Colorado Gets Ready for Marijuana Retail Stores on January 1st

Workers trim and cut product in Garden City in preparation for opening retail stores on January 1st.


Well, I should say some Colorado municipalities are readying for retail MJ sales on January 1st, including Denver, Aurora and a few really small places like Garden City.   These places - say what you will - have shown that although setting regulations on the retail sale of marijuana may be difficult, they owe it to Colorado voters to do so. Instead of punking out (like Colorado Springs, Douglas County and most other places) because of the innate regulatory complexities (i.e. whether a person can smoke MJ in the open on his own private property, or whether MJ smoke can blow into a neighbor's yard) they understand that the passage of Amendment 64 last year means that in some manner the will of Colorado voters must be respected.

To that end, these locales deserve credit for having numerous Council Meetings to thrash out the particulars and details. And as we know, the 'devil' is always in the details. In the case of Denver, we now know (Denver Post, Dec. 10, p. 1A, '12 Plants Per Household') there will now be a limit of twelve MJ plants allowed to be grown per household.  This was decided by the Denver City Council last Monday and they will "continue to work on developing other rules and regulations as the January 1st deadline approaches."

The Council also made its final vote on Monday the 10th, approving the smoking of pot on private property - i.e, allowing people to smoke it in their yards - even if visible to others. The final vote on this was conducted without much fanfare. Earlier, to its credit, the Council shot down a bill by Council member Debbie Ortega that would have would have banned any such outside smoking if it was done within 1,000 feet of a school.

Later in the evening, there was unanimous agreement to make the zoning rules for recreational MJ the same as for medical MJ.

By Monday, December 16,  more rules and proposals had been set by the Denver City Council including weighing whether to decriminalize possession for those between ages 18 and 21.  Currently, those in this age group caught with less than an ounce of MJ can be prosecuted and given up to a year in jail or face fines up to $999. The new proposal being pushed is from Councilman Albus Brooks who sees too much inequity in how offenses are prosecuted.

Another matter that bears down on Denver, as well as Aurora, is the paper crush for new MJ retail employees. ('Push On to Clear Crush', Denver Post, Dec. 16, p. 1A). To get a state badge to work in Colorado's MJ industry, prospective employees must get fingerprinted and clear criminal and financial background checks. Already there is an enormous backlog to process the hundreds of workers who want jobs. According to the Post "State offices have been inundated this past month".

The Post provides an insight (ibid.):

"At 8 a.m. on a recent weekday would be tenderers and trimmers filed in bleary-eyed to the Marijuana Enforcement Division at 455 Sherman St. in Denver.

They lined up to get their paperwork stamped. The rules change with the circumstances, but on this day anyone who had come back 11 times - and gotten 11 stamps - was given th4e green light for license processing."

The Post added: "Those on the short end on stamps were cast into a lottery- their fates tied to green poker chips drawn out of a Folgers' bag."

Officers insist they are processing applications as fast as they can, but lack adequate manpower.

Messy? Sometimes intractable? Frustrating?  Time-consuming? You bet! But at least give kudos to Denver for rolling up its sleeves,  digging in and getting it done! Meanwhile, Colorado Springs - which wants money for its 'City of Champions'  Olympic museum - deserves  not one red cent from the state,  having dismissed the opportunity to earn its own keep via tax revenue from MJ sales. As one recent D. Post letter writer put it: "Colorado Springs has shown itself to be merely a deadbeat city. They deserve nothing!"

Meanwhile, little one square mile Garden City - tucked between two anti-MJ towns (Evans and Greeley) is doing well, having increased its revenue to $67,000 and now is able to pave over its roads, hire its first code enforcement officer and even raise money for new investment in its 66 businesses.

Those places in Colorado that have opted out of honoring Amendment 64 - by getting on their moral high horses, or by avoiding the onerous drafting of regulations -  deserve nothing. Let them sink in debt, or ....hope Uncle Sam pours money into their military -industrial complex facilities, in the case of Colorado Springs.

The funniest aspect? The State Dept. of Revenue plans to open an office in the Springs (an MJ rejecter) to help process Denver MJ employee applications, thereby relieving pressure on Denver. How about them apples?

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!

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.

FACT: You’re More Likely Dead from a Drunk Driver in FLA Than From an MJ User in Colorado!

