Governor: Legalizing pot was bad idea

The Hill ^ | January 23, 2015 | Kevin Cirilli

[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.

[ConservingFreedom]

Drugs have been successfully kept down to level of 2% of the population

Past-month pot use is 7.5% - and past-year is 12.6%.

[ConservingFreedom]

the drug laws were passed as a result of large numbers of people dying from overdoses.

How many had died of marijuana overdose?

[DiogenesLamp]

It actually knocks the props out from under your argument!

Sure it does.

On the other hand, you claim that our "national experience" with "illicit drugs" is only 70 years long? Well, that's true insofar as, before that, they weren't illicit! Rather, they were legal!

You are incorrectly quoting me. I did *NOT* say "illicit drugs", I said: Please stop comparing the 10 million year old experience with Alcohol to the ~70 year old national experience with weed.

Weed was added to the list of banned drugs back in the 1930s.

All I am suggesting is that we should return to the situation before these drugs were illegalized approx. 70 years ago!

You mean back when they were using hemp for *Rope* instead of smoking it? The problem is, idiots got to be idiots.

Better that our G.N.P. should drop by tens of billions of dollars than that we should continue squandering tens of billions of dollars to limit people's inherent right to intoxication.

I don't think you grasp the cost of legalizing drugs. It isn't going to be ~20 billion per year savings. It's going to be a 2 trillion per year loss, because we can eventually wave goodbye to 1/2 our GDP if drugs get legalized. It took China 70 years to go from low usage to half it's populace, with the concurrent loss of financial strength.

Did you ever wonder why a nation the size of Japan could invade and conquer a nation the size of China? It's because drugs made China the "Sickman of Asia." Their economic output was crap, their ability to defend themselves was crap, and all because so much of their populace was addicted to opium which the Japanese was selling them by the thousands of tons prior to the invasion.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

War on Drugs Nanny State PING!

[DiogenesLamp]

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy!

Got it backward's my friend. *Because* I had been made aware of the phenomena of "Psychotic Break" linked to marijuana, I *THEN* decided to see if any corroborating evidence might be available in the form of known violent murderers.

It was. Of course this doesn't prove linkage, but it just adds to the pile of data. I also make a habit of pointing this out, not to prove anything to the dopers, but just to *IRRITATE* them. Did you find it irritating? If so, then it accomplished the purpose for which it was intended.

Please try to stick to arguments which don't violate Logic!

Please try to apply logic better.

[DiogenesLamp]

If all those serial killers were pot tobacco users, then all those specific pot tobacco users were serial killers.

Ah, I see you are familiar with the commutative properties of addition! Good for you!

Did you have some other point that you were trying to make? I'm not seeing it.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're quite right, the elites that have run the US for centuries were and are drug lords; the Delano, Forbes, Low, Russell families, etc.; of course the established leaders had their roots in the UK, e.g., Jardine Matheson, etc.

The financial elites of course are the ones originating the push for drug legalization today, through the backing of such illustrious characters as Schwartz György.

I am not going to say you are wrong, but merely that you haven't presented enough evidence to demonstrate the validity of such an extraordinary claim.

That being said, it cannot be denied that the Elite of Britain were very much backing the shipments of drugs into China. I often wonder how much English wealth was built as a result of their deliberate and explicit drug dealing. I dare say quite a lot.

[DiogenesLamp]

While in a “park” setting with activities, good food and friends the rats chose sobriety on their own. Even going as far as overcoming their chemical addictions without help.

You mean a park like this?

Doesn't seem to confirm your theory, does it?

[DiogenesLamp]

God does not use worldly methods to solve spiritual problems.

If you do not grok that, this is your loss. Not mine.

Jesus said "Render therefore unto Caesar...". Apparently he felt the need to acknowledge "worldly methods."

[dfwgator]

It stands to reason that if one state does something that the other 49 don’t, people from the other states who wish to that thing will gravitate towards the one state that does.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're still making shit up. I've never made that assertion.

It is an consequential result of your foundational assumptions.

[TigersEye]

Re-electing Chickenpooper was an even worse idea.

[Ken H]

DL to tacticalogic =>

And I'm pretty sure they would have thought that transshipping dangerous narcotics across the border to hurt or injure our citizens would be considered a criminal act if done by individuals, and an act of war if done by a nation state.

That is axiomatic. You just don't like it because it disables your "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INTERDICT DRUGS!!!! assertion."

_________________________________________________________________

You just flat out lied. He said Congress had such authority in Post #130 =>

That's in the Commerce Clause. The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations covers anything coming across the border.

____________________________________________________________________

So are you going to retract your falsehood?

[DiogenesLamp]

So no answer to my question.

A very apt answer. You just may not have the wit to comprehend it.

What laws do abortion advocates want to change?

Did change. Past tense. They won their primary effort, and we are 50 million abortions later and now dealing with a demographic problem.

[DiogenesLamp]

The available information says eating the plant won't get you high. Do you have better information?

Yeah, i've known people who ate small quantities of Marijuana and got high. I assume the dosage doesn't go down if you use large quantities.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't believe any statistics you produce. I know Libertarians have made a cottage industry out of making this stuff up or twisting real studies to support their claims. Homosexuals do the same thing.

Did you know every significant male in history was "gay"? I don't either, but if you hear them tell it they were.

[DiogenesLamp]

That government is best which governs least.

No argument there, but a government that implements policies which prevent it from surviving as a government will be replaced by a government that won't do that.

China was ruled by an Emperor for ~4,000 years. ~70 years after losing the Opium war this incredibly stable government was destroyed.

[DiogenesLamp]

The War on Drugs is *NOT* authorized under the Constitution, neither under the commerce clause nor under the defense clause.

Yes it is.

[DiogenesLamp]

How many had died of marijuana overdose?

Two people in Colorado shortly after it was legalized.

[DiogenesLamp]

You just flat out lied.

No, you are just ignorant of the context and prior conversation. I have said all along that the current legal system cites the "commerce clause" I have pointed out that they do so because it is convenient for them to do so, but legitimate authority comes from the Defense clause, but no one bothers to assert this because thanks to Wickard v Filburn, they don't have to.

So are you going to retract your falsehood?

It's not a falsehood, the fault for thinking it so is yours.