cannabisnews.com: Just Say No To Amendment 44










††Just Say No To Amendment 44

Posted by CN Staff on October 07, 2006 at 20:22:38 PT
Opinion†
Source: Canon City Daily Record†

Colorado -- Amendment 44 presents a problem that its supporters cannot solve: If possessing up to an ounce of marijuana is legal for residents 21 and older, where will those marijuana users get their supply? In the economy of illegal drugs, demand for legal one-ounce increments of marijuana will require the services of the suppliers, who have operated and would continue to operate outside the law, even under Amendment 44.
Thatís just the beginning of the conundrums that riddle this poorly worded amendment to Colorado statutes. Its defenders defy logic. They claim that passing an ounce of marijuana to someone under 18 still would be illegal as contributing to a delinquency of a minor. True. But they fail to mention that a 21-year-old could legally pass an ounce of marijuana to a 20-year-old, a 19-year-old or an 18-year-old, who very likely would still be in high school. In such a case, only the 18-year-old would be breaking the law. While proponents and opponents differ on just how much an ounce of marijuana is, it is clear that an ounce of marijuana can make at least 30 joints, at thatís low by National Organization of Marijuana Laws stan-dards. It could be as high as 60. So if Amendment 44 passes, it could be legal to pass up 60 joints to an 18-year-old. Further, supporters fail to mention that marijuana legalization has failed in at least one other state, Alaska. There, possession of up to four ounces of marijuana was made legal in 1975. A 1988 University of Alaska study found that teenagers in Alaska used marijuana at more than twice the national average. Alaskans re-criminalized the drug in 1990. Finally, Amendment 44 backers make bizarre comparisons between their drug of choice and alcohol and fast food. Theyíre all bad for you. In fact, they say, alcohol is worse, so why not legalize a more mellow drug so that alcoholics can have a safer alternative? Get real. If they are that concerned about the effects of alcoholism, Amendment 44 backers should put their money into combating alcoholism, not offering yet another intoxicating substance to the public. Amendment 44 is not about making society safer, itís a twisted effort to weaken Colorado law. What were they smoking? We already know. Vote against 44.Source: Canon City Daily Record (US CO)Published: October 7, 2006Copyright: 2006 Royal Gorge Publishing CorporationContact: lspaulding ccdailyrecord.comWebsite: http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.morml.org/Safer Coloradohttp://www.safercolorado.org/Hippie-Hating and Baitinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22244.shtmlExpert Says Law Would Increase Marijuana Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22228.shtmlAdults Should Be Allowed To Choosehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22225.shtml 

Home †† Comment †† Email †† Register †† Recent Comments †† Help





Comment #19 posted by whig on October 21, 2006 at 18:35:06 PT
hitman
Those "Pot Tarts" are from California, there was a bust out here recently over that. I don't know of any evidence that they were ever sold to children, much less in Colorado. As far as I know they may have been given purely to medical patients for their personal consumption.Anyhow, I heard they were of poor quality and weak.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by hitman on October 21, 2006 at 13:06:31 PT:
www.Stop44.com
On the site stop44.com they are saying that people are making pot filled gumballs and things such as POT-tarts and selling them to little kids. I dont believe any of it; I haven't even seen 1 of these things. Somebody should expose the lies that come from that site.
http://www.stop44.com
[ Post Comment ]

†


Comment #17 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 19:34:19 PT

Maybe
it was miraculous. :)
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #16 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 19:33:50 PT

FoM
I have no idea why that double posted.
[ Post Comment ]



†


Comment #14 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 19:17:53 PT

Sinsemilla Jones
Miraculously, even. :)
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #13 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on October 08, 2006 at 18:39:56 PT

A good question that can't be ignored -
"If possessing up to an ounce of marijuana is legal for residents 21 and older, where will those marijuana users get their supply?"Of course, the answer is it will appear magically, like it has in the coffeeshops of Amsterdam for well over 3 decades.
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #12 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on October 08, 2006 at 18:25:56 PT

Who's giving away all this pot?!
Is there a big problem with people giving away pot in Colorado?Have they done a survey that shows that rather than smoke it, Coloradans would give their pot to an 18 year old, if it were only legal to do so?Have under cover narcs in CO reported dealers saying, "If it were legal, I'd give this ounce to a teenager. But since it isn't, I guess I have to sell it to you for $350 instead."
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #11 posted by afterburner on October 08, 2006 at 10:24:36 PT

'Opinion,' Author of the Article
Nice handle, dude!
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #10 posted by afterburner on October 08, 2006 at 10:13:46 PT

potpal #7 
'high' school: that's a good one. What is this 'high' that the federal government is so afraid of? Most novice cannabis consumers say things like, "I don't feel anything." The effects of the so-called 'high' are very subtle and need focus in order to be learned. It's not alcoholic stupor, folks!

