Marijuana task force recommends giving current MMJ businesses a one-year quasi-monopoly?


"That was raised by a number of people during public comments," Sederberg says, "but it wasn't really discussed by the larger task force.

"I can certainly understand that argument," he notes. "But there are probably ways to address that -- by not requiring that a retail store have a cultivation facility, but requiring that everyone that has a cultivation facility has a retail store. That was not recommended by the task force, but it's certainly something that I'm sure will be discussed."

A64 - first task force.jpeg
Photo by Sam Levin
The first task force meeting took place in mid-December.
With that in mind, Sederberg favored adopting vertical integration for the first two years after formal rules are in place; then, the question could be reexamined. In his view, "that would allow for a smoother transition. And I was concerned that by opening up to more of a free market, you'd see a lot of people coming here and opening up cultivation facilities because it's been their dream. But by throwing the gates open, it might really burden the system and potentially cause a situation where we had substantial over-production," potentially leading to illegal diversion.

In the end, a version of this tack was given the task force's blessing -- the difference being that a three-year vertical-integration system was suggested, as opposed to two. But also adopted, Sederberg says, "was a recommendation that the only people who can apply for any new business license for the first year are businesses that are currently in the system" -- meaning already licensed medical-marijuana operations.

He opposes this recommendation for a slew of reasons, including a very simple one: "I don't think it's fair." He adds, "What if local governments not currently involved in the medical-marijuana program are thinking about opening their cities or counties up to these businesses, but no business from their locality can apply? I'm very concerned that those cities and counties would be hesitant, or maybe decide not to take part, because unless their own local people are already operating in another locality, they won't be able to apply."

As such, Sederberg and University of Denver professor Sam Kamin, who's spoken to Westword on a number of occasions about marijuana laws and potential federal intervention, offered an amendment to drop the existing-businesses proviso. But it was defeated.

Of course, there's no guarantee that a proposal granting current businesses with what some may see as a year-long monopoly, or at least a significant head start, will definitely become law. The task force is only offering its take, not writing legislation. But as Sederberg notes, "there's a general sense that if we come up with a good set of recommendations that deal with a lot of these big-picture items, the legislature will seriously consider them, and adopt many of them."

To him, however, "the restriction of new license applicants to only current medical-marijuana-business licensees goes really, really far. And I would not be surprised to see the legislature or someone else take a hard look at it. As they should."

More from our Marijuana archive: "Marijuana tourism recommended by task force -- but can rules prevent smurfing?"


My Voice Nation Help
133 comments
stuka1
stuka1


BTW that should be "To wit:", not "To whit:".

stuka1
stuka1


Greedy is as greedy does.

eviloden
eviloden

@DonkeyHotay Who wants to bet our friend donkey here is going to a dispensary after this? Or even a legal store in Colorado? Where is dragon fly these days? this ignorance is not long lasting and only the internet gives people like this ANY voice.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

"Would that create a quazi-monopoly?"

You mean oligopoly? Licensing itself creates an oligopoly.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

FAIL. Amendment 64 said no such thing about that. The assertion was that the market was going to be OPENED. It was because I had no idea what these assholes were going to do (not to mention the assholes in the statehouse) that I could not vote for this mess. There was this thing about extra taxation, too.


Oh, and I'm sure you'll be going to court on that bit where you violate the constitution by imposing a false limit on what I can grow, over time. I hope you enjoy your vigorous black market, because you had to be children and fuck with us.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Marijuana Task Farce already ENCROACHING on the puny limits of A64 to the detriment of INDIVIDUAL users/growers.

===================================================
"Recommend that a reasonable, maximum amount of marijuana that can be legally possessed of the “marijuana produced by six plants” be codified in statute. The amount that can be kept at the location of a non-commercial cultivation should be limited to an amount consistent with personal use and should be kept in a secure, locked container. 

Personal use is defined as no more than 16 ounces of a usable form of dried, cured marijuana product, which can be stored at the site where the marijuana is harvested."
====================================================

So much for the Stoner delusion of being able to grow/produce an UNLIMITED amount of pot from their 3/6 plant farm.

Now once you stoners accumulate a single pound you'll have to shut down your grow -- since you can't legally sell any overage, and now can't legally possess more than 1 single pound from your grow. 

A single greenhouse plant can easily produce a pound. An outdoor plant can produce 3-5 pounds, placing the grower in instant violation of the new REGULATIONS.

And possession of a single gram beyond the newly minted 1 pound limit will result in an INSTANT FELONY violation under existing Colorado Statute!


Feel that Fist of REGULATION all up inside you, stoners? -- REGULATION WORKS!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@eviloden ... you really have no clue what you're yammering about, do you fool?


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident  ... the Greedy Big $$$ Dispensary Cartels, their paid Marijuana McLawyer Lobbyists and the parasitic bedfellows at the Department of REVENUE will insure that THEIR BEST INTERESTS are maintained ... to the detriment and harm of Individual Users/Growers.

Stupid Stoners DESERVE every inch of this fist fucking ... they voted FOR it!


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident

So, in spite of numerous warning by numerous wiser individuals that A64 would be a worthless clusterfuck due to it's utterly pathetic inarticulate wording, 10,000s of idiots decided to remain clueless drooling imbeciles and vote for it anyway.

SSAASSD

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay


You forgot to include the minority dissenting opinion, which clearly calls the prohibitionists out for attemting an end run around A64:


(from Brian Connors and Lauren Davis)
Specifically, we do not support the proposed definition of “enclosed.” The approved recommendation defines “enclosed’ as “A permanent or semi-permanent area covered and surrounded on all sides.” This recommendation defines terms affecting the location and circumstances of cultivation of marijuana under Article 18, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution.
The majority view in the Working Group is that “enclosed” means an area or structure with a roof or top covering of some kind. In the context of cultivation, we would favor a definition which does not impose the requirement of a roof or top covering. This definition would allow cultivation inside a home with a locking door.
However, this definition would preclude cultivation in locations such as a locked, fenced backyard or patio or an apartment balcony or window box. A single plant in a rural fenced backyard would run afoul of this definition. Requiring cultivation in an enclosed area with a roof is an unreasonable burden on a citizen who wishes to cultivate up to six plants. Given the light required to grow marijuana or any other plant, a citizen would be forced to build or buy a shed or other structure and then would have to run
electricity to the structure to facilitate cultivation.
There comes a point where unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of a constitutional right impermissibly burden the reasonable exercise of that right. This is such an instance. Many Coloradans have a fenced backyard or patio. This proposed definition would mean that any citizen who wishes to cultivate a single plant in a locked, fenced backyard would have to incur substantial expense to devise an electrified structure with a roof.
A more reasonable definition of “enclosed” would be one which allows for cultivation of up to six plants using natural light in a locked, fenced backyard. The act of fencing and locking the backyard is sufficient to address the limited and reasonable restriction on cultivation mandated in Article 18, Section 16 (3)(b).

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Where did that citation come from? The one thing the A64 people told me when they were trying to sell me on it was that there wasn't going to be a limit on what I keep from my grow.

Monkey
Monkey

@DonkeyHotay If they do that, I will be disgusted, but not surprised. Apparently, counting plants and weighing weed will always be a duty for the police, no matter how legal they tell us it is.

eviloden
eviloden

@DonkeyHotay @eviloden So how should i answer that? law degrees? books I've read? logical deduction? then again i don't feel i need to validate my understanding of the marijuana community to "donkeyhotay" on some website. I know I know. Government bad, chem trails, the sandy shooting was an inside job. I know I know.

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay really, Mr. Hotay. How many people really read the westword blogs, and the comments to them? Especially in light of the fact that they are overrun by hysterical screaming howler monkeys who bury what little points they might have had under mountains of invective and apoplectic drivel?

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Ah...I see you've now backed away from the assertion that I voted for it. I know you're sorry. Don't mention it.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

Been tipping the flask a bit early today? Reread and recant. I specifically indicated I had no idea what these jackasses would do when invited to screw with it that I DID NOT vote for it.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "minority dissenting opinion" + $20 = an eighth of dispensary schwag


stuka1
stuka1

The  @Cognitive_Dissident @DonkeyHotay citation is from the recommendations of the task farce. Case posteda link in the "pot tourism"comments. I posted a summary as well. Be sure to read the dissenting opinions from pro cannabis task farce members They specifically point out that this proposal directly contravenes a64.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident "The one thing the A64 people told me ..."

Was LIE after LIE after LIE.

Case posted a link to the A64 Task Farce proposed rules in the other discussion thread.

There's also indication that the A64 REGULATORS will crush and eliminate any possibility of natural, energy efficient outdoor growing.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Monkey ... Stoners who were Stupid enough to SURRENDER TOTAL CONTROL of Marijuana over to Big Government Regulators and Law Enforcement Goons via A64 ... DESERVE THE FIST of REGULATION rammed ALL THE WAY UP THEIR IGNORANT ASSES! ... up to the fucking elbow!

Bück Dich! and grab your ankles, you punk-ass stoners, and feel that REGULATION you naively begged for !!

Who knew this festering turd would turn out like this? ...LOL!

OMG! ... this is giving Donkey a hard-on just thinking about it ...

-- REGULATION WORKS !! --

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @eviloden "funy [sic] you left the second part out. It's ok i have it right here ... government should have regulations and oversight of the production and sales of cannabis on a commercial scale."

@eviloden "the black market is always an option. taxes to high? black market. over regulation? black market. The free market will always over rule any regulations."

So you support the Black Market for Commercial Scale marijuana, eh numbnuts?


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay "DonkeyHotay 51 minutes ago


@eviloden ... yet here you are, reading and replying to my posts ... even changing the topic of discussion to me personally"


Gee...where did I hear that sentiment last... Oh, yeah -- Fred Phelps! Yeah cool strategy bro

eviloden
eviloden

@DonkeyHotayfuny you left the second part out. It's ok i have it right here "cannabis on a commercial scale. This is not me saying the government should kick in your door if your growing 50, 100, 200 plants for personal use but BUSINESSES should have regulations and quality controls." and "big government regulatory fascist"? for suggesting ANY regulation? thanks I'm sure you have done more to help my argument then I have.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@eviloden "hoping to show normal people who visit this site that SOME stoners accept that government should have regulations and oversight of the production and sales of cannabis on a commercial scale."

So you're a Big Government Regulatory Fascist.

Noted.

eviloden
eviloden

@DonkeyHotay in short you are fringe. less then 1% of stoners. probably about 20 % of most hippies and 100% Hippocrates

 

eviloden
eviloden

@DonkeyHotay hoping to show normal people who visit this site that SOME stoners accept that government should have regulations and oversight of the production and sales of cannabis on a commercial scale. This is not me saying the government should kick in your door if your growing 50, 100, 200 plants for personal use but BUSINESSES should have regulations and quality controls. The black market has never been kind to me. Amsterdam was a very nice model from what i seen except that the government still goes after growers there. So they would run out of popular strains  because they can't risk massive grows. I feel that a fully LEGAL law including production would help that problem. This is an experiment in "legalized marijuana". We will get it right some day but until then if you don't like it "black market" is always an option. That being said we need to move towards rational discussions of reasonable regulations and not this notion of "any regulations, taxes, or over sight is not "real" legalization". Sorry to tell you marijuana has gone mainstream thus it will reflect the mainstream. We need to help shape that and not hide in our homes talking shit on everyone else who TRIES to shape it. 



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@eviloden ... yet here you are, reading and replying to my posts ... even changing the topic of discussion to me personally.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident = so Kike can't be a pejorative against the Jews if the Jewish people aren't mentioned, eh numbnuts?

You really are an ignorant imbecile, aren't you?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident ... no more PC than saying someone was jewed down on price, or gypped on a deal.

It's a pejorative against the Welsh people.

Did you donate your overage to needy suffering MMJ patients yet?



Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

I'll have the same overage I have now--more than I need, less than one pound.

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay@Cognitive_DissidentNegative. I used the "clean" form:


welsh |wel sh | (also welch)
verb [ intrans. ] ( welsh on)
fail to honor (a debt or obligation incurred through a promise or agreement) : banks began welshing on their agreement not to convert dollar reserves into gold.
DERIVATIVES
welsher noun
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: of unknown origin.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident

The pejorative is "Welshed", not welched, at least get your bigotry correct.

And what "overage" will you have, being limited to 1 (one) pound total from your 3-plant farm?




stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay the pathetic mommy's-basement-dwelling loser troll, you havent proven anything but your own inability to read

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 = the proven lying cunt and legal imbecile.

Keep failing, sucker.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident ... too bad the Stupid Stoners didn't have the brains or foresight that god gave a turnip when they SURRENDERED TOTAL CONTROL of Marijuana over to the Big Government Regulators and anti-drug Law Enforcement Goons who've been running the Drug War against them for over 40+ years.

Imagine the Palestinians surrendering total control of Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem to the Israelis ... and expecting them to act in their best interest.

LOL! 

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay What a pathetic liar you are. *I* don't criminalize anyone, you lying cunt. *I* didn't write the law, and there is a lot I didn't agree with. And I see that YOU would have preferred to continue criminalizing EVERYONE by your efforts to defeat A64, which at least decriminalized MOST cannabis users. But thats all anyone could expect from an ignorant basement-dwelling lying trolling cunt like you.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "I and 999/1000 of the populace have no need at all to CARRY anything near an ounce of cannabis "

So you continue to CRIMINALIZE those who do, the  5,000+ individuals of the populace of Colorado you excluded with your absurd assertion, those who dare possess more than what YOU claim is sufficient.

You = part of the prohibitionist machine.

... and a proven liar and legal ignoramus.



stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 Surrender? Hell no: we stopped the prohibitionist machine dead in its tracks. And we provided momentum for the rest of the country. The tide has turned and is getting stronger every day. 

I and 999/1000 of the populace have no need at all to CARRY anything near an ounce of cannabis around in our pocketts. Its quite generous, actually.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "This isnt a game. Its a war"

And you surrendered ... to the Prohibitionist Bureaucrats ... for a pathetic ounce.

Makes the Vichy French look like freedom fighting heroes by comparison.



stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 

This isnt a game. Its a war. And folks like Marvin Booker will now not be murdered over paraphernalia or small quantities. AND the momentum is now on our side. If you would get up off the floor and quit your kicking and squealing, you might get yourself some perspective.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1  ... stupid stoners don't even realize they forfeited the game to The Prohibitionist Bureaucrats with A64.

You played yourself, chump.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 "

unconstitutional" = game over for butthurt prohibitionists


stuka1
stuka1


@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 Myopic git. "Unconstitutional" = game over for butthurt prohibitionist task farce shills

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 

From the stoner dictionary of denial:

Uncomfortable Facts  = "hysterical ranting"

hth.

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1


So its back to hysterical ranting a la Fred Phelps. Shirley, actually.  Always your last defense when you have nothing relevant to contribute and youve been called out for generating hyperbole without comtent.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "Be sure to read the dissenting opinions from pro cannabis task farce members"

About as useful as a miniskirt in a convent.

The BigGovernment Regulators, Law Enforcement Goons and Big $$ Dispensary Cartel McLawyer Lobbyists have TOTAL CONTROL over the "regulatory framework" ... since the fools who wrote and voted for A64 specifically surrendered control to them.

The pro-cannabis whiners don't even have the power to determine what type of lubricant will be used -- if any -- before that regulatory framework is rammed up their quivering puckered sphincters.

Now Bück Dich!, suckers and receive the FIST of REGULATION you bargained for!

Fucking Retards.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Cognitive_Dissident

... the Lying Marijuana McLawyers who wrote A64 deliberately excluded outdoor grows, as they produce very large plants when done properly -- three to five pounds each -- and would thereby interfere with the Profit Motive of their Big $$ Dispensary Cartel clients by allowing every citizen the freedom to never have to patronize an overpriced, overtaxed retail marijuana pimp.

Stupid Stoners fucked themselves in the ass with A64.

This is hilarious to watch, and will be for quite some time.



Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@eviloden @DonkeyHotay @Monkey It was a turd when it came out. BTW, these guys are supposed to be lawyers, and they saw what happened to the MMJ. It's hardly a surprise that you invite the reefer madness crowd in, they're going to try to shut it down at every comma and semicolon.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@eviloden "no they were trying to set up a bill to legalize marijuana and set up reasonable limits of home production and possession. "

A64 was NOT about legalization, even the authors of A64 admitted that. Only stupid stoners claimed otherwise.

HipTip: if something is legal, why limit production or possession?



eviloden
eviloden

@DonkeyHotay @eviloden @Monkey  no they were trying to set up a bill to legalize marijuana and set up reasonable limits of home production and possession. A lot of the times people who write the bills don't know how lawyers, officers, criminals are going to manipulate the law they wrote. kind of like the "donations" in Montana. So 64 is a turd, in your opinion, I'm sure you can't stop vomiting over 502. Is there any legalization and regulations you would agree with?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@eviloden @DonkeyHotay @Monkey 

So that was the intent of the Fools and Tools who supported this festering turd A64? ... to ensure a robust and burgeoning Black Market in marijuana ?

Who knew?

LOL!

eviloden
eviloden

@DonkeyHotay @Monkey it's impossible to surrender total control to the government regarding marijuana because the black market is always an option. taxes to high? black market. over regulation? black market. The free market will always over rule any regulations.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...