Amendment 64 for Colorado passed (weed possession)

[deadly_habit]

America actually boggles my mind, how a country that is supposedly the leading light in democracy and equality, won't allow married homos to file tax returns. I don't think I'll ever understand the place tbh.

Just think of it not as a democracy, but as a republic. It makes much more sense that way.

[alphacat]

il be in Denver in January..! I've been before, its a shit hole, and too high so everyone is constipated, but having weed will make the week alot more fun

What part of Colorado did you visit? Greeley?

Spent a lot of time over the last year and half in Denver & Aurora, have to say... it's not for me. Not to knock it: there's definitely cool stuff, some nice people. But there's also this weird sense of isolation everywhere, even in Denver. I always felt alone, even if I was rolling with a crew. Was the weirdest thing... thought it was just me but after talking to others that've lived or visited there was surprised to find agreement.

Will also say: this makes the prospect of traveling back there MUCH more appetizing for me.

2014 for the first open sales, eh? That's a ways off. Hope Colorado and Nevada don't grow their own versions of Melinda "Fuck Your Rights" Haag in the meantime.

America actually boggles my mind, how a country that is supposedly the leading light in democracy and equality, won't allow married homos to file tax returns. I don't think I'll ever understand the place tbh.

I know. I've come to realize that some things actually gain a kind of strength from being completely illogical (organized mainstream religion and the belief in an all powerful god who lets bad things happen to good people, etc.) ...America is one of those things. Our contradictions define us at times as much or more than our clear strengths.

[nowaysj]

I guess it has it's equal with the EU vs Member States law system, but thats more related to tax, agricultural and cross border relationships rather than individual country laws.

Just going to call u a European for the sake of discussion. Would behoove European citizens to study American history as I think it would be informative for your evolving union, and the path it likely will take (greater centralized authority less representative of member states). 250 years ago we started dealing with issues you are just starting to address.

But mj laws implicate all of those areas you mention which is why the Feds are so interested. (let alone if weed is legalized in america, how are the Mexican drug lords going to make their billions and destabilize Mexico for us? - international implications as well)

[alphacat]

I always recall this [think it was Terence McKenna] quote about the demonization of cannabis as being about the effects of cannabis; namely, that stoned people tend to become more satisfied with what they have, for better or worse, and that makes for bad consumers and gums up the cogs of capitalism from within.

Mind you, this doesn't seem to stop outfits like Comedy Central and the Cartoon Network from making money off of stoners.

[nowaysj]

No that absolutely is a major issue, and you will see it in mainstream demonization of legalization - they will outright say legalization will result in decreased economic activity.

But then they also just use whatever the particular paranoia is at the time, like back in the day it was common knowledge that if white women smoked weed they'de have sex w black men.

Whatever man.

[deadly_habit]

Since I think it got a bit lost being the last post on the last page, anyone know anything RE:

Another point that I don't think has been brought up in this thread is what is going to be the fate of those previously convicted on possession, growing, or sale of just marijuana that are sitting in a cell atm?
Is the law coming into effect going to be retroactive and get them released?

[nowaysj]

Yeah, waiting for info on this.

[knell]

when did everyone get so negative? when california was voting on it in 2010 i was the bad guy for saying that it was poorly written because everyone was in a hurry to get the ball rolling...

it's as if none of you have cracked a US history book... check out the 18th/21st amendments and how a grassroots state-by-state effort overturned a federal law thirteen years after it was put into place. it's a strikingly similar pattern of progress on the micro scale to what is happening now, except more drastic (a repeal of an amendment to the constitution itself)

Yea but you also didn't have the NDAA back then...

you're right, back then you just got thrown into a dark cell under no legislature for wearing the color red on the wrong day.... much more sane and civil

[Efrafa11]

Some states, like Co required dispensaries to do their own grows. It is just a total mess.

That actually turned into a bit of an advantage for people who had their foot in the door for large grows just joining a dispensary but screwed the medium house grow people.
Also, while colorado has a decent amount of raids, at least the past year has been relatively calm.
The regulations are so that any dispensary has to submit to an audit with police escort every few months or so I believe.
I am sure federally they will make an example of someone though.

