The Colorado court's ruling of December 19 may not be of such meaningful purpose and reflect such judicial resolve as the headlines would have folks believe. More accurate would be:
There's no stopping illegal drug use any more than there is stopping illegal immigration. Legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana was a wise decision because it limits illegal import and generates revenue from taxes.
The Constitution doesn't require a conviction for insurrection only that one engages in it.
Your statement is the one that is not rational and is a cheap shot. You are just throwing that in hoping it might sway some people who are already against marijuana. But the facts don't support any conclusion that pot is particularly dangerous for most users. Colorado's legalization of marijuana hasn't had any drastic impact on the quality of life and the tax on the stuff brings in useful revenue. You might want to read up on the studies of the effects of marijuana. For decades people made it out as far more evil than it really is. A number of studies have concluded that driving while stoned does not cause nearly as many accidents and deaths as driving under the influence of alcohol, for example. It's still not a good idea to drive stoned, but between the two substances, studies alcohol is the greater road hazard.
The Constitution does not directly state conviction is required. Thus, to reach that conclusion one must decide that the amendment nevertheless implies that's a requirement. So that's still an open issue as the courts have not yet addressed. The Colorado Supreme Court obviously didn't think that the amendment requires a conviction. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will interpret it differently. But as things stand today one cannot say with certainty that a conviction is require to trigger the bar on electing those who were involved in an insurrection. There is nothing in the text itself that would appear to point either way except that there is no express requirement for it in the Constitution. For those who believe in a strict reading the Constitution as written, their conclusion should be that it is not required because there is no statement to that effect in the amendment.
That is one of the issues the Supreme Court will have to decide. You are obviously a Trump supporter, and that's fine, but don't let your political passions cloud objective judgment. Trump is not God and not infallible (though some of his supporters act as though they think he is). It is not out of the realm of possibility that the events of January 6 were an insurrection and Trump was one of the instigators of it. I doubt he intended to commit a crime, indeed I don't think he gave much thought at all as to the effect his words would have. If he had, he likely could have tempered the mood of his supporters and prevent their antics at the Capitol building. But he just speaks the first thought that comes into his head. That often leads to his aides having to walk back his statements and explain that Trump didn't mean what he literally said. Some people like that he just throws out any statement that pops into his head. But for me, that's a bad quality to have in a president. Presidents need to be careful what they say otherwise unintended harmful results, like the assault on the Capitol building, may occur. God forbid that as president he blurts something out that sparks a military confrontation.
There is almost a year left to go before the general election. A lot can happen in a year. Trump needs to pick support from some of the moderate voters in this country to win; the votes of his MAGA crew won't be enough. He might have a shot to win if he can keep his mouth shut and can avoid conviction on all the criminal cases that are taking place against him. The last presidential election showed he had lost some of his moderate voters. So far I've not seen him do much that would persuade them to come back to vote for him.
