Top

blog

Stories

 

Marijuana: A64 task force member says buying limits about diversion, not jacking up prices


Thumbnail image for Task Force, media.jpeg
Photo by Sam Levin
The first task force meeting took place in mid-December.
Last week, the A64 task force recommended allowing adults 21 and over with out-of-state drivers licenses to purchase marijuana in Colorado -- something that would presumably allow pot tourism. However, such visitors may face buying limits intended to prevent them from "smurfing" -- going from shop to shop, buying an ounce at a time. Sederberg told us the goal of this policy was to prevent people from buying significant quantities of pot here, then heading home to places where it's illegal.

"If I'm from out of state and I can buy an ounce at a time, I can go to sixteen stores to get a pound," he says. "But if I'm limited to only buying an eighth at a time, I'd have to go to 128 stores to buy an ounce" -- the sort of effort that even the most dedicated person might see as more trouble than it's worth. And if the limit was placed at a quarter ounce for out-of-staters, they'd still have to stop by 64 stores to reach a pound.

According to Sederberg, the thinking was similar when it came to possibly limiting purchase sizes for Colorado residents.

"Here's what happened," he begins. "The recommendation was that the one-ounce limit apply to stores, but nothing in it shall prohibit them from considering lower amounts for people who have in-state residency. The representative from the Attorney General's office had indicated it made sense to consider lower amounts, but when he was asked if he wanted to an offer an amendment about that, he said he would second an amendment. So I offered an amendment to make it very clear that we wouldn't put in a specific amount, but letting them" -- meaning members of the Colorado legislature, who'll be writing Amendment 64 implementation laws this session -- "consider it.

"It's not a recommendation that they do it," he goes on. "It's just a recommendation to keep all ideas on the table. Whether or not it's an effective idea or an ineffective idea is less important to me than a conversation of whether this is a credible idea, or if there are other ideas to move this forward."

Sederberg doesn't argue that a keg is the equivalent of a quarter-ounce of marijuana, even though (update) he brought up the topic in the following passage from a Monday Associated Press article:

Sederberg said marijuana legalization backers agreed to purchasing limits because he said most pot users won't find it onerous. Sederberg said average daily pot smokers use about half a gram a day, well below the 1 ounce possession limit.

Sederberg compared pot limits to kegs of beer. There's no limit on alcohol possession, but people seeking kegs of beer must sign their names and agree not to share beer with minors, Sederberg pointed out.

However, Sederberg goes on, "I am saying that if the Attorney General's office thinks this makes sense for diversion protection, then we should keep that discussion open."

He notes that "there are different types of diversion that can occur in any regulated market. If you think about it, 100 percent of alcohol diverted to people under 21 comes from our regulated system -- like when somebody taps a guy going into a liquor store on the shoulder and says, 'Can you buy me and my friends some alcohol?'"

Applying such a scenario to marijuana doesn't take a big leap, Sederberg maintains. "If I'm the older brother and I have to go to multiple stores to get the younger brother any amount over whatever a reasonable limit could be, that's a slight deterrent, but a deterrent nonetheless."

Again, Sederberg emphasizes that he's not endorsing a limit at this time, and he's interested in speaking with Edson about his concerns -- some of which are shared by members of the marijuana industry.

"They were not supportive of this is any way," Sederberg says. "The industry voted against it, and spoke against it during the comment period." Hence, inflating prices via buying limits "was not the motivation of the industry people who were present."

From his perspective, though, the option of limiting purchase sizes to less than an ounce is worth preserving for now. In his words, "it's a conversation worth having."

More from our Marijuana archive: "Marijuana tourism isn't main reason to let out-of-staters buy pot, says task force member."


My Voice Nation Help
39 comments
stuka1
stuka1

Bottom line is that it IS corporate greed that is driving this. 

Sederberg = Mr. Fuck You, I Got Mine.


Asshole.

 The sad excuse that it's to stop this mythical "diversion" is Henny-Penny, Sky-is-falling prohibitionist made-up propaganda bullshit. Cannabis ADVOCATES have no business playing into that horseshit.

I am sorely disappoint.

garcia.jerome
garcia.jerome

"If I'm from out of state and I can buy an ounce at a time, I can go to sixteen stores to get a pound," he says. "But if I'm limited to only buying an eighth at a time, I'd have to go to 128 stores to buy an ounce" -- huh? wouldn't you have to go to 8 stores to buy an ounce. Its called an eighth for a reason. that reason is because it's an eighth of an ounce. But the most appalling thing about this is that some asshat who can't even do simple math is part of this task force.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

By the way, last night the 5ng DUID bill made it out of committee, expressly because (as at least three committee members said) "The constitution says we have to treat marijuana like alcohol."

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

Colorado isn't the DEA. Colorado shouldn't be making policy to prevent people leaving the state with it. It's not our business. It should be made clear that we don't condone it and are not making policy to encourage it, but out-of-staters should not be treated differently simply because they're out-of-staters.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 Sederberg: "I am saying that if the Attorney General's office thinks this makes sense for diversion protection, then we should keep that discussion open."

Good thing that Sederberg - Vicente are working so hard to please the AG.

A64 = a continuation of criminal prohibition against marijuana users and growers, with extra taxes and regulations added for fun!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 Sederberg:"But if I'm limited to only buying an eighth at a time, I'd have to go to 128 stores to buy an ounce [sic]"

Stoners + Math = Epic FAIL!

So which is it, Michael? ...is Sederberg a blithering idiot whom you quoted verbatim, failed to note the error or ask for correction, or did you misquote him as stuka1 claims?



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Where are those LYING ASSWIPES who repeatedly declared that A64 would create no new laws against marijuana ?


tutonehcc
tutonehcc

The keg analogy is perfect, why the confusion Warren?  Yea, no kidding a keg has more than 1/4 oz, but REAL FUCKING POINT IS, you can buy as many kegs as you want.  Want a truck load of kegs, call Coors, they'll bring you a damn truck load tomorrow!


The point is NO LIMIT ON ALCOHOL!  Yet limit on marijuana to 1/4 oz?  Why play dumb, you know what the commenter was talking about, I know I sure did and I'm just another stoner.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Sederberg = blithering Marijuana McLawyer idiot and lying pimp who helped promote the clusterfuck that is  A64 ... a legal clusterfuck which he and his firm stand to reap $$$$$$$$ from.

Hey Fuckchop, if full blown CRIMINAL FELONY statutes haven't stopped millions of $$ of interstate marijuana traffic, what simpering stooge thinks that some limp-wristed, unenforceable and ineffective REGULATIONS will have any effect?

Fucking imbeciles leading the fucking retards.


Kevin McNeil
Kevin McNeil

I know they sell cigarettes without any limits and even can sell next to schools, now that's got to be good for the overall health of our nation. Why do cigarette companies get all the perks?

instntkrma
instntkrma

better stay medical if you use an 1/8 a day. Nothing like having to go to the pot shop 3 or 4 times a week.  They're going to make growing your own more and more attractive to people that would have just gone to the store.  

Justin Jones
Justin Jones

It will make it harder, but who cares if people want to break a law in another state?

stuka1
stuka1

Sederberg has turned into a prohibitionist shill.

Unbelievable that he would endorse this, much less champion it.

Mike Milos
Mike Milos

The only thing it will do is run up the price at a retail level. Pounds go out of state every day, and as long as there is prohibition in other states, they will continue to go out of state! This is about a bunch of greedy MMJ shop owners, and their representatives, using this as a ruse to inflate their prices! The EXACT same people are the ones who want to limit the first year of recreational sales to already existing mmj shops..... nothing greedy going on there huh?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident ... thank Allah that the Stupid Stoners and Prohibitionist Pimps had the foresight to expressly declare in A64 that DUI-marijuana shall always be illegal ...

... without setting any objective standards, definitions or limits as to what that actually entails, leaving it up to anti-pot legislators and law enforcement to decide.

Get REGULATED, chumps ... it's what you begged for.

5ng/ml = Huge $$$$$$$$ windfall for the Marijuana McLawyers and the Criminal DUI Industry !!



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter


                                *** Regulation Works! ***

... for the Regulators!

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyAssWipe's lack of reading comprehension skills causes him to strawman and lie. MY "claim" was that it looked like either Sederberg misquoted/misspoke on his talking point, OR Michael misquoted him. 

In any case, you need to have your mommy take you back to the Nice Doctor to get your meds adjusted.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma ... THEY -- the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary interests that Sederberg-Vicente represent -- are going to make it as difficult as possible for INDIVIDUALS to legally produce their own sustainable home-grown supply.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "Sederberg has turned into a prohibitionist shill."

Only stupid clueless stoners didn't comprehend that the Marijuana McLawyers like Sederberg and Vicente were ALWAYS prohibitionist ... who suckered fools like you into surrendering TOTAL CONTROL of marijuana over to the same Big Government Bureaucrats and Law Enforcement goons who've been running the Drug War against you for the last 40+ years.

Prohibition and Regulation are how the McLawyers make their $$$. If it were actually legal, you wouldn't need any fucking lawyers.

You got played like the ignorant chump that you are.

Now Bück Dich!, sucker.


Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

WRT the "McLawyers," this particular version of the bill, if it becomes law, would be a windfall for them, because they'll get to bill even more hours to patients who now get to "prove" they're not impaired in light of the now "permissible inference" that 5ng/ml makes them impaired. (It'll usually be patients, because those are the most "chronic" users, who are known to read high even when they're not impaired.)

Unfortunately, a court challenge will probably be useless, as "permissible inference" has already been through the wash in other contexts, even though it flips the board and makes the victim of the legal system guilty until proven innocent.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @Cognitive_Dissident Yup. It was repeatedly expressed by the public that no one wants anyone "under the influence" of anything. the question has always been with regard to the ridiculous arbitrary measurement of 5ng/ml "Delta-9 THC" (they sound like they almost know what they're talking about) in whole blood. 

When asked why the only medicine they single out for such an arbitrary chemical test is pot, they now have the above-quoted excuse ready.

When asked why not exclude patients, they said they are duty-bound to treat everyone (except prescription-drug users and other legal drug users, apparently) equally. 

WTF?

orson
orson

@stuka1  

This is the second westword article that quote has been used in and the mistake was pointed out in the first article.  Making the mistake one time is understandable, repeating it on the other hand...

orson
orson

@stuka1@instntkrma 

 "stay medical" ... unless you are a stupid stoner.  i'm all for regulating stupid stoners.

stuka1
stuka1


@DonkeyHotay go upstairs and tell your mommy that its time to up your meds

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @Cognitive_Dissident I think you'd find in a libertarian society, individuals would find themselves required to be responsible for themselves and their actions. That's really the point. 

Frankly, I wouldn't doubt if insurance would find a market incentive to basically require people who test positive for impairing substances to demonstrate driving competence before getting behind the wheel (not entirely unlike alcoholics having to do a blow test to start their car.)

It wouldn't be mandatory, though. You could choose not to buy insurance, but no road owner would let you on his road uninsured.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident "I don't drive in that heavily medicated state"

If only all stoners, druggies and alcoholics were as circumspect as you ... society wouldn't need any laws regarding DUI ... a Libertarian Shangri-La ...

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Motor skills, yes, cognitive function, no...and the interesting thing about that is, it'll keep me from getting in the car long before it'll make me wreck it. I know I'm trashed in that case and I don't drive in that heavily medicated state. It's very much unlike being an overconfident drunk. I sit in a steam room waiting for the pain to release. 

Coincidentally, I've had conversations with people on the order that would indicate my cognitive abilities simply aren't affected.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident 

CBD does have a deleterious effect upon motor skills and cognitive function, though different than THC.

CBD is the "medical" part of marijuana, THC is the "high". CBD modulates some of the psychomimetic effects of THC ...  not so well in some users.

Heroin un-impairs  people from pain too ... yet no fool would argue that nodding junkies should be encouraged to drive vehicles on public roadways.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @Cognitive_Dissident Some clown even claimed that CBD is "worse"than THC, even though he obviously pulled the assertion out of his ass.

That's particularly insulting to me, since it's my headaches and neck pain that do impair me, and it's CBD that un-impairs me (from what I'm told, and THC just comes along for the ride.)

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident ... The PEOPLE -- i.e. stupid stoners, prohibitionist pimps and self-serving marijuana McLawyers -- have SPOKEN! 

A64 clearly and unequivocally declares that "Driving under the influence of Marijuana shall remain illegal" ... even if science proves that driving under the influence of marijuana is not hazardous, it must remain illegal!

Fucking idiots and imbeciles who voted for A64 DESERVE to have this idiocy rammed all the way up their rectums.

Arrests prevented by A64 = Zero!

Arrests and New Crimes CREATED by A64 = UNLIMITED!



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 @orson 

WW stories are aimed at stoners, they don't need to be accurate.

... especially with hard stuff like math and spelling.


stuka1
stuka1


@DonkeyHotay yes where she doles out rusty trombones to hobos who wander in from colfax

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... stupid stoner ... I live upstairs, mom lives in the basement.


Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...