Boulder Weekly on Facebook Boulder Weekly on Twitter Boulder Weekly on Tumblr Boulder Weekly's RSS feed Email Contact

Find Local Events (pick a date)
 
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com
Browse Boulder real estate by neighborhood, school and zip code along with other homes for sale in Colorado on COhomefinder.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / Views / In Case You Missed It /  In case you missed it | Dispensaries bring in the green
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Thursday, October 21,2010

In case you missed it | Dispensaries bring in the green

 

 

Dispensaries bring in the green

Boulder city officials circulated a report this week on how much revenue has been raised from licensing fees associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. And to no one’s surprise, it’s a good chunk of change.

Through August, the city has received $314,861 from our local dispensaries, which naturally raises the question of how the city will use that money. Granted, all the revenue likely goes into one pot, so to speak, and is then doled out without regard to whence it came, but it would be cool to remind the citizenry of that particular revenue stream with something visible.

Maybe we could use green paint instead of yellow the next time the city re-stripes the dotted lines on our roadways, to remind us of contributions made by that much-maligned leafy plant. How about using hemp paper when printing city mailings, or making the public comment microphone at city council meetings look a bit more like a spliff? At least one stop sign in the shape of a marijuana leaf, perhaps on The Hill?

After all, the half million that the city will make each year in licensing fees probably doesn’t even come within a whiff of the full amount dispensaries are contributing to the local economy and government. Think sales tax on snack foods, for starters.

Regardless of how the money is used, one thing is clear. Marijuana prohibition makes criminals wealthy and taxpayers poor.


When it comes to gays, lesbians, Buck sucks

U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck is a shining example of how misogyny and other forms of bigotry travel together. Last week, Coloradans learned of a rape case he refused to prosecute largely because the victim’s lifestyle and the abortion he believed she’d had made her unsympathetic in his eyes.

Buck rolled from that controversy into another, in which he asserted that being gay is a choice and compared it to alcoholism.

On Sunday, Oct. 17, Buck told Meet the Press, “You can choose who your partner is.”

“You don’t think it’s something that’s determined at birth?” host David Gregory asked.

“I think that birth has an influence on it like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice,” Buck replied.

This proves without a doubt that Buck is clueless on gay and lesbian issues.

It’s been proved time and time again that homosexuality isn’t a disease that can be cured. Once considered a mental disorder, being gay or lesbian is now widely recognized as a trait that a person has from birth, like eye color.

So Buck is an idiot on GLBT issues. That’s clear. But what the past two weeks have truly revealed is that Buck is the same old religious right masquerading as a Tea Partier. A vote for him is a vote for Focus on the Family, which supports him and lauded his comments, claiming that homosexuality is “addictive.”

Addictive? Really? So if the straight guys in B-dub’s newsroom force themselves to kiss each other, will they soon find that leads to their waking up in the middle of the night, shaking and sick, desperate for a hot beef injection?

Somehow, we don’t think so.


Boobophobia

Some words are simply too dangerous, even for a good cause. We’re speaking, of course, about the “I love boobies” wristbands that schools around the country are banning even though they are intended to raise awareness about breast cancer.

So what if a couple of ninth-grade boys are giggling at the word “boobies” during lunch break? You think you’re going to cleanse their minds by removing the wristbands? Come on.

Would the term “breasts” have been less offensive? How about “mammary glands”? (That one would have to be on a necklace.)

This is a slippery slope. You start banning these wristbands, and then kids can’t bring nuts for a snack or have hot dogs for lunch or discuss their pet cats, for fear of eliciting images of body parts.

Let’s keep the bigger picture in mind, folks. This is about breast cancer.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
POST A COMMENT
No Registration Required
 
Close
Close