Suthers attempts to mislead voters
What is Republican attorney general nominee John Suthers' problem with honest elections? Not to long ago, I wrote about his refusal to investigate The Trailhead Group. (Eventually, Colorado Confidential had to do his job for him.) Now Suthers is intentionally repeating false information about Amendment 44.
In an editorial in the Sunday Pueblo Chieftan, he wrote:
Under current law the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over the age of 18 to someone over the age of 15 is deemed possession of marijuana and not distribution. So in legalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for people over 21, the proponents are unwittingly advocating legalization of the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over 21 to anyone over 15.
This is the same false language found in the voter's guide, which The Rocky Mountain News has discredited. The paper wrote:
Unfortunately, the clear implication of that statement - that the amendment decriminalizes such transfers, at least insofar as the state is concerned - is simply false. It is a crime in Colorado to help any juvenile break any federal or state law, and under both federal and state law it will continue to be illegal for minors to possess marijuana even if Amendment 44 is approved. So someone giving a minor marijuana would be breaking the law as well.
I haven't decided how I'll vote on 44. But I know who I'm going to support for attorney general. And it won't be John Suthers.
In an editorial in the Sunday Pueblo Chieftan, he wrote:
Under current law the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over the age of 18 to someone over the age of 15 is deemed possession of marijuana and not distribution. So in legalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for people over 21, the proponents are unwittingly advocating legalization of the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over 21 to anyone over 15.
This is the same false language found in the voter's guide, which The Rocky Mountain News has discredited. The paper wrote:
Unfortunately, the clear implication of that statement - that the amendment decriminalizes such transfers, at least insofar as the state is concerned - is simply false. It is a crime in Colorado to help any juvenile break any federal or state law, and under both federal and state law it will continue to be illegal for minors to possess marijuana even if Amendment 44 is approved. So someone giving a minor marijuana would be breaking the law as well.
I haven't decided how I'll vote on 44. But I know who I'm going to support for attorney general. And it won't be John Suthers.
3 Comments:
Hey- thanks for exposing the truth and being open minded to the issue of amendment 44! I'm obviously in support of seeing it passed, and I hope that you and others really study the facts behind marijuana prohibition. Also there is a lot of lies out there about the effects of marijuana on the body and brain (even heard a blatent lie about "killer" THC Gum-balls- lol) so make sure to study the real science behind things! I know for a fact though that marijuana is so non-toxic that no one has ever died from an overdose from it. Who cares if it's safer than alcohol, I'm saying it's safer than asprin! Thanks again,
Eddie
And that's beside the point. This amendment is about adults and their right to use a safer recreational substance without the fear of prosecution and treatment as a criminal. There are many things that adults do that children are not allowed to do. Opponents like to say 'it
s only $100 fine', yeah the first time, what about the second or third? Truth is they got you by the...ah...neck the first time. Then they grind you up.
Sustaining cannabis prohibition requires lots of propaganda, nasty, outright lies. It is no surprise that a prohibitionist like John Suthers openly and willingly does so.
Treat adults as adults and lets stop acting like children and tell the truth.
"I haven't decided how I'll vote on 44."
A bit of advice. If you have doubts that there needs to be a law, you should certainly not support that law. Laws governing what people can possess are intrusive, and only the most necessary should be upheld. When in doubt, drop the law.
Post a Comment
<< Home