Yes, CO implemented it in their law. By 2014 . Hemp will be legal to produce and farm in CO.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Marijuana legalization victories could be short-lived
- Thread starter SCF
- Start date
Yes, CO implemented it in their law. By 2014 . Hemp will be legal to produce and farm in CO.
Behind_The_Mask
Member
dont worry...obama will save us
(V) MARIJUANA SOLD IN THIS STATE WILL BE LABELED AND SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS ARE INFORMED AND PROTECTED.
(c) IN THE INTEREST OF ENACTING RATIONAL POLICIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALL VARIATIONS OF THE CANNABIS PLANT, THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT INDUSTRIAL HEMP SHOULD BE REGULATED SEPARATELY FROM STRAINS OF CANNABIS WITH HIGHER DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL (THC) CONCENTRATIONS.
2.(d) “INDUSTRIAL HEMP” MEANS THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS AND ANY PART OF SUCH PLANT, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, WITH A DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL CONCENTRATION THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THREE-TENTHS PERCENT ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS.
2.(f) “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT.
5.(j) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2014, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP.
(c) IN THE INTEREST OF ENACTING RATIONAL POLICIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALL VARIATIONS OF THE CANNABIS PLANT, THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT INDUSTRIAL HEMP SHOULD BE REGULATED SEPARATELY FROM STRAINS OF CANNABIS WITH HIGHER DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL (THC) CONCENTRATIONS.
2.(d) “INDUSTRIAL HEMP” MEANS THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS AND ANY PART OF SUCH PLANT, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, WITH A DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL CONCENTRATION THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THREE-TENTHS PERCENT ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS.
2.(f) “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT.
5.(j) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2014, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP.
Last edited:
short lived my ass
short lived my ass
"short lived"
tell that to some peeps in boulder getting their case dropped
link:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21994403
Article:
Boulder DA dismissing small-scale marijuana possession cases in light of Amendment 64
Garnett will drop charges in cases involving less than one ounce
District Attorney Stan Garnett will dismiss all pending criminal cases of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, saying the overwhelming support for Amendment 64 in Boulder County makes it highly unlikely a jury would ever reach a guilty verdict in any of those cases.
"You've seen an end to mere possession cases in Boulder County under my office," Garnett said Wednesday, becoming the first Colorado district attorney to drop pot cases because Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 earlier this month.
As a result of the announcement, police officials across Boulder County also stated they will no longer issue marijuana-possession citations in light of Amendment 64. The constitutional amendment will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana in Colorado for those 21 or older.
"We will not be issuing any summonses for the offenses cited by the Boulder DA," Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner said Wednesday. "We had already told our officers it was a waste of time to issue summonses for those offenses anyway, given the passage of the amendment."
Garnett said marijuana paraphernalia charges also will be dropped in cases where it is clear the items were intended solely for marijuana use.
"It was an ethical decision," Garnett said. "The standard for beginning or continuing criminal prosecution is whether a prosecutor has reasonable belief they can get a unanimous conviction by a jury. Given Amendment 64 passed by a more than 2-to-1 margin (in Boulder County), we concluded that it would be inappropriate for us to continue to prosecute simple possession of marijuana less than an ounce and paraphernalia for those over 21."
While Amendment 64 will not go into effect until 30 days after the vote is approved -- most likely some time in January -- Garnett said the voting numbers for Boulder County convinced him to drop the cases now.
Unofficial results from the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office indicate 66 percent of Boulder County voted in favor of the amendment.
"We were already having trouble sitting a jury anyway," Garnett said. "That overwhelming vote total, that's where we get our juries from."
Garnett the decision actually will have little impact since he has made possession of marijuana a low priority since he came into office in 2009. He said his office typically handles only five to 20 cases of mere possession or paraphernalia a month, so he was surprised at the amount of attention his decision received after being announced Wednesday morning.
"It's really not a major decision as far as the resources of the 20th Judicial District," he said.
