Denver Post: Coloradoans Support MJ Decriminalization.

Soulshiner wrote: As for the no deaths statement:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view ... eID=000145

Thank you for the link Soulshiner. I did read it, and also performed a little further research which shows those statistics aren't entirely accurate, which I suspected anyway being the main tag in the link was "medicalmarijuana". Not your fault and not blaming, I just didn't trust the link itself. Here's a quote of something I found that might be of interest to everyone here:

Statistically, death directly from marijuana overdose is extremely rare. The CDC reports that between 1999 and 2007, there were 26 deaths with marijuana as an underlying cause, in the United States. This was out of a counted population of 2,615,523,905. When it comes to smoking, most statistics say it will take about 800 joints in a short period of time to actually overdose a person to the point of death. A person should be vomiting or passed out well before this point. When used long term, the smoke itself does contain chemicals that can eventually cause respiratory issues, such as COPD or cancer.

Secondary from overdose, the CDC and the National Highway Traffic Administration have shown that in the 1990s, nearly 20% of drivers killed in traffic incidents had narcotics in their system. During autopsy, the most common drug present was marijuana. This was followed by cocaine, benzodiazepines, and amphetamines. In the 2000s, the number appears to be closer to 25%.

Recently, there are newer "marijuana" synthetics on the market. They are known by names such as K2 or Spice. These are actually directly proving to be much more dangerous than natural marijuana, and there are fatalities being directly related to overdose.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_peop ... z26jzLlwsv

I'd readily agree there are FAR more deaths each year attributed to alcohol than marijuana and know accurate stats can be found accordingly, still I'd never vote to take alcohol away either.... even though I'm capable of making my own. Other "for" points when it comes to my vote, aside from the already mentioned jail time/taxes issue, would be the simple fact of "freedom". There are a great many activities, hobbies, etc., that for various reasons many of us don't care to participate in, and granted some of them are quite dangerous, but to vote to put an end to them takes away someone else's freedom and that is perhaps my largest "for" point. This is a very good point:

Heisenberg wrote: I'm not sure what medical value alcohol has and it's definitely not good when overused...same can be said for weed... you can overdo it and be like Spicoli in Fast Times. You can also huff gasoline to get high but we'll never outlaw that. I say let people do to themselves what they want including drinking a 5 gallon big gulp if they so desire. The gene pool needs to be clensed of morons and I'm all for it.

Freedom.... a massive "for" vote here.

To me the main area where my vote leans against, again falls back to my own bias. It honestly does get annoying when trying to deal with someone who is high. I find myself saying slowly, and deliberately "Listen carefully to what I am saying....... do you understand?". Try that when you're dealing with a clerk at a counter somewhere, its very frustrating and more so when the manager holds the other half of those brain cells in use, and only those. :VeryScared: Still a strong proponent of 'work time = full attention, home time = YOUR time'.


Badger

FredHayek wrote: According to polls it looks like Colorado would pass this but personally I think it will get voted down once they realize it will still be illegal at the federal level.

You're kidding me right? The whole purpose of voting for the amendment is to set up a showdown with the federal government over the issue. To, for all intents and purposes, tell the federal government to go pound sand, that the citizens of Colorado have the right as a free and independent State to determine for themselves whether or not the buying, selling, possession and consumption of something will be legal in their State or prohibited by it. The only reason to support the measure is to renew the foundational principles and put an end to the federal government thinking it has the power to tell a State what its citizens may or may not do outside of the specifically delegated powers it was given by the Constitution.

Amendment 64 is about much more than marijuana, it's about rekindling the fire of States' rights in the belly of the populace. Once the federal government loses that battle with the citizens of the States, then the citizens of the States will have more confidence to challenge the federal government in other areas where it has usurped the power of their State to determine the course of their everyday life. I'm voting for the measure to ensure that showdown occurs. I am not only looking forward to it, I think that it is necessary for it to occur if the republic is to survive the century long assault on its foundational principles that has occurred and avoid being fundamentally transformed into a European styled social democracy.

Good reasons PS- I'm doing it for some of the same reasons.

So far- I don't see any conservatives here who are voting against 64. So much for Soulshiners assertion that we are all greedy bastards who hate freedom and liberty.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Good reasons PS- I'm doing it for some of the same reasons.

So far- I don't see any conservatives here who are voting against 64. So much for Soulshiners assertion that we are all greedy bastards who hate freedom and liberty.

Where did I say that?

Here the quote from my post: It still seems odd to me that Republicans claim to be in favor of personal liberties and less government, yet most oppose the legalization of MJ.

So, I made NO assertion that conservatives are all greedy bastards who hate freedom and liberty. At least be honest when making a statement.

Also, I have found that many people in Evergreen and Conifer are less than honest about their MJ use. They do use it, they just don't want to be public about it and some even claim that they don't use it at all. Professional reasons for the most part.

I am still surprised Cali didn't pass this a couple years ago. Some say it is the parent effect, older people don't want their kids to have more access to it, silly imo, since kids have more access to it now than booze. Others say the liquor industry didn't want the competition and spent a lot of money supporting anti-MJ forces.

Fred, some of the pushback in California came from (illegal) MJ growers themselves, who didn't want to lose their niche in the market.