Senator Bennet

[mustangwomyn]

I have recently contacted Senator Bennet regarding his stance on MMJ via E-Mail on 2 ocasions. The second time I specifically indicated I was following up and requested clarification to aid in my decision of whom to vote for. Well on both occasions I received the same Identical Copy and pasted answer as listed Below.

"Many states, including our own, have adopted policies that allow for the medicinal use of marijuana. Some of these states have made it legal to grow, distribute and use marijuana for prescribed medicinal purposes. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the cultivation and distribution of marijuana and that federal law enforcement authorities may enforce federal drug laws, in spite of existing state laws allowing for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

As a result of the Supreme Courtâ??s decision, individuals who grow, distribute and consume marijuana under a state medicinal marijuana law are not immune from prosecution by the federal government. The Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which provides Congress with authority over activities that have an impact on interstate commerce.

Please be assured that the safety and well-being of the public is my first concern."

[denverbear]

I have recently contacted Senator Bennet regarding his stance on MMJ via E-Mail on 2 ocasions. The second time I specifically indicated I was following up and requested clarification to aid in my decision of whom to vote for. Well on both occasions I received the same Identical Copy and pasted answer as listed Below.

"Many states, including our own, have adopted policies that allow for the medicinal use of marijuana. Some of these states have made it legal to grow, distribute and use marijuana for prescribed medicinal purposes. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the cultivation and distribution of marijuana and that federal law enforcement authorities may enforce federal drug laws, in spite of existing state laws allowing for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

As a result of the Supreme Courtâ??s decision, individuals who grow, distribute and consume marijuana under a state medicinal marijuana law are not immune from prosecution by the federal government. The Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which provides Congress with authority over activities that have an impact on interstate commerce.

Please be assured that the safety and well-being of the public is my first concern."

IF YOU RESPOND BACK TO HIM ASK HIM ASK HIM WHY HE DOES NOT TRY TO PUT ALCHOL UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA AS MEDICAL MJ AS WE ALL KNOW BOOZE IS WORSE THE WEED..

Please be assured that the safety and well-being of the public is my first concern." IF HE REALLY CARED HE WOULD TAKE A STAND ON ALCHOL..

[copobo]

thanks for posting this. ballots came today.

[mustangwomyn]

thanks for posting this. ballots came today.

I think it is important to know our Legislators position, and the upcoming primary is why I contacted Him as I really wanted to understand all elected officials positions.

Its sad that all his staff can do is copy and paste answers, I specifically told them I was looking for more information then received in the first reply, yet they sent the exact same reply. That sure doesn't indicate that he is competent. I may not understand an answer received, but at least I would respect his right to his own opinion. But in this case it seems he is trying to dodge the question, that I don't respect.

[rightwinger]

I have recently contacted Senator Bennet regarding his stance on MMJ via E-Mail on 2 ocasions. The second time I specifically indicated I was following up and requested clarification to aid in my decision of whom to vote for. Well on both occasions I received the same Identical Copy and pasted answer as listed Below.

"Many states, including our own, have adopted policies that allow for the medicinal use of marijuana. Some of these states have made it legal to grow, distribute and use marijuana for prescribed medicinal purposes. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the cultivation and distribution of marijuana and that federal law enforcement authorities may enforce federal drug laws, in spite of existing state laws allowing for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

As a result of the Supreme Courtâ??s decision, individuals who grow, distribute and consume marijuana under a state medicinal marijuana law are not immune from prosecution by the federal government. The Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which provides Congress with authority over activities that have an impact on interstate commerce.

Please be assured that the safety and well-being of the public is my first concern."


Bennet doesn't have a snow-balls chance in hell of winning his assigned seat--LOL. He may not even win against Romanoff in the primary.

Furthermore our U.S. Senators and congressmen have absolutely nothing to do with "state" law--they don't make the laws in this state--they only represent us at the Federal level.

It's your govenor and state legislators that you need to pay attention to.

[HighPopalorum]

Bennet doesn't have a snow-balls chance in hell of winning his assigned seat--LOL.

Saved for later bumpage. Bennett is literally rolling in money, from grass-roots donors as well as corporate and party faithful. Meanwhile, Norton and Buck are ripping each other's throats out.


Every reporting quarter, Michael Bennet has posted impressive fundraising totals that have gone unrivaled by any other candidate in the field. Frequently, his haul has doubled or tripled that of his primary opponents (Republican and Democrat) and regularly has outpaced the combined total of all other candidates in the race.

-ColoradoPols

You shouldn't count Bennett out before the GE... money talks.

[HighPopalorum]

This is silly. I can't even edit my post to correct the spelling of Bennet's name.

[copobo]

It's your govenor and state legislators that you need to pay attention to.

we need to pay attention to them all. federal change must be next. rescheduling needs to happen there. Congress *could* legalize nationwide!

HB3939, Truth in Trials needs the support of our people in WA. Also, the need to know this IS an important issue to Coloradoans, and that we vote based on their position and actions regarding mmj.

[mustangwomyn]

we need to pay attention to them all. federal change must be next. rescheduling needs to happen there. Congress *could* legalize nationwide!

HB3939, Truth in Trials needs the support of our people in WA. Also, the need to know this IS an important issue to Coloradoans, and that we vote based on their position and actions regarding mmj.

Agreed They must know that their position is important to us. Additionally they must know they can't dance around the subject & still expect our vote.

[HighPopalorum]

Taking no side on the issue is better than taking the wrong side. Besides, marijuana is not a binary issue. For example, there are bitter disagreements on this forum, but I think most or all of us favor legalization in our way.

[rightwinger]

we need to pay attention to them all. federal change must be next. rescheduling needs to happen there. Congress *could* legalize nationwide!

HB3939, Truth in Trials needs the support of our people in WA. Also, the need to know this IS an important issue to Coloradoans, and that we vote based on their position and actions regarding mmj.


You know as well as I do--that the Federal Government is NOT going to legalize marijuana within the next few decades. These politicians are funded by the pharmactical industry in this country--that is currently more wealthy than Exon-oil or natural gas industry in total.--LOL.

And as long as the Pharmacutical industry is worried about what can be grown in ones backyard to replace half of their medicine cabinet--you can bet politicians from both sides of the isle will be in agreement with whatever they want.

[smokbhang]

At least Romanoff has come out previously and outright supported marijuana legalization, even going on to say that the Feds need to rethink their scheduling of the drug. Michael Bennet has not said a damn thing, I urge everyone to avoid Bennet unless he says something favorable!

You can find out what Romanoff has said about marijuana by going to his website and simply using the search box for marijuana, there are two items. Searching in Bennets website reveals nothing. Calling his office reveals nothing, and they will admit he hasn't come out in support of marijuana. He is a chicken shit and probably against it.

[mustangwomyn]

At least Romanoff has come out previously and outright supported marijuana legalization, even going on to say that the Feds need to rethink their scheduling of the drug. Michael Bennet has not said a damn thing, I urge everyone to avoid Bennet unless he says something favorable!



This is good to know

:)

[valstar]

So who should we vote come this fall. I dont care dem or repub. Who is on our side?

[cologrower420]

So who should we vote come this fall. I dont care dem or repub. Who is on our side?

More anti MMJ people vote (old people) than pro MMJ people, so any elected official will likely take an antiMMJ stance, or point to heavy regulation.

You won't find a winner.

[smokbhang]

I would say so far, vote Romanoff. However, I have heard bad things about Romanoff too and Prop 44 where he was against it, but at least he has still publicly came out in favor of Marijuana, however people will still say he is a liar.

If anyone has some good info on Romanoff and Prop 44 where he was against it, please speak up. Please provide links.

I am with Valstar, Dem or Rep, I will vote for whoever is in favor of MMJ. And so far I know of Romanoff being in favor, but is he a liar?

[Reenster]

More anti MMJ people vote (old people) than pro MMJ people, so any elected official will likely take an antiMMJ stance, or point to heavy regulation.

You won't find a winner.

Not looking at the individual and making assumptions is not going to help our cause. I am sure that you would consider me one of those "old people" but remember there are many of us boomers that have been championing the legalization cause for decades. We should not assume someones view points on marijuana based on their party affiliation or age :rastasmoke:

[cologrower420]

Not looking at the individual and making assumptions is not going to help our cause. I am sure that you would consider me one of those "old people" but remember there are many of us boomers that have been championing the legalization cause for decades. We should not assume someones view points on marijuana based on their party affiliation or age :rastasmoke:

My parents were both born and raised in the middle of the bible belt, in Nebraska, in towns smaller than 1,000 people.

There is alcoholism on both sides of our family, and my mother's father died from a horrific alcohol related incident just prior to her high school graduation.

If you ask my mom, she would say that heroin, meth, and marijuana are just as bad, and should be illegal. Obviously I don't agree with my mom, but my mom and her friends all vote. Not many of my stoner friends vote. That was my point in saying most politicians will be anti-MMJ, because their biggest voting block does not want to legalize drugs.

That was my point. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for you old school hippy's, so I don't mean any disrespect. I just don't think people here realize that politicians care about getting votes, and I think that was the main motivation behind 1284 and 106, not 'caregivers being evil'. I remember hearing my mom talk on the phone to her friends when 9news was going undercover, getting redcards for ear aches.

[denverbear]

what do you do if you are in a double quandry...I have a medical card and a concealed carry license..one party wants one and the other party wants the other..;.
is there any canidates that want both things I enjoy..??

[HighPopalorum]

what do you do if you are in a double quandry...I have a medical card and a concealed carry license..one party wants one and the other party wants the other..;.
is there any canidates that want both things I enjoy..??

Horeseshit. There are lots of pro-gun Democrats in this state, including Senators Udall and Bennet.

Denver post July 22, 2009: (http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2009/07/22/colorado%E2%80%99s-democratic-senators-supported-shot-down-concealed-carry-amendment-2/)

Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall are proving reliably pro-gun with their support today of a narrowly failed amendment that would have allowed holders of concealed-carry permits to transport their hidden pistols across state lines.

...

Only two months ago Bennet and Udall supported the passage of a new law that allows concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons in national parks.
That hardly sounds like they are trying to take your concealed carry permit away. In this state, Democrats running for statewide office are largely pro-gun. The only ones who can afford to thumb their noses at gun owners are local politicians in Denver. So now you know that you can vote Democratic without fear they will take either your concealed carry permit or your registry card.

[cologrower420]

Horeseshit. There are lots of pro-gun Democrats in this state, including Senators Udall and Bennet.

Denver post July 22, 2009: (http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2009/07/22/colorado%E2%80%99s-democratic-senators-supported-shot-down-concealed-carry-amendment-2/)

Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall are proving reliably pro-gun with their support today of a narrowly failed amendment that would have allowed holders of concealed-carry permits to transport their hidden pistols across state lines.

...

Only two months ago Bennet and Udall supported the passage of a new law that allows concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons in national parks.
That hardly sounds like they are trying to take your concealed carry permit away. In this state, Democrats running for statewide office are largely pro-gun. The only ones who can afford to thumb their noses at gun owners are local politicians in Denver. So now you know that you can vote Democratic without fear they will take either your concealed carry permit or your registry card.

The issue is that you are not eligible for a concealed carry permit in colorado if you are breaking or have broken federal laws. Registration/redcard in colorado is pretty strong evidence you are breaking federal law since it's still illegal, even if you are a compliant patient. (edit: find the requirements for concealed carry eligibility in colorado if you like.)

Wouldn't MMC employees now be banned from having concealed carry permits? Assuming everyone agrees that pot related stuff is legal locally but illegal according to the feds?

I think that's what kathleen at onebrownmouse was so upset about, is the fact that MMC's are basically giving the government everything they need, so that if the DEA subpoenaed the MMJ database, they'd have a goldmine of info to use to bust big grow ops with, and since MMC's waive their right to privacy etc, they're screwed. With vertical integration, every single MMC will be over 99 plants, which in my opinion, is a major issue with the DEA.