[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #9 posted by Celaya on October 08, 2006 at 09:38:42 PT

Half-truth getting popular
"Alaskans re-criminalized the drug in 1990."Here we go again. AG Suthers' deception about Alaska is spreading. Never mind the courts ruled that "re-criminalization" unconstitutional and reinstituted the right to have marijuana in your own home.If we can look at any point in our past for a guide, why not go back to 1800? We passed laws to accomodate slavery then, so why not do it now? Never mind things changed.When marijuana DOES become legal, I will try to start a group that remembers EVERY ONE of these liars and labels them. Maybe even write a book about them. Not only should they not get away with this monstrous fraud, it would be a good way to make sure this Inquisition NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN! 

[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #8 posted by John Tyler on October 08, 2006 at 06:58:42 PT

Lets try freedom
So thatís their reason. They favor punishing all the other tens, of thousands of adults just because in the offhand chance some younger adults might pass some of their legal cannabis to some members of the under 21 crowd. This is a ridiculous argument. The under 21 crowd can already find cannabis anyway. The point of this law is to bring some sanity to this insane Drug War. Responsible adults who consume cannabis medically or otherwise should not have to be subject to criminal sanctions. Lets pass this reasonable law and see what happens. We have tried repression and it didnít work. Lets give freedom a try.
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #7 posted by potpal on October 08, 2006 at 05:30:54 PT

18 19 20
Let's keep these guys out of the war on drugs and ready for the real wars we tend to have started for ourselves and are raging. I mean once they're out of 'high' school that is.Otoh, I always found it funny that a school is named as to what one hopes to learn there. I have a cousin in medical school and a niece in beauty school.Found an interesting read, re: religion but eh it's the weekend and Sunday...
http://www.alternet.org/story/42025/
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #6 posted by whig on October 08, 2006 at 00:57:51 PT

Let's do this thing
I realize that saving the world seems like a ridiculously presumptuous thing to do, but if we don't do it, who will?http://tinyurl.com/ns4kk
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #5 posted by Wayne on October 07, 2006 at 21:01:09 PT

ok guys I'm lost, help me
"They claim that passing an ounce of marijuana to someone under 18 still would be illegal as contributing to a delinquency of a minor. True. But they fail to mention that a 21-year-old could legally pass an ounce of marijuana to a 20-year-old, a 19-year-old or an 18-year-old, who very likely would still be in high school. In such a case, only the 18-year-old would be breaking the law."Whaat?? Is he saying the 19 and 20 year olds would still be in high school? That's what they made it sound like. And besides, so f**king what if they give it to a 19 or 20 year old? A 19 or 20 year old is an adult in the eyes of the state, and they should have the right, AS an adult, to make that decision on their own."While proponents and opponents differ on just how much an ounce of marijuana is, it is clear that an ounce of marijuana can make at least 30 joints, at thatís low by National Organization of Marijuana Laws stan-dards. It could be as high as 60. So if Amendment 44 passes, it could be legal to pass up 60 joints to an 18-year-old."That's less than 1/2 a gram per joint, not counting the seeds and stems. Maybe I'm generous with my joint-rolling, but that sounds REALLY small. I'd be interested to see how NORML came up with that number, if it was even them at all."Further, supporters fail to mention that marijuana legalization has failed in at least one other state, Alaska. There, possession of up to four ounces of marijuana was made legal in 1975. A 1988 University of Alaska study found that teenagers in Alaska used marijuana at more than twice the national average. Alaskans re-criminalized the drug in 1990."OK, so what happened after 1990? Did the kids stop smoking pot? Tell me exactly how re-criminalization was a success, because I'm JUST NOT FOLLOWING!!

[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #4 posted by BGreen on October 07, 2006 at 20:59:30 PT

Oops, whig
You just gave the recipe for making cannabis.Now everybody knows how to create this horrible plant, all because you just couldn't keep it to yourself.The kids, whig, the kids!(grin)The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #3 posted by whig on October 07, 2006 at 20:48:22 PT

Nature
"In the economy of illegal drugs, demand for legal one-ounce increments of marijuana will require the services of the suppliers, who have operated and would continue to operate outside the law, even under Amendment 44."Or alternately, a seed, a little dirt, water and sunlight.
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #2 posted by lombar on October 07, 2006 at 20:44:26 PT

Weaker than...
If they are that concerned about the effects of alcoholism, Amendment 44 backers should put their money into combating alcoholismI bet the same people would oppose making alcohol illegal again and cite prohibition as worse, proven in the 1920s. They lobby endlessly for the alcohol industry already.If they are so concerned with Gods word, people who oppose gay marriages should put their money towards ending wars and stopping the sales of arms globally. (instead of institutionalizing predjudice)"Amendment 44 is not about making society safer, itís a twisted effort to weaken Colorado law."Weaker than what? It's (the law) ignored now by millions, we are not going away.
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #1 posted by observer on October 07, 2006 at 20:41:47 PT

bent on punishment. must punish, must!
But they fail to mention that a 21-year-old could legally pass an ounce of marijuana to a 20-year-old, a 19-year-old or an 18-year-old, who very likely would still be in high school. In such a case, only the 18-year-old would be breaking the law.a) That's a stretch.b) many other laws allow punishment in an imaginary case like thisc) Why are they so bent on punishing pot-smoking adults in the just-in-case, off-chance, total-stretch scenarios such as the bug-a-boo above? 

[ Post Comment ]





††Post Comment