“It” made the ballot in Colorado

11 thoughts on ““It” made the ballot in Colorado”

1. I hope Colorado does “it.” Unless, of course, people don’t like doing “it” in Colorado. Which would be weird.Report

   1. We’ve had MMJ shops for a year or two now. One would think that that would soften the harshest critics who would argue that “it” would result in TEOTWAWKI… but I still don’t see it passing.

      Boulder notwithstanding.Report

      1. TEOTWAWKI sounds like it should be the name of a great kind of “it.”Report

2. I have this thing where I hear young people say, “It’s time to finally legalize it, because our generation has accepted that people use it. We’re not uptight like our parents’ generation,” and I think, “Please, look into what percentage of your parents’ generation used it, compare that to the smaller percentage of your generation, and ask your parents how they would vote”. The only thing I can see that has changed, that might make a difference, is that the evil, deranging, devil weed has proven to have medicinal uses that society didn’t recognize forty years ago. But, of course, the important thing to remember when voting is that, when white kids use it, it’s not the same as when black kids use it- that’s just science.Report

   1. +1 x 10Report

   2. The problem is that both you and I know this isn’t about medicinal uses. It’s about getting high.

      And, y’know, maybe we need to admit that A: that’s what it’s about, and B: that’s not a bad thing. Any and all of the arguments over marijuana would not change one whit were the word replaced by “alcohol”. And alcohol is not just legal, but had its legality affirmed by a Constitutional amendment. So if alcohol is legal–and legal for recreational consumption–then we have, by definition, solved the problem of how to sell intoxicant drugs.

      Or we haven’t, in which case we have a bigger problem than marijuana.Report

      1. Self-medication via alcohol is a longstanding practice. So is self-medication via caffeine.
         That said, if you wanna say “I do it because it’s fun” who am I to stop you?Report

         1. I think this illustrates the problems with putting some things in the category labeled “medicine” and some in the “non-medicine” category, and saying that health insurance should only pay for the first one, defined strictly (not that insurance should pay for booze, but there are definitely gray areas that certainly include birth control).Report

      2. Look at the name of the law again. There’s a *LOT* going on there.Report

      3. the legislative history of the CA prohibition on marijuana is interesting (from Sully):

         According to Dale Gieringer the very first anti marijuana law was passed in California in 1913. Dr. Gieringer reports that testimony that led up to the ban included this statement from a California pharmacy official: “Within the last year we in California have been getting a large influx of Hindoos and they have in turn started quite a demand for cannabis indica; they are a very undesirable lot and the habit is growing in California very fast…”

         Anti-immigrant sentiment may have started the ball rolling, but it wasn’t long until marijuana was seen as a useful weapon to put the genie of African American civil rights back into its bottle. The well-established industry that provided cannabis as medicine was sufficient to keep cannabis out of the first federal drug prohibition law, the 1914 Harrison Act, but the industry apparently had no fight left in it when, after alcohol Prohibition, federal authorities turned their attention toward cannabisReport

      4. I’ve said it before , but I’ll say again that I’d support NORML in a “sex when you’re stoned can be pretty great” ad campaign.Report

Comments are closed.