Marijuana tourism recommended by task force -- but can rules prevent smurfing?

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

"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.

So 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.

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

stuka1 topcommenter

....and again, these are recommendations, not the law. "[You] now can't legally possess more than 1 single pound from your grow." is far from a given.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "...and again, these are recommendations, not the law."

LOL! ... Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

The fools and tools who wrote and passed A64 surrendered TOTAL CONTROL of marijuana over to the same Government Regulators and Law Enforcement Goons who've been running the Drug War against you for these past 40+ years.

Trust them ... they really do care about you.

LOL!

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay And in the end the task farce shitcanned that recommendation. Now don't you feel like a fucking idiot for jumping up and down and squealing that the sky is falling?

Remember I said, " ....and again, these are recommendations, not the law. "[You] now can't legally possess more than 1 single pound from your grow." is far from a given", and how you droned on about me being in denial? And they junked that shit anyway.

Dumbass.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... says the proven liar and legal imbecile.

You = zero credibility

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay I can tell that you haven't read the proposals. You would have found some competing proposals on some of the same issues. But here you are straawmanning again. I don't trust the task farce or the legislators any more than you do. But what part of "this directly contravenes the constitution" are you refusing to understand?

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay

From the dissenting section of that recommendation -- really you should cross-reference the full document at the link Case provided:

4. Is there a dissenting voice in your working group about this recommendation? If yes,
please provide a summary of the minority opinion about this recommendation.
Lauren Davis- I have serious concerns that this is an unconstitutional rule in direct
contravention to the language in the Constitution.
Turning to the rules of Constitutional construction, the drafters of Amendment 64
knew how to impose limitations on legal amounts when they so intended. The fact that
they did not put such a limitation in Section (b) means that it was not their intent to
impose a limit on the amount that could be possessed. They knew they were drafting a
law about a plant that is subject to various yields.
Additionally, they were very specific about where you could possess it/store it beyond
the 1 ounce limitation in Section (a). They clearly thought through the language
carefully. The plain language is clear.
This recommendation also creates a law that potentially is impossible for a citizen to
comply. Every plant will yield a different amount of product; this rule creates a
situation where a person may intend to comply, but cannot comply due to a
circumstance of nature, which is out of their control, ie. Their plant harvest yields 24
ounces or more. If this rule is passed, at a minimum, the Legislature must create a
statutory mechanism for lawful disposal of excess product produced by the plants so
that citizens can legally comply with this rule.
Regardless, I support the idea that this must be considered a matter of state-wide
concern which locals cannot further limit. A citizen’s constitutional rights cannot vary
depending on which town they live in or which side of the street they live on in a
county.

stuka1 topcommenter

Thanks to Case for the link to the Governor's task farce recommendations.

I have summarized the recommendations below.

Keep in mind that I may have made errors, omissions, typos, formatting errors (three of these, most notably what I have numbered #16, were formatted so badly that, when copy/pasted to a word processor, each word was on a single line of the page, necessitating a tedious hand-reformatting word-by-word) etc. in my summary, so please do cross reference any items of interest with the original document that Case cites below.

Also, I have numbered each recommendation (#1-27), but these numbers are for my own convenience and possibly the reader's, and have nothing to do with any numbering system the task force might use.

Summary of recommendations of the Governor's Task Force:

1. Clarification of definitions. “ENCLOSED, LOCKED
SPACE”: ENCLOSED means: A permanent or semi-permanent area covered and surrounded on all sides. See C.R.S. 42-4-201. The temporary opening of windows or doors or the temporary removal of wall or ceiling panels, does not convert area into an unenclosed space.
Some examples include, but are not limited to the following: a shed, a greenhouse, a trailer, a residence, a building, or a room inside a building. An indoor area can include any enclosed area or portion there of.
LOCKED SPACE means: That the area where cultivation occurs must be secured at the point of public entry by a device designed to limit access. If cultivation is being done inside a residence, if anyone under 21 lives at the residence, the room or space where cultivation is occurring must be locked when not occupied by an adult over the age of 21. Reasonable time shall be allowed for ingress and egress from the ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE
“GROWING IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY”:
OPENLY means: not protected from unaided observations lawfully made from outside its
perimeter not involving physical intrusion.
PUBLICLY means: area is open to general access without restriction.

2. Clarification of definitions. “CONSUMPTION
CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY”:
CONSUMPTION means: the act of smoking, inhaling, eating, drinking or otherwise causing marijuana, marijuana concentrate (18-18-406 has the reference to marijuana concentrate) or any product containing marijuana to enter a person’s body.
PUBLICLY means: on any public streets, sidewalks, parks or in other places generally open or accessible to members of the public without restriction.
OPENLY means: not protected from unaided observations lawfully made from outside its
perimeter not involving physical intrusion.

3. (RF-4) The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the General Assembly not enact a Colorado residency requirement for purchasing marijuana for personal use for individuals 21 years of age or older.

4. (RF-4B) The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the General Assembly not enact a Colorado residency requirement for purchasing marijuana for personal use for individuals 21 years of age or older.
However, the General Assembly should impose reasonable limits on the amount of marijuana and marijuana-infused products that can be sold, in a single transaction, to an individual who does not present a government-issued ID that demonstrates Colorado residency.

5. (RF-5) The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the General Assembly adopt Colorado residency requirements as contained in the Medical Marijuana Code for recreational marijuana licensees.
Specifically, an owner of a licensed marijuana establishment shall have been a resident of Colorado for at least two years prior to the date of the owner’s application (Section 12-43.3-710 (1) (m), C.R.S.). All officers, managers, and employees of a licensed marijuana establishment shall be residents of Colorado upon the date of their license application (Section 12-43.3-310 (6), C.R.S.).

6. (RF-6) The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the general assembly adopt the current 70/30 vertical integration model contained within the Medical Marijuana Code for adult-use marijuana and enact the following additional requirements:
• Add a requirement that all licensees file a monthly report with the State licensing authority which documents all sales/transfers of marijuana during the month outside of the licensee’s common ownership structure pursuant to the 30% allowance. This monthly report shall detail all such transactions including the amount of product transferred, the licensee the product was transferred to and the calculation of the percentage of on-hand inventory transferred outside of the common ownership structure expressed as a percentage of the total on-hand inventory for the month.
• Provide the ability for the state licensing authority to issue conditional licenses for a series of license applications submitted under a vertically integrated common ownership structure and to restrict the operation of any license contingent on local approval or other conditions that may be required.
• Add statewide restrictions on the number of licenses a vertically integrated common
ownership structure can hold statewide. This statutory limitation can be further restricted by local governments under their constitutional authority to restrict time, place, manner and number.
• Add statewide restrictions on the size of marijuana cultivation facilities. This restriction
could be based on square footage of the facility, the number of plants cultivated, energy use or any combination thereof. This statutory limitation can be further restricted by local
governments under their constitutional authority to restrict time, place, manner and number.
• Provide for a grace period of one to two years that would limit new applications for
recreational marijuana licenses to medical marijuana license holders in good standing, or
applicants that had an application pending with the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division prior to December 10, 2012.
This proposed framework would be subject to a two (2) year sunset review, at which time the General Assembly shall consider de-coupling the manufacturing and retail licenses and propose an “open integration” model.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "1. Clarification of definitions. “ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE”:

So these ASSWIPES, along with the ASSWIPES who wrote, promoted and voted for A64 have officially OUTLAWED any and all OUTDOOR growing, no matter how large the acreage or how secluded and secure the land.

Fucking imbeciles are dumber than dirt.

stuka1 topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1

Um these are recommendations, not law. If you do look at the document, each recommendation has a provision for any dissenting parties to explain their opposition and suggest alternatives. One dissenting opinion in this section follows:

(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).

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... says the PROVEN LIAR and legal imbecile.

stuka1 topcommenter

*Should be: "unless of course if playing host to home invasions IS your idea of a good time."

stuka1 topcommenter

PLUS you are going to want to be thinking about keeping your grow out of the public view as well. Unless of course if hplaying host to home invasions are your idea of a good time.

stuka1 topcommenter

Btw you act like I agree with the definition as proposed. I don't, and I won't defend it. But depending on what sort of area you live in, you are going to have to be thinking about security anyway. Unless you are happy with waking up one morning to finod your awesome towering bud-laden trees gone.

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1

You don,t know what a dog run is? Wow....

...how old did you say you were...?

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "A greenhouse is enclosed on all sides. A dog run is enclosed on all sides. A chicken coop is enclosed on all sides and the top. "

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay

Did I say a dog run would comply with A64 under the proposals here? You seem to forget the visibility issues. Strawman much?

