Marijuana initiatives: Why three alternatives to Amendment 64 didn't make ballot

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for marijuana plants under lights.JPG
Last February, when Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, was approved for the November ballot, backers of several other pot-related measures, including Initiative 70, Legalize2012's proposal and the Relief for the Possession of Cannabis Act, were trying to duplicate this feat. But at the Monday deadline set by the Colorado Secretary of State's office, none of their proponents submitted any signatures -- meaning voters won't get the chance to consider their proposals. How close did they come to consideration? And what obstacles proved insurmountable?

Thumbnail image for kathleen chippi photo.jpg
Kathleen Chippi.
Initiative 70, whose most prominent advocates were Rico Colibri, president of the Cannabis Alliance for Regulation & Education (CARE) and longtime marijuana activist Kathleen Chippi, definitely wasn't a clone of Amendment 64. Here's how our William Breathes described it in an April post:

The measure would make consumption, possession and limited personal cultivation a constitutional right in Colorado -- legal for anyone 21 and up -- and would allow commercial cannabis sales, regulated similarly to existing tobacco sales. In addition, the proposal would remove any of the current laws and penalties associated with cannabis use, distribution and cultivation. And it would also pave the way for industrial hemp in Colorado by demanding agricultural regulations from the Department of Agriculture.

This week, we contacted Colibri to ask how many signatures were collected and why the proposal fell short of its goal. In response, Chippi sent a statement written in both of their names. It reads:

I-70 campaign is extremely enthusiastic with the significant amount of signatures we gathered in the limited amount of time we had available. We concur with the opinion of certain senators and MMED officials that unfortunately no language will pass this year as a result of many social and political factors. We are confident with the appropriate time and funds we will pass our language in the near future. We are actively seeking community input and assistance in perfecting our language and our fundraising efforts.

Thumbnail image for laura kriho photo.jpg
Laura Kriho.
Legalize2012 was actually the first group to start the process of putting together an initiative for the upcoming election, launching a website in November 2010, around the time the marijuana legalization measure known as Proposition 19 was rejected by voters in California. A series of meetings took place over the next year plus, with a final draft completed early this year. Here's how proponent Laura Kriho described it to us in this excerpt from a January report:

"We remove all of the criminal statutes related to marijuana," she says. "It sets up an independent commission composed of cannabis experts, who'll implement the rest of the law and write commercial regulations -- and our qualification for commercial regulation is that it not be onerous and burdensome...."

In addition, the Re-legalization Act "establishes cannabis as a fundamental right in Colorado" -- an issue that came to the fore due to a court case involving Jason Beinor, a medical marijuana patient who lost his street-sweeping job after testing positive for pot. "That's why Amendment 20 is falling down in the courts, and we clear that up."

In the end, though, the campaign was short-circuited.

"We never even printed petitions," Kriho says, explaining that we had "no money.

"You get all the politics you can afford," she goes on, "and we couldn't afford to do it. We had done initiatives in '92 and '94, and we also didn't have enough money to get them on the ballot -- and it's very demoralizing to lead people all the way through a campaign to have that happen. I vowed not to do that again unless we had enough money to finish it, and we didn't."

The story is similar but not identical when it comes to the Relief for the Possession of Cannabis Act, officially known as Initiative 40.

Page down to read more about Initiative 40, as well as responses from advocates about whether or not they'll support Amendment 64.


My Voice Nation Help
68 comments
audreyhatfield
audreyhatfield

Join us this Thursday (September 27) in Colorado Springs at The Penrose Library (20 N. Cascade) in The Carnagie room at 7pm for a Town Hall Q&A on A64! Questions may be submitted to audrey@c4cpr.org

the420rev
the420rev

the real problems are the people, especially signing and helping get signatures for the ballot, if all of you worked as hard to help the other initiatives as you all do bitching and complaining there would be legalized weed already it only takes 50 signatures gathered by 2000 people to get on the ballot, Just a FYI

WaywardBill
WaywardBill

It's a shame that the smorgasbord of Colorado cannabis initiatives didn't transpire.

 

We are now stuck with Amendment 64....hmmm....sensibility vs prohibitionism...hmmm...such a fine line on the cleaning tray....do I go down in history being sensible, a prohibitionist, or a sensible prohibitionist?  I'll take the latter!

 

VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 64!

 

It's big box bud biz aka carpetbaggers hiding behind the guise of Sensible Colorado and S.A.F.E.R. Amendment 64 is a prelude to corporate cannabis. Follow the money.

 

Also it leaves 18-20 year age bracket butt out in the wind. With the likes of Pat Robertson calling for regulating marijuana like alcohol because of the stigma (being arrested for weed) it gives youth for the rest of their lives. Amendment 64 is contrary to this and their campaigned used Pat Robertson's comment out of context.

 

Finally it puts in place the 5 nanogram Driving Under The Influence of Drugs ie; cannabis into effect as a law enforcement tool. I and others have just spent the last two legislative sessions to prevent the cannabis DUID blood draws and Amendment 64 backdoors all that hard work.  We won by luck and attrition!

 

Amendment 64 is crafted for law enforcement and corporate cannabis!

VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 64

Peace, Pot, Politics,

Wayward Bill Chengelis

Chairman, US Marijuana Party

Juan_Leg
Juan_Leg

The main problem w/ the collection of signatures is in it's accumulation process.

When people go around the parking lots of concerts or up and down the 16st Mall,

many collected are from non-registered voters OR they sign it more than once.

This is absolute HELL for organizers and to all the volunteers who have participated in

the Amendment.

I have always felt the solution is to go door to door and keep IMMACULATE records,

preventing the obstacles that have plagued the legalization from it's true ,organized origins...

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

Just pass a legalization...... sorry DonkeyHotay, regulation measure already !!! If A64 passes it will have a domino effect for sure! A64 all the way !!!!  

 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

You should describe the process by which an Inititative is certified to petition.  Initiatives 58 and 65 (doctor discretion in the recommendation of medical cannabis) were not filed with the Secretary of State, so of course they never got to the signature collection phase.  I would have been happy to vote for any and all of Initiatives 40, 58, 65, and 70 had they been certified as Amendments for the ballot.

 

Amendment 64 is now the only choice voters who want to disestablish Prohibition have during this election, and probably until 2014 at the earliest.  To declare it not unlawful for adults to use and grow some cannabis is a revolutionary improvement in the Law, even if the Amendment only lessens criminal liability for cannabis.  Voters who do not use cannabis will have far more to do with determining the fate of anti-Prohibition measures than those who do, because we are outnumbered at least four to one.  Support what liberalization of our cannabis laws you can, because this is the People's choice, not that of the fascists in the General Assembly.

 

*******   Vote Yes on Amendment 64!   *******

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Simple answer -- the other initiatives didn't have access to George Soros' multi-million $$$$ war chest.

 

Since hiring PAID signature gatherers is legal in Colorado, any inititative, no matter how pathetic, can get "on the ballot" given a sufficient lead time for those PAID petitioners to do their jobs.

 

The disadvantaged initiatives are the true grass-roots issues that are underfunded and must rely on part-time volunteers.

 

Democracy is For Sale in the U$A ... always has been, even more so since the Citizens United ruling.

 

May the Highest $$$ Bidder Win !!

Anon
Anon

More fracturing of the legalization movement by selfish people. I think many of these people work for the anti-MJ lobby. 

One ounce is plenty for one person. If you do not like it, then go buy another ounce every few weeks. If you really need more, then make two trips to the store. One ounce constitutes responsible consumption. 

64 says that you can have 6 plants, 3 of which can be flowering. If it is grown in rotation, then it is enough to exceed the amount one individual would consume on a regular basis.  If it is not enough for your personal consumption, then you can always supplement it with MJ from a store. Once again, it is far superior than the present system.

Because this is a groundbreaking alteration to the law, it should be for people 21 and up, in order to gain support from people who would normally vote against such a measure. If the bill is make-or-break because an 18 year old kid can not legally smoke, then I think you have your priorities mixed up.

 

It is really sad that people who believe in legalization would rather have prohibition than to have a new experiment in legalization. Voting yes on 64 is the first step in the gradual end of prohibition. To vote no, just because you do not have the shinny perfect bill you hope for, works against what could be the largest step forward the legalization movement has ever experienced.