Well, let's get it out into the open: Fact-based reality is a challenge for most repukes and Southern Tea party types in the best of times. In times of political upheaval especially with the North-South divide increasing due to hatred of Obama, it goes over the top. Especially for a certain blogger who yaps a lot but is unable to even pass a relatively simple test in his self-proclaimed area of expertise.


Enter then a recent, semi-serious blog in which he holds Florida up as an exemplar “vacation spot” (along with other formerly Rebel enclaves like MS, AL) while dissing all the “Yankee” states- i.e. north of the Mason-Dixon line- as well as Colorado. In the latter case he bloviates about the prospective traveler’s likelihood of getting killed – maybe run down or whatever- by a pot-crazed lunatic, given our state has passed Amendment 64 to allow recreational use of pot.


Of course, this is as much codswallop as his obsession over a non-existent "salvation" and  its schizoid driving forces: “Satan” and “Hell”. So one must wonder if those puerile, phantasmagorical ideations formed some kind of embolism in his deteriorating brain leading him to write so much crap about Colorado and marijuana!   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. But don’t believe me, check out the state of Florida’s own statistics from a state site:  http://www.dmvflorida.org/florida-dui.shtml
Therein we learn:

"According to Florida DMV records there were 33,625 DUI convictions in Florida in 2011. Of the 55,722 DUI tickets issued in Florida in 2011 - 9,328 were issued by the FHP, 23,649 were issued by police departments in Florida, and 21,868 were issued by Florida Sheriffs departments.”


Comparable statistics in all categories for MJ users in COLORADO : O

We also learn the following DUI stats for assorted arrests in Florida counties:


· Hillsborough County (Tampa) - 3,256

· Miami-Dade - (Miami) - 2,274

· Duval County - (Jacksonvile Area) - 2,222

· Pinellas County (St Petersburg) - 1,824

· Palm Beach County (West Palm Beach) - 1,561

· Orange County (Orlando) - 1,383

· Brevard County (Melbourne) - 1,072

· Broward County (Fort Lauderdale) - 985

Comparable driving-related stats for MJ users in COLO, for all counties: Zero

We also learn about fatalities from this site: http://www.dui-usa.drinkdriving.org/Florida_dui_drunkdriving_statistics.php


For which we find:

717 fatal accidents in Florida where at least one driver had a BAC (Blood alcohol content) of 0.08% or above


803 people were killed in Florida in accidents where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08% or above

154 people were killed in Florida in accidents where at least one driver had a BAC between 0.01% and 0.07%


These are startling stats! Look at them! That is a total of  957 deaths from drunken drivers! There are also likely hundreds of shooting incidents, including accidents, engendered by too high a BAC but the state (fortuitously) keeps no records on those. Meanwhile, the comparable stats for marijuana users in Colorado? Zero!

The hard truth, which this bozo seems not to process, is that you’re much more likely to lose your life from a drunken driver in FLA than from an MJ user in Colorado. 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. It leads to more DUI deaths, more accidents – including by use of weapons- than MJ does in any parallel universe.


The guy’s fact base is so distorted that he actually impugned Gov. John Hickenlooper of CO despite the fact he was never a fan of Amendment 64. Indeed, in the wake of its passage, he was the one that  snarkily warned voters they’d best “not get high on Cheetos”.


Hickenlooper was also the one that proposed, after 64’s passage, a way to get MORE Federal oversight- working with the U.S. Attorney Gen. ! This so outraged many that Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll was driven to write a column ('Come On, Governor, Defend 64!' , Nov. 8, 2012, p. 21A) to steer the Guv to the side of the angels. (Alas, he's gone more to the side of the 'devils'- as in recently drinking a glass of allegedly "fracked" water and declaring it "tastes fine, has no ill effects".)


Sadly, what all of this shows is that “Mr. Johnny Reb Blogger” has no clue what goes on in this state, nor the comparable damage done by alcohol relative to MJ. But then why be surprised when he earlier shot his yap off about Chicago being the the No. 1 city for homicides in the USA, when FBI uniform crime stats disclosed Detroit! Or, being totally unaware that the Vietnam conflict was started on a pretext, or that the ‘Amazing Race’ episode he calumniated was not about “forcing contestants to learn a communist song” but rather matching different symbols on posterboards.


But after all, why be surprised? This is the same character that wouldn’t even attempt a test in his own proclaimed specialty area, biblical exegesis, i.e. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/04/can-pastor-mike-pass-basic-test-on.html

This despite being given unlimited time to take it!


