I didn't vote for Am. 64, because I didn't think that pot legalization belonged in Colorado's constitution, and I didn't like the way some of it was worded. I did like the State's rights argument that it's going to create.
These two quotes show how it's supposed to work in Washington:
"My constituents have spoken and I don't want the federal government denying money to Colorado or taking other punitive steps that would undermine the will of our citizens," DeGette, of Denver, said in a statement.
"I strongly oppose the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters given the passage of this initiative, and so I feel obligated to support this legislation," Coffman said.
Issues should start local and roll up to the federal level, not the other way around.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Some DA's in Colorado have suspended MJ cases on the docket, but Ken Buck remains determined to do all he can to lock people away for simple possesion.
To your earlier point that it shouldn't be an amendment, I agree. But amendments are our only recourse when the legislature is too scared to take up the issue itself.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Some DA's in Colorado have suspended MJ cases on the docket, but Ken Buck remains determined to do all he can to lock people away for simple possesion.
To your earlier point that it shouldn't be an amendment, I agree. But amendments are our only recourse when the legislature is too scared to take up the issue itself.
We need representatives with more guts than political ambition.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