'Not worth our time'
Cmdr. Rick Brough of the Boulder County Sheriff's Office said Sheriff Joe Pelle, like Boulder's chief, issued an order to his department shortly after the election, telling deputies that issuing citations for mere possession was "probably not worth our time."
University of Colorado police previously had said they would enforce the law until it was enacted, but spokesman Ryan Huff on Wednesday said the department now has decided not to ticket those over 21 for mere possession.
"Given the stance of the District Attorney's Office and the fact that it will be legal soon, we have decided not to issue tickets for simple possession to those over 21," Huff said.
Longmont police also will not be writing tickets, but unlike Boulder -- which does not have a municipal law concerning possession of marijuana -- possession of marijuana is still a municipal crime in Longmont.
"We are not going to be enforcing any law that is contrary to what Amendment 64 says, so we will not be charging or summonsing people 21 and over for possession of less than an ounce," Longmont Public Safety Chief Mike Butler said.
Butler said the city attorney is working on an ordinance to present before the Longmont City Council that would ensure the city's municipal code is in line with the new law. Currently, Longmont's municipal code states that it is illegal for someone to possess or consume marijuana. The court can punish offenders with a $100 fine, 15 days in jail or both.
"All I'll say is the people in the state of Colorado have voted, and it is now the law of the state," Butler said. "The police department will be compliant with the law of the state."
The first of many?
Garnett is the first DA in Colorado to drop pot cases in the wake of Amendment 64's passage, but backers of the measure hope other prosecutors will follow suit.
"A strong majority of Coloradans made it clear that they do not believe adults should be made criminals for possessing small amounts of marijuana," said Mason Tvert, a proponent of Amendment 64, said in a statement. "Colorado prosecutors can follow the will of the voters by dropping these cases today and announcing they are no longer taking on new ones.
"We applaud District Attorney Garnett for respecting the will of the voters, and we hope his colleagues across the state will follow his lead."
Garnett said he has not talked to other DAs in Colorado about his decision, but anticipates some may make similar rulings.
"They know my views on marijuana," Garnett said. "They still represent different districts and they will have to make their own decisions."
Garnett said his office will direct its resources to prosecuting more serious offenses.
"What's been made clear is that the community does not think that mere possession of marijuana should be prosecuted criminally," Garnett said. "We have enough serious crimes in Boulder County, and we will focus on those."
But Garnett said his office will continue to prosecute cases of possession by those under 21 and in instances where dealing is suspected, as well as any DUI offenses involving marijuana.
"Those continue to be a real high priority," Garnett said. "We will continue to come after those cases very hard."
Longmont Times-Call Staff Writer Magdalena Wegrzyn contributed to this report.
Contact Camera Staff Writer Mitchell Byars at 303-473-1329 or [email protected].
Read more: Boulder DA dismissing small-scale marijuana possession cases in light of Amendment 64 - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21994403#ixzz2CGATY1Eu
short lived my ass
"short lived"
tell that to some peeps in boulder getting their case dropped
link:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21994403
Article:
Boulder DA dismissing small-scale marijuana possession cases in light of Amendment 64
Garnett will drop charges in cases involving less than one ounce
District Attorney Stan Garnett will dismiss all pending criminal cases of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, saying the overwhelming support for Amendment 64 in Boulder County makes it highly unlikely a jury would ever reach a guilty verdict in any of those cases.
"You've seen an end to mere possession cases in Boulder County under my office," Garnett said Wednesday, becoming the first Colorado district attorney to drop pot cases because Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 earlier this month.
As a result of the announcement, police officials across Boulder County also stated they will no longer issue marijuana-possession citations in light of Amendment 64. The constitutional amendment will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana in Colorado for those 21 or older.
"We will not be issuing any summonses for the offenses cited by the Boulder DA," Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner said Wednesday. "We had already told our officers it was a waste of time to issue summonses for those offenses anyway, given the passage of the amendment."
Garnett said marijuana paraphernalia charges also will be dropped in cases where it is clear the items were intended solely for marijuana use.
