CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 11, 2013 10:51 AM UTC
28 Comments
Two years after getting shellacked, the solution is to ask for twice as much.
Yeah, Dems, nothing can go wrong with this plan! The people will love it like they loved gun control.
Actually the people do love their kids and sensible gun regulations Extermis. Seventy percent (70%) of the populations supports having people check to see if they are selling their guns to known murderers or domestic abusers.
When you are 47th in the nation for state funding of primary education you need to do something besides handing our education system over to the pastors so they can preach anti-science propaganda from their homes.
Shellacked in an off-year election, with a blanket funding bill, with no support from anyone and pure opposition behind it.
This initative has an actual campaign behind it – with funding and field and ads in support. It has a plan on how to and where to spend the revenue (not open ended like 103). It will have the backing of high profile electeds and civic, community and business leaders. And all the opposition will have is the same ol' tired "No new taxes!" retort.
I would be extremely unwise to call this dead before it's called on election night.
Care to make a wager?
According to the NEA (unionist bastards), Colorado ranks 38th in PUBLIC SCHOOL REVENUE PER STUDENT IN FALL ENROLLMENT, 2010–11.
So, not 47th.
My bad Dave for not pinning down the exact position of shame.
Thanks for the correction but 38th still sucks for our children.
DOA.
1. One BILLION $.
2. We are coming out of a recession and people feel poor. Perception and not data.
And http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/chart-day-even-recovery-wages-are-declining
"Averaged across all occupations, we estimate that real median wages declined by 2.8 percent from 2009 to 2012."
Well I hope the Pot Tax initiative passes. Maybe if the people are pulling the lever for taxing smokers they'll pull the lever to pay for a better work force they will pay for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.
The prohibitionists are pursuing the strategy of trying to tax legal cannabis out of existence. The General Assembly ignored the Constitution's requirement that it levy up to a 15% excise tax on wholesale transfers of cannabis, and has referred a single initiative asking voters to approve the full 15% excise tax and a 10% sales tax surcharge on cannabis too. I will vote against these exorbitant, conflated taxes, which are not what we authorized last November, but don't worry; it will likely pass. Not to be outdone, Boulder and Denver contemplate charging up to an additional 15% sales tax surcharge too — the effective retail tax on cannabis could be 40% or even higher, which will at least perpetuate the black market (which suits the prohibitionists just fine; the GA reinstituted all the felony penalties for cannabis, despite the facts that We the People just declared that cannabis "should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol" and that violations of the Liquor Code are just misdemeanors). There is no justification for any of these taxes whatsoever — the State should save money by not trying to suppress the use of cannabis and by not persecuting those who choose to use it, but that is not the plan. The behavior of Denver's City Council, Mayor, and the General Assembly has driven me, an avowed socialist, into the position of being functionally an extreme libertarian — I will not vote for any tax that these clowns are responsible for spending. The Establishment's scheme to tax cannabis to death does not bode well for the funding of school constuction with the first $40 million from the excise tax we authorized in Amendment 64. Having seen what is going on in Colorado high schools and colleges firsthand, I will not be voting for any support for our failed system of secondary education until and unless there is some indication that there is a plan to restore academic integrity to the system. So far as I can tell there is none.
That tax level is comparable to cigarettes
This strategy is one favored by the for-profit prison industry, the greatest financial beneficiary (other than dealers) of a continuing black market in marijuana. The high level of tax, equal to that of cigarettes, as you say, will have, I believe, a discouraging effect on legal use and commercial development of the legal distribution system.
Remember, there is no black market on cigarettes (to speak of). We tax the hell out of them to discourage people from buying them because of the health risk. We should be doing just the opposite and subsidizing Cannabis because of the health benefit.
But…the government is still in the hands of people who pass a moral judgement on marijuana and cannot give up their old, ignorant biases. So it will be a struggle to get to a sensible place where Cannabis is regulated like a cold beer.
