Pubdate: Thu, 18 Oct 2012
Source: Daily Camera (Boulder, CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Daily Camera.
Contact:  http://www.dailycamera.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/103
Author: Erika Stutzman

NO ON AMENDMENT 64

Pot Should Be Legal, This Isn't The Way

Given that keeping marijuana illegal for most people creates a giant 
black market and bogs down our legal system unnecessarily and 
sometimes cruelly, there will hopefully come a time when it is legal. 
Marijuana use is widespread. And we believe moderate usage is not 
harmful to adults.

And regulating it in a manner similar to alcohol makes sense. That 
approach will allow us to make decisions about taxation, for 
instance: Like alcohol, it's a luxury product for casual users, 
unlike food, for example. The approach will allow us to make smart 
decisions about who can buy it -- adults, not teenagers whose brains 
and impulses are still developing -- and craft legislation that will 
discourage and/or punish impaired drivers. And employers won't want a 
high workforce any more than they want a drunken one.

Amendment 64 is the biggest decision facing Coloradans for the state 
this year. And while we obviously support its premise for the reasons 
cited above, we urge voters to say "no" to Amendment 64.

Our constitution is littered with conflicting tax issues. This 
measure would not only require the legislature to enact an excise 
tax, to be approved by the voters, it would dedicate the first $40 
million in revenues per year to a state fund for school construction.

We don't think that type of constitutional specificity is good for 
the state budget. And we don't think it's good for school districts 
that may rely on it. What happens if the money is seized by the 
federal government, which sees the market as illegal? What happens 
when the state or local districts try to fix our mess of a budget, 
but faces a voting public that assumes our under-funded schools are 
well-funded?

A better way to legalize or decriminalize marijuana and regulate it 
could be done on a statutory basis, and in the best-case scenario 
should be done on a federal level. But Amendment 64 has a myriad of 
rules, including one regarding transporting a specific number of 
plants, with a fewer number of "mature, flowering plants," in a 
vehicle. Rules covering cultivation in "enclosed, locked" spaces, but 
not "openly or publicly." The Camera does not think these specific 
rules about a proposed, new, commercial business deserve to be sealed 
as an amendment to the state's constitution.

And putting schools in a position where they may not ever see the 
money they are promised while raising the public perception that they 
are awash in brand-new pot tax revenues is a very bad idea.

We say no on Amendment 64.

- -- Erika Stutzman, for the Camera editorial board
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom