Marijuana legalization: Read eight initiatives filed for 2012 Colorado ballot consideration

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for a cropped brian vicente photo.jpg
Brian Vicente.
Sensible Colorado's Brian Vicente has been talking about a 2012 ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for adult use here since at least this November 2009 post.

But his effort to accomplish this feat is one step closer to reality now that he's submitted eight variations on a legalization measure to the state's title-setting review board. Read them below.

"They all have the same basic framework," says Vicente about the documents, which were filed last week. "Essentially, what we're looking to do is regulate marijuana sales in a similar way that alcohol is regulated statewide. That way, adults 21 and over can purchase marijuana in regulated, state-licensed businesses where they have to show an ID before it can be purchased."

Among the main selling points, he continues, is that "it would free up law enforcement resources for far more important purposes -- and it would also produce a fair amount of tax revenue for the state."

mason tvert photograph.jpg
Mason Tvert.
According to Vicente, he and the Marijuana Policy Project's Steve Fox are "probably the principle authors" of the initiatives, "but this draft language is really the work of an incredible and unprecedented coalition that came together to draft it." The contributors include Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), headed by Mason Tvert, who's named alongside Vicente on the documents, as well as "the Drug Policy Alliance and the ACLU, with input from dozens of lawyers in Colorado and outside of Colorado. And we've also gone to great lengths to include local activists in the process. We've solicited dozens of comments via e-mails, published articles asking for input, and spoke publicly to groups about the process."

Why introduce so many versions of the initiative? "We're looking to test some of the different provisions to see how they play out when we get to the title board," Vicente explains. "Some would legalize industrial hemp, or task the state legislature to legalize industrial hemp -- although that's a potential single-subject issue. There's also some earmarking language about possibly designating the revenue for school construction, as well as some TABOR and non-TABOR language" -- a reference to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which applies to most budgeting issues in the state. "And we could submit other language as well, since we're still so far out from the election. But right now, the initiatives are really 99 percent similar."

The title board will likely consider the measures in about two months. If everything goes smoothly, the backers of the initiative may start collecting the signatures needed to place it on the ballot as early as July. Approximately 86,000 valid signatures are needed, but Vicente says the group is looking to gather at least 130,000 in order to provide plenty of extras.

In 2010, California voters rejected a marijuana-legalization effort -- but that measure's failure doesn't depress Vicente. "I think they probably just chose the wrong year," he believes. "In 2012, we predict a lot of open-minded, progressive, younger voters will turn out," as they tend to do in presidential election years, "and that will benefit our efforts." Besides, "in Colorado, we have a template for marijuana sales in place with the dispensary model. And because of that, people here can grasp that marijuana sales can be done in a controlled and taxed manner and be safe for communities.

"This stands to be the largest and most coordinated marijuana reform effort in Colorado ever," he maintains. "We're adding new partners every day. I really think this has a great chance of winning in 2012 -- and that would be a positive thing for the state."

Page down to read the initiatives. The first document is what Vicente describes as the "base measure," while the second one includes the aforementioned variations.


My Voice Nation Help
121 comments
Guesty
Guesty

SHAME on all of you.  Dozens and dozens of posts with nothing but name calling.  SHAME on all of you for representing us this way. 

Do you think the casual bystanders who aren't involved in the community in any capacity, but will VOTE nonetheless, care if your name calling and foul language is justified?  Do you think that someone who is on the fence about ending prohibition in any capacity, whether it be the CTI conception (which doesn't formally exist yet) or the SAFER/Sensible one, is going to vote in support of legalizing marijuana when every time they read an article about it, you guys are here acting like this is the Jerry Springer Show? 

All they will see is a bunch of foul language, bad attitude, and name calling. 

SHAME ON ALL OF YOU.  You're hurting us all, no matter which model prevails on the ballot.  And not just here, but nationwide -- this is the image you are giving supporters of legalization.  

This is an emotional fight, but we have all got to learn to control our emotions and anger.  Please, please, PLEASE, do it for all of us. 

Remember, ganja = peace.  Not psycho.

Guesty
Guesty

Sorry for the confusion, I thought I was using a unique guest ID.  I am not the "Guesty" down the thread.  Unfortunately, I am having a hard time changing my ID.  I will not post with my real name because, well, some of these people scare me a little bit.

Robert
Robert

I am getting free(er) with invective -- I couldn't imagine that there would be two 'Guestys'.  It would sure help if honest participants in this discussion would identify themselves.  I find the conceit that people feel threatened by other posters to be affected; however ill-informed, unpleasant, or even hostile comments get, I have never seen threats (though some may have been directed at certain politician(s)) here.

GuestyDos
GuestyDos

If you want to encourage open, honest discussion, then fostering an inviting platform for such would be not just ideal but also logical.  This means (and not just you but others as well) no more name calling, no more cussing, no more calling out personal business as a way of winning an argument (it doesn't matter if they are -- calling someone a wife beater doesn't make your argument more logical or correct)....

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.  But the fact that someone needs to could offer some insight into why you and anyone who acts this way is avoided and disregarded more than you'd like.  Invective is your right, but no one has to like it or come within 100 yards of it.

Robert
Robert

You stupid hypocrite -- most read your last comment -- moron!

Guesty too
Guesty too

Oh shoot, someone else is posting as Guesty too!  Sorry for the confusion.  I did not post anything down below.  I will post as Guesty too now.

Guesty
Guesty

This is an emotional fight, but we have all got to learn to control our emotions and anger.  It would be better to address each other with respect and courtesy, even in disagreement.  Calling people stupid, moron, douchebag, etc. needs to stop immediately.

CR
CR

I'm amazed at how reformers attack the leaders of other groups to discredit the entire organizations.  Didn't we go through this before with MPP last year:

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Robert
Robert

Does it not occur to you that the antics of some of these leaders do in fact discredit their groups?  Brian and Mason conducting an outreach to other activists is like Rob Kampia mentoring young female interns -- not a good idea.

CR
CR

I think everyone is sick of it.  And that leaders need to reach out to one another.  I don't think that how much money you have or how many laws you have passed is the only gauge of an activist's or group's worth.  NORML hasn't passed any laws but they are quite effective in gathering the masses, at least the marijuana consumers.  Marijuana Policy Project and NORML have been extremely critical of each other over the years.  In some ways they still are, NORML's Russ Belville stated the following about Rob Kampia & MPP in his blog:

"I guess it depends on whether you’re trying to recruit women to the cause of ending prohibition, women who are already turned off by the “bewbs & buds” atmosphere associated with marijuana law reform.

I guess so long as the 40-something executive director of an organization having consensual sex with a 20-something subordinate he deemed too drunk to drive (but not too drunk to give consent… sure) after an evening of irresponsible alcohol use is how you’d like to be represented, after fifteen years of fostering a culture of rampant sexual harassment within the office of the best-funded marijuana organization, it’s not an issue for you."

http://stash.norml.org/mpp-rei...

Yet representatives of NORML, MPP, and SAFER managed to sit down together and write the book  "Marijuana is Safer Than Alcohol"

Rev. B Baker
Rev. B Baker

HERE IS THE VERSION THE PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON:    COLORADO SAFER COMMUNITIES & HEALTH INITIATIVE Be it Enacted by the People of the State of ColoradoAn Amendment to the Colorado Constitution ending cannabis (marijuana/marihuana) prohibition and thereby legalize all parts of any genus of non-genetically modified Cannabis (marijuana/marihuana) as well as all derivatives thus requiring cannabis (marijuana/marihuana) to be removed from the Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18 & the Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1992. Making personal; possession, cultivation and sales for all citizen in Colorado 21 yrs. of age or older legal, as well as adopt all applicable laws and language pertaining to a personal 8 plant and 8 ounce (dried usable bud) possession, cultivation, sales and transportation regulations for the psychoactive cannabis (marijuana/marihuana) from Amendment 20 as well as set NO limit on INDUSTRIAL non-psychoactive cannabis (marijuana/marihuana) then:

