Marijuana

Colorado Governor to Voters: Legalizing Marijuana Was 'Reckless'

|

Photo credit: World Economic Forum / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat currently in the midst of a close reelection campaign, doesn't think voters in his state were being responsible when they voted to legalize marijuana.

In a debate with his Republican opponent Bob Beauprez yesterday, Hickenlooper said that voters in his state were "reckless" when they voted to allow recreational pot use, according to the International Business Times, and that he still doesn't believe that the legalization measure should have passed.

"I think for us to do that without having all the data, there is not enough data, and to a certain extent you could say it was reckless," he said. "I'm not saying it was reckless because I'll get quoted everywhere, but if it was up to me I wouldn't have done it, right. I opposed it from the very beginning. In matter of fact, all right, what the hell—I'll say it was reckless."

He also argued that governors in other states should be wary before proceeding down the path to legalization. 

"Any governor that looks at doing this before we see what the consequences are, I would view it as reckless," he said. 

The IBT summarizes some of the "consequences" the state has seen:

Since the new law took effect in 2014, the state is on track to raise more than $40 million in new annual revenues for education and other priorities from marijuana-related taxes. There has been little evidence that crime rates or driving fatalities have increased since the law took effect. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: Violent crime rates in Denver were lower in the first half of 2014, and traffic fatalities in the state are near a record low.

That doesn't even account for the tens of millions of dollars in estimated annual savings for law enforcement spending, nor the reduction in human costs that comes with abandoning criminal penalties for marijuana use. 

Based on the outcomes so far, one might be better off arguing that it would be reckless to oppose legalization. 

As Jacob Sullum noted earlier this summer, even Hickenlooper seems to have recognized that he was overly worried about how legalization would work out, admitting that his concerns about radically expanded pot usage and driving while high have not come to pass.

Recognizing that he misjudged the effects of legalization does not appear to have meaningfully changed his judgment about whether legalization should have occurred, however. Instead, he appears to have decided that it's better to tell the state's voters—the same voters he presumably hopes will cast their ballots for him next month—how misguided they were. 

NEXT: University Violates Its Own Speech Code; Free Speech Group Discovers a Drawback to Pointing This Out

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. “Vote for me so I can protect you from your decisions, dumbasses.”

  2. Politician Wants to Maintain Government Control Over Everything, Everywhere: Story at 11.

  3. “Vote for me you reckless morons!”

    1. OT,

      Out of curiosity, sarcasmic, have you seen “f tulpa” recently?

        1. We may never see him again!

          1. If you mean “fuck you, tulpa,” the handle is in today’s AM Links.

            If you mean the coward who won’t post under his handle any longer because he is so afraid of me, the yellow-bellied bootlicker was around this weekend under a couple of different handles, Lear Dunham being the latest.

            1. he means me.

              he thinks I’m tulpa.

              I hurt his feelings.

          2. Oh no I’m still here you stupid bloviating fuck.

            And AGAIN, you post off topic stupidity because I hurt you idiot feeling and called you a stupid bloviating fuck.

            Go ahead and link your evidence thread and shit all over this one too, bloviating about how you’re not a stupid bloviating fuck.

            God dammit man, what the fuck is wrong with you? What kind of person does that kind of shit?

            No, please don’t answer, you’re guaranteed to be a stupid bloviating fuck and shit in the thread even further.

            1. Hi Tulpa!

            2. You can’t use “bloviating” in four out of six sentences. Expect goons from Strunk and White Enforcement any minute.

              The use of “fuck” in five of the six is allowable under Sec 4.11 a) Internet Variances.

  4. “without having all the data, there is not enough data”

    Sheesh, Hickenlooper, then *anything* is “reckless”.

    1. Quick, ban everything we don’t have enough data on! Then, since everything is illegal, it will impossible to collect data.

      Politics really is for people too dumb to make a living in the real world, yet arrogant enough to think they should run things.

      1. This is what I took away from his quote. “I don’t have to prove that denying you freedom is a good thing. You have to prove to me that having freedom is OK.”

        Fuck him.

      2. When I got to “”I think for us to do that without having all the data, there is not enough data, and to a certain extent you could say it was reckless,” he said.”…

        All I could get out of that was that Hickenlooper was either stoned or drunk when he voiced that non-comment.

