What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Colorado Growers Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2 Legal Co

Active member
Veteran
Avinash.miles said:
imo
these cases brought by ok and NE COULD turn out in our favor...
it's not CO's fault that herbis in OK & NE, it's the FEDS fault for not dealing with cannabis regulation... instead they have stuck with prohibition all these years, ignoring the issue saying retarded shite like "we have bigger fish to fry"
well ok & ne, didn't you hear, those are small fish you all are bitching about?

no
these cases could force the feds hand onthe cannabis prohibition issue.

meanwhile all the co stoners be like "yo fuck ok & ne" and i agree, fuck them. but not for bringing about the court cases, just for being shit states. :D

btw, they have already posted dogs at all boundary roads w colorado, been doing that for years already.
Click to expand...
I spent some of my 'formative' years in Ne..... And you are Right.
If I had to live there again...... I Wouldn't!

I guess I just lead a Colorado life. Haven't crossed a state line in a while. Just haven't felt the need. :tiphat:
 
J

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
Avinash.miles said:
imo
these cases brought by ok and NE COULD turn out in our favor...
it's not CO's fault that herbis in OK & NE, it's the FEDS fault for not dealing with cannabis regulation... instead they have stuck with prohibition all these years, ignoring the issue saying retarded shite like "we have bigger fish to fry"
well ok & ne, didn't you hear, those are small fish you all are bitching about?

no
these cases could force the feds hand onthe cannabis prohibition issue.

meanwhile all the co stoners be like "yo fuck ok & ne" and i agree, fuck them. but not for bringing about the court cases, just for being shit states. :D

btw, they have already posted dogs at all boundary roads w colorado, been doing that for years already.
Click to expand...

I'm more careful of what I wish for. Given the current SCOTUS, I don't want to give 'em any opportunities to assert the supremacy of federal law wrt cannabis. I'm hoping they punt to Congress. If the DoJ brought suit, it'd be a slam dunk. What they're trying to do is obtain standing before the court to subvert what the Obama admin is really doing, which is holding the door open for more state level legalization. Hell, anybody with a lick of sense knows that adopting his stance on DC legalization would utterly gut prohibition. You can't have pot shops in the capital of a nation where pot is illegal, and right now the only power against it is Congress who can't force Obama to enforce the law. I don't want the SCOTUS to have a whiff of a chance of wading in on their side, although they can't actually force him, either.

It'd be 2 against 1 at the highest level of power. I won't predict what Obama might do should that come to pass, but he's done a helluva job of avoiding it so far, which should suit us just fine. We're winning the way it is, because we can pick the battlefield. The reason they want to change the rules of engagement is because they're losing.
 
Avinash.miles

Avinash.miles

Caregiver Extraordinaire
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I'm not really wishing for the feds to take a stand on this... i agree we could all be fucked hard if it is put up to the supreme court (scotus, had to google that one, i'll admit)
altho... i'd like for obama to do a lil more than hold the door open for us while he calls us "small fish to fry"... always with the marginalization... i don't see him sitting itout on the sidelines or "avoiding it" as you call it, as doing us any kind of favor.... avoiding the situation is not taking a positive stance on it... it's being nuetral, right? even if everyone before has been super ANTI, being passive doesn't make you an advocate, it makes you a lame duck (imo).

also, IF it is put up to congress... they could just re-eschedule and hand the entire game over to big pharma

6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other...

my motto about this whole legalization thing is that "the powers taht be want to keep things exactly the same, perhaps legalize herb but still be able to lock u up/slap on the wrist for producing your own." here in co, they want things to go back to the way they were in 2000 but with that big ass tax revenue bump... and STILL be able to fine you for producing your own....
my2cents
 
J

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
Avinash.miles said:
I'm not really wishing for the feds to take a stand on this... i agree we could all be fucked hard if it is put up to the supreme court (scotus, had to google that one, i'll admit)
altho... i'd like for obama to do a lil more than hold the door open for us while he calls us "small fish to fry"... always with the marginalization... i don't see him sitting itout on the sidelines or "avoiding it" as you call it, as doing us any kind of favor.... avoiding the situation is not taking a positive stance on it... it's being nuetral, right? even if everyone before has been super ANTI, being passive doesn't make you an advocate, it makes you a lame duck (imo).

also, IF it is put up to congress... they could just re-eschedule and hand the entire game over to big pharma

6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other...

my motto about this whole legalization thing is that "the powers taht be want to keep things exactly the same, perhaps legalize herb but still be able to lock u up/slap on the wrist for producing your own." here in co, they want things to go back to the way they were in 2000 but with that big ass tax revenue bump... and STILL be able to fine you for producing your own....
my2cents
Click to expand...

I think he's done a good job of making it not about him. Whenever it gets to be about him, a certain % of the population will automatically be against it, regardless of what it is.

So he made it about states rights instead, used that as an excuse to not enforce federal law & to keep the DEA off our necks. That paralyzed the opposition because they've been raving about states rights for decades. That wasn't standing on the sidelines at all- it was just made to look that way. Federal enforcement guidelines issued in the wake of that largely tied the hands of the DEA over MMJ, as well, prompting Congress to suck into his wake, deny funding for harassment of state legal MMJ. Their likelihood of doing so otherwise was pretty much zero.

If you want to say that he merely exploited legalization in CO & WA to promote a larger agenda, I won't argue. Presented with an unanticipated opportunity, he took it, catapulting the whole discussion into a higher realm than state by state MMJ.

I mean, really. Sometimes we can use our imagination to get a better handle on current reality. Imagine Mittens in the Oval Office to see what I'm talking about. He'd have denied legalization entirely.
 
2

2 Legal Co

Active member
Veteran
It will be interesting how soon Ne and Ok, will get up on their hind legs about 'states rights', after this B.S....or maybe it's only about 'their' state's rights????

Bastards......
 
J

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
2 Legal Co said:
It will be interesting how soon Ne and Ok, will get up on their hind legs about 'states rights', after this B.S....or maybe it's only about 'their' state's rights????

Bastards......
Click to expand...

It's about authoritarian control. When the feds demand less control from them, they fire up the whole States Rights routine seeking control. Like with abortion, voting rights, search & seizure, prison standards, whatever. In their state, they have the power to limit the freedoms that federal law allows, even demands. The people in that state will allow it if the politicos can get it. It's how we had 100 years of Jim Crow. It's how there's only 1 abortion provider in MS and why you have to have your ID ducks absolutely in a row to vote in many places.

That's only when they don't have the power to do what they want at the federal level. It's just what they can get, so they'll take it.

This isn't really about NE & OK at all. It's an attempt to alter the national dynamics of legalization by bringing in another player, the SCOTUS. They have to usurp the prerogatives of the presidency to do that, if the Court will let them. If they can't change the dynamic, they'll keep losing control until Congress is forced to act in support of legalization.

A lot of people have respect for the SCOTUS, who would rule for the supremacy of federal law if given the chance. They already have many times, Raich v. Gonzales being the most recent. Authoritarians intend to spin that into a PR campaign to discredit Obama & legalization at the same time, hope to influence voters in that way. They'll appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court if they can, rarely a bad move in this country.
 
2

2 Legal Co

Active member
Veteran
Jhhnn

Yes, they probably won't even connect the fact that they are attempting to usurp Colorado's 'States Rights', by just filing suite.

I guess we'll have to remind them the next time they want more water, as well.
 
2

2 Legal Co

Active member
Veteran
Face it! If we want to put a stop to the 'sin tax' advocates, we are going to have to get our own people to run for elected offices.

These jack asses are ONLY interested in how much revenue they can collect without putting their money where their mouth is. Their only concern is that they NOT have to pay more taxes.

They still view cannabis as 'the evil weed', some if not most probably believe that it's addictive, and will cause you to rape and pillage.... if not use 'needle drugs' indiscriminately. They really don't realize that the 'needle drugs' are what the Doctor's prescribe.... in pills and capsules.

Black Market? What a joke with everyone able to grow their own, the 'black market' should be nonexistent. But if we put a 40% sin tax on it?????

This is about the Benjamins, nothing else. They don't care about people. If they say they do, it's just lip service.

jm$.02

If anyone here is running for office, please let the rest of us know, so that we can support you!!!!!

I DO vote.
 
barnyard

barnyard

Member
Good comments 2LC. Any word on the greenhouse?

That is a good article Avi. I like the verbiage "qualifying conditions" better than "debilitating conditions"

here's the cut and paste from the Post:

"The opening session of the Colorado General Assembly on Wednesday saw the introduction of Senate Bill 14, which would greatly limit medical marijuana patient and caregiver rights under Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 20).

The reasoning behind the bill — sponsored by Sen. Irene Aguilar, D-Denver, and Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont — is the lack of tax revenue being generated from medical marijuana license-holders. The argument to support the bill is that medical marijuana patients and caregivers are trumping laws to avoid paying taxes, and that caregivers are diverting marijuana to the black market.

Neglecting the many other reasons for black market growth, lawmakers are instead proposing laws that hurt everyone who voted for Amendment 20 in good faith, and those who are not abusing the program.

In November 2000, Coloradans voted to allow medical marijuana use to treat qualifying conditions. Voters approved medical marijuana for a variety of reasons, but cannabis users and nonusers equally agreed that we should allow for the compassionate use of medical marijuana through bona fide relationships between patients, doctors and caregivers.

Fast-forward to the approval of recreational marijuana, and now medical marijuana is under attack and being blamed for things like tax evasion and fueling black market growth. While there is no argument against the fact that people are abusing cannabis laws, it is no different from people abusing laws in general (criminals will be criminals regardless of the vice). Attacking constitutionally protected rights and a law that people voted for in good faith is not the answer.

Instead of taking away the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens because of the potential for bad players by putting burdens on patients — such as paying taxes, limiting plant counts, or violating confidential patient- doctor relationships — we should look at other ways to regulate the medical marijuana program. This means seriously considering the failings of the recreational market as well.

The most recent report prepared for the Department of Revenue on the marijuana market exclusively blames the medical marijuana program for black market activity, and ignores the multiple causes linked to the retail market, many of which have resulted in violations being issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue.

Keeping the existing medical marijuana program provides cannabis consumers with debilitating health conditions a choice in how they want to manage their individual care. Some people prefer the caregiver model, and some would rather just go to a store. The benefits of a caregiver are tremendous. They provide access to cannabis in remote areas or in localities that have opted out of medical and retail marijuana. Most important, even if they are only growing medical marijuana and not providing any other services, a caregiver is still a part of a patient's personal network of care, which is often too small.

As the 2015 legislative session gets underway, caregivers, patients, cannabis consumers, the cannabis industry and other stakeholders will have to be prepared to battle the backlash against the new cannabis laws. It is possible for a recreational market and medical marijuana program to coexist. It is up to everyone to work together to come up with laws that are fair while respecting the will of those who voted for Amendment 20 in good faith.

Larisa Bolivar is executive director of the Cannabis Consumers Coalition."
 
1TWISTEDTRUCKER

1TWISTEDTRUCKER

Active member
Veteran
Kills Me These Okies, and Cornholers are bitching bout Co. weed,,,, what about the damn Mexican cartel weed that's flooded their states FOREVER???

Twisted
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top