Amendment 64
- Thread starter illtoxic
- Start date
NavySEALsVet
Well-Known Member
Smoke weed everyday!!!!
Medshed
Well-Known Member
Please explain what that means. It seems to me that marijuana is already heavily regulated and controlled. How does a measure to allow more people to possess and grow marijuana create the scenario you envision?
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Currently anyone caught with 2 ounces is considered a petty offense with a $100 fine. Amendment 64 allows up to an ounce, people will still go to jail. A64 allows a SELECT FEW to sell, anyone else selling will still go to jail. It is not true legalization and designed to enrich the backers of the law, just as 1284 did. It will create a whole new govt agency who's purpose is to enforce regulations. Police raids will still happen, kids will still be taken by the state from people having a few plants, and people will still risk losing their job for using it. Nothing really changes except it will be set in stone in our constitution that the above actions are ok and it will hinder any near future attempts for a more favorable amendment.
dbkick
Well-Known Member
did they get one of those more favorable amendments in california yet?
SoCoMMJ
Well-Known Member
You are either misinformed or intentionally trying to distort the truth.
The only way that the citizens can implement change is through constitutional amendment because there is no way in hell that we could ever get our elected "representatives" to actually represent us in the house and senate. Forcing them to act via constitutional amendment is the only implement of change allowed directly by the actions of citizens.
Does 64 "Free The Weed" ? No. But it does offer a fair compromise in my opinion.
On the site where you grow your meds, you can possess ALL THAT YOU GREW at that location, NO 1oz rule. The 2oz for petty offense is still in force after this passes, but applies to away from where you grew your plants. 1 OZ is LEGAL for over 21, 2 OZ is petty offense. It is usually not necessary to be possessing more than 2oz away from your home unless you are selling it illegally.
Like beer you can brew your own within the limits, but you can not sell it. If you want to sell beer you have have to be one of the "SELECT FEW" and apply for a Liquor License. Like any other business, you can't legally run it out of your basement off the books. Sorry to say that if you want sell marijuana with legal protection [in the state] , you will have to apply and get a license and pay your taxes like everybody else. Even the Mark Kay lady does that. Why should the fact that it is marijuana grant an exception to that?
If you are growing your 6 legal plants, how can they take your kids? Your employer, not the state establishes their conditions for employment. If they don't want marijuana smokers working there, that is their choice. If you are high, drunk, or impaired by prescription drugs on the job you can be fired equally for any of those. 64 does not change anything regarding those rules.
It changes a LOT. You can grow your 6 plants at home LEGALLY. You can keep all that you grow there LEGALLY. You can transport or posses an ounce LEGALLY. You can smoke it at home LEGALLY. You can go to the Marijuana Store with just a photo ID and buy an ounce LEGALLY .
The only way that the citizens can implement change is through constitutional amendment because there is no way in hell that we could ever get our elected "representatives" to actually represent us in the house and senate. Forcing them to act via constitutional amendment is the only implement of change allowed directly by the actions of citizens.
Does 64 "Free The Weed" ? No. But it does offer a fair compromise in my opinion.
SoCoMMJ
Well-Known Member
You are either misinformed or intentionally trying to distort the truth.
The only way that the citizens can implement change is through constitutional amendment because there is no way in hell that we could ever get our elected "representatives" to actually represent us in the house and senate. Forcing them to act via constitutional amendment is the only implement of change allowed directly by the actions of citizens.
Does 64 "Free The Weed" ? No. But it does offer a fair compromise in my opinion.
On the site where you grow your meds, you can possess ALL THAT YOU GREW at that location, NO 1oz rule. The 2oz for petty offense is still in force after this passes, but applies to away from where you grew your plants. 1 OZ is LEGAL for over 21, 2 OZ is petty offense. It is usually not necessary to be possessing more than 2oz away from your home unless you are selling it illegally.
Like beer you can brew your own within the limits, but you can not sell it. If you want to sell beer you have have to be one of the "SELECT FEW" and apply for a Liquor License. Like any other business, you can't legally run it out of your basement off the books. Sorry to say that if you want sell marijuana with legal protection [in the state] , you will have to apply and get a license and pay your taxes like everybody else. Even the Mark Kay lady does that. Why should the fact that it is marijuana grant an exception to that?
If you are growing your 6 legal plants, how can they take your kids? Your employer, not the state establishes their conditions for employment. If they don't want marijuana smokers working there, that is their choice. If you are high, drunk, or impaired by prescription drugs on the job you can be fired equally for any of those. 64 does not change anything regarding those rules.
It changes a LOT. You can grow your 6 plants at home LEGALLY. You can keep all that you grow there LEGALLY. You can transport or posses an ounce LEGALLY. You can smoke it at home LEGALLY. You can go to the Marijuana Store with just a photo ID and buy an ounce LEGALLY .
The only way that the citizens can implement change is through constitutional amendment because there is no way in hell that we could ever get our elected "representatives" to actually represent us in the house and senate. Forcing them to act via constitutional amendment is the only implement of change allowed directly by the actions of citizens.
Does 64 "Free The Weed" ? No. But it does offer a fair compromise in my opinion.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
all bullshit.
someone's trying to protect his current lifestyle.
get on the train or get run over.
SahTiva
Well-Known Member
These guys think people will still be sauntering into dispensaries if this is passed, willing to pay $65 for a quarter of garbage when everyone on earth is selling better for cheaper....
very interesting. I say bring it on.... I agree its not what we want, but at least it will bring competition to these pushers and stabilize the market.
very interesting. I say bring it on.... I agree its not what we want, but at least it will bring competition to these pushers and stabilize the market.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Not a surprising stance considering you are a dispensary owner. You guys keep pushing this as 'regulate like alcohol' and then you say you're fine with the ounce limit and if someone has more than that they are selling illegally. Am I selling alcohol illegally if I have 20 cases in my car? Do people go to jail that have more than a 6 pack? Its not legalization, its not regulate like alcohol, its just rhetoric from the dispensary owners that fucked themselves with 1284.
Funny that you say I'm misleading because of the ounce limit. So there is no ounce limit? Yea with grows but you are banking on the fact that most won't grow, does every patient now grow? I think its you that's misleading.
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Ok Mr. Oregonian, what exactly is bullshit about it?
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Just ask the medical growers who were raided in Denver, Thornton and Ft Collins about how they were charged with child endangerment. Where in the amendment does it prevent that? It doesnt. Stop lying to people.
Medshed
Well-Known Member
So you expect one amendment to wipe out 70+ years of cannabis prohibition and the associated discrimination? That's a lot to ask while you wait for "a more favorable amendment". You may as well admit that you don't want legalization to happen. I've read the other initiatives that didn't make the ballot. Many of them are "more favorable", but they didn't stand a chance of passing - hence they didn't make the ballot.
Please stop with the "all or nothing" approach because that will only get you nothing.
Please stop with the "all or nothing" approach because that will only get you nothing.
One Brown Mouse
Member
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/
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Damn sounds like you got a lot riding on this, how much did you invest to get this on the ballot?
SoCoMMJ
Well-Known Member
Your opinion that a dispensary owner would benefit from the passing of 64 is wrong. As a business owner I would be compelled to vote against this bill to keep business as usual. Patients will likely not re-up their red cards if this passes. That will cause massive decline in the current customer base and likely result in the closure of the business. How does that benefit an established business or even patients ?
We would be forced to start an entire new business, on the same playing field as every other person that wants to jump into the industry. After years of reinvesting, working 70 hour weeks, and plodding through massive legal and licensing issues I really don't want to crawl through that whole shit storm all over again.
Regarding your misleading 1oz limit, you are implying that the 2oz petty offense law is repealed and anyone in possession of over 1oz goes to jail. It is not repealed. Possession of 2 ounces remains a petty offense.
So ultimately, as a business owner I would be wise to vote NO, and keep things as they are. However, I am a citizen first and therefore must support any bill that reduces harm on other citizens for possession, use, and cultivation of Marijuana.
