Colorado Gubernatorial Candidates Debate

[AuggieWest]

What a disappointment. I know I shouldn't judge just on their cannabis stance....but actually I do because this tells you a lot about their intelligence, heart, and future effectiveness in reality.

I'm sad that they are all pure politicians. I actually thought Hickenlooper was an exception but he isn't. He is against legalization and I know he is smart enough to realize this is wrong. He is hedging politically and I call bullshit.

Dan Maes is just an idiot who thinks shit he may or may not have done in the 90's somehow means something in this day and age. None of the candidates really seemed focused on the future as much as their past. Maes answer to the cannabis issue was so backward. He thinks the medicinal legalization is just a scam and actually wants cannabis to be forced into the pharmaceutical arena as a new pill! He has no understanding of the real issues or he is a complete shill for the illegal drug cartels, who want nothing more than cannabis to be as illegal as possible.

Tom Tancredo even backed down a bit from his pro-legalization stance. He basically said the whole issue should be debated but he was still the most pro-cannabis guy there. Of course, he is still Tom Tancredo.

God, help us.

AuggieWest Reviewed by AuggieWest on 10-06-2010. Colorado Gubernatorial Candidates Debate What a disappointment. I know I shouldn't judge just on their cannabis stance....but actually I do because this tells you a lot about their intelligence, heart, and future effectiveness in reality. I'm sad that they are all pure politicians. I actually thought Hickenlooper was an exception but he isn't. He is against legalization and I know he is smart enough to realize this is wrong. He is hedging politically and I call bullshit. Dan Maes is just an idiot who thinks shit he may or Rating: 5

[rightwinger]

What a disappointment. I know I shouldn't judge just on their cannabis stance....but actually I do because this tells you a lot about their intelligence, heart, and future effectiveness in reality.

I'm sad that they are all pure politicians. I actually thought Hickenlooper was an exception but he isn't. He is against legalization and I know he is smart enough to realize this is wrong. He is hedging politically and I call bullshit.

Dan Maes is just an idiot who thinks shit he may or may not have done in the 90's somehow means something in this day and age. None of the candidates really seemed focused on the future as much as their past. Maes answer to the cannabis issue was so backward. He thinks the medicinal legalization is just a scam and actually wants cannabis to be forced into the pharmaceutical arena as a new pill! He has no understanding of the real issues or he is a complete shill for the illegal drug cartels, who want nothing more than cannabis to be as illegal as possible.

Tom Tancredo even backed down a bit from his pro-legalization stance. He basically said the whole issue should be debated but he was still the most pro-cannabis guy there. Of course, he is still Tom Tancredo.

God, help us.

I am not certain what you mean by Tancredo backing down on his stance on legalization? My thread on this board--Tancredo-Hickenlooper-Maes Debate on Marijuana makes it very clear where he stands on this issue. Under this thread and article you will note that while he was a congressman in this state he in 2006 voted against using tax dollars for the DEA to raid people in medical marijuana states--LONG before Obama did.

There is no doubt that California is going to legalize it--and we know already that legalization is going to be on our ballot in 2012--just two short years from now.

It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.. And the only person that would be is Tom Tancredo. Yes an ultra-conservative--and this for you liberals and democrats on this board--need to understand that this is where (the ultra conservative) meet with the liberal.

As we know today--it was democrats that wrote 1284 and 109--it was democrats that passed it--and it is democrats that are currently wanting to add more regulations--monitoring devices--finger-printing for medical marijuana patients to purchase it. Once they're done with this--they will add more regulation to the purchase of marijuana--GUARANTEED. The only person that would be able to stop this would be a governor who understands that it is a waste of tax payer dollars to do so. That man is Tom Tancredo.

Unfortunately most democrat politicians have an insatiable appetite to expand--regulate and control. They never want to stop the expansion of government control over the citizens of this country.

So you democrats and liberals have a choice now. If you really want to legalize marijuana in this state & or at least get the continual regualtions off your backs-put your vote where your mouth is.


Here again is the debate on Marijuana that was held in Colo. Spgs.

Tom Tancredo today called for the legalization of marijuana.

â??Legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it,â?� said the American Constitution Party candidate for governor. He said despite all the time and money dedicated to the war on drugs, it has been a complete failure. â??If you can show me where we can get people off drugs by continuing down this same path, then show me,â?� he said.

