Marijuana: Activist to file complaint against DA who won't prosecute Amendment 64 backers?

Thumbnail image for marijuana photo cropped.JPG
Update: Yesterday, Boulder DA Stan Garnett declined to act against proponents of Amendment 64 based on a complaint from Kathleen Chippi, a pro-pot activist behind Initiative 70, an A64 alternative that failed to qualify for the ballot; see previous coverage below. But she's not ready to quietly accept this decision. Instead, in a letter to Garnett seen below, she lays the groundwork for a complaint against the DA's office for rejecting her arguments.

As we've noted, Chippi believes Amendment 64's backers were remiss in implying that the measure legalizes marijuana in a broader sense, rather than allowing use and possession of small amounts (one ounce or under) by adults age 21 and over. (She's also critical of media outlets for not drawing this distinction.) Likewise, she believes voters "need clarification that the language in A64 does not repeal the majority of jail-able offenses (felonies) and leaves marijuana in the definitions of the state Controlled Substances Act, which makes all cannabis users subject to lose: employment, unemployment benefits, housing, school grants, government aid, child custody, fire arms and occupational licenses (of which DORA says 75% of workers in Colorado have) and their freedom. The voters also deserve an apology."

kathleen chippi and senator steve king.jpg
Courtesy of Cannabis Therapy Institute
Kathleen Chippi testifying at the State Legislature; Senator Steve King is in the foreground.
In Garnett's view, Chippi's complaints are akin to "good faith policy differences about the legal impact of Amendment 64" that don't warrant criminal prosecution. To that, Chippi suggests that what she sees as Garnett's "pro-legalization stance" rendered the investigation less than objective and inquires about the procedure to file a new complaint, this time against the DA himself.

Here's her note to Garnett, followed by our previous coverage.

Mr. Garnett,

I completely disagree with the 'result' from your office on my complaint on the campaign for A64. Especially with the irrefutable comments by author (attorney Steve Fox) on public record:

June 15, 2011 A64 Title Board Hearing 1 hour, 21 minutes, 48 seconds.
Steve Fox: "I mean she made our point better than we have, which is legalization is not what this is.... What we are doing is regulating marijuana. It's a significant legal difference and it would be inaccurate to call it legalization."

For your office to respond with "Under Colorado criminal statues, for prosecution to be pursued, it would be necessary to establish that factually false statements were made during the course of a campaign and that my office would be able to unanimously convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that such statements were made with the requisite mental state," when I have provided more than adequate evidence of the campaigns marketing A64 as full LEGALIZATION and an end to marijuana prohibition, is shameful.

And "Though I understand your disagreements with the statements made by the proponents of Amendment 64, those statements do not warrant criminal prosecution."

Please, Mr. Garnett -- My complaint is not based on me "disagreeing" with the meaning or interpretation of the A64 language.

My complaint is based on what the author and the campaign testified on public record --that their language did NOT legalize marijuana and that saying so would be legally inaccurate and misleading to the voters -- to then spending over a year campaigning that it legalized and ended marijuana prohibition, which is currently putting people in harms way of loss of job, child custody, housing, insurance, occupational licenses (according to DORA 75% of workers in CO affected), gov aid, gun rights and freedom for possession, use and cultivation of marijuana, all while in violation of 1-13-109CRS.

"Rather, your concerns are more akin to good faith policy differences about the legal impact of Amendment 64, competing policy considerations about the wisdom of State legalization while marijuana remains illegal under Federal law and the impact on Colorado's TABOR Amendment."

I appreciate that you admit that excise taxing marijuana remains illegal under TABOR. However -- after researching, your staff would know that the campaign promised 40 million in excise tax revenue in the title and in all marketing -- even when they testified on public record that they knew their language was NOT TABOR compliant and that the excise tax might never come to fruition.

My concerns in this complaint address ONLY what the author, proponents and attorneys said on public record at title board hearings verses what they campaigned to the electorate, not my personal opinions. The campaign KNOWINGLY MISINFORMED the voters. They went on public record saying they knew they were NOT legalizing marijuana and had the word legalization REMOVED from title and then campaigned on LEGALIZATION and an end to marijuana prohibition.

"Differing interpretations of the legal significance of a proposed constitutional amendment are best resolved in free society through open and free debate and free elections."

Again, this was not a debate nor did it involve my personal interpretation of the language but it is clear and concise right out of the authors and proponents mouths on state public record.