Why wouldn't the DEA be busting MMC's? It took them 24 hours to get to the guy in highlands ranch. But he wasn't paying his taxes, so the government is making money by keeping MMC's open. They lose all of those licensing fees etc if the MMC's go away.

Again, it's not like large scale home grows were paying taxes on that income.

[hizeman]

The issue is that you are not eligible for a concealed carry permit in colorado if you are breaking or have broken federal laws. Registration/redcard in colorado is pretty strong evidence you are breaking federal law since it's still illegal, even if you are a compliant patient. (edit: find the requirements for concealed carry eligibility in colorado if you like.)

Wouldn't MMC employees now be banned from having concealed carry permits? Assuming everyone agrees that pot related stuff is legal locally but illegal according to the feds?

I think that's what kathleen at onebrownmouse was so upset about, is the fact that MMC's are basically giving the government everything they need, so that if the DEA subpoenaed the MMJ database, they'd have a goldmine of info to use to bust big grow ops with, and since MMC's waive their right to privacy etc, they're screwed. With vertical integration, every single MMC will be over 99 plants, which in my opinion, is a major issue with the DEA.

Why wouldn't the DEA be busting MMC's? It took them 24 hours to get to the guy in highlands ranch. But he wasn't paying his taxes, so the government is making money by keeping MMC's open. They lose all of those licensing fees etc if the MMC's go away.

Again, it's not like large scale home grows were paying taxes on that income.

This brings up an interesting point, and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but being a federal crime seems to be almost a loophole.

It's against the 5th Amendment to require someone to bear witness against themselves, and IMO the new laws require dispensary owners to collect and record evidence that can be used against themselves in a federal court of law.

Maybe grounds for a lawsuit?

[cologrower420]

The issue is that you are not eligible for a concealed carry permit in colorado if you are breaking or have broken federal laws. Registration/redcard in colorado is pretty strong evidence you are breaking federal law since it's still illegal, even if you are a compliant patient. (edit: find the requirements for concealed carry eligibility in colorado if you like.)

Wouldn't MMC employees now be banned from having concealed carry permits? Assuming everyone agrees that pot related stuff is legal locally but illegal according to the feds?

I think that's what kathleen at onebrownmouse was so upset about, is the fact that MMC's are basically giving the government everything they need, so that if the DEA subpoenaed the MMJ database, they'd have a goldmine of info to use to bust big grow ops with, and since MMC's waive their right to privacy etc, they're screwed. With vertical integration, every single MMC will be over 99 plants, which in my opinion, is a major issue with the DEA.

Why wouldn't the DEA be busting MMC's? It took them 24 hours to get to the guy in highlands ranch. But he wasn't paying his taxes, so the government is making money by keeping MMC's open. They lose all of those licensing fees etc if the MMC's go away.

Again, it's not like large scale home grows were paying taxes on that income.


This brings up an interesting point, and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but being a federal crime seems to be almost a loophole.

It's against the 5th Amendment to require someone to bear witness against themselves, and IMO the new laws require dispensary owners to collect and record evidence that can be used against themselves in a federal court of law.

Maybe grounds for a lawsuit?
I'm not a lawyer either, but I would imagine we'll have to wait for someone to be charged with a crime before they file a lawsuit, or something.

I think the first people busted will be large scale growers who chose not to be compliant. I would use someone like kathleen at brownmouse as an example, although I'm not sure and I hesitate to use a specific person as an example. I'll use the name Katy, and assume Katy grows for 1500 patients and chose not to file paperwork to remain compliant, so if Katy grows for more than herself and up to 5 patients, than Katy is now operating outside the law.

I think it's important to note this new legislation. Look at matt cook's ignorant ass. But, he probably saw how much revenue his department was losing out on, since large scale private caregivers like Kathleen and Katy probably don't pay taxes on the revenue they generate. Some might. So now, he just ensured that his department will get their money via licensing taxes and fees, etc. Also, with his 5 patient cap, he screws the large scale home grows that don't want to pay to pay, like Katy and Kathleen (and my primary caregiver). It wasn't the dispensaries pushing a patient cap, they got their exception. Why would an MMC want large scale private grows to go out of business? By requiring things like vertical integration, 5patient cap on private caregivers, requiring all this personal info for MMC's who choose to remain compliant, this simply ensured the state that this semi-legit industry would get their share of tax revenue.

Cook's explanation of the high licensing fees is akin to building a house, in that the majority of startup costs come at the beginning. He's talking about his new enforcement division at his department of revenue. He's using these high fees to create jobs to enforce his rules. He's saying that he needs lots of money right now, that's why everything is so expensive now. But, he's an asshole because they'll never lower the fees. They'll always be high, and the state will always enjoy that revenue. Does anyone really think the fees will be lower next year or when this enforcement division gets past the initial fees?

[Zedleppelin]

More anti MMJ people vote (old people) than pro MMJ people, so any elected official will likely take an antiMMJ stance, or point to heavy regulation.

You won't find a winner.

Wrong. Almost 70% of seniors are in favor of medical marijuana.

[cologrower420]

Wrong. Almost 70% of seniors are in favor of medical marijuana.

Can you cite a source? Are you referring to a survey or something? I'm pretty sure I would be able to find something that says 70% of seniors don't favor medical marijuana. What do those people say about full legalization of pot? What about other drugs?

[HighPopalorum]

Can you cite a source? Are you referring to a survey or something? I'm pretty sure I would be able to find something that says 70% of seniors don't favor medical marijuana. What do those people say about full legalization of pot? What about other drugs?

I believe he's talking about the 2004 AARP survey (http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/AARP.medical_marijuana.pdf).

[Zedleppelin]

Can you cite a source? Are you referring to a survey or something? I'm pretty sure I would be able to find something that says 70% of seniors don't favor medical marijuana. What do those people say about full legalization of pot? What about other drugs?


Medical Marijuana, ABC News Poll Analysis - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503)

'Eight in 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use and nearly half favor decriminalizing the drug more generally, both far higher than a decade ago.'

'Medical marijuana, for its part, receives majority support across the political and ideological spectrum, from 68 percent of conservatives and 72 percent of Republicans as well as 85 percent of Democrats and independents and about nine in 10 liberals and moderates. Support slips to 69 percent among seniors, vs. 83 percent among all adults under age 65.'

---------------------

75% IN AARP POLL BACK MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE

US: 75% in AARP Poll Back Medical Marijuana Use (http://www.mapinc.org/ctcnews/v04/n1817/a01.html)


Lets see your poll.

[cologrower420]

Well, your poll doesn't appear to address voting versus non-voting poll respondents.

I am in total disagreement with you, and I don't have time to find a link at this moment, but my point still stands, that many old people who vote, are anti MMJ. You countered that 70% of seniors are in favor, I question how many of those people vote.

Wouldn't there be more MMJ friendly people? Or do you think the antiMMJ crowd is just really loud right now?

Can you cite anything that states the percentage of voting seniors? That would be better to use than seniors in general, since we're discussing old people who vote, not old people who respond to polls. I'm probably nitpicking though.

edit: I guess I'm going to have to be better convinced that the voting public over age 55 supports medical marijuana, because my poor anecdotal evidence says otherwise. Hopefully all the old people in California vote for prop 19.

[Zedleppelin]

And overhearing your mother talk on the phone is more of a scientific poll to you?

[copobo]

I would think a poll by the AARP would be about as good a source as you can get on the subject. They have no reason to skew the numbers.

[cologrower420]

And overhearing your mother talk on the phone is more of a scientific poll to you?

It was a simple use of anecdotal evidence.

There are old people who vote, in my experience, who are anti MMJ than who are for it. I certainly disagree that 70% of seniors are pro-legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. I don't think that number is anywhere near that high, and not many people vote. So I question your use of statistics that don't take into account voters/non-voters. I guess I consider your 70% comment to be anecdotal as well.

Either way it doesn't matter and it's just my opinion.

