Drug Policy

Surprise: Colorado's Largest Teacher's Union Comes Out Against Marijuana Legalization

|

Denver's Westword reports that the Colorado Education Association will announce later today that it is opposing Amendment 64, the ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol: 

At an 11 a.m. press conference, representatives of the Colorado Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, will announce their opposition to Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act.

Backers of the measure portray it as pro-education, with proceeds from an excise tax earmarked for the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund. But the CEA sees a disconnect, says a 64 opposition spokeswoman.

"I think this puts to rest the proponents' rationale that you can fund schools with pot money, and that it will be acceptable to people," says Laura Chapin of Smart Colorado, the main No on 64 group.

According to Chapin, CEA president Kerrie Dallman and vice president Amie Baca-Oehlert will speak on behalf of the CEA. She points out that both of them have teaching backgrounds; Dallman is a high-school social studies teacher currently on leave from Jefferson County, while Baca-Oehlert is taking a similar leave from Adams County, where she works as a high-school counselor.

The CEA board voted to oppose Amendment 64 earlier this month. Regarding the reasons for this decision, Chapin says, "You've seen the multiple reports about the increase of marijuana use among kids in Colorado. And for teachers, something that basically legalizes recreational use on a broad scale is incompatible with the mission of educating kids."

According to Chapin, another reason for the CEA's opposition involves the measure's "whole mechanism for school funding—an excise tax that has to be run through another ballot measure before it can even be applied." And even if such a tax is passed, she goes on, "their top concern is kids and the whole idea that you shouldn't be funding schools with pot."

So it's fine to fund public education with gambling proceeds, but not with a pot tax? Fascinating.

NEXT: Judge: Officials Withheld Deputy's Troubling Record

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. jesus christ.

    another reason to hate teacher’s unions.

  2. The last thing teachers want evaluated on is their ability to educate stoners.

    1. The last thing teachers want evaluated on is their ability to educate stoners.

      FIFY

  3. Say, isn’t the cigarette tax used to fund schools and health care? Why is it OK to fund schools with one smokable substance (that causes serious health problems), and not another (which doesn’t)?

    Of course, one shouldn’t be surprised that a group that is famously supportive of social conservative/Republicans is coming down on the anti-liberty side. Predictable, really.

    1. Of course, one shouldn’t be surprised that a group that is famously supportive of social conservative/Republicans is coming down on the anti-liberty side. Predictable, really.

      Teachers unions support repubs?? Do I need a recalibration on the snarc-o-meter?

      1. Yes, you do.

        1. I was worried for a minute. Hanging out here and reading some of the arguments makes you doubt your sanity sometimes.

          1. Only sometimes?

          2. Reading the comments here doesn’t make me doubt my sanity.

            1. Reading the comments here doesn’t make me doubt my sanity.

              It shouldn’t. We all know it slipped away years ago.

    2. Why is it OK to fund schools with one smokable substance (that causes serious health problems), and not another (which doesn’t)?

      Because one makes you high, the other one gives you cancer…

      Oh wait.

    3. because … sputter sputter sputter… (fans self) … it’s MARIJUANA

      these are teachers… the ultimate nannies. tasked with babysitting our kids (it’s takes a village) 8 hrs a day. these are the state paid surrogate parents. heck, in my state, they have the same legal authoritah to “physically discipline” children as their own parents do

      it’s FOR THE CHILDREN

      1. Cool story bro.

      2. Wait, you learned how to capitalize letters now? The public schools must be working.

  4. Concerned soccer moms are concerned.

    Also, fuck you, Fearless Fosdick; where are PBA and the Association of Chiefs of Police on this? How much time and effort have the cops spent lobbying against it?

    1. But every city’s police department should have a tank and some sam’s.

    2. Gotta keep that Probable Cuase alive, man.

  5. Of course, illegal pot is easier for high-schoolers to get than legal alcohol in most places. (It certainly was for me.)

    The teacher’s union is promoting drug use by students.

    1. This is the part I don’t understand. Getting illegal drugs was so easy in high school. Alcohol was far more difficult.

      1. You can grow weed: alcohol takes rudimentary skills and some equipment.

        1. So does growing weed. You don’t just sprinkle seeds on the ground and magically get sensimillia.

          1. I thought you got sensimillia from handling raw chicken.

            1. I worked one summer with this chef who had a fiance named “Ella”.
              So every Friday he’d put a special “Steak Ella” on the menu.
              I used to give him shit by asking “Yo Chef, how’s about putting a ‘Salmon Ella’ on the menu tonight?”
              Not a true story.

      2. Most alcohol was either obtained through theft (outright or familial), the one or two stores that truly didn’t give a shit or someone with a fake ID. Our guy was named Shaggy and laid on a very reasonable 20% surcharge.

        1. I was blessed to be in high school and college when the drinking age was 18. The whole scheming to get booze thing was just a non-issue. I honestly don’t recall how we got our likker when I was in high school, but I know we got plenty of it.

          1. The rise of ABC enforce followed the raise of the legal drinking age to 21. More and more store were fined through undercover sting operations. Thanks, MADD.

        2. Cousin Nate moved in to a neighborhood that was in easy walking distance. At sixteen I use to get all my weed, liquor and porn from him.

        3. Is that how he got gas for the Mystery Machine?

    2. But if marijuana is legally sold by people who risk losing their license and livelihood if they sell to minors, marijuana will become more available to minors than it is now when the dealers have no license to lose!

      It makes total sense!

    3. It certainly was for me.)

      I didn’t smoke, but I had several friends who did and could have gotten some really easily. Alcohol took a week or two of planning (at least) to get our hands on.

  6. Surprising that teachers can be dumbfucks, and unions of teachers are guaranteed to be?

    1. imo, that’s a poor framing. many love to paint those politically opposed to them as stupid. some are. some aren;t, just like in the pro MJ camps.

      this has nothing to do with stupidity or intelligence. traveling down the “we’re intellectually elite compared to those that disagree with us” road gets u nowhere except stuck in the same elitist loop that progressives drive around every day

      these (mostly) women and men, are just like temperance movement. they weren’t stupid either

      1. No, Dunphy, it has little to do with political opposition.

        It has to do with some of my work experience.

        1. You mean dumbfucks are attracted to a tenured profession with no accountability?

          Oh! My! Fucking! God!

      2. Yes, it basically means they utterly corrupt a-holes… which was already obvious.

        But.. they are probably pretty f’ing stupid too.

        Making intellectually informed decisions based on the evidence does make one “intellectually elite” while making decisions based on bullshit makes you stupid.

        1. afain, it’s entirely possible to be very smart and to oppose mj especially as to legalization

          and plenty are

          ditto for those who are pro

          calling one’s political opponents stupid because they disagree with you imo is poor tactics, and also bogus argumentation

          you are attacking the perceived, from your biased position , intelligence of those you disagree with, instead of attacking their stupid ideas

          note the distinction

          attacking what you believe are stupid IDEAS vs, calling them stupid

          intelligent people can hold stupid ideas and vice versa

          the elitism plays in a circle jerk of fellow travelers. that’s why you see it here, at the Nation, mother jones, DU, the free republic etc.

          they are ALL convinced they are right

          attacking the sin, not the sinner so to speak, avoids the problems of “my opponents are stupid”

          heck, many of your opponents may even ACTUALLY agree deep down inside. they oppose for self serving political reasons, not because of what they actually believe

          they ARE out there

            1. i’ve addressed this before. i am not doing technical writing here. i am aware of these things. i still own my copy of strunk and white the elements of style i obtained during HS freshman english.

              i DO technical writing as part of my job. and before the anti-coppers jump on me, spare me. i write excellent reports. i have had both prosecutors and defense attorneys approach me and inform me of this. I teach report writing to recruits when i train them.

              i wrote papers in both undergrad and grad school. very writing heavy majors – philosophy and counseling psychology.

              i can write with proper style if i choose to.

              i’ve also been a published author

              and this post will have the epi et al’s crawling in to call me a braggart. fine. i am just trying to establish some bona fides. maybe I’ll take a month and write properly just to “show you guys?”

              i don’t think so. think what you want. believe what you want, and if it bothers you, feel free to plonk/ignore me.

              this is the intertoobs.

              i prefer fast stream of consciousness style.

              i will admit that many times at volokh conspiracy, or scotus blog, i will adopt proper technique. the posters there are respectful and thoughtful, though. so, i rise to meet them.

              that is not the case here.

              i’m not trying to justify myself here. i am just explaining myself. big difference. to paraphrase a feministing term, i guess i am just “mansplaining”.

              cheers

              1. i’ve also been a published author

                How much did that cost you?

                1. ok, i lol’d

                  fwiw, i was paid. it was a strength journal.

                  concept was functional strength training for law enforcement

                  and it was 11 yrs ago. LONG before crossfit and everybody else jumped on the ‘functional strength’ bandwagon

                  the only people plying that line were pavel tsatsouline and maybe chek and poliquin. and ok, vershoshansky and siff. and maybe dr. hatfield 🙂

                  at the time, law enforcement physical training was completely infected with cooper standard RUBBISH.

                  cooper was an absolutely ridiculous and to some extent counterproductive training modality. iow, a cooper trained athlete would actually lose skill (and strength IS a skill) in many areas vs an UNtrained one. that’s ridiculous.

                  1. the key is to treat law enforcement like a sport. if you do so, and frame it that way, you can develop a proper plan of training.

                    one brief example. cooper emphasized the 1 1/2 mile run as a fitness benchmark.

                    that is a counterproductive way to train for law enforcement. you lose far more than you gain when you train that aspect of strength.

                    law enforcement strength demands are “instant on”, so platform singles are key.

                    start strength is crucial, so movements that do not utilize the stretch cycle prior to the concentric are key.

                    extra bodyweight is largely detrimental, so rep ranges and movements that promote intracellular hypertrophy are especially to be avoided. you want to improve rate coding, and loosen the engagement of spindle reflex and golgi tendon apparatus protective movements. you want increased fiber density, increased neuromuscular efficiency. far too little emphasis was placed on nervous system as it relates to strength. far too much emphasis was placed on skeletal muscles without considering neurological factors.

                    very little was known about strength increases through satellite cell activation, fiber splitting, and true … TRUE… hyperplasia, but i hypothesized it was happening given proper training and guess what. i have been proven right!

                    but apparently, if we are discussing strength/nutrition here, and i mention bona fides , thats being a “braggart”.

                    :l

              2. It’s about not posting a fucking wall of text and space, dude. Half your posts sprawl all over the place.

                With one line here.

                And another here.

                And so on.

                Stream your consciousness all you fucking want, but do it without hitting the Enter key so much. It’s pointless, and is another reason a lot of people here think you’re a dick. Try some courtesy. hth

                1. i honestly do not care BP

                  go ahead and think im a dick.

                  those who are so petty that they will draw such conclusions, to paraphrase groucho marx, i don’t want them wanting me.

                  again, with the personal attacks

                  this is how i choose to write here

                  its my fucking choice

                  deal

                  ignore it, plonk away, or personal attack me. it is what it is

                  i am not trying to win you or anybody else over, BP

                  if i was , i would post very diferently.

                  again,i respect others for their choices, and since i have spent the last few weeks ignoring the trolls, it is that much more njoyable here

                  granted, the post surgery meds help 🙂

                  i am sorry if it bothers you. but not sorry enough to change

                  cheers

                  1. and note, the more i get the meta attacksm, the WORSE the affectation gets so to speak. i may choose ot morph back to some extent. we’ll see. it’s much prettier, nu? and god knows that pretty counts!

                    1. I think Dunphy just admitted that rather than communicating with people, he’s using the Internet primarily for intellectual masturbation, and his comments are essentially the spattering of the semen squirted into the comment box.

                      NTTAWT.

                    2. hold on. i can’t read what you are writing until i clear some space on the monitor

                      (engages squeegee)

                    3. You’re right, Dunphy. Post however the fuck you want. I’ve got reasonable, (thanks Amakudari), and I’m going to make your posts a more worthwhile size.

