Video: Marijuana activists debate Amendment 64

rico collibri and josh kappel.jpg
Video below.
Update: On Friday, we shared with you part one of a video capturing a debate about Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act -- one that pitted a proponent of the measure against another activist who wants recreational cannabis use permitted, but not the way the ballot measure proposes. Just hours ago, part two went live. See it below, along with another recent pot panel discussion -- this one far different in tone.

The first video features Sensible Colorado's Josh Kappel, on the pro-Amendment 64 tip, facing off against CARE's Rico Colibri, whose competing proposal, Initiative 70, failed to collect enough signatures to go before voters in November. Colibri is working overtime to make sure Amendment 64 doesn't succeed despite being in favor of weed legalization.

As for video number two, it features footage from a conversation in Fort Collins sponsored by the Larimer County League of Women Voters. As noted by moderator Barbara Rutstein, Fort Collins has another marijuana item on the ballot this year -- Question 301, which would overturn a dispensary ban that went into effect there on Valentine's Day. However, the focus of the chat is Amendment 64, with Brian Vicente, one of the initiative's principal proponents, voicing his views in the company of Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson, Dr. Bernard Birnbaum, a family practice physician, and Ray Martinez, spokesperson for "Against Ballot 301."

The lineup isn't exactly stacked in Vicente's favor, but he certainly holds his own. See both videos below, followed by part one of the Kappel-Colibri exchange and some sample questions from Amendment 64 critics.

Continue to see part one of the Josh Kappel-Rico Colibri Amendment 64 debate and more.


My Voice Nation Help
32 comments
lukebonow
lukebonow

they need to take out 6 plants.  Sure its against the law to sell, but does the law stop anyone from doing it? just as long as you have under one oz on you. 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

There is obviously some confusion as to the difference between assertions, lies, and questions.  Remove all the sentences above that do not end in question marks.  What remains is a list of questions.

 

After reading crap like "Am. 64 creates a new constitutional crime called "Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana"" or "A64 enshrines discrimination against marijuana smokers into our Constitution", it is obvious that no reasoned debate can be had with people so heedless of the truth.  No one who reads the Amendment and understands it believes that nonsense, and opponents have demonstrated their unfitness to speak for the movement with such insane slander.

 

Vote to legalize the cultivation and use of a little cannabis,

 

Vote Yes on Amendment 64!

audreyhatfield
audreyhatfield

Just to clarify...the above questions were NOT the questions asked at the event. Only two of those were used. The questions used were from public input...

audreyhatfield
audreyhatfield

The term Legalization, in incorrect. Those of you complaining should read and re-read all of A64 before jumping on the band wagon. Take off the rose colored glasses and get a clue...

Jeremy Hull
Jeremy Hull

I'm all for debating the merits, but when it comes time to vote, anyone who chooses to keep it illegal over any degree of relaxation of the persecution of all of us is a dick.

lets_be_reasonable
lets_be_reasonable

The “bad apples” would be those who distribute without the appropriate licenses, do not submit excise tax, those who sell to underage people, etc. Let me remind you that while you can grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer/alcohol, it is still a crime to sell it without a license and without submitting excise tax and people who do it and get caught often go to jail.

We live in a society of laws and regulations.

America has all kinds of limits. There are limits to how fast you can drive on the roads, limits to the amount of alcohol you are allowed to home brew (100 gallons per calendar year, 200 if there are 2+ adults residing in the household), term limits for politicians, etc. Why would marijuana be different? If we vote yes to regulating marijuana, limits will be imposed, otherwise, people who disagree with marijuana use will never agree to any sort of legalization effort. The idea of full out limitless marijuana legalization is a chimera, and I do not see it passing in this country.  Let us pass A64, regulate and license the cultivators and distributors (just like we license and regulate tobacco and alcohol producers/sales, allow those who do not want to pay excise tax to grow at home for personal use (just like home brewers and people who grow their own tobacco), and start a movement to end prohibition across the nation. 

 

Matt_in_Boulder
Matt_in_Boulder

Rico Colibri is clearly chicken little here.  He claims to be "pro-legalization" but most of his arguments against A64 would be equally (if not more) strong if used against i70.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @audreyhatfield You must be one of those people confused as to the meaning of the word "question".

kevin_hunt
kevin_hunt topcommenter

 @audreyhatfield I have a clue, thank you.

