Top

blog

Stories

 

Regulate Marijuana backers plan to submit 12,000 signatures to cure petition

Thumbnail image for mason tvert photograph small.JPG
Mason Tvert.
Supporters of the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act need 86,105 valid voter signatures on petitions to qualify for the November ballot. But while they submitted over 160,000 signatures in January, the Secretary of State's Office nixed so many that backers fell 2,407 signatures shy. Tomorrow, though, Regulaters hope to take care of that problem. They plan to turn in over (update) 12,000 new signatures -- more than enough, they believe, to push the measure over the top.

The deadline for curing the Secretary of State's so-called Statement of Insufficiency is February 21. However, Regulate proponent Mason Tvert says the campaign saw no reason to wait, given the five-figure signature sum it's collected over the past week or so. And Tvert believes many of the previously rejected signatures might ultimately prove to be valid, too.

"We haven't really begun looking closely at them," he notes. "But we've gone over them briefly, and we saw there were a number of them rejected simply because voters had not updated their registration and used their new address instead of their old address."

Tvert cites a Pew Center report released this week asserting that one in eight voting registrations nationwide is inaccurate, often for technical reasons of the sort that popped up among the initial Regulate signatures. He adds that some signatures were disqualified "because of notary problems -- becomes notaries couldn't complete the form."

Whatever the case, Tvert believes a five-figure gusher of signatures should remove any doubts about Regulate being put before voters in November -- and while he admits the delay caused by the shortfall "has certainly been a distraction," he stresses that "we're moving forward with the campaign as we had planned, because we have been confident from the beginning that there are more than enough Coloradans out there who believe it's time to end prohibition and begin regulating marijuana like alcohol."

Follow and like the Michael Roberts/Westword Facebook page.

More from our Marijuana archive: "Drug task force commander out of touch on marijuana regulation, activist says."


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
158 comments
TrollsEverywhere
TrollsEverywhere

i don't know why two losers have argued so much on this thread, but no, children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana. the bills to pass set the age at 21, the same as alcohol, and it is right that they do so. your brain isn't finished developing even at age 18, so why should you be changing your brain's chemistry with a drug at such an age? anyone wishing for there to be no age limit on marijuana use, or one that is below 21, must in fact be under 21 themselves.

Michelle LaMay
Michelle LaMay

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado state constitution directing the judiciary branch of all governing bodies in the state of Colorado to prohibit their courts from imposing any fine or sentence for the possession of cannabis?"Petitions being circulated now around the state.The Colorado Relief for Possession of Cannabis Act of 2012 is NOT legalization, either! It does NOT change any other laws. It is a directive to the Judicial Branches of Colorado governments, like mandatory sentencing, protecting this law from the Executive (enforcement) Branches' or Legislative (regulations) branches' continual manipulation of the existing laws. It is an opportunity to free up community resources and tax dollars; an opportunity for new businesses in Colorado like the production of cannabis-hemp for biofuel, paper and plastics, or cannabis sativa and indica for life-giving herbal remedies. It can be sold to the least likely to vote for legalization, from analysis of CA Prop 19, baby boomers and women (the access to children issue) who will sympathize without signing on to legalizing pot. It is substantially different from any legalization or regulation or taxation ballot initiative proposed as of now.

Other proponents and their organizations' initiatives on the 2012 ballot will not be effected. Initiative #40 is for all Coloradans. Even legal Colorado business owners in the Cannabis Industry are not protected under federal law from prosecution and may never be, no matter how many long, complex laws and regulations are passed, either by the People or the legislature concerning cannabis.

Michelle LaMay, Proponent #1303-886-7998http://www.relief4possession.w...relief4possession@groups.facebook.com

Rev. B Baker
Rev. B Baker

so is it 9, 10 or 12 thousand? three stories three numbers?

PS there is no regulation or tax of legal sacraments, so the spiritual consumers win no matter what!

ColoradoMidnightRider
ColoradoMidnightRider

REALITY IS.......Just yesterday the Colorado Legislative Council reviewed language for the LEGALIZE 2012 Ballot Initiative. Please see and support http://www.Legalize2012.comThere are those who don't believe our Educated Colorado Voters will not RISE UP and provide the timely signatures necessary to get on the ballot, but WE, the 99% KNOW how quickly our groundswell of support will provide and assure Reasonable Access Drug Policy is possible in the Rocky Mountain State...without "Takig Baby Steps", selling out to the MAN with a "Like Alcohol" effort whichs hands Prohibitionist Activities to the DOR, MMED wholesale.

boogerman
boogerman

idk they should at least allow you to smoke when your eighteen  i mean MJ does protect brain cells why not use it to better the young ones

Perpetua
Perpetua

Get your foot in the door with this legislation, and then lower the age.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

It remains to be seen whether Gessler can find 2,400 valid signatures among the 12,000 or not.  I expect that he is an innumerate Secretary of State -- he claimed that as many as 5,000 illegal aliens voted in the 2010 election last summer, but recently announced that six (6) people appear to have voted in both Kansas and Colorado -- and he was trying to find illegal voters!  In this instance, he is not motivated to inflate the numbers of qualified signatures; quite the opposite, and I would not be too surprised were he to balk at certifying Initiative 30 for the ballot. 

BIG CHTR
BIG CHTR

It's time we consider a proper and mature status of cannabis it is a fine plant and can harnessed in so many ways you can not fathom the plant is a counter attack to the garbage the apple of Eden bestowed upon us i.e like a nice filter....It can stop our differences and restore our understandings of peace and unity when used and educated in the manner properly..

bob marley
bob marley

LEGALIZE for everone including children, it causes no harm

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

Currently a marijuana conviction in Colorado leads to many collateral consequences because it is still a criminal conviction. (Yes, petty offenses are criminal offenses) Possession of marijuana is not truly decriminalized in Colorado. Granted in most cases you will just pay a fine and not go to jail for marijuana possession. Nonetheless, a conviction for simple possession will remain on an adults permanent record. In addition, it can lead to loss of employment, professional licenses, housing, child custody, gun permits, financial aid etc. I30 is the smartest and most politically viable way to end the collateral consequences thousands of adults face everyday when they are convicted criminally for possessing marijuana. 

Guest
Guest

medical marijuana would still exist if I30 passes so if a doctor thinks you can benefit from marijuana use all people of all ages will still have access to marijuana.  really, what's the problem here?

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Oh, you'll get a foot alright ...

... but it won't be in the door.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Wouldn't be the first time a Colorado Secretary of State deliberately scuttled the petition signatures on a pro-marijuana initiative -- see: Victoria Buckley circa 1996

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Josh,  please, we are all still waiting on stats from the state of Colorado that PROVE the number of arrests that will be prevented with passage of I30? 

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

June 15th, 2011 title board hearing

minute 50:55 seconds Mr. Ramie, "I think it would work if we deleted the word, starting on line 1, with legalization."

 1 hour, 15 minutes, 46 secondsMr. Fox, "Tomatoes are legal.  You can buy them anywhere.  Tomatoes have been legalized.  But as you've seen with the medical marijuana system, it is a highly regulated (emphasis added) system by a regulatory agency and that is what we're proposing.  I appreciate that you prefer marijuana over legalization because legalization would be truly misleading as a part of the title."

 1 hour, 18 minutes, 11 secondsMason Tvert, "This notion of using the term legalization, which is incredibly subjective, in fact is highly debated."

 1 hour, 18 minutes, 42 secondsMason Tvert, " If the point here is to be accurate and to make this as accurate and objective as possible, it would seem that  simply saying legalization, which could mean a broad variety of things, compared with regulation and personal use was more specific in our opinion."

1 hour, 53 minutes, 40 secondsMr. Ramie, "It seemed important for us......and then employers may place restrictions on the use of marijuana by employee's. "

 1 hour, 56 minutes, 6 secondsMr. Fox, "We, based on experience, know during the campaign, that there will be exaggerations about what our initiative will and won't do on the driving side and the employer side and so on.  And we wanted to have this language in there so that people know...... that employers still have the right to do things."  (FIRE YOU and you will get no UN-employment check from the state)

 2 hour, 3 minutes, 38 secondsMr. Dominico (AG's office), " I just wanted to raise the fact that even if this passes, we're not technically permitting a person 21 or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana.  We're just saying the state won't prosecute you."  The state of CO won't but your employer can fire you, your kids can be taken, your house can be taken your insurance can be taken, the feds can still do whatever they can get away with......and on and on.

 2 hours, 6 minutes, 44 secondsMr. Ramie, "We are requiring the implementation of a licensing facility, if you will, a process to get a license.  We're not requiring the granting of a license."

ie--our language does not require implementation.  nice. 

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

"In addition, it can lead to loss of employment, professional licenses, housing, child custody, gun permits, financial aid etc. I30 is the smartest and most politically viable way to end the collateral consequences thousands of adults face everyday when they are convicted criminally for possessing marijuana."

Josh, come on.  Both Rico Colibri and myself have explained to you that if I30 passes everything you said is NOT PROTECTED by I30.  When you can't come up with any realistic arguments you disappear from the conversation.  Hopefully you or Brian or Mason can explain the quotes that came from the title board hearings posted at:

https://www.facebook.com/note....

