So who's keeping track of the upcoming election?

A vote yes on marijuana would only put a larger amounts of money into the Mexican Mafia pocket how do you think they control are border. The only time I would vote yes on this is if becomes a national vote. Weaver gets my vote for sheriff his people like and trust him. About school money spending, well I have been involved in building schools for years and the districts spend (waste) millions if not billions of dollars every year on art and architecture instead of spending on learning in the class room, we could spend millions less every year if we would build basic looking schools with very little fluff. We just finished a school up north that cost Two Million more because the HOA in the are wanted it to look a certain way.

TheSparkens brings up a good point. If Marijuana is legalized where will it come from? Not too many marijuana stores, and most of the weed is not home grown.

How much of U.S. money will be going south to a corrupt government, and assisting illegals come accross?

Also how much will be going north to Canada?

A vote yes on marijuana would only put a larger amounts of money into the Mexican Mafia

i doubt that.
your statement is like the commercial where the kid says "i purchased some marijuana, i just helped a terrorist buy an ak-47.".. [roll]
of all the crap out there pot (i hate typing marijuana 2 many letters!)
is the least damaging (depending on your view) of any substance.
the yes vote is to decriminalize posession of 1oz or less on your person (in 1 bag/package etc) not broken up (intent to sell). to some it may be a backdoor attempt to legalize. others its about LE's wasting time like speeding tickets and focus on more serious crimes.

and most of the weed is not home grown.

you need to spend some time in a college town. or ask some of the stoners in your neighborhood.
we raised a kid, and i've worked with some of today's youth.
the shi^&*t you learn is amazing DUDE!!!!!!!!!

the push by those opposed to this. is like the crap put out there by VPC, mayor webb etc when the background check at gunshows was put on the ballot. so much misinformation so little reading of the actual ballot proposal...


OT

if controlled substances were decriminalized across the board the feds would have shops set up nationwide before sunrise the day after elections.

I've got to agree with Jim on this one. Those mafia guys and the illegals smuggling the pot over the border are still doing something illegal. If they get caught they'll get in just as much trouble if this passes as they did before. This just lets Joe Schmoe go about his daily life without worrying about getting busted with a little pot in his pocket.

Gentlemen, I'm not saying I don't agree with the legalization of pot I just think it needs to be at the federal level because as a sworn peace officer you must enforce all laws this law will do nothing but clog the courts with people that were thinking they were getting away with something, a cop will still be able to " bust " you if they wish to. Most officers only mess with this type of stuff to add extra charges to a larger crime. I also agree this is safer than are other favorite drug alcohol. If you don't think this and every other drug is a huge part of are crime problem your kidding yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSparkens

Gentlemen, I'm not saying I don't agree with the legalization of pot I just think it needs to be at the federal level because as a sworn peace officer you must enforce all laws this law will do nothing but clog the courts with people that were thinking they were getting away with something, a cop will still be able to " bust " you if they wish to. Most officers only mess with this type of stuff to add extra charges to a larger crime. I also agree this is safer than are other favorite drug alcohol. If you don't think this and every other drug is a huge part of are crime problem your kidding yourself.

---

I agree with this completely but I believe that over the last several years we've been letting the federal government control more and more that should be controlled by the state government.

Mike Rosen says....Yes on Amendment 39: School District Spending Requirements. But just barely, and mostly for symbolic reasons. Its intent is to force local school districts to devote at least 65 percent of their budgets to classroom instruction. It won't hurt, but the problems with public education go much deeper than budgets. If it passes, educrats will likely figure out a way to get around it. See Referendum J below.
Yes on Amendment 40: Term Limits for Judges. I favor an independent judiciary, but not judges who want to be independent of the Constitution. We'll lose some good judges to term limits, but the good they do is exceeded by the harm done by bad judges. We'll still get bad judges, but they'll pass through the system before their arrogance grows with seniority.
No on Amendment 41: Standards of Conduct in Government. This is feel-good moralizing. More bureaucracy, meddling and impractical micromanagement in a futile effort to dictate "ethics."
No on Amendment 42: Colorado Minimum Wage. This is bad law, bad economics and has no business in the state constitution. See my column of Sept. 29.
Yes on Amendment 43: Marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman only. Other gender and mathematical arrangements should be called other things. (See Referendum I below.)
Yes on Amendment 44: Marijuana Possession. It's time to decriminalize petty drug offenses. It's a lost cause anyway. Even Clinton smoked the stuff (and I bet he did inhale).
Yes on Referendum E: Property Tax Deduction for Disabled Vets. Only applies to 100 percent disabled veterans. The revenue loss is negligible. It's an appropriate token of our appreciation.
Yes on Referendum F: Recall Deadlines. No big deal. Provides more flexibility in regulating recall elections of state officials.
Yes) on Referendum G: Obsolete Constitutional Provisions. Just a formality. This is periodic, technical housecleaning of obsolete constitutional language.
Yes on Referendum H: Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction. Raises the after-tax cost to businesses that employ illegal aliens. Won't do much to stop illegal immigration, but it's a marginal discouragement.
Undecided on Referendum I: Domestic Partnerships. I have no objection, in principle, to a domestic partnership statute that grants official recognition to same-sex unions and provides for things like joint property ownership, debt sharing, inheritance, medical stewardship and hospital visitation. Such a bill was offered in the state legislature and was defeated by Democrats. This referendum goes beyond that to impose requirements on employers and health insurers to award benefits to same sex-couples that may not be extended to opposite-sex, unmarried couples. Some companies voluntarily offer such benefits. I'd prefer a revised version of the proposal eliminating these mandates.
No on Referendum J: School District Spending Requirements. This is a transparent ploy by educrats and teachers' unions to distort the definition of what constitutes "classroom instruction" in order to sabotage Amendment 39 above.
No on Referendum K: Immigration Lawsuit Against Federal Government. This would direct the Colorado attorney general to sue the federal government for enforcement of immigration law, a lame gesture by Democrats to sound tough during the recent special legislative session on immigration reform. Such a hopeless lawsuit would be a waste of time and taxpayer money. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...AR15Avatar.gif I like his thinking