        The alleged logic behind it implies that until ALL past, present AND FUTURE DATA ARE AVAILABLE, we should not consider enacting any legislation which might, in some unpredictable future, TURN OUT to be in retrospect, “reckless.”

        Someone who ‘thinks’ that way needs an IQ transplant so they can get up to ‘double-digits.’

  5. Fortunately for him he won’t have to deal with the consequences of that reckless decision much longer.

    1. What is getting stuck behind a stoned driver, chopped liver?

      1. Not as bad as being behind old people. Maybe we should ban old people.

  6. Try taking in all the data from alcohol and see which one, alcohol or pot, needs to be outlawed.

    1. Considering the Hick made his money brewing beer, I think we already know the answer to that one.

      1. Now it all becomes clear….

        (the booze industry has been very hostile to pot legalization. Where is the massive snack food lobby when you need ’em?)

        1. The unholy Cheeto/Taco Bell alliance, they rival the koch brothers in the ability to control the masses to “shut-up and take their money”.

          1. When I go into 7-11 and buy Snoballs and Cool Ranch Doritos, do you think they know what I’m up to?

            1. Yes, and they are trying to find a way to sell your information to your local pot dealer, because they know their demographics that well.

      2. the Hick made his money brewing beer

        “HICKenLOOPer”. It was destiny.

    2. c) neither

      1. Alcohol is very good for you in moderation.
        http://www.psmag.com/navigatio…..thy-87891/

    3. Gov. Hickenloope founded a brewery and sponsored a “Beerdrinker of the Year” competition.

    4. Considering that I enjoy a strong stout quite often I take offense at that truly awful suggestion. How about we leave them both alone?

    5. Alcohol is certainly a whole lot more harmful when consumed in excess, but no drugs should be outlawed. Stop giving them ideas.

  7. We’re lucky the Democrats let us vote at all.

  8. Obamacare: We have to pass it so we can see what’s in it.

    Devil’s Weed: We can’t pass it until we see the consequences of passing it.

    1. That is an excellent observation, Brian D. Bravo.

    2. You make it sound as though they were imperfectly faithful to their stated principles, which is, of course, impossible.

  9. You pop shit? Apologize

    “Politically, it’s a pretty reckless statement,” Mason Tvert, a key backer of legalization, told The Huffington Post. “Gov. Hickenlooper was elected by 51 percent of the state’s voters, whereas 55 percent approved the marijuana initiative in 2012. Some of them might now be thinking they made a pretty reckless decision when they voted him into office.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..42586.html

    1. That a pretty fucking awesome quote.

      1. I love Mason but he is no Libertarian. Good guy but vary leftish. However, he always recognized that his only political party ally was the LP.

  10. Where’s that wad of cuntsnot Tony to tell us about how good the Democrats are on the WoD?

    1. He also said that government is self-regulating because of voting.

    2. I don’t see how anyone sees Dems as better on WOD at this point. Not that Reps are significantly better, but at least there are a few who take a principled libertarianish position on it.

      Here in NH our two recent shitty democrat governors have vetoed decriminalization and medical MJ bills, passed by Republican dominated house on several occasions. Finally the current governor passed an almost completely useless, highly restrictive medical law last year.

  11. I’ve seen a lot of people, by the way, who seem to think that legalizing marijuana is a Democrat issue, which I just don’t buy.

    I suppose that’s probably the way it is in the South, where the Republican Party really is defined by cultural conservatism, but outside of that, it seems to me that it’s the progressives who have all the reservations about letting people do what they want.

    It may come down to gun rights. Once you’re on board with letting people buy and carry guns if they want to, it’s harder for Republicans to turn around and say people shouldn’t be able to smoke what they want. That’s my working theory anyway.

    Regardless, I don’t try to convince committed Democrats I know that drug legalization isn’t a Democrat issue. If they thought it was a Republican issue, they might turn against it–just for that reason.

    1. As for whose issue it is, they’ll just lie. They’re deathly afraid of being seen agreeing with the wrong people but much less afraid of being seen lying.

    2. There are a lot of religious progressives. And they have no use for the devil weed. Also, the gentry left are often parents and will support any restriction no matter how draconian if they think it will protect their little snowflakes.