                    4. cool. and fwiw, see below. it pisses off pip and his minions and that is a huge plus

                      but see my above post on strength training. when i morph into “writer mode”, the wall of text erases and paragraphs appear.

                      it’s what sagan would refer to as an “emergent property”

                    5. no, you are right

                      dammit. seeing the trolls wank isn’t justification enough for being lazy and making the adults suffer. i will change. just like saddam in bigger, longer, uncut

                      i can change

                  2. you

                    are

                    a

                    stupid

                    fucking

                    asshole

                    basically saying

                    that you

                    R2 good

                    to be

                    bothered by

                    mo-

                    rons

                    such as

                    we.

                    pigshit stinks.

                2. fair enuf.

                  others shouldnt suffer because i want to punish the dicks. consider it grokked.

                  1. The only thing I care about is the lack of capitalization. I find your text more difficult to read without it.

              3. Keeeeeeeeee-RIST!

  7. I guess teacher’s union’s and drug warriors want the “think of the children” motto for themselves.

  8. I imaging the union has its fingers in several distribution networks around the schools and doesn’t want to loose its exclusive rights.

    1. Teachers often have their fingers in something. Occasionally they get brought up on charges for it.

  9. Sort of on topic: NH jury acquits Rastafarian for pot plants

    http://www.unionleader.com/art…../709199941

    According to the article there was a “Free Stater” on the jury. Also IIRC the only reason nullification was even allowed to be brought up was because of a law the state legislature passed last year (again largely thanks to Free Staters).

    1. According to the article there was a “Free Stater” on the jury

      Awesome!

      1. the law doesn’t go into effect until jan 2013

        HOWEVER

        it appears that the fact that it already has passed though, gave the judge good reason to allow the jury nullification instructions. very cool on behalf of the judge. this man very well owe his freedom to this judge and to those who passed HB146

        excellent arcing towards freedom.

      2. the law doesn’t go into effect until jan 2013

        HOWEVER

        it appears that the fact that it already has passed though, gave the judge good reason to allow the jury nullification instructions. very cool on behalf of the judge. this man very well owe his freedom to this judge and to those who passed HB146

        excellent arcing towards freedom.

        1. ugh. squirrels!

          here is the NH law!
          STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

          In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

          AN ACT relative to the right of a jury to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.

          Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

          243:1 Findings and Intent of the General Court. Under the decisions of both the New Hampshire supreme court and the United States Supreme Court, the jury has the right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. The jury system functions at its best when it is fully informed of the jury’s prerogatives. The general court wishes to perpetuate and reiterate the rights of the jury, as ordained under common law and recognized in the American jurisprudence, while preserving the rights of a criminal defendant, as enumerated in part 1, articles 15 and 20, New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

          243:2 New Section; Right of Accused; Jury Instruction. Amend RSA 519 by inserting after section 23 the following new section:

          519:23-a Right of Accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.

          243:3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.

          Approved: June 18, 2012

  10. something that basically legalizes recreational use on a broad scale is incompatible with the mission of educating kids.

    Freedom is incompatible with indoctrination. Thanks for clarifying that.

    1. something that basically legalizes recreational use for adults on a broad scale is incompatible with the mission of educating kids.

      This only makes sense if she thinks her fellow union members are going show up for work every day baked to the gills.

      1. This only makes sense if she thinks her fellow union members are going show up for work every day baked to the gills.

        Your point being?

      2. Have you ever been out drinking with a group of teachers? This scenario is highly likely.

        1. My comment was trying to get at that, but was a bit wide of the mark.

  11. So the teacher’s union is on the same side of an issue as illegal drug dealers are? Hilarious.

    1. Bootleggers and Baptists

    2. politics makes strange bedfellows.

