Gov Hickenlooper - D to set up task force to

[GURPS (Premo)]

Gov. John Hickenlooper (D, CO) to set up task force to stymie pot legalization.



So, what does an ambitious Democratic governor do when dealing with a situation where The People Have Spoken, The [Expletive Deleted]? That’s right: he obfuscates. Setting up a ‘task force’ over pot legalization that’s been stacked with groups that can be relied upon to bitterly resent pot legalization is an excellent first step to delaying any kind of implementation whatsoever. So is ‘asking for guidance‘ from the Justice Department, which is code for Get this stupid amendment bogged down in court, already. And that’s just the procedural issues. The hoops that Colorado (and probably Washington State) will make pot vendors jump through are likely to be epic. Warning labels? Yup! Big ones. Special malpractice insurance? Big time. A special ‘pot tax’ to pay for all the increased medical costs from smoking? Ohhhh, yeah. And this is probably going to end up being my favorite one, for given values of ‘favorite:’ “child-proofing.” That phrase covers so, so, so many contingencies. I mean, you don’t want kids to be at risk, now?

I note all of this not because I have any particular problem with adults smoking pot (I don’t***), but I do have a bit of a problem with young voters mistaking liberalism for libertarianism – and rather more of one with young voters getting upset when they vote for Democrats, and then get the former instead of the latter. Please remember: while liberals may agree with libertarians on some goals, they do not – DO NOT – agree with libertarians on how to accomplish those goals. Liberals do not want less government in our lives. They like the idea of logrolling inconvenient expressions of the will of the People -well, inconvenient to them. And if they don’t agree with libertarians on a goal, they will cheerfully steamroller the libertarians like they would any other interest group that isn’t a fully-owned subsidiary of the Democratic party.

Put more simply: if you’re for legalizing pot, the fact that the Democrats aren’t doing anything about that isn’t because they can’t hear you. They hear you just fine. They just don’t care.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Liberals are in a conundrum. Legalizing pot potentially rakes in billions in government revenues; more money for liberals to blow. They love this. But it also expands human liberty; liberals hate this. Then there is that old “the people have spoken”. Liberals hate that too.

What's more important to liberals: Collecting more taxes from people or controlling our lives?

I vote controlling our lives.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by GURPS

Gov. John Hickenlooper (D, CO) to set up task force to stymie pot legalization.



So, what does an ambitious Democratic governor do when dealing with a situation where The People Have Spoken, The [Expletive Deleted]? That’s right: he obfuscates. Setting up a ‘task force’ over pot legalization that’s been stacked with groups that can be relied upon to bitterly resent pot legalization is an excellent first step to delaying any kind of implementation whatsoever. So is ‘asking for guidance‘ from the Justice Department, which is code for Get this stupid amendment bogged down in court, already. And that’s just the procedural issues. The hoops that Colorado (and probably Washington State) will make pot vendors jump through are likely to be epic. Warning labels? Yup! Big ones. Special malpractice insurance? Big time. A special ‘pot tax’ to pay for all the increased medical costs from smoking? Ohhhh, yeah. And this is probably going to end up being my favorite one, for given values of ‘favorite:’ “child-proofing.” That phrase covers so, so, so many contingencies. I mean, you don’t want kids to be at risk, now?

I note all of this not because I have any particular problem with adults smoking pot (I don’t***), but I do have a bit of a problem with young voters mistaking liberalism for libertarianism – and rather more of one with young voters getting upset when they vote for Democrats, and then get the former instead of the latter. Please remember: while liberals may agree with libertarians on some goals, they do not – DO NOT – agree with libertarians on how to accomplish those goals. Liberals do not want less government in our lives. They like the idea of logrolling inconvenient expressions of the will of the People -well, inconvenient to them. And if they don’t agree with libertarians on a goal, they will cheerfully steamroller the libertarians like they would any other interest group that isn’t a fully-owned subsidiary of the Democratic party.

Put more simply: if you’re for legalizing pot, the fact that the Democrats aren’t doing anything about that isn’t because they can’t hear you. They hear you just fine. They just don’t care.

In this case it's pretty much clear cut, liberalism would be to change the laws to legalize marijuana, libertarianism would be to get the laws making it illegal off of the books completely.

[thatguy]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

In this case it's pretty much clear cut, liberalism would be to change the laws to legalize marijuana, libertarianism would be to get the laws making it illegal off of the books completely.

legalize is step one, eliminate the federal laws is step two. I predict no more that 3 years before this comes to a head.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by thatguy

legalize is step one, eliminate the federal laws is step two. I predict no more that 3 years before this comes to a head.

I see what you did there.

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by thatguy

legalize is step one, eliminate the federal laws is step two.

this is a states rights issue ..... like Abortion Should have been

this will wind up in court before it is all done, if the FED tries to spin it as a TAX issue - Fed Drug Laws will stand [although I think that argument was abandoned in the 60's as the drug laws were revised] - if the FED tries to retain enforcement by claiming the right, they will lose based on states rights provisions in the Constitution