Senator Bennet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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%.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

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.

Quote:

---

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.

mods please delete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

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."

still lame.

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.

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) 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.