  12. i wouldn’t be surprised if a substantial percentage of the antiMJ teachers are going home and dosing up on prescription mood fixers like SSRI’s, not to mention sleeping pills, etc

    kind of like how so many in the temperance unit drank laudunum

    1. Wasn’t that laudumum also obtained by prescription?

      1. Not until 1914.

        1. They had some great cough medicine back then, too.

          1. Holy fuck, talk about the good old days!

      2. i am not sure

        i know that laudunum, which is simply a tincture of opium (opium in alcohol) is currently available by prescription. schedule II

        prohibition people had to deal with the harrison act, but that merely regulated taxation of these drugs and there were some limitations on sale, which presumably did not apply with a precription

        harrison act never applied to end users,though… any more than prohibition did, technically

        it is currently an “unapproved” drug and was basically grandfathered. since it contains opium, though, it is regulated as a C-II narcotic

        as best i can tell by the timeline, opium tincture was legal to possess throughout prohibition.
        http://www.naabt.org/laws.cfm

        and of course, this is just federal law. most states did not add a bunch of extra restrictions though

  13. Remember, the marijuana legalization movement is based on defiance of existing law and rejection of mainstream indoctrination in support of that existing law.

    If marijuana is legalized, it means that people heard antidrug propaganda in schools and rejected it. It also means that people can by simple noncompliance and defiance wear down institutions of authority and exhaust them into surrender.

    The teachers’ union is naturally totally committed to the proposition that the propaganda put out by schools (in drugs as in any other area) is totally valid and should be accepted by all, and is equally committed to the proposition that only people who obey rules should get their way. “The people who call us fucking liars and spit on our rules might win? NO WAY! ROWWRRRRRR!”

    1. I’m only 3 years out of high school, and I remember the anti-drug lessons we’d have to go through.

      It was interesting that compared to sex-ed, marijuana was total abstinance (even though it’s almost impossible to OD, they tried to scare us by saying some strains of mj can be laced with other toxic drugsw) while with alcohol it was essentially use protection by drinking in moderation.

      1. actually, it is not almost impossible. according to medical standards it is not possible

        mj has no ld40 level.

        granted, neither does water, but you can drown and you can also die from too much water (see: hyper and hypo natremia) throwing your electrolytes too far out of balance

        vbut most foods are not consdered toxic. take sufficient quantities though and it can lead tolife threatening internal organ damage

        i’d say its justifiable to say one cannot OD on mj, bearing the above in mind

        1. mj has no ld40 level.

          What is an ld40, and is it anything like THC’s LD50 of 1260 milligrams per kilo gram?

          Jesus Christ guy…

          1. don’t call me guy, buddy! 🙂

            two things. ld40 is a typo. you are correct. it’s ld50. hint: the 4 key sits next to the 5 key

            yes, you are correct. it TECHNICALLY has an LD50 level. however, that level is so high, that it’s effectively impossible to get that high a dose.

            so, it really does not have a ld50 level

            assuming purity of 15%, you would have to smoke something around 3 lbs of strong marijuana in one sitting to get that dose.

            that is a practical impossibility

            hypoxia etc. would set in long before you could inhale (hi pres. clinton) that much

            it has no EFFECTIVE ld50 value, ok?

            i want to be precise, and that is more precise

            thank you.

          2. Really? THC has an LD50?

            So for my fat ass, I’d need 125 grams of straight THC to have even odds of an OD?

            Yeah, I think that’s pretty much impossible by any reasonable standard.

            1. yea, that’s why many texts will actually say it doesn’t even have one. because it is a practical impossibility

              and i guess one could look at empirical evidence. DOES it ever happen? with literally hundreds of millions of discrete mj smoking incidents, is there even ONE documented overdose (toxicity causing death)? i am unaware of any

              given that many monkey randomly plonking a keyboard, they probably would have produced at least 10 compelling anti-RKBA screeds.

      2. welcome btw. good to see some yutes in a libertarian site!

    2. The teachers’ union is naturally totally committed to the proposition that the propaganda put out by schools (in drugs as in any other area) is totally valid and should be accepted by all, and is equally committed to the proposition that only people who obey rules should get their way.

      This is how I see it. You can’t have an entire organization that’s been pushing D.A.R.E. for two decades (longer?) and suddenly be ok with weed.

      I’m guessing that as an official mouthpiece, the teacher’s union is also against the consumption of alcohol, a perfectly legal and above-board consumer product.

      1. as for dare. it had the best of intentions, but the DATA is pretty compelling. it does not work

        placing cops in schools is problematic, although sometimes the benefits outweigh the costd

        but DARE? not effective. bottom line

        1. In my opinion DARE actually backfires.

          As Bastiat said, for the law to be respected it must be respectable.

          Most of the kids know someone who uses drugs, and they can see with their own eyes that what they are being taught is a bunch of lies.

          So it plants the seed of doubt which can grow into a full blown disrespect for all laws, even the respectable ones. In absence of a sense of morality, this can be a dangerous thing.

          1. right. that’s part of the reason it doesn’t work. boy who cried wolf syndrome

            ESPECIALLY as to how they treat mj. if they were honest, it MIGHT work (or at least work better)

            meth really is a really terrible drug, for instance. way worse than stuff that came before it

            but after decades of lying about mj, crack, cocaine, etc. they simply won’t be taken seriously about meth

            and they have nobody to blame but themselves

            1. meth really is a really terrible drug,

              I know. Tried it once. Hated it. No idea why anyone would like it. Same with crack.

              Cocaine and mj on the other hand. Good stuff!

              Then there was the time some guy shot me up with heroin. Had a great couple hours and then I was really thankful I didn’t have to work for a few days. Even off one dose withdrawal was crazy. Especially with more in the next room and money in my pocket. I can see how people get hooked on that stuff, just to make the symptoms stop.

              1. with due respect to your experience, i don’t think you experienced actual withdrawal after one shot. there is simply not ample opporunity for your body homeostasis to adapt to an addicted state with one dose

                especially considering the short halflife of IV heroin.

                you may have felt sick for other reasons.

                im currently taking dilaudid post surgery. right now. this is a drug many hardcore opioid users (heroin etc.) PREFER to heroin. granted, i was only getting it IV in the hospital. but i was getting it IV for 2 days and am now taking oral. i will have withdrawals. guaranteed. they suck. such is life

                thousands of soldiers came home from vietnam and detoxed cold turkey. unlike alcohol withdrawal, you won’t die

                i can see the personality type that would enjoy meth. it’s definitely a type A beavis and butthead drug. opioids are the polar opposite. opioids equal a rush, then the nod. the nod is totally opposite to the meth high.

                different strokes.

                but yea, lots of opioid addicts are ones who start out taking it legimtimate for some surgery or something./ USUALLY the ones who morph into longterm addicts are the ones who keep upping the dose chasing the high vs. those who just use maintenance dose for pain. but even the responsible maintenance dose doods can fall down that path

                it’s a very compelling drug. ask dorothy

                1. It was black tar as Pip said, and I as far as the withdrawal goes, unlike you, my body doesn’t lie to me.

                2. Another thing, Dunphy.
                  I assume there is a difference between medical professionals administering measured doses of known purity for the purpose of relieving pain, and junkies administering an eyeballed dose of unknown purity for the purpose of getting someone so high that they get hooked.
                  I imagine that you are correct in that the medical professional’s dose is not immediately addictive, because that is the point.
                  On the other hand, don’t you think that a junky’s dose might indeed be worthy of producing withdrawal symptoms, because that is the point?

              2. Opium. Black tar opium.

                Oh, and I finally Reasonabled Dunphy’s lying ass off of these threads. What a cock-sucking asshole pig.

                1. Oh, and I finally Reasonabled Dunphy’s lying ass off of these threads.

                  Where does one acquire this “Reasonable”?

                  1. Oh, is it only for Chrome? I use Firefox. Now I’ll never be free of whiners hurling ad hominems at people who disagree with them.

    3. That is why they will die on this hill. They have to. If marijuana is legalized and nothing bad happens, then the whole thing collapses in front of them. How do they then claim that legalizing any other drug will cause such bad effects?

      If they were not stupid and fanatical, they would co-opt the anti pot movement and embrace it. Change their views and start claiming “hey the science came in and what do you know pot is really safe”. Then they could legalize it and claim that it wasn’t any kind of a precedent for legalizing anything else. It would be a tactical retreat that would undermine the anti-drug effort for decades.

      1. I don’t see it as conspiratorial as this.

        Most modern institutions– especially ones centered in urban areas (racist!) are largely Democratic ones.

        The entire country and its institutions is going (has gone? Went done and gone?) down a path that sees every action an individual takes a spewing off a long stream of “externalities”.