This has been an utterly fascinating conversation, Mr. Hotay, but it's time for me to take my leave as I work early. Do print down the full text of the proposals. Eco-nazi Protip: use double-sided printing if your printer has it, and multiple pages per sheet if your eyesight is good enough to read the small print, to save trees. Copy/pasting to Wordpad will save you pages as well, but some of the sections are formatted badly and you'll have to cut those out and print those pages straight out of the pdf file. But do read the whole sections of at least the recommendations you are interested in, as the dissenting opinions at least seem to be fairly well-represented and argued. And BTW you and I are on the same side on this issue of outdoor growing. The difference I think is that I am putting thought into solutions instead of bemoaning the well-understood idiocy of the majority of the task farce members. Good night.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... so then, define and explain your "dog run" and exactly what materials it entails, and why you think it would comply with A64 and the proposed rules, and a "bird cage" would not?

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy in which you misrepresent what I say and attack the misrepresentation rather than what I said. Like when you drone on about bird netting wrapped around single plants QED

If you don't know the difference between a dog run and a bird cage or "cat condominium", I am afraid I cannot help you.

You remember me going on to Chippi about Marvin Booker and how his jailhouse murder over possession of paraphernalia would not have happened under A64? It's not as simple as you would like to make things out to be.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... you have no idea what a "straw man" is, do you?

You said "dog run" ... so what is the tangible difference under A64 and the proposed rules between a "dog run", a "cat condominium" or a "bird cage" vis a vis meeting the requisite "enclosed on all sides" ?

Be specific, and show your work.

PS: who were the fools that surrendered total control of marijuana to the government regulatory jackboots ?

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1

I haven't claimed it because it's a rather silly straw man.

Did I say "bird cage"?

Hip tip: the less people shoot their mouths off now, the less the regulatory jackbooters will think of to step on.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... so why haven't you claimed it?

What's the difference between an "enclosed dog run" and an enclosed "bird cage"? ... and where is there any definition or requirement on what -- exactly -- the "cover" that surrounds all sides must be made of?

HipTip: there isn't any definition of what the "cover" must be made of -- glass, chain link, bird netting, etc.

Let's hope the REGULATORY jackboots don't create one, eh?

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1

Please cite where I claimed that.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... so, in your humble opinion, a thin mesh of bird netting wrapped over and around the individual plant(s), and "locked" to the main stem, would qualify as "enclosed on all sides" ?

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1

A greenhouse is enclosed on all sides. A dog run is enclosed on all sides. A chicken coop is enclosed on all sides and the top.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... too bad the FUCKING RETARDS who wrote A64 couldn't have had the brains that god gave a turnip and EXPLICITLY allowed OUTDOOR CULTIVATION.

Enclosed on "all sides" is rather unambiguous in disallowing open outdoor cultivation.

Good luck with the rhetorical gymnastics necessary to legally circumvent that ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY Restriction and Regulation.

stuka1 topcommenter

7. (RF-6B) To facilitate the development of an adult-use marijuana industry that (1) contains a market of small to larger-sized cultivation, product manufacturing and retail facilities offering a wide variety of products and pricing for consumers, while (2) maximizing excise tax revenue to the State and (3) preventing systematic diversion of product, the Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the General Assembly consider a regulatory model in which a person would be allowed to have cross-ownership across license types, but such ownership would be restricted to a limited number of licenses. Licensed premises would be limited in either size or production/sales capacity, and prohibited purchases sales outside the regulatory system would be punishable by licensure and/or criminal sanctions.

8. (RF-7) The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the General Assembly not enact legislation to allow or require a state-run distribution model. Such legislation is not consistent with either the text or spirit of Amendment 64.

9. (RF-8) The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the General Assembly convert the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division into the Marijuana Enforcement Division and enact legislation to provide this agency with statutory powers to regulate medical marijuana and recreational marijuana as the principal state licensing and regulatory authority.

10. (RF-9) The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the General Assembly enact legislation to define “licensed premises” and to establish regulations for the operation of a licensed retail marijuana store and a licensed medical marijuana center within one location. Such regulations may include appropriate restrictions such as separate and distinct ingress/egress, inventory control, point of sale and recordkeeping. This legislation must address the ability of a local government authority to prohibit multiple licensed premises involving a medical and adult-use marijuana license within one location based on their authority to regulate time, place, manner and number pursuant to the constitutional amendment. This recommendation is limited to licensed
retail marijuana stores and medical marijuana centers.