Disagree that a tax will discourage buyers. My bet is that even with taxes, the product will be cleaner and competitive with black market rates. There is going to be a big surge in Pot Tourism with people flying in from all over the country to kick back and legally buy and smoke marijuana. Also peole can grow their own plants and start neighborhood horiculture clubs. If the tax is too high then they can always lower it to stimulate business. Not passing the tax puts the regulation of this new industry at risk and keeps the whole thing in an upheaval. Vote for the tax and then grow your own if you're too cheap to buy commercial. Just pass the tax and let's move towards 1/1/14.
The 15% excise tax authorized by Amendment 64 won't do much to discourage buyers, but taxes (did you read my reply above?) amounting to as much as 40% or more will at least keep legal cannabis a white, middle-to-upper class phenomenon, and taxes that high will certainly sustain the black market, which Amendment 64 was intended to eliminate. Tourists are limited to purchasing no more than a quarter ounce.
I believe that the main import of Article XVIII, Section 16 of our Constitution (what Amendment 64 became when it took effect) has nothing to do with retail sales of cannabis, or school construction, or hemp, although each of these are significant and the first looms very large in the minds of many — what is most important in Article XVIII, Section 16 has no direct legal effect; it is the statement in its "purpose and findings" section which states that the People of Colorado find and declare that cannabis "should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol". Violations of Colorado's Liquor Code (C.R.S. Title 12, Article 47) are misdemeanors, yet the General Assembly of Colorado just reinstituted all the felony provisions for cannabis (all the way up to a Class 2 felony, like killing someone in a rage). The State will continue to make felons of its citizens for exactly the same conduct it will license in dispensaries next January. Please call your State Representative, State Senator, and even Gov. Hack, and tell them to rescind all felony penalties for cannabis now!
Good points all — my main concern is that the Constitution and the Liquor Code together imply that there should be no felony penalties for cannabis.
Cannabis is relatively inoccuous compared to tobacco. The notion that smoking cannabis must be as (or more) dangerous than smoking cigarrettes is completely wrong, not borne out by the science. The DP made the same observation you just did — do you read that worthless rag?
Thanks, naysayers say nay, got it…
Typo – S/B
a better work force that they will pay for the retirement
I support this bill but… This does not address the big problems.
We've argued before about #1. I'm not interested in rehashing that here, since I know where you stand and that your position is based on verifiable statistics.
I did a little bit of reading on Initiative 22 at the Great Education Colorado website (linked above). Their endorsement reads like a press release and doesn't get into the details of the proposed policy change. My question is whether the Initiative is designed to rectify any of the financial inequalities exposed in the Lobato case. Can anyone who, you know, lives in Colorado and follows this help me to understand that?
Ted Talks has a great presentation by Ken Robertson on teaching creativity in schools instead of just preparing them for university student loans. David and I are in agreement that more money doesn't necessarily lead to better education outcomes but if money doesn't matter then why do Cherry Creek and the religious high schools do so much better than Ignacio and Sterling?
http://www.ted.com/playlists/77/new_to_ted.html
More involved parents. And that correlates highly with the mother's educational level. And the educational level correlates highly with income level.
"And the educational level correlates highlt with income leveL"
. . . or, vice versa . . .
So, the logical action would be to take children — whose parents are: poor, uneducated and uninvolved with their education — away from those parents and give them to rich, educated people.
Works for me.
We have tried: Head Start, more money, higher-paid teachers, more administrators, smaller classrooms, Teach for America, Bill Gate's intervention, charter schools and not seen any dramatic improvements.
Well, yeah, parental involvement is an enormous part of it.
But kids at Sterling and Ignacio are never going to outperform Cherry Creek kids who can take an entire curriculum of AP classes. And those are inequalities that do demand more funding to address. The difference between public suburban schools and public rural schools isn't in the opportunities available to the average student – it's in the opportunities available to the best students in each environment. That's why, for example, the Boettcher Foundation earmarks half of its Scholarships for rural kids – because, without strucutral intervention, they would be outcompeted by kids from the cities and suburbs who have way more opportunities to take advanced coursework and get involved in extracurriculars.
Back in reality… BOXED IN: After Months Of Hedging, Hick Pledges To Support Tax Hike That His Signature Already Requires
Oh wow, a post composed solely of valid points. I'm impressed.
but, as usual, no valid points from AGOP. Just a cut and paste