a) Require the state's Health and Revenue Departments' Medical Marijuana Divisions to petition the Fed. Government to remove cannabis from the federal Controlled Substance Act and;

b) Create a commission for and explore clemency or pardons for all non-violent cannabis convictions in the state for the past, present and future then;

c) Cap the tax on all cannabis sales with percentages equal to local applicable taxes then allocate yearly; 25% of the revenue for public schools; 25% for Medicaid; 25% for community betterment programs; and 25% for oversight of the cannabis industry and to pay for the pardon commission as well as;

d) Replace cannabis possession penalties for those under 21 yrs. of age with monetary penalties equal to that of underage drinking tickets and add penalties for illegal retail, sales or manufacturing that are equal to alcohol retail, sale and manufacturing violations then; e) Adopt all applicable language for licensing of; manufacturing, sales or retailing cannabis from the rules/regulations already governing that of micro brew beer in Colorado on January 1, 2011 and bar cannabis retailing, sales or manufacturing at any establishment that already does any of the previous with alcohol, medical cannabis or tobacco.

f) Self-executing, severability, conflicting provisions - ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT ARE SELF-EXECUTING AND SEVERABLE, AND, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE TEXT, SHALL SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING STATE STATUTORY, LOCAL CHARTER, ORDINANCE, OR RESOLUTION, AND OTHER STATE AND LOCAL PROVISIONS

g) Effective Date - UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE VOTE HEREON BY PROCLAMATION OF THE GOVERNOR, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1(4) OF ARTICLE V.

h) NOTHING IN THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT ANY PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER, OR LICENSED ENTITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE XVIII AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT; TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN A MANNER OR FROM A SOURCE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; TO PERMIT ANY MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER LICENSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE XVIII AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO OPERATE ON THE SAME PREMISES AS A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.; OR TO DISCHARGE THE DEPARTMENT, THE COLORADO BOARD OF HEALTH, OR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FROM THEIR STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE XVIII AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE

This ensures the safety of all our communities by;1. Helping the state's budget by saving and creating millions in state revenue and;2. Open up jails/penitentiaries for real criminals thus;3. Free up probation/parole departments to monitor real criminals there by;4. Entitling all the citizens (any citizens while in the state) in Colorado the constitutional right to choose a safer alternative to drugs, tobaccos, alcohols, prescriptions and Et Cetera.

Respectfully submitted by:Rev. Brandon M BakerJoseph I. Cushman pfc. U.S.M.C

Robert
Robert

We have a big problem:  the coalition advancing the drafts Brian submitted was not willing to sit down with us and make a reasoned case for their more restrictive language.  They claim that they have data from polling and focus groups which support their version.  I suspect that most of their conclusions about what the electorate (as opposed to our base) might endorse are correct, but I firmly believe that it is their responsibility to put some evidence before activists and seek their counsel, as well as that of attorneys -- in short, to confer with activists.  It is true that not everyone can be included in such discussions, but hardly germane.  I am not the only activist it would have been appropriate to include, but I think that I had a number of points in my favor:  1)  I am very well informed about the issues, 2)  I am highly involved, and have been increasingly so since 2006, 3) While I cannot represent CTI or other activists, and indeed am more moderate with regard to what sorts of provisions might be included in the initiative, I esteem and am in regular communication with Laura and other activists most strident in support of our right to cannabis, 4) I am unusually articulate.  I met with Mason and Brian last Thursday in good faith, willing to proceed from where we found ourself, i.e. with the grassroots having been excluded up to that point.  I learned nothing I did not already know about their evidence; Mason did specifically indicate that some of it was private, but I thought we had resolved to try to proceed on a cooperative basis.  To then discover that they had filed the eight trial initiatives immediately prior to meeting with me, but did not see fit to clue me in to the fact that they had done so is a demonstration of continued bad faith.  On the other hand, CTI will not brook discussion of any restrictions in the first place, so the national coalition's unwillingness to lay out their arguments for them is moot -- there is really now a state of war between the grassroots and outside interests, and much of the abuse of activists in the latest Word reflects an orchestrated campaign against us.