        You smoke weed or take drugs, you’re a non-productive worker.* You eat too much sugar and fat, you’re a burden on the healthcare system.

        *A subject for a different thread, no doubt, but I’ve butted heads against my democratic friends on this: they believe that by my very existence, I owe society a certain amount of production. NOt taxes… but production. If that’s not the gateway to some fucked up shit, I don’t know what is.

        1. Paul,

          That is how socialism has to work. You don’t work for yourself, you work for the collective. It is the reason why not showing up to work was a crime in communist countries.

          1. Ya know, reasonable people can disagree about our taxation level, but when someone says that regardless of taxation, that you owe society a minimum level input to the GDP, you’re just shilling for Big Tyranny.

    4. In fact, I’ll go further and declare that teachers’ unions are in lock-step with the Democratic party. So while I may feel minor annoyance at their position, it doesn’t surprise me at all.

      With all the current panic over obesity, sugar/soda intake, trans-fats and the public-healthification of our entire lives, this is actually a position I’d expect them to take.

      I have a daughter in the public school system, but I don’t have any real picture of the day-to-day that kids in aggregate get from the school system. I can’t imagine it’s less preachy than it was when I was in school, but as they get towards high school, I can only imagine in horror as to how much propogandizing kids are going to get in these here modern times about what you put in your body, how much, how often, how organic/inorganic etc. The mind reels.

      1. With all the current panic over obesity, sugar/soda intake, trans-fats and the public-healthification of our entire lives,

        Remember “Keep your laws off my body?”

        Neither do they.

      2. In fact, I’ll go further and declare that teachers’ unions are in lock-step with the Democratic party.

        Show me a union that isn’t.

        1. Yup. A friend of mine is right wing on most things, but he’s in a union so will vote for Obama automatically.

          Then again, most of the people I know who actually have jobs are in a union, so it’s hard for me to blame them.

          1. i cam show you a union that isn’t lockstep dem party.

            mine

            public employee union.

            1. Police? I can see that.

              1. yea. we got a fair # of dems. fwiw, this is a stereotype but it’s a true one. we have a LOT of openly gay female cops. although they actually have a fair # of repubs, gay marriage is a powerful issue, and the dems hold the trump on that

                one of my sgt’s is a total dem. during the bush era, he was always ragging on neocons. he had stuff like a memo “please turn in your field training officer reports with a paper clip not stapler. they are easier to handle.

                if you use a stapler, the terrorists win – george bush”

                stuff like that.

                and he LOVES obama

                :l

    5. Interesting – I had not thought of the Big Picture view of the whole question. I think you might be on to something!

      No reduction in OBEY!

  14. Teachers often have their fingers in something. Occasionally they get brought up on charges for it.

    They love their work. They immerse themselves.

    Who can blame them?

  15. Teachers are generally socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

    This should clear up two things: (1) the amount of grief teachers get here and (2) the Colorado Teacher’s Union position here.

    That is all.

    1. Hmm, not my experience, but ok. The few teachers I know are socially liberal and fiscally liberal with other people’s money.

      1. My school must have been a statistical outlier, since I had two English teacher, both teaching Advanced Placement/IB, that were libertarians/Objectivists.

        1. AP teachers tend to be smarter than average teachers. The average teachers resent this very much. The union my mom was forced to join actually fought against bonuses for teaching AP classes.

          1. “Those lucky fucks just get the best students, why should they get paid more? If my students weren’t such abused retards, I could teach them better too!”

          2. I had very eccentric English teacher. They were all liberal, but pretty cool people and good teachers. One of them was an ex Playboy model 40 years ago (It was a longtime rumor, but a brother of a friend eventually found the pictures), and another had his own marijuana garden

            1. *teachers

        1. Sorry, that response was to Paul, not ASM.

    1. It certainly explains her haircut, NTTAWWT.

    2. She seem to not like boys very much.

    3. The student’s arguments might be more effective if they didn’t look like I typed them.

      1. Hell, some of them looked like John typed them.

  16. RMLAA. Nope, sorry. Acronym doesn’t make me feel all touchy feely inside.

  17. According to Chapin, another reason for the CEA’s opposition involves the measure’s “whole mechanism for school funding — an excise tax that has to be run through another ballot measure before it can even be applied.” And even if such a tax is passed, she goes on, “their top concern is kids and the whole idea that you shouldn’t be funding schools with pot.”