 

I read the text of A64 several times and it legalizes the possession of up to one ounce and cultivation of up to six plants (three flowering).  All other provisions of current Colorado law remain unchanged.  Currently, the possession or cultivation of any amount of marijuana for non-medical purposes is a crime.

Monkey
Monkey

 @lets_be_reasonable Lets be fair. While growing your own tobacco or manufacturing your own beer is similar to growing your own weed, the rules are not. Home brewers and tobacco growers can leave their house with their creation and the smell or sight of alcohol and tobacco isn't  probable cause to search a home. They can also give more than an ounce to their friends and family. Regulating the sale of something is reasonable, regulating the people who use something is not.

orson
orson

 @Matt_in_Boulder   Did you even read initiative 70?  Most of those 11 questions would not pertain to initiative 70.  Please point out any of the questions that you think would apply and we'll work from there.  Queue crickets.........

audreyhatfield
audreyhatfield

@kevin you read all of it? Looks like you missed a few things. Watch the video

speedgrafic
speedgrafic

 @Monkey  @lets_be_reasonable Smell or sight of growing/drying/fermenting alcohol or tobacco is most definitely probable cause, as doing it with a tax stamp is tax evasion. There are also strict limits on the quantities that are allowed to be produced, how it is allowed to be distributed, and the amounts allowed to be distributed for both alcohol and tobacco. 

Monkey
Monkey

 @kevin_hunt  Your obsession with Donkey is alarming. (it) has not posted here for a month and (it) is not the only one who thinks A64 might do more harm than good. With polls around 50%, it appears many people will not vote for A64, even many people who use cannabis. Many users have been waiting 12 years for laws that improve/increase our medical limitations and A64 seems like a slap in the face. Anyone 18 and over can have 2oz and 6 plants after they go to a doctor. 1oz and 6 plants for 21 and over seems like a step in the wrong direction, and the bulk of A64 relates to the commercialization of weed, which will bring more federal enforcement like 1284/1043 has.

audreyhatfield
audreyhatfield

@mark_slaugh @Big_Sean I didn't say A64 set thc dui limits. I said in so many words, if it passes for recreational use, the limit WILL be set and this time go thru. You cant deny that regulating like alcohol subjects drivers just like alcohol, if suspected "high" won't be subjected to a blood test. We all know what will happen after that so I dont think I need to explain it. By the way Mark, if this measure is the way to go, why are you going to keep your red-card? Just curious...

mark_slaugh
mark_slaugh

 @audreyhatfield  @Big_Sean This is not true. Amendment 64 does not set THC DUI limits which is why we fight it at the capitol each year. It will be back this upcoming year as an independent piece of legislation. It is not in the Amendment and saying so is inaccurate to voters.

please
please

 @audreyhatfield  @Big_Sean audreyhaltfield, what you are proposing, full, limitless, legalization? And your comment, recreational users wont have affirmative defense under A20 - is that not part of the point of A64 - to allow recreational users to have their 6 plants and be able to buy and travel with an ounce AND have legal possession of ALL the medicine their plants produce. No you cant go driving around with it but what recreational user is driving around with a bunch of product? They aren't,  but the dealers are. Most of the complaints I hear about A64 is that you cant buy, grow, and SELL all the cannabis you want. People want pre HB-1284 days, where any patient and or caregiver could walk into a shop and sell their "excess medicine" for a fat stack of cash and never have to claim it, pay taxes on it, etc.  

audreyhatfield
audreyhatfield

@Big_Sean Well let's see. If this passes, whatever nano limit is impossed (and this time, one will be) every person in this state will be tested for a DUI for any traffic offense, for any reason. Those of us that medicate on a daily basis, will test way over 5, 10, 15 or more. What do you think will be the consequences of that? There will be no protection for housing, employment, child services etc. just as there is not now (for patients) do you really think with cannabis at a Schedule I anything is going to change here? Recreational users won't have an affirmative defense under amendment 20 either. Centers changing to recreational, risk being raided and believe me they will be. Wake up and read ALL of the measure. If this was legalization, number one, there would be no regulating, no limits, no nothing. Look up the financial backers...Wake up!