 

Voting YES on 64 is the moral thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the first step, and it is far better than keeping things as they are. 

 

sandydog
sandydog

IMHO it looks like the marijuana users are dividing up.  Med vs Rec.   Too bad.  Come on people, don't let the prohibitionists divide us.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

Alaska decriminalized personal possession back in 1975 ... then RE-criminalized it in 2006 ...

 

... you're a few dominoes short of Pai Gow.

 

That "effect" you feel is the delusion of your bong smoke.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @RobertChase  said thus:

 

***************************************************************************

 

"Amendment 64 would not stop unjust imprisonment for cannabis, 

legalize cannabis, or regulate it like alcohol."-- Robert Chase

 

"There is no doubt that if Amendment 64 passes, prohibitionist cops

who think that they can get away with it could harass home-cultivators"

-- Robert Chase

 

"[A64 is] a regime of unnecessarily harsh or restrictive regulations on

the use of cannabis" -- Robert Chase

 

"[A64 is full of] unnecessary limitations and regulations" -- Robert Chase

 

"I am not even a registered patient." -- Robert Chase

 

********************************************************************************

Mr_Fuhk_Hughson
Mr_Fuhk_Hughson

 @DonkeyHotay Are you aware that every single post you make completely discredits anything you have to say? You are a fuck-head and should go die in a fire. If you have a problem with pot then move to some ass-backwards state like Mississippi. I'm sure they'd be glad to have a piece of shit like you helping to vote for the status quo. One more thing: burn in hell.

Just_Say_No_A64
Just_Say_No_A64

Westword: CAn you even tell what is going on in these threads??? Who is replying to what? WTF! This must be the most inefficient commenting system ever invented.

Just_Say_No_A64
Just_Say_No_A64

 @Anon You honestly think giving the DOR constitutional authority to police (er, I mean, "regulate") cannabis in any way they please and with the funding to perform their mandate constitutionally-guaranteed is BETTER than what we have now? Yes, by all means, vote for A64 then, right after you have yourself sterilized so you can't reproduce.

amkon
amkon

 @Anon I like Oregon's the best any initiative that moves the law forward I support.

Just_Say_No_A64
Just_Say_No_A64

 @Anon Prohibition of alcohol didn't end "one ounce at a time", and there is no reason to believe that cannabis prohibition has to end "gradually." Will your mission be done then, after the one ounce of freedom you gain? Or will you immediately turn around and begin to work to repeal A64 in favor of two ounces (which we already have, by the way)? If you just want to repeal it again next year, why vote for it in the first place? You really need to think some of what you say through.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @sandydog Only a fool can't see that their interests are inherently divided.

 

.

Just_Say_No_A64
Just_Say_No_A64

 @sandydog A64 proponents are the prohibitionists:

A64 prohibits:

- possession of more than one ounce

- cultivation of more than 3 plants

- all possession and cultivation for 18-21 year olds

 

You can't take back your freedom one ounce at a time!

 

We already have 2 ounces decriminalized in Colorado. Why would we go backwards and put 1 ounce in the Constitution???? Takes millions of dollars to change the constitution, as we have seen.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Just_Say_No_A64 

 

Not only does livefyre suck eggs for functionality, it appears that verall comment activity has fallen sharply to 20% of what it was with Disqus.

 

That's got to hurt their already shrinking revenue stream now that the Ca$h Cow of MMJ advertising has dwindled to 10% of what it was 2 years ago -- before HB1284 ... which Westword helped the shysters pimp and promote as "legitimizing" the industry ... LOL!

 

Reap what ye sow, fools !!

 

ps: Robert Chase was incessantly complaining to WW that he didn't like Disqus, that they should dump it, because he couldn't figure out how to use it properly.

.

 

 

amkon
amkon

 @Just_Say_No_A64 It is really annoying. I think the first name that shows up is the person you're responding to.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @Just_Say_No_A64  @Anon More of your bullshit!  The DOR is not going to be regulating anything more if Amendment 64 passes -- no one is going to apply for a State license to sell cannabis to any adult retail knowing that the Feds will come down like a ton of bricks if they do.  The Amendment declares that it shall not be unlawful for adults to use and grow some cannabis -- those are its functional provisions, not the distractions on whiich opponents endlessly fixate!

amkon
amkon

 @Just_Say_No_A64  @Anon There are details I certainly don't agree with but the overall bill is fuck you to the feds get out of my body and that's drastically better than what we have now.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon 

 

A64 = a Step BACKWARDS!

 

Don't be a fool.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @Just_Say_No_A64  @Anon Opponents of the Amendment have never been able to formulate a coherent case against it -- they just snipe!

 

Of course the fight will not be over if we pass Amendment 64.  It is not now legal to possess any amount of cannabis; your vague claim that "we already have" two ounces is bullshit!  If passed, we should work to attack our laws against cannabis more broadly, not simply agitating to increase the limit on how much may be carried in public.

amkon
amkon

 @Just_Say_No_A64  @Anon 

 

"Prohibition of alcohol didn't end "one ounce at a time", and there is no reason to believe that cannabis prohibition has to end "gradually.""

That's exactly what has been happening the last 40 years. 17 states & DC have medical, 16 states have decriminalized, at least 2 more will be voting on medical in the fall, and 3 states are voting on some form of legalization.

 

Alcohol prohibition happened state by state perhaps not ounce by ounce.

sandydog
sandydog

 @DonkeyHotay"only a fool"  You don't like people disagreeing with you.    You do know what they say about opinions don't you?  If you have to resort to insulting and name calling you've lost the argument.

sandydog
sandydog

 @Just_Say_No_A64 One ounce at a time.  Not that bad.  When you run out you can go buy more.  Is that 3 plants each.   I think it will be very hard to get any law passed for people under 21.  A lot of people want weed like alcohol.  Decriminalized is not legalization.

amkon
amkon

 @Just_Say_No_A64 It doesn't go backwards 2 ounces would still be decriminalized, 1 ounce would be legalized meaning no penalty for possession.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @RobertChase 

 

This from the same dilettante who got caught COLD LYING about A64, who supports and countenances the rabid lies of the other A64 pimps, who was DEAD WRONG on the legal scope of the CDPHE database privacy issue, who can't even calculate 2/3 of 25, and who by their own declaration is "not even a registered patient".

 

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon Stay stoned and stupid, you "anarchist" you ...

 

amkon
amkon

 @DonkeyHotay Good luck getting your fairy tale legalization law passed on a first try. I also wish you the best in dealing with your anger issues. I'd pass you some ak47 but I don't know how to do that over the net.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon 

 

It tells the Feds that Colorado is full if gutless political cowards who will surrender for a pathetic ounce.

 

-- It tells the Feds that Colorado ADMITS that marijuana is too harmful and dangerous even for 10s of thousands of ADULTS < 21 to be allowed ANY access to it.

 

-- It tells the Feds that Colorado ADMITS that marijuana is too harmful and dangerous for anyone < 21 to be allowed to grow even a SINGLE PLANT, under CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

 

-- It tells the Feds that Colorado ADMITS that marijuana is too harmful and dangerous even for anyone to have possession of more than 1 (one) ounce, under PENALTY OF LAW.

 

-- It tells the Feds that Colorado ADMITS that marijuana is too harmful and dangerous for anyone over twenty one to be allowed to grow more than 3 (three) flowering plants, under severe CRIMINAL PENALTIES if they do.

 

-- It tells the Feds that Colorado ADMITS that marijuana is too harmful and dangerous for any consenting adults to sell even a single gram to their friends -- under CRIMINAL PENALTY. 

 

-- It tells the Feds that Colorado will accept ANY level of Government Control and ANY level of TAXATION upon their marijuana use, possession or production.

 

-- It tells the Feds that Colorado ADMITS that Marijuana is as Harmful and Dangerous as ALCOHOL, and must be regulated like deadly alcohol.

 

Those are the inherent, immutable "messages" in A64, you daft drooling dipshit.

 

So go ahead Numbnuts -- Send your "Message"

 

 

 

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon  LOL!

 

In your "anarchist" view --  Cocaine is currently "legal" in the U$A.

 

Keep flailing fool.

