All the current or soon to be current laws. Whats new with weed in CO?

Jus Naturale

Active Member
So it's OK for labor unions to speak with their dollars, but it's not OK for corporations to speak with their dollars? That doesn't sound very democratic to me. Writing your reps won't overturn Citizens United. You'll have to wait until some supreme court justices retire or take the big dirt nap.
Neither should be permitted to speak with their dollars, in my opinion. Neither Monsanto nor MoveOn.org; just real, live people.

But, it's not a matter of waiting for the supreme court to change its mind, or a justice to die, as Citizen's United is established precedent now based on the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution. Thus, it will take a constitutional amendment, which would originate with congress. Writing your reps is the first step.
 

Jus Naturale

Active Member
The key word is "remuneration". According to 64, you could help a friend grow his plants at your house, but you cannot be remunerated, which means being reimbursed or compensated. Your friend paying bills associated with helping him grow would be considered as a form of reimbursement. Also, the marihuana produced from your friend's plants would have to be stored at your house and he could not legally possess more than one ounce of it at any given time.
The term "remuneration" isn't defined in the statutes, regs or amendments.

Moreover, the term's legal meaning isn't what you say it is. "remuneration, n. (15c) 1. Payment; compensation. 2. The act of paying or compensating." REMUNERATION, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), remuneration.
In fact, some of the only places the term is defined in Colorado law is with regard to workers compensation benefits and state employee benefits, all of which base the amount of payment following a triggering event on the amount of "remuneration," which is there defined to exclude things such as reimbursements (cause, the more that's included, the more the insurer or state ends up paying out -- so they want to keep that number smaller, in the state tax code, and defining who are volunteers.

Instead, the critical phrases are "retail marijuana" and "sale," both of which will be codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. 12-43.4-103(15) and (22), respectively. http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/807A035CD583C95E87257B1F005CDB59?Open&file=1317_enr.pdf

Cheers!
 

SahTiva

Well-Known Member
Rec is about to get shut down in springs tomorrow... any opinions? I'm pretty sad they dont give a fuck what the voter says....
 

Jus Naturale

Active Member
Annnnd its official, http://gazette.com/video-colorado-springs-chooses-to-disallow-retail-marijuana-sales/article/1503881

No recreational marijuana stores in Colorado Springs. Time to vote some good ol boys out of office.
Shameful. Absolutely shameful. See below for information on initiating a recall in Colorado Springs:

ARTICLE XII. RECALL, INITIATIVE, AND REFERENDUM[SUP]12[/SUP]

(Ed. note: Former article XIV dealt solely with the recall of elective officers. The initiative provisions were set forth in former article XV, with former article XVI dealing with the referendum. The 1979 amendment repealed articles XV and XVI, and combined the recall, initiative, and referendum provisions under article XIV. The amendment also substantially revised the recall, initiative, and referendum sections so as to ensure their compliance with the Colorado Constitution. Because the revision was so extensive, no attempt was made to conform to the former numbering system and no reference is made to the number of former sections dealing with similar provisions.)


12-10.General Authority.


(a)Recall. Any officer having held an elective office for at least six (6) consecutive months may be removed by both petition and vote of the electors of the City. Electors who are entitled to sign the petition and to vote in the recall election are those persons who are entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be recalled. (1979; 1985)

(b)Initiative. The electors of the City shall have power to propose ordinances to the Council, and if the Council fails to adopt an ordinance so proposed, to adopt or reject such ordinance at a City election. (1979; 1985)

(c)Referendum. The electors of the City shall have power to recommend reconsideration by the Council of any adopted ordinance and, if the Council fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject such ordinance at a City election, provided that such power shall not extend to ordinances making tax levy or appropriation or establishing special improvement districts.[SUP]13[/SUP] (1979; 1985)