Perhaps, before  Mr. 'Goober' next blogs on MJ or Colorado, he might learn a bit more from other subjects. Say like: Sociology, crime statistics, American history......oh, and basic English.  Maybe at his FLA Smokehouse Bible College, assuming there are any offerings besides "bible study" and watching Woody Woodpecker cartoons!

Lawmakers in Colorado Want to Repeal the Marijuana Law? Are They Nuts?

Three months ago I noted the travesty of local Colorado communities attempting to invoke local laws to skirt around Amendment 64 passed in November with nearly two thirds of the votes.

I observed that, one by one, communities across the state were trying to peck it to death with idiotic "NIMBY" laws. Never mind this violates a STATE constitutional amendment. In principle, ALL the communities were subverting the will of their own voters, and their "laws" emerged as derelict and UNLAWFUL! Douglas County and its associated burgs started this nonsense and then was joined by others. Then, 3 months ago we learned from a Denver Post piece ('Greenwood Village Ordnance to Test Pot Legalization law', Feb. 2, p. 1A) )that the Greenwood Village City Council - undoubtedly packed with Village idiots-  jumped on the 'Ban the MJ in Our Burg' Bandwagon.


According to the Post story:
“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."

In other words, any citizen of the state of Colorado caught transporting even 1 oz of MJ on village property would be tossed into the hoosegow.

Now, we learn, from today's Denver Post, it's even worse.  Some insane state legislators want to repeal the state constitutional amendment in entirety. They want to actually do an end run to subvert the will of nearly 2 of 3 Colorado voters.  In effect, spitting on their franchise and telling them by their arrogant actions that citizens don't count in this state, no matter how sizeable a majority a laws passes.

Leading the charge, at least one of them- is Rep. Frank McNulty of Highland Park. But as usual there are traitorous Dem reps- pussies involved too. One Dem, House Speaker Mark Ferrandino of Denver was quoted in the Post saying the plan is: "worth the conversation".

Worth the conversation? Overturning the will of the voters? Are U nuts?

Another Dem, Sen. John Morse of Colorado Springs,  blurted: "I am absolutely supportive of the idea."

Oh really? SO you will now add your name to the already long list of Democ- rats we can't trust? Who spout gibberish about being "for the people" but end up doing otherwise!

What's this all about? It's simple really! When Amendment 64 was first proposed - even before CO voters passed it- every freakin' manjack in the legislature knew that many i's would need to be dotted and t's crossed before the bill would emerge this summer. A host of regulations, including to do with taxes, and whether MJ could be smoked in apartments, or shared at houses etc. came to the fore. All of a sudden something that seemed fairly simple became ever more complex and .....our lawmakers punked out...taking the easy route of restriction and now attempted repeal - instead of doing the heavy lifting.

This is pretty typical of political punks in each party, however, so we must not be surprised. Also that many of those in the league of repression and/or repeal are in the pockets of Big PhRmA or Alcohol and don't want to see those special pet interests competing with MJ for sales. Hence, a clever smokescreen had to be invented. That is along the lines of taxes.

So what have these swine come up with? A new ballot measure in November, to pay for marijuana implementation- via TAXES. Then, if the voters don't ALSO pass that measure, it will be repeal for Amendment 64. (So, look for a clever rider to take down 64 with any rejection of the higher state taxes ballot).  This execrable strategy comes on the heels of a supposed academic paper out of the Univ. of Colorado- that claims that MJ sales and taxes therefrom would never pay for the costs of operation and the state would lose. This is funny bullshit reasoning given our esteemed punk lawmakers have no problems passing fracking leases which essentially give away the store to outside frackers, oil companies - while health costs are sent sky high.

Meanwhile, as this repeal plan continues to be vetted and rewritten (to try to make it more appealing) pro-MJ forces are coming together to counteract it.

And no, this isn't  merely about smoking pot. As someone who never has and likely never will, it's not about me not getting my "daily toke".

No, it's about respecting the will of the voters.

If we can't even exercise the ideals of democracy at this small, state scale, we have no business calling ourselves such or even mouthing rhetoric about "liberty".  We're all simply cogs in a vast corporate machine in which money and lobby interests trump the voters' will. You can be poisoned and get cancer from fracked water unleashed in your groundwater, but you can't smoke a joint.

We are governed merely by a corporate dictatorship which decides the benefits it will allow (mostly to corporations, big business), and which it will hurl into the dumpster (those to be enjoyed by individual citizens).

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!