Medical marijuana lawsuit: State says no one in Colorado has fundamental right to MMJ

It's way on topic as it's the entire platform on which these conversations take place. Personally I'd like to see Westword create a video virtual P2P 420 lounge for us all to face to face stream chat.

-- losing

Loosing all of theses battles is just stupid.  The case write up from the AG shows you don't have a rats ass chance in hell of making a difference.  Sometimes being really stupid really does cause pain down the line like to patients and caregivers.  Can you on the other hand show me anything good that you have done for patients and caregivers?  We are both only good at making a lot of noise and getting nothing done, but I'm not acting like I'm helping people, medical marijuana is a lost cause, we need to shove it all down the toilet and move on to making cannabis as legal as tomatoes for everyone.  The medical bullshit that you fight so hard for is just the biggest road block to legalization right now.  Medical marijuana was the flavor of 2009 and 2010.  The new flavor is legalization, get on board.  Medical marijuana is dead!  Quit beating a dead horse!

i believe the diference is that oxy can be prescibed and the mmj is recomended.

I stand by what I last wrote -- the finding in Beinor that patients have no right to cannabis is inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution.  The issue of whether Jason Beinor is due unemployment compensation is a separate one.  You are writing about the fact that Colorado supports employers (who already hold the power in the relationship) over employees -- that is a different injustice than the decision's broad denial of patients' rights to cannabis.

If your employers policy doesn't allow OXY or THC in your urine at work it doesn't matter what your doctor says, you get fired. You make it sound like you can have a prescription drug in your urine at work even if the employer policy forbids it. Doctors opinions mean nothing in the workplace. I don't trash people who know, I trash people like you. You can't protect the right to marijuana by taking away the right for employers to create policy. Employment is a privilege not a right, choose your job carefully.

"A judge did not rule that marijuana is not a constitutional right" -- you're only half-right; this finding was made by two of three judges on the appellate court.  They dance around the issue, drawing an irrelevant distinction between an "authorization to use medical marijuana" and the prescription of medicines in the pharmacopoeia -- the Amendment makes reference to the physicians' recommendations, which ARE analogous to their prescriptions of other medicines.  By stating:  "we do not read this as creating a broader constitutional right than exemption from prosecution", Judges Richman and Furman deliberately subverted the clear intent of Article XVIII, Section 14, that physicians' recommendations of cannabis be treated like prescriptions under State law.  Why don't you get a clue before trashing people who know?

She confused you like she often does. Creating a problem and then claiming you are the only one trying to fix the problem strokes the ego, makes a nobody feel like someone important. A judge did not rule that marijuana is not a constitutional right, a judge ruled that employers do not have to change their drug policies to accommodate MMJ users. Her issues are with employee drug testing not marijuana testing. She wants to take away the right for employers to make their own policies. Everyone has the right to accept or decline a job based on the employers policy and employers have the right to make drug policies. You have a constitutional right to use marijuana, you don't have a constitutional right to break employer policy and stay employed or collect unemployment. All prescription drug users have had to deal with this since the inception of employee drug testing, this is not new but it adds to her marijuana crusade of saving us all. I'm sorry a weed smoker lost his job, mandatory drug tests are a violation of your rights, but he chose to work for a place that violates his rights and in return, lost his privilege to be employed.

WOW. This is really uncalled for. I have had the pleasure of speaking and working with Kathleen on this suit. I feel she has worked really hard for all patients rights. While all the centers refuse to donate to the lawduit as they feel that HB1284, HB 1043 will keep them out of the State Pen. These house bills do not protect disspensary owners. The prior model was perfect. I can can say this as a center owner. We were able to support many small caregiver in a bad economy. All these people were trying to do was support their family. What the hell is wrong with that. Instead these new rules pushed people back underground. The dispensary model is no longer profitable unless you have a shit load of money to throw up 80 plus lights and sell it at $150 an ounce to push out the small guy. In Boulder it is a joke with the price wars and places like Top Shelf who spray toxic chemicals on the plants and then turn around and sell it at $50 an ounce. Tell me what centers out there can support their expenses on that. I would venture to say it is coming from out of state.

