President Trump was recently excluded from the Colorado ballot by a panel of state Supreme Court judges. It was unprecedented, a walk into uncharted legal territory, and, well, a lot of people are thinking the same thing:

Is there a connection between Colorado’s legalization of marijuana and the recent Trump-ballot paranoia?

Sure, it's farfetched, maybe too much of a stretch. But a particularly troubling problem for Colorado (the “Reefer Madness” capital of America) is the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) assertion that “people who use marijuana are more likely to develop temporary psychosis (e.g., not knowing what is real, hallucinations, and paranoia) and long-lasting mental disorders, including schizophrenia.”

Nevertheless, Colorado became the Democrats’ hero state in 2012 when it became the first (along with Washington) to legalize the drug for “recreational use.”

Ranked second in its number of dispensary licenses, Colorado’s cannabis-worshipping cities seem to have a dispensary on every street corner.

So now four activist-judges on the Colorado highest court exploited a Civil War-related amendment article to rationalize canceling the top Republican nominee from the official ballot.

If that isn't paranoia, what is?

The science authority most followed by Democrats -- the CDC -- states that the correlation between pot smoking and symptoms of mental illness includes “where people might see or hear things that are not really there.”

Which by coincidence, describes the ruling of the Colorado state Supreme Court majority.

So, what things were seen or heard by these judges that are not really there?

First, the Colorado judges, stoned or not, should have seen what the entire world saw: President Trump giving a speech on Jan. 6, 2021, regarding the most votes of any sitting president (73.6 million), the anomalies of “COVID-19 emergency” mass-mail ballots to cover any deficit needed even after voting day, Nov. 3, 2020, and the freedom of his supporters to “peacefully protest” about the most gaslighted election to date. So he was hardly the insurrectionist they claim.

Secondly, weedfest or not, the three of four judges who dissented appear to have understood the protests about a puppety 80-year-old man who campaigned from his basement but somehow managed to garner five million more votes than the greatest president of many lifetimes -- after coincidental “late” ballot counting in the wee hours of battleground states.

The more level-headed judges spoke of the rights of voters to cast ballots for their candidates of choice and the overbroad premise of the case that could not be credibly decided by state justices in each individual state.

The rest of us saw that the external protests were exacerbated by Speaker of the House Pelosi, who essentially choreographed the perception of an “insurrection” by refusing the National Guard, which likely inspired security officers to shoot rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowd, while Capitol police guided groups of “MAGA” people into the building, as shown in a plethora of unedited video reports.

Lastly, all of the justices should have comprehended that the accusations about President Trump inciting some kind of insurrection had already been quashed by the Senate in February 2021, and been denied by judges in multiple states trying the Amendment 14, section 2 angle. Sober Americans clearly saw the recently released protest videos either on X, on Tucker Carlson’s program, or on the footage released by House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Former prosecutor Frances Hakey told Fox News that these “four unelected judges” had no sensible defense anywhere in the Constitution. He stated that without a trial, without a jury, and without any due process, the radicals produced 300 pages of “hot garbage.”

In other words, potheads or not, the judges had created an alternative reality where Trump was akin to a bayonet-carrying Confederate officer (per the irrelevant amendment section they chose) who had committed some kind of imaginary treason—regardless of the real-world videos the rest of America watched.

To delve deeper into the problem, the critical-thinking news media audience can review the below symptoms of schizophrenia to explore if the Colorado judges' behavior or even the general actions of the Biden-era’s woke Democrats (stoners or not) would begin to make sense:

While the Supreme Court is all but sure to quash Colorado’s time-wasting proposal when it is challenged, the bigger problem may be that Democrats smoke too much pot. If the justices weren't on pot, I would argue that they acted like people who are. I know it's just speculation, but someone should ask.

Marie Hembree, has an M.A. in Strategic Communications, and is an Academic Resource Instructor for a Title One California school district while completing a doctoral dissertation in the Communication discipline.

Image: Photo illustration by Monica Showalter, with use of public domain images from RawPixel and OpenClipart