Posted on 11/08/2006 5:13:54 AM PST by NapkinUser
Personally I can't stand the smell of the stuff any more than I can stand the smell of cigarrettes, and would never use it simply due to the stench.
That being said, I am pissed that my tax dollars are going down a rat hole to investigate, prosecute and imprison folks who puff pot.
The stuff should be sold in our state booze stores and taxed the same as booze.
Money saved at one end, income to help with our state budget at the other.
Just don't allow anyone to smoke the stuff where I have to smell it.
Great moniker!
One of my favorite quotes is from Mr. Paine
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
- Thomas Paine
"By about a 2 to 1 ratio"
No, unless my math is off a 2 to 1 ratio would be 33.333% voting in favor and 66.666% voting against. Since it was 40% in favor and 60% against, that would make it exactly a 3 to 2 margin against. Why couldn't the reporter use that, when it's exact, instead of completely fudging his numbers to get the '2 to 1'?
Not to mention these people are delusional if they think this is a big enough defeat to stop this from getting on the ballot again. If it does get on the ballot, hopefully the question will be better crafted, Mason Tevert will go away, and the measure will pick up a few more percentage points. It may not win, but more gains in the next election will make the drug warriors sweat. The measure in Nevada in 2002 to legalize pot failed with 40% in favor. The measure in 2006 failed with 44% in favor. I have no idea where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, but they would be crazy not to get it on the ballot again since they gained four percentage points between elections, just like the Colorado people would be crazy not to try it again to see if they can gain any percentage points.
Could it be that at the time the report was filed the ratio was closer to 2:1 than 3:2?
"If it does get on the ballot, hopefully the question will be better crafted"
You mean better hidden. Like I-100 in Denver. That's the only way the dopers win.
I believe their strategy was to promite the idea that using weed is safer than using alcohol, not to mention the group's name is 'SAFER' (which I believe stands for 'Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation). I'm not a big fan of the group or Tevert myself, so you won't find me defending them too much.
Hidden? I voted on that measure in Denver. It was not hidden anywhere. It was on the ballot and discussed by many talk radio stations before the election. The fact that Prop 44 passed with a majority in the city and county of Denver this time around sort of blows that theory out of the water.
Makes sense because Nevada is a state with lots of risk takers. The numbers to do drugs would be higher there I would think.
What's the difference between a pothead and a drunk?
If a drunk comes to stop sign, he'll run it. If a pothead comes to a stop sign, he'll sit there and wait for it to turn green.
So the message is that Colorado is safer if people switch to marijuana, correct? Is there any evidence, any study, showing that alcohol users would stop using alcohol and switch to marijuana if it was legal? How can the proponents say Colorado will be safer? Actually, I've seen articles about users who end up using both, compounding the effects of each.
The strategy was to obfuscate, as they did in Denver. This time it didn't work.
That is no joke. When I was a pothead, I actually did that more than a few times. I thought I was the only one.
Snowboarding hippie mavens like Denver and Boulder, sure.
Get away from the touristy spots, and Amendment 44 lost big in huge counties like Arapahoe, El Paso (64-36!), Douglas (68-32!) and Adams.
Amendment 44 only won 5 out of 25 counties. Not exactly a resounding state endorsement.
...too much. Prostitution is not legal in large cities.
Actually, it is more like a state of people who don't get their panties in a wad if someone else is enjoying a vice that doesn't harm themselves (gambling, prostitution, etc.) Think curmudgeonly ranchers, not hippies.
Beelzebubba
Guy:
I agree with you [- not -], they do lack a moral compass and are more ethically challenged than some other places.
Nevada is the most constitutionally 'ethical' State in the USA, -- as is evident by their determination to let local governments reasonably regulate the public aspects of 'sinful behaviors'. -- While they do not prohibit the private aspects of enjoying life, liberty or property.
And their stategy was not to obfuscate. Everyone knew about this amendment. The Tvert guy from SAFER made all sorts of public apperances all over the state, on every major media outlet here, from Denver to Grand Junction. Sometimes I wonder if you know what you're talking about Paulson.
Seeing as how I never claimed it was a resounding state endorsement, I have no idea why you said that either. I will completely admit it wasn't. The point is, the backers will try it again and we'll get to see if it made any gains, like the one in Nevada did. I think it will if the leadership is changed (SAFER is a flawed organization), and the amendment is better crafted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.