      The hippie dippie lets legalize weed liberal is about as common as the buffalo. Sure, they used to dominate the landscape and sure they still exist, but they ain’t what they used to be.

      1. They’ll go along with anything so long as they think it’s a Democrat issue.

        Like I said, I don’t think we should tell them otherwise. I think marijuana legalization is having the success it’s having largely because it hasn’t become a partisan issue.

        If we convinced your average Democrat that the Tea Party supported marijuana legalization, they’d turn twice as against it as they ever were before.

        Likewise for Republicans, I’m sure. If Obama had come out in favor of it, a lot of people would be against it–which is usually a good idea just not so much in this case.

        I mean, if people just opposed whatever Obama wanted to do during his presidency, they’d probably be batting close to .900.

        1. The Republicans who oppose weed do so because they really think it should be illegal. They are wrong but they are not doing so because of partisan politics. You are kidding yourself if you think the average social conservative would suddenly embrace legalized drugs if the Democrats came out in favor of it and the Republicans for. They would probably become Democrats.

          You sound like a brain dead prog here shouting racism. Some people actually have beliefs and don’t give a shit what each party thinks about them.

          1. Wow, John! You must have drank a lot of coffee this morning!

            There are a lot of people who oppose what the president wants to do–just because the president wants to do it. There are a lot of Republicans right now who are only capitalist insofar as they think it’s a way to oppose Obama.

            Thank goodness for them. I’d hate it if they were statist fucks all the time on principle.

            There are plenty of Democrats who support what they do 1) because Obama supports it and 2) because the “Teapublicas” are against it, too.

            Do you imagine that your average partisan comes to the conclusions they do only after a careful and rational consideration of various arguments?

            Most of them are Democrats or Republicans for the same reason they root for their favorite baseball team! You’re giving them way too much credit.

            And if they get a Republican who isn’t named Rand Paul into the White House, we’re all going to see exactly how much they despise libertarians and libertarian principles–all over again. Just like they did under George W. Bush.

            1. Ken,

              You are imagining the world as you would like it to be not as it is. There are a good number of Republicans who for whatever reason think legalizing drugs is a terrible idea. And they would either stay home, vote third party or start voting Democrat if the Republican Party ever became a real no kidding end all prohibition party.

              You are just being epiclly smug. It is not just that you think you are right about drugs. It is that you think everyone else isn’t so much wrong but so inferior to you they don’t even have a position and just do what they are told. While I am sure that makes you feel good, it is not true. With a few exceptions of issues like immigration and gay marriage where the opinion of the elites and the media are followed at the expense of their supporters, their parties take the views they do because those are the views their supporters demand. It doesn’t generally go the other way around.

              Your position is really appalling and your contempt for people other than yourself even more appalling. You seem to think that no one but you ever thinks about an issue or does anything other than mindless believe what their betters in each party tell them. If you honestly believe such nonsense, my advice to you is stop believing in freedom and become a Prog because people in your view clearly can’t manage their own lives.

              1. “You are just being epiclly smug. It is not just that you think you are right about drugs. It is that you think everyone else isn’t so much wrong but so inferior to you they don’t even have a position and just do what they are told.”

                The fact that most people don’t want personal autonomy (for themselves, much less other people), beg for someone to make their decisions for them, and defer to authority isn’t a fantasy of mine, John.

                If only I were the first person to notice that!

                We libertarians are the few and the proud, John. Both the Democrats and Republicans are statists, their supporters are mostly mental midgets, and those of us who have seen through them and graduated up from being one of them are superior to them in all sorts of ways.

                Some of them moral! Yeah, that’s right–a moral system guided primarily by respect for individuals and their rights to make choices for themselves is even MORALLY superior to the others. And because Republicans (and their supporters) generally do not subscribe to that system? That makes them morally inferior–in addition to being intellectually inferior.

                1. You’re probably highly offended by that.

                  Does it make you feel better if I say that Democrats are morally and intellectually inferior to libertarians–for the same reasons–too?

                  If it does, then it’s time to grow up, John.

