NEW Colorado Growers Thread

[Ganoderma]

They should act like a big boy and stand up to Washington and if they want to try to dismantle Rec, let them. Why, because it could change the face of legalization. Let all the other states see the big bad wolf knocking on our doors, and maybe the other states may start to stand up. Or maybe I'm just feeling like shit today and and I'm feeling hopeful.

 

[Seaf0ur]

Is it safe to say you guys aren't too worried about the state of Colorado being able to reverse your cannabis laws since it's in the constitution?

Always going to be 40-60% of the population against all cannabis no matter what, and constant effort to revert to reefer mania days. Big money in fighting plants that are stationary and tended by mostly non violent types.

I am quite worried. Our constitution says 6 per adult. Cities have enacted household limits at 12. If 3 adults live together, who has to forfeit their constitutional 6?
Point being, I can immediately come up with one real instance that is currently happening, right now, wherein the constitutional amendments are not affording the protections that they inscribe...

Is it yet to be fought in court? perhaps... and on that day, based on the final ruling, I might be more equipped to say I have blind faith.

And I'd say 40% against in Co is about right from what I've heard.

I imagine most of these co*ksuckers sitting around somewhere just
thinking about how they can take all the shekels leaving nothing behind for the rest of us as usual...

I also imagine that they look like this while they sit around thinking about fucking us....

 

[Avinash.miles]

The Governor is all for states rights. He is planning right now for if something happens. He was quoted that he was going to wave his magic wand and instantly turn all the REC into MED since big orange and Sessions think MED is different. Also the state attorney general is not very fond of Washington telling Colorado what to do. There is also a very well established precedent that the states can't be drafted into being Washington helpers if the states disagree with any Federal activities. What worries me some is the state might play games with MED and raise the tax. There is a quite significant tax difference now.

The state is heavily addicted to the Cannabis tax revenue stream (think alcohol taxation and tobacco taxation) and they will fight big orange to keep it.

tim neville introduced and sponsored that "change from rec to med"
basically when the feds come to crack down on rec
the state of colorado will simply convert ALL rec businesses AND rec products to medical.
so when the feds come to round up the rec profiteers, the state will use patients & med program as a shield for those who got rich on rec

they will not fight the hairdo to keep the rec taxes going (only to save the rec revnue that has already been made), on the other hand they will capitulate and roll over and use patients to justify the entire rec program and profiteering

basically when the feds come in to fuck w rec in colorado, the state of colorado will convert rec to med - essentially confirming that ALL use is medical use (but only when threatened by federal intervention)

 

[LubdaNugs]

Its a beautiful day in the high country.

 

[Ganoderma]

tim neville introduced and sponsored that "change from rec to med"
basically when the feds come to crack down on rec
the state of colorado will simply convert ALL rec businesses AND rec products to medical.
so when the feds come to round up the rec profiteers, the state will use patients & med program as a shield for those who got rich on rec

they will not fight the hairdo to keep the rec taxes going (only to save the rec revnue that has already been made), on the other hand they will capitulate and roll over and use patients to justify the entire rec program and profiteering

basically when the feds come in to fuck w rec in colorado, the state of colorado will convert rec to med - essentially confirming that ALL use is medical use (but only when threatened by federal intervention)

And it's not like most of the companies that would be affected don't already have Medical lic's any ways since they both have rec and med store fronts with different entry way doors, (one door for colors and one door for whites era is what it reminds me of)

Let me guess that if and when they ever roll the legal system with the med system, that they will just roll over the legal taxes to the medical system, so nothing is lost $.

I bet the feds first move, if they do move will be to send letters out stating how they are in violation of federal law and threaten them to close down. It's what they did with medical back around 08-10 (if I recall correctly).

 

[Avinash.miles]

And it's not like most of the companies that would be affected don't already have Medical lic's any ways since they both have rec and med store fronts with different entry way doors, (one door for colors and one door for whites era is what it reminds me of)

Let me guess that if and when they ever roll the legal system with the med system, that they will just roll over the legal taxes to the medical system, so nothing is lost $.

I bet the feds first move, if they do move will be to send letters out stating how they are in violation of federal law and threaten them to close down. It's what they did with medical back around 08-10 (if I recall correctly).

just a contingency plan for the state

when rec first passed taht thing about companies owning both licenses (rec and med) was true, bt by NOW many companies have decided to focus on ONE or the other
many stores were med, went rec, then sold off the med license
meanwhile some other places went around buying up med licenses from peeps favoring rec,

 

[Jhhnn]

I am quite worried. Our constitution says 6 per adult. Cities have enacted household limits at 12. If 3 adults live together, who has to forfeit their constitutional 6?
Point being, I can immediately come up with one real instance that is currently happening, right now, wherein the constitutional amendments are not affording the protections that they inscribe...

Is it yet to be fought in court? perhaps... and on that day, based on the final ruling, I might be more equipped to say I have blind faith.

And I'd say 40% against in Co is about right from what I've heard.

I imagine most of these co*ksuckers sitting around somewhere just
thinking about how they can take all the shekels leaving nothing behind for the rest of us as usual...

I also imagine that they look like this while they sit around thinking about fucking us....

View Image

I really don't think that per household limits can stand up to Constitutional muster. A64 defines it per person while allowing no exceptions other than for MMJ. It's black letter law. Section 3-

http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf

Hell- I figure that the people writing the bullshit restrictions know they eventually won't stand up but will have an inhibitory effect 'til then...

 

[Avinash.miles]

I really don't think that per household limits can stand up to Constitutional muster. A64 defines it per person while allowing no exceptions other than for MMJ. It's black letter law. Section 3-

http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf

Hell- I figure that the people writing the bullshit restrictions know they eventually won't stand up but will have an inhibitory effect 'til then...

peeps stand up regularly but laws change to make previous court precedents irrelevant, nowadays anyone who stands up and fights the case has it thrown out so as not to set a precedent unless you follow up with counter lawsuit or the like

 

[Jhhnn]

peeps stand up regularly but laws change to make previous court precedents irrelevant, nowadays anyone who stands up and fights the case has it thrown out so as not to set a precedent unless you follow up with counter lawsuit or the like

We'll see that, I'm sure, until the day somebody says "I'll take my day in court" & some prosecutor is fool enough to take the challenge. For the control freaks the catch is that they can't change the Constitution & there's nothing vague about that aspect of A64 in the slightest.

Oddly enough, I've been unable to find out what the penalty might be for violating the Denver ordinance while remaining within the per person limits of A64. I haven't consulted a lawyer or contacted the City Attorney's office but maybe somebody with better Google-fu than my own can find the answer.

Dunno about elsewhere, but enforcement against truly small home growers in Denver is driven by complaints, stupid stuff & just plain bad luck. They go for the low hanging fruit & larger ops.

 

[Ganoderma]

I really don't think that per household limits can stand up to Constitutional muster. A64 defines it per person while allowing no exceptions other than for MMJ. It's black letter law. Section 3-

http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf

Hell- I figure that the people writing the bullshit restrictions know they eventually won't stand up but will have an inhibitory effect 'til then...

I would assume that that since the plant count per person that was voted in by the voters in A64 would have to be re-voted on by the voters to amend the amendment that was passed by the people. I know I've seen other items on the state ballots to amend something that was passed by the people in years before the what ever was re amended and place on the ballot.

 

[Ganoderma]

peeps stand up regularly but laws change to make previous court precedents irrelevant, nowadays anyone who stands up and fights the case has it thrown out so as not to set a precedent unless you follow up with counter lawsuit or the like

But does that mean that they would have also taken all you stuff under the cover say that they seized your gear to prevent you from continuing to commit a crime. Then say you do fight, you could still be screwed either way.

I did see that they signed a bill into law to prevent them from not allowing you to use mmj if you are in the pre-trial system as a condition of bond.

 

[Avinash.miles]

We'll see that, I'm sure, until the day somebody says "I'll take my day in court" & some prosecutor is fool enough to take the challenge. For the control freaks the catch is that they can't change the Constitution & there's nothing vague about that aspect of A64 in the slightest.

Oddly enough, I've been unable to find out what the penalty might be for violating the Denver ordinance while remaining within the per person limits of A64. I haven't consulted a lawyer or contacted the City Attorney's office but maybe somebody with better Google-fu than my own can find the answer.

Dunno about elsewhere, but enforcement against truly small home growers in Denver is driven by complaints, stupid stuff & just plain bad luck. They go for the low hanging fruit & larger ops.

for violating plant count in denver city, im sure you would face either zoning code violation or misdemeanor and fine of about 1k

according to new law the first offence is misdemeanor and next is felony, and how extreme of felony depends on how many plant you have....

as for the peeps winning a case - when was the last time we heard about a big case being won that set important precedent?

most recent important one i remember is the lady beating the DUID MMJ charge based on her medicinal necessity....
since then hasn't been many succeses, i've heard of a few people about to win a case and have it just.... THROWN OUT charges dismissed.... and that's GREAT for peeps facing charges, but it fails to set that important precedent.

 

[Ganoderma]

for violating plant count in denver city, im sure you would face either zoning code violation or misdemeanor and fine of about 1k

according to new law the first offence is misdemeanor and next is felony, and how extreme of felony depends on how many plant you have....

as for the peeps winning a case - when was the last time we heard about a big case being won that set important precedent?

most recent important one i remember is the lady beating the DUID MMJ charge based on her medicinal necessity....
since then hasn't been many succeses, i've heard of a few people about to win a case and have it just.... THROWN OUT charges dismissed.... and that's GREAT for peeps facing charges, but it fails to set that important precedent.

I think the only people who would be affected more so are those unlucky ones who happen to live in those counties who's populations voted against Rec or MMJ, those are going to be the area's that will try to buck every thing for the rest of the populations.

 

[Avinash.miles]

I think the only people who would be affected more so are those unlucky ones who happen to live in those counties who's populations voted against Rec or MMJ, those are going to be the area's that will try to buck every thing for the rest of the populations.

not sure i understand...
what u mean by "people affected more so" ??

 

[Ganoderma]

not sure i understand...
what u mean by "people affected more so" ??

Refer to this Denver post story http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/19/yuma-county-sheriff-struggles-few-deputies/

Counties that border states like Oklahoma, Kansas. Then there are the area's where you have the out of state folks setting up large grows "under the cover" of the legality in Colorado to ship very large amounts out of state, which is drawing lots and lots of "heat" to these area for those who are in compliance with either Rec or Med. So some folks, just because of where they may live, they may be in a pot unfriendly part of the state.

 

[Jhhnn]

for violating plant count in denver city, im sure you would face either zoning code violation or misdemeanor and fine of about 1k

according to new law the first offence is misdemeanor and next is felony, and how extreme of felony depends on how many plant you have....

as for the peeps winning a case - when was the last time we heard about a big case being won that set important precedent?

most recent important one i remember is the lady beating the DUID MMJ charge based on her medicinal necessity....
since then hasn't been many succeses, i've heard of a few people about to win a case and have it just.... THROWN OUT charges dismissed.... and that's GREAT for peeps facing charges, but it fails to set that important precedent.

I figure that if a household is with A64 limits that they'll drop it every time. I actually stay in compliance, or have so far, but they'd have to issue me a summons & complaint if the worst possible outcome was a $1000 fine before I'd acquiesce to reducing the number of plants to suit 'em. I'm sure they'd offer the "X so many plants have to go or we'll bust you" routine for starters. I'd say "OK- I'm busted. Now what?" That's why they keep it vague so that multiple adult households are inhibited from exercising their rights.

That's Denver, I think. I doubt I'll ever know for sure because I'm just playing their stupid game. I really, really, really like the idea that I can just grow my own pot & that they just can't fuck with me in any way that really matters. I probably wouldn't be doing this if it weren't state legal. I'm too freaking old for jail.

 

[Seaf0ur]

you have the out of state folks setting up large grows "under the cover" of the legality in Colorado to ship very large amounts out of state

Aside from the mexican cartels fucking up our national parks with pesticides unapproved for use in this country...

citation needed.

I mean I'm sure you can find a few scattered cases, but this whole "grey market" idea of warehouses growing here in ambiguity for nationwide distribution is laughable... a weak inductive argument based on irrelevant appeals.
Strawmen made of paper tigers...

Their errors in reasoning are most certainly on purpose....

And, I'd certainly expect any future legal changes to be chock full of manipulated language in all types of misleading ways to get folks who can't/won't read properly to support bad laws...

 

[Seaf0ur]

I dont know how far any of this will even matter...
it seems the neocons are still firmly in control and we are going into a cold war...
possibly a hot one...
holler Russia some more...
Putin stole my coffee creamer...
gotta have a distraction...
seems like this repetitive shit is just giving everyone something to constantly squawk about...

otherwise folks might start lookin at the governments checkbooks...

I just hope we aren't the new "enemy" with a new "war on drugs" from Jeff Sessions...

 

[meowmeowmeow]

And the beat goes on.......

 

[Jhhnn]

I would assume that that since the plant count per person that was voted in by the voters in A64 would have to be re-voted on by the voters to amend the amendment that was passed by the people. I know I've seen other items on the state ballots to amend something that was passed by the people in years before the what ever was re amended and place on the ballot.

Ironically enough, Conservative interests made it a whole lot harder to amend the CO constitution in the last election-

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/15/is-it-too-easy-to-get-initiatives-on-colorados-ballot/

It's about protecting oil & gas interests but also has unintended consequences wrt A64 in particular.

As Miles has pointed out there's been some noise in the legislature about trying to impose more restrictive limits state wide but it bogged down, likely because it would be immediately challenged in court. Municipal restrictions wrt A64 have some cover under CO home rule provisions but even that really is shaky. Hell- even provisions against outdoor growing are on shaky ground because the definition of a locked enclosed space out of public view is vague.