nation can't be sustainable if it keeps pissing money into the military-industrial complex, it can't be sustainable if it keeps pissing billions into the drug enforcement- prison industrial complex. This isn't exactly rocket science.

In the end, the most pragmatic and insightful take may be that of Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll ( 'Come On, Governor, Defend 64'  , Nov. 8, p. 21A) with whom I normally disagree - except in this case when his (libertarian) and my (liberal) instincts coincide:

"Speaking of retail and cultivation faciities, there are already more than 1,000 in Colorado - handling the same product that would be sold under 64. If the feds can tolerate those operations, they can tolerate what voters approved on Tuesday as well."

Finally, it bears repeating that Obama won a close race in Colorado thanks to a preponderance of youthful voters who also came out to support Amendment 64 (by 60% to 38%). By betraying the exercise of their voting rights, Obama and his DOJ could well lose Colorado in future national elections for the Dems, turning it back into a Red state as the youth stay home. ("Why vote for those bums if I just get betrayed?")   In any future close electoral vote, such a loss would be critical. (For example, had Obama lost OH, VA and FL, then simply picking up Iowa, Wisconsin and COLORADO would still have given him 272 electoral votes.)

Yes, as The Advocate noted, Obama also has to contend with the "law and order" types who want to maintain MJ crackdowns. But a peek at the voter profiles-demographics in CO will show him that those types, who were beaten in the 64 choice, are mainly old white men, walking-talking bleached out fossils. The same demographic that basically lost Tuesday's election! Why then back a loser, or losers?

Feds Need to Back Off on Colorado's (MJ) Amendment 64

On November 6th, Colorado voters will not only be casting their ballots for the next President of the United States, but also on Amendment 64, for the legalization of marijuana. Colorado could, in fact, be one of three states (the others Washingon and Oregon) to enable legalization of pot.

Sadly, the appearance of the ballot and its eventual citizen choice is being muddied by two factors: one the threat of ex post facto federal intervention, and the other by specious arguments concerning the 'threat to children". Both need to be considered, and let me take the last one first.  Perhaps no one lately has done a better job of disposing of it than one Denver Post letter writer two days ago:

"“There are many freedoms adults often enjoy that are illegal for kids, including gambling, drinking, smoking, investing, driving, getting piercings and tattoos, getting married, staying out all night, going to many concerts, working a double shift, etc. Granted, many of these freedoms could be considered bad for adults, too, but the “bad for kids” trope is nothing more than a cudgel designed to stifle honest debate. An unregulated black market is most assuredly more harmful to kids than a regulated honest market, and Colorado enjoys many economic advantages from the tax revenue these freedoms bring when adults enjoy them responsibly. And rest assured, adults most certainly do enjoy them.


Intelligent, evidence-based arguments against passing Amendment 64 are hard to find, so these folks fall back to the emotionally charged, false argument that it’s “bad for kids.”

This letter nails it spot-on since the "kid danger" argument, which has often been resurrected lately, relies on impairing intellectual judgment by appeal to emotionalism and hysteria.

The federal threat is also one that must be targeted given the adverse effects in previous state ballots. The classic example was when California voters also considered marijuana legalization in 2010 but went down to defeat after Attorney General Eric Holder (parents originally from Barbados, where I lived for 20 years) warned that the federal government "would not look the other way" i.e. in allowing a state market in defiance of a federal drug law. He also vowed to "vigorously enforce" marijuana prohibition.

One can examine this from many aspects, and though I happen to like Eric Holder, I believe he's what the Bajans call "wrong and strong". I also believe this federal stance is not adopted or sustained out of any morality or truly valid legal consideration or justifications, but merely to protect Big PhRmA and the Alcoholic beverages industries. (Btw this corporate protection didn't start on the Obama Adminstration's watch).

Imagine how the sales of alcoholic beverages, including wine and beer would crater if pot were legalized in even one state. Imagine how Big PhRmA's strangle hold on drugs would crumble if patients had a lot of latitude in selecting MJ for their ills instead of high priced prescription meds!

But let's get to the more fundamental issue of citizen rights. While some nabobs confront the Feds on the basis of "State's rights" this is actually incorrect.  As Prof. Garry Wills has noted in his landmark book, A Necessary Evil-A History Of American Distrust Of Government, Simon & Schuster, 1999, the debasement of discussion of rights has been enabled by consistent disparagement and ignorance in respect of the notions of rights - particularly 'State's Rights'- and the dismissal of the unenumerated rights of citizens under the Ninth Amendment.


As Wills observes (p. 109):

"The Ninth Amendment talks of 'rights enumerated' and says 'the people' retain unenumerated ones. The rights in the Ninth are not the rights of the state, which can- strictly speaking - have no rights."

Wills goes on (ibid.):

""Governments have prerogatives, people have rights - so Hamilton speaks of 'abridgments of prerogative' in the state to protect rights of citizens. What the Ninth says is that the rights enumerated as protected by The Constitution do not exhaust all rights inherent in a people. The states can retain powers, though not rights."
"So 'state's rights' is something of a misnomer, no matter how common its use. The states have no natural rights. Their powers are artificial not natural - since they are things made by contract. The equation "states are to the federal government as people are to the states" mixes apples and oranges. Citizens alone have rights, in relation to both the states and the federal government."

The last sentence is especially important, after settling the issue that states have no natural rights, only artificial powers. But by extension, the federal government as an entity has no natural rights either, only powers, made by contract. That contract, or those contracts CAN be broken if the citizen or citizens exercise their natural rights to do so! Such is the case with Amendment 64, or indeed any of the other state amendments which - through the action of citizen NATURAL rights - confer a benefit (perceived so to those citizens not a Nanny government) that it is legal within that state. Obviously then, the rights can only apply to that state.

If then a Colorado citizen (say having approved Amendment 64) were to go elsewhere and try to exercise MJ use in a non-complying state he would be subject to the full weight of the federal law. But not in his own state. Thus, if the federal government or any of its agencies seeks to intrude on that citizen exercise, once citizens have passed the law for their state, then it is effectively seeking to quash citizen natural rights using federal powers. This is no longer a democracy but ....I don't know what....maybe again a Corporatocracy if the effect is ultimately to protect corporate interests.

The fact is that alcohol is far more deadly and causes vastly more in the way of deaths (i.e. DUI manslaughters, accidents), hardship and addicton than MJ. It is time the feds realize that and stay out of these state ballot measures!