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!

NEW Colorado Growers Thread

Avinash.miles

Caregiver Extraordinaire
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
The Doc i have used the last 4 years charges about $80 for regular visit/plant count. He will not go over 24 (my bet it is 16 now,i have not checked), and charged me $120 for an 18 plant count...I do do get a big discount because he can't beleive i am still alive...I am a test case to him.
I would prefer to keep him since the consistency through the state just shows there is little chance for illegal giant grow from me.
I just don't know if it is worth it now with that 16 plant rule going into effect in a month or 2???

And i want to sue pueblo over the GH rules...just can't till they try to bust it. Legal BS.

not sure what exatly 16 plant rule you are talking about
but if you are referring to the state wide residential plant count restrictions outlined in hb1220.... those will not go into effect until jan 1 2018
 

Ganoderma

Hydronaut
Mentor
Veteran
And i want to sue pueblo over the GH rules...just can't till they try to bust it. Legal BS.

I want to try to get a bunch of ballot questions on the next state ballot.

1. Make it illegal to drug test any one with a Red card for any type of employment/to denie any one employment. With exceptions for maybe some government jobs and cops.

2. We need an amendment that spells out to the state that WE have the right to gather just like the Booze junkies! Have/hold events that are public/ open to the public

3. We need to start an amendment that stops forcing people out of the Rec&med scene. They way they have gone about regulating every thing they have forced people out of the "game" and created a larger grey market then what there would be if they'd let small time "farmers" (If you grow cannabis, you should consider your self a farmer) compete.

There are further things that could be done too. None of any of this would have happened if it wasn't ever put on the ballot and voted on by the people because the elected officials would still be wiping there fat asses all over the floor like a sick dog.
 

Ganoderma

Hydronaut
Mentor
Veteran
not sure what exatly 16 plant rule you are talking about
but if you are referring to the state wide residential plant count restrictions outlined in hb1220.... those will not go into effect until jan 1 2018

I haven't seen anything about that bill moving forward since it was sent back to the house to have the changes voted on since the changes the state Senate made, like the changing of the plant count from 16 to 12. With the way that bill first started I would have figured it would have been already made it's way to hicky's desk. Since I haven't seen any mention of it I'm crossing my fingers it will just drag on limbo.
 

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
not sure what exatly 16 plant rule you are talking about
but if you are referring to the state wide residential plant count restrictions outlined in hb1220.... those will not go into effect until jan 1 2018

I'm not sure that HB1220 has actually become law. It passed the HOR but I dunno about the Senate or the Governor.

I'm confident that it would face constitutional challenge & maybe even a restraining order to prevent implementation until the CO SCOTUS rules on it.
 

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
I haven't seen anything about that bill moving forward since it was sent back to the house to have the changes voted on since the changes the state Senate made, like the changing of the plant count from 16 to 12. With the way that bill first started I would have figured it would have been already made it's way to hicky's desk. Since I haven't seen any mention of it I'm crossing my fingers it will just drag on limbo.

I hope you're right. I really don't see how any restrictions beyond the 6/3 plants *per person* limits of A64 can possibly be constitutional.
 

Avinash.miles

Caregiver Extraordinaire
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
hb 1220 is sitting on hicks desk, waiting for him to sign it,
he will sign it
it WILL become law
no rush to sign it tho, because no matter when its passed it still only comes into effect jan 1 2018

im pretty sure that 1221 also is on hicks desk waiting to be signed

maybe im wrong...
maybe the governor will not sign into law a bill that he had his own evil minions write up....
 

Ganoderma

Hydronaut
Mentor
Veteran
I hope you're right. I really don't see how any restrictions beyond the 6/3 plants *per person* limits of A64 can possibly be constitutional.

I'd think that they'd have to amend A64 by putting it up for a vote on the ballot to change the amounts (plant counts) stated in A64. But I admit I'm assuming by how I've seen other ballots in the bast where they where asking about changing/amending some law or another, and that is where I'd assume they'd have to put it on the state ballot to effect the change.
 

Ganoderma

Hydronaut
Mentor
Veteran
hb 1220 is sitting on hicks desk, waiting for him to sign it,
he will sign it
it WILL become law
no rush to sign it tho, because no matter when its passed it still only comes into effect jan 1 2018

im pretty sure that 1221 also is on hicks desk waiting to be signed

maybe im wrong...
maybe the governor will not sign into law a bill that he had his own evil minions write up....

You are right, I just looked it up. I have no idea why the Denver post hasn't had any mention of it, they normally mention shit like that with all of the attention it got a couple months back.
 

Avinash.miles

Caregiver Extraordinaire
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
any constitutional argument against 1220 willbe decided in courts
which means it will never be resolved, people sued the state over 1284 back in 2010... did that stop the industry from forming exactly how the state described it to? no
legal battles will not stop the state from doing what it wants, as it has legislated it.
might someday overturn them, but that's a pipe dream imo

"the cannabis" aka denver post weed news is a fucking sellout best i can tell, don't rely on that joke for real news
 

Ganoderma

Hydronaut
Mentor
Veteran
It's always looked as their attempt to an extra "head line topic creator" to sell more add space. I've always seen any news worthy cannabis topic under their marijuana tab (section) that is under the news tab.
 

Avinash.miles

Caregiver Extraordinaire
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
It's always looked as their attempt to an extra "head line topic creator" to sell more add space. I've always seen any news worthy cannabis topic under their marijuana tab (section) that is under the news tab.
imo it's DP's desperate attempt to remain relevant while simultaneously sensationalizing the all things weed
 

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
I'd think that they'd have to amend A64 by putting it up for a vote on the ballot to change the amounts (plant counts) stated in A64. But I admit I'm assuming by how I've seen other ballots in the bast where they where asking about changing/amending some law or another, and that is where I'd assume they'd have to put it on the state ballot to effect the change.

They're kinda screwed on that because they just made it a lot harder to get constitutional amendments on the ballot in order to protect oil & gas interests.

MMJ was also created by Constitutional amendment although I'm not familiar with the provisions.
 
I want to try to get a bunch of ballot questions on the next state ballot.

1. Make it illegal to drug test any one with a Red card for any type of employment/to denie any one employment. With exceptions for maybe some government jobs and cops.

2. We need an amendment that spells out to the state that WE have the right to gather just like the Booze junkies! Have/hold events that are public/ open to the public

3. We need to start an amendment that stops forcing people out of the Rec&med scene. They way they have gone about regulating every thing they have forced people out of the "game" and created a larger grey market then what there would be if they'd let small time "farmers" (If you grow cannabis, you should consider your self a farmer) compete.

There are further things that could be done too. None of any of this would have happened if it wasn't ever put on the ballot and voted on by the people because the elected officials would still be wiping there fat asses all over the floor like a sick dog.

HB1220 is the one i thought was to go into effect June or July first...I was wrong. Maybe i should shoot for 24 plants again this year.

I just wish city council would have put this green-house ban up for public vote...they didn't. It started last year.

Making it harder to get petitions was kinda smart because of some the stupidity that was getting through. But it hurts trying to get laws that change problems on the those past things...unfortunately A64 kind falls into that category.
 

Stan G.

Member
The Doc i have used the last 4 years charges about $80 for regular visit/plant count. He will not go over 24 (my bet it is 16 now,i have not checked), and charged me $120 for an 18 plant count...I do do get a big discount because he can't beleive i am still alive...I am a test case to him.
I would prefer to keep him since the consistency through the state just shows there is little chance for illegal giant grow from me.
I just don't know if it is worth it now with that 16 plant rule going into effect in a month or 2???

And i want to sue pueblo over the GH rules...just can't till they try to bust it. Legal BS.
I had a 99 plant count but my doc reduced it to 75. I don't complain! Think I paid 500 though.:tiphat:
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top