                  1. Ken you are wrong in both cases. And you are the one who needs to grow up. I can think of few things more childish than the belief that everyone else just does what they are told. Libertarians may be right about a lot of things but they do not have a monopoly on thought, good intentions or independent thinking. They just don’t. And anyone who thinks they or any other group does is frankly a childish idiot with a poor grasp of human nature and an grossly over inflated sense of personal superiority.

                    You are not the uber mensch Ken. No one is. Grow up and get over it.

                    1. I didn’t say we had a monopoly on independent thinking.

                      I said our thinking is both morally and intellectually superior–to Republicans and Democrats.

                      Certainly, libertarians tend to be more independent in terms of their thinkking.

                      Few of us were born to libertarian parents, grew up in libertarian neighbornhoods, or went to libertarian schools. Most of us came to become libertarians because of independent thinking.

                  2. John is right — that is an epic amount of smug, Ken. There are plenty of socialists, good social Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others of less-than-appealling politics who rescued Jews during the Holocaust, or did any number of such things. There are any number of socialists who were very intelligent, well-read, and who understood their philosophy very well. Lots of people who aren’t classical liberals have had principled stances, and a good deal of them were highly intelligent — and yet you think you’re better than them because you’ve checked more boxes of agreement on a philosophical test without having to act on that philosophical agreement? That’s the definition of smug, Ken. Even if you’re right and socialists, social conservatives, etc. are wrong, that doesn’t make you better than them.

                    1. I wasn’t talking about any of the groups you mentioned.

                      I was talking about Republicans and Democrats.

                      I’ve known libertarian minded fundamentalilsts–I’ve often stated that the clearest, most concise expression of libertarianism I’ve ever heard was, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

                      There’s nothing stupid or immoral about Jehovah’s Witnesses agreeing with libertarians that Jews should be saved from the Nazis during the holocaust.

                      It’s when Republicans and Democrats disagree with those libertarian principles that they expose their moral and ethical inferiority.

                      Hell, I even understand that libertarians can disagree with each other on everything from abortion to foreign policy…you can have two conflicting libertarian positions.

                      But statists in the Democratic and Republican parties using the coercive power of government to force their respective agendas on the rest of us is both morally and intellectually inferior–compared to libertarian options.

                      Why that would be controversial on a libertarian website is beyond me.

                    2. It’s when Republicans and Democrats disagree with those libertarian principles that they expose their moral and [intellectual] inferiority.

                      Fixed!

      2. “The hippie dippie lets legalize weed liberal is about as common as the buffalo.”

        That’s contrary to all the polling I’ve seen. 2/3 of Democrats support legalization and the same fraction of Republicans oppose it.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/165…..juana.aspx

        1. Perhaps so. That number if true doesn’t seem to have deterred Hickenlooper.

          1. It seems like Democrat politicians are still deathly afraid of being painted as soft on crime if they don’t hold the line on the WOD and some other issues. And drugwar is not an issue that many vote based on.

            1. Hard to be seen as soft on crime when you’re bound and determined to make everything illegal.

      3. I think it has more to do with the fact that everyone is taught in school from a very early age that marijuana is bad and it’d a gateway drug and that’s why it’s illegal. Also, it’s illegal, so it must be bad. Get the while their young…

    3. Democrats totally want to let people take whatever drugs they want, except for nicotene, caffeine, trans fats, birth control pills, teh bibles …..

      1. Bibles are drugs? And they don’t want people to take birth control pills?

        1. They’ve come out against over the counter birth control pills.

      2. Nah. Most of them just want pot legalized, because it is “not too bad”. Sadly, very few people in either party are willing to go beyond that. I’ve had many conversations with people who are all for legalizing pot, even accepting the personal autonomy argument for it. But then if some scary drug like meth or heroin comes up it quickly returns to “we can’t let people have that much personal autonomy”.

  12. More like Gov. Dickinpooper, amirite?

  13. It appears his GOP opponent agreed it was reckless.

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..11638.html

    I hope the LP is running someone.

    1. It makes sense that the incumbent would try to show that there are few differences between them on that issue.

      If the Republican challenger wants to differentiate himself, he’ll need to do it on another issue now.

      It may just be a strategic thing.

