Sen. Scott Renfroe: Call Out National Guard on Potheads

From the well of the Colorado Senate yesterday, self-explanatory enough:

UPDATE: From the Denver Post’s Curtis Hubbard, writing at The Spot:

When I first heard of Renfroe’s comments, I couldn’t help but remember that he has a reputation for hyperbole, as those who were paying attention to his remarks last year during debate of a same-sex partner benefits bill will recall:

“I’m not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin – we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal.”

But then I got to thinking that saying the governor should call out the Guard on people who A) have complied with state law for using medical marijuana and B) are exercising their First Amendment Rights, at a minimum, is worth a larger conversation…


36 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlue says:

    If he’d said this one day earlier, it would have been on the 40th anniversary of the Kent State shootings. Dodged that bullet (so to speak).

  2. Froward69 says:

    Pharmaceutical HACK!

  3. allyncooper says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Do you recognize where that came from Sen. Renfroe? You should, because you took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States when you took office.

    If you advocate the violation of constitutional rights under color of law by people peaceably assembled advocating a change to a failed government policy, then you should resign from the Colorado Senate immediately since you are violating your oath of office.

  4. BlueCat says:

    I don’t think fear of the crazed potheads is a going to be a very successful rightie wedge issue or look over there distraction these days. Too many really scary things to worry about.  

    Actually, if you legalized domestically grown and only domestically grown pot for adults only and put a reasonable tax on it you could spoil the market for drug runners from south of the border (at least runners in the pot market) and use the money raised for border security and enforcement against employers of illegals.  

    We really do need to have secure borders for comprehensive immigration reform to be anything more than a new set of rules and regs no more respected, obeyed or successfully enforced than the old set.  

    That squishy greyness just lets the  corporate lacky pols perpetuate the wink wink while we rail system that we have now, a system that lets them have their cake  (anti-them hysteria for lathering up the base) and eat it too (cheap, powerless, fearful, labor that can be treated without regard to any rights, regs or privileges, their favorite kind).

    We need an agreed on and consistently enforced and enforceable set of rules coupled with  the fullest possible control of our borders.  Legalized domestic pot could be very helpful in reaching those goals.  

  5. Ray Springfield says:

    hope a bill doesn’t pass forcing us to watch reefer madness again

  6. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    He’s mad that people assembling to support cannabis outnumbered the tax protesters (or what ever the Tea Whatevers were protesting) by about 4 to 1.  

  7. Kevin Jones says:

    The furor over Renfroe’s homosexuality comments struck me as artificial, the creation of angry activists and their enablers.

    The same will probably happen here. Pot activists are generally self-indulgent pretentious man-children who want people to approve their destructive hedonism. I’m glad somebody still has the gall to suggest that their prominence is a sign of a poor society.

    Many of Renfroe’s critics will just say the equivalent of “Quit harshing my mellow!”

    • raymond1 says:

      … relevant to this discussion of an elected official arguing for a crackdown on a protest?

    • DavidThi808 says:

      Alchol drinkers are generally self-indulgent pretentious man-children who want people to approve their destructive hedonism. I’m glad somebody still has the gall to suggest that their prominence is a sign of a poor society.  

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      How many Iraqis have died because a bunch of generally self-indulgent and fat American conservatives decided to seek revenge on the country that had no involvement in the mass murders on 9/11?

      The bad news got worse as the carnage of all these senseless deaths seeped into their souls and made them indifferent to the suffering of others because they wrapped themselves in cloak of patriotic righteousness.  Conservative warmongers are definitely bad news to the world.  Their brethren in the Muslim world who also believe in violent politics and religious purity are just as extreme and more bad news.

      Growing and smoking a plant seems fairly harmless compared to the destruction wrought in this world by the warmongers.

    • Ray Springfield says:

      A legitimate question

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        to engage in a little Tiananmen Square squashing of dissent?  Does that really ring your patriotic bell?  Maybe the Guard can bring in some tanks to show just how egregious this gathering is to the state.

        My bet is you have no problem with right-wing extremists gathering with weapons and talking about sedition and revolution.  Are those the kind of gatherings that you find acceptable?

        • Ray Springfield says:

          I was very uncomfortable with the nut jobs at Ed Perlmutter’s Commerce City event last fall.

          Violence could have easily erupted.

          I’m definitely opposed to the use of the military on US soil to perform police duties.

          I’m sure that you meant the other guy.

    • Steve Harvey says:

      “Renfroe’s homosexuality comments struck (you) as artificial” pretty much says it all.

      Some people find criticism of blatant, ignorant bigotry to be “artificial.” Others find finding such criticism artificial to be nothing more than an endorsement (and thus expression) of blatant, ignorant bigotry.

      Isn’t political discourse wonderful?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.