Vote "NO" on Proposition AA...

[nattynattygurrl]

"To be fair, the Mayor's proposal was DOA on arrival at the City Council. He can, by law, propose damned near anything. They threw it back in his face. They didn't threaten you with anything. Yes, he's an idiot.” -Jhhnn

Precisely…
It will die in Denver and then find rebirth on the W’slope…I’m sure it won’t be long before something similar is proposed in GJ/Mesa Co. where, unfortunately, it will also find lots of support…

Happy to hear the voice of a cannaphile being heard on the W’Slope! Louder!!!
Cheers, barnyard!

 

[watts]

Seems like these med states are always changing the laws around. Very confusing.

 

[Hydrosun]

Seems like these med states are always changing the laws around. Very confusing.

Only confusing if you give a shit about their rules or laws. Stay FREE MARKET my friends!

 

[nattynattygurrl]

Seems like these med states are always changing the laws around. Very confusing.

One thing that won’t change in CO, (or at least not any time soon)

our Constitutional RIGHT to grow 6 cannabis plants!!

(even more if you get a red card and a waiver!)







…It would take another Constitutional Amendment/s, to reverse 64 and 20, and I don’t see things shifting that drastically any time soon!

Momentum is in our favor!!!

It won’t be long til’ cannabis legalization is on it’s way to you too!

 

[Jhhnn]

One thing that won’t change in CO, (or at least not any time soon)

our Constitutional RIGHT to grow 6 cannabis plants!!

(even more if you get a red card and a waiver!)

…It would take another Constitutional Amendment/s, to reverse 64 and 20, and I don’t see things shifting that drastically any time soon!

Momentum is in our favor!!!

It won’t be long til’ cannabis legalization is on it’s way to you too!

I think that any completely non-commercial grower would do extremely well to scrupulously play by the plant count rules. You're pretty much free of legal interference if you do. Indoors, you're home free, & outdoors it'd be difficult to see them doing more than ripping your plants.

If you can't supply yourself & some left over for Christmas with legal plant counts, you need to improve your growing, supplement with either medical or retail weed until you do. There are some amazing growers on ICMAG showing you how.

Everybody has their own comfort zone, of course, but complacency & greed have put a lot of people in the joint. In Colorado, we're really fortunate to be able to put that possibility aside while obtaining cannabis at an excellent grow your own price. It's a unique opportunity, so far, and I hope that a lot of other people will soon be able to do much the same.

 

[Hydrosun]

I think that any completely non-commercial grower would do extremely well to scrupulously play by the plant count rules. You're pretty much free of legal interference if you do. Indoors, you're home free, & outdoors it'd be difficult to see them doing more than ripping your plants.

If you can't supply yourself & some left over for Christmas with legal plant counts, you need to improve your growing, supplement with either medical or retail weed until you do. There are some amazing growers on ICMAG showing you how.

Everybody has their own comfort zone, of course, but complacency & greed have put a lot of people in the joint. In Colorado, we're really fortunate to be able to put that possibility aside while obtaining cannabis at an excellent grow your own price. It's a unique opportunity, so far, and I hope that a lot of other people will soon be able to do much the same.

No if you can't supply yourself with 6 plants grow 99. The feds have dropped the mandatory minimum craziness and NO state jury is going to convict a person for growing on their own land; ESPECIALLY if there is NO EVIDENCE of sales.

If SOG is your preferred style, you shouldn't have to go learn trees (trees are awesome though). Your land, your plants, your rights: FUCK their rules for your PROPERTY.

 

[oceangrownkush]

Damn guys. Here I thought Michigan politicians were the lowest form of Intestinal parasite, just to find out there is a competition going on.

U gotta love how they use our money to fuck us with.

They use their money to fuck with us. Remember what fiat currency is, it is your binding agreement with the US government.. Also remember that the Bill of Rights is their contract with us.. Making the US federal government the longest standing institution in breach of contract with its constituents in history.

 

[Jhhnn]

No if you can't supply yourself with 6 plants grow 99. The feds have dropped the mandatory minimum craziness and NO state jury is going to convict a person for growing on their own land; ESPECIALLY if there is NO EVIDENCE of sales.

If SOG is your preferred style, you shouldn't have to go learn trees (trees are awesome though). Your land, your plants, your rights: FUCK their rules for your PROPERTY.

Brave words, if not necessarily wise. Any grower exceeding Colorado plant limits in the slightest can be charged with a State felony. Those who conform simply cannot be charged with anything under State law.

There's a very long & expensive path between getting busted & reaching a jury, where results are far from predictable. A grower needs to spend $50K (minimum) to mount a credible criminal defense in a jury trial. In many Colorado jurisdictions, even that is unlikely to sway a jury when the prima facie evidence is against the defendant.

We all have our own choices, but it's important to recognize that unnecessary risk is unnecessary, regardless of ideological concerns. The Colorado Constitution protects personal growers under certain circumstances. We toss those protections aside at our own peril.

There's no other place in the world where personal growers have that. I realize that there's a certain mystique & headset behind growing & sticking it to the Man. It's probably hard to adjust when that's no longer necessary. It's probably even harder when one depends on the income from growing.

Colorado legalization is producing a whole different class of growers, like it or not. They're not out to feed their wallets, but rather feed only their heads. They don't need the money or the paranoia, so they'll stay Colorado legal simply as a matter of self preservation. It's not just for thrill seekers any more.

 

[nattynattygurrl]

I think that any completely non-commercial grower would do extremely well to scrupulously play by the plant count rules. You're pretty much free of legal interference if you do. Indoors, you're home free, & outdoors it'd be difficult to see them doing more than ripping your plants.

If you can't supply yourself & some left over for Christmas with legal plant counts, you need to improve your growing, supplement with either medical or retail weed until you do. There are some amazing growers on ICMAG showing you how.

Everybody has their own comfort zone, of course, but complacency & greed have put a lot of people in the joint. In Colorado, we're really fortunate to be able to put that possibility aside while obtaining cannabis at an excellent grow your own price. It's a unique opportunity, so far, and I hope that a lot of other people will soon be able to do much the same.

I, personally, have never used/needed my “waiver” numbers, (that’s why I mentioned waivers in parentheses…as an aside), realizing I don’t have the physical capacity to care for more than 12 anyway.

And while I may not ever use my waiver, my doctors always give them to me, (without my asking.) When I was last up for renewal, I told her I didn’t need a waiver and she still gave it to me, wanting me to have the option/ability to make Oil or CannaMilk, which as I’m sure you know, takes a LOT of material, more than a ‘flower toker' would use. (edit: Or to grow SOG style, thank you HydroSun!)



But thanks for assuming!

 

[Hydrosun]

Brave words, if not necessarily wise. Any grower exceeding Colorado plant limits in the slightest can be charged with a State felony. Those who conform simply cannot be charged with anything under State law.

There's a very long & expensive path between getting busted & reaching a jury, where results are far from predictable. A grower needs to spend $50K (minimum) to mount a credible criminal defense in a jury trial. In many Colorado jurisdictions, even that is unlikely to sway a jury when the prima facie evidence is against the defendant.

We all have our own choices, but it's important to recognize that unnecessary risk is unnecessary, regardless of ideological concerns. The Colorado Constitution protects personal growers under certain circumstances. We toss those protections aside at our own peril.

There's no other place in the world where personal growers have that. I realize that there's a certain mystique & headset behind growing & sticking it to the Man. It's probably hard to adjust when that's no longer necessary. It's probably even harder when one depends on the income from growing.

Colorado legalization is producing a whole different class of growers, like it or not. They're not out to feed their wallets, but rather feed only their heads. They don't need the money or the paranoia, so they'll stay Colorado legal simply as a matter of self preservation. It's not just for thrill seekers any more.

No sir you are incorrect. What I am advocating is being king or queen of your castle and garden. I am suggesting that ANYONE charged with growing too much for their own PAY zero in legal fees, represent themselves and have 12 of their neighbors to tell the judge and prosecutor to FUCK OFF.

Are you afraid of State Court? Are you afraid of your neighbors?

I'm afraid of the slave masters, but that doesn't mean I will kneel like an Uncle Tom. Following their immoral laws is an abdication of your responsibility to your children and your neighbors.

Apologists and the "Don't rock the boat crowd" are holding back freedom and progress. This is a repeat of very recent history (civil equality, sexual equality, gender equality). All the bricks in the wall are falling...

58% of Americans believe cannabis should be legal. Stand up to immoral rules and do what you want.

 

[vta]

Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Author: Laura Kriho

MARIHUANA TAX ACT OF 1937 RISES FROM THE DEAD

Samuel Caldwell's mugshot in 1937. Nothing is more scary on Halloween than the undead. Zombies, ghouls, vampires - all were once dead, but were resurrected and now terrorize living society. It is both frightening and frustrating to think you have finally put something evil to rest with a silver bullet or a stake through the heart, only to find that it has risen from the dead and found new life.

So the fright of pro-cannabis voters was real when we saw that the Colorado legislature wanted to resurrect the most heinous and destructive thing in the history of cannabis prohibition: the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary had put this grotesque creature to death in 1969 when he won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case. Now, a similar monster is being revived by the Colorado legislature as the Marijuana Tax Act of 2013, now known as Proposition AA.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was primarily the unholy creation of Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962. Anslinger had made his career enforcing alcohol prohibition, but when that was repealed in 1933, Anslinger needed a new illegal substance to secure his job.

"Marihuana" was a perfect target: It was used primarily by minorities who were feared by the public due to newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst's nationwide "Reefer Madness" campaign to demonize cannabis and hemp. Hearst was a racist who used the little-known term "marihuana" to describe what had always been commonly known as cannabis or hemp. Hearst ran a very effective scare campaign to convince the public that "Mexicans and Negroes" were smoking a new drug called "marihuana" that was causing them to rape and murder white people.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 used a unique legal theory. Since Congress did not have the power to ban substances directly because of the 10th Amendment, they needed an indirect method of prohibition. They were inspired by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which effectively outlawed machine guns through the requirement of a "prohibitive" tax.

The Marihuana Tax Act adopted the "prohibition through taxation" scheme. Rather than making marijuana possession illegal directly, the law required you to purchase a tax stamp in order to possess marijuana legally. Because the taxes were set prohibitively high, it discouraged compliance, creating de facto prohibition.

Congress passed the law with very little debate, despite testimony by farmers, who complained that the law would destroy the hemp fiber and seed industry, and from the medical community, who complained that cannabis had been in the U.S. pharmacopoeia since 1850.

The new law went into effect on Oct. 1, 1937. A few days later, Denver's own Samuel Caldwell became Anslinger's poster boy as the first prosecution under the new Marihuana Tax Act. Caldwell, a 58-year-old Denver resident, was arrested for possessing and selling marihuana without being in possession of his tax stamp. Caldwell was arrested on Monday, Oct. 5, indicted by a federal grand jury on Thursday, Oct. 8, and sentenced to four years in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary on Friday, Oct. 9.

Caldwell's speedy prosecution was front-page headlines throughout the country. Anslinger himself traveled to Denver from Washington, D.C., for the photo opportunity at Caldwell's sentencing.

The Marihuana Tax Act proved an effective method of prohibition, and the legal hemp and cannabis medicine industries soon disappeared. However, in 1969, Timothy Leary's conviction for possession of marijuana without a tax stamp was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since marijuana was illegal on a state level in many places, the Court ruled that the federal tax stamp requirement violated Leary's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

Now, in 2013, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act has been revived from the dead as Proposition AA, which proposes a prohibitive tax of up to 30 percent on cannabis. This would be the highest tax on a product in Colorado history. For comparison, alcohol is taxed at a rate of less than 1 percent.

Prop. AA is a regurgitated abomination of the 1937 law, and it is supported by the most anti-marijuana people in the state, including Gov. John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers ( Harry Anslinger's modern resurrection ) and Smart Colorado ( channeling Hearst's Reefer Madness propaganda ).

The only difference this time is that, thanks to TABOR ( Taxpayer's Bill of Rights ), the voters get to decide the fate of this demon tax act. Will voters pump new life into this Fiscal Frankenstein, or will they put a stake through its heart again?

 

[Jhhnn]

No sir you are incorrect. What I am advocating is being king or queen of your castle and garden. I am suggesting that ANYONE charged with growing too much for their own PAY zero in legal fees, represent themselves and have 12 of their neighbors to tell the judge and prosecutor to FUCK OFF.

And then you'll do whatever time you get, right? Standing on your head the whole time, too, I'm sure. Why bother?

Let's try a little basic math. Gettogro gets 2.5 dry lbs per plant every 5 months growing 6 plants. That's 15 lbs, 3 lbs per month, which is 48 oz per month. Staying legal, a couple who are half the gardeners will get nearly an ounce a day, everyday, until Hell freezes over at virtually no risk whatsoever to their freedom or property. They're free to give it away, too, 1 zip at a time.

It'd have to be a party at their place everyday, 24/7/365, to smoke that much.

In Colorado, We Win. Not everything, just a helluva lot. Better to enjoy it than to moan about what we didn't win. .

 

[Hydrosun]

Not moaning, just happier to be a field slave ready to run than a house slave licking masters ass.

Yeah the slave that was twice caught and had both is feet hacked off would probably do his time standing on his head, but he'd never be an Uncle Tom.

Do you think the people of CO are different than the people of any other place on the globe?

You are the one with the math degree, all I said is if 6 plants doesn't work for you do WHAT EVER THE FUCK YOU WANT on your own property.

 

[Hydrosun]

2.5 lb trees is pretty cool goal, you guys in CO must be fucking amazing. Don't know too many people than can pull 40oz off an indoor plant. Wish you'd start a grow tutorial.

 

[Jhhnn]

2.5 lb trees is pretty cool goal, you guys in CO must be fucking amazing. Don't know too many people than can pull 40oz off an indoor plant. Wish you'd start a grow tutorial.

I can't claim to be that good. I don't really need or want to be. Here's your tutorial-

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?threadid=236262

 

[barnyard]

time to vote everyone...

time to vote everyone...

To be fair, the Mayor's proposal was DOA on arrival at the City Council. He can, by law, propose damned near anything. They threw it back in his face. They didn't threaten you with anything. Yes, he's an idiot.

I agree with you about AA. We just need to see how it works out with the current tax structure, go from there.

Jhhnn, just for the record, Councilman Nevitt wrote Proposition AA so it wasn't just Hancock.

The opposition has way out spent us on this one. So please vote on Tuesday or if you're not a registered voter find someone who is and give them a ride to the polls!

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn, just for the record, Councilman Nevitt wrote Proposition AA so it wasn't just Hancock.

The opposition has way out spent us on this one. So please vote on Tuesday or if you're not a registered voter find someone who is and give them a ride to the polls!

AA & the mayor's proposals are not the same thing.

AA attempts to levy more taxes on legal cannabis.

Hancock's proposal attempted to criminalize things like pot smoking in your backyard or anywhere that somebody might see you, like through a window in your own home.

http://blog.mpp.org/tax-and-regulate/denver-mayor-proposes-recriminalizing-marijuana/10152013/

 

[Greensome]

Hey folks, long time lurker first time poster.

I wanted to chime in on CO laws here because things aren't as cut and dried as many seem to think. Ever since amendment 20 in CO, cannabis related arrests have increased sharply and have maintained very high rates.
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/sites/default/files/marp_-_colorado_marijuana_arrest_report.pdf
How amendment 64 changes that, I don't know.

People can and do get arrested here all the time while thinking they are compliant with the state statutes.

With regard to growing under 20/64, it's not as simple as many people have asserted. For example, "growing on your own land" can be illegal. In CO it is illegal to grow outdoors. Amendment 64 or otherwise. On top of that, there are specific requirements to be compliant, not the least of which is, as already mentioned, plant count.

Aside from that though, the grow must be indoors. It must be in a locked area of the structure with restricted access. The indoor facility must either meet state licensing regulations, or be a residence. If you are not growing indoors in your residence, under these rules, you can and will be charged for cultivation. Those laws still exist, the only difference is the limits by which the statutes are defined. Possession, cultivation, transfer, and transportation of cannabis are still governed by Colorado criminal statutes.

On top of that, there are rules about children in the home, their ages, location with regard to bus lines and schools, and also there is the fact that a property owner (if you're leasing) can say that you're restricted from growing cannabis. This does not infringe on one's state constitutional rights because in amendment 64 exists a provision for property owners to disallow growing. If you grow anyway at a property that has specifically restricted it, you can be criminally charged, not to mention are subject to litigation by the property owner.

Many times, legal growers are arrested here. As a matter of fact, several "legal" grows get busted every day here. While it's true that courts have not recently been prosecuting growers that are within the limits, often police at your grow means that an individual officer makes a decision about whether you are legal or not. Because the laws are still ambiguous especially for police, one is subject to the individual officer's perspective (although I think this will change in the future) which can and does result in arrests for perfectly legal grows.

While this is not the norm, I do know a red card carrying medical patient that has been arrested several times for simple possession, every time within state limits. He has been to jail, booked, the case gets dropped, and they even give him his cannabis back. Nevertheless, he has been subject to arrest and scrutiny (even if avoiding convictions) while being a red card holder carrying an amount that someone without a card should be allowed to have.

As such, it's important to treat any grow as if it were illegal. You would not want to find out how well the courts uphold the law and have to rely upon statutes to avoid prison.

Hope this helps!

 

[monsoon]

Bingo, Greensome. It's "legal" within parameters. Freaks me out how folks come here >for< the legality (in parameters) and then grow at ILLEGAL levels and sell and do all sorts of other things that are NOT a part of these laws. Shouldn't they just do that in their own state?

 

[barnyard]

JUST GROW IT!

JUST GROW IT!

grow it, grow it, grow it, just grow it