I occupy a very uncomfortable no-man's land in between the two camps -- I believe that most of what Laura says is true (but more importantly, that when it isn't, she is not being dishonest), but I accept in principle the notion that a successful initiative must appeal to voters who do not use cannabis as well as those who do, and that that may require compromise.  The coalition may get more than it bargained for this time around -- I get the strong impression that the internecine conflict is playing out much like it did in advance of Amendment 20, though that was long before I moved to Colorado.  The dynamic between the different positions may mark our movement as highly fractured but it does present a range of options to those outside who encounter the debate.  In the end, the only initiatives which appear on the ballot are those that had sufficient support and funding to comply with Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution and C.R.S. Articles 40 and 41 of Title 1.  If CTI files its own initiative, a poll of  the cannabis-community must be taken so that we can decide which initiative to back -- were both to get on the ballot, they would parasitize each other.

Rev. B Baker
Rev. B Baker

HOW COME cannabis is being treated and regulated worse and more harsh than microbrew? just substitute cultivation for brewing and cannabis for beer and the laws are already there with tried and tested regulations. PS DONT LIE TO THE PEOPLE WE ARE THE ONES WHO VOTE

JumpinJackFlash
JumpinJackFlash

Look at these 1284 loving dispensary owners in here with their agenda. Business slow guys? I will back Kathleen, Robert and CTI every time over some 21 year old punk trying to keep his business afloat. Most of you assclowns wouldnt make it as a 7-11 clerk, but thanks to the people you're slandering you're able to legally sell weed and have the govt monopolize you. You're exactly the reason I won't set foot in a dispensary.

CR
CR

Robert Corry is on the Legal Advisory Board for the Legalize2012 Campaign.  Isn't he also the husband of Jessica Corry, spokesperson for SAFER's Womens Marijuana Movement?

http://legalize2012.com/commit...

http://womensmarijuanamovement...

I'm curious why all these organizations can't sit down and discuss this maturely and professionally.  Both groups have passionate caring people but now things are getting spoiled by animosity and distrust.  Everybody needs to stand back and think whether this hate mongering helps their constituents.

Guest
Guest

Sitting down is not an option when as Chippi puts it "I'm sick of you f'ing know nothings--... No matter because enough people appreciate and respect CTI and ACT and other local groups that this will be prop 19 all over again, and we will help kill it with smiles on our faces"

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2...

They are saying "screw you guys. If we do not get our way - there is no way."

Robert
Robert

What, you've tried every scurrilous line of attack, and only now happed upon the right one?

There are many people who do not trust the compromises, but I suspect that many simply can't trust the compromisers; I am among the latter group.

The determination not to work with grassroots activists because they are a fractious bunch is now being given cover by you and other people afraid to declare themselves, who attack CTI for objecting to the national drug policy reform groups' exclusion of all grassroots activists in Colorado from their deliberations.

Guesty
Guesty

Robert, - You lack credibility because you lie. See previous posts about you not admitting to attacking a patients disease. Let's not even bring up Tim Tipton and your covering for him.

You lack integrity since you do not follow the values you claim to champion. See previous posts where you attack the patients you claim to help (i.e. erik schmuckal).

And as ppl have stated before, no one in their right mind would tell you what their name is. Why? So a irrational, crazy megalomaniac can harass them? No thanks.

Robert
Robert

Oh?  You won't identify yourself.  You point to BS as evidence for your charges.

I have stood up in public, testified, and written for patients and caregivers' rights many times, and I am proud to have done so.

I'll stack my credibility up against some anonymous Internet twit's anytime, but you really have nothing substantive to say and are beneath contempt -- why should I keep responding?

Guest
Guest

You have no integrity or credibility. You lie and attack those who you claim to serve.

Robert
Robert

Guest, you are the one who is taking advantage of the anonymous nature of this forum and will not disclose his/her identity.  I will continue to advocate for patients and caregivers without regard for your petty attempts to enlist the very dregs of uninformed opinion against me.

Robert ChaseColorado Coalition for Patients and Caregivers(720) 213-6497

Guest
Guest

... and it just chaps your ass not knowing who I am, doesn't it? That I'm probably someone you've spend a great deal of time talking to. Someone you may even consider an ally or friend.;)

Guest
Guest

Quit confusing him with the same name posts. That's not nice.

Robert - you still did not answer my question... And, if the answer is no, then why did you already?

Guest
Guest

@f633997ad9d5c38d0a9c4a5931b6c9fa:disqus  - You must have me confused with someone else. I have a husband.

Really. You called a patient a flakey psycho earlier today. So answer the real world question.... Do you enjoy making fun of people with diseases? If not, why did you?

Robert
Robert

You haven't answered my question about your wife -- I really want to know.  Will she recover her sight?  Did anything come out of that investigation of you molesting the little girl next door?

Robert
Robert

When did you stop beating your wife?  Did you ever complete your probation for that?  Why do you hate America so much?

Robert
Robert

Not at all -- there aren't that many people fully aware of the issues and you obviously aren't one of them.  If posters want to criticize others, I am all for it; just as long as they have the decency to do so on an equal footing.  You want attack others without having your own history and motivations subject to scrutiny -- this may persuade somebody incapable of critical thought, and that's why you persist.

Guest
Guest

 By the way, why would any of us anonymous posters leave our names? The CTI crowd has demonstrated time and time again that they're nasty, petty people. Just ask CMMR, Josh Stanley, Betty Alisworth, Matt Brown, Full Spectrum Labs, Safer, Sensible Colorado, Dixie Elixirs, Simply Pure, MPP, NORML, Brian Vicente, Mason Tvert, Warren Edson and DPA.

Robert
Robert

Anonymous liars lie, and lie, and lie, and then they lie some more.  A lot of very scummy people have made a lot of money selling cannabis, but they do not give a damn about patients.  Those of us who have advocated for patients know who we are; we recognize each other from the hearings.

Guest
Guest

 @Rober:disqus  But, just earlier today you were calling a mmj patient a "flaky psycho" on another thread.

Is making fun of people with diseases funny to you?

Robert
Robert

Viper, but I did not; I implied that Erick Schmuckal is -- that is not making fun of him, or disparaging patients as a group.  Do you think that you have discredited me as an advocate for patients?  Have my public statements warning of Federal intervention ruined some secret speculation of yours?  CTI and I have emphasized many uncomforatble truths, but that does not invalidate positions we have taken.

Guest
Guest

Robert.  But you did make fun of a known mmj patient today. You called him a "psycho flakey patient""

http://blogs.westword.com/late...

Why would a patient advocate disparage the ones he claims to represent? Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question.

Robert
Robert

I do not make fun of people with diseases, and I resent your insinuation, but you are just an anonymous nit, after all.

Guest
Guest

So you are not going to answer the question??? Perhaps you did not comprehend it. Here it is again.

Is making fun of people with diseases funny to you?

Guest
Guest

No, you engage in personal attacks. Just like CTI. You're an educated man, Robert. Unfortunately, you have no tact or interpersonal skills. The world of internet commenting suits you quite well.

Robert
Robert

Why do you say that, anonymous liar?  There are flaky patients who importune and distrust the very people who try to help them.  One or more of these people continually try to drag down Tim Tiption -- I don't like it, and I don't like people who engage in anonymous attacks like you do, scumbag.

Corey Donahue
Corey Donahue

 Why should we give these people respect if they have earned none?

Guest
Guest

You don't know any of those people, Corey. Welcome to Colorado, though, you sycophantic douchebag.

Corey Donahue
Corey Donahue

 Well aren't we all part of the same primordial ooze? And I would think slime would be some sort of bacteria so the spoors of the bacteria would be considered the slimes ancestors so now you can be aware that slime does in fact have ancestors.

Guest
Guest

I wasn't aware slime had ancestors. Thought you were all just part of the same primordial ooze.

Corey Donahue
Corey Donahue

Thanks man! It feels great to be here. Now I know what my ancestors felt like when they homesteaded this state.

Guest
Guest

FYI: More than one person is posting as Guest :)

Robert
Robert

So unless you are just trying to get in an anonymous jab, stop posting anonymously.  I take responsibility for my views; why don't you?

Guest
Guest

WOW. Check this out.  "Laura Kriho was banned by security this weekend at Kush Expo from coming near the SAFER Legalization 2012 table because she got in a booth staffer's face and called her a "dumb fucking bitch" for not knowing who she (Laura Kriho) is... and refusing to leave."

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2...

Robert
Robert

WOW!  Check THIS out:  anonymous posters don't want to be held responsible for their lies.

Guest & Anonymous, begone!

Paul
Paul

Robert, are you the guy that claims to be smarter than everyone? But no one wants to talk to you becuase you are really strange? And everyone laughs at? 

OH yeah! So, we have some gun carrying, fighting thug, a weird brainiac and CTI vs SAFER, Sensible Colorado and every other reputable MMJ agency in the state.  OK, now I get it. 

Corey Donahue
Corey Donahue

Paul,  I am a fighting, gun toting thug with a masters degree in international law and over 7 years fighting for human rights at the state, national and international levels so I would say I am someone you would want on your side. I guess I am to scary for you and Robert is too much of a laughing stock for your exclusive club of respectable people who will tell us degenerates how to live our lives. Thank god for you Paul what would I do and how would I think if it wasn't for you and all these great organizations telling me how Colorado should legalize cannabis, because darn it we are just too stupid to do it ourselves.  I look forward to seeing you at the debates so we can discuss how our constitution should be written and don't worry I won't scare you too bad with my thug like ways. 

Robert
Robert

Many people in Denver are smarter than I am, but you are too dim to take part in the conversation; go back to ripping off patients and figuring out how to get the State to put your competitors out of business.  If only all the idiot owners piping up in favor of the unconstitutional laws could be the first on the DEA's list!  I would love to see just one of the greedheads admit they're wrong.

Laura
Laura

This is a lie. I was at the Kush Expo all weekend, and did not call anyone a "dumb fucking bitch" and was certainly never "banned by security" from the Kush Expo this weekend. Guest uses a great source, someone posting a comment as "an adult" on the tokeofthetown website. Really credible information. Many many witnesses can confirm I was there and was not "banned by security." Any more lies, guest? 

Guestnumber2
Guestnumber2

I spoke with the volunteer who worked at the safer booth at the Kush Expo, and she mentioned that you cussed her out at the Kush Expo and security had to make you leave the area.  You are right though, you were not banned, just asked to leave the area.Is this not true, Luara?

Guesty
Guesty

I am guessing the reason the comment about Laura Kriho's violent demeanor and behavior was posted anonymously because 1. they are scared of being a victim of Laura's behavior themselves, and 2. people need to know.

Guest
Guest

Sounds EXACTLY like the CTI crowd to me. It's their way or nothing, which is why no one works with them anymore. Chippin' Little won't rest until she can grow free range pot and the government disbands. 

Robert
Robert

I was present; it is not true.  Readers who imagine that these anoymous posters have any other reason for hiding their identity other than being afraid of being associated with their lies are pretty dim, but I know there are some out there, so we will keep seeing crap like it posted.

Robert
Robert

Lots more -- welcome the Brave New World of Internet-illiteracy.  Many people, especially younger ones, find what they think they want in the first three search returns from Google, and do not question the tweet's worth of information (or disinformation) they read there.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...