cannabisnews.com: Just Say 'No'










  Just Say 'No'

Posted by CN Staff on October 03, 2006 at 16:05:15 PT
Editorial 
Source: Pueblo Chieftain 

Colorado -- Colorado voters should just say "no" to Amendment 44, which would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 or older. There are many problems with the Nov. 7 statewide ballot issue.First, as a state law it would be trumped by the federal law that makes possession or distribution of marijuana in any amount illegal. Second, the language of Amendment 44 has been reasonably interpreted as allowing the transfer of up to an ounce of marijuana to anyone 15 or older as long as no money is involved in the transaction.
Proponents deny this was their intent, but they cannot stop a defense lawyer from arguing such a loophole on behalf of an adult giving and a teenager receiving a small amount of marijuana.Possession of less than an ounce, currently a Class 2 petty offense punishable by a fine of up to $100, is not a high priority for law enforcement or prosecution. In 2005, state courts convicted 3,700 adults of the crime. We'd venture a guess that many of those were plea-bargained down from more serious drug offenses.We're very concerned, too, that introducing teenagers and impressionable young adults to marijuana could lead them to experiment on harder drugs. At the very least, Colorado should not adopt a public policy making it easier to try. Vote "no" on Amendment 44.Source: Pueblo Chieftain (CO)Published: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 Copyright: 2006 The Star-Journal Publishing Corp.Website: http://www.chieftain.com/Contact: newsroom chieftain.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/Safer Coloradohttp://www.safercolorado.org/Expert Says Law Would Increase Marijuana Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22228.shtmlAdults Should Be Allowed To Choosehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22225.shtmlMeasure Threatens Drug-Use Declinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22223.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #33 posted by whig on October 05, 2006 at 12:27:10 PT
FoM
It is not something I am doing, but I am giving my support to those who will do it. In the usual course of things, people are entitled to personal privacy, and if I discover a secret, I will keep that secret to protect the privacy of someone I may know or may become acquainted with.I encourage people to keep confidences, and not disclose what is not intentionally made public by those who are not criminals and bent to do harm by the preservation of those secrets. In other words, if someone is ashamed of their actions to a degree that they will commit torture, or authorize torture, to protect their secret, that protection is lost and should not be preserved.I do not shame people for their secrets, but I do shame them for torture.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by FoM on October 05, 2006 at 11:11:32 PT
Whig
You must do what you have to do. I understand that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by whig on October 05, 2006 at 10:58:04 PT
FoM
One-third of the Democratic Party voted for torture too. I want them out, exposed, and shamed along with the Republicans.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on October 05, 2006 at 08:12:45 PT

Whig
I have faith that even the TV News will continue exposing what the substance of the Republican Party really is. I don't need to do anything but let time do it's work. Meanwhile I am keeping my eyes on all the different Initiatives that will be voted on this November as far as Cannabis issues go. I don't want to get sidetracked from this issue so that's my focus. We've come to far.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #29 posted by whig on October 05, 2006 at 07:37:03 PT

Hope and FoM
I get scared sometimes too, not just because of what they are doing but because of what I do to rub their noses in it and draw attention to myself. I know what kind of people these are and what they would do to someone like me if they saw me as a threat. That is one reason I make a point of talking about peace so often, I don't want anyone to have even an excuse of calling me anything but peaceful.On the other hand I feel confidence when I see others standing up beside me, and knowing that there are too many of us for them to defeat. Literally, if there were a small number of us, we could be picked up and put in a cell and tortured ourselves, and I am speaking as loudly and passionately as I can to prevent that from happening to any of us because I want them to know that there is no hiding place, no way they are going to get away with it without being discovered and exposed and made to face the consequences of their actions.I am calling for the outing of everyone who voted for torture, and I am gratified to see it happening. There will be a big leak today, and more tomorrow, and more the next day. We have allies, and supporters we never will know, and that is as it should be. People even within the government have a point at which they say, no further. Sometimes I am simply speaking to them.This has to be stopped, and before it is too late. We dare not remain silent in the face of such injustice.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #28 posted by FoM on October 05, 2006 at 07:16:27 PT