The only question at hand is did the author, proponents and the attorneys for A64 say 180 degree conflicting statements on public record at title board verses in public marketing? And my complaint is significant if this misinformation will cause harm (above list of losses possible under A64) to the electorate.

Perhaps your pro-legalization stance has compromised/clouded the investigation of my complaint?

How do I file an official complaint against the DA's office?

Thank you,

Kathleen Chippi

Continue to read our earlier reportage about the complaint against Amendment 64.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
694 comments
DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @radicalruss "So... you're in favor of fining adult marijuana smokers $100?" 

 

A64 is in favor of fining adult marijuana smokers, you festering pustule. 

 

A64 denies ALL ADULTS under 21 yrs old ANY protections under its provisions.  They will still be cited and fined because they are arbitrarily excluded from A64.

 

 

 @radicalruss  "And you're in favor of still jailing people who grow three mature marijuana plants?"

 

 A64 is in favor of jailing people who grow 3 flowering plants, you stump-stupid stammering stoner. 

 

A64 denies ALL ADULTS under 21 yrs old ANY protections under its provisions, so all adults under 21 are left facing Criminal Jail sentences for growing ANY pot -- even sprouting a single seed.

 

A64 is in favor of jailing everyone else who grows more than 3 flowering plants, you daft delusional dipshit. Four flowing plants = JAIL! ... Seven sprouted seeds = JAIL!

 

 

A64 = a continuation of CRIMINAL Prohibition against 99.9% of Marijuana Users and Growers in Colorado. 

 

 

Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT under 21 should be allowed ANY LEGAL ACCESS to it, as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed to possess more than 1 (one) pathetic ounce as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed to grow more than 3 (three) flowering plants, as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed any public display or use as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed any private sales -- not even a single gram -- maintaining FELONY criminal charges for any sales, as A64 declares?

 

 

 

 

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

As far as the TILT--tomato's are regulated, Russ and they are sold and given away and grown everywhere, indoors and out. .  Are tomato's exempted from regulation or taxation in OR?

 

They are the one product nationwide that sells in taxed and regulated grocery markets, is wholesaled to stores and eateries AND regulated by means of no regulation on how many people can grow at home, store at home, can at home and give away.   

 

And guess what?  Even with unregulated people growing them and giving them away freely--the tomato farmers and businesses selling them still make money because they still are in the business of tomato's.

 

What exactly is wrong with regulating like tomato's anyway?  You yourself Russ were bragging on having unlimited piles of pot on your kitchen table in front of cops......it sounds like TILT is right for you. 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

Kathleen Chippi claims that I-70 would've stopped the Feds from cracking down on Colorado cannabis laws, whereas A64 would be destroyed. Will she provide evidence? Unless "stuff it up your ass" and "you smell like ass" are evidence, nope. Clearly not a self serving lying hag of a woman who's just out to make a name for herself.

 

Not at all...

ekr990011
ekr990011

 @DonkeyHotay

"A64 is in favor of jailing people who grow 3 flowering plants, you stump-stupid stammering stoner."

 

(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.

 

Not sure which one of you said this but I don't think you were quoting radicalruss there so you're wrong you can have 3 flowering plants if you are 21 or older.

But then again later you say this, "A64 is in favor of jailing everyone else who grows more than 3 flowering plants, you daft delusional dipshit. Four flowing plants = JAIL! ... Seven sprouted seeds = JAIL!"

So yea four plants jail. But what is your issue with getting some freedom back? If they are happy to take it away by any means then lets take it back by any.

 

"A64 = a continuation of CRIMINAL Prohibition against 99.9% of Marijuana Users and Growers in Colorado."

 

false try again.

 

"Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT under 21 should be allowed ANY LEGAL ACCESS to it, as A64 declares?"

 

It is not a Public Health or Safety danger. But it is better than no one getting access to it. Why is alcohol such a Public Health and Safety danger that no adult under 21 should be allowed any legal access to it?

 

"Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed to possess more than 1 (one) pathetic ounce as A64 declares?"

 

It is not and there is no reason, but if these guidelines allow access to it somewhat it is better than none. Any fight for any freedom/liberty is worth having then not. And pathetic? One ounce is not pathetic, but how that is subjective I know no one that has ever had more than one ounce for personal use.

 

"Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed to grow more than 3 (three) flowering plants, as A64 declares?"

 

It isn't but again if it allows for more freedom with some regulation as opposed to not having that freedom at all then we are still better off.

 

"Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed any public display or use as A64 declares?"

 

Public display? False try again.

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

 

I assume you are specifically referring to public consumption which falls under the same laws as alcohol then.

