I think I see what's happening here. If you've seen both of the legislative proposals I've seen (Romer's and what I've seen called the "law enforcement" proposal, which I think came from the county sheriffs of Colorado, and by the way, why do they need their own lobbyists?) you know that of the two, the latter is by far scarier. I'm starting to think this is intentional. What if the plan all along was to try to gain the support of our community by having a proposal up for consideration at the same time as Romer's that is so draconian and so obviously designed to wipe out MMJ as a business that Romer's looks good (well almost) by comparison? Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

People, DON"T BE FOOLED. Demand from your legislators an explanation of why any regulation is needed at all. I have not heard a cogent argument for this at all. Lots of hand-wringing and bare statements that "something must be done" but no actual reasons why. Anytime our illustrious lawmakers, state or federal, start saying that they are bout to fuck something up or screw somebody (in this case both). The first thing they must always convince us of is why is not the best thing to do nothing? What is the harm that is sought to be addressed? Show me some examples of the "crisis" you claim exists.

Then and only then, if you actually believe that there is a problem ( which in this case I most certainly do not, but I suppose reasonable people could disagree) should solutions be discussed. Then, remember that the choices of regulatory approaches are limitless, and we are not limited to the two discussed above. If they cannot agree on a plan that does not cause more harm than good, which every proposal I've seen so far would do, they should DO NOTHING, not do something just to be seen to do something. That government governs best that governs least.