Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act: Mason Tvert on campaign's allies, challenges

Thumbnail image for mason tvert photograph small.JPG
Mason Tvert.
Update: Now that the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act has been approved for the November ballot (get more details below), proponent Mason Tvert is busily lining up allies for what should be among the season's most interesting campaigns -- and at a 2 p.m. news conference, he'll be introducing three of them. Here's Tvert's preview of the event, as well as the push for a measure that's been officially dubbed Amendment 64.

Expected to speak on behalf of the act Paul Weissmann, former Colorado House Majority Leader and state senator, Rosemary Harris-Lytle, president of the Colorado NAACP, and Denise Maes, director of public policy for the ACLU of Colorado.

paul weissmann.jpg
Paul Weissmann.
"All three of these individuals have expressed support for the initiative," Tvert notes, "and they'll be joining other organizations, including the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, the ACLU as an organization, and the Libertarian Party -- and we expect those kinds of endorsements to continue and even pick up now that the measure is officially on the ballot."

In addition, he continues, "we've received formal support from a number of local elected officials, and we will make that public as the campaign moves forward."

The act hit a speed bump a few weeks back, when the original submission of signatures needed to qualify for the ballot 2,409 short. At the time, Tvert stressed that the campaign wouldn't put on the brakes while more signatures were collected -- "but now we can focus even more intently on making sure the measure passes in November," he says.

Is a big media blitz in the works, complete with television commercials and the like?

"At this point in time, we're focusing on mobilizing an army of grassroots supporters throughout the state and encouraging them to start conversations with their friends, family and others," Tvert replies. "We believe it's this type of word-of-mouth campaign that will insure voters are comfortable taking this step and helping Colorado to become the first state to end marijuana prohibition."

Does he expect federal officials to speak out against the act and perhaps ratchet up enforcement actions of the sort exemplified by U.S. Attorney John Walsh's seizure-threat letters to 23 dispensaries near schools?

"Whether it's medical marijuana or this initiative, we hope the federal government will allow the State of Colorado to handle marijuana in a fashion it believes is the most responsible and the most effective," Tvert says.

Get additional details about today's event below.

Original post, 2:34 p.m. February 27: The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act has reached its goal of qualifying for the November 2012 ballot. Organizers like proponent Mason Tvert needed 86,105 valid signatures to win approval from the Secretary of State's office, but initially fell 2,409 shy. So they gathered more than 14,000 additional signatures to cure the shortfall -- and they wound up with room to spare.

According to the Secretary of State's office, the Regulate campaign initially submitted 163,632 signatures, but 79,936 of them were rejected for one reason or another. Hence, just 83,696 signatures were blessed by the office, leaving the initiative 2,409 of the magic number.

Backers had just over two weeks to solve this problem, and on February 17, several days prior to the deadline, they delivered another 14,151 signatures. The number of signatures deemed invalid from the second batch was over 50 percent: 7,381 of them received a thumbs-down. But that meant 6,770 made the grade, bringing the overall total to 90,466 -- 4,361 more than necessary.

The Regulate forces will mark this achievement tomorrow with a press conference scheduled for 2 p.m. tomorrow at the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol headquarters, 1177 Grant St., 3rd Floor. Check back for a preview of that event, staged on behalf of a measure that will appear on the ballot as Amendment 64 -- a measure that former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson said could eventually lead to the end of marijuana prohibition not just in Colorado, but across the globe.

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."

My Voice Nation Help
147 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

" Amendment 64 would not stop unjust imprisonment for offenses related to cannabis, legalize cannabis, or regulate it like alcohol " -- Robert Chase 

" I acknowledge the fact that plenty of scope will remain for people to be imprisoned for cannabis " -- Robert Chase 

"Clearly what I write about Amendment 64 does not gibe exactly with what the campaign for the Amendment does.  " -- Robert Chase

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

" Amendment 64 would not stop unjust imprisonment for offenses related to cannabis, legalize cannabis, or regulate it like alcohol " -- Robert Chase 

" I acknowledge the fact that plenty of scope will remain for people to be imprisoned for cannabis " -- Robert Chase 

"Clearly what I write about Amendment 64 does not gibe exactly with what the campaign for the Amendment does.  " -- Robert Chase

>>>> Checkmate <<<<

customex
customex

I'm thinking we need something like a way to combine the idea of safe, healthy marijuana culture with broad, far ranging, enterprise zones. It just isn't right to have to be in three way competition with the DEA and the cartels

Denver MMJ Patient
Denver MMJ Patient

While Denver medical marijuana has taken a great step in the right direction, a direction which has helped Colorado have one of the best economies in the nation, I think it's time that Colorado steps out of the box that is prohibition. I agree with Tvert, Colorado medical marijuana, and recreational marijuana alike, should be enforced by the state, in a manner that the people deem reasonable, and responsible.Amendment 64 or not, Colorado medical marijuana, or recreational marijuana, I just want to see Colorado continuing to lead the pack in the matter.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

W.R.T. the first part of your post -- yuck!