(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.

 

"Tell us again why is Marijuana such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed any private sales -- not even a single gram -- maintaining FELONY criminal charges for any sales, as A64 declares?"

 

It is not such an issue but it goes back to at least get some of our freedom back. And if these regulations are what it takes initially then so be it. You can still give up to an ounce to others for free.

radicalruss
radicalruss

 @DonkeyHotay You are just precious.

 

Before A64 and minus A20 - marijuana age restrictions:

18-20 all use criminal, all growing criminal

21-115 all use criminal, all growing criminal

 

After A64 and minus A20 - marijuana age restrictions:

18-20 all use criminal, all growing criminal

21-115 possession up to an ounce away from the grow is 100% legal and subject to absolutely no punishment by the state, as is growing three mature plants and three immature plants and "POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN" (only the stump-stupid could miss the freedom granted by that line, and forgive the ALL CAPS; that's the format from the Amendment, as it denotes that language which would be added)

 

Therefore: A64 is EEEEEVIL!  People who passed it are EEEEEEVIL!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

                ***** Legalize Marijuana Like Oregano !! *****

 

 "Not a fucking dime to the US government" -- Jack Herer 

 

hth.

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova 

i70 cut ALL state resources form being used to enforce federal law---dumb-ass, Ryan Cordova--A64 does not.  Most federal busts involve state resources.  And you can stuff it up your ass along with your head. 

 

PS google my name, I already have a "name for myself".  LOL---you can follow me for over 20 years--

 

Ryan Cordiva can't comprehend what he reads....or can he read?.....so many of his posts out of context. 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

Oh but, "cannabis has no lethal dosage!" also means "the amount thought to be needed for lethal dosage is X."

 

So grateful she's not in charge of actually writing laws, since she clearly seems to be confused on the basic facts of the situation.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @radicalruss 

 

Tell us again why Marijuana is such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT under 21 should be allowed ANY LEGAL ACCESS to it, as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why Marijuana is such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed to possess more than 1 (one) pathetic ounce as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why Marijuana is such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed to grow more than 3 (three) flowering plants, as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why Marijuana is such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed any public display or use as A64 declares?

 

Tell us again why Marijuana is such a Public HEALTH and SAFETY danger that NO ADULT should be allowed any private sales -- not even a single gram -- maintaining FELONY criminal charges for any sales, as A64 declares?

 

Why is Marijuana so Harmful and Dangerous that is must be Government Regulated, Restricted, Controlled and Taxed MORE THAN DEADLY ALCOHOL that harms, maims and kills 10s of Thousands of people every year ... as A64 declares?

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @KathleenChippi "i70 cut ALL state resources form being used to enforce federal law---dumb-ass, Ryan Cordova--A64 does not.  Most federal busts involve state resources."

 

Too bad that wasn't what you said. You said the courts would have their way with A64, I asked you what in I70 specifically would prevent that from happening to it.

 

I DIDN'T ask what would prevent the federal busts, I asked what would stop the federal courts from simply not recognizing I70 the same way you said they would for A64.

 

And I'm STILL waiting.

radicalruss
radicalruss

@DonkeyHotay @michael.roberts @radicalruss I'm just curious how you would propose to keep the 18-20 year olds out of jail?  What's the strategy you propose that leads to that?

Keep in mind you need to have hundreds of thousands of signatures, millions of dollars, and 50%+1 of the votes to make your dream a reality.

It's obvious you despise Amendment 64.  I assume you also despise marijuana prohibition.  So tell me how that happens, if not by the means Colorado just passed?

What's your plan, Donkey?

radicalruss
radicalruss

@DonkeyHotay @michael.roberts @radicalruss See, here's why you're so confounding...

Before A64, under 21 got treated the same as After A64.

So are you arguing that those over 21 should keep being treated as criminals until the voters are ready to not treat anyone as criminals?

18-20 year olds are no better or worse off with A64, so why do you keep bringing them up?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @michael.roberts  @radicalruss 

 

And thanks to the arbitrary discrimination and exclusions in A64, many of them will turn 21 while in JAIL!

 

... arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed for the same acts that lowlife cowardly un-American cunts granted themselves immunity from.

 

How fucking special.

 

 

radicalruss
radicalruss

 @DonkeyHotay You do know that the 50% of marijuana users (a figure you never give any citation for...) eventually turn 21, right?  They're not permanently barred from marijuana use and cultivation.

 

(By the way, I can give a citation or two to help you out.  According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 26.3% of all people who smoked pot were below the age of 21.  15.2% of them were aged 18-21.  According to the FBI UCR for 2011, there were 15,109 arrests for drug abuse violations, 3,240 of which were under age 18.

 

I just cannot fathom how you think going from total government prohibition, where cops can imprison you for cultivating a single plant or not showing up to court for your pot ticket, to complete legalization of that same plant and ounce, is a bad thing because people have to pay taxes and follow rules.

 

You can keep calling me names but you're not succeeding at winning any arguments (obviously, as your side lost, 55% - 45%).  In the meantime, I will take my cues on Colorado marijuana policy from people with degrees who study facts and use their real names online.  People like Dr. Harry Levine of Queens College, who, in reference to your oft-repeated mantra about marijuana having "just" been a "Class 2 Petty Offense":  I'll highlight the important parts for you.

 

>> Colorado is often said to be a marijuana decriminalization state, but since the 1970s, when the state reduced criminal penalties to some extent, Colorado law has made possession of small amounts of marijuana a CRIME, a Class 2 Petty Offense. A person charged with possessing marijuana is issued a summons to appear in CRIMINAL court. The court appearance is mandatory and failure to appear is another CRIME, a Class 3 Misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a $500 fine. From the 1970s until 2010, this applied to less than an ounce; since 2010 it has applied to less than two ounces. It would be a mistake to think that these arrests do not carry significant consequences for the thousands of mostly young Coloradans who go through the arrest, prosecution, and sentencing process every year.  

 

>> A Class 2 Petty Offense in Colorado is a CRIMINAL charge handled by both county and municipal CRIMINAL courts which have overlapping jurisdiction. Police departments have discretion as to whether they charge under state or municipal law, and in some municipal courts marijuana possession is punished more harshly than in county courts where state law applies. In the city of Lakewood, for example, possession of a small amount of marijuana can be punishable by $1,000 and ONE YEAR IN JAIL.  In many cities, municipal courts typically impose fines of $300 or more for a first time marijuana possession charge. It is not unusual for municipal judges to place people on PROBATION for up to six months, charge them $50 per month in PROBATION fees, require that they meet with a PROBATION officer, and submit to regular DRUG TESTING. Some judges send people to jail for several days for failing a DRUG TEST for marijuana.

 

>> The most serious consequence of an arrest for marijuana possession is the PERMANENT CRIMINAL RECORD that such a case creates. Most people charged with a Class 2 Petty Offense choose to represent themselves rather than pay for a private attorney. Guilty pleas are the norm in these cases, and guilty pleas are CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. Twenty years ago, arrest and conviction records were papers kept in court storerooms and warehouses, often impossible to locate. Ten years ago they were computerized. Now they are instantly searchable on the Internet for free or for a nominal fee through commercial CRIMINAL‐record database services. Employers, landlords, credit agencies, licensing boards for nurses and beauticians, and banks now routinely search these databases for background checks on applicants. A majority of colleges now collect criminal justice information on applicants for admission and a DRUG CONVICTION, no matter how minor, is viewed as a negative factor. The stigma of a CRIMINAL RECORD has created barriers to employment and education for thousands of people in Colorado. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @radicalruss "So, then, your theory is that making it legal for people to have one "pathetic ounce" (away from the grow site and three flowering plants at the site and all the results of the harvest at the grow site) is surrender to the government, because... "

 

... in addition to that pathetic ounce for some people, it ALSO surrenders total control of marijuana to Big Government Regulators via an undefined and unlimited commercial retail scheme, and invites the insatiable Dept. of Revenue vampires in via an UNLIMITED special punitive excise tax on ALL retail pot, while restricting and prohibiting the citizens from possessing or cultivating any meaningful or functional quantities -- under full penalty of all existing criminal prohibitions, misdemeanors and felonies ... and permanently excluding, via the constitution, nearly 50% of those marijuana users who do get arrested every year from any protections.

 

Those provisions, which are now in the Constitution, are NOT changeable via Statute.

 

If a depraved ignoramus like you bothered to read, and perhaps comprehend, what A64 proposed, you'd know that.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @KathleenChippi  @radicalruss 

 

Only an abject imbecile can't tell us apart from the style, vocabulary, message, tone and voice.

 

Where's that lying shitbag who falsely claimed to have my/your "IP address" ? ... LOL!

 

 

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

 @radicalruss  @DonkeyHotay 

 

Russ--Put down the pipe your token (full of pot that has no therapeutic value and does not make you feel better after you consume it).........you actually think I am Donkey and that you have been communicating with me? 

 

When will someone at the WW confirm that I am not Donkey based on computer record? 

 

We have had enough people show themselves the fool over who Donkey is--

radicalruss
radicalruss

 @DonkeyHotay So, then, your theory is that making it legal for people to have one "pathetic ounce" (away from the grow site and three flowering plants at the site and all the results of the harvest at the grow site) is surrender to the government, because... uh... it will be taxed and people who violate the limits will be punished.

 

Because... once this right is enshrined in the Constitution, it will never be modified or expanded on; you'll be stuck forever with just one "pathetic ounce" (and three mature plants and three immature plants and all the results of the harvest at the grow site), and you may have retail stores where people can select marijuana for purchase from the greatest supply and quality in the world, and people may be able to have professional legal jobs as marijuana producers and processors, and it will never ever be any better than that.

 

Oh no.  People under 21, who get busted now, will still get busted.  People who grow more than three mature plants, who get busted now, will still get busted.  Busted, somehow, by cops who no longer have the power of probable cause to use against people for the mere sight or smell of marijuana or paraphernalia.

 

C'mon now, please reply with something including "stupid", "baby diapers", and/or any combination of scatological or pornographic rejoinders your brain can come up with.  Or an A64 is like Pol Pot and the Killing Fields analogy.  Please, something creative this time.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@radicalrussWeren't you one of the retards who claimed I'm Kathleen?

 

A64 is a complete and total SURRENDER ... of all control over marijuana to THE GOVERNMENT, forever!

 

Surrendered rights are almost NEVER recovered, certainly not by half-assed lazy pig-ignorant slacker-stoners who were too stupid to read, much less comprehend the SURRENDER TREATY they voted for.

 

The fact that Stupid Stoners in Colorado surrendered for HALF of what was already offered and delivered by the Government, and established an arbitrary age discrimination that even the Government hadn't placed upon the pre-existing statutes -- arbitrary age restrictions that voluntarily EXCLUDED nearly 50% of those who are ARRESTED and Prosecuted EVERY YEAR from any protection -- further illustrates what depraved daft dipshits the A64 losers actually are.

 

Stupid Stoners are as Stupid Stoners do!

 

Enjoy your pathetic ounce, you fucking idiots, because it is all you're ever going to get. You "baby-stepped" yourself right into the used diaper pail.

 

 

 

radicalruss
radicalruss

 @DonkeyHotay This Thanksgiving weekend, I am thankful for you.  This Israel/Palestine comparison bumps you up a level.  Kathleen really needs to step up her game.

 

But are you sure that passing A64 and going from a pathetic ounce being a cause for summons to court and a fine (and you keep forgetting, a pathetic three plants worthy of criminal prosecution) to being, well, legal, is only like Israel taking all of Palestine?

 

Really, isn't it more like giving Hitler all of Europe and mandating that cultivation of all plants can only be done by non-Jews worldwide and appointing Imperial Japanese ninjas to police all farms and collect prohibitively high taxes to fund the mandatory identity tattooing of all people under age 21?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@radicalruss"You seem to live in a black and white world where either marijuana is completely prohibited or marijuana is completely free."

 

You seem to live in a gutless cowardly cheese-eating surrender-monkey world -- e.g. France -- where preemptively abdicating total control of Marijuana to Big Government Regulators and tens of millions of $$ in new, special, punitive taxes to the insatiable Dept. of Revenue ... all in return for a pathetic ounce is anything but the total failure that it is.

 

With self-imposed "wins" like that, who needs the DEA?

 

If spineless small-minded cowards like you were negotiating for an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict, you'd surrender all the occupied territories of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem to Israel ...

 

... and give Israel total regulatory control over the entire Palestinian olive industry

 

... and offer the Israelis $40,000,000.00 in new taxes on all Palestinian olive oil ... 

 

... in exchange for 1 (one) can of olives and the permission to grow 6 olive trees, no more than 3 (three) of which are producing any olives ... and only for those Palestinians over 21 years old of course.

 

Victory !! ... not.

 

radicalruss
radicalruss

 @DonkeyHotay This is what is so vexing, DonkeyHotay, is that we agree on the ends, but not the means.

 

You seem to live in a black and white world where either marijuana is completely prohibited or marijuana is completely free.  You keep expressing anger and frustration at the way marijuana laws are now, yet you damn any movement toward fixing those laws short of absolute repeal of them.