Mason and Brian and Steve Fox and attorney Ramie all agreed at the title board hearings--Employers CAN STILL FIRE EMPLOYEES for testing positive for THC professionally licensed or state licensed included.  Landloards and banks can STILL EVICT YOU or SEIZE your house if they want to for growing illegal pot, the same thing as the Beinor ruling.  Gun permits STILL WON"T BLEND with pot, the courts will still give child custody to the non using parent or HHS. 

Every one of the coalateral damages you mentioned has been discussed by the title board attorneys and questioned to the proponents and the proponents admit they UNDERSTAND they ARE NOT LEGALIZING marijuana. 

And I'm still looking for ANY REAL stats from the state of Colorado on pot arrests.  There is a huge difference between 11,000 arrests being prevented and 0 arrests being prevented.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Wrong.

A summary offense in Colorado -- less than 2 ounces of marijuana -- is NOT a "criminal conviction".

HTH.

cannabis now
cannabis now

 How will it do this? By funding the DOR to put even more of those "bad pot smokers" in jail? No wonder Matt Cook supported the language of I30. It is the full-employment and full-funding act for DOR pot cops.

Guest
Guest

like all MEDICINES, marijuana may be harmful to people that don't need marijuana for medical reasons.  a child with autism may benefit from marijuana use while a healthy child can be harmed from marijuana use.  doctors should be involved in the decision to give a child marijuana or any psychoactive medication for that matter.

Jacob Doyelle Yates
Jacob Doyelle Yates

regulating marijuana like alcohol is a better notion, the financial inclination writes itself. and allowing children to use marijuana would be a poor choice on our part, yeah they will still get there hands on it but will help protect the roads and such. marijuana is safe but children using it will just cause problems with parents and will get marijuana illegal if it ever does become legal.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Kathleen, those are just a hodgepodge of personal annoyances (gleaned from your exhaustive analysis of the Title Board hearing), and hardly probative of a dastardly plot.

Initiative 30 will significantly reduce criminal liability for cannabis -- not end it, probably not put much of a dent in the prison population, not sweep away the drug laws, not put out of work the parasites of the North Metro Drug Task Force -- but reduce the number of people who are charged with some petty offenses and reduce the number of people charged for growing cannabis for personal use.  I have many objections to the language and structure of the amendment and to the way it was drafted, but this is consderably better than nothing.  After we pass this, who knows what we might accomplish by 2016?

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

Kathleen, please pay attention to the words I use. Marijuana convictions can lead to a loss of employment, professional licensing etc. I30 will end thousands of marijuana convictions in this state, and thus, thousands of adults who would have this on the record, won't. 

What's your plan to end adult marijuana arrests in our state? What's the chance of it passing? (Remember the majority of people in Colorado do not use marijuana). Nonetheless, I will vote for it, because I generally support all work by fellow marijuana activists.  

We really need an 11th commandment for our movement. "Thou shall not speak ill about any fellow marijuana activist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

olcurmudgeon
olcurmudgeon

employers can fire you for anything they please, hence the "at will " part of employment.and obviously the federal laws will still exist regardless of what Colorado does. They are saying they wont prosecute people at the state level. and they are regulating it , big deal nearly every product one can buy is regulated and it is simply fantasy land to pretend that they would just allow people to grow it out in their garden like oregano.

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

"petty offense" means any crime or offense classified as a petty offense or, if not so classified, which is punishable by imprisonment other than in a correctional facility for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine, and includes any violation of a municipal ordinance or offense which was not considered a crime at common law; except that violation of a municipal traffic ordinance which does not constitute a criminal offense or any other municipal charter, municipal ordinance, or county ordinance offense which is neither criminal nor punishable by imprisonment under any counterpart state statute shall not constitute a petty offense.

C.R.S. 16-10-109

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

"marijuana may be harmful to people that don't need marijuana for medical reasons"

So you don't support the non-medical legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, due to the harm you admit it causes?

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Anonymous guest--Your hate for me must be clouding your thought process.  Cannabis is in a world of it's own yet affects peoples lives from every angle.  Pay better attention.

NO ONE goes to JAIL or PEE's in a CUP if civil unions or marriage are legalizedNO ONE loses their KIDS if civil unions or marriage are legalizedNO ONE loses their HOUSE if civil unions or marriage are legalizedNO ONE loses their DRIVERS LICENSE if civil unions or marriage are legalizedNO ONE loses their JOB if civil unions or marriage are legalizedNO ONE loses their FREEDOM if civil unions or marriage are legalizedNO ONE loses their STUDENT LOANS if civil unions or marriage are legalized

Do you understand, anonymous guest?  If you vote for I30 you are voting FOR these prohibitions to rain on so many different people's lives it's insane.  I30 does NOT LEGALIZE marijuana.  And the proponents misleading people, apparently like you, to think it does is going COMPOUND into a crises in our courts and peoples lives.  Anyone who wants to smoke pot in Colorado ALREADY DOES.  I am sick of you people implying that until MMJ there was no medical marijuana or recreational marijuana.  NO adult who wants EVER had a problem getting it.

And maybe you didn't pay attention in the 1990's when pot was still completely illegal but we did NOT have POT COPS--cops whose sole responsibility is to police  a plant--the safest therapeutic substance known to man. 

The history shows that with MMJ--when the people perceived it to be LEGAL--is WHEN WE HIRED POT COPS.  Isn't that messed up?  It's legal so instead of having law enforcement spend more valuable time tracking down sex offenders and violent offenders, why do we now have an entirely NEW ARM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT that has more money than the entire CBI regulating and enforcing more stringently than plutonium at Rocky Flats? 

Quote you anonymous guest--"Initiative 30 expands liberties just as Amendment 20 did." as you say A20 and I30 would do the same thing.  The Beinor ruling has already gone against patient rights and the CDPHE confidential registry has been breached and the red card protects patients from what?  And A20 brought confusion and harm to voters listed above....... Hmmmm.... so it looks like YOU are actually the stoner for prohibition!

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Donkey--"Re: unemployment insurance, an employer can fire you for violating Federal law, and using marijuana is a violation of Federal law, and not be liable for paying unemployment coverage. Smart employers will simply make such a specific reference to Federal law in their employment offers and policies."

Take it up with Beinor's employer (who I'm guessing isn't smart enough for you) who used ONLY state law in their arguments to the appeals court that has silenced patients rights. 

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

I only vote for language that causes NO HARM.  I voted against A20 because it is so poorly written. 

You can say I am wrong but the Colorado Court of Appeals agrees with me.  Now I know you must find it upsetting, however you should not let your unresolved hatred for me stop your brain from operating and absorbing that the second highest court in Colorado agrees with Kathleen. 

In the Beinor ruling 3 of 3 judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals STATE CLEARLY that the A20 language is poorly written and grey, allowing for 2 of them to rule that patients DO NOT have the RIGHT to USE MMJ, only possess MMJ. 

Guest
Guest

 Log Cabin Republicans support civil unions and gay marriage.  You're not the smartest donkey in the barn are you?

http://www.logcabin.org/site/c...

They are republicans but they only support republicans in favor of gay rights like ron paul or jon huntsman.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i...

This is hardly the same as you and chippi and other stoners that campaign against a pro marijuana initiative like I30.  I wish you two morons had as much sense as a log cabin republican because they actually support pro gay rights initiatives instead of fighting them.  What's with all the Ks DonKKKey?  You a racist donkey too you ignorant ass?

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

The Colorado State Constitution, Amendment 20, only created a right to an "affirmative defense" against existing state CRIMINAL drug laws, nothing more, nothing less.

There is nothing in A20 about unlimited CIVIL rights or creating any new "protected class" of person akin to Race, Religion, Sex, Nationality, etc.

Beinor has a right to an "affirmative defense" in criminal court, should charges ever be brought in State court.

Re: unemployment insurance, an employer can fire you for violating Federal law, and using marijuana is a violation of Federal law, and not be liable for paying unemployment coverage. Smart employers will simply make such a specific reference to Federal law in their employment offers and policies.

An employer can even require that employees remain "tobacco free" when not on the job, and require them to submit to periodic urine testing, and fire them if they get caught smoking cigarettes even at home.

Employment law is a perverse animal, and not the best place to seek relief for an extraneous "right" to use illegal substances, either on or off the job.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You haven't heard of Log Cabin Repuglykkkans ?

Guest
Guest

you voted against amendment 20!!!   you chose to deny sick patients access to medical marijuana!!!!  you opposed A20 then opened a marijuana business under the same laws you fought.  you are a hippocrite. now you are fighting initiative 30 that would give adults legal access to marijuana for non medical reasons and you think you are helping marijuana users?  you make me sick chippi!!!

You have zero credibility left!  Fuck you Chippi! 

Guest
Guest

Initiative 30 expands liberties just as Amendment 20 did.  By voting against laws that would expand my liberties as a citizen in colorado you are contributing to prohibition!  Wake up chippi, you vote the same on marijuana laws as john suthers, john walsh, and every other marijuana prohibitionist in the state.

I wonder if the gay rights movement has morons like chippi that advocate against civil unions because the proposed expansion of liberties isn't enough?  Vote no on civil unions!  If I can't have marriage I'd rather have nothing!  -- this kind of stance makes little sense.  do you understand chippi?

Rosskarr
Rosskarr

Hey "guest" your a coward. Post with ur name and email address like most of us UNcowardly folks do.

Rosskarr
Rosskarr

Lol that's great. Rob ur pandering to bs new ideas. Your not acting true to the cause bro. You won't even answer me when I emailed you. What r u afraid of?

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Federal preemption for MMJ has NEVER been decided by the courts.  There is NO CASE LAW to cite federal preemption over state medical marijuana laws.  This has yet to be challenged in the court of law.  I am pretty confident a great argument can be made that the feds have no authority over state mmj law, so lets not continue to ASSUME federal law prevails here.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Donkey, Please read the Beinor ruling and the appeal, as Beinor does not cite federal law nor does the appeal.  It cites the state constitution.

and as far as #3 and #4 being false, I disagree because of 24-34-402.5.  And my arguement is NOT that they cannot fire you, it is will the state grant you unemployment based on if the firing was legit.  When the firing is NOT legit, one receives unemployment.  Beinor was ruled a legit firing because NO ONE argued the case, so it sets bad case law. 

And at this point I still don't even know what point I made that made that you are arguing me on?  Monkey said "A20 definitely gives you a right to cannabis but it doesn't give you the right to work for anyone you want"  I have not disagreed nor have I ever said "it did give anyone the right to work for anyone you want."  ???

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

besides the age of 21, what is UNIQUE to alcohol regulation? 

Getting a business license is NOT UNIQUE to alcohol.   Being regulated is NOT UNIQUE to alcohol.Being limited to 1 ounce is NOT UNIQUE or even a law with alcohol.You do NOT lose your job for drinking over the weekend. 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

" ... I am a little confused on what your saying I should give up. I understand that you can be fired for use of "illegal drugs". I understand that employers can only regulate an employee's time on the employers clock. I understand that employers can have employment contracts, but can only address things that would impede a job being preformed properly. "

1) correct2) correct3) false4) false

Employees in Colorado are "at will" and can be terminated for any reason* or no reason.

They can be terminated for conduct outside the workplace, legal or illegal, moral or immoral. -- e.g.. teachers can be terminated for "adultery".

Benior was terminated for his use of an illegal substance that's listed on the CSA as Schedule 1.

As such conduct is incontrovertibly illegal under Federal law, the denial of Unemployment Insurance coverage was valid.

* excepting the defined protected classes -- race, religion, sex, etc.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Monkey, I am a little confused on what your saying I should give up.  I understand that you can be fired for use of "illegal drugs".  I understand that employers can only regulate an employee's time on the employers clock.  I understand that employers can have employment contracts, but can only address things that would impede a job being preformed properly. 

Beinor was NOT flying an airplane, he swept the streets and his employer was very clear that his job performance was NEVER in question--NOR was his use of illegal drugs on the work clock, because Jason did not use at work or before going to work--he said he had used in his living room a week and 1/2 before the drug test--he was fired for the SOLE reason that he had "ILLEGAL" drugs in his urine. 

This ruling means--EVEN with a red card--USE has been ruled illegal by the second highest court in the state and IS CURRENTLY the law of the land, no change there because of A20 passage 12 years ago.  If Mr. Beinor had had tested positive for OXY in his drug test and had a script for it, he would NOT have been fired, as his firing was not over poor job performance, but "illegal" drug use. 

I am merely showing that grey language in A20 is experiencing it's demise 12 years later.  I30 will have the same chilling effects as it is just as grey.  I30 actually causes harm by TAKING AWAY RIGHTS Coloradans with jobs CURRENTLY HAVE in 24-34-402.5 CRS

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Icannabis Radio Show

http://johndoeradio.com/archiv...

Mason Tvert, "Anyone who signed the petition, you know, they didn't listen all that well.  Someone hands it to you, they tell you what it's about. Allot of the times people just look it over and sign it really quick without giving it allot of thought."

Clearly it's the proponents also understand and believe the people who are signing "without giving it allot of thought"

Guest
Guest

I wasn't lied to at all. I'm intelligent enough to read the things I vote on and I agree that this bill would legalize certain amOunts of cannabis for people over 21 - much like alcohol.