(d)Repeal of Initiated Ordinance. The Council may, on its own motion, submit any ordinance adopted by an initiative to a vote of the electors at any succeeding general municipal election for repeal or amendment of the initiated ordinance. An ordinance so adopted by a vote of the electors cannot be repealed or amended except by a vote of the electors.[SUP]14[/SUP] (1979; 1985)

(e)Reference by the Council. Subject to the provisions of section 12-10(d), the Council may, of its own motion, submit to electoral vote for adoption or rejection at a general or special municipal election any proposed ordinance or measure in the same manner and with the same force and effect as is provided for initiated ordinances.[SUP]15[/SUP] (1979; 1985)

(f)Further Regulations. The Council may, by ordinance, make such further regulations as it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of the initiative and referendum powers, except as limited by this Charter and the Colorado Constitution. (1979; 1985)


12-20.Commencement of Proceedings; Petitioner's Committee; Affidavit. Any three (3) electors may commence recall, initiative, or referendum proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit stating they will constitute a Petitioner's Committee and be responsible for circulating the petition and filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying the address to which all notices to the Committee are to be sent, and setting out either: (1979; 1985)


(a)The name of the officer or officers sought to be removed and a general statement in not more than two hundred (200) words on the ground or grounds upon which removal is sought; or

(b)The full text of the proposed initiative ordinance; or

(c)The full text of the ordinance sought to be reconsidered.

As soon as possible after the affidavit of the Petitioner's Committee is filed, the Clerk shall issue the appropriate petition blanks to the Petitioner's Committee. (1979; 1985)


12-30.Petitions.


(a)Form and Content.


(1)Uniform Petition Blanks. The City Clerk shall issue appropriate petition blanks consisting of sheets having such general form printed at the top as designated by the City Clerk, for either recall, initiative, or referendum. The Clerk, upon issuing such forms to any persons, shall enter in a permanent record to be kept in such office for this purpose the name of the persons to whom issued, the date of such issuance, and the number of such forms issued, and shall certify on each of said forms under the Clerk's seal, the name of at least one of the persons to whom issued and the date of the issuance. No referendum, initiative, or recall petition shall be filed unless it shall bear such Certificate of the Clerk. The uniform petition blanks shall be furnished without charge. (1979; 1985)

(2)Statement of Purpose.


(i)Recall. The petition shall contain a general statement, in not more than two hundred (200) words, of the ground or grounds on which such recall is sought, which statement is intended for the information of the electors, and the electors shall be the sole and exclusive judges of the legality, reasonableness, and sufficiency of such ground or grounds assigned for such recall, and said ground or grounds shall not be open to review. (1979; 1985)

(ii)Initiative. The petition shall contain or have attached thereto throughout its circulation the full text of the ordinance proposed. The City Council shall by ordinance prescribe the method for setting the title of the initiated ordinance. (1979; 1985)

(iii)Referendum. The petition shall contain or have attached throughout its circulation the full text of the ordinance sought to be referred. (1979; 1985)


(3)Signatures. Each signer must sign his/her own proper signature, the date of signing said petition, and his/her place of residence, giving his/her street and number. The signatures to the petition need not all be on one sheet of paper. The petition may be circulated and signed in sections with each section consisting of one or more sheets, provided that each section shall contain a full and accurate copy of the title and text of the petition. All sheets and sections shall be filed as one instrument. (1979; 1985)


(b)Affidavit of Circulator. To each section of a petition, which section may consist of one or more sheets, shall be attached an affidavit by the Circulator, signed under oath before a Notary Public, stating that the Circulator is a registered elector of the City of Colorado Springs, and that the Circulator personally circulated the paper, the number of signatures thereon, that all the signatures were affixed in the Circulator's presence, that to the best of the Circulator's knowledge each signature appended to the paper is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be, that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the matter proposed or sought to be reconsidered, and that to the best of the Circulator's knowledge each signer is an elector of the City of Colorado Springs. (1979; 1985; 1993)

Such petition so verified shall be prima facie evidence that the signatures thereon are genuine and true and that the persons signing the same are electors. (1979; 1985)

(c)Number of Signatures.


(1)Recall.


(i)For the recall of Mayor or a Councilmember at large, the petition must be signed by electors entitled to vote for a successor of the incumbent sought to be recalled and such signatures must be equal in number to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total ballots cast for the office of Mayor in the last preceding election for such office. (1979; 1993)

(ii)For the recall of a district Councilmember, the petition must be signed by electors entitled to vote for a successor of the incumbent sought to be recalled and such signatures must be equal in number to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total ballots cast in the last preceding election for the office of such Councilmember. (1979; 1993)


(2)Referendum. The petition must be signed by electors of the City equal in number to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total ballots cast for the office of Mayor in the last preceding election for such office. (1979; 1985; 1993)

(3)Initiative. The petition must be signed by electors of the City equal in number to at least twenty percent (20%) of the total ballots cast for the office of Mayor in the last preceding election for such office. (1979; 1985; 1993)

(4)Signature Requirements. If the signatures required by this section 12-30(c) violate any provisions of the Colorado Constitution, then such signature requirements would be reduced to the number which complies with the Colorado Constitution. (1993)


(d)Time for Filing Petitions. Days shall be calendar days starting the day following the date of filing of the affidavit and including the last date only. Holidays and weekends shall be counted; however, when the last date falls on a day when the City Clerk's office is closed, then the next following business day shall be the last day for filing. (1979; 1985)


(1)Recall. All petitions shall be returned and filed with the Clerk within sixty (60) days from the issuance of such blank petition forms. (1979; 1985)

(2)Referendum. Within ten (10) days of final reading by the City Council of the ordinance sought to be reconsidered, Petitioners' Committee must file its Affidavit of Intent; and, within thirty (30) days from the date of final reading, the completed petition must be filed. (1979; 1985)

(3)Initiative. All petitions shall be returned and filed with the Clerk within one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance of such blank petition forms. (1979; 1985)



This is from the Colorado Springs City Charter (http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=855), Article XII, by the way.

Go get'em!
 

420circuit

Active Member
Just Do It

Arrogant bastards believe that they are rulers. It is high time for a change. If there is no recall election, then the residents of Colorado Springs deserve what their elected rulers decide.
 

Medshed

Well-Known Member
Does anyone know by how much A64 passed in the Springs? I think I saw that it barely passed in the county but would guess there was more support in the city. Just curious. Either way the council sucks...
 

goodro wilson

Well-Known Member
so I'm trying to plan my move to colorado
I'm not going for recreational mj. Believe me or not haha I have been trying to move up there for a few years now and my wife finally gave te go ahead. An btw she had NO idea about the new laws lol
 

Trousers

Well-Known Member
I just skimmed over HB 1317 and HB 1318 and they don't look that bad at first glance. I'll completely read them tomorrow morning with some strong coffee. I really like that there is no 70/30 rule and that out-of-staters can shop at the 64 stores. A 15% excise tax and 10% sales tax isn't really that bad especially when you compare it to the taxes on tobacco and the taxes that Washington state will levy on legal weed.
That is a bunch of horseshit. Those taxes are on top of other taxes. It could be as high as 51% taxes. That is bullshit.
The amendment says Regulate marijuana like alcohol. Alcohol is taxed at a 2.9% rate.

The state should tax it like booze. If the feds want to collect taxes, that is their business.

VOTE NO ON PROP AA

And 64 stores can avoid that 15% excise tax if they grow enough to supply their own demand, which we know won't always happen and that's where my pipe dream comes into play. I'd like to get a license for a "retail marijuana cultivation facility" so I can have a small to medium-sized grow op that pumps out better nugs than the warehouse grows. These bills made that pipe dream more of a reality. Now it's time to wait and see if my brother's rich friends come through with the start-up cash.
That 15% tax is unavoidable and outrageous.
 

turnip brain

Active Member
The amendment says Regulate marijuana like alcohol. Alcohol is taxed at a 2.9% rate.
While I understand your anger, you would have more cred if you had your facts straight. You are not quite there yet. 2.9% is the CO state sales tax rate. You have missed the actual CO alcohol excise taxes and production surcharges for beverages produced in state. Still, combined alcohol specific taxes and fees are much much lower comparatively, amounting to a few cents per gallon on low alcohol % and only 60.26 cent per liter for hard liquor.

That said, you are right and I fully agree with your intent. It is crazy, the politicians/"lawmakers" are not accurately representing the intent of the new law we voted on. Still too much stigma associated with the evil weed.

This document has the alcohol tax and fee info: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251864835523&ssbinary=true
 

turnip brain

Active Member
From the Denver post article:

"The city expects it will have to spend about $9.4 million on education, enforcement and regulation of the pot industry, for which the tax would compensate."

This is one of the fundamental disconnects to me about the politicians trying to be in control. It is pretty ludicrous to think that their education enforcement and regulation means anything to the end user. It is just govt getting in the way as they always do regardless of what the people want.

Take it a step further and they will praise themselves for creating new associated jobs for education enforcement and regulation.. and take credit for the jobs they support creating in the actual growing, distribution and sales of rec MJ.

 

Medshed

Well-Known Member
$9 million in government education = D.A.R.E. on steroids = colossal waste of money that actually increases use of marijuana among minors.
 

Trousers

Well-Known Member
While I understand your anger, you would have more cred if you had your facts straight. You are not quite there yet.

Then please enlighten me. What facts do I not have right?


2.9% is the CO state sales tax rate. You have missed the actual CO alcohol excise taxes and production surcharges for beverages produced in state. Still, combined alcohol specific taxes and fees are much much lower comparatively, amounting to a few cents per gallon on low alcohol % and only 60.26 cent per liter for hard liquor.
There are excise taxes on marijuana. With the excise taxes and the sales taxes it could be as high as 51%.
If you support a 51% tax on anything, you are crazy.

Alcohol taxes at the state level do not add up to 51%


That said, you are right and I fully agree with your intent. It is crazy, the politicians/"lawmakers" are not accurately representing the intent of the new law we voted on. Still too much stigma associated with the evil weed.

This document has the alcohol tax and fee info: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251864835523&ssbinary=true
Right off the bat there is a problem, licensing fees are much lower for alcohol. Do you think weed store owners are just going to eat license fees. Nope they will pass it on.

The surcharges you mentioned is only for wine.
The excise taxes are not even close to the 51% that could happen.


Voting for this is just giving the politicians a blank check.

I would never vote for a tax so high on anything. It is un-American and fucking bullshit.
I won't even be buying from weed stores, but I am out raged by the proposed taxes.


If you support 51% taxes, I think there is something seriously wrong with you.
 

Trousers

Well-Known Member
I subscribe to the Denver Post. It is a piece of shit newspaper.

From the Denver post article:

"The city expects it will have to spend about $9.4 million on education, enforcement and regulation of the pot industry, for which the tax would compensate."


The budget for regulating alcohol is around a million dollars. Why is it harder to regulate marijuana? It isn't, they just want more money.



This is one of the fundamental disconnects to me about the politicians trying to be in control.
Giving them less tax money gives them less control.


It is pretty ludicrous to think that their education enforcement and regulation means anything to the end user. It is just govt getting in the way as they always do regardless of what the people want.
YES!


Take it a step further and they will praise themselves for creating new associated jobs for education enforcement and regulation.. and take credit for the jobs they support creating in the actual growing, distribution and sales of rec MJ.

yep


Again I will be voting NO on AA. A possible 51% tax is outrageous. I would like the will of the voters to be respected;
Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol is what I voted for.
 

ststephen

Member
With all that "enforcement" money, I would make sure my grow is documented, legal, locked, etc. I keep all my documents right there by the grow with a sign, in case they come while I am gone.

I hope they DO educate the public on the usefulness of this plant. I am guessing some scare tactic with outdated, disproven "facts". If we were to educate people about cannabis, what would we say as a society? I think most of Colorado is fine with marijuana, so what so we need to educate people about? I say educate the ignorant....
 

silasraven

Well-Known Member
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/21/21566450-dea-irs-raid-denver-area-pot-businesses?lite

Federal agents raided an unknown number of marijuana dispensaries and growing sites in Colorado Thursday, confiscating piles of marijuana plants and cartons of cannabis-infused drinks just weeks before the state allows recreational marijuana retailers to open their doors.
The raids, conducted on a snowy morning, were the first in Colorado since the U.S. Department of Justice said in August that it wouldn't interfere with state marijuana laws as long as the states keep the drug away from children, the black market and federal property.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver said the federal action "comports with the Department's recent guidance" but would not elaborate. The U.S. Attorney's Office said authorities were executing sealedsearch and seizure warrants and wouldn't disclose how many businesses are being targeted or what they're being investigated for.
In a statement, spokesman Jeff Dorschner said the Internal Revenue Service's criminal investigationsdivision was also involved. Retail marijuana sales are to begin Jan. 1 in Colorado, though not all municipalities will be ready to go by then. For now, dispensaries are supposed to sell only to people with medical permission to use the drug. Many of the state's 500 or so existing dispensaries are making plans to convert to recreational sales.
The Justice Department said in August that it wouldn't stand in the way of votes in Colorado and Washington to legalize recreational pot but warned there needed to be effective controls to keep marijuana away from children, the black market and federal property.
At one of the raided dispensaries, VIP Cannabis, agents took boxes out of the business and loaded them into a U-Haul truck. One officer wore a surgical mask.


so about those laws.... don't seem to do any good.
 

Jus Naturale

Active Member
$9 million in government education = D.A.R.E. on steroids = colossal waste of money that actually increases use of marijuana among minors.
I have a Flintstone Kids "Just say No" VHS tape (starting "Michael Jackstone") that I love to watch while high. Good times indeed.

Cheers!
 

ststephen

Member
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/21/21566450-dea-irs-raid-denver-area-pot-businesses?lite

Federal agents raided an unknown number of marijuana dispensaries and growing sites in Colorado Thursday, confiscating piles of marijuana plants and cartons of cannabis-infused drinks just weeks before the state allows recreational marijuana retailers to open their doors.
The raids, conducted on a snowy morning, were the first in Colorado since the U.S. Department of Justice said in August that it wouldn't interfere with state marijuana laws as long as the states keep the drug away from children, the black market and federal property.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver said the federal action "comports with the Department's recent guidance" but would not elaborate. The U.S. Attorney's Office said authorities were executing sealedsearch and seizure warrants and wouldn't disclose how many businesses are being targeted or what they're being investigated for.
In a statement, spokesman Jeff Dorschner said the Internal Revenue Service's criminal investigationsdivision was also involved. Retail marijuana sales are to begin Jan. 1 in Colorado, though not all municipalities will be ready to go by then. For now, dispensaries are supposed to sell only to people with medical permission to use the drug. Many of the state's 500 or so existing dispensaries are making plans to convert to recreational sales.
The Justice Department said in August that it wouldn't stand in the way of votes in Colorado and Washington to legalize recreational pot but warned there needed to be effective controls to keep marijuana away from children, the black market and federal property.
At one of the raided dispensaries, VIP Cannabis, agents took boxes out of the business and loaded them into a U-Haul truck. One officer wore a surgical mask.


so about those laws.... don't seem to do any good.

YEP, the Feds SAID these were their priorities, all of these ARE part of the law:

• Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;


• Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;


• Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;


• Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;


• Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana;


• Preventing drugged riving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;


• Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and


• Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property

With all the money they (Enforcement) will have coming in, I would dot my "i"s and cross my "t"s.
 
Top