Quote Originally Posted by starter09
Romer's setting out a position that he knows will not end up becoming law. The Post recognized that in its editorial this morning.

If you care, get involved. Contact your state legislators, find out what their position is. Don't lecture, try to persuade. This whole thing is going to get hashed out in the legislature this session, and everyone who has a stake in the process - patients, growers, dispensaries, doctors, therapists - better get themselves heard.

In America, that's how we do it; I say this is what we should do - i.e., just go ahead and legalize pot - and you say, no, here's what we should do - i.e., impose the strictest standards I can think of, to make sure no one can get it, the hell with constitutional amendments 'cuz the people did NOT vote to make pot legal.

Then we try to convince other people to agree with us, and we end up having to compromise, move closer to the other person's view, muddling toward some fragile sort of an agreement that will probably change drastically the next time we talk about it. Politics, American style. Often ugly and disgusting in the process, like making sausage or cheese, but the end product has worked for a while now.

Of course, it's a lot easier to sit on the sides and bitch and moan.

My bet is that things move to a more medical model, vs the current retail free for all. That's what the constitutional amendment was about (supposedly). There is a large segment of the public that voted for that, but are worried about what they hear is going on now. Yes, they were probably raised on Reefer Madness - but they vote, and they matter to the folks who will be making the decisions.
That's all well and good, but until whatever regulatory scheme is proposed does not require that I confess to the commission of a federal felony, I am OUT!