Hope
There is nothing to fear but fear itself is how I look at life. What might happen isn't enough for me to get worried about anymore. I might die one day too but why worry about it? It's really inevitable so I try to find peace and do good things and make life the best it can be for as long as I am able. The future really isn't ours to see. Fear stops people from believing. We might not survive what has happened during this administration but I can sleep at night because I didn't cause it to happen.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #27 posted by Hope on October 05, 2006 at 07:09:08 PT

Right, FoM.
I've never seen so many people wanting me to be afraid, especially the government.A very long time ago I learned how to stay calm in the midst of catastrophe...I had to. For my children's sake. I must find a calm spot...no matter what...even if it's only in my mind...where I can think and work from constructively.For all I know Bush IS an anti-Christ of huge proportions. I can't change that. But I can try to stay rational and able to protect as much as I can. I'm still angry that people have been angry at me for not being afraid enough to suit them. Serenity is a precious thing. Our government has almost made it illegal to seek or obtain.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #26 posted by FoM on October 05, 2006 at 07:01:38 PT

Hope and Whig
I guess because I have seen a lot in my life I don't get as upset as I did when I was younger. Nothing shocks me anymore. That doesn't mean that I think everything is ok but preservation of my mental well being is dependent on how I deal with what is out of my control. Otherwise I couldn't wake up in the morning and still have a little hope that we can do something about the direction our country and world is heading. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #25 posted by Hope on October 05, 2006 at 06:38:11 PT

"scaring"
You're not really "scaring" me, Whig, nor did you. It's more a term...sort of an expletive phrase.It is awful. It's truly awful. Believe me, none of this is getting by me. I'm not ignoring it. I can't change it myself and I have to find a way of getting my personal hold on the situation...tenuous as it is.You should get mad. You should get angry. We all should be. There comes a point though, when we are helpless to change things, that it can make me ill...if I let it.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #24 posted by whig on October 05, 2006 at 00:18:27 PT

Hope
Sorry about scaring you, but I got upset and with some cause. Torture is a pretty bright line for me and it seems to me that anyone who AUTHORIZES torture is guilty of it too, as much as the person who carries out the act.So as far as voting this year, anyone who voted FOR the Military Commissions Act authorized torture, and anyone who votes for anyone who voted for that is authorizing that authorization.That's my position, anyhow.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by Hope on October 04, 2006 at 21:50:32 PT

Whig
"I must have scared people away."After you developed fear of voting in me...we got the hideous torture bill...the child molester in congress.I kind of get to feeling hysterical at a certain point...if fI keep it up...I get sick...in a variety of ways...and I don't like it. Respite and sanity must be sought if possible. Everything you got upset about is serious business. Very, very serious business. Deadly serious business. Prayer, first..then do something about what you can do something about and keep and eye on even the stuff you can't do anything about...keep up with current events.But I'm weak...but I'm strong in that I know it eats on me and it can make me sick. I have to go paint something when I get too upset.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by observer on October 04, 2006 at 21:10:30 PT

propaganda analysis
[5]
Proponents deny this was their intent, but they cannot stop a defense lawyer from arguing such a loophole on behalf of an adult giving and a teenager receiving a small amount of marijuana . 

(Sentence 5) re: "teenager" - "Chemicals have long been inextricably linked in prohibitionist literature with the ... corruption of young people." [W.White,1979] (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme5.htm#5 ) 
 
 
[7]
In 2005, state courts convicted 3,700 adults of the crime . 

(Sentence 7) re: "crime" - Drugs, scream prohibitionists, cause all bad things in life: crime, violence, insanity, etc. If not for prohibition (i.e., jailing drug users), then criminality, violence and psychotic behavior would explode upon the land, the prohibitionist assures us. (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme2.htm#2 ) 
 
 
[9]
We're very concerned, too, that introducing teenagers and impressionable young adults to marijuana could lead them to experiment on harder drugs . 