Monkey
Monkey

I love ya Chippi but you have to let go. A20 definitely gives you a right to cannabis but it doesn't give you the right to work for anyone you want. Many of us sign contracts with employers waiving certain rights for the privilege of employment, such as submitting to drug tests. You're right to cannabis should not prevent the rights of employers to employ people under their own contract. Any employee contract will prevent you from flying a plane with Oxy, alcohol or weed in your bodily fluids, do you really think employers don't have a right to create employment contracts? Why is weed any different than any other legal substance like Oxy or alcohol? If you want cannabis to be treated the same as other intoxicants, you can't exclude it from employment contracts. You don't have the right to ignore employment contracts you sign but you do have the right to cannabis, big difference.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Where is your defense of the quotes above?  No response?  Too shocked you were lied to to get your support?

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

News FLASH:  Apparently the majority of the voters have been misled and voted for A20 BECAUSE they were told it would legalize mmj use.  11 years later the courts said the language did NOT do what the proponents said.

I only vote for language that causes NO HARM.  I voted against A20 because it is so poorly written. 

You can say I am wrong but the Colorado Court of Appeals agrees with me.  Now I know you must find it upsetting, however you should not let your unresolved hatred for me stop your brain from operating and absorbing that the second highest court in Colorado agrees with Kathleen. 

In the Beinor ruling 3 of 3 judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals STATE CLEARLY that the A20 language is poorly written and grey, allowing for 2 of them to rule that patients DO NOT have the RIGHT to USE MMJ, only possess MMJ. 

When a total of over 130,000 patients came out of the proverbial closet thinking MMJ use was legal--because the proponents said they were "legalizing mmj in CO", I'd say this current ruling on A20 language puts everyone one of them at risk or in harms way. 

Guest
Guest

news flash: people still don't care. not everyone is as easily misled and stupid as you. the rest of us know how to read ballot language for ourselves before making a decision to vote on something.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

my "hodgepodge of personal differences" seems to encompass the entire marketing of this language for something it is NOT.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Robert...if transcribing the words that came out of their mouths in regard to legalization and stopping arrests and acknowledging that the "like alcohol" is confusing to voters and hemp could be banned and zero in tax dollars will be guaranteed to schools without an entirely new tax initiative that gets voted on by we the people maybe in 2016?  is me having personal issues than so be it. 

I took the time to transcribe because I KNOW that most people will not spend 4 hours listening to the hearings themselves. 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Was George aWol Bu$h "better than nothing" ??

Coward.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Looks like Guest has a crush on Kathleen ...

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

Fellow activists include those who are paid and those who volunteer and those who are both paid and volunteer. Many very good volunteer activists end up being paid activists because of the good work they do.  I don't discriminate. We should never talk bad about anyone who is working towards ending marijuana prohibition. 

I would love to have a civil conversation with you any day about the meaning of I30, what it will do and what it won't do, and how I believe its the most realistic step in ending the criminalization of adults who use marijuana responsibly. Nonetheless, I would also love to hear your alternative plan for ending marijuana prohibition in Colorado and how you believe that plan could be more successful than I30 this November. 

With that said, I do not have time to bicker and respond on these message boards about all the attacks on I30, but I encourage everyone to read the inititiative themselves and ask themselves if legalizing limited amounts of marijuana for adults is better than the status quo - keeping it a crime to possess or use any amount of marijuana by a healthy adult

 

Guest
Guest

you voted against amendment 20!!!   you chose to deny sick patients access to medical marijuana!!!!  you opposed A20 then opened a marijuana business under the same laws you fought.  you are a hippocrite. now you are fighting initiative 30 that would give adults legal access to marijuana for non medical reasons and you think you are helping marijuana users?  you make me sick chippi!!!

You have zero credibility left!  Fuck you Chippi!

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Josh, I am always paying close attention to words you and the ENTIRE campaign use..........THAT IS WHY I am calling you all out publicly---it"s about the words you all use in I30 and what they LEGALLY mean.  And the proponents say one thing in the title board hearings and a VERY DIFFERENT things when talking to voters.

I notice you are not using the word arrest but now using convictions since I publicly questioned where I30 got it's "11,000 or 7,000 arrests would be prevented" in I30 passes. 

My plan is to EDUCATE the general public so they KNOW WHEN language will SCREW THEM and WHEN language will truly "LEGALIZE" this plant for everyone.  If the general public is not yet prepared to fully LEGALIZE cannabis, than we ALL still have work to do. 

And as far as your pledge to the 11th amendment.............I have explained numerous time that "fellow" activists are not Mason or Brian or Steve Fox.  They are PAID EMPLOYEE"s of national groups that do NOT have Coloradans best interests in their agenda. 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

A20 only provides an "affirmative defense" from CRIMINAL charges, and only in very limited circumstances for small personal use quantities.

It did not create any "protected class" of dope smokers. If it did, stoners could argue that the bans on public display and public use are also unlawful.