Big_Sean
Big_Sean

 @audreyhatfield   are you saying that someone like me who doesn't need mmj but likes to get stoned sometimes, that A64 some how put me at more risk of getting in trouble with the police than i am now if so please explain why

kevin_hunt
kevin_hunt topcommenter

 @audreyhatfield  Yes, I am familiar with the text of the bill.  It does not increase current marijuana penalties and it eliminates some current marijuana penalties.  Thanks.

Monkey
Monkey

 @speedgrafic  Tax evasion? There is no tax stamp for growing your own tobacco or making home brew, and smelling or seeing alcohol or tobacco is not probable cause to search a home. Where do you come up with this stuff?

kevin_hunt
kevin_hunt topcommenter

 @Monkey The medical uses are obvious, but many healthy people use it as well, so the "recreational" label is one that has been adopted by both sides, so that is why I use the term.

 

My point is that the continual implementation of A20 is on shaky ground.  Legal hijinks at the fed or state level could prevent folks from finding doctors to make recommendations.  Just look at Montana.

 

A20 was passed in 2000. Nine years went by before doctor's recommendations were common.  What do you think the reason for that was?

 

It was widely believed in 1979 that the gov was on the verge of legalizing marijuana, but the election of Reagan set us back 30 years.  I want us to "strike while the iron is hot" and legalize hemp for all uses (including industrial) before something like that happens again.  Now is the time.

Monkey
Monkey

 @kevin_hunt  I hear you, and you make some good points. I might be bitter because I believe all use should be considered medicinal. It took me many years to convince a loved one to try cannabis as an alternative to prescriptions, to help them relax and enhance experiences, such as every day living. I wish cannabis could be respected like other herbal remedies, and calling it "recreational"  takes away from its therapeutic value, allowing more people to dismiss it as a useless weed for getting high instead of the miracle plant I believe it to be. I think sticking with A20, and all its flaws, is better than voting for A64, and all its flaws. At least until something better comes along.

kevin_hunt
kevin_hunt topcommenter

 @Monkey "You are letting Donkey attack you by engaging (it)"  That's true, but my new strategy is to refute his/her posts when he/she is being logical, and press the "flag as abusive" button when he/she is calling me childish, insulting names.  Sooner or later, they will be banned from Huffington Post.  About five other people are now reporting the abuse, too.

 

Not everyone 18 and older qualifies for MMJ.  There are lots of folks that are perfectly healthy and don't have severe pain, caner, aids, etc..  They shouldn't have to lie to a doctor.

 

A "recreational user" is someone that uses marijuana to relax or enhance a particular experience, not to increase appetite or relieve severe pain.  We both know that thousands of these people are arrested each year in Colorado.  They need more protection than a state run medical program with annual renewal requirements can provide.  We know that it was nearly impossible to get a doctor's recommendation before the Holder memo came out in 2009.

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/09/27/916271/report-at-least-1-in-20-colorado-arrests-are-marijuana-related/

Monkey
Monkey

 @kevin_hunt You are letting Donkey attack you by engaging (it). Donkey works on personal attacks that evoke emotion, don't get emotional, stay logical. Everyone 18 and older qualifies for MMJ, and no one, not even the president, can punish doctors for free speech. Doctors offer their opinion about marijuana, which is considered free speech, and then fill out the necessary forms the CDPHE requires to issue a confidential card. What is a "recreational user", I thought using something to feel better was considered medicinal.

kevin_hunt
kevin_hunt topcommenter

 @Monkey "Your obsession with Donkey is alarming."  

 

Alarming?  Donkey's lies about A64 are alarming. Donkey continues to make personal attacks on me by calling me a "Stump Stupid Stammering Stoner" and a "lying worm" because I disagree with them.  Do you know who Donkey is?  They are attacking me right now at Huffington Post.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/veterans-form-pro-legal-m_n_1919809.html

 

Anyone that supports their childish attacks should be embarrassed. 

 

 "Anyone 18 and over can have 2oz and 6 plants after they go to a doctor."  

 

What about those who don't qualify for medical marijuana?  Do you expect current recreational users 21 and up who possess 2 oz and/or 6 plants to continue to break the law?  

 

"bring more federal enforcement"  What if President Romney decides he is going to punish doctors that write recommendations for medical marijuana patients?  There goes the "severe pain" excuse.

 

 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...