Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis
IN THE INTEREST OF THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES ENHANCING REVENUE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FIND AND DECLARE THAT THE USE OF MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR PERSONS TWENTY ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND TAXED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO ALCOHOL.
Here is our constitutional amendment. Show me where it says 'defense against prosecution' or 'privilege'. Oh but it DOES say INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. 
Fucking idiot. Always acting like you know something when you don't know jack shit. |
jesus fucking christ, that doesn't make it a right, you dumbfuck.
read this you stupid motherfucker-
the fucking law:
3) PERSONAL USE OF MARIJUANA. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:
the fucking legal definition of unlawful:
That which is contrary to law. ?Unlawful? and ?illegal? are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, ?unlawful,? as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void. Sweet. And see Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St Rep. 732; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 467; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59. 63 N. E. 607. 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; MacDaniel v. U. S
fucking punk.