Take a look Jon Caldara’s post “Reasons to Get High… No Really” where he makes a good case appealing to his base, those who opposed Amendment 64, to consider what the amendment means for freedom.
Jon should have taken a stand for the legalization of marijuana for the reasons Tom Tancredo provided. But although he disagreed with the decision to legalize, his arguments against the Left are no less effective, just not comprehensive enough. What about attacking ideology wherever it exists that stands in the way of freedom? The Independent Institute should have taken a position supporting Amendment 64.
He gives the Left too much credit for their ability to understand. His first argument is the strongest, “we finally have a state-rights issue that the Left can, must and will understand and fight to preserve.” His second with regard to tabacco smoking really requires someone to stay in his echo chamber for awhile, “Legalized pot MIGHT force some on the Left to face their hypocrisies, like their confusion on property rights and freedom of association.”
What Jon should also point out is that in addition to states-rights, Amendment 64 goes further “permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities”. Also, he asks “Will the state heap wild sin taxes on pot and spend that money in ways that have nothing to do it?”, but it’s not clear in your article that indeed the answer is provided by Amendment 64; the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund.