Top

blog

Stories

 

Videos: Part two of marijuana activists' Amendment 64 debate and more

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.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
33 comments
Juan_Leg
Juan_Leg

I have been way busy but I am using this to contact one of the a fore mentioned , as an invite to the Pres Debate . My list of 'respectees' is short & I'm sure have my email address saved from the few times I have openly shared it in a comment .

It's me (+) one . First one to contact  will be the (+) one ....

Hotay , Chase , Who , Monkey & Scar .

If not listed , don't bother .....

IcePick
IcePick

"Orson" and "True-Legalizer" are avatars used by Jerry aka "Donkey Hotay" aka the "queen of prohibition".  I noticed he posted a comment in the Huffington Post today under his 'regular' avatar 'Donkey Hotay'.  

 

"HUFFPOST SUPER USER Donkey Hotay

16 minutes ago ( 6:20 PM)Word!Those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

Donkey is afraid to show his 'face' here and hides behind many other avatars because we all know he is an idiot who trolls these threads trying to keep the status quo so he and his DEA buddies can remain employed.  Down with out of state prohibitionists, up with A64!!

 

Vote YES on Amendment 64, there is NO downside and TREMENDOUS upside.

 

Monkey
Monkey

The biggest unintended consequences from both passing A64 or not is commercialized weed. Anyone who respects cannabis will agree, the commercialization of cannabis ruins the quality by mass producing it for profit instead of quality. No one buys mexican weed anymore because we grow better weed ourselves. Many patients don't buy dispensary bud because they, or their caregiver, can grow better weed. Moving control of a benign herb from a criminal dept. to a regulatory dept. is not a step forward, it is a step sideways. Maintaining and encouraging the commercial scale growing of marijuana has and will promote a lower quality form of cannabis. People who buy Coors or Marlboros don't realize they buy inferior products designed to make them use more. It seems no one wants people growing small batches of fine cannabis flowers for their friends and family to use, they think drug cartels or incompetent warehouse growers are where we should get our weed. I think both cartel and warehouse weed is the same thing, I wont buy either. Herb should be treated like other herbs, grown and distributed from backyard gardens and commercialized farms, allowing the herb stores, individuals and the free market to chose where and what they want to use or offer to customers. Both sides claim they can control the plant and curb use, and both sides are lying to persuade voters. The truth is, both sides want to cage the plant in a prison cell made of bureaucracy.

IcePick
IcePick

Yes on Amendment 64, it's good for our children, it's good for our schools, it's good for our soldiers, it eliminates the need for a red card saving patients another $35 a year, it is fundamentally good to take the profit out of the hands of the black market drug cartels and place it squarely into the hands of law abiding citizens of Colorado.  Yes on A64!!!

IcePick
IcePick

 @Monkey You are a hippy dippy freak (who owns guns).

 

"Many patients don't buy dispensary bud because they, or their caregiver, can grow better weed. "  

 

OMG you are DREAMING... the vast majority of the 100k red card holders shop at dispensaries in Colorado alone....  You go right on with your 'my kind bud is better than anything any _________ can grow' when the reality is, of course, that the GENETICS determine the output much more than the grower ever could.  The plant does not need your human hands at all, just let it grow in the yard... where it was designed to live.  

 

You are anti-capitalism.  As I said a long long time ago, why don't you move to Russia if you hate capitalism so much?  I'm sure those potato drinkers will approve of your (overpriced) weed.  LOL

 

Of course reality dictates that the CUSTOMERS drive the sales, not the other way around.  If people really wanted your weed they'd buy it.  Obviously all the weed buyers are happy with dispensaries since that is CLEARLY where they all shop.  Do you not read the articles in Westword or do you just ignore what they say?

 

You do recognize that Budweiser is the number one seller of beer in the world, right?  Go ahead call the readers idiots again for drinking Budweiser and shopping at walmart...

 

 

 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @True-Legalizer Stop your stupid lies, prohibitionist!  "Fooled again", huh?  You refer to the contention of the fringe that Amendment 20 was a terrible thing -- it apparently has escaped your notice that as a result of amending our Constitution to provide for medical cannabis twelve years ago, there are now about 100,000 patients and hundreds of dispensaries in Colorado, countless arrests have been averted, much cannabis has been returned to patients and caregivers by the police, and many wrongfully charged with using cannabis have been acquitted.  You people are completely insane to try to insinuate that we are not much better off as a result of passage of Amendment 20 -- virtually no one who uses cannabis is so dumb.  To try to use the success of the People in putting medical cannabis in the Constitution against the effort to allow adults to grow a few plants and use the cannabis they grow in the Constitution as well is unbelievably inept -- we should welcome such debaters because you make a much better case for Amendment 64 than against it.  If anyone entertained thoughts that the cannabis-community as a whole was maturing or acquiring political acumen, the strident opposition of some to the legalization of some cannabis is proof of the opposite.

Monkey
Monkey

 @IcePick While it's clear you know nothing about cultivation, I'm not sure you know any stoner satisfied with dispensary weed or that you have ever smoked good buds. Dispensary weed is for kids who sell it to their friends for a quick buck. Cannabis lovers laugh at dispensary weed. Ignorance is bliss, so I guess you'll be having another blissful day, Budweiser boy.

 

P.S. I love capitalism, and I love to capitalize on the lack of quality dispensaries offer.

orson
orson

 @RobertChase  You support regulating legitimate medical marijuana patients like recreational users of alcohol and marijuana.

orson
orson

 @IcePick  Just because you "believe" something does it make it true.  I have never posted under the name donkeyhotay, donkey_hotay or whatever his/her handle was.

IcePick
IcePick

 @Monkey "I love capitalism, and I love to capitalize on the lack of quality dispensaries offer."

 

Then you are a drug dealer EXACTLY like Clendenin.  There is NO law in Colorado that allows an individual (who is not licensed under HB10-1284) to "capitalize" aka "generate a profit" by selling weed.

 

 

 

"While it's clear you know nothing about cultivation"

LOL, I know and have seen more than you ever will.  You are nothing but a closet grower.  Exactly what the Westword article warned us about.  Keep your mold covered shit weed away from me.

 

 

 

"Cannabis lovers laugh at dispensary weed. "

You'd better tell that to the tens of thousands of Coloradans who shop at said dispensaries each week.  I know you WANT to believe what you wrote, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Angry out of work former growers abound.  It's not a surprise that you would stand against amendment 64.  It is obvious from your postings that you stand to financially benefit from continued illegally selling of marijuana while posing as a caregiver. 

 

You should move to Oregon or California if you want to stay in business.  In Colorado we are more sophisticated than what you offer and have started to commercialize the process.  

 

Which is why there are now HUNDREDS of thriving dispensaries all around the state who service THOUSANDS of patients each and every day.

 

 "Herb should be treated like other herbs, grown and distributed from [] commercialized farms".  -Monkey

 

That's what A64 does.

 

Yes on A64, don't let out of work angry growers like Monkey who prefer the status quo keep us down.  Yes on A64!

Monkey
Monkey

 @please  You apparently are ignorant as well. That's ok. This might help you understand the herbal world a little better, and help you understand why cannabis should be treated like herbs instead of alcohol or tobacco.

Regulation is always after the fact, not before. Regulatory action can be taken on an herbal product only after it has received a sufficient number of reports of ill effects and can show the product is unsafe. No license is required and vendors are not required to comply with the provisions of the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations. Herbal products can be marketed at any time, without scientific research and without approval from the FDA.

This one is for cilantro, even though I was not referring to that:

http://cofarmtomarket.com/raw-agricultural-products-product-samples/whole-vegetables/fresh-herbs/

This one is for medicinal herbs:

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09370.html

Hope this helps your confusion.

please
please

 @Monkey  @IcePick Monkey, under A64 - you and all your friends  will still be able to grow for personal use. You can share all you want with your family and friends 21+. You cant sell it without a business license and without paying excise taxes, but you will be able to grow your "small batches of cannabis flowers." You just cant profit off of it unless you get a license. And if your truly just a cannabis user, not a dealer,  that should please you just fine.

 

Oh yeah - all those "other herbs" you mention, yeah the growers and distributors of those have to apply for licenses as well. You can grow your own cilantro if you want, but if your selling it for a profit without a license it is against the law too. Just like selling home brewed beer and home grown tobacco.    

orson
orson

FYI, self proclaimed "recreational" marijuana users use marijuana, a PSYCHOACTIVE MEDICINE to help them feel better, be happy, elevate their mood, just like millions of americans that take antidepressants daily.  Recreational users are using marijuana medicinally and they don't even realize it. Why do you insist on re-branding marijuana from a medical substance to a recreational one? Wouldn't feel so cool if you admitted your marijuana use was medical? Do you support A64 because getting totally wasted is socially accepted with alcohol and you want the same with marijuana but that would never happen if it continues being viewed as a medicine?

orson
orson

 @IcePick    OMG, are you are brain dead?  This is so depressing.  No wonder donkey couldn't take it anymore.  Hopefully sane marijuana users will see what I am saying.  If recreational users want legal access to marijuana they should do that by expanding the rights of A20 to all legal adults (18+ or 21+) , no doctor's note needed, no undermining existing businesses, no re-branding of marijuana as a recreational drug, etc.  Marijuana is a medicine and everyone that thinks they need access to it should have it.  Keep it medical and expand rights to medical marijuana. Regulating and re-branding marijuana to be a recreational drug like alcohol is the wrong approach and is harmful to marijuana's medical legitimacy. 

IcePick
IcePick

 @orson  @RobertChase 

"it's in every marijuana user's best interest." 

 

Lies.  The current system does not allow recreational use.  So the implication that medical marijuana regulations are somehow "good" for recreational users is a load of crap. 

Yes on A64, it helps patients and it helps non-patients. 

 

"A64 sells out patients and caregivers " 

 

It's great that you have an opinion, but it's wrong.

 

Implementation of A64 will cause the price of weed to continue to drop in Colorado just as 1284 has done.  The caregiver model was NEVER intended to allow recreational sales of weed. A64 is good for patients. The vast majority of all 'caregivers' in this state are nothing more than pot dealers who break the law and refuse to pay taxes on their illegal profits.  

 

Yes on A64 it is GREAT for Colorado.

orson
orson

 @RobertChase As a patient, I am deeply saddened by those that support A64 without taking the time to thoughtfully consider what it is I am saying.  A64 is about re-branding marijuana.  While I understand that A64 would not have an immediate effect, in time as A64 gets implemented it will destroy the medical model and there will be retail sales of marijuana to non-patients...that's the whole point of A64 Robert.  In time, with A64 there is no need for patients to register with the state, no need for doctors to recommend patients, incentives for MMCs to convert to recreational stores so they can sell to anyone, including patients.  You are voting on whether or not to re-brand marijuana as a recreational drug instead of a medical substance.  If A64 passes medical marijuana will look like a sham when the majority of patients fall off the registry.  About half of all patients registered with the state list neither a caregiver or MMC as their provider.  These people will have absolutely no reason to renew their red cards.  As MMCs convert to recreational stores patients 21 and over that once needed red cards to shop at MMCs won't need one anymore and will quit registering.  Caregivers and patients under 21 will be the only reason to support the medical model in an A64 world.  A64 makes A20 a trojan horse for legalizing recreational marijuana.  I have read A64 many times and if it kept a medical approach to marijuana I would be supporting it but unfortunately it is about making marijuana look like a recreational drug LIKE alcohol in the eyes of the public instead of like a medicine.  This is the fatal flaw in the approach.  Keep it medical and expand access and rights to MEDICAL marijuana, it's in every marijuana user's best interest.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Some provisions of Amendment 64 have no force of law (the reference to DUID) or are symbolic (the proposed licensure of retail sales, obtaining revenue for the State by means of an excise and sales tax, and the commercial cultivation of hemp) -- these are the provisions about which opponents obsess most, but they have not mounted much in the way of coherent arguments against even these.  The core provisions of the Amendment are its legalization of the personal use of cannabis:

 

"(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 OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:

(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA

(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.

(c) TRANSFER OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT REMUNERATION TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.

(d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.

(e) ASSISTING ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IN ANY OF THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (d) OF THIS SUBSECTION."

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

You lack enough context to understand the issue now, much less to try to project into the future.  I have posted something like this dozens of times, but for your benefit I will try yet again.  There will be no retail cannabis sales to non-patients as a result of passage of Amendment 64, at least not unitl drastic changes in Federal law occur at some indefinite point in the future which would be of far greater import than the Amendment.  The advent of medical cannabis in California (twelve years before the Obama campaign promised not to waste Federal resources persecuting those using medical cannabis legally under state law) did challenge Federal prohibitionists' resources; storefront dispensaries were popping up without regulation or notice.  The situation with regard to State licensure of general retail sales is entirely different; the GA is not going to spend money on a direct challenge to Federal authority, especially when the Feds would know exactly who was proposing to sell cannabis and where they proposed to do it well in advance due to the nature of the process of licensure, which would require e.g. local public approval and the public issuance of a State license.  No one wants to invest a substantial sum in a business only to have it confiscated and/or be arrested on the first day of business, and although the GA has shown a willingness to buck the Feds, it is not going to make a substantial outlay just to engage in brinksmanship with the Feds which could only fail.

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @orson  @RobertChase What do you think the medical marijuana patient stats will look like in 5 years?"  It will be what it was intended to be MEDICAL and Not some dude running around in a green bear suit try to hook up people with 70 dollar medical cards at the HIGH TIMES "Medical Cannabis Cup"http://youtu.be/k4JN_Op_3pM "you like it, you love it, you want to smoke more of it."Sure !! Let medical be Medical People want Recreational marijuana  People want a real Cannabis Cup not the "Medical Cannabis cup."   

IcePick
IcePick

 @orson  @RobertChase "What do you think the medical marijuana patient stats will look like in 5 years?  "

 

I had to stop reading Donkey, mainly because I was laughing so had. I didn't know you were clairvoyant!!

 

Yes on A 64, there is NO downside to an affirmative vote!

orson
orson

 @RobertChase   You either don't get it or don't care to understand.  What do you think the medical marijuana patient stats will look like in 5 years?  How many doctors do you think will be recommending marijuana?  How many medical marijuana centers will be left?  Caregivers?  As A64 gets implemented patients will quit registering with the state, doctors won't be recommending marijuana, MMCs will transition into the recreational model, caregivers will be forced underground even more.  A64 will virtually eliminate the idea of medical marijuana and re-brands marijuana from a medical drug to a recreational drug just like alcohol.  If A64 passes the Colorado Department of Public HEALTH and the Environment will finally get their wish and will be through dealing with medical marijuana---marijuana goes from a health issue to a recreational issue.  A64 screws medical marijuana and medical marijuana patients.  The 100,000 plus medical marijuana patients registered with the state will all get regulated and treated like recreational stoners.  Medical marijuana will look like it was just a ploy for legalization, a trojan horse. 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @orson Also false -- very few patients support Prohibition out of fear for their own medicine.  You make not a single reference to any provision of the Amendment, which confirms the impression that you have never read it and have no idea what you are talking about.  While there can be no doubt that not every patient in Colorado needs cannabis to survive, no useful purpose is served by trying to divide patients into those deserving and those not.  The lesson of the past twelve years is that cannabis is an essential medicine for some, that the sky has not fallen in because others use it, and that we can proceed to recognize every adult's right to choose to use cannabis. 

 

Cannabis is only one of many drugs which are subject to irrational strictures and predjudices.  We need to vest responsibility for control over one's body with individuals.  The recognition that cannabis is both a safe euphoriant and medicine has by now extended far beyond those who use cannabis, so there is no reason why the rationalization of our drug laws should not start with cannabis.  While the opposition is adamantine, this is supposed to be a democratic society, and we are capable of revisiting the lifetime of bad policy decisions on drugs, junking the Controlled Substances Act, and starting over.

 

Vote Yes on Amendment 64, then repeal the CSA!

orson
orson

 @RobertChase  If people want to use marijuana to relax, I understand that, but it is being used medicinally if that is the case and it should be viewed as a medicine, not as recreational drug.  Unfortunately A64 will be the beginning of treating all marijuana users in colorado like recreational users --- stoners.  If you don't see that than you are obtuse.  A64 will force the industry into a recreational model, and consequently the patients, and cut doctors out of the equation.  It will not be viewed as a medicine if A64, only a recreational drug.  There is no other medicine I can think of that is socially accepted as a medicine and a recreational drug and it's not going to start with marijuana.  Marijuana is medicine and should be viewed as a medicine.  Expanding rights to marijuana should be through the medical mindset, not recreational.  A64 is the beginning of society viewing all marijuana use like alcohol use and it sells out patients and marijuana's medical legitimacy in the process.  Remember this, you are advocating for people, most of whom claim to have no medical need for marijuana at the expense of legitimate patients that depend on marijuana to live their life.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @orson  What is the basis for your delusion that "A64 sells out patients and caregivers"?  Amendment 64 has nothing to do with patients or caregivers!  Have you bothered to read the text yet?  Legalizing all adults' cultivation of six cannabis plants will dilute the remaining harassment and over-vigorous enforcement of all the prohibitionist statutes which remain on the books against patients and caregivers when millions of Coloradans are growing their own cannabis legally -- what don't you get?

 

Amendment 64 is in the obvious interest of every caregiver and patient in Colorado; Vote Yes on Amendment 64!

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @orson No -- many patients agree with me that their right to use cannabis is best protected by recognizing every adult's right to use cannabis.  The history of medical cannabis in Colorado bears this out abundantly.  The declaration of the People that cannabis is medicine did not change the prejudice against it in Colorado's medical establishment (which apparenly is scientifically incurious in a medicine most cannot recommend and which big pharma does not promote).  The infringements on patients and caregivers' rights under Article XVIII, Section 14 demonstrate the hostility of the political establishment to cannabis, medical or otherwise.

 

People involved in pain management should support ending the criminalization of narcotics -- there is no inconsistency in my postion, but in society's entire system of regulating drugs in general.  End the War on Americans and make our country "the land of the free", instead of the Land of Prisons.

orson
orson

 @RobertChase A coalition for medical marijuana patients supporting recreational marijuana would be like the American Academy of Pain Management, the American Pain Foundation, or the American Pain Society supporting recreational use of narcotics.  No legitimate organization for patients would support the recreational use of medicines.  Your coalition is a sham.

orson
orson

 @RoninRabbit  @RobertChase I don't really care about recreational marijuana users that use marijuana to get wasted like alcohol.  Marijuana is a herbal medicine and should not be regulated like alcohol.  Keep it medical.  The Colorado Coalition of one for Patients and Caregivers is obviously a joke.  A64 sells out patients and caregivers yet Robert Chase is all for it.  What next Robert?  Are you going to start advocating for regulating prescription narcotics like meth?  A64, not now, not ever.  No on A64.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @orson That is pure libel; I fought against passage of both HB10-1284 and HB11-1043 by demonstrating, testifying before the committees of the General Assembly that considered the bills, by writing, and by speaking against the scheme to invest the agency that regulates alcohol, tobacco, and gambling with responsibility for regulating medical cannabis.

 

Amendment 64 has absolutely no effect on the provisions of Article XVIII, Section 14 regarding the medical cannabis program.  You are alluding to the Amendment's proposed system of regulation of the retail sale of cannabis to non-patients, which is not going to happen, at least not for the forseeable future, and which would have no direct effect on patients or caregivers if it did -- there is the small matter of amending Federal law to make cannabis no longer contraband first.  Amendment 64 is far from perfect or adequate, but anyone who uses cannabis who cannot understand that declaring the personal use and cultivation of cannabis legal, even on a limited basis, is a step forward in the fight against Prohibition is either deranged, or foolish enough to be taken in by the flakey rhetoric used against the Amendment by a handful of putative activists for cannabis.

 

Amendment 64's defects are not what we should be talking about, as none begin to rise to a level that they compromise the value of its legalization of the personal use of cannabis.   Unlike Proposition 19 in California or Initiative 502 in Washington, Amendment 64 creates no new laws or penalties; there is some attempted pandering to the prohibitionists in it, but it has no force of law and represents no new threat.  The election is a month away, and people who oppose our right to cannabis are planning again to vote against any legalization of cannabis.  People who use cannabis who join them are an embarrassment to the movement to end Prohibition, not alternative future leadership for it.

RoninRabbit
RoninRabbit

 @orson  @RobertChase 

"This idea is imperfect, throw it away and keep ruining lives until we have a perfect one!"  The "anti-this law but pro legalization" thing is full of plants and dupes... hoping for another Prop 19 debacle where the enemy can get "inside"?  Good luck.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...