"It was an ethical decision," Garnett said. "The standard for beginning or continuing criminal prosecution is whether a prosecutor has reasonable belief they can get a unanimous conviction by a jury. Given Amendment 64 passed by a more than 2-to-1 margin (in Boulder County), we concluded that it would be inappropriate for us to continue to prosecute simple possession of marijuana less than an ounce and paraphernalia for those over 21."
While Amendment 64 will not go into effect until 30 days after the vote is approved -- most likely some time in January -- Garnett said the voting numbers for Boulder County convinced him to drop the cases now.
Unofficial results from the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office indicate 66 percent of Boulder County voted in favor of the amendment.
"We were already having trouble sitting a jury anyway," Garnett said. "That overwhelming vote total, that's where we get our juries from."
Garnett the decision actually will have little impact since he has made possession of marijuana a low priority since he came into office in 2009. He said his office typically handles only five to 20 cases of mere possession or paraphernalia a month, so he was surprised at the amount of attention his decision received after being announced Wednesday morning.
"It's really not a major decision as far as the resources of the 20th Judicial District," he said.
'Not worth our time'
Cmdr. Rick Brough of the Boulder County Sheriff's Office said Sheriff Joe Pelle, like Boulder's chief, issued an order to his department shortly after the election, telling deputies that issuing citations for mere possession was "probably not worth our time."
University of Colorado police previously had said they would enforce the law until it was enacted, but spokesman Ryan Huff on Wednesday said the department now has decided not to ticket those over 21 for mere possession.
"Given the stance of the District Attorney's Office and the fact that it will be legal soon, we have decided not to issue tickets for simple possession to those over 21," Huff said.
Longmont police also will not be writing tickets, but unlike Boulder -- which does not have a municipal law concerning possession of marijuana -- possession of marijuana is still a municipal crime in Longmont.
"We are not going to be enforcing any law that is contrary to what Amendment 64 says, so we will not be charging or summonsing people 21 and over for possession of less than an ounce," Longmont Public Safety Chief Mike Butler said.
Butler said the city attorney is working on an ordinance to present before the Longmont City Council that would ensure the city's municipal code is in line with the new law. Currently, Longmont's municipal code states that it is illegal for someone to possess or consume marijuana. The court can punish offenders with a $100 fine, 15 days in jail or both.
"All I'll say is the people in the state of Colorado have voted, and it is now the law of the state," Butler said. "The police department will be compliant with the law of the state."
The first of many?
Garnett is the first DA in Colorado to drop pot cases in the wake of Amendment 64's passage, but backers of the measure hope other prosecutors will follow suit.
"A strong majority of Coloradans made it clear that they do not believe adults should be made criminals for possessing small amounts of marijuana," said Mason Tvert, a proponent of Amendment 64, said in a statement. "Colorado prosecutors can follow the will of the voters by dropping these cases today and announcing they are no longer taking on new ones.
"We applaud District Attorney Garnett for respecting the will of the voters, and we hope his colleagues across the state will follow his lead."
Garnett said he has not talked to other DAs in Colorado about his decision, but anticipates some may make similar rulings.
"They know my views on marijuana," Garnett said. "They still represent different districts and they will have to make their own decisions."
Garnett said his office will direct its resources to prosecuting more serious offenses.
"What's been made clear is that the community does not think that mere possession of marijuana should be prosecuted criminally," Garnett said. "We have enough serious crimes in Boulder County, and we will focus on those."
But Garnett said his office will continue to prosecute cases of possession by those under 21 and in instances where dealing is suspected, as well as any DUI offenses involving marijuana.
"Those continue to be a real high priority," Garnett said. "We will continue to come after those cases very hard."
Longmont Times-Call Staff Writer Magdalena Wegrzyn contributed to this report.
Contact Camera Staff Writer Mitchell Byars at 303-473-1329 or [email protected].
Read more: Boulder DA dismissing small-scale marijuana possession cases in light of Amendment 64 - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21994403#ixzz2CGATY1Eu
'Guide To Legal Marijuana Use' Published By Seattle Police
'Guide To Legal Marijuana Use' Published By Seattle Police
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/guide-to-legal-marijuana-_n_2135972.html
SEATTLE -- When Washington state voters overwhelmingly legalized the recreational use of marijuana on Nov. 6, Seattle police knew they'd be getting a lot of questions.
And while many details surrounding the state's Dec. 6 decriminalization of pot remain, the department didn't shy away from answering what questions it could about Initiative 502, posting a funny, question-and-answer blog that has become a big web hit – having been viewed more than 120,000 times and shared more than 15,000 times on Facebook since it was posted Friday.
The result was "Marijwhatnow? A Guide to Legal Marijuana Use In Seattle," by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee, a former journalist who wrote for The Stranger, a weekly alternative newspaper. He was hired by the police department earlier this year.
Here, he and Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, a police spokesman, explain the thinking behind the blog, which included some of these memorable passages:
Q: SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back? A: No.
"I just try to write posts I'd want to read," Spangenthal-Lee said, via email. "I knew we were probably going to be inundated with questions about 502, so I figured I'd try to get answers to the kinds of questions Seattle residents (and reporters) might ask, and put them out there."
Q: What happens if I get pulled over and I'm sober, but an officer or his K9 buddy smells the ounce of Super Skunk I've got in my trunk? A: Under state law, officers have to develop probable cause to search a closed or locked container. Each case stands on its own, but the smell of pot alone will not be reason to search a vehicle.
Whitcomb noted that pot cases have not been a priority in Seattle for some time. "This is a city where marijuana possession has been the lowest (enforcement) priority. There's a built-in expectation that Seattle is going to have something to say about it," said Whitcomb, referring to the fact that voters in this liberal city directed police nearly a decade ago to treat adult pot use as its lowest enforcement priority.
Q: December 6th seems like a really long ways away. What happens if I get caught with marijuana before then? A: Hold your breath. Your case will be processed under current state law. However, there is already a city ordinance making marijuana enforcement the lowest law enforcement priority.
Whitcomb said officials wanted people to realize that cops have a sense of humor, too. "I think this is an example of us really hitting the appropriate tone for our audience," he said. He even came up with one of the most humorous parts of the blog, a clip from the film trilogy "Lord of the Rings," showing Bilbo and the wizard Gandalf smoking what Bilbo calls "the finest weed."
I-502 passed with 55 percent of the vote. Since then, prosecutors in the largest counties in the state have dropped cases involved misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
"There's still more questions because it's so new," said Whitcomb, noting that "the state says it's legal, the federal law says it's not."
And that looming specter of federal enforcement is noted on the blog post:
"...You probably shouldn't bring pot with you to the federal courthouse (or any other federal property)," Seattle police warn.
'Guide To Legal Marijuana Use' Published By Seattle Police
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/guide-to-legal-marijuana-_n_2135972.html
SEATTLE -- When Washington state voters overwhelmingly legalized the recreational use of marijuana on Nov. 6, Seattle police knew they'd be getting a lot of questions.
And while many details surrounding the state's Dec. 6 decriminalization of pot remain, the department didn't shy away from answering what questions it could about Initiative 502, posting a funny, question-and-answer blog that has become a big web hit – having been viewed more than 120,000 times and shared more than 15,000 times on Facebook since it was posted Friday.
The result was "Marijwhatnow? A Guide to Legal Marijuana Use In Seattle," by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee, a former journalist who wrote for The Stranger, a weekly alternative newspaper. He was hired by the police department earlier this year.
Here, he and Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, a police spokesman, explain the thinking behind the blog, which included some of these memorable passages:
Q: SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back? A: No.
"I just try to write posts I'd want to read," Spangenthal-Lee said, via email. "I knew we were probably going to be inundated with questions about 502, so I figured I'd try to get answers to the kinds of questions Seattle residents (and reporters) might ask, and put them out there."
Q: What happens if I get pulled over and I'm sober, but an officer or his K9 buddy smells the ounce of Super Skunk I've got in my trunk? A: Under state law, officers have to develop probable cause to search a closed or locked container. Each case stands on its own, but the smell of pot alone will not be reason to search a vehicle.
Whitcomb noted that pot cases have not been a priority in Seattle for some time. "This is a city where marijuana possession has been the lowest (enforcement) priority. There's a built-in expectation that Seattle is going to have something to say about it," said Whitcomb, referring to the fact that voters in this liberal city directed police nearly a decade ago to treat adult pot use as its lowest enforcement priority.
Q: December 6th seems like a really long ways away. What happens if I get caught with marijuana before then? A: Hold your breath. Your case will be processed under current state law. However, there is already a city ordinance making marijuana enforcement the lowest law enforcement priority.
Whitcomb said officials wanted people to realize that cops have a sense of humor, too. "I think this is an example of us really hitting the appropriate tone for our audience," he said. He even came up with one of the most humorous parts of the blog, a clip from the film trilogy "Lord of the Rings," showing Bilbo and the wizard Gandalf smoking what Bilbo calls "the finest weed."
I-502 passed with 55 percent of the vote. Since then, prosecutors in the largest counties in the state have dropped cases involved misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
"There's still more questions because it's so new," said Whitcomb, noting that "the state says it's legal, the federal law says it's not."
And that looming specter of federal enforcement is noted on the blog post:
"...You probably shouldn't bring pot with you to the federal courthouse (or any other federal property)," Seattle police warn.
and denver did the same as boulder now:
link:
http://m.denverpost.com/denverpost/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=KLSBnU4B&full=true#display
article:
Denver joins Boulder in dropping prosecution of limited pot possession
Posted: 11/15/2012 6:00 PM
Denver prosecutors will no longer charge those 21 and older for carrying less than an ounce of marijuana, and will review current cases that fit under the language of a recently voter-approved state constitutional amendment.
District Attorney Mitch Morrissey and City Attorney Doug Friednash made their decision Thursday, a day after Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett made headlines when he announced his office will dismiss any pending cases that deal with less than an ounce of marijuana.
Amendment 64 passed by a more than 2-to-1 margin in Boulder County and Garnett said such support makes it difficult to seat a jury in possession and paraphernalia cases. The measure legalizes possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana by anyone over age 21.
There are about 70 cases pending in Denver that would fall under the amendment, Denver District Attorney spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough said Thursday. As those cases go through the court system they will be reviewed for possible dismissal. This won't apply to cases where there is another charge, or when the person is under age 21, she said.
People who think that their case may be dismissed still must appear at their court date, Kimbrough said.
In Denver, Amendment 64 passed with about 66 percent support.
Statewide the ballot measure — which is set to go into effect 30 days after votes are certified following the the Nov. 6 election — passed with more than 54 percent of voter support.
In Arapahoe County, the amendment received about 53 percent support, and Sheriff Grayson Robinson said his office will meet early next week with the 18th Judicial District Attorney's office to discuss the matter.
This year, Robinson's office has issued an average of 43 summonses each month for marijuana possession and paraphernalia. By contrast in Boulder County, five to 20 cases pass through Garnett's office each month.
"We are evaluating the issues related to the passage of the constitutional amendment to ensure that required modifications to policy and the application to our operations are implemented in a well-considered manner," Robinson said.
Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, a staunch opponent of Amendment 64, said in a statement Thursday his office has an obligation to prosecute offenses that were crimes at the time they occurred.
"Accordingly, we will not be dismissing existing marijuana possession cases," he said. "But more importantly, our office prosecutes low-level possession cases to get drug users help with their addictions. That practice will continue until state law changes."
Voters in the the northern Colorado county approved Amendment 64 by a little more than 600 votes.
Grand Junction cops are no longer citing people for possession of less than 1 ounce.
Prosecutors in Larimer, Jefferson and El Paso counties have not changed how they deal with summonses and the prosecution of minor marijuana offenses.
In the 17th Judicial District, which includes Broomfield and Adams counties, officials are dealing with possession cases on a case-by-case basis.
Even when the law goes into effect, it won't make much of a difference to the North Metro Drug Task Force, Sgt. Jim Gerhardt said. "That was just a summons, we weren't arresting anyone for that anyway."
However, Gerhardt said investigations of grow operations — where illegal sellers of marijuana typicall raise plants — will be "severely impacted by Amendment 64. We saw people exploiting loopholes with the medical marijuana laws and there is going to be an exploitation of loopholes now too."
Amendment 64 allows adults to grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes.
Gerhardt said that as investigators encounter locations with more than the allowed number of plants they won't be able to automatically shut them down.
"There's nothing that prohibits 100 people from combining each of their six plants in one grow facility," Gerhardt said. "It's just how many 21-year-olds or older will you have claiming the plants. You do not even have to be a resident of the state or of the U.S."
Kurtis Lee: 303-954-1655, [email protected] or twitter.com/kurtisalee
Denver Post staff writers Tom McGhee and Jordan Steffen contributed to this report.
link:
http://m.denverpost.com/denverpost/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=KLSBnU4B&full=true#display
article:
Denver joins Boulder in dropping prosecution of limited pot possession
Posted: 11/15/2012 6:00 PM
Denver prosecutors will no longer charge those 21 and older for carrying less than an ounce of marijuana, and will review current cases that fit under the language of a recently voter-approved state constitutional amendment.
District Attorney Mitch Morrissey and City Attorney Doug Friednash made their decision Thursday, a day after Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett made headlines when he announced his office will dismiss any pending cases that deal with less than an ounce of marijuana.
Amendment 64 passed by a more than 2-to-1 margin in Boulder County and Garnett said such support makes it difficult to seat a jury in possession and paraphernalia cases. The measure legalizes possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana by anyone over age 21.
There are about 70 cases pending in Denver that would fall under the amendment, Denver District Attorney spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough said Thursday. As those cases go through the court system they will be reviewed for possible dismissal. This won't apply to cases where there is another charge, or when the person is under age 21, she said.
People who think that their case may be dismissed still must appear at their court date, Kimbrough said.
In Denver, Amendment 64 passed with about 66 percent support.
Statewide the ballot measure — which is set to go into effect 30 days after votes are certified following the the Nov. 6 election — passed with more than 54 percent of voter support.
In Arapahoe County, the amendment received about 53 percent support, and Sheriff Grayson Robinson said his office will meet early next week with the 18th Judicial District Attorney's office to discuss the matter.
This year, Robinson's office has issued an average of 43 summonses each month for marijuana possession and paraphernalia. By contrast in Boulder County, five to 20 cases pass through Garnett's office each month.
"We are evaluating the issues related to the passage of the constitutional amendment to ensure that required modifications to policy and the application to our operations are implemented in a well-considered manner," Robinson said.
Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, a staunch opponent of Amendment 64, said in a statement Thursday his office has an obligation to prosecute offenses that were crimes at the time they occurred.
"Accordingly, we will not be dismissing existing marijuana possession cases," he said. "But more importantly, our office prosecutes low-level possession cases to get drug users help with their addictions. That practice will continue until state law changes."
Voters in the the northern Colorado county approved Amendment 64 by a little more than 600 votes.
Grand Junction cops are no longer citing people for possession of less than 1 ounce.
Prosecutors in Larimer, Jefferson and El Paso counties have not changed how they deal with summonses and the prosecution of minor marijuana offenses.
In the 17th Judicial District, which includes Broomfield and Adams counties, officials are dealing with possession cases on a case-by-case basis.
Even when the law goes into effect, it won't make much of a difference to the North Metro Drug Task Force, Sgt. Jim Gerhardt said. "That was just a summons, we weren't arresting anyone for that anyway."
However, Gerhardt said investigations of grow operations — where illegal sellers of marijuana typicall raise plants — will be "severely impacted by Amendment 64. We saw people exploiting loopholes with the medical marijuana laws and there is going to be an exploitation of loopholes now too."
Amendment 64 allows adults to grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes.
Gerhardt said that as investigators encounter locations with more than the allowed number of plants they won't be able to automatically shut them down.
"There's nothing that prohibits 100 people from combining each of their six plants in one grow facility," Gerhardt said. "It's just how many 21-year-olds or older will you have claiming the plants. You do not even have to be a resident of the state or of the U.S."
Kurtis Lee: 303-954-1655, [email protected] or twitter.com/kurtisalee
Denver Post staff writers Tom McGhee and Jordan Steffen contributed to this report.
Last edited:
White-rhino
Member
Because its mine, not theirs. I work for me, not society. If people want to pay tax on their weed, more power to them, I won't. It's mine. Now the very next argument will be to call me "selfish", so I'll answer it in advance with a question - is welfare taxable income? Why?
We cannot be defeated.
And yes, we know u smoke pot Mr. obama
And yes, we know u smoke pot Mr. obama
^^ IF he does
still needs to do it a lil more
imho
still needs to do it a lil more
imho
Denver Post Editorial: Colorado DAs right to drop charges for pot
Denver Post Editorial: Colorado DAs right to drop charges for pot
more counties to come im sure...
just an opinion article, but can u imagine an editorial like this showing up in a newspaper (or newpaper website) in a state like say..... georgia?
gotta love colorado.
link:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_22012312/editorial-colorado-das-right-drop-charges-pot
article:
OPINION
Editorial: Colorado DAs right to drop charges for pot
Though Amendment 64 won't take effect right away, ending prosecution now upholds the voters' wishes.
POSTED: 11/17/2012 12:01:00 AM MST
By The Denver Post
Colorado district attorneys are not known for advocating in favor of legal marijuana — quite the opposite, in fact. So it's a credit to those DAs who've announced they will not prosecute adults over 21 who've been charged with possessing small amounts of marijuana now that Amendment 64 has passed.
We hope other DAs step forward in the coming days to take a similar stand — and that those who've announced they will continue prosecuting marijuana cases will reconsider that course.
Amendment 64 — which won't be the law of Colorado until 30 days after ballots are certified, meaning toward the end of the year — doesn't of course apply retroactively. But it hardly seems fair to prosecute people for an offense that a majority of Coloradans have declared should not be on the books at all.
Nothing so undermines respect for the legal system as the belief that laws are enforced selectively. Yet what could possibly appear more selective — and petty, to be perfectly blunt — than prosecuting and convicting someone for conduct that is illegal one day and legal the next?
Boulder County DA Stan Garnett was the first out of the blocks in announcing that he would not prosecute such cases, but he was followed by Denver's Mitch Morrissey, who has been vocal in the past about his opposition to marijuana legalization.
Morrissey and City Attorney Doug Friednash say they will no longer charge someone over 21 for possessing less than 1 ounce of marijuana and will review existing cases for possible dismissal.
Those already charged will have to show up in court, however.
Some critics undoubtedly will say "it's about time" regarding Denver's decision. After all, Denver was the first major city in the U.S. to legalize adult possession of pot, in 2005. And voters reiterated that desire in 2007 by passing a measure urging marijuana cases to be the "lowest law enforcement priority" — all to no avail. Pot cases still were prosecuted, but under state law.
Now that voters have spoken on state law, too, no further excuse for prosecution remains.
Still, we're disappointed that a number of DAs, such as in Jefferson and Weld counties, have indicated they will carry on as before for the time being. Every single person who is prosecuted in the wake of Tuesday's election results will consider their punishment a travesty, and so will a large share of the populace. Why poke a majority of voters in the eye?
Weld County DA Ken Buck issued a statement saying that his office "prosecutes low-level possession cases to get drug users help with their addictions." And while it is obviously commendable to get people into treatment who need it, a higher priority surely should be deferring to the wishes of voters — even in advance of Amendment 64's official starting date.
Denver Post Editorial: Colorado DAs right to drop charges for pot
more counties to come im sure...
just an opinion article, but can u imagine an editorial like this showing up in a newspaper (or newpaper website) in a state like say..... georgia?
gotta love colorado.
link:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_22012312/editorial-colorado-das-right-drop-charges-pot
article:
OPINION
Editorial: Colorado DAs right to drop charges for pot
Though Amendment 64 won't take effect right away, ending prosecution now upholds the voters' wishes.
POSTED: 11/17/2012 12:01:00 AM MST
By The Denver Post
Colorado district attorneys are not known for advocating in favor of legal marijuana — quite the opposite, in fact. So it's a credit to those DAs who've announced they will not prosecute adults over 21 who've been charged with possessing small amounts of marijuana now that Amendment 64 has passed.
We hope other DAs step forward in the coming days to take a similar stand — and that those who've announced they will continue prosecuting marijuana cases will reconsider that course.
Amendment 64 — which won't be the law of Colorado until 30 days after ballots are certified, meaning toward the end of the year — doesn't of course apply retroactively. But it hardly seems fair to prosecute people for an offense that a majority of Coloradans have declared should not be on the books at all.
Nothing so undermines respect for the legal system as the belief that laws are enforced selectively. Yet what could possibly appear more selective — and petty, to be perfectly blunt — than prosecuting and convicting someone for conduct that is illegal one day and legal the next?
Boulder County DA Stan Garnett was the first out of the blocks in announcing that he would not prosecute such cases, but he was followed by Denver's Mitch Morrissey, who has been vocal in the past about his opposition to marijuana legalization.
Morrissey and City Attorney Doug Friednash say they will no longer charge someone over 21 for possessing less than 1 ounce of marijuana and will review existing cases for possible dismissal.
Those already charged will have to show up in court, however.
Some critics undoubtedly will say "it's about time" regarding Denver's decision. After all, Denver was the first major city in the U.S. to legalize adult possession of pot, in 2005. And voters reiterated that desire in 2007 by passing a measure urging marijuana cases to be the "lowest law enforcement priority" — all to no avail. Pot cases still were prosecuted, but under state law.
Now that voters have spoken on state law, too, no further excuse for prosecution remains.
Still, we're disappointed that a number of DAs, such as in Jefferson and Weld counties, have indicated they will carry on as before for the time being. Every single person who is prosecuted in the wake of Tuesday's election results will consider their punishment a travesty, and so will a large share of the populace. Why poke a majority of voters in the eye?
Weld County DA Ken Buck issued a statement saying that his office "prosecutes low-level possession cases to get drug users help with their addictions." And while it is obviously commendable to get people into treatment who need it, a higher priority surely should be deferring to the wishes of voters — even in advance of Amendment 64's official starting date.
Don't forget "Jury Nullification" on any remaining cases.... and anything else, for that matter.
People need to stand up and say no!
Stay Safe!
People need to stand up and say no!
Stay Safe!
now they need to drop all cases over 21 with just cannabis involved not matter how much was found..
hammerhead, doesnt look like thats gonna happen, over 21 and one oz or less is looking like the best we are gonna get, and i am certainly not complaining @ that, imho anyone w a criminal charge in co for marijuana that isnt under 1 oz would b protected by medical laws, and if they were here in colorado, growing selling smoking whatever, WITHOUT medical papers.... they are stupid.
ive been telling people for years, go medical its for ur protection... these stupid arrogant assholes telling me ima fool for "being on that medical list". people with "real" charges like growing tons of plants and possessing lbs WITHOUT medical papers are going to get charged exactly as they would if A64 (legalizatio) and A20 (medical) did not exist.
medical protects CO citizens above and beyond what A64 does, and medical has been around almost 5 years officially here in CO.
bottom line
A64 is great but medical really protects you from the powers that be (the powers that wont be much longer, hopefully)
ive been telling people for years, go medical its for ur protection... these stupid arrogant assholes telling me ima fool for "being on that medical list". people with "real" charges like growing tons of plants and possessing lbs WITHOUT medical papers are going to get charged exactly as they would if A64 (legalizatio) and A20 (medical) did not exist.
medical protects CO citizens above and beyond what A64 does, and medical has been around almost 5 years officially here in CO.
bottom line
A64 is great but medical really protects you from the powers that be (the powers that wont be much longer, hopefully)
Don't forget "Jury Nullification" on any remaining cases.... and anything else, for that matter.
People need to stand up and say no!
Stay Safe!
^YES!!!!
I wish I could give more good karma to this post!