11. The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the Colorado General Assembly allow state legal cannabis businesses to claim state income tax deductions for expenditures that are eligible to be claimed as federal income tax deductions but are disallowed by section 280E.

12. The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the Governor of Colorado contact and attempt to create a bi-partisan coalition of state governors that will push to reform IRC Code 280(E) at the Federal Level.

13. The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that the Governor of Colorado contact and attempt o create a bi-partisan coalition of the Colorado Congressional Delegation that will push to reform IRC Code 280(E) at the Federal Level.

14. The Amendment 64 Task Force recommends the General Assembly clarify in statute that it is the public policy of Colorado that contracts shall not be void or voidable on the basis that the subject matter of the contract pertains to or the parties are, or are associated with, individuals or
businesses that are operating pursuant to Colorado’s marijuana laws.

15. The plain language of Amendment 64 Section 6(d) makes it clear that the intent of the
voters was to maintain the status quo for Colorado property owners. The Amendment 64
Task Force recommends the General Assembly adopt no new statutes or regulations
modifying existing Colorado property law. The Task Force also recommends that
violations of real property owner’s policies regarding possession or consumption of
marijuana on said property be treated similar to the violation for possession or
consumption of alcohol on the premises, including any civil or criminal consequences.

16. Proposed revisions to Title 18, C.R.S. (mostly applied to juveniles and under-21 adults and those who sell to them)

Modified language as suggested:

18--18--406(1.1) Any adult under 21 years of age who possesses one ounce of marijuana or less shall upon the first offense be subject to a civil charge of not more than $100 as well as treatment and conditions as may be established by a court or magistrate. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of such civil order shall subject the person cited to contempt of court or the matter may referred back to the citing law enforcement agency and may be refiled as a class 2 petty offense under this title. Any refiling must occur within one year from the date of said civil court order establishing terms and conditions. “First offense” in this context, is defined as any marijuana offense under CRS 18--‐18--‐406 that involves any official action, which shall include: conviction, adjudication, non--‐judicial diversion, deferred prosecution, deferred sentence or civil citation. Said first offense must occur within 3 years of any subsequent offense.

18--‐18--‐406 (5) Transferring [delete:] or dispensing [end deleted] more than one ounce but not more than two ounces [delete] [end deleted] or less of marijuana from one person twenty--‐one years of age or over to another person twenty--‐one years of age or over for no consideration is a class 2 petty offense and shall not be deemed dispensing or sale thereof.

18--‐18--‐426 Except as authorized in Article 18, Sections 14 and 16 of the Colorado Constitution, [delete] As [end delete] as used in sections 18--‐18--‐425 to 18--18--430, unless the context otherwise requires:

18--‐18--‐425 (1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that the possession, sale, manufacture, delivery, or advertisement of drug paraphernalia results in the legitimization and encouragement of the illegal use of controlled substances by making the drug culture more visible and enticing and that the ready availability of drug paraphernalia tends to promote, suggest, or increase the public acceptability of the illegal use of controlled substances. Therefore, the purposes of the provisions controlling drug paraphernalia are:

(a) To protect and promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare by prohibiting the possession, sale, manufacture, and delivery, or advertisement, of drug paraphernalia; and

(b) To deter the use of controlled substances by controlling the drug paraphernalia associated with their use.

stuka1 topcommenter

17. Recommend that subject to Article 18, Section 16 (3-4), clear guidelines are established which detail that when a law enforcement agency seizes in good faith illegal live marijuana plants, in excess of the authorized 6 plant limit per person, that the law enforcement agency is under no obligation to keep them alive and that they may be destroyed subject to a court order.

18. This recommendation is an issue of state-wide concern. 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.
It is recommended that the General Assembly also make clear that Amendment 20 rights not be piggy-backed” with Amendment 64 rights.