[fractal]

the dui clauses on the washington bill is dark as fuck.

pretty much, if you have smoked in the last 3 days (if you're a man) or 4 days (for a woman) you can not drive. If the officer has "probable cause" he can make you take a blood test right on the spot. 5 nanograms per liter, almost impossible to be a smoker and not have that much. DUI, felony, fuck... law can not be amended for 2 years

second thing that sucks is now only the state and their licensed professionals can grow. you can get a license too, it costs 1,000 a year

who passed these laws? idiot stonners who didn't take the time to read the bills. too bad too, we had it really good over here with our medical laws. Right now, i'm allowed to have 36 plants and 72 ounces of weed on my person, since i am the provider for 3 people. after december 6th, i'm allowed zero plants and one ounce at a time. fucks sake.

it is a small step in the right direction, i just wish we would have been smarter about it and waited for a better written bill

[knell]

WA's laws override medical laws? i had no idea, that is indeed grim. almost happened in CA in 2010 too

[mks]

When I first read that bill, there were a lot of red flags raised. Yeah, it's too bad that people didn't read it more carefully. It is a step in the right direction, but not a good law. Surely mmj patients should be exempt from that since that is a different law.

[fractal]

nope, it's tied up in it, unfortunately.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/ini ... s/i502.pdf

[Jhonny2x4]

That's nuts. I'm surprised how they managed to keep that in the dark from the major marijuana supporters. Normally you hear about these issues on articles, radio talk shows, newspapers, etc.

Looks like I need to read any fine print for amendment 64...

[fractal]

there was a lot of uproar about it here in washington. i went to a lot of meetings about it and helped get the word out as much as i could. unfortunately, today's voter is not very well informed. how many people in this thread took the time to read the whole of the bills they were voting for? most people these days think that listening to other's interpretations on bills is how to stay "informed"

[Jhonny2x4]

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regu ... l-act-2012

Okay, so it looks like Colorado is more lenient on the amendment than WA.

Here's a few sections that caught my eye in regards to the issues brought up for WA:

(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.
(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.
(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA OR TO SUPERSEDE STATUTORY LAWS RELATED TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA, NOR SHALL THIS SECTION PREVENT THE STATE FROM ENACTING AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OR WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA.
(c) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA, WITH OR WITHOUT REMUNERATION, TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE OR TO ALLOW A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE TO PURCHASE, POSSESS, USE, TRANSPORT, GROW, OR CONSUME MARIJUANA.
(d) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON, EMPLOYER, SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, DETENTION FACILITY, CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.

(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.

[fractal]

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regu ... l-act-2012

Okay, so it looks like Colorado is more lenient on the amendment than WA.

Here's a few sections that caught my eye in regards to the issues brought up for WA:

(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.
(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.
(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA OR TO SUPERSEDE STATUTORY LAWS RELATED TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA, NOR SHALL THIS SECTION PREVENT THE STATE FROM ENACTING AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OR WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA.
(c) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA, WITH OR WITHOUT REMUNERATION, TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE OR TO ALLOW A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE TO PURCHASE, POSSESS, USE, TRANSPORT, GROW, OR CONSUME MARIJUANA.
(d) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON, EMPLOYER, SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, DETENTION FACILITY, CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.

(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.

right, but you have the exact same DUI laws as us now. This applies to mmj as well. sure, you can have more, but you still can not drive under the influence, medicinal or not.

http://philclarklaw.com/co_colorado_leg ... Lately.pdf

good luck with that! remember that refusal to take a on-the-spot blood test will result in forfeiture of your license and, more than likely, a DUI.

[fractal]

my only hope is that this situation wakes up our generation and makes us actually want to read laws instead of just look at the title of the issues and go "legalize pot? hell yeah!", which is what these law makers were counting on. that we would be uninformed and quick on the draw

[Jhonny2x4]

my only hope is that this situation wakes up our generation and makes us actually want to read laws instead of just look at the title of the issues and go "legalize pot? hell yeah!", which is what these law makers were counting on. that we would be uninformed and quick on the draw

Well, the bright side of this is it's a mistake that will catch Generation Y's attention, therefore hopefully preventing it in the future.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm guilty of not reading the fine print like most others.

[alphacat]

^ Hope so too, but confidence in the masses will wear you out quick.

That's just the thing: a lot of this is kneejerk, on both sides - the anti-ganja people still spout disproven/false data and cling to clearly repudiated arguments and will not see it any other way; the pro-ganja people know what's what (in their minds) and have chafed so much for so long at the unfairness of the prohibition laws that now that things are finally starting to even out just a little, people are fucking chomping at the bit to see this changed and get it over with so we can treat it as the non-issue we've always known it to be.

Neither side wants to make an effort to try and reconcile with the other because each is fundamentally convinced of their rightness, and how can you reason with someone who's obviously wrong but can't admit it?

And...

Sounds an awful lot like a perfect synopsis of mainstream partisan politics in the US right now, too.