    But funding it with a state run numbers racket otherwise known as the lottery is just a okay!! You can’t make these people up.

  18. What good are liberals if they can’t even get behind legalizing drugs, gambling and prostitution? I thought it was conservatives who were the puritanical assholes.

    1. Authoritarians sometimes find common ground.

    2. You thought wrong. They both are.

      I never understood why anyone thought the party that wants to ban transfat, salt, and lightbulbs was ever going to legalize drugs.

  19. “You’ve seen the multiple reports about the increase of marijuana use among kids in Colorado. And for teachers, something that basically legalizes recreational use on a broad scale is incompatible with the mission of educating kids.”

    Let’s just ignore the fact that Ammendment 64 still prohibits the legal sale of MJ to anyone under 21. Who’s more likely to sell pot to underage buyers: a convenience store owner who could lose his license and entire livelyhood, or a corner drug dealer who’s already breaking the law anyway?

    According to Chapin, another reason for the CEA’s opposition involves the measure’s “whole mechanism for school funding — an excise tax that has to be run through another ballot measure before it can even be applied.”

    And here’s the real reason for their opposition. I’d be willing to bet that if the money was to be ponied up directly to the schools they would be all for it. All their talk about being “for the kids” is, as usual, a steaming load of bullshit.

    1. If the money doesn’t go to them, they have no interest in it going anywhere.

  20. I was blessed to be in high school and college when the drinking age was 18. The whole scheming to get booze thing was just a non-issue.

    The good old days, FTW!

    Also, if a cop pulled you over it was for a reason; he wrote the fucking ticket and let you go, without trying for an extra-legal search fishing expedition.

    1. I got pulled over in high school (early 80s) and the girl I was with stumbled out of the car and fell into the ditch. I hadn’t been drinking that much but had drunk some.

      The cop joked about how much my girlfriend had been drinking and ended up driving me home in my mom’s car…mainly because my driver’s license was restricted to daylight hours.

      …and nothing else happened.

      I have memories like these from growing up and I look around at our country today and all I can do is keep drinking.

  21. What is that…. thing…. in the picture?

    This is what I imagine you look like after 20 years of service in Public Education = an androgynized tenured lesbo-bot that believes ‘Government is a Force For Good!’, and will ensure you don’t violate any speech-codes or zoning-laws or paint your house the wrong color or let your kid draw cartoon guns on his notepad or run a lemonade stand without a license…

    …this is the Face of Doom.

    Its banal, petty functionaries like this

    1. !@#($*@ “SUBMIT/PREVIEW” @#($*@ “PREVIEW/SUBMIT”!@#*!@\

      …excuse me.

      I think I meant to say, “Its banal, petty functionaries like this that provide the bedrock for the all-encompassing State…” or something like that.

    2. Maybe it is the face that George Orwell’s boot was forever smashing?

  22. good to see some yutes in a libertarian site!

    Sez the guy who locks people in cages for a living.

    1. trolls will troll

      tra la la

      1. You’re doing it wrong. It’s “trololol”.

  23. What is that…. thing…. in the picture?

    Whatever it is, I bet its office has an excellent view of the girls’ shower.

  24. you shouldn’t be funding schools with pot.”

  25. I agree. Fuck excise taxes of all kinds, and tax schemes where revenues are directed towards specific functions as opposed to a general fund.

    Legalize cannabis, tax it and all products the same rate, and use the general revenues from everything to fund only general government functions that are necessary.

  26. Does the teachers union want to criminalize alcohol as well?

    They CANNOT say that legalizing marijuana like wine encourages kids to use marijuana without also saying that legalizing wine encourages kids to use alcohol!

    If we’re going to keep the federal marijuana prohibition then we also have to bring back the alcohol prohibition, bring back the bootleggers and bring back the wood alcohol. How much safer will our kids be then?!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.