Colorado Growers Thread

[Corvette Doc]

I would have figured that Pueblo would have been chomping at the bit for all that money flowing into town. Now they're looking a gift horse in the mouth? Doc, what say we cut out all the bullshit and middlemen and you run for City Council?

I think some thing along these lines is how Led Zeppelin got their name....But what the heck i'm game. Any idea how to pay for this campaign? You know I have the wevos to stay in their faces...who knows maybe I could get to retire to a higher office after fighting stupid for a while???
Maybe become the next Doug Bruce???LOL. I think congress would better suit my fighting personality though???

 

[Ganoderma]

I doubt it... I'm fairly confident that if the feds made it schedule II, we'd be seeing big changes with a complete disregard for the state constitution.

There would be big changes. Would it then be legal to have a gun and weed together and not get fucked by fed laws for having the weed and a fire arm?

I personally believe that if they go sch II, there will be NO growing allowed...

(same as how you cant exactly make percoset at home, know how, or dont...)

grows will be like alcohol stills, and its likely the punishment for growing would be increased...

the way they're acting, they probably want to make "home growing" = "meth labs"

this is not "regulated like alcohol", but even if it were, the law tends to frown on moonshine stills.
(or I'd be doing that too...)

You can be sure that blasting will be looked at like meth labs due to them going boom here and there.

Depends on how many states jump and get on the legal train before the Feds makes it's move.

 

[Tex Caliber]

Do you know if "The Ultimate" by D.P. is easy to Clone?

 

[MJPassion]

There would be big changes. Would it then be legal to have a gun and weed together and not get fucked by fed laws for having the weed and a fire arm?

Any law repugnant to the Constitution isvoid.

You can be sure that blasting will be looked at like meth labs due to them going boom here and there.

Depends on how many states jump and get on the legal train before the Feds makes it's move.

Colorado is the only state that guarantees individuals the Right (not privilege) to grow via a State Constitutional Amendment. ALL other states are simple legislation that can be revoked at the whim of their representatives.

Also...
Jurisdiction is everything!
The Feds DO NOT have all encompassing powers.
This is a myth perpetuated by the illegal lobby & YOU believe it!
Their physical jurisdiction is limited to Federal property only. BLM & National Forests ARE NOT Federal lands! They are simply "federally managed" NOT POLICED!

A lil research by anybody asking these questions is all that's needed.
Anybody coming in here and asking questions about legalities should be researching, not asking arm chair lawyers for their opinions!

 

[Avinash.miles]

only way the feds and state will ignore our constitutional rights under a20 and a64 are if we let them. call YOUR representatives, have a conversation, GO to the capital.... send and email or 2 or 3 or 199 with your contact info so that representatives can get back to you (rarely they will).

here is an idea
lets all here in this thread come up with a list of talking points to use when speaking with legislators about protecting patients rights to grow what they need so that they don't have to depend upon an industry that can't produce residual free and high quality medicine with any consistency.
a few strong points that we ALL agree on - OUR unified front.

legislative session is happening NOW, these fucktards are IN office, you can get them on the phone potentially, and some of the assistants are happy to have the conversation and actually DO pass on notes to the legislators. (aguilar had a very cool young assistant a few years back who gave me some precious advice and was helpful/sympathetic to the cannabis movement).

i meant to make this point in that new thread "getting out of the city", but for some reason didn't and instead got into water rights;
anyhow - IF you give a damn about what happens here in co concerning grow rights / patient rights you have to get involved. especially if purchasing property and hence paying property taxes.
sad truth is that if change comes and you do nothing about it to voice your concerns and at least document the process that is taking away your rights.... head in the sand style... can't cry later

imo feds will not decide what goes on in colorado, they certainly haven't yet.
sched. change would set an overall tone in the county, what flavor that tone takes will (and is currently still) decided by the states....

 

[MileHighGlass]

I think as you get older you want to fight less. especially when you realize the entire system is rigged, and you are just putting off the inevitable.

I don't know about putting heads in the sand, but I am very good at going underground.

 

[Jhhnn]

I personally believe that if they go sch II, there will be NO growing allowed...

(same as how you cant exactly make percoset at home, know how, or dont...)

grows will be like alcohol stills, and its likely the punishment for growing would be increased...

the way they're acting, they probably want to make "home growing" = "meth labs"

this is not "regulated like alcohol", but even if it were, the law tends to frown on moonshine stills.
(or I'd be doing that too...)

I don't understand why you think that's true. A change in federal law won't change the state constitution. Congress can classify cannabis any way they want but state level enforcement depends entirely on state law.

In CO, the real threat to caregivers is at the county & muni level because of home rule provisions in the state Constitution. I can't explain all of that but they apparently have the power to invoke greater restrictions than the state wrt zoning & code enforcement.

They squeezed caregivers out of Golden, iirc, & probably some other places, also restricted the size of caregiver grows in some.

The ability has been there all along.

 

[rockymountainJ]

Happy Saturday!!! What's growing on?

 

[Seaf0ur]

I don't understand why you think that's true. A change in federal law won't change the state constitution. Congress can classify cannabis any way they want but state level enforcement depends entirely on state law.

In CO, the real threat to caregivers is at the county & muni level because of home rule provisions in the state Constitution. I can't explain all of that but they apparently have the power to invoke greater restrictions than the state wrt zoning & code enforcement.

They squeezed caregivers out of Golden, iirc, & probably some other places, also restricted the size of caregiver grows in some.

The ability has been there all along.

Why do I think it? Because its already completely accounted for by law....
I do not give our corporatocracy automatic credit for being on the side of "We The People"



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] The federal government possesses only the supreme authority accorded it by the Constitution. The scope of this authority is very broad, as the federal government is tasked with providing for the general welfare of the United States.


and there you have it in black and white...

"Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law."

 

[!RA!]

Yo rocky, whatcha got growin there?

 

[rockymountainJ]

Yo rocky, whatcha got growin there?

A little Nyc diesel, big ole white hairs.... Cheers Ra!!

 

[Avinash.miles]

I think as you get older you want to fight less. especially when you realize the entire system is rigged, and you are just putting off the inevitable.

I don't know about putting heads in the sand, but I am very good at going underground.

blame it on age, or on being underground or the system being rigged (agree100%) but we ARE in colorado where 2 constitutional amendments protect our right to grow as patients and adults.
feds stepping in on state constitutions would be a pretty big move

 

[Ganoderma]

There is the possibility that the Feds may look at the states that have already legalized rec and mmj and see how they have set things up and how they (the laws) have been working to build a picture for their frame work that they set up. I'm sure that they will ask for some kind of input from the legal states.

I'm sure we will see things like building codes being amended, electrical codes being amended to include pot growing.

 

[Ganoderma]

feds stepping in on state constitutions would be a pretty big move

They would first start by/with the threat to with hold certain funds for like roads, or other types of funds that the feds give to the states for certain things.

Saw a video on the new about them talking about how the feds went after a southern state (don't remember which one) that had a drink age of 18 and to make them conform with Federal law of a drink age of 21 they threatened to with hold funds to the state for roads & bridges. The state gave in and changed its law.

 

[Seaf0ur]

blame it on age, or on being underground or the system being rigged (agree100%) but we ARE in colorado where 2 constitutional amendments protect our right to grow as patients and adults.
feds stepping in on state constitutions would be a pretty big move

Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, 4th ed (excerpt)

http://lawandborder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Burnham-Chap-2-Legal-Methodology.pdf

page 41

"The hierarchy of the sources of law"

Adding the supremacy clause of the Constitution to the points about hierarchy mentioned above, a complete hierarchy of sources of law can be constructed.
From highest to lowest, they are:

(1) the federal Constitution, (2) federal statutes, treaties and court rules, (3) federal administrative agency rules, (4) federal common law, (5) state constitutions, (6) state statutes and court rules, (7) state agency rules, and (8) state common law.

It is understood that each level of enacted law includes the caselaw interpreting that enacted law.
If two sources of law on the same level of the hierarchy conflict, then the later in time will govern.


so.... yeah... you'll find our constitution takes the fifth place of importance.... certainly not the first.

you may also notice that literally all federal law trumps the state constitution using the current interpretations of the law...
reclassifying it to a new schedule WILL require an entire lawbook to be wrote... just for how to handle it at its new classification.
will the feds follow OUR lead here in CO? or follow the lead of Paraguay?

I know how much trust I have in our legislators...

absolute zero.

its a corporatocracy.

 

[MJPassion]

That list us missing "Federal Cort rullings" which hold the weight of the Federal Constitution until they've been overturned by a later judgement from an equal or greater court.

Since Maybury v Madison has never been overturned & is a finding of the U.S. SUPREME COURT,
"ANY LAW REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS VOID."

Lets not forget also, historically, the purpose of the Constitution & laws are to limit businesses & government while protecting the people. Not limit the people!

 

[MileHighGlass]

Texas was talking about seceding from the US, and the Fed's said they would halt air traffic in and out of Texas. Guess what happened?

If the Fed's want home grows gone, they will be gone. They hold all of the chips now, because the States lost their balls a long time ago.

Is it "legal"? Doesn't really matter at this point does it.

We can argue what's written on a piece of paper stored away in some Capital building, but the outcome is what matters.

I always find it funny when people argue laws. They are literally just words on a piece of paper. It is a collective agreement (usually about 50% don't agree) of people to either do, or not do something.

I will not ever collectively agree that I can't grow my own. I don't care what's written on a piece of paper.

 

[!RA!]

I will not ever collectively agree that I can't grow my own. I don't care what's written on a piece of paper.

Amen to that MHG, same here.

 

[SooperSmurph]

So I think I've named too many strains with the "Smurph" pre/suffix for now, so i'm going to rename my latest cross, "Smurph's OG", which was talked about a few pages ago.

The cross is a lovely Tahoe OG with an SFV OG that was on its last legs, it performs indica through and and through, often growing into 1 gigantic cola despite all efforts on the part of the grower to train it, the flavor is utterly Tahoe dominant, and the resin content is wonderful, my test blasts of the chosen example mother have returned up to 25% of their weight as Wax/Shatter when allowed to mature to a full 9 weeks despite the plants seeming fast finishing time. It is unfortunately a very slow vegger, but when allowed to do so extensively it can be a true beast, I could barely encircle the colas with both hands with fingertips only just touching, indoors, on a 3ft tall plant.

So, i'd like to come up with a name that is appropriate to the strain as well as its parentage. More generic ideas have been tossed around such as Denver OG, 303 OG, Colorado OG, Rocky Mountain OG, etc. I am leaning towards "Mountain Valley OG" Mountain for the Tahoe mother, Valley for the SFV.

Opinions?

Photos are stuck sideways, must play with camera settings later, think its a dimensions thing.

 

[theLumberjack]

wow, looks sick smurph. Im jealous.