The COSC won't even hear the case, as they rarely overturn the Court of Appeals -- less than 5% of the cases.

If they do, you may even get a rather ugly ruling from them that further guts Amendment 20, as happened in the Stacy Clendenin case.

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

Donkey, the Colorado Supreme Court could find that A20 provides an affirmative right to use medical marijuana like the dissent in the Court of Appeals did in Beinor. The issue is undecided, but I sure hope the Colorado Supremes comes out on our side.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

"And that's what the U$ Supreme Court would also rule if they were to take the case -- but they won't take it, as there is no conflict with the other court rulings in California and Montana on the same issue, both of which made the same determination.

Beinor won't be overturned. Amendment 20 only provided an "affirmative defense" toexisting State criminal drug laws."

"As the Monkey suggested -- let Beinior go, there are more important, winnable issues tofight for. "

So says anonymous poster on the westword blogs.  There has only been 1 person who has told me to abandon Beinor and that was Laura Kriho, who would have preferred I put my money into her pocket for her focuses.

But the largest union in Colorado and the attorneys I have spoken to--- do NOT agree with you, whomever you are, to abandon Beinor.  They see it as the biggest employee lawsuit in the country that will set precedent nationwide.  You clearly do not understand that if Beinor is overturned, patients have fundamental rights or maybe you don't understand what that means?  

Do you get the Beinor ruling came down with NO representation of any kind by an attorney?  Do you realize Beinor himself didn't show in Appeals Court?  Your such a hard ass about everything you post and fighting for what you think is right and now I should just bail?  And Kathleen should take your advice on how the state and the feds could rule and just bail on Beinor?  Did anyone else know Donkey had connections to the state supreme court and the federal court?

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

"This is what happened in Beinor and the courts ruled NO ONE has the RIGHT to USE marijuana as it is still illegal."

And that's what the U$ Supreme Court would also rule if they were to take the case -- but they won't take it, as there is no conflict with the other court rulings in California and Montana on the same issue, both of which made the same determination.

Beinor won't be overturned. Amendment 20 only provided an "affirmative defense" toexisting State criminal drug laws.

Employment law, and unemployment insurance coverage, are not criminal drug laws.

It will take a new State initiative -- or legislation -- to provide such a civil protection.

And even then, the Federal CSA criminal prohibition would still represent an avenue for both employment termination and denial of unemployment benefits.

As the Monkey suggested -- let Beinior go, there are more important, winnable issues tofight for.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

I do not understand your point, Donkey.  I am fully aware marijuana is in the CSA and have been saying the I30 language did not remove any criminal penalties from the books.

I am asking Josh to clarify his general statement " If you violate their policies, they do not have to provide unemployment."

because your employer does NOT get to "any" random policies.  24-34-402.5 CRS is something I quoted below.....and I just read your link which discusses 24-34-402.5 but I am unsure of your point?  This was written in Jan 2010--much before the Beinor ruling.  Beinor is now the law of the land until and if the supreme court hears and overturns it as the bad law it is. 

from your link:"Similarly, Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment does not require an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.  However, an employee could claim that they only use medical marijuana at home, when they are not working."

This is what happened in Beinor and the courts ruled NO ONE has the RIGHT to USE marijuana as it is still illegal.

"As previously discussed, under federal law, marijuana use and possession thereof, is illegal and cannot be legalized by state statute." 

and the Colorado Constitution is not state statute, so why this was included eludes me.

But case law shows that constitutional amendments set 'prohibitions' on government's from intruding on individual rights, not limitations on the 'rights' for individuals.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Marijuana *is* in the CSA ... Schedule 1 !

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Here is I30 language:(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.

             (a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.Here is  24-34-402.5  CRS  Life style discrimination(1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction:

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Josh--please cite statute.  The only way your unemployment can be denied is IF you test positive for something in the controlled substances act.  Like you smoke on Sat night and get piss tested on the following Thursday and fail.  Your employer can not fire you for drinking on Sat night and then coming to work UN IMPAIRED on Monday.   And please explain how passage of I30 will prevent ANY of the concerns you mentioned above like losing your house, kids, etc.

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

Actually, it depends on what your employer's policies are. If you violate their policies, they do not have to provide unemployment. 

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

let me correct that--yes they could fire you for drinking on your free time away from work, but you would receive a state unemployment check if you were fired over nonsense.  you would not receive a check for a firing over a hot random piss test or admitted marijuana use to an employer.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Yeah, like I said above, oregano is lethal and regulated, just like all the other lethal products you and your kids can buy and touch in stores every day.  If the current regulations for lethal products are acceptable than they should be more than acceptable regulation for NON LETHAL cannabis.

and no, your employer cannot fire you because you enjoyed alcohol when you are not at work, like say, on the weekend.  if this is like alcohol, why will people who use away from work still be at risk of losing their job for what they do on their own time at a state level? 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Resistance is Futile ... You will be Assimilated.

Surrender now, save yourself the trouble.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

not criminal ...

Correct! ... possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana in Colorado is NOT a criminal offense.

dude
dude

 not criminal unless you get busted more than once.  wow, it's sooooo legal.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Glad you finally admit that Possession of less than 2 ounces of Marijuana in Colorado is NOT a CRIMINAL offense.

"Every lawyer in the state will tell you its a criminal offense."

Why do you lie so much?

No sane competent lawyer would call a non-criminal summary offense a criminal offense.

Ipso facto.

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

Call it what you want. (Every lawyer in the state will tell you its a criminal offense.) But a conviction for possessing marijuana will remain on your criminal background check unless you seal it like any other criminal conviction; can lead to jail; can lead to a probation revocation; can be the basis for an employer to fire you; can be the basis for Social Services to take your children; can be the basis for your ex-wife to take your children; can be the basis of losing federal financial aid for college; can be the the basis for losing a professional license; can be the basis for a landlord evicting your from your house; can be the basis for losing unemployment insurance etc.  The list goes on. 

Massachusetts is the only state with true cannabis decriminalization. There a conviction for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana is an anonymous civil infraction that does not end up on an adults permanent criminal record.

Guest
Guest

"no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption" - sounds totally legal (NOT) - you're an idiot!  that second-time possession sounds real fun...or the third time...or the time with court mandated rehab...

keep dealing that brown schwag donkey.  nobody is going to take legal advice from a schwag dealer like yourself.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

This is all additional charges, things that I30 ALSO does NOT ADDRESS.  We are talking about possession of 2 ounces, (ALREADY better than the backpedaling of 1 ounce in I30 and mmj)---nothing more. 

"Displaying or using the marijuana in public results in the added penalty of up to 15 days in jail. Possession of greater than two ounces is a misdemeanor, punishable by 6-18 months in jail and a fine of$500 - $5,000, plus a $600 surcharge. Possession of greater than 8 ounces of marijuana is a felony, punishable by 1 - 3 years in prison anda fine of $1,000 - $100,000 and a surcharge of $1,125. Generally, subsequent convictions of possession of over two ounces double the possible penalties."

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Yep -- possession of less than 2 ounces is NOT a CRIMINAL offense in Colorado.

What part don't you comprehend?

Guest
Guest

 stupid donkey get your head out of your own ass

"Possession of two ounces or less of marijuana is a petty offense. The offender receives a summons to appear in court, and upon a promise to appear in court, the offender is to be released from detention. The maximum penalty for a violation is $100. Failure to appear at the specified time and location results in the increase of the charges to a misdemeanor. Displaying or using the marijuana in public results in the added penalty of up to 15 days in jail. Possession of greater than two ounces is a misdemeanor, punishable by 6-18 months in jail and a fine of $500 - $5,000, plus a $600 surcharge. Possession of greater than 8 ounces of marijuana is a felony, punishable by 1 - 3 years in prison and a fine of $1,000 - $100,000 and a surcharge of $1,125. Generally, subsequent convictions of possession of over two ounces double the possible penalties."

"The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically,

decriminalizationmeans no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation."

sounds totally legal dude!  (not)  no sane person is going to take legal advice from a criminal like yourself donkey.

http://norml.org/laws/penaltie...

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Boy, you really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Marijuana possession of less than 2 ounces is NOT a criminal offense in Colorado.

It is a non-criminal petty offense.

What part don't you comprehend?

PS: the RIght to a Jury trial does not apply to every petty offense in the State.

Josh Kappel
Josh Kappel

A marijuana conviction shows up on a criminal background check. And that jury trial section applies to every petty offense charge in this state. In other words, the section I cited applies to all petty marijuana possession convictions. Call it criminal or not, it appears on a criminal background check and could land a person in jail . . . 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

When you comprehend the difference between CRIMINAL offense and non-criminal summary offense, get back to us, stoner.

Kong
Kong

Possession is still illegal, just like speeding is illegal. Not a crimininal act on the first offense but it is still illegal. Get your head out of your ass.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You left out the first 6 words -- "For the purposes of THIS section" ...

That section being the right to a Jury Trial in Colorado.

Once again -- Marijuana possession of less than 2 ounces in Colorado is NOT a "criminal offense", even for recreational use without an MMJ card.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...