      1. Or Beauprez is just as much of a statist asshole as Hick.

        1. That’s another strong possibility.

        2. That’s why Hickenlooper said it–it’s an extremely safe stance to take running against an honest-to-goodness socon like Beauprez. What are the stoners going to do, vote Republican? Yeah right.

          If Hick gets beat, it’s going to be on his gun control bullshit, the clemency he gave to Nathan Dunlap, and this being a generally down year for Democrats, not because of his stance on pot.

    2. So the two candidates are a draw on pot. They are not on second amendment rights. I really don’t care if they elect a communist as long as that person supports the 2nd Amendment. If Hickenlooper wins, the message will be that it is okay to go after the 2nd Amendment because you can still get re-elected even in a western state like Colorado. That is a much bigger deal than any after the fact whining about pot legalization. It is unlikely that any future governor is going to undo pot legalization. Gun rights are a different matter. Hickenlooper being re-elected sets a terrible precedent for gun rights.

      1. Therefore, don’t throw your vote away on a 3rd party, vote for statist asshole Beauprez because he’s the slightly lesser of two evils? No thanks, that’s how we ended up with the status quo.

        1. Because there is more than one way to send a message. Hickenlooper losing the election would send a great message and be a good thing. I would vote for an outright communist if that is what it took to send that message.

          It depends on what is more important to you; sending a message to the R about weed or sending a message to the entire country about 2nd Amendment rights. Your call on what is important. But understand if you want to vote to split the opposition to Hickenlooper, you are helping to ensure he wins and every politician in America knows that it is okay to fuck people’s second amendment rights because their is no danger of the other side uniting to do anything about it. You will most certainly have taught the Republicans a lesson. You will also have taught the Democrats one too. I don’t think you are going to like that one as well.

          1. Besides, the republicans are incredibly stupid.

            Any message sent to them will be misconstrued by them to mean the opposite.

            At least defeating Hick is an unambiguous message to every pol of the dangers of fucking with people’s 2a rights.

            1. Pretty much. The Republicans are nothing but the Constitutional Democrats of the Russian Revolution. The Democrats are the Bolsheviks. Sure the KD are stupid and ineffectual but they are not evil like the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks only won because they undermined the KD enough and the KD was stupid enough to get no one to stand up when the Bolsheviks took over.

              The hard left would love to do the same here. Just convince everyone the stupid party is the same as the evil party such that no one will do anything when the evil party takes over.

              The Democrats if they could would repeal the 1st Amendment and have government control of all political speech. This is not an exaggeration. They voted overwhelmingly for a Constitutional Amendment that would have done just that. They would also completely disarm the country if they could.

              Yet, if letting the Democrats take over completely and do that is the price to be paid for sending a message to the stupid party, then so be it I guess. How exactly the new and smarter stupid party is supposed to take power now that the evil party controls political speech is to be determined later I guess.

              1. “How exactly the new and smarter stupid party is supposed to take power now that the evil party controls political speech is to be determined later I guess.”

                That’s silly. Republicans did fine in elections before Citizens United or McCain Feingold.

                1. No. Some Republicans did. The majority of Republicans voted against McCain Feingold. Democrats voted nearly unanomously for it.

                  Moreover, McCain Feigngold was struck down by the courts, or at least good portions of it were. It isn’t the Republicans who support amending the constitution to effectively end the 1st Amendment protections for political speech. It is the Democrats who support and would without doubt do so if they could get the votes. And certainly would change the makeup of the Supreme Court to do it judicially if they could.

                  The vote on the Citizens United Amendment or whatever you want to call it was a water shed moment. It was the moment when one of the two major parties dropped the mask and went from being stupid and corrupt to being an outright fascist menace.

          2. I’m not quite ready to make the 2nd Amendment a ‘single issue’ litmus test but here I agree with John. The GOP candidate seems no worse on marijuana and is clearly better on self defense rights. If I had to choose between the two I would fairly easily choose the Republican there. If there was a LP candidate though I’d side with him, it’s not like my vote would make much difference and ultimately the ‘message’ I’d like to send is that libertarian candidates are worthy of support.

          3. Sorry John, the 2A isn’t everything. Thanks for playing SAVE MUH TEAM see you tomorrow.

  14. FUCK YOU, YOU GODDAM PEASANTS.

  15. “There’s no sugar coating it. It was reckless. Now vote for me and I’ll be more reckFULL! Get it? Never mind. Vote for me because data.”

    /Moves away from mic. Mutters “idiots”.

    1. “That oughta hold the little SOBs”

  16. I’ve been toying with the idea of moving to Colorado. This cuntstain getting booted will make the idea more attractive.

  17. What’s the deal with this massive explosion that apparently happened in Iran? I heard about it yesterday, but it seems like it’s getting pretty weak coverage, at least in the U.S. Anyone know?

    1. From a BBC website: “The semi-official Iranian Students News Agency (Isna) said the fire was in an ‘explosive materials production unit’.”[named Parchin]

      “Parchin has been linked to Iran’s [alleged] nuclear programme.”

      1. Well then, there you have it.

  18. the state is on track to raise more than $40 million in new annual revenues for education and other priorities from marijuana-related taxes.

    In other words, wasted.

    1. You did something there, I suspect – and I may have seen it.

  19. I’ve been toying with the idea of moving to Colorado.

    There are a lot of nice places in Colorado. None of them are on the Front Range.

    1. Fort Collins is a nice little college town that is on the plains but close to the mountains. I like Colorado Springs too. People bitch and moan about how allegedly conservative it is. No one has ever bothered me when I was there and it has some really nice bars, so it can’t be that religious conservative.

      But yeah, I would rather take Durango or Glennwood Springs over about anywhere on the front range. In fact, I would take northern New Mexico over about anywhere in Colorado. Colorado is too uptight. New Mexico is better. It just has too many Indians to ever be too uptight about anything.

      1. You need to brush up on your crystal-waving before you move to northern NM.

    2. Denver is awesome. The Western suburbs are even better. Glenwood Springs is in actuality what the caricature of Colorado Springs is. Ultra conservative, nosy neighbors, ridiculous zoning laws, asshole cops. The best place to live in CO is actually Evergreen, if you have half a million in cash for a down payment on a house.

  20. It is reckless to stop throwing people in jail for smoking a largely harmless weed but it is totally prudent to take away everyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. Choosing America’s worst politician is like trying to choose the greatest baseball player in history. There is just so many worthy candidates it is impossible to give one definitive answer. While you can’t give a definitive answer, Hickenlooper is absolutely in the conversation. What a fucking crap weasel. Of course this statement will in no way cause the brain dead Boulder progs who support marijuana legalization to question their support of him.

    1. Babe Ruth is the greatest ever. Now as for politicians…

      1. I would tend to agree with you on that. Okay, greatest quarterback in history. You know what I mean.

        1. Dan Marino.

          1. Otto Graham or GTFO.

            1. simmer down old timer. You and your grainy black and white film don’t know shit.

              1. Exactly, since we all know it was really Sid Luckman!

                1. George Blanda. He gave hope to every fat middle-aged bald guy sitting on his couch drinking beer out there that they too could play in the NFL. And where would football be without fat middle-aged bald guys sitting on the couch drinking beer?

              2. Look, if Barry Bonds could have pitched in the dead ball era, then Otto Graham could have been a superior QB in the pass-happy era that started with Walsh’s Niners.

          2. …never won a thing.

        2. Best player ever was Jim Brown.

          1. Hard to argue against this. Though I preferred Walter Payton, Brown was just too incredible.

        3. Fran Tarkenton. Takes a lickin’ & keeps in tickin’.

        4. Peyton Manning.

      2. Didn’t play with the blacks.

        1. Barry Bonds was the greatest player ever.

          1. Last I checked, Barry Bonds couldn’t pitch. Babe wins.

            1. Barry Bonds could have pitched in 1914.

              1. And there’s the problem with comparing players across eras.

              2. But would not have had an arsenal of steroids.

          2. Bonds isn’t even close. He is a legit top 20 but without steriods no higher. And not playing with blacks doesn’t affect the top players. Integration affected average and below average white players but not the stars. We know this because the stars who were great at the time of integration didn’t drop off after integration. Ted Williams didn’t suddenly become just a good hitter, Bob Feller didn’t suddenly become an average pitcher.

            The “he didn’t play after integration” argument could also be used against players who played before the influx of Latin and Japanese players. It is not, however, because it is just as invalid. Great players are great players.

            And Ruth by any measure is by far the greatest. Beyond his offensive numbers, which no one not using steroids ever touched, he was a near hall of fame left handed pitcher as well. That is just staggering to consider. It is one of the great athletic feats of all time. I honestly don’t know how you explain an athlete like Ruth. His accomplishments are so astounding it is easy to dismiss them as a product of an inferior era. That, however is not the case. The 20s were a great era of baseball full of all kinds of great players and athletes. Athletes who unlike athletes in other sports could play today.

            1. I think John is overstating his case dismissing the problems of era comparisons, but I ultimately agree. When you take into account Ruth as a hitter and the fact he was a great pitcher, he is the unmatched phenom of baseball.

              1. When you take into account the fact that he drank and smoked during games and was about 40 pounds overweight, he is definitely the unmatched phenom of baseball.

                1. Brandon,

                  Ruth was not overweight for most of his career. He wasn’t seen on TV every night like players are now so people think of him as he looked later in his career. Ruth had really spindly legs and always looked less fir than he was for that reason. He was in his prime not a fat slow guy. He could run, being a pitcher he had an excellent arm in the outfield and was by all accounts a very good base runner and defensive outfielder.

              2. The thing about comparing eras in baseball is that the differences tend to cancel each other out. Without question, there is a wider field of talent to choose from to make up the major leagues today than there was then. The population was smaller, the leagues were not integrated and there were not international players. At the same time, travel was a lot harder and medical care and training was nothing like it is today. I think it mostly cancels out. Sure, in an integrated league, Ruth would have faced more consistent pitching. But he also would have had much better training, medical care and quality of life on the road and would have stayed good longer and had a longer peak career as a result. You will never know for sure, but it is likely a wash.

                To me the great might of been in baseball is Mickey Mantle. The guy destroyed his knee in his rookie year. He was a switch hitter who hit best from the right but thanks to the knee injury lost most of his power from the right side of the plate. Yet, he still hit 500 homeruns and won triple crown. Mickey Mantle with modern knee surgery might have been greater than Ruth. Mantle’s body was basically a wreck his entire career and he still is one of the ten best position players of all time.

            2. I recall a hitting coach in some article comparing the swings of Ruth and Aaron to Bonds and A-Rod respectively and showing how they’re basically identical. Pitching goes through radical shifts in technique and tactics, but hitting never seems to change all that much. Pretty wacky stuff.

              1. Bonds and A-Rod were both great players to begin with. When they got on steriods they became other worldly. Ruth was other worldly without steroids.

            3. which no one not using steroids ever touched…

              Hank Aaron used steroids?

              1. Aaron’s best season would have been one of Ruth’s worst. Tougher era for Hank, but it’s not at all close.

                1. But he touched one of Ruth’s more famous offensive numbers. Exceeded it, in fact.

                  1. Yes, it’s an endurance record, which is great and all, but the argument is for “The Greatest”, not the “Longest-Lasting”.

              2. Aaron hit more career homeruns but his numbers otherwise never came close to Ruth. Aaron never hit 50 home runs in a season. Aaron was a career .305 hitter. That is a very nice number. Ruth was a career .342 hitter. Ruth hit over .370 five times in his career. Aaron hit over .350 once. Ruth’s career OPS was 1.164. Aaron’s was .928. Ruth had an OPS over 1.0 in 13 seasons. Aaron did it only four times.

                Aaron was a fantastic player by any measure. It is just that Ruth is just that much beyond Aaron or anyone else really.

                1. Aaron was Barry Bonds minus steroids.

  21. “Legalizing Criminalizing marijuana was ‘reckless'” – FIFY

  22. Is he the one who signed the controversial gun laws which got two politicians recalled?

    1. Yup

    2. That’s him.

    3. Yeppers. Yet another reckless vote by the unwashed morons he hopes will re-elect him.

  23. the greatest baseball player in history

    Easy. Vern Mikkelsen.

  24. BTW, for anyone who’s curious, Oregon is poised to legalize Marijuana correctly.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/l…..rexml.html

    1. Unless I’m misremembering, this just means that their model will be closer to Colorado than Washington. Which is good! WA really fucked up by refusing to allow home-grow.

      1. Which is good! WA really fucked up by refusing to allow home-grow.

        Well, that and several other things, but yes, the illegal home grow was a major screwup.

        However, if you agree with Washington’s philosophy on legalization, allowing home grow was impossible.

  25. He’s a Quaker. It’s only natural he’d be uncomfortable with pot-smoking.

    1. Haven’t the Quakers become like the Unitarians in that you can be a member and worship about anything as long as you worship government as well?

      1. I see what you did there.

      2. Some have gone that way and some have remained fairly conservative. Some are close to non-theistic but quite a few are still pretty conservative evangelicals.

  26. El oh el.

    Native American activists laughed, wept and sang their way out of Seattle’s City Hall on Monday after watching the City Council unanimously approve a resolution designating the second Monday in October as “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

    http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html

  27. Damn voters! Who do they think they are, legalizing things?!
    Next thing you know, they’ll be able to say whatever they want!

  28. That can’t be true, everyone tells me how democrauts really want to end the drug war and those mean rethuglicans just won’t let them.

    1. “Everyone?” Or “Tony?”

  29. Denver is awesome.

    You clearly have a different definition of “awesome” than I.

    Which is fine. Value is subjective.

    1. Good restaurants, good schools, above-average traffic for a major city, awesome weather, close to the mountains, rivers, trails, ski resorts and national forests, good parks, beautiful women, low crime (especially in the past year for some reason), good economy. What’s not to like? It could use a couple more all-world barbecue joints, and it doesn’t have the same quality Mexican food as Houston, but I don’t understand the need to shit on it. If you like city or suburban living, it’s about the best option in the country.

      1. low crime (especially in the past year for some reason),

        Well they passed those gun laws, so…

      2. Taco de Mexico, Tacos Jalisco, El Paraiso, La Lloma…

  30. Hickenlooper is what a cartoonist would end up with if he tried to come up with a caricature of the smug, elitist technocratic liberal. He surrounds himself with sycophantic knob-polishers and attacks or ignores anyone who disagrees with him, so nobody tells him how ridiculous his ideas actually are. If he wasn’t such a black hole of charisma he’d be Obama.

  31. Hickenlooper really made a gaffe here. Of course, I think that the correct definition of “gaffe” is an inadvertent expression by a politician of what he really thinks.

  32. “I think for us to do that without having all the data, there is not enough data, and to a certain extent you could say it was reckless,” he said. “I’m not saying it was reckless because I’ll get quoted everywhere, but if it was up to me I wouldn’t have done it, right. I opposed it from the very beginning. In matter of fact, all right, what the hell?I’ll say it was reckless.”

    I like this quote. I don’t agree with it, but I appreciate the honesty.

  33. I admit – I appreciate politicians who from time to time just say it straight out, “YOU PEOPLE ARE FOOLS! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE UNFIT TO RULE YOURSELVES?! YOU KNOW NOTHING OF POWER AND HOW TO WIELD IT. IT WOULD DESTROY YOUR WEAK MORTAL MINDS!! YOU WOULD RELEASE THE KRAKEN AT THE FIRST SIGN OF DANGER AND BRING THE KINGDOM DOWN UPON YOUR OWN HEADS!”

  34. There was little or no data in support of the original ban, but there was fear. Now, Hickenlooper says there isn’t enough data to lift the ban. Maybe so, but there is hope and the common sense of sad experience with a failed policy. Is letting fear trump that hope being “reckless”? Only in the soon to be jobless Hickenlooper’s world, methinks.

    1. Oops. Meant to say, “Is letting that hope trump fear (given an equivalent lack of data) being reckless?”

  35. Sooo….+$40 mill, lower crime rates, police resources allocated to crimes that actually, you know, hurt people, and no non-criminal lives destroyed by arrest, persecution and imprisonment??

    Which part of these consequences, which must have been unforseen since you didn’t have enough data, do you regret here?? Which of these awful things do you wish to rub your reckless voters noses in, Gov?

    Goddamn if that isn’t a question a real reporter would confront this fuck with. Or maybe “Why, since the results of legalization have been overwhelmingly positive, do you refuse to admit you were wrong??”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.