If you want Colorado to "lead the pack in the matter" of marijuana,

This November legalize cultivation of a little cannabis for personal use.

******* VOTE YES ON A64! *******

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

" I acknowledge the fact that plenty of scope will remain [under Amendment 64] for people to be imprisoned for cannabis " -- Robert Chase

Law Enforcement thanks you !

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Police_Operative, you have inserted a falsehood into that quote -- plenty of scope would remain to charge people under provisions already in the Colorado Revised Statutes (not "under Amendment 64").

pinksoap
pinksoap

Huh.

No criminal actors can participate in the sale of marijuana? How far does that go? You mean no felons... And no more residency requirements? Wtf happened there? Oh, you mean I get to compete with foreigners and members of the NCIA now. Driving under the influence shall remain illegal? You mean it agrees with the bill we just faught that said the exact same thing? Gotcha. Consumption in the open or public shall not be permissive? You mean we'll never be able to have establishments SIMILAR to alcohol establishments? Ever.......? There goes our idea of a social scene. And what about the Drug War? Have we forgotten what this is all about? I don't see anything remotely close to stopping felony arrests in this amendment. Have we all forgotten what we're fighting for? I believe A64 is great when it comes to situations regarding possession-of-small-amounts protection, but why not have marijuana removed from Title 18/CSA? Why? You can't tell me they couldn't put that in there, because that's horseshit.

If we're gonna regulate like alcohol, why not treat it that way? Why not make the same penalties for marijuana equivalent to those like alcohol? When's the last time you got pulled over with cases of beer or alcohol in your car and became a drug felon as a result? 

People need to realize this is going in our f*cking Constitution. This isn't like 1284. There is no "we'll fix it later," nonsense. This is some serious shit, and there are only a handful of people who have actually read it and can see the holes. These people are the ones you say are stoners against legalization, because they're thinking about the majority who will remain effected by these horrible, draconian drug laws. Sure, if that's your definition.  

There's a huge difference between activists and paid employees. Can you guess which side has your best interest at heart? Yet you call these people names. 

The same people "sworn" to protect us are the same ones writing language meant to screw us. They have the means necessary to control the industry. Why do you think they left residency out? Because the ones with all the money and all the contacts don't live in Colorado. They live in California, Washington DC, Virginia, New York, Netherlands, must I go on... I don't know why people can't see right through this horribly written language.

Had they addressed felony arrests and had marijuana taken off the CSA, I would be standing out in the snow rubbing my nipples on Colfax collecting signatures. But the idea that I would simply vote something through just so I can have the freedom to smoke silly amounts of weed at a Phish show is just dumb. Is it better than nothing? If you say so. 

Rico
Rico

Am 64 does not address 98% of the marijuana language in Colorado controlled substance act  and title 18, the very same laws created to enforce the federal prohibition of marijuana. This would make all Coloradans subject to lose their fire arms, drivers licenses, jobs, homes and any occupational licenses and or unemployment benefits. As for cultivation it actually doesn't stop arrests for 6 plants because any thing north of 8 ounces would remain a felony with intent to distribute based on net weight alone and no other factors. All parts of the plant are defined as contraband under the Colorado CSA. So there will be no grows that are under 8 ounces with respect to collective net weight. All the feel good baby steps marketing does not remove the law of the land which is the Beinor and Watkyns rulings. 

Ultimately wether Am 64 passes or not it will not provide any true protections as it does not address federal preemption and or the CSA under Colorado law. Most proponents I have heard clearly have not read the language and the little who have cannot clearly articulate the legal implementation of the language. The repeal of alcohol prohibition wasn't in "baby steps". This language was drafted in part by criminal defense attorneys and it sets them up rather comfy for the foreseeable future. What am 64 will do is kick out the red carpet for large scale federal intervention which is already under way because of am 64 aka i30. This was the same cheap tactics used by the Feds during prop 19 in California. The endorsement of the ACLU and others funded by the same people who funded am 64 is of no real value. Until people learn to fact check we will be left with half logic and misleading catch phrase like "regulate marijuana like alcohol" Which is not the title btw and for good legal reason. It isn't legalization and those who keep saying that are not educated on the facts of the matter and or the very specific legal concept there in. The best they can muster is the tried and true yet tired "you want to regulate like tomatoes" and in this case oregano argument that originates form the prop 19 wars. Most reasonable adults favor true legalization which includes regulation to prevent use by minors. The real question is how much regulation and will Coloradans get the opportunity to actually vote for legalization in 2012 instead of profit prohibition designed to benefit a few while keeping the majority of the drug war complex in place? For the am 64 proponents out there for example take note of the 3 tenths percent THC language in the hemp provision you do know that includes all marijuana on planet earth correct? Hemp is defined as 3 tenths of a percent. If you can't even read the language what kind of proponent are you exactly?