Also, my sample size of old voting people is probably close to 5, and that's high. So I'm not taking a position of being informed on the matter. No biggie.

edit: I don't question the accuracy of that poll, I just think that study is slightly 'flawed' for the purposes of this discussion, because the study doesn't tell us who and who doesn't vote. So I still think more old people vote anti MMJ than for it. I'm happy to change my opinions if I hear something otherwise.

[Zedleppelin]

Your argument is members of the AARP dont vote? They have some of the biggest political clout in the country because THEIR MEMBERS VOTE.

[cologrower420]

Your argument is members of the AARP dont vote? They have some of the biggest political clout in the country because THEIR MEMBERS VOTE.

I'm saying we don't know which poll respondents vote, and which don't. That makes using that data to attempt to show correlations don't work, in my opinion. Like I said, I'm sure the percentage of seniors who approve of legalizing medicinal marijuana is somewhere north of zero and probably not more than 70%, but I don't have any idea where that number lies, I just don't think it's anywhere near 70%.

[luge469]

I will go to Windsor Gardens(retirement community must be 55 to own there)tomorrow and take an unscientific poll in my grandmothers building. I will ask everyone I see and ask them, If they are registered voters, and then if the voted for MMj and if legalization were on the ballot how would they vote. I am sure this won't be accepted by at least one person, but interesting info none theless.
Results to follow...

[copobo]

edit: I don't question the accuracy of that poll, I just think that study is slightly 'flawed' for the purposes of this discussion, because the study doesn't tell us who and who doesn't vote. So I still think more old people vote anti MMJ than for it. I'm happy to change my opinions if I hear something otherwise.

did you read the article that was posted? the numbers are pretty well laid out.


Among the 1,706 adults polled in AARP's random telephone survey in November, opinions varied along regional and generational lines and among the 30 percent of respondents who said they have smoked pot. AARP members represented 37 percent of respondents.

Overall, 72 percent of respondents agreed "adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it." Those in the Northeast ( 79 percent ) and West ( 82 percent ) were more receptive to the idea than in the Midwest ( 67 percent ) and Southwest ( 65 percent ). In Southern states, 70 percent agreed with the statement. Though 69 percent of those age 70 and older said they support legal medical marijuana use, less than half agreed it has medical benefits. Seventy percent of respondents age 45-49 said they believe in the medical benefits of pot, as did 59 percent of those in the 50-69 age group.

And while 74 percent of all people surveyed said pot is addictive, older respondents were more likely to think so: 83 percent of those 70 and older, compared with 61 percent of those aged 45-49. Generational lines also divided those who have smoked pot: Just 8 percent of those 70 and older admitted having lit up, compared with 58 percent of the 45-49 group, 37 percent of those between 50 and 59 and 15 percent of the 60-69 set.



as to likely voters, these numbers are as good as any poll and certainly more useful than any one persons anecdotal/experiential opinion.

[copobo]

mods please delete

[mustangwomyn]

we need to pay attention to them all. federal change must be next. rescheduling needs to happen there. Congress *could* legalize nationwide!

After the response I previously posted Regarding Senator Bennet, I sent another Message to his office and I finally received a half way intelligent reply, see Below:


"Thank you for contacting me regarding medical marijuana. I appreciate hearing from you.

My office receives thousands of letters from constituents every day, and while we try to respond accurately to each and every one, there are times when someone may get an incorrect response. In this case, your previous letter inadvertently received an insufficiently responsive letter. Please indulge me again in trying to answer your specific concerns.

You asked specifically about medical marijuana. As you mentioned in your letter, medical marijuana has primarily been an issue decided at the state level. Colorado is included among several states that have adopted policies that allow for the medicinal use of marijuana. In the 2000 election, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that allows for the use of medical marijuana in the state. I respect that decision and defer to the majority of Coloradans who voted for this law.

At the same time, I believe we must make sure that the law is clear. We must not allow individuals to circumvent the law so they can use marijuana recreationally, since that was not the intent of Colorado voters.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to regulate the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. The Court also ruled that federal law enforcement authorities may enforce federal drug laws despite existing state laws allowing the medicinal use of marijuana.

I understand the positions on both sides of this important debate. The safety and well-being of the public is my primary concern. Another critical concern is that patients can get the treatment being prescribed by their doctors. I certainly hope that this serves to answer your questions regarding medical marijuana.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website. Again, thank you for contacting me."

[copobo]

still lame.

[mustangwomyn]

at least it is an improvement over his original reply.

But saying "My office receives thousands of letters from constituents every day, and while we try to respond accurately to each and every one, there are times when someone may get an incorrect response" when I included the details of the inital reply in my email is a cop-out.

[smokbhang]

Thanks for posting that mustangwmn.

It does sound like a cop out. Sen Bennet claims to uphold the will of the voters, but what is going to happen when we need a favorable vote from Bennet and the will of the voters is not known? For example, lets say a bill is introduced which asks if marijuana should be rescheduled? The will of the voters is not known in this case. Is he going to vote for, or against? Am I the only one who thinks that Bennet is anti-marijuana?

This is not to say that Romanoff is any better though. Romanoff publicly supports marijuana legalization, however he pissed off marijuana activists concerning Prop 44.

Below is a cut and pasted article from the Boulder Weekly Paper 3-11-2010 Concerning Romanoff and Marijuana and Prop 44,

"The large and growing minority that supports re-legalizing cannabis (marijuana) should remember when then-House Speaker Romanoff enabled and supported misleading and false information regarding Amendment 44, which would have legalized small amounts of cannabis, in the 2006 Blue Book voter guide, which may have interfered with a fair election.

The deliberately placed lies were so blatant that the Rocky Mountain News printed an editorial (â??Ambushing the pot initiative,â?� Sept. 15, 2006, Ambushing the pot initiative : TheRocky.com: Denver News, Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information (http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/sep/15/ambushing-the-pot-initiative)) which claimed, â??The Legislative Council and its staff have made a serious mistake that will cloud the reputation of the Blue Book for years to come.â?�

Colorado voters were not well-represented with this abusive use of power and should not risk such behavior from a politician in the future. I still donâ??t know Bennetâ??s stand on cannabis issues, but Romanoff is a menace. Take that to the Colorado Democratic caucus coming up March 16."

I'll make a call to Romanoff's office tomorrow and see what they say.

[HighPopalorum]

I don't think Bennet is anti-pot, but it's not an issue he will engage on. I've heard other school-board types do a similar rhetorical dance. Bennet's base is Denver-area parents, teachers, lawyers, securities types, Realtors and retirees. Those groups are on the conservative end of the Democratic party spectrum, and are unlikely to be positively motivated by this issue. (At least this is my analysis.)

[smokbhang]

FYI

I contacted Romanoff's office. He is against full legalization of pot, but supports full decriminalization of medical pot. That could have been why he was against Prop 44, I don't know. The person that was speaking for Romanoff said he would ask him next time he sees him why he feels Marijuana shouldn't be outright legal, because he also agrees with me that pot should be legal for everyone.


I am voting Romanoff, he just seems like the most progressive person on the democratic ballot concerning this issue. Bennet dodges questions, plus I have a real ethical problem with him being a corporate shill, accepting money from corporate donors which shouldn't even be allowed in this country. Romanoff's main issues are corporate donations and ethics, plus he put up his own house and savings to run for office. He isn't corporate bought like Romanoff.

Bennet was a superintendent of schools in Denver, Romanoff teaches people at Aurora Community College. Who is more a man of people, a teacher or superintendent?

Bennet is big business bouncing around from several large businesses he has worked for, albeit doing quite well, at large movie chains, investment companies. Romanoff has just been a teacher.

Bennet seems removed from ordinary people and already has controversies, and Romanoff seems more a man of people and is still clean. Although I don't completely agree with everything Romanoff, I think he is still the better man for the job.

Don't take my word for it,

Michael Bennet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F._Bennet)
Andrew Romanoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Romanoff)

Don't forget to mail in your ballot, try to do so before Saturday. There are also places the ballot can be dropped off too. Contact your local parties office to learn more.