Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Sheriff opposes legalized pot

  1. #1
    Senior Member Susie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,565

    Default Sheriff opposes legalized pot

    Pueblo County Sheriff Kirk Taylor says voters have been "put to sleep" on the issue of marijuana but he, along with the County Sheriffs of Colorado, is strongly opposed to Amendment 64 on the November

    More...

  2. #2
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    'Taylor argued that marijuana was dangerous to young people, invited more crime, and that legalizing its use would make Colorado "the marijuana capitol of the world."'

    I disagree with Taylor's assertion that it would make Colorado the marijuana capitol of the world.
    Opinions expressed by me are mine only and are not in any way, shape, or form representative of the Pueblo Chieftain or Pueblo Community Forums.

  3. #3
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    One has to remember, State legalization would be a moot point. Marijuana, used in any manner or sold, in any manner, is Illegal by Federal law . .

    And, just like Illegal Immigration, should be enforced until the laws are changed . . .

    It's pure Bullsh*t to have laws, and then allow politicians (or voters at lower judicial levels) make spot exceptions . . It becomes a soup sandwich for the courts . . as well as the public . .

    The problem with argument about legalizing MJ and comparing it to alcohol is the simple fact that the legal detection methods aren't immediate (as they are with Alcohol) and that a kid can carry enough MJ in his pocket to get the whole Jr. High stoned at lunch hour . . He can't do that with a case of Beer . . Somebody's certain to notice either the case or the empty cans . .

    As for being the "Pot Capital" . . Dunno about that, we're pretty close already. I-25 is probably the biggest thruway of supply for dope from Mexico, and distribution in any direction from here (CO.) by truck or car because of it's central location and it's junctions with both I-40 and I-70, plus, under the cover of "Medical Marijuana" Legality, tons of Pot are being grown and distributed into other states already . . There just aren't enough people in the Colorado State Government to keep track of what plants are "legal", and what aren't . . Not to mention the several "Farms" of illegal Grass being grown by "Mexican Cartels" on Private and government properties . . Chances are pretty good that, quite like Mice, when you find one, there's gotta be another dozen you don't see . . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  4. #4
    Silver Member masonranch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,482

    Default Feds agent of the States or States agents of the Fed.

    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    One has to remember, State legalization would be a moot point. Marijuana, used in any manner or sold, in any manner, is Illegal by Federal law . .
    I've never used pot nor ever plan to, but I really object to the Feds regulating commerce entirely within the state. If the pot is grown in Colorado and used exclusivily in Colorado the Feds should have nothing to say or regulate about it being an entirely a State issue. I know about the case in California where pot was grown there in planters made from California wood and used legally and only personally per state law yet the Federal courts ruled that it was a violation of "Interstate Commerce". I disagree with that decision and consider it another example of a rogue Federal Government that has its nose out of joint (pun intended)
    The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time - Ayn Rand

    The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”- Patrick Henry

  5. #5
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    A conundrum . .

    The federal law on the legality of Marijuana is one thing. State's rights to allow it's legality/illegality is another . . Simply because as long as there's the "Commerce Clause' the feds can still regulate it.

    And, you have the problem also, of "Interstate Smuggling" . . How would that be handled? One state, like Colorado could, ostrensibly, legalize use and possession of marijuana. Once that's done, the number of plants or even size of crop, would be a moot point, because it's either legal or it isn't . . And . . if all the surrounding states still maintained marijuana to be illegal, either by use or possession, that would make Colorado the "Marijuana Capital of the USA" . . Location is everything and being in the center would be a good thing, no matter how illegal pot would be in Kansas, Oklahoma or Utah . . And if Exploding Fireworks (Illegal for the most part in most Colorado Cities and Counties) are a "smuggled commodity" today, can you imagine the interstate smuggling and marketing of Colorado Marijuana in the surrounding states?

    And we know, from the initial case by the Commerce Clause (the farmer growing wheat for his own use) that the fact that using all local products to produce an item can be contested successfully by the Feds . . If they can prove one smidgeon of that product is liable to cross a state line . . Dumb as that might be . .