Back to the suit: What is wrong with people.... Making it legal does not solve all the problems. Medical use is a better way to protect yourself from the feds. I believe they will have a hay day if it is just legal. As a mother I do not want my children using marijuana like alcohol. Eventhough marijuana is not nearly as dangerous. The suit is not about winning or losing. It is about standing up for your rights. In this country we just lay down and take it from the government. Every generation should have an up rising. Now is the time to say. No you can not take my constitutional rights away!!!! The judge rules that marijuana is not a constitutional right. What the heck is that. Then why did we amend the consitution. 

Kathleen I hope you win.... But if you do not I will always respect you and your passion to fight for the patients. Keep up the hard work. There are some center owners that do support you and will continue to. 

Kathleen, you are the patient who needs help, and I am the caregiver trying to help you.  Quit beating the dead horse, medical marijuana.  It's over!  Patients are treated like drunks, and caregivers and dispensaries are like drug dealers.  We lost.  It's time for a new battle.  I'm trying to rally the troops.  This is anarchy, you won't get what you want by asking nicely.  Put on your war paint, smoke a joint and laugh at it all!

High Country has a website to call out the pot clowns http://420.co and a marijuana fun photo sharing website http://marijuanaphotos.co.  Also I built a website where you can build your own marijuana website free http://inhale.co.  Furthermore I love smoking pot!  What else can a guy do?  Don't say I'm doing nothing please.  I think everyone on earth should be able to smoke pot.

Right on, Kathleen!

P.S.  Just one annoying correction:  it's "cite", not "site" (they're homonyms).

P.P.S. Michael, I really, really hate DISQUS -- the damned thing does not work!

I wonder what high country is doing for the cause.You keep on marching on and don't give up the fight.The people of this state are behind you not high country and his spewing of crap.That is all i see come from him.

Tell that to Fred Wegener -- the State, the Law, the prison-industrial complex -- these are NOT products of your mind, but an oppressive, pervasive, shared reality!

No patient should name a caregiver, and patients patronizing MMCs are giving up confidentiality, but possession of a red card prevents many arrests -- absent direct evidence that the confidentiality of the patient register itself has been compromised, I would not advise patients to boycott it.

You know what I look like -- come down to the rally and say hello.

right, losing, thanks!

I argue against the unconstitutional laws too!  The current mmj laws and those who wrote them should be burned.  Doesn't cost money to make the argument.  What should happen is no patient should send paperwork into the CDPHE, the argument is free!  The results will trample the current unconstitutional laws and the 'profiteers' as you say.  Down with medical marijuana, let's just all know the use of cannabis and leave the State and their hoopla behind.  It's all in the mind!

Wrong -- I do drive.  Your repeated suggestions that I ask various people and groups something is offensive and irrelevant -- you know that I myself am an opponent of the DUID language, and that I objected to it at the first Title Board hearing.  I know all about the issue; I don't need to ask anyone anything about it!

I directly addressed the issue of the likely effect of the DUID language:

    "The reference to DUID is unfortunate but it does not create a new crime or a new penalty.  In the far off, enlightened world of imagination, that provision could create a problem for reformers seeking to legalize driving unimpaired under the influence of cannabis, but I do not anticipate that this will occur during my lifetime -- is that provision what outweighs no longer being able to charge people who grow six or fewer plants or possess indefinite amounts of cannabis at home?"

I suppose my question blotted the first part of that sentence from your mind.  Let me make it even more explicit:  there are no prospects for legalizing unimpaired driving under the influence of cannabis, therefore the DUID language in Initiative 30 does no harm.  It is there (as we both know) as a sop to all the supposed voters-in-the-middle in a (very likely doomed) attempt to allay their fears of stoned driving.  You all (generalizing -- just talked to Corey at the rallies today) have convinced yourselves that there really aren't that many prohibitionists in Colorado, but people with a negative attitude towards cannabis are the ones who will kill Initiative 30, if anybody does.  I do not agree with the approach taken in the Initiative and I have been one of its most vocal critics (remember?), but there is every reason to expect that it would reduce criminal liability, and that is the reason to vote for it.  As for other initiatives, I might yet volunteer to collect signatures for Initiative 40 or another if and when its title is set -- we can even vote for conflicting initiatives, because the one which receives the most votes will prevail on the conflicting particulars (under C.R.S. 1-40-123).

"Driving while under the influence of marijuana shall remain illegal" being enshrined in our constitution , FOREVER.  Go ask attorneys what "shall remain" means.  What "under the influence" means.  How much it costs to amend the constitution? 

Ya, that alone is a reason I will not be supporting this initiative.

Robert, you've heard my arguments regarding their language and you refuse to respond any differently than you are now.  You think I am full of it.  So I am telling you to go ask others who disagree with the language, why they do cuase clearly your not hearing it when it comes from me.  But since your not a minority, you do not drive a car and have no W2 job--I'm sure this language sounds good to you. 

I am a socialist!  I do not give a damn about the Libertarian's opinion of the Initiative either, except insofar as it bears on its chances.

Kathleen, Initiative 30 would eliminate some criminal laws and penalties for the use of cannabis -- you don't seem to be able to respond to this point

No, you can't.  What purpose would be served by posting stuff I wrote to Russ?  I have indicated what is wrong with their language over and over and over again, including in the post to which you are supposedly responding.  I am not interested in whether the Attorney's Guild supports Initiative 30 -- it is irrelevant.  If you could identify what justifies voting against removing some of the criminal laws and penalties associated with the use of cannabis, you would have a long time ago.

Also, ask the state Libertarian party if they support the language?  I have been contacted by them and many in the party do not support this language.

Robert, I can not continue to debate you on this.  I also do not have time to post links or emails containing your feud with Russ B. (national NORML) where you are against their language. And Brian Vicente and Sean McAllester are in the Guild--ask them if the guild supports their language.  Ask them for the response from the guild. 

You're off -- almost none of what you wrote has the slightest bearing on what is in Initiative 30 -- you are mostly riffing off of what is not in it.  Why should I inquire of the Attorney's Guild when I have you? The reference to DUID is unfortunate but it does not create a new crime or a new penalty.  In the far off, enlightened world of imagination, that provision could create a problem for reformers seeking to legalize driving unimpaired under the influence of cannabis, but I do not anticipate that this will occur during my lifetime -- is that provision what outweighs no longer being able to charge people who grow six or fewer plants or possess indefinite amounts of cannabis at home?  Your rhetoric is so extreme that it cannot admit that the Initiative would reduce criminal liability -- if you were trying to persuade, you would instead cite negative aspects which outweigh what are inarguably improvements in the laws regarding cannabis.

P.S. Please send me a link to the Attorney's Guild -- I don't see it in Google.

Well if it's a joke then who are you to tell me what's funny and what's over the line? Are you the joke police?fuck man my bad..... i guess you must be the petition police.

Corey did not set the "movement [to re-legalize] back by at least 5 years" by lighting a joint onstage -- that is an absurd accusation!

I know kids with Down's Syndrome who have more sense than Corey, here.  Corey, wasn't it you who lit up a joint in the middle of the Great Legalization Debate?  Way to act the fool when it is most inappropriate.  Your irrational behavior has set your own movement back by at least 5 years.  Douche.

Justify it all you want, the term "retard" is still insensitive to people with disabilities and their families. You show how truly uneducated you are by using it as a term to put down someone else with by separating people with disabilities out from the rest of "humanity" and implying they are inferior.

To quote you: "But hey that's what bad cops and hateful people do separate groups from their identity as one humanity so they can claim they are different and futher promlagate the stereotypes that are so damaging."

Well if it's a joke then who are you to tell me what's funny and what's over the line? Are you the joke police?

I don't preach anything and I view disabled people in the same groups as Black people, Muslims, Christians, Gays, Women... all part of one Humanity.  I feel bad that you have such a negative view of disabled people that you have to separate them out and make them of a lesser humanity with the rest of us. But hey that's what bad cops and hateful people do separate groups from their identity as one humanity so they can claim they are different and futher promlagate the stereotypes that are so damaging.

But it's not like Respect All has done anything to help the disabled movement just some anonymous person that wants to fake anger to attack people. If Respect All actually cared he would use his real name, but Respect All does not, I wouldn't be surprised if Respect All actually uses the anonymity of the internet to do exactly what he is chastising me for.

Like all words the definition can change and be malleable. So you, Respect All, are doing something pretty offensive assuming I was disparaging the disabled community and saying they are any less then full humans like the rest of us. And what about the bald part I said bald am i taking a crack at the hairless members of humanity, or pointing out that it's not hard to figure out who this anonymous jerk off is and that I know what will bring about the response I was looking for? 

To help

Retard:1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.

if Retards are offended they should defend themselves