(Sentence 9) re: "harder drugs" - The rhetoric of prohibition exploits ignorance of the effects of drugs. We are told that the substance in question must be bad, for is it not evident that it 'leads to' the the harder (more ceremonially evil) stuff? (Use is Abuse, Gateway (propaganda theme 4) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme4.htm#4 ) re: "teenagers" - Prohibitionists play on parental fears by exaggerating the dangers to children of drugs. Adults must be jailed (reason prohibitionists), because kids might be corrupted with drugs. (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/theme5.htm#5 ) 
 
 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by charmed quark on October 04, 2006 at 15:27:34 PT

Federal laws against possession?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think there were any Federal laws against personal possession, as this writer says. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by whig on October 04, 2006 at 14:45:10 PT

Universer
Sorry, my humor circuits may need to be repaired.I'm bringing myself out of a bit of a downer spell since last week, what with the Torture Bill and then these horrible molesters and it just made me upset for awhile. Trying to pull out, and be positive again.Meantime my traffic dropped by 66% -- I must have scared people away. Am I still making sense?
http://cannablog.wordpress.com/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by Universer on October 04, 2006 at 13:32:56 PT

Whig
You've never seen "Animal House," I reckon?Have you a phattie and sit a spell. Good flick.I commend the below URL to you, sir.
John Belushi, a.k.a. Bluto
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by BGreen on October 04, 2006 at 13:00:56 PT

I think he meant it as a joke, whig
Everybody knows it was the French who bombed Pearl Harbor with freedom fries and that's why we attacked Iraq.Get your history right, whig, you California living, surfer type, borderline insane because you don't always agree with me kind of dude. LOLI guess you're going to tell us next that the Vietnam war wasn't started to remove that crazy dictator named Gandhi from power before he used his stockpile of WMD's to take over the world?Man, you historical revisionists!Sheesh!The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by whig on October 04, 2006 at 12:37:58 PT

Universer
The letter you sent was well written. Thank you for preaching the truth.I'm sorry for correcting you before, but I didn't want to let that incorrect fact sit without saying something. We have to correct our own errors as well as those of the prohibitionists, or we would eventually cease to tell the truth out of our own indifference.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by whig on October 04, 2006 at 12:34:50 PT

Universer
I hate to point this out, but the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 04, 2006 at 09:01:32 PT

Hope
I didn't want to click on the link either but I thought I should at least look at it. I actually didn't read it because I knew it wouldn't register with how I would look at the issue. You aren't missing anything.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by Hope on October 04, 2006 at 08:55:09 PT

Oh my gosh!
I don't know if I want to click on that url.No...I know I don't want to. I dread the load of bull manure that will roll off the screen right on to my desk.Aargh.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 04, 2006 at 08:41:24 PT

Press Release from The DEA
DEA’s New On-line Magazine Illustrates for Teens the Dangers of MarijuanaOctober 4, 2006http://www.dea.gov/pubs/pressrel/pr100406.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by Hope on October 04, 2006 at 08:29:38 PT

"Who's with me?"
Couldn't resist answering that, Universer.Me! I'm with you. Go, Man! Tell 'em some truth!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by paul armentano on October 04, 2006 at 07:25:50 PT

ONDCP $$ Funding CO Opposition
http://coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=762Amendment 44: Update On Funding
Oct 03, 2006 -- 2:34 PM MDT
Erin Rosa[Excerpt]Guarding Our Children Against Marijuana (GOCAM), a group created to oppose Amendment 44, has received $3,140, or approximately 54% of its funding, from two members of the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA).The RMHIDTA is not a government agency, but an entity funded by the federal government’s Office For National Drug Control Policy. The mission statement is “to support the national drug control strategy of reducing drug use in this nation.”“It’s a four state program that gives federal funds to bring people together to work together in drug enforcement, training, and information sharing,” said Thomas Gorman, the group’s director and a retired narcotics officer. “We’re not specifically an agency, the money comes out of the Office For National Drug Control Policy.”[snip]
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by Universer on October 04, 2006 at 00:30:10 PT:

Swing! and a...
Not my best work, but here goes (with apologies to Afterburner for idea-theft):Ladies and Gentlemen of the Pueblo Chieftain:I write in response to the editorial "Just Say No" published in your 3 October 2006 edition.The argument is postulated that "introducing teenagers and impressionable young adults to marijuana could lead them to experiment on harder drugs." Thank you, at least, for recognizing cannabis's status as separate from truly dangerous drugs. By so doing, you are already exhibiting a keen awareness that seems lost on the authors of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 who regard cannabis -- improperly and cravenly referred to in the bill as "marijuana" -- as equivalent in addictiveness and abuse-potential with heroin, a laughably erroneous assertion, both scientifically and moralistically.But there your acumen seems to end, for the quotation above implies that teenagers would be more eager to experiment with cannabis if adults are permitted to responsibly use it. I can conclude from this logic that you would hold that we should immediately prohibit adults from engaging in the perilous behavior of driving our nation's roads and highways, for this sends the message to teenagers that driving isn't dangerous. And indubitably you would agree that alcohol and tobacco usage by adults must be summarily and absolutely prohibited, lest the wrong message be sent to our impressionable young people -- young people who, I'm truly sorry to know, have ridiculously easy access to cannabis and hard drugs (id est, illegal substances) because there is no regulation of same.I needn't harp on the deleterious nature of the aforementioned legal drugs of abuse; their harmful effects are widely known even whilst their adverts are widely displayed. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ensure that "marijuana" remain absurdly available to youths, please maintain your stance in favor of prohibition. By choosing not to regulate cannabis, you are placing its commerce -- a circumstance that will certainly not disappear until humans themselves do -- into a dangerous netherworld of lawlessness. I highly doubt that that's what you want, but it is what you're going to get.I have been stoned many times. I will be stoned many times in the future. I choose not to consume alcohol and tobacco due to personal choice, and though I abhor those highly addictive substances, I cannot and will not argue that they should be prohibited for responsible, moderate usage by adults, on ideological grounds as well as pragmatic: Making something illegal destroys any possibility of regulation and therefore permits access by minor children.If you wish to think of the children, then please vote Yes to Amendment 44.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by Universer on October 03, 2006 at 23:50:17 PT:

Fastball down the middle.
This is an intellectually weak argument that has more holes than americanized Swiss cheese. It hardly dignifies a response...but it's going to get one anyway. Hopefully, several. Ideally, many.I for one am going to snap off a rebuttal to this weak piece of fluff which the Pueblo Propagandist-Bullcrapper has deigned to disseminate.Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now.Who's with me?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by afterburner on October 03, 2006 at 18:32:42 PT

Nausicaa #5 Ye-ah
Adults, especially parents, should not drive. It sends the message to children that it is OK for children to drive. Faugh!Why was cannabis medicine banned?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by mayan on October 03, 2006 at 18:00:55 PT

Hmmm
Who wrote this, the police chief? Why wasn't the author at the anti-44 meeting? I guess he didn't want to be the only one in the audience!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by Hope on October 03, 2006 at 17:50:02 PT

Nausicaa, Very good point.
"Should all adults only partake in activities deemed appropriate for teenagers so as not to send the wrong message?"
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by Nausicaa on October 03, 2006 at 17:38:07 PT

Why
Why do they always make the argument about children and "sending the wrong message"??? Since when has this ever been a standard for acceptable ADULT behavior? There are plenty of things that adults are allowed to do which we discourage kids from doing, and in many cases prohibit them from doing. Do the prohibitionists consider two parents having a glass of wine with dinner in front of their children "sending the wrong message"? Should all adults only partake in activities deemed appropriate for teenagers so as not to send the wrong message? So they don't feel inclined to behave like adults?Furthermore, do the drug warriors understand that most teenagers (I forget the numbers) claim it is easier to obtain marijuana than alcohol? Do they ever stop and think why this might be? Does it ever occur to them that in a black market dealers will sell to anyone they choose? They don't ask for ID. This is hardly a complicated exercise in reason, and the argument has been made dozens of times. I suppose it's one of those things they choose not to understand...
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by BGreen on October 03, 2006 at 17:18:46 PT

Get a clue, you fake journalists
You threw a party for people who think like yourself and NOBODY SHOWED UP TO SUPPORT YOU!What the frick do you think that means? Did you get your journalism degrees from the back of a matchbook?Pueblo should be proud-r-then-$&it of their newspaper and show their support by getting their news from a different source.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 03, 2006 at 16:54:18 PT

Check Out NORML's New Ad
http://www.adrants.com/images/NORML/target1.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by lombar on October 03, 2006 at 16:43:07 PT

No to fear.
We'd venture a guess that many of those were plea-bargained down from more serious drug offenses.I'd venture to guess that is BS. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by global_warming on October 03, 2006 at 16:20:51 PT

I say No
No more arrests of adults who can enjoy Cannabis,I say it is time for change.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment