come on now, don't be coy! let us know how you REALLY feel, LOL!
(I can't stand people like that, either.) 
-
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.
Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else
- Thread starter shaggyballs
- Start date
- Status
come on now, don't be coy! let us know how you REALLY feel, LOL!
(I can't stand people like that, either.)
no, but I bet folks that were willing to grow illegally before the bill passed will STILL grow after the law goes into effect. folks don't just up & think "hmmm. this is against the law. I'd better stop..." they planned their system to only supply about 1/3 or so of the demand to keep the "legal" weed from being diverted out of state & bringing down the feds on their heads.
no, but I bet folks that were willing to grow illegally before the bill passed will STILL grow after the law goes into effect. folks don't just up & think "hmmm. this is against the law. I'd better stop..." they planned their system to only supply about 1/3 or so of the demand to keep the "legal" weed from being diverted out of state & bringing down the feds on their heads.
One of the things I see in the current effort to legalize, is that many, many people have now registered or signed up or in some way given their name on official paperwork in the hopes of being "legally able to grow or posses pot"..
So now if the rules change back again, or never really become legal to begin with,,, NOW they know who you are!
Last edited:
no, but I bet folks that were willing to grow illegally before the bill passed will STILL grow after the law goes into effect. folks don't just up & think "hmmm. this is against the law. I'd better stop..." they planned their system to only supply about 1/3 or so of the demand to keep the "legal" weed from being diverted out of state & bringing down the feds on their heads.
The way A64 is structured, it's impossible for the State to really limit production. People who meet the requirements & put their money up front *will* be licensed. It gets pushed down to the local level, & lots of local entities are entirely willing.
They intend to control it from the other end, with seed to sale tracking of every plant, clone & bit of product. If your production numbers aren't in line with your competitors', they'll be watching you, and if they catch you over the line, they'll break your motherfucking balls off. Not just CO, but the Feds, too, because you'll be in violation of current enforcement guidelines. They'll RICO everything but the clothes you're wearing, for starters, put your kids out on the street. They *might* let you cop to 20 years if you roll over on all your friends & your dog, otherwise they'll do you for consecutive sentencing at the State & federal level. Do 20 in Canon City, then move to someplace like Leavenworth to do another 20 or more.
The first guy who shows 'em more balls than brains will receive the cornholio del grande like he never imagined possible. I shudder to think of it.
Legal personal growing in CO is entirely paperwork free. Just do it. Retail is headed in the same direction, with no greater scrutiny of ID than at the liquor store.
That's the beauty of the the MMJ system in California. I don't have to register for anything. I don't even have to have a piece of paper. Any recommendation from a doctor to use Marijuana is sufficient, whether verbal or in writing. Even then you are protected via doctor patient confidentiality.
So, uhh, if the heat comes down on your grow & you just tell 'em your doc said its OK that they'll just go away? Really?
That is the way the law is written. In most situations, they dont even bother looking at your paperwork. As long as you claim protection under Prop 215, and the cops have no reason to doubt that protection is legitimate, they are NOT supposed to take any action against you or your grow/stash.
Police do whatever the fuck they feel like. I could have doctors rec's hanging everywhere and they still could come and take it all. It'd get throw out in court but I'd lose the plants. Bullshit honestly.
Just another example: I had a buddy get rolled on while smoking in his truck. He had a half burnt bong bowl in the back seat. The cop confiscated all weed and paraphernlia. When he went to court and his public defender got his paraphernalia charge thrown out, and he had 30 days to return with a written reccomendation from a doctor, proving his claim to protection under prop 215. He did so and left the courthouse paying no fine, and accepting no ticket or infraction for his actions. Normally possession of <1 oz is a $100 fine, same as a parking ticket.
As I've said many times in this thread. Anyone with a brain can easily stay out of legal trouble with any marijuana related incident in California, save for those too ignorant to understand the laws which govern them, even then my friend still got saved by his public defender.
As I've said many times in this thread. Anyone with a brain can easily stay out of legal trouble with any marijuana related incident in California, save for those too ignorant to understand the laws which govern them, even then my friend still got saved by his public defender.
So post #1006 was just wishful thinking in support of fantasy, right?
Of course it was. It doesn't describe reality at all.
The CO reality is that state authorities can't act against anybody for having constitutionally protected plant counts.
No Catch 22.
monsoon
Active member
It's not anything "current" here in CO as we've had a "Registry" (patient database) since 2000. I was #700 and my wife was a few cards behind me when we got our first cards early on in the program's onset.
<<<<<< the flipside of "being on a list" is that when you are on it, at least here in CO, you have rights...and yer ass isn't hanging completely out. My experience was that I, as a patient, (and my wife as well) had even more leeway in how things went/what was acceptable than the Cops did. Contrary to what the conspiracy theory/"the man"/"They" are crooked and out to get you" folks say...the cops are bound by the Med laws here just as the patients are. At least that's how it worked here when "they" came here. LOL. (FYI...it was an issue with teenagers, not my garden or being "on a list" that brought them here) We were over count but they said nothing because they knew as med folks the law says we can argue for more plants if we have medical need. We just told em we grew what we needed and that was that. LOL.
They told us they didn't like any of it >personally<....but they were bound by the law and it was all just another part of their job.
for us...we decided early on that if we let "them" rule us or sat around thinking "they are coming to check because we are on a list" we were letting >them< win. Screw that.
They've not been back. What's funny is that because it is a small town I've seen 2 of the 3 cops in the grocery store with their families.."off duty" since they stopped by....and both just kinda smiled and acted like we knew each other like anyone else you've seen "around town"...LOL.
MMJ statutes served many in CO for a long time, still do. They're also constitutionally protected, even more so now with retail & personal growing as defined by A64. If you want to exceed the plant count limitations of A64, having a med recommendation certainly can't hurt. OTOH, holding to A64 counts can be done in complete anonymity by any resident 21 & older. That activity is beyond the reproach of state law entirely. It's a civil right.
monsoon
Active member
I'm not sure I'm following you as to how 64 enhanced 20's protections as they are separate Amendments that do not interact other than 64 states that it will not impede/alter med rights in any way.
Complete anonymity by the grower is key to plant counts whether they be med or otherwise. (Growers Rule #1) While A64 counts are anonymous in that you do not need register with the State, Med counts/info are a Constitutionally protected right as well.
Complete anonymity by the grower is key to plant counts whether they be med or otherwise. (Growers Rule #1) While A64 counts are anonymous in that you do not need register with the State, Med counts/info are a Constitutionally protected right as well.
I think we're kinda talking past each other. I was thinking of it from a sociological & law enforcement perspective. Now that every Joe Schmoe can grow, the likelihood of anybody paying much attention to a not for sale grower whose doctor says he needs the medicine are even smaller than before. Personal growers who don't sell are basically off the radar for law enforcement.
I'm also looking at it from a convenience standpoint for personal growers. No doctors, no fees, no paperwork, no renewals, ever. If A64 plant counts serve a personal grower's needs entirely, a med rec isn't nearly as compelling as it once was. It's completely optional to growing, nearly so when just consuming.
At this point, it's clearly advantageous to non-growing chronics to have a med rec. Better selection & better bottom line, at least for now. That may not hold for terribly long, dunno. I doubt that it will.
monsoon
Active member
Yes, they stack SeaF0ur. Still separate amendments...but the counts can be combined.
Pre-64...with 20 in effect, they paid little attention to any of us patients UNTIL 2009 when the "dispensaries" sprung up and the Registry swelled with non-qualified users simply trying to make bank andsskirt the pot laws. At that point, "med" was front page news every fucking day.
Time will tell what changes are cast upon us. Look at the med amendment for proof of how adjustments can be made WITHIN THE LAW....as addendums/bills to the amendment....to address any/all current problems that may arise. We once had unlimited caregiverships...not so today. This was altered by the State, no vote needed. There were no dispensaries included in the original law. not so today, Again, the law was altered by the State...and it went from patient to patient sales to dispensary to patient sales. without a vote. DUID?....no mention of any of this for YEARS.... yet..now we have a nanogram law that even pertains to people using for medical conditions. Another change made by the State without a vote.
Our 3/3 may stand...but as evidenced in A20...they can fuck with the parameters surrounding the grow if they want to. It will all depend on how much pressure the business side puts on them to track what we do in the future. they could add on a writer..>for public safety< (Fire, etc)...that requires those who grow to state they are growing in their home.
Will they? Dunno. But never say never. We saw too much in the med realm...all of it geared AGAINST the patient and FOR the dispensaries. (business)
Thankfully...we are hardened here and we grew pre A20 and pre A64 when it was all completely illegal. We still have the hidden room...ballasts and reflectors still in place... just in case. LOL.
stay safe folks. It's still a game.
Pre-64...with 20 in effect, they paid little attention to any of us patients UNTIL 2009 when the "dispensaries" sprung up and the Registry swelled with non-qualified users simply trying to make bank andsskirt the pot laws. At that point, "med" was front page news every fucking day.
Time will tell what changes are cast upon us. Look at the med amendment for proof of how adjustments can be made WITHIN THE LAW....as addendums/bills to the amendment....to address any/all current problems that may arise. We once had unlimited caregiverships...not so today. This was altered by the State, no vote needed. There were no dispensaries included in the original law. not so today, Again, the law was altered by the State...and it went from patient to patient sales to dispensary to patient sales. without a vote. DUID?....no mention of any of this for YEARS.... yet..now we have a nanogram law that even pertains to people using for medical conditions. Another change made by the State without a vote.
Our 3/3 may stand...but as evidenced in A20...they can fuck with the parameters surrounding the grow if they want to. It will all depend on how much pressure the business side puts on them to track what we do in the future. they could add on a writer..>for public safety< (Fire, etc)...that requires those who grow to state they are growing in their home.
Will they? Dunno. But never say never. We saw too much in the med realm...all of it geared AGAINST the patient and FOR the dispensaries. (business)
Thankfully...we are hardened here and we grew pre A20 and pre A64 when it was all completely illegal. We still have the hidden room...ballasts and reflectors still in place... just in case. LOL.
stay safe folks. It's still a game.
The people who wrote A64 learned a great deal from the way that the legislature dealt with the wiggle room A20 allowed them. There is no wiggle room in A64 wrt personal growing. It's every citizen's Right to have 6 plants, 3 of them flowering. Nailed down nice & tight, along with public possession limits, concentrates, gifting & retail availability.
Whether a person agrees with all of it or not, A64 has been brilliantly crafted to do what it's supposed to do & deny the legislature the opportunity to alter it at all. Any attempts to re-criminalize personal growing through a registration scheme are unconstitutional on their face. It won't happen.
It's also important to recognize that our MMJ system avoids the fracas brewing in WA over their collectives & their whole highly restrictive retail scheme. W/O legal personal growing, there's nothing to keep 'em honest, and it shows.
At this point, it's critical for advocates to get ahead of the curve, get honest A64 style measures on the ballot ahead of the bullshit brewing in the legislatures & power centers of the different states. The proposal in OR shows that all too well, as do the CBD only med measures currently so popular among state legislators. They'll try to make it like abortion in Mississippi- it's legal, but they'll make sure it's virtually unobtainable anyway.
You're right.
Austin is mini-Dallas. A couple years ago they installed sound ordinances in downtown Austin because the residents of recently built high rise luxury condos were complaining about the live music in bars. Now, you can't have a band perform past 12:00 a.m. in the "LIVE MUSIC CAPITAL OF THE WORLD." Austin is rapidly becoming more and more conservative every year.
Personally, I don't think the state of Texas deserves legal weed. After all the lives that shit hole has ruined. Just look at the county north of Austin, Williamson County. Where a kid is facing 5-100 years in prison for possessing weed oil for brownies.
Last edited:
Vape pens are a joke. When they're not running out of batteries, or breaking down they're providing a pretty mediocre smoke. I'd rather smoke good weed.
I hit some very good BHO last night. The bowl of SVF OG that I smoked right after was far better. The OG grown in Colorado wouldn't be like that at all.
Last edited:
No, it isn't. That thing is a perfect example of a smoking apparatus that isn't stealthy. The quality isn't as good, either. I just don't want BHO.
I've never liked vapes. Owned em all, hated em all, sold em all. Call me old fashioned. I like SMOKING GOOD WEED.
Good weed doesn't smoke properly out of vaporizers, regardless. You need dry mid-grade for vaporizers to work properly. Sticky top shelf doesn't taste as good out of vaporizer as it does combusted.
Well, none of them are on the level of Cali growers. Whether it's genetics, environment,or a lack of competition in CO I just don't see any weed coming from Colorado that compares to the best from Cali. I haven't in 15 years.
I know people who live in CO that feel the same way. From what they say it appears distributors in CO have given up on growing good weed and decided to make extracts from the lower quality product in hopes that it meets the needs of clients with higher potency requirements. You just don't see good bud up there. It's all extracts and mid-grade. There is no top shelf. One of these guys recently came home and visited. He was thankful to be smoking good weed again and the shit isn't even legal here.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous when a guy moves from a state where weed is illegal and he can't find weed that's as good as what he smoked. That includes everything he sees in the legal and black markets in that state. I have no problem calling out "strong, well connected" growers in Colorado. These guys are pumping out weak mediocre crap and they need to be informed of it. Not have their asses kissed. Just because they're making a bunch of money growing crap doesn't make them "strong growers."
These guys suck dick.
Last edited:
- Status