 

I was even following your line of reasoning on exaggerated claims by A64 supporters, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.. I can give you a little there - saying it's "regulated like alcohol" means I can go buy kegs, brew 200 gallons of beer at home, and enjoy it at a Rockies game.  I get it - marijuana is being more tightly regulated than alcohol.

 

But now you're just twisting yourself into silly pretzels.  Being allowed to grow three plants is bad because... because... well, if you grow four, you're busted!  Getting to be a legal consumer at age 21 is bad because... because... because if you're smoking pot at age 20 you're busted!

 

Personally, I think marijuana's age limit should be 18 and there should be no burdensome limits on personal possession and cultivation.  Marijuana ought to be farmed commercially and anyone who wants in on the business should be allowed to.

 

But I'm mature enough to know we don't get from "Schedule I marijuana deadly dangerous narcotic drug!" to "treat it like tomatoes at the Farmer's Market" in one fell swoop. 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay Last I checked A64 passed and you're the one in here crying about your abject failure to convert anyone to your cause. But keep trying sugar tits.

 

Doesn't make you look like a desperate whiner or anything.

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay Don't get mad at me because you're too stupid to sign out of your account when you try to be Donkey.

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @KathleenChippi "Ryan Cordiva can't comprehend what he reads...."

 

It's like poetry. You trying to tell someone else they don't comprehend what they read while not comprehending what you're reading.

 

Too perfect.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @steve1227  @KathleenChippi  @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

Stupid Stoners swallowed a Giant Festering Turd with A64 ... they think it tastes like Chocolate ... because the Pimps told them it was delicious chocolate, and the maggots were sugary sprinkles.

 

Stupid Stoners are as Stupid Stoners do.

 

steve1227
steve1227

 @KathleenChippi  @Gary_Bowlmen

 Based on what I've read in the article, it looks like the largest "bait and switch" in world history has been pulled on the people of Colorado, AND that the people who pulled it seem to be getting away with it.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova  The facts I've presented regarding the lack of coverage of A64 are self-evident.

 

If you need to Google search anything you don't comprehend, then go for it.

 

Better get started, it might take you a while with your "baby steps" and full diaper slowing you down.

 

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay Glad you acknowledge that you;re too stupid to do a simple Google search to prove your own rants correct.

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay Lots of talky, talky, still no facts.

 

You're clearly nothing but hot air.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova "... haven't even established a baseline number."

 

The Lying Whores for A64 haven't established any factual basis for their absurd claim that it would "prevent 10,000+ arrests" every year.

 

 

Fact -- Brian Vicente and Mason Tvert were LYING when they made that claim -- they KNEW that A64 would not eliminate the TOTAL ARRESTS for ALL Marijuana Crimes, as A64 does not remove all, or most, or even a handful of marijuana crimes from law.

 

Fact -- They also KNEW that A64 would NOT even eliminate ALL Petty Offense FINES for marijuana possession, since it EXCLUDES EVERYONE under 21 yrs old from any coverage whatsoever, including the petty offense fines.

 

 

Your pathetic attempt to float the "they might just be retarded and stupid"  defense fails ... notwithstanding your personal success with that excuse.

 

hth.

 

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay Honestly, to even show that they were lying in this case you really only need Step 1 as they were clearly in a position to know and clearly in a position to pass on whatever information they had as from a position of power. 

 

So step up and prove it. 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay You haven't even established a baseline number.

 

How many arrests are there per year in Colorado for marijuana? How many for possession? How many for cultivation? How many for distribution? Find that evidence and then we can go into the rest of your list.

 

Right now you've got random speculation and absolutely no evidence. Keep trying though.

 

And for the last time, nowhere have I said you were wrong that they might be lying, nor is that an acknowledgment that you're right, I'm simply showing you that you don't have any evidence to actually make that case. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova "If it's such an easily disproven lie, why haven't you taken the time to actually disprove it with numbers and citations?"

 

Here, read it again, and re-read it until you comprehend it --

 

Fact -- A64's pathetically puny 1 (one) ounce limit is LESS than what current Colorado Statute has "decriminalized" -- 2 (two) ounces. 

 

Arrest reduction for personal possession = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 deliberately EXCLUDES EVERYONE under 21 yrs old from any coverage - they are not allowed a single gram, nor a single plant. 

 

The obscene cynicism of excluding the very age demographic that suffers nearly 50% of all marijuana arrests shows just how perversely pro-law enforcement the prohibitionists who wrote and promoted A64 actually are.  

 

Arrest reduction for everyone under 21 = ZERO! 