 

 

amkon
amkon

 @DonkeyHotay Alcohol is legal under certain circumstances, you have to be 21, you can't drink and drive etc. Same with tobacco except you have to be 18 and its less restrictive. Sale to minors is illegal for both. They are considered legal drugs. But let's not let facts get in the way of our viewpoints eh.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon  "Legalization is a spectrum"

 

LOL! --- there's another one for the Archive of Shame

 

A "spectrum" for gutless cowards and spineless surrender-monkeys like you.

 

*There is no such thing as part freedom* -- Nelson Mandela

 

*There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free, or you are not free*.-- Walter Cronkite

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Just_Say_No_A64  @amkon  @Anon 

 

The self-proclaimed "anarchist", amkon, lives in an alternate universe where anarchy = complete submission to Big Government Regualtion, Taxation and Control.

amkon
amkon

 @Just_Say_No_A64  @Anon Legalization is a spectrum. While I would prefer cannabis be regulated like tomatoes I don't think that has any possibility of happening in the near future, let alone ever. It'll most likely be regulated like alcohol and tobacco, sold in state run or convenience-style stores with nonprofit gifts being legal. Growth for personal consumption will be legal as well as hemp. Any step that gets us towards that ultimate goal is progress.

Just_Say_No_A64
Just_Say_No_A64

 @amkon  @Anon Then let's end cannabis prohibition in its entirety state-by-state? "Legalization" has more than 50% support in Colorado supposedly. Most people think of "legalization" as removal of all penalties. So if we have the support, why are these monied interests trying to make a police state out of cannabis "regulation"?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon  @Just_Say_No_A64  @Anon 

 

Another clueless stoner, always wanting to talk about ALCOHOL when the subject is Marijuana, always wanting to talk about ancient political times -- when WOMEN and BLACKS weren't even allowed to vote -- when the subject is political realities of 2012.

Seriously.
Seriously.

 @DonkeyHotay 

 

You actually keep running lists of Robert Chase quotes somewhere in your life? 

 

SEEK HELP.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @sandydog So go ahead and take your direction from NORML ... and support an utterly ineffective, dysfunctional, unsustainable initiative written FOR law enforcement -- says so in the preamble -- to appease the non-users, non-growers and prohibitionists voters.

 

A "step forward" ... into a steaming pile of putrid excrement, where you will wallow for the next 12+ years.

.

 

 

sandydog
sandydog

 @DonkeyHotay I don't mind you educating me about the facts of A64, but you're not doing that.  I read the amendment, I dont' like a lot of it.  Personally I don't think there should be limits for having, using or growing.   No, I don't grow 3 plants. lololol I wish 3 plants was enough, those would be really big plants.  I was told by NORML that it's about politics, and what they think will pass with the voters.   

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @sandydog Where are you going to BUY your pathetic 1 ounce if A64 passes, eh fool ?

 

Or are you one of those mythical 3-plant farmers who can manifest a sustainable personal supply under such absurdly laughable limitations?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @sandydog "My understanding is" ... ZERO!

 

Stay ignorant.

 

 

sandydog
sandydog

 @DonkeyHotay showing your intelligence again with your insults.  My understanding is the amendment  allows for stores, but that local areas can prohibit them. 

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @sandydog  

 

Buy more WHERE, jackass?

 

It's ILLEGAL under A64 for ANYONE to sell even a single gram.

 

A64 does NOT authorize private sales, even between consenting adults, you pig-ignorant imbecile.

 

Are you REALLY that STUPID ?

 

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon So ... you're a self-professed Habitual Criminal ... for A64.

 

Noted.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon 

 

May you get your myopic wish, and Marijuana be re-scheduled and made "legal" just like Cocaine and Morphine.

 

Stupid Stoners are as Stupid Stoners do.

 

 

amkon
amkon

 @DonkeyHotay 2 ounces being a civil offense to 1 ounce being legal and 2 ounces remaining the same is most certainly a step in the right direction.

 

Cocaine is schedule II having medical value and is legal to use in certain circumstances. Read a book.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @amkon  

 

Only an idiot would declare that 1 ounce isn't backwards from 2 ounces.

 

Oh, yeah, this is the same idiot that claims "cocaine is legal" ...

... under the same rubric that fools claim A64 "legalizes" marijuana.

 

 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...