Posted on 01/23/2015 7:13:21 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Colorado’s decision to legalize marijuana was a bad idea, the state’s governor said Friday.
Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who opposed the 2012 decision by voters to make pot legal, said the state still doesn’t fully know what the unintended consequences of the move will be.
If I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would've reversed the election and said, 'This was a bad idea,’” Hickenlooper said Friday on CNBC's “Squawk Box.”
“You don't want to be the first person to do something like this,” he said.
He said that he tells other governors to “wait a couple of years” before legalizing marijuana as Colorado continues to navigate an unknown, non-existing federal regulatory landscape for the industry.
“There's a whole regulatory environment... that really regulates alcohol,” he said. “We're starting from scratch and we don't have a federal partner because [marijuana] is still illegal federally.”
In February 2014, the Obama administration released guidelines for the marijuana industry indicating the federal officials would not target financial institutions or businesses engaging in selling pot as long as those businesses were compliant with state laws.
Despite the guidelines, banks are reluctant to finance marijuana businesses in states where it is legal because federal law still lists marijuana as an illegal drug. Congress would need to pass a law removing that language.
Marijuana is legal in four states: Colorado, Oregon, Alaska and Washington. Congress has blocked the District of Columbia from legalizing pot after voters in November cast ballots that they wanted to make the drug legal.
The bible recorded a distinction between the broad morality of keeping civic order and more closely personal canons of morality, clear back with the covenant with Noah.
The usage of intoxicants would fall within the personal sphere. If, under the influence of same, people misbehaved within the public sphere, they would be liable in the public sphere for that misbehavior.
Without God’s plan to hang their hat on, people can only end up in endless control struggles.
So if you don't like black people, and you don't want to serve them in your restaurant, "the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating morality. Period." Is that about right?
You have a right to be immoral if you want, right?
When someone invents a Breathalyzer for THC the whole pothead world will change.
I'm sure you can get people in this country to pay you for shipping them cyanide, or Anthrax, or Sarin, or radiological waste, or any number of things.
What makes it NOT COMMERCE, is the fact that they are dangerous substances banned by law.
I think that statement has caused me to exceed my daily recommended dose of nonsense. I think i'll go do something else for awhile.
It kills motivation and intelligence in some people only while impaired, not after. Yes, some people just choose to be impaired constantly.
But those people wouldn’t care anyway. If pot wasn’t available, they’d be drinking booze or popping pills. And if that wasn’t available they’d be sniffing glue and gasoline. Or choking themselves or sniffing dung.
Some people will ALWAYS want to be wrecked NOMATTER WHAT and we don’t need a police state to watch all of us because of those mentally ill people.
I suspect if humans ate an entire marijuana plant (as might a herbivore) they would probably walk off a cliff or sit in a pasture until the wolves got them.
Like many Drug Warrior suppositions, this one is wrong: "Along with other psychoactive cannabinoids, THC is a hydrophobic oil, meaning it is insoluble in water but soluble in lipids (oil/fat) and alcohol. Using either one of these to extract THC from cannabis is required to have the cooked product be psychoactive.[1] During preparation the cannabis or its extract must be heated sufficiently or dehydrated to cause decarboxylation of its most abundant cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), into psychoactive THC." (emphasis added) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_foods#Ingredients_and_effects
(Not that the effects you describe qualify as "toxic" anyway ...)
Look up the “rat park” addiction experiments.
In a cage, rats would consume drugs until they starved.
In a happy, healthy environment, rats would avoid the drugs and addicted rats transferred from the cages would stop using drugs.
Sigh. There are studies of permanent damage to intellect out there. Ignore them all you want, I’m sure the idea that you’re stupider than before you used isn’t a comforting idea.
“Police may soon be armed with marijuana breath test” - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3236617/posts
show me ONE before-after study showing permanent damage to intellect or IQ in ANY adult that has used pot for any period. There are countless people who have used pot for decades and they can’t prove any before-after drop in IQ. People have been using it heavily for at least 50 years in the USA and we have no proof.
Alcohol abuse causes real permanent brain damage yet is sold in unlimited amounts.
You don’t need a drug dealer for marijuana, you can grow in your backyard.
Did I harm the black person. Did they starve. Did they have no other options for food?
None of the government’s business.
If I killed the black person, if I killed any person regardless of “protected” status, then I have caused harm and suffer the consequences of that harm.
Not serving them in my restaurant. None of the government’s business.
Not making a cake for gay person’s wedding - none of the government’s business.
So, because the government says it is ok, you cannot enforce a tighter morality? Seriously? Are you kidding me?
Let me see. The government says abortion is ok. So are you telling me you can not say abortion is wrong in your household?
Please.
I don’t need the government to set my moral limits. That is between me and God and my family. I only have to submit to just government laws.
If the government outlaws teaching and discussing God, my household will be criminals.
If you really want to bring crime into marketplace the first thing you do is make a desirable product illegal. Look what happened with Prohibition: they made alcohol illegal and set off a wave of organized crime across this country which we haven’t yet recovered from.
Nope — if it was within the Constitutionally delegated powers then we never would have needed an 18th Amendment.
bttt
I wish it wouldn't. That's the point.
Google’s pretty easy isn’t it. That’s just the starter, as more studies will show the common sense notion that it damages the brain whenever used, for good.
I've never heard of even a single case of a drug "attacking" someone.
(Think: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people.)
To be honest, what you should have said is:
"Returning to the people the right to consume those drugs (cocaine, marijuana) which were perfectly legal for most of this nation's history represents an attack on our populace."
That is what you really believe, and that is what you should have said.
Regards,
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.