 

 Fact -- A64 does NOT allow ANY personal sales between consenting adults. Even selling one gram remains a FELONY!   

 

Arrest Reduction for Sales = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 does NOT allow ANY Public Display or Use. 

 

Arrest Reduction for Public Display or Use = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 does not repeal or modify a single FELONY Marijuana Crime in Colorado. 

 

Arrest Reduction for Marijuana Felonies = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 does not repeal any Misdemeanor marijuana possession crimes in Colorado.  

 

Arrest Reduction for Possession Misdemeanors = ZERO! 

 

So where -- exactly -- are the 10,000 arrestees hiding who don't fall into any of the above exclusions?

 

Do you have 10,000+ "3-Plant Farmers" locked in jail somewhere ?

 

You = Logic Fail!

 

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay So you're admitting that you don't have proof for your claim that they are lying?

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay "Then there is nothing in dispute. Your acquiescence of The Big LIE is hereby noted."

 

Acquiescence is NOT asking for proof of claim. But nice try.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova "I still don't remember making that claim. Perhaps you should show me where I'm defending it or quit trying to say that I am."

 

Then there is nothing in dispute. Your acquiescence of The Big LIE is hereby noted.

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay If it's such an easily disproven lie, why haven't you taken the time to actually disprove it with numbers and citations?

 

I've been waiting for that for a few weeks now. Still nothing.

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay "The LIE is FALSE on its face, for failure to provide any evidence in support of its claim."

 

Then it should be pretty easy to find the numbers that prove it, shouldn't it?

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay "So where are YOUR facts to support THE LIE that A64 will PREVENT 10,000+ Arrests for Marijuana Crimes,  every year, in Colorado?"

 

I still don't remember making that claim. Perhaps you should show me where I'm defending it or quit trying to say that I am.

 

I'm asking you to provide evidence for YOUR claim. I'm not talking to Brian Vicente or Mason Tvert here, I'm talking to you.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova There ARE NO NUMBERS to SUPPORT the LIE that "10,000+ people are Arrested for Marijuana possession" in Colorado every year.

 

The LIE is FALSE on its face, for failure to provide any evidence in support of its claim.

 

Back to you, skippy.

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay "10,000+ citizens are NOT arrested for personal possession every year in Colorado, making the initial premise of the LIE false on its face."

 

Show me the numbers. You can say things all you want, you need to provide the numbers.

 

That's step 1.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova 

 

Fact -- 10,000+ citizens are NOT arrested for personal possession every year in Colorado, making the initial premise of the LIE false on its face.

 

Fact -- A64's pathetically puny 1 (one) ounce limit is LESS than what current Colorado Statute has "decriminalized" -- 2 (two) ounces. 

 

Arrest reduction for personal possession = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 deliberately EXCLUDES EVERYONE under 21 yrs old from any coverage - they are not allowed a single gram, nor a single plant. 

 

The obscene cynicism of excluding the very age demographic that suffers nearly 50% of all marijuana arrests shows just how perversely pro-law enforcement the prohibitionists who wrote and promoted A64 actually are.  

 

Arrest reduction for everyone under 21 = ZERO! 

 

 Fact -- A64 does NOT allow ANY personal sales between consenting adults. Even selling one gram remains a FELONY!   

 

Arrest Reduction for Sales = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 does NOT allow ANY Public Display or Use. 

 

Arrest Reduction = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 does not repeal or modify a single FELONY Marijuana Crime in Colorado. 

 

Arrest Reduction for Marijuana Felonies = ZERO! 

 

Fact -- A64 does not repeal any Misdemeanor marijuana possession crimes in Colorado.  

 

Arrest Reduction for Marijuana Possession Misdemeanors = ZERO! 

 

A64 = The Big LIE, promoted by Lying Liars Brian Vicente and Mason Tvert.

 

So where are YOUR facts to support THE LIE that A64 will PREVENT 10,000+ Arrests for Marijuana Crimes,  every year, in Colorado?

 

{{{ cue those crickets }}}

 

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay This isn't just me talking out of my ass here, that's what you need to establish if you want this to succeed in court. 

 

There's no part of that you can skimp on.

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay You're making the claim that someone else is lying. The onus is on you to provide proof for your claim.

 

1. You need to establish that the facts are incorrect.

2. You need to establish that said party KNEW the facts were incorrect.

3. You need to establish that said party INTENTIONALLY deceived public with said facts.

 

We're still waiting on part 1 here.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova There are no numbers or facts to support the laughably absurd lie that A64 would prevent 10,000+ arrests for marijuana crimes every year in Colorado.

 

What part don't you comprehend?

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova  "So you're saying you don't have the numbers?"

 

There are no numbers or facts to support the laughably absurd lie that A64 would prevent 10,000+ arrests for marijuana crimes every year in Colorado.

 

None.

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova "But I do love watching you try so desperately to place words in other peoples mouths."

 

 

HipTip -- those aren't  "words" I've been placing in your purdy mouth, Ryan. 

 

Now remember to swallow this time ... and watch your teeth.

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @kevin_hunt "No need to disprove what hasn't been proven, or even supported by evidence in the first place."

 

So you're saying you don't have the numbers?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Kevin Hunt + Ryan Cordova = Lying Whores for A64 !!

 

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova "Do you have numbers that disprove that?"

 

No need to disprove what hasn't been proven, or even supported by evidence in the first place.

 

The Big Lie about preventing 10,000+ Arrests for Marijuana Crimes every year FAILS on its face as it is statistically impossible given the pathetically paltry scope of A64.

 

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay I don't have the numbers either way. The difference is, I'm not going to pretend I have the numbers either.

 

Do you have numbers that disprove that? I'd love to see it if you do.

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotay I don't recall making that claim either. But I do love watching you try so desperately to place words in other peoples mouths.

 

It really reeks of lacking a substantial argument.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @ryan.cordova  So you admit that laughably false claim by the Lying Whores for A64 is a BIG LIE!, eh?

 

 

 

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @kevin_hunt  @KathleenChippi "And no one here has ever been abused by the Donkey..ha ha."

 

Clearly these forums have always been free of ad hominem, fuckwit.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all the fuckwit puerile pot clowns out there!

ryan.cordova
ryan.cordova topcommenter

 @KathleenChippi  @Gary_Bowlmen"Yesterday,  I responded to Ryan Cordova in kind to all his attacks at me......  I let him get a feel as to what he and others have been throwing at me........."

 

I asked you to provide evidence for your claims and you told me to stuff it up my ass. If that's "abuse" then I can see why you can't get anything through the courts anymore. You've totally lost touch with reality.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @kevin_hunt  = craves the abuse, like a battered wife.

 

Büch Dich, Kevin!

 

.

kevin_hunt
kevin_hunt

 @KathleenChippi  " I have taken more then enough in personal attacks and abuse in the last 4 weeks"

 

And no one here has ever been abused by the Donkey..ha ha.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @KathleenChippi  @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

Fuck Lyin' Ryan "the retard" Cordova, and fuck what he stands for.

 

No Real Marijuana Advocate would share the herb with a worthless Prohibitionist  Pro-Law Enforcement Parasite like him.

 

 

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen 

 

Grow up Kathleen?  Have you read the thread Gary?  I have taken more then enough in personal attacks and abuse in the last 4 weeks that an internet attorney following the blog posted about how I was being illegally harassed.  Ryan Cordova is just one of about 6 posters and I have had enough sitting here taking it ---It's Ryan Cordova taking the pop shots and it's me FINALLY telling him to fuck off. 

 

I'm fighting for a human rights/constitutional victory---I don't know what a marijuana victory is nor am I 'giving' a marijuana victory to anyone, nor have I promised it.............and "this"  is not why no one takes me seriously--as in the last 3 years on this blog or any other-- I never posted the childish nonsense nor have I vocalized it.

 

The reason I don't have 1%er's money floating language that does almost nothing in the court of law is because I won't sell out any of the people who use cannabis or any part of the cannabis plant. 

 

Yesterday,  I responded to Ryan Cordova in kind to all his attacks at me......  I let him get a feel as to what he and others have been throwing at me.........and screw you for ignoring all the shit I take for years only to come on to tell me I'm the asshole on the one day of over 1,000 that I respond in kind---the assholes have been on a rampage for months and I have not seen you post one god damn thing asking them to behave.  Something else smells like Ryan Cordova....

 

 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @Gary_Bowlmen  @KathleenChippi 

 

No Cop will take A64 seriously, as it does NOT remove a single incarcerable offense for Marijuana Possession or Sales from his bag of tricks.

 

A64 = written for Suckers and Chumps too stupid to read, much less comprehend what it proposed.

 

Gary_Bowlmen
Gary_Bowlmen

 @KathleenChippi  Grow up Kathleen !!! This is the person that is supposed to give us a Marijuana victory ?????? This is why nobody takes you seriously !!  

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...