cannabisnews.com: Rancor Rises At Pot Debate Rancor Rises At Pot Debate Posted by CN Staff on October 13, 2006 at 06:53:18 PT By Nancy Lofholm, Denver Post Staff Writer Source: Denver Post Grand Junction, CO -- Diverging opinions about a marijuana- legalization initiative led to a finger-jabbing shouting match during a news conference Thursday featuring local, state and federal officials opposed to Amendment 44. The angry exchange came at the end of speeches given by White House National Drug Control deputy director Scott Burns and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, who oppose the measure. Mason Tvert, campaign director for the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Committee, a group attempting to legalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for adults in Colorado, asked Burns, Suthers and other elected officials standing in front of a "Marijuana - Not in Our Community" banner, "Who paid for this press conference?" "Why don't you have to file a campaign finance report when you are engaged in campaigning?" he asked as various speakers attempted to quell his questions. Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey, one of the speakers against Amendment 44, answered that, as drug experts, they had the right to talk about the marijuana initiative. Snipped:Complete Article: http://tinyurl.com/yxsgd6Newshawk: Global_WarmingSource: Denver Post (CO)Author: Nancy Lofholm, Denver Post Staff WriterPublished: October 13, 2006 Copyright: 2006 The Denver Post CorpWebsite: http://www.denverpost.com/Contact: openforum denverpost.com Related Articles & Web Site:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/The Marijuana-Alcohol Equalization Amendmenthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22275.shtml Drug Czar Rips Amendment 44http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22270.shtmlColorado To Get Millions from White House Czarhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22262.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by whig on October 15, 2006 at 03:33:23 PT Coo coo coo coo coo... http://billmon.org/archives/002831.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by whig on October 15, 2006 at 03:31:18 PT FoM It's a gateway to more than that. It's a gateway to religious revelation for some people. It's a gateway to better health. It's a gateway to salvation of the planet.Marijuana, the gateway. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 14, 2006 at 21:14:48 PT Whig I think that when they call marijuana a gateway drug I agree. It is a gateway drug in that it can help a person get off of hard drugs. It helps stabilize a person while they are coming down. I don't know if that is all drugs but some drugs like alcohol marijuana can help. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by whig on October 14, 2006 at 20:58:53 PT FoM I guess cannabis helps people deal with the side-effects of other drugs. That's a good thing, and it might help them quit other drugs altogether for cannabis. It worked for me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on October 14, 2006 at 20:48:01 PT Just My Thought I believe that you will almost never see a person who uses Meth that doesn't have Marijuana too. When a person is coming down off of Meth smoking a little Marijuana helps a person take the edge off. At least that was the way it was back in the 70s. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Hope on October 14, 2006 at 20:14:55 PT Sukoi Thank you.I agree. That doesn't sound like it could be true at all. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Sukoi on October 14, 2006 at 11:54:33 PT Hope He said exactly the opposite of what he is quoted as saying. This is what he actually said:"I virtually never see a marijuana case that doesn't also include meth."And that is complete BS. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Hope on October 14, 2006 at 10:38:22 PT Sukoi What did he actually say?I can't load and listen to it easily on my computer. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Sukoi on October 13, 2006 at 16:15:43 PT That's NOT What He Said... Other speakers at the anti-44 conference included Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, who said "I virtually never see a meth case that doesn't also include marijuana."That's not what he said, he said exactly the opposite. Watch it for yourselves (his comment is right in the middle of the video):http://www.kjct8.com/vidlist.cfm# [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on October 13, 2006 at 09:47:10 PT: Behold, their Achilles' Heel. We've been saying it here for years, and Internet journalist Dan Forbes (Google search string: http://tinyurl.com/y9zuas) wrote about it extensively, and now here it is: the prohibs have been 'outed' as the principal (and principle) violators of the Hatch Act. And they can be proven to have had negative impact upon the democratic process as a result, which was the very rationale for creating the Hatch Act to prevent to begin with.Whether the Powers-That-Be deny the accusation or not, and are able to use lawyerly hair-splitting to justify it, it's become clear in the public's mind the spirit of the law is being violated if not the strict letter of it. And it p***es the prohibs off to no end when they are called out on it. Go, Mason! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by unkat27 on October 13, 2006 at 09:18:19 PT Vampires supporting Vultures That's what these prohibitionist pundits are. Vampires and vultures support each other for one reason. They both reap the same rewards from the destruction of innocent lives. Vampires and Vultures: Drug War Profiteers [ Post Comment ] Post Comment