What I am curious to see is will any of the reporters actually do their home work and inform the public of the legal ramifications of this grey language? Amendment 20 and the resulting cases shows use exactly what will happen with am 64. Suthers will have a field day and legally could have the language thrown out as unconstitutional given the danger it presents to the public. You cannot pass a law that forces citizens to commit a crime or places them in harms way (legally). Since marijuana was left in the Colorado CSA it creates exactly that situation. Until federal preemption is resolved in the courts/or constitution all Coloradans will be subject to the same pattern of abuse that MMJ patients have dealt with for years. The westword should consider interviewing a experienced constitutional attorney (not Rob Corry) on am 64 that does not have a vested interest in either position and print the legal analysis of the implementation of am 64 in light of the rulings I have cited above. I think it is safe to assume some random screen name and or guest poster will respond stating they have read the language and can think for themselves Ect... Ect.......

But provides little to no real substance in that post and resorts to name calling and or character assassination to demonstrate their superior mature logic and reasonable mindset. Am 64 is loaded with loop holes and pit falls. But most are bedazzled by the money that went into the signature gathering and are of the notion that might equals right. What ever happened to ending prohibition? Now define prohibition and not in emotional feel good terms but what it means in blacks law dictionary. Does am 64 do that? No it doesn't. Does that make Mason Tvert and or any of the other proponents a bad person? No it doesn't. When are we as a Coloradans going to have an adult conversation about that language line by line? Guess single sentence responses are all the rage these days.

Matt in Boulder
Matt in Boulder

Rico - you seem to have studied A 64 quite a bit.  How about if you take your own advice and do a line-by-line analysis of what is wrong with it? 

Carter Jenson
Carter Jenson

i agree.  rico can you please provide your analysis?  there is obviously allot of confusion.  for all of our sakes please share!

Newtotown
Newtotown

I SECOND THAT--EVEN THOUGH I DONT KNOW WHO THE HECK YOU ARE.  ARE YOU AN ATTORNEY?  NO MATTER.  INTERESTED IN MORE INFO.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

 He has and  it looks like your not going to like the analysis.  IT SUCKS.  But I will let Rico respond.

SomeGuy
SomeGuy

I think the repeal of alcohol prohibition was in baby steps on the state level.  Look at many of the bible belt states and you will see a patchwork of local alcohol laws that vary by county.  On the federal level though alcohol wasn't repealed in baby steps but it took several states supporting alcohol use before the feds changed their alcohol policy.  How many states currently allow adults to use marijuana legally for recreation?  Zero.  Marijuana prohibition won't get repealed on the federal with zero states allowing recreational marijuana.  Amendment 64 would be a good start to ending marijuana prohibition.  Amendment 64 would make marijuana in colorado more legal than marijuana in amsterdam...please think about that before you vote. 

No on 64
No on 64

Am. 64 creates MORE marijuana prohibition laws and creates MORE funding for DOR pot cops to go out and bust pot smokers. It sets up a situation where you will have one group of pot smokers funding the police to put the other group of pot smokers in jail. You call this a baby-step? Giving the cops MORE money to bust us? It will result in MORE arrests for marijuana, not fewer. It is modeled after HB1264, which has been a proven FAILED model of mmj distribution. No on 64! Don't be fooled by the lies. It is not "legalization", and the proponents agree. They call it regulation. Read the facts. Don't be a sheeple.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You sound like the cowardly piss-pant Repugs who assert that  the Attack, Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was "better than nothing".

Oh the shame !!

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

No it does not -- if opponents keep relying on their more-than-strained inferences and the disinclination or inability of some to read and understand the Amendment, they will succeed only in adding perhaps 1% of our votes to those of the prohibitionist cartel in November.

The regulation of commercial cultivation and sales of non-medical cannabis definitely should not be our primary focus; no one is likely to proceed until Federal law is changed, and the primary effect of the Amendment will be to legalize personal cultivation of up to six plants.  The creation of regulations governing commercial cultivation and sale of cannabis itself represents the potential diminution of criminal liability -- violating a regulation is not quite the same as committing dire felonies.

You write:  "read the facts" -- I have, and I am persuaded that Amendment 64 is considerably better than nothing, and there is no prospect for an improvement in the laws about cannabis in 2012 if we reject it.  Oppponents of the Amendment have not been able to form a coherent argument against it based on facts -- just inaccurate, inflammatory claims calculated to appeal to people who have not been paying much attention to the details.  I think I made a cogent enough case for the Amendment above -- note that no opponent has attempted to respond at all, much less point-by-point.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

You make several good points, but the essence of Amendment 64's legal effect will be to legalize the cultivation of up to six plants.  Amendment 64's invalidation of just 2% of the CSA will prevent many felony charges, prosecutions, and sentences, and that is worth supporting.

P.S. "Etc." is the abbreviation for "et cetera", which means "and the rest". It is properly used as a substitute for the continuation of a series of descriptions. The ellipsis (...) is primarily used to indicate the omission of a word, sentence, or section from quoted text.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Again with the LIES!

A64 will create felons out of fools via the contradictory and impossible WEIGHT limits.

The TOTAL weight of the 6 plants cannot be more than 8 OUNCES !!

It's a fools errand, only a non-grower or law enforcement shill would promote or support it.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

"Legalize it like oregano" -- that is an imperative.

Who are you commanding, and what makes you imagine that they will comply?

This November legalize cultivation of a little cannabis for personal use.

******* VOTE YES ON A64! *******

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

What an incisive argument -- not!

What are you trying to say about Amendment 2?  Amendment 64 will certainly pass the rational basis test, and it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.  Do I have to demolish arguments you are too lazy even to state?

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Wrong again.

See Colorado's Amendment 2 

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Amendment 64 is not in the Constitution yet -- the Courts must abide by it when it is.  You have not responded to this fact.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

 The Beinor and Watkins rulings are the current law of the land.  The constitution is 'clarified' in these 2 rulings until the are overturned. period.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

You are completely wrong -- you know full well that constitutional provisions trump statutory ones. 

Amendment 64 (3) Personal Use of Marijuana.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OF FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:...(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT  THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.

No felony, no prison time, and no forfeiture (under the operation of State law, of course)

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

You know it's (8 ounces) in the CSA--you sat at the CCJJ meeting with me.  Felony with prison time! 

Not to mention if the property owner (including banks for people who don't own outright) can still lose their houses through seizure for 1 plant. 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Robert Chase says  A64 allows for " ... the fact that plenty of scope will remain for people to be imprisoned for cannabis"

John Suthers and Reich-wing DA's in Jeffco, Adams, Larimer, Weld and prohibitionist Law Enforcement Goons thank you !

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

A64 doesn't "invalidate" any of Colorado's Criminal Marijuana Statutes anymore than Amendment 20 did -- all those Criminal Drug Statutes REMAIN in force as the law of the land.

If you want to LEGALIZE marijuana in Colorado, all you have to do is REMOVE and STRIKE the existing CRIMINAL STATUTES ... instead of trying to dance around them with specious dysfunctional initiatives like A64.

No plant countsNo weight limitsNo licensesNo DOR CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT goons

Just LEGALIZE it like Oregano !!

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Your assertion is false -- I acknowledge the fact that plenty of scope will remain for people to be imprisoned for cannabis, but legalizing the cultivation of up to six plants is bound to make it harder to keep those numbers up.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

No -- you were and remain completely wrong on this point, as I have attempted to explain to you several times -- you just aren't taking in anything which does not support your preconceptions.  I know that if Amendment 64 passes, it will invalidate any and all of Colorado's statutory penalties for possession of cannabis kept on the premises where it was legally grown (and had you not become unhinged on this subject, you would know that too).

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Robert doesn't care if 1000s of ignorant pot users are lured into prison by the false pretenses, loopholes, contradictions and functional impossibilities of A64.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

So why give the same anti-marijuana prohibitionist politicians and DOR CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT Goons unrestricted REGULATION authority over recreational marijuana?

You vote the same as the jackbooted DOR CRIMINAL enFORCEment thugs.

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

 But there IS in the CSA which this language leaves in TACT!  Robert--we sat in the CCJJ meetings together.  8 ounces or more is a 1-24 year sentence dependent on the situation.  You know that.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Of course I do not trust them -- what an irrelevancy!  The members of the Colorado General Assembly somehow manage to hold office and exercise power without benefit of my trust.

Vote to legalize cultivation of up to six cannabis plants -- vote for Amendment 64!

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

And you trust the same prohibitionist law-enforcement politicians who created HB1284 and its myriad rulemakings so much that you'd give them unlimited REGULATORY authority over A64.

Idiot!

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

No.  You really ought to read the Amendment -- there is no limitation on the weight of cannabis grown or accumulated by means of legal cultivation.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Why do you lie ?

The contradictory weight limits make anyone growing 6 plants a FELON on per se weight alone.

The absurdity of running a sustainable personal supply with only 6 plants -- 6 including all clones, all veg and all flowering plants -- is only promoted by idiots who've never actually grown, or by vile shills for the Justice System attempting to lure more fools into prison.

You should be ashamed Robert, you're better than this.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Robert Chase promotes A64 which he says allows for " ... the fact that plenty of scope will remain for people to be imprisoned for cannabis"

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

 - are you laboring under the (bizarre) misapprehension that they were talking about what the state of the law would be were Amendment 64 to pass? "

NO. 

"Beinor and Watkins have diddly-squat to do with Amendment 64, "

You are wrong and when the attorney does his review, you will hopefully understand why.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

If repetition makes for a cogent argument, you all are halfway there.  Beinor and Watkins have diddly-squat to do with Amendment 64, which is not yet part of the Constitution.  If and when it is, the courts will be obliged to abide by it.  The State CSA is subordinate to all provisions of the Constitution of Colorado.  You keep making reference to the one meeting of the CCJJ we attended -- are you laboring under the (bizarre) misapprehension that they were talking about what the state of the law would be were Amendment 64 to pass?  How many times does it have to be said before you make a responsive reply?

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

That's right -- it is so much better to keep it a felony to germinate even a single seed.

You must work for the DEA.

Keep to your principle of completely ignoring the political reality that most voters will not accept regulating cannabis like oregano -- all the cannabis users who do not vote or think are with you!

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

Except this language DOES NOT do that---it says it but it will NOT STAND in the court of law ---it will be shot down, hell it's already BEEN shot down in Beinor and now Watkyns!

You sat in the CCJJ meeting with me and you heard 8 ounces or more is 1-24 years prison dependent on your situation.  They did not remove the penalties from the CSA.  How many times does it have to be said? 

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Why? 

You don't even grow -- if you did you'd know how absurd and unworkable a 6 plant TOTAL, including clones, veg and flower -- with no more than THREE in flower production -- actually is.

Got 4 plants in flower? = FELONYGot 3 in flower and 4 baby clones? = FELONY

Got more than 8 ounces total? = FELONY

With "friends" like you, who needs the DEA ?

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Liar!  I support ending the criminalization of the cultivation of six or fewer plants, and you oppose it.

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

Robert Chase supports HB1284 for EVERYONE !!

Kathleen Chippi
Kathleen Chippi

  ANOTHER PROBLEM: 

Industrial hemp is defined as: "Means the plant of genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three tenths percent on a dry weight basis"

three tenths percent MEANS 30% people! 

So industrial hemp is ALL (parts of the plant) cannabis that is LESS THAN 30% THC DRY WEIGHT? 

Think about it---(Robert especially)... 

THE BEST MEDICAL cannabis (THC%'s) is measured by ACTIVE compounds in the BUDS--not he ENTIRE plant. 

This HUGE FLAW would mean that ALL MMJ can be argued in the court of law as industrial hemp.

Why is that a problem?  Well A64 also FORCES the General Assembly ("shall intact") to pass legislation on the regulation of industrial hemp.  And as the transcripts from the I30 title board hearings show:

June 15, 2011 tilte board hearing:minute 11:30 secondsMr. Hobbs, per industrial hemp, "They have to act but it DOESN'T GIVE THEM ANY GUIDANCE on what to do so I suppose the General Assembly can enact a law that says there will be no regulation of cultivation, processing or sale of industrial hemp.  Is that accurate?" Mr. Fox, "If that interpretation is there, than yeah, that would be an option for them.  Yeah.  We would hope the interpretation of this would be a directive that they should affirmatively regulate it .  But if they chose to do otherwise, WE WILL BE STUCK WITH IT."

Anybody feel screwed now? 

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Vote to legalize cultivation of up to six cannabis plants -- vote for Amendment 64!

Donkey Hotay
Donkey Hotay

You've been exposed as a lying shill for A64 ... which you finally confessed is nothing but HB1284 for everyone.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

Why do you resort to libel?  Because you have no argument.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...