Tancredo said no one skulks around parks or school playgrounds trying to sell alcohol for the simple reason that the law provides no incentive for such behavior given that you can sell alcohol legally to adults.

Republican Dan Maes and Democrat John Hickenlooper both said they oppose legalization of marijuana. The comments were made at a debate in Colorado Springs sponsored by Action 22, a political action group representing 22 counties in SE Colorado.

Maes said if pot was legalized and taxed, the money brought in would probably just be wasted on the expansion of social programs anyway. â??We might as well prostitute our teenage daughters and tax that,â?� he said sarcastically.

â??Dan and I donâ??t disagree too much on this,â?� Hickenlooper said. He said he has discussed the issue with social scientists, psychologists, and law enforcement professionals and that they all agree legalizing marijuana would be a bad idea.

Tancredo countered that he knows many people in law enforcement who support legalizing marijuana and who say dealing with people who are high on marijuana is seldom as dangerous or problematic as dealing with drunks. â??The arguments against marijuana today are they same as the arguments against liquor years ago,â?� he said.

Maes said legalized medical marijuana in Colorado was the first step toward legalization generally and that the state needs to control medical marijuana better than it is doing now. â??Theyâ??re coming in through the basement door and theyâ??re working their way up,â?� he said.

Hickenlooper said he supports medical marijuana and talked about someone he knows in city government â??who has probably never been drunk a day in her lifeâ?� but who suffers from debilitating back pain. He said marijuana is the only thing that has ever helped her. He noted that she doesnâ??t smoke it but takes a tincture.

While in Congress, Tancredo voted in 2006 for an amendment to stop the U.S. Department of Justice and DEA from using taxpayer funds to raid or investigate people involved in medical marijuana.

[AuggieWest]

I am not certain what you mean by Tancredo backing down on his stance on legalization? My thread on this board--Tancredo-Hickenlooper-Maes Debate on Marijuana makes it very clear where he stands on this issue. Under this thread and article you will note that while he was a congressman in this state he in 2006 voted against using tax dollars for the DEA to raid people in medical marijuana states--LONG before Obama did.

There is no doubt that California is going to legalize it--and we know already that legalization is going to be on our ballot in 2012--just two short years from now.

It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.. And the only person that would be is Tom Tancredo. Yes an ultra-conservative--and this for you liberals and democrats on this board--need to understand that this is where (the ultra conservative) meet with the liberal.

I know what Tancredo has said on this issue in the past, hence my disappointment when I saw him say last night, that the issue should be debated. I was also disappointed that he didn't take this bull by the horns and just denounce a)prohibition (I guess in the tv replay I saw, they must have omitted some of his comments you reference - or he said those in another debate?) and b) the other candidates who are backwards on this issue.

Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, among others who tend to study all sides of this issue (unlike politicians), says all drugs should be legalized "Pot, cocaine, LSD, crystal-meth --- you name it." I personally hate those drugs but as a true fiscal free-market conservative, I understand how we would save tens of billions of $ every YEAR! in stupid enforcement of prohibition. Miron has the figure @ $41.3 billion. "Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

"The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs."

But won't we become a nation of drug addicts?

No, says Miron. Walk down any city street and you can already buy legal drugs in multiple establishments: Caffeine at Starbucks, nicotine at the supermarket, alcohol at bars and restaurants. And we're not ALL addicted to all of these drugs.

Our current drug policy doesn't work, Miron observes. Despite ~$40 billion spent on enforcement and prosecution, drug use is still widespread. Meanwhile, because the products are illegal, they're dangerous, low-quality, and unregulated, and they generate zero tax revenue.

Legalizing drugs would solve those problems, Miron says. It would help close the budget deficit. And it would eliminate a bizarre double standard, in which Americans are encouraged to drink and smoke themselves to death -- while guzzling addictive coffee and tea -- but become criminals if they dare to get stoned.

Cannabis should at least be a no-brainer to become legal and to become an asset vs. a liability in our out of control government spending, specifically in this sector. Yes, I agree w/ you RightWinger. It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.....actually we can't afford not to. Time is money and politicians are killing us by dragging their feet on not stopping waste and taking too long to liberate what should have never been prohibited in the first place.

[cologrower420]

Legalization would have much too large of an impact on the enforcement/incarceration complex that it would never work. There are too many jobs and too much revenue for states tied into the cops, the courts, the politicians, etc. With legalization, they'll lose major sources of funds, drug seizures etc.

[AuggieWest]

Legalization would have much too large of an impact on the enforcement/incarceration complex that it would never work. There are too many jobs and too much revenue for states tied into the cops, the courts, the politicians, etc. With legalization, they'll lose major sources of funds, drug seizures etc.

Don't say it would never work. Yes, too many jobs & $ tied to prohibition and enforcement lifers & politicians are reaping the benefit @ all our expense. Thats the point/problem!!! Fuck them. Its our country.

[TheReleafCenter]

Legalization would have much too large of an impact on the enforcement/incarceration complex that it would never work. There are too many jobs and too much revenue for states tied into the cops, the courts, the politicians, etc. With legalization, they'll lose major sources of funds, drug seizures etc.

The flip side is that they could be doing more productive work and resources could be reallocated. There are always things to enforce. There would be fewer prison jobs, but I think we can agree that is a good thing for society on the whole.

Additionally, the argument would be that the money saved by ending the "war on drugs" would supersede those losses, even if just in societal benefits. I guess it's somewhat irrelevant, as no one in those positions is willing to discuss that side of the legalization debate. It's a moral issue for many, economic to a few.

[Zedleppelin]

There is no doubt that California is going to legalize it--and we know already that legalization is going to be on our ballot in 2012--just two short years from now.

No doubt? The initiative is 10 points behind, its not going to happen.

According to a poll released by Ipos/Reuters Tuesday, Californians plan to vote against legalizing marijuana on the 2nd November poll by 53% to 43%
Poll: Californians Against Legalizing Marijuana

As we know today--it was democrats that wrote 1284 and 109--it was democrats that passed it--and it is democrats that are currently wanting to add more regulations--monitoring devices--finger-printing for medical marijuana patients to purchase it. Once they're done with this--they will add more regulation to the purchase of marijuana--GUARANTEED.

Wrong. We don't know that, matter of fact 1284 was sponsored in the House by Massey and Summers (democrat AND republican) and was sponsored in the Senate by Romer and Spence (democrat AND republican), Senator Morgan Carroll, a democrat, was the most vocal AGAINST 1284, so quit portraying this was all the dems.

Unfortunately most democrat politicians have an insatiable appetite to expand--regulate and control. They never want to stop the expansion of government control over the citizens of this country.

And unfortunately republicans have an insatiable appetite to incarcerate as many people as they can that goes against their moral beliefs. I find the republican talking point about dems and govt expansion humorous when Bush expanded the US govt to a record size after Clinton reduced its size to the smallest in 30 years.

Tancredo talks about less govt interference, unless of course you are a teenage girl that was raped and impregnated by her stepfather and wants to get an abortion, or you enjoy a little porn in the privacy of your own home (he wants to make porn illegal). Nor will I ever vote for some nutjob that wants to force my kid when he's in school to send telepathic messages to some Jewish zombie to save his soul because a woman was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake.

[wkhey4]

Tancredo talks about less govt interference, unless of course you are a teenage girl that was raped and impregnated by her stepfather and wants to get an abortion, or you enjoy a little porn in the privacy of your own home (he wants to make porn illegal). Nor will I ever vote for some nutjob that wants to force my kid when he's in school to send telepathic messages to some Jewish zombie to save his soul because a woman was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake.

:thumbsup::jointsmile::thumbsup:

[TheReleafCenter]

Wrong. We don't know that, matter of fact 1284 was sponsored in the House by Massey and Summers (democrat AND republican) and was sponsored in the Senate by Romer and Spence (democrat AND republican), Senator Morgan Carroll, a democrat, was the most vocal AGAINST 1284, so quit portraying this was all the dems.

Additionally, Matt Cooks position at the DoR is apolitical, and he's the only one I've heard talking about monitoring, etc.

[copobo]

I think the enforcement he plans is on such a level that when this all gets going, it's all going to fall apart or become too much a a burden to the state.

it's just over the top. all this knee jerk regulatory bs is going to turn out to look dumb when this hysteria wears off... and it's already wearing off. pot is becoming normal in society. people talk about it openly.

of course I spend most of my time in Boulder.