    Personally, I believe the Commerce Clause has been interpreted far too broadly but then that's probably just me . . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  6. #6
    Silver Member masonranch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    A conundrum . .

    And, you have the problem also, of "Interstate Smuggling" . .
    Smuggling is an Illegal activity. The Feds are within their rights to prosecute smuggled drugs, smuggled wheat, or smuggled anything because that is interstate commerce and falls within the purview of the Interstate commerce clause. Colorado pot in Kansas is fair game, but that does not give the Feds the right to sieze product within Colorado assuming it has been made legal, medically or general use in Colorado. Just because some pot grown in Colorado gets smuggled accross state lines, does that give the Feds any right to seize product from the farm it was smuggled from?
    The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time - Ayn Rand

    The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”- Patrick Henry

  7. #7
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by masonranch View Post
    Smuggling is an Illegal activity. The Feds are within their rights to prosecute smuggled drugs, smuggled wheat, or smuggled anything because that is interstate commerce and falls within the purview of the Interstate commerce clause. Colorado pot in Kansas is fair game, but that does not give the Feds the right to sieze product within Colorado assuming it has been made legal, medically or general use in Colorado. Just because some pot grown in Colorado gets smuggled accross state lines, does that give the Feds any right to seize product from the farm it was smuggled from?
    That's not the argument . . or debate, if you will . . The Commerce Clause, according to the Supreme Court, says that the Feds can use it (the clause) to enforce just about any limitation upon products that "Might" become "Interstate Commerce" Or . . "AFFECT IT IN ANY WAY" . . that was the gist of the prosecution of the Wheat farmer who intended to use all his product on his own farm, for food for himself for his family and feed for his animals (in 1938) . . And the Supreme court ruled in favor of the Federal Government(in 1938) . . That I don't agree with, and believe that the "Commerce Clause" needs to be revisted by the courts because the voter would need to ratify a change in the Amendments and that would both take too long and in all probability, never happen . .

    But, the debate about the "Marijuana Capital of the Country" would indeed weigh in were the unlimited possession and use of Marijuana be approved in this state (or any other, currently). It would affect both your interstate travel and how interstate business would be done. Because, were the laws on use and possession of marijuana to reamin as it is in the surrounding states, it would make those law enforcement agencies in those states view every traveler into their state by a Coloradoan (or even those traveling through the state) as a potential "Dope Smuggler" or "Dealer' . . And, on that view, give them reason to stop and search (if nothing else) anyone entering their state from a common Colorado Border . . It would become a State law Enforcement Problem . . For the surrounding states.

    I have been told by sources, that currently, more than a few people with Medical Marijuana prescriptions sell a protion of their marijuana to others who either don't have prescriptions or Dealer's licenses, and some of it "Goes out of State" . .

    That, to me would be considered about the same as buying M-80's in Wyoming or Indiana and bringing them into Colorado. Unless, of course, it was a five ton van body truck full and I was going to sell them to teen age kids . . Then, all of a sudden, I'd be the pariah any "Smuggler" becomes . .

    And, oddly, most would dissapprove of the M-80's before they'd dissapprove of the same truck filled with high grade bud . . On the other hand, Possession of M-80's aren't against Federal Law, but Possession of Marijuana IS . . That's my problem with both sides of the argument. Why have the voters approve a law that is a moot point? Currently, the feds enforce the law at their pleasure, picking and choosing who they will regulate, close up or prosecute, because they can. And the degree of how much weight the Feds choose to bring down on the current Medical marijuana sellers and users can change with no more than a new Assistant Attorney General in the Colorado District, a new appointment of Attorney General or a New President . .

    Not a very good way to run a railroad . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Amsterdam plans 'cannabis clean up'

    The Mayor of Amsterdam has told Newsbeat he will push through plans to close down half the cannabis cafes in the centre of the city and some sections of the red light district. Authorities believe the unrestricted growth of cannabis coffee shops and legal brothels has encouraged crime like money laundering and people trafficking.

  9. #9
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    I'm betting that the next MMJ scandal is gonna be when one of the State's bean counters gets into one of the production greenhouses and does an audit . . betcha they find more plants than paper, by about X2 . . . .

    Nahhhh, they wouldn't do that . . Would they?
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •