Colorado Voters Legalize Marijuana!

I can't get my liscense because of getting caught with less than .5 gram... I have to take a weeks worth of these all day drug classes which are an hour away from me, have to be there everyday, if I miss a day I have to start over. I don't have anyone that can take me up there and taking a cab everyday back and fourth would pass well over 500 bucks (I've had to take a cab to Houston before it's like a hundred bucks back and fourth). I pretty much am screwed on ever getting my license, which has really screwed up my life in so many ways =/. We don't really have a mass transportation system here, and this town is way too big to just walk everywhere.

This, and quite a few other similar posts in this thread.


I myself used to smoke (haven't in quite a few months) but it's all about respect. If there is someone you're around that doesn't like it or worse is allergic, be courteous and go outside or go to another room, etc. Also, the mentality of just because I'm doing, you need to do it too is stupid. It is and should always be a choice on that individuals level, some just don't have any desire to do it. It's not something that is for everyone. Be respectful to the people you're around.

It's the smokers out there that are the opposite of all this that give it and the decent ones a bad name. Can't stand those types either, because usually they are the ones who think smoking it makes them cool, etc. No one cares how many joints/blunts you just smoked in the last hour, congratulations on wasting it.

All that said, vaporizers ftw, specifically bags. Screw actually burning paper/weed.

Craigslist carpool? Could put the feelers out there. Also, can't you get an exemption for driving because of the difficulty? Basically they'd only let you drive there, and to work and back.

I doubt they'd just give me a license.. I never had it to begin with. Before I can take the test to get a license I was told I have to go take these classes.

Too late. The biggest problem in Colorado is getting visitors to go home.

Oh. Well, regardless, I'm sure there's a way you can plead your case. It sounds like an impossible scenario, despite your willingness to meet their demand.

You drove around without having a license in the first place? :O

I have in the past, yeah but that has nothing to do with anything I've said <_<

So how long till big tobacco starts pumping out marijuana cigarettes?

I dunno but I won't want them.. They'll be pumped full of additional chemicals and ***.

I was just curious >.> Not judging you or anything, apparently my dad drove around without a license for like.. 19 years because he never got his Swedish one lol

I'm a (mostly) good driver, I just can't do it legally and I decided awhile back I like not being in jail so I stopped driving without my license... I broke that only when I had to when our car broke down and I had to pull it back to the house (me and wife are the only two capable of driving and someone had to pull while someone had to steer the other car) and when we had to drop off and pick up the car from the brake shop by the house.

Go to court, agree to their terms, and they should at least grant you a conditional license. If not, ask them how they expect you to get to the classes. When people are serious about following the rules and getting their lives back on track, judges are usually pretty understanding. You just have to take the initiative to actually care enough to work with them and do what you have to do.

Not to mention that it is a "gateway drug" as well.[/quote]
i laughed hard at this lol

Well I'm glad to see this thread got (mostly) back on track :)

yeah you might get high and not understand what's going on

Well it's nice to this that this experiment can finally happen somewhere and I hope it works out well. The pros and cons of this get discussed so much in theory it will be good to see it play out in reality. And btw this is exactly how issues like this should be decided, straight democratic vote on a ballot with ample time for the public to inform themselves. Issues like this do not work well in a republic cos politicians are generally cowards. Issues like this and gay marriage I like to see go directly to the people and it is them up to activists on each side to change the hearts and minds fo the people. Issues like this should not be decided by one man, a judge or a President. If your side loses on an issue on a straight democratic vote then get back to work on changing people's minds and in the end, if you are right the truth will win out. Appealing and trying to find one radical judge to legislate from the bench is a terrible idea. It is tyranny of the minority.

Seriously though I hope this one gets to actually play out and the Feds don't get in the way, and lawsuits don't stop it dead in its tracks. This is an experiment that needs to happen in America finally because the issue has been talked to death.

It's not tyranny of the minority. Whether or not LGBT people can marry has no effect on anyone but LGBT people.

How is a judge saying, "Actually, no. You can't tell these people what they can and can't do," tyranny?

Losing on a straight democratic vote then finding a judge to overturn the will of the people is the tyranny of the minority. It is not democracy. If you cannot convince enough people to see things your way then it is up to your side to change people's minds, to show them why they are wrong and you are right.

Why does the will of the people matter when people's rights (that have nothing to do with them) are at stake?

Oh, I have an idea. Let's ask New Yorkers to vote on the rights of Floridians. And then enforce the result.

This is done state by state like it is supposed to be. This was not a national referendum.

No, tell me. Why does it matter what straight people think the rights of LGBT individuals should be?

No I'm not getting into gay marriage, I really don't care about it either way. Just saying larger philosphical issues like that and legalizing marijuana should be up to the a straight democratic vote beyond the will of a few "impressionable" politicians.

Will challenge your use of the word "right" though. Rights are not given to you by government, they are yours at birth and cannot be taken away. Marriage is not a right straight or gay. Marriage is simply a legal contact.

Is this you amandarius?

No, rights are things the government can't tell you that you can't do. Example: Driving. The government can tell you you can't do that. It's not a right. The government cannot tell a consenting heterosexual couple that they cannot get married.

So you're saying that you want the government to be able to dictate the terms of legal contracts between consenting people? I thought you were for small government.

You're right, and those who don't have those legal contracts aren't afforded the same legal protections under the law. The law creates an imbalance. The law should be fixed.

Also, so you're saying that interracial marriage laws should have been decided state by state, too?

Supplementary:
Natural and Legal Rights

It's almost like marriage equality and pot legalization are fundamentally different, incomparable issues and should be handled differently! Oh, Amandarius, you so cray-cray.

"The majority" is not only often wrong, it is often easily swayed into voting against its own self interest, let alone the interest of minorities.

As to the 10th amendment and state's rights, wasn't that effectively destroyed by the very first republican president?