19. The Consumer Safety / Social Issues Work Group recommends that the Colorado legislature pass appropriate legislation: (1) indicating that all types of marijuana sold from regulated retail facilities should be regulated (including packaging and labeling) in a manner similar to the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (the “PPPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1471-1476, and the corresponding regulations promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and (2) granting regulatory authority to the Colorado Department of Revenue (with appropriate assistance from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) to promulgate appropriate regulations of packaging of both medical
and non-medical marijuana infused products (collectively “Marijuana Infused
Products”) AND any other medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana items on any licensed premises (“Other Marijuana Consumer Items”).
It is our further recommendation that the rules promulgated by the Department of
Revenue related to packaging should require that both Marijuana Infused Products and Other Marijuana Consumer Items leave a licensed Medical Marijuana Center (“MMC”) or Retail Marijuana Center (“RMC”) in packaging that meets the regulatory standards (the “Standards”). This would be accomplished by allowing three separate and distinct processes to achieve compliance where all Marijuana Infused Products and Other Marijuana Consumer Items that leave an MMC or RMC in possession of a consumer are EITHER: (1) packaged by the manufacturer in packaging that meets the Standards, (2) packaged by the operator of the MMC or RMC prior to the point-of-sale in a package or container that meets the Standards, OR (3) placed in a “exit package / container ” that meets the Standards at the point-of-sale prior to exiting the store, with the compliance expectation and burden placed upon the operator of an MMC or RMC.
In addition to meeting the Standards, the operator of the MMC or RMC shall also be
required to place all Marijuana Infused Products and Other Marijuana Consumer Items in a sealed, non-transparent or opaque package, container or other receptacle (including, but not limited to, a brown paper bag that is stapled shut) at the point-of-sale. This requirement shall not apply to Marijuana Infused Products and Other Marijuana Consumer Items that are already packaged by the manufacturer in a sealed, nontransparent, or opaque package, container, or other receptacle that meets the Standards.

20. CULTIVATION AND HANDLING PRACTICES
To help ensure the safety and consistency of plant products sold to Colorado consumers, the Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that:
(1) An appropriate governmental agency, either the Department of Revenue, the
Department of Public Health and Environment, or both, shall be authorized by statute to create a list of substances banned for use in the cultivation or processing of marijuana based upon that in current Rule 14.100(E) for medical marijuana;
(2) Labeling of all products shall include a list of all pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and solvents that were used in its cultivation or processing. It should be noted that the regulation should not address whether the products used are appropriate or legal under applicable agricultural laws or regulations.

21. PRIVATE GOOD CULTIVATION AND HANDLING PRACTICES ADVISORY
GROUP
To help ensure the safety and consistency of plant products sold to Colorado consumers, the Amendment 64 Task Force recommends that:
(1) The industry be urged to establish a private advisory group to develop Good
Cultivation and Handling Practices (“GCHP”), and that the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Public Health and Environment, and any other relevant agency be authorized by statute to work with such group in the development of GCHP; and (2) Participation by producers in such GCHP shall be voluntary, but labeling may include ertification of compliance with GCHP by an independent third party authorized under the provisions of the GHCP.

22. The Consumer Safety / Social Issues Work Group recommends that the Colorado legislature pass appropriate legislation granting regulatory authority to the Colorado Department of Revenue (with appropriate assistance from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) to promulgate rules relating to edible forms of marijuana products. Those rules should initially establish that a “serving” of marijuana in edible form to be no more than 10 mg of active THC and labels shall provide the number of servings in any product. There should be no limitation on the maximum number of servings in any single product, as the concerns related to the maximum amount are addressed by the packaging recommendation.

Mark Thompson

2 Like

Is there a maximum amount on alcohol? I thought that whole campaign was designed to 'regulate marijuana like alcohol'?

stuka1 topcommenter

1 Like

@Mark Thompson

"...I was gonna regulate pot like booze, but then I got high..."

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 .... SSAASSD!

Adam Johnson

If god created earth then he created weed, so by making laws about weed you are slapping god in the face for creating natural medicine!! Blaze it up Jesus

Adam Johnson

Weed is a plant not a drug it has no business being a scheduled drug. It is helpful in many ways including opening closed minds if you don't like move, and quit fucking up the best state with the best people in the country. You will not be missed.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Adam Johnson ... Belladonna is a plant ... try some.

stuka1 topcommenter

1 Like

http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap7/CGrimault.htm

INDIAN CIGARETTES by Grimault & Co.:
This particular brand "Indian Cigarettes" [1] manufactured by the Grimault Corporation, is of special interest to us. This is due mainly to the fact that it seems to have been the ONLY established brand name of Cannabis Cigarettes offered for sale in this country. Also, remembering that medical marihuana cigarettes were quite legal back then, it is one of the most highly documented brand names available.

According to the United Nations [Bulletin on Narcotics 1951],[2] Under the subtitle: "Preparations exempted from the control measures of the Narcotics Conventions: The following formula is given:
Preparation # 5: Indian Cigarettes of Grimault (Dr. Ph. Chapelle)
Government: Siam
Notification: C.L.302.1930.III. Annex I
Formula:

*******Belladonna leaves - 0.962 gm********************

Cannabis indica extract - 0.0005 gm.

Nitrate of potash - 0.033 gm

stuka1 topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay

US Pharmacopea, Belladonna Extract: http://www.pharmacopeia.cn/v29240/usp29nf24s0_m7330.html

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay

Most regular citizens have little understanding of much of any of this. The drug laws and policies are Gordian knots by design, intentionally complex and difficult to take apart. Trolling blogs from your mama's basement is no way to go through life, Mr. Hotay. You need to get out more. Get some fresh air. Eat more fiber.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@ContributingConsumer @DonkeyHotay @stuka1

RE-scheduling would DESTROY any recreational or "medical" marijuana initiatives, as there are NO SCHEDULED Drugs approved for recreational use.

DE-scheduling is that ONLY solution.

Only Stupid Stoners don't know the difference.

stuka1 topcommenter

@ContributingConsumer @DonkeyHotay @stuka1 Jared Polis is putting in a bill to do just that.

ContributingConsumer

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 That would mean rescheduling!?!?!

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... too bad we don't live in the "old world", eh?

The Government will, sooner than later, require and establish modern USP standards if they are to allow the "medical" marijuana charade to continue.

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1

The USP is for medical formulas. You can actually look up the formula for cannabis extract in old versions of the USP which are available online. It's really quite easy and quite similar to your "hippie kitchen" methods, especially the better ones, which seem to have been derived from the USP.

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of medical extracts (or recreational extracts, for that matter) meeting the old USP standard.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... won't it be cool when the Government forces cannabis [extract] manufacturers to meet USP standards?

So much for the homemade hippie kitchen methods, eh?

stuka1 topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay

Protip: When you see "USP" in the name on a medicine bottle, that means that it was manufactured/processed to the standards of the United States Pharmacopea.

Juan_Leg topcommenter

It's already began .....

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Juan_Leg ... why not began some remedial English lessons?

Juan_Leg topcommenter

1 Like

@DonkeyHotay Dragon software has it's issues .

For you my friend, " It's already begun ... "

Better ?

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Juan_Leg ... sure ... blame the Dragon ... I've been after him for years now.

Clayton Capra

1 Like

Scott Amelang really? Do you really believe all these years you've been coming here you've never encountered people smoking pot? If you're that naive, please do stay home and continue to be uneducated.

Case

8 Like

You can read all 100+ pages of Task Force recommendations here:
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251851082285&ssbinary=true

Here's a good one that will guarantee that the Pot Clowns will be running the show in Colorado for the forseeable future. Recommendation #RF-6 would give current Medical Marijuana Centers a exclusive right to apply for recreational sales licenses for 1-2 years, meaning no one new will be allowed into the industry right away. The government-sponsored monopoly program for MMC's, where over-regulation and excessive prohibitions create an artificial advantage in the marketplace for those MMCs who are already in the business, will continue, thanks to the dumb-ass language in A64 giving MMC's preferential treatment.

Here's a quote from the recommendation on page 21:
"Amendment 64 gives existing medical marijuana licensees the 'first bite of the apple' for recreational marijuana by permitting existing Medical Marijuana licensees to apply for a recreational marijuana license at a reduced fee of $500. Further, in a competitive application process, under the provisions of Amendment 64, special consideration must be given to licensees with prior experience under the medical marijuana code and their relative compliance history. Restricting license applications to existing medical marijuana licensees, and those with pending applications with the state licensing authority, for a specified period of time ensures the transition to and expansion of recreational marijuana will be controlled."

Monkey

3 Like

@Case The big delay. If you only let the ones you already supposedly regulate be regulated, you don't have to do anything. It's giving them 1-2 more years to come up with ridiculous requirements for new people to enter the industry. The up-and-running stores like the idea for less competition, and the regulators like the idea because it's easier to regulate less people.

stuka1 topcommenter

1 Like

@Monkey @Case

Sounds like more of the same greedy IGotMine sonsofbitches pushing their own interests and hedging the laws to benefit themselves instead of implementing the law for everyones benefit.

DonkeyHotay topcommenter

1 Like

@stuka1

MMIG style Greedy Big $$$ Dispensary Cartels ... using the Force of Law to eliminate competition, and to restrict and deny INDIVIDUALS from having enough freedom to supply their own on a sustainable basis.