Amendment 64

dbkick

dbkick

Well-Known Member
it was certainly strange on the timing of the vote and then suddenly (again) the dea says there is no medical use, next thing you know they're cracking heads in the cali mmj scene.
 
Trousers

Trousers

Well-Known Member
While I do not agree philosophically with onebrownmouse, at least he/she is trying to argue logically as opposed to the others.

FlyLikeAnEagle said:
Send me another private message and I'll consider it harassment and proceed as such.

Comprende?
Click to expand...

Okay, Big Guy. You were incredibly rude. I wanted to keep that out of the thread. You do not want a civil discussion and are unwilling to back up your insane points.

I guess you do not want to defend your naive and ignorant comments. You are the type that just puts the word "corporation" in an argument and you think that makes it right? Good luck with that hot mess.


BadDog40 said:
This guy Trousers just joined a few months ago and is making slanderous statements about me and is also sending threats to you? Are people so damn stupid that they think they can't be tracked and held responsible for the shit they do online?
Click to expand...
You do not know what slander is. Even if my comment were libelous, which it was not, you should lighten up and try to defend your illogical stance on amendment 64.

Why don't you track me and hold me responsible?
I'll pm you my address and phone number if you want.
 
jacfolly1

jacfolly1

Member
How would Amendment 64 hurt the dispensaries? Would they not be the first business to get to sell to the public if this bill passes? It would seem they already have the leg up on everyone?
 
doogleef

doogleef

Well-Known Member
A64 specifies that it would have to be a separate business. The MMCs out there will likely get on the bandwagon but it will be huge headache and fees for the second time.

I agree that HB1284 was, in-part, designed to phase out the caregiver, but this is a totally separate question / issue. One thing at a time.
 
Trousers

Trousers

Well-Known Member
I was told that dispensary owners will get a first shot at retail weed licenses. I am not sure and I don't really care.
I don't really need dispensaries or weed stores.


Amendment 64 would allow a man to grow marijuana for personal use in his own home. You wouldn't need a license or have to pay fees.

That is a start. I do not see how you can argue with that.
 
jacfolly1

jacfolly1

Member
No argument here at all, but I would think its pretty obvious that the MMC'S would have first dibs on the sale of legal MJ if anyone. Of course the state will have more fees and liscense's to pay but I'm sure they pay yearly for a lot of those anyway. If I have had to choose where to buy, its not going to be the the 7-eleven it would more than likely be an established MMC that has credentials I hope. Its already way dilluted out here, this is going to get interesting.
 
doogleef

doogleef

Well-Known Member
Agreed/ Anyone with a working business model and grow staff will obviously have a leg up. Here is the relevant section (d) of the proposed amendment:

(7) Medical marijuana provisions unaffected. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED: (a) TO LIMIT ANY PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER, OR LICENSED ENTITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (b) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT; (c) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN A MANNER OR FROM A SOURCE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (d) TO PERMIT ANY MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER LICENSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO OPERATE ON THE SAME PREMISES AS A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.; OR (e) TO DISCHARGE THE DEPARTMENT, THE COLORADO BOARD OF HEALTH, OR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FROM THEIR STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
 
Trousers

Trousers

Well-Known Member
Again:

Amendment 64 would allow a man to grow marijuana for personal use in his own home. You wouldn't need a license or have to pay fees.

That is a start.


I do not see how you can call yourself pro-marijuana and vote against this.
Any of you prohibitionists that are against 64 want to try to explain your point?

Why would you vote to deny people rights?
 
GreenPeak

GreenPeak

Active Member
doogleef said:
Agreed/ Anyone with a working business model and grow staff will obviously have a leg up. Here is the relevant section (d) of the proposed amendment:

(7) Medical marijuana provisions unaffected. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED: (a) TO LIMIT ANY PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER, OR LICENSED ENTITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (b) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT; (c) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN A MANNER OR FROM A SOURCE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (d) TO PERMIT ANY MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER LICENSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO OPERATE ON THE SAME PREMISES AS A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.; OR (e) TO DISCHARGE THE DEPARTMENT, THE COLORADO BOARD OF HEALTH, OR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FROM THEIR STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
Click to expand...

This sections states that MMC will not be aloud to sell to none MMJ patients and that a retail cannabis store will not be permited on the same premises as an MMC or OPC. I think that right there shows you dispensaries are not quite as far ahead as everyone thinks. They would have to have a seperate location for their grow and shop as well as all new licensing fees. Not to mention the price of cannabis dropping drastically! I do not see an advantage coming out of this for dispensaries they have a cornered market with set patients/ customers and less competition than there soon will be if 64 is passed.This is purely advantages for the people of this state they can GROW THEIR OWN if over 21end of story no need for shops. Oh and Idustrial hemp laws will have to be put in place by the end of 2014 also fantastic news for a new industry here in our home state!!!
 
doogleef

doogleef

Well-Known Member
GreenPeak said:
This sections states that MMC will not be aloud to sell to none MMJ patients and that a retail cannabis store will not be permited on the same premises as an MMC or OPC. I think that right there shows you dispensaries are not quite as far ahead as everyone thinks. They would have to have a seperate location for their grow and shop as well as all new licensing fees. Not to mention the price of cannabis dropping drastically! I do not see an advantage coming out of this for dispensaries they have a cornered market with set patients/ customers and less competition than there soon will be if 64 is passed.This is purely advantages for the people of this state they can GROW THEIR OWN if over 21end of story no need for shops. Oh and Idustrial hemp laws will have to be put in place by the end of 2014 also fantastic news for a new industry here in our home state!!!
Click to expand...
Exactly. That's the point I was trying to make. In rereading just my last post it kind of seems like I was coming from the point of view of this being really good for MMCs. The only advantage they will have is they already know how to jump through the state hoops and already have the business experience and contacts required to make it work in what will be a rapidly flooded market.

Yes on 64! Go vote today!!
 
Brokeoldbloke

Brokeoldbloke

Active Member
One week to go...Vote Yes on Amendment 64.

One small sprout in Colorado can lead to the large scale cultivation of the nation.
 
GreenPeak

GreenPeak

Active Member
doogleef said:
Exactly. That's the point I was trying to make. In rereading just my last post it kind of seems like I was coming from the point of view of this being really good for MMCs. The only advantage they will have is they already know how to jump through the state hoops and already have the business experience and contacts required to make it work in what will be a rapidly flooded market.

Yes on 64! Go vote today!!
Click to expand...
I was not directing that at you Doogleef I just loved that you put the actual document up and had to copy it to show the initial posters that shops can't just start selling to everyone out of their already existing stores it is a lot more complicated than that. I also forgot to mention that with 64 there will be cannabis grows (a separate biz) who wholesale to shops( a secondary retail biz) this will be really nice because the really good growers who do it organic will be able to spread the love to multiple stores around the state! also allow for more people to be involved in the business and hopefully eliminate monopolies, obviously there will be a McDonalds of the cannabis industry but there will also be tons of mom n pops burgers!

Voted early today and voted yes! also voted for Gary Johnson! booyaaa
 
Timewalk

Timewalk

Well-Known Member
Interested to see where this goes whether it becomes a positive or negative.
Colorado may make history
 
I

illtoxic

Well-Known Member
This cat is hilarious...all these points he pointed out can be seen here pointed at by some holligan bitch named Kathleen Chippi
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/amendment-64-poll-52-perc_n_2079908.html


One Brown Mouse said:
It's unfortunate that long time grass roots activists in Colorado are coming out against A64. Why?

1. A64 does not repeal the majority of jail-able offenses (felonies)and leaves marijuana in the definitions of the state Controlled Substances Act, which makes all cannabis users subject to lose: employment, unemployment benefits, housing, school grants, government aid,child custody, fire arms and occupational licenses (of which DORA says 75% of workers in Colorado have). To suggest that under Amendment 64 all adult use and cultivation of marijuana is no longer criminalized is not only misleading, but will result in increased arrests.


2. Beinor-V-ICAO, People-v-Watkins and the Blue Sky rulings seriously compromise the intentions of the Amendment 64 language before it is even voted on.


3. Provides no relief for the most affected and arrested adults age 18 - 20. (especially those from disadvantages communities).


4. Amendment 64 contains no proper legal deterrent to federal intervention and the surplus of $40 million via a constitutionally infirm excise tax will not stand in court. The soonest authorized retail sales for adults could be 2014, if at all. Forcing adults to rely on the black market in the interim.


5. Amendment 64 is designed to shut down MMJ. (A64 fiscal impact white paper predicts an 79% defection in registered MMJ patients to the recreational market) No MMJ centers can survive such a decline in the MMJ market.


6. Amendment 64 allows towns to ban all marijuana sales, which bolsters the black market, as most of the state has already banned MMJ (over 95 bans statewide). This forces adults in ban areas to rely on illegal sales and risk criminal prosecution.


7. Amendment 64 sets a dangerous legal precedent of applying taxes to agricultural seed. (viable marijuana seed is defined as marijuana in Amendment 64). Per 39-26-716(4)(b) all sales and purchases of seeds are exempt from sales tax in Colorado. Amendment 64 taxes viable marijuana seed and specifically creates an excise tax on viable marijuana seed and this precedent could be incredibly harmful to Colorado farmers who use viable seed to produce non cannabis agriculture.


8. Amendment 64 provides no legal guidance on hemp and merely mandates the general assembly to pass legislation. This still allows the general assembly to ban hemp production.


9. Amendment 64 enshrines "driving while under the influence" (any amount over zero) and "driving while impaired" into our constitution, by deferring to current State DUID limits could prevent MMJ patients and other wise responsible adults who consume cannabis from legally driving."


10. At least 99% of the marketing of A64 over the last year has been done in violation of 1-13-109CRS-Concerning the election offense of making false statements designed to affect the vote. (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2005a/sl_305.htm). Telling everyone that A64 legalizes when the A64 campaign argued at title board hearings that A64 did NOT legalize, qualifies--and the question becomes--why lie? Why promise voters the whole enchilada only to serve up white rice?




I too want to legalize but voting no does not mean you are against legalization as A64 does not legalize, just like the author and attorneys said at the title board hearings. It saddens me that 3 million has been spent in the name of legalization via A64, when no language in A64 actually legalizes marijuana. The authors and funders of A64 were the same for A20. We have learned with our MMJ amendment, that unless the language is clear and concise about legalization or rights--there is/are none. The language in A64 offers less protection than A20. People who think the courts will rule that "recreational users" have more protections than qualifying patients with medical necessity are sadly incorrect. Let us figure out how to correct bad MMJ case law before we add more problematic issues for everyone over 21. After all, is there an adult out there who can't access pot in Colorado when they want it? And current Colorado law for all adults 18 and over (A64 is adults 21 and over) is: 2 ounces or less is a petty offense, ticket-able up to $100. If you CARE about more than "sending a message to the feds and other states" (via our state constitution), then please, vote NO on 64.


If you CARE about more than just getting high, then please vote NO on 64.

and you can look here for more:

http://cannabispolicy.wordpress.com/
Click to expand...
 
Brokeoldbloke

Brokeoldbloke

Active Member
I don’t understand this all or nothing viewpoint of people like member OBM. People resist change so changes need to be made slowly. It’s taken years to the change the nation’s perception of MMJ. Most states that allow it now wouldn’t have legalized it without the California voters of 96(?). Colorado has the chance to further change the perception of the nation and the world. It has to start somewhere and 64 will be a positive step towards legalization. Without a start there will never be a finish.

I hope Colorado votes Yes on Amendment 64!
:peace:
 
Medshed

Medshed

Well-Known Member
Kathleen Chippi and One Brown Mouse are the same person. Chippi used to run the dispensary (OBM) in Ned and tried to get a legalization initiative on the ballot this year. She's pissed that A64 made the ballot and hers didn't. Definitely a sore loser. She's now filed a grievance with Boulder County DA accusing the A64 campaign of deceiving voters...
 
Trousers

Trousers

Well-Known Member
Medshed said:
Kathleen Chippi and One Brown Mouse are the same person. Chippi used to run the dispensary (OBM) in Ned and tried to get a legalization initiative on the ballot this year. She's pissed that A64 made the ballot and hers didn't. Definitely a sore loser. She's now filed a grievance with Boulder County DA accusing the A64 campaign of deceiving voters...
Click to expand...


What a dumb asshole. I would have been happy to vote for her amendment if her and her lazy friends were able to get off their butts and get enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

So she is against it because of sour grapes? The ego on that dumb bitch. She is casting her vote with prohibitionists.


She is fighting against something that would allow an adult to grow 6 marijuana plants in his/her home without getting a license and without government interference. She has lost her tiny, tiny mind. What kind of an asshole votes against expanding civil rights?


If the devil actually existed, he would be in possession of her soul.
I hope she will someday see the error of her ways.
 
macsnax

macsnax

Well-Known Member
The idea that someone who loves and uses marijuana for all it's natural purposes, but is opposed to 64 just baffles me. You are a tool. Please share more of your views, to further your embarrassment. Second thought, don't. Dig a hole, hop in and stay there to spare us your bullshit. We need less people like you.
 
Brokeoldbloke

Brokeoldbloke

Active Member
Medshed said:
Kathleen Chippi and One Brown Mouse are the same person. Chippi used to run the dispensary (OBM) in Ned and tried to get a legalization initiative on the ballot this year. She's pissed that A64 made the ballot and hers didn't. Definitely a sore loser. She's now filed a grievance with Boulder County DA accusing the A64 campaign of deceiving voters...
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I knew it had to be some sort of hidden agenda thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top