Marijuana tourism isn't main reason to let out-of-staters buy pot, says task force member

marijuana in bong.jpg
Earlier this week, we posted about an Amendment 64 task-force recommendation to allow marijuana tourism. But while Christian Sederberg, a task-force member with whom we spoke about what some see as a one-year licensing monopoly for current medical marijuana centers, concedes that the proposal would indeed allow out-of-staters to buy weed here, he thinks its potential to fight crime might be even more important.

"The recommendation that said adults 21 and over can shop at these stores regardless of if they have a Colorado drivers license was huge," says Sederberg, the Amendment 64 campaign's representative on the task force. "But the idea was not about pot tourism, as the media likes to call it. The idea was that restricting sales to people 21 and over with a Colorado drivers license would have created a new black market."

christian sederberg.jpg
Task force member Christian Sederberg.
How so? Because licensed Coloradans would have an incentive "to sell to people who don't have a Colorado drivers license," Sederberg replies. "If there is a demand for marijuana and the people who created that demand are legally allowed to possess it, but they're not allowed to buy it, that void will be filled immediately by the black market unless they can purchase it in stores."

One potential drawback to this rule mentioned by opponents of the recommendation: People from beyond Colorado could conceivably go from store to store purchasing the maximum allowable amount -- an ounce -- and then head back to their home state with a considerable amount of a substance almost certainly illegal there. (The slang term for the practice is "smurfing.") But Sederberg sees a potential solution to that risk -- "limiting the amount that can be sold in any single transaction to someone with an out-of-state license."

His explanation requires a little math.

"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.

Sederberg acknowledges that such limits "aren't the solution to people coming here for marijuana, buying it and taking it out of state" -- among the main concerns of pot-tourism opponents, many of them in law enforcement. "But it's certainly one good idea to help address that issue."

In the end, the task force signed off on allowing non-Coloradans to purchase marijuana, and that pleases Sederberg, who "made it clear that this was a very important issue for the campaign." And although "some people were not happy about it, because they thought it threw the doors open to pot tourism, it was absolutely the right thing to do."

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

My Voice Nation Help
156 comments
CoreyDonahue
CoreyDonahue

Great let out of staters buy from Colorado.  That will not be viewed as an interstae commerce issue which is one of the areas where federal law trumps state constitutional law, regardless.  A64 is in no way another Marijuana Tax Act.

waaaat
waaaat

so...when does this go into effect?

tutonehcc
tutonehcc topcommenter

Long live Colorado and Recreational Marijuana

I'm gonna get high so high

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 *** Pot for "donation" clearly not legal under Amendent 64 ***

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_22640403/pot-donation-clearly-not-legal-under-amendent-64

Attorney General John Suthers and Denver police chief Robert White are on the right track. They need to nip this new nonsense about Amendment 64 in the bud.

What nonsense? The idea that the amendment authorizes "gifts" of marijuana in return for a "donation" to a person or a retail store — or in return for other purchases at a store.

True, under Amendment 64 you can "transfer" 1 ounce or less of marijuana "without remuneration" to someone at least 21 years old. But if you're getting something in return, then you're receiving remuneration.

And you're breaking the law.

Legal Fodder for the Marijuana McLawyers who lead ignorant stoners to believe otherwise.

11er
11er

I used to live on Capitol Hill for 15 yrs. so it is truly my pleasure to get back to the Fax and hit up GOOD TIMES for a burger and a shake.

11er
11er

Why is it such a big a$$ deal. It is impossible to stop that from happening. I am so dam sick of this

F-IN nit picking over this baby bullshit. Let  out of towners buy and if they get busted back home, it's on them. Maybe the home state should just go ahead and LEGALIZE. I give BIG BIG props to the MILE-HI. I was saving up to go to Amsterdam, now i can BUY AMERICAN. All I can say to the TASKFORCE is don't  sweat the small stuff, just make sure AIN'T no mold on my bud.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Wyoming must make a fortune on Fireworks Tourism ...

LOL!

Colorado could package and promote Marijuana Tourism with Prostitution Tourism --

Buy an Eighth for $45 -- get a "free" blowjob on Colfax


Juan_Leg
Juan_Leg

Let's make this fair already . To those from lands afar, should they seek our herbal supremacy, 8 balloons for $100,  and we can talk ......

azzhater
azzhater

@tenji23they have until July 2103 to come up with regulations according to A64


(a) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2013, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADOPT REGULATIONS NECESSARY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION. SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL NOT PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR THROUGH REGULATIONS THAT MAKE THEIR OPERATION UNREASONABLY IMPRACTICABLE.

stuka1
stuka1


@tenji23 Its not a certainty that ANY of it will go into effect. The task farce's recommendations are only recommendations. 

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay = cant tell the difference between fact and the opinion of a prohibitionist yellow journalist editorial

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@2006KLID ... no need to travel all the way to Amsterdam, or even Colorado for high quality bud -- you can get baked on that American-grown Wappapello Wonder without leaving home.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay "Buy an Eighth for $45 -- get a "free" blowjob on Colfax from Donkey Hotay!"

Fixed!

stuka1
stuka1


@Juan_Leg These other states' prohibitionists and their LEOs really shouldnt worry themselves too much over our decriminalization; their state's time is going to come as well, and all their flailing will be for naught.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "A64 specifically allows display of up to an oz"

Legal FAIL from the lying legal ignoramus.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 @Juan_Leg ... in the meantime, THOUSANDS of citizens languish in Prison while you wax poetic.


azzhater
azzhater

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1  

 so fucktard --you dont understand the difference between CONSUMPTION and DISPLAY huh? figures what a dumb ass.,

azzhater
azzhater

@DonkeyHotay Open and public displays or uses of less than 2 oz, petty offense, 15 days, $ 100. 2 - 6 oz-misdemenor--you dumbass

http://norml.org/laws/penalties/item/colorado-penalties

A64

(3) Personal use of marijuana.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
             (a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
                      (c) TRANSFER OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT REMUNERATION TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
             



stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay I didn't say that it did, you lying strawmanning shitsack. And you have provided no counter to it, you lying basement dwelling loser.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... where does A64 mention your falsely asserted misdemeanor status for public display?

Keep flailing and failing, you lying shitsucker.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay The word of stupid hysterical lying stoner Donkey AssHo, who can't even read a simple sentence in A64, isn't an authoritative legal  source for criminal statute. Never was  never will be. You can tell 

when 

DonkeyTheHo is lying and talking out his ass, because his lips will be moving.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ...

HipTip - a stupid stoner www site isn't an authoritative legal source for criminal statute. 

Never was, never will be.

Keep lying, chump, you've got ZERO credibility.

stuka1
stuka1

Already  @DonkeyHotay @stuka1 cited the source on the misdemeanor as well, loser. I see you have provided no counter. Pathetic lying basement dweller

stuka1
stuka1

IT  @DonkeyHotay @stuka1It ALLOWS it when it says that DISPLAY shall not be unlawful.I see how much it hurts you to be so stupid, it causes you to troll blogs miserably all day every day from your mama's basement.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "it does not proscribe or restrict itself to PUBLIC display,"

Fucking retard -- if A64 doesn't explicitly ALLOW IT, then it REMAINS illegal under all existing criminal statutes covering marijuana.

Does it hurt to be so stupid?


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... says the legal ignoramus who falsely asserts that public display of an ounce was a misdemeanor.



stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 PS: I made no claim at all about public CONSUMPTION. Strawmanning is lying, you lying loser.

stuka1
stuka1

 @DonkeyHotay @stuka1 Already refuted. A64 does not say PRIVATE display, it does not proscribe or restrict itself to PUBLIC display, it addresses ANY display.

 DonkeyHotay = legal armchair idiot

 re

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "DISPLAYING IN PUBLIC is NO LONGER A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE (Meaning: ARREST AND 15 DAYS ON JAIL). A64 TRUMPS Misdemeanor Displaying in Public Offense"

Nothing in A64 allows PUBLIC display, you ignorant fucktard.

Prior to A64, public display of up to 2 (two) ounces was NOT a misdemeanor.

A64 explicitly declares that PUBLIC consumption shall REMAIN ILLEGAL.

Keep lying, chump.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 A64: THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO ... DISPLAYING...MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA


DonkeyHotay = blithering idiot

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 Donkey Hotay = Epic Comeback FAIL

stuka1
stuka1


@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 You dont have to hide in the closet any more, Mr. Hotay. Sucking dick on the Fax is mainstrem nowadays. Even guys who hold weekly televangelical teleconferences with the President do it.  Ask Ted Haggard...

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay "There is no language in A64 that permits PUBLIC display, you stammering piece of crap."

 

A64: (3) Personal use of marijuana. 

THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:

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

DonkeyAssHo =  Illiterate lying cunt.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 

There is no language in A64 that permits PUBLIC display, you stammering piece of crap.


stuka1
stuka1

@AssHo: "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY ..."

DISPLAY is not CONSUMPTION, idiot. A64 is (rather stupidly) ambiguous as to what "USE" is, but "USE" is not DISPLAY, either.  

Your failure to grasp even basic reading comprehension is nothing short of astounding.

@DonkayAssLicker: "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ..."

You disingenuously left out the next phrase: "IN THE WORKPLACE", you drooling, pathological-lying idiot. Totally irrelevant to the Sec. 3 public display language.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY ...

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ...

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 Yup, nothing in there FORBIDDING public display at all, and your claim was that "A64 explicitly states that Public Use and Display shall REMAIN ILLEGAL", which makes your claim a LIE and YOU a LIAR. 


Stupid basement dweller stoner Donkey AssHo can't fucking  read simple language in A64.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 

Nothing there about PUBLIC display, is there numbnuts?

Keep flailing and failing, stoner, it's your only skill.

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay: "2) A64 does NOT legalize public display. In fact A64 explicitly states that Public Use and Display shall REMAIN ILLEGAL."

...

Amendment 64:

(3) Personal use of marijuana. 

THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:

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

...

 (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.

DonkeyHotay = Stupid drooling pig-ignorant lying AssHo.

stuka1
stuka1

(

A64: THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO ... DISPLAYING...MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 = the pathetic lying shitstain who's been outed as a pathetic lying shitstain and legal idiot.

@stuka1 "A64 specifically allows display of up to an oz"


Fucking retard.





stuka1
stuka1

Already refuted several times over. Nothing left for the donkey to do but call names like the ignorant emotional grade schooler he is.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... still lying like the lying cunt that you are.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay Which means you have been thoroughly refuted and have nothing left to say. Check.

stuka1
stuka1

Poor




donkey can't fucking read. tsk tsk

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "A64 specifically allows display of up to an oz, cited above. "

Does it hurt? ... to be such a pig-ignorant lying piece of shit?

Keep sucking shit, it's your only skill.


stuka1
stuka1

 @DonkeyHotay 1)

 Assertion by assertion is a fallacy. You FAIL.

 1a) Straw man Fallacy: I didn't say "use". I said "display" and cited it.

2) A64 specifically allows display of up to an oz, cited above. You FAIL.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 = proven liar and legal imbecile.

You're still wrong, jackass, keep sucking and showing the world what a depraved imbecile you really are.


stuka1
stuka1


@DonkeyHotay And BTW idiot, your original assertion here ws that "thousands still languish in prison", and your verbose red herring fails to address my rebuttal that those "thousands" would also remain in prison had A64 not passed, which is what you wanted. Trolls like you are such great fun to toy with.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 " "Previous CRS: Display public - misdemeanor"

Wrong again.

Your absurd assertion that 90% of marijuana ARRESTS were for POSSESSION of 1 ounce or less is, was and always will be a PATHETIC LIE.

Keep lying, cunt.



stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay@stuka1

DonkeyHotay:"A64 = ZERO reductions in Arrests and Incarceration for Marijuana Crimes."

 Previous CRS: Display public - misdemeanor Incarceration 15 days

A64:  THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO ... DISPLAYING...MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA

 A64 trumps CRS.

A64:  NO MOAR ARRESTS/INCARCERATIONS for DISPLAYING one ounce or less.


The 90% figure is floating ar0ound all over the internet on advocate sites.  So sad for you.


DonkeyHotay = talking out his ass FAIL

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 = still pathetically failing, flailing and LYING about Colorado law.

You = Zero Credibility

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 And it is NO LONGER AN OFFENSE AT ALL under A64. DISPLAYING IN PUBLIC is NO LONGER A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE (Meaning: ARREST AND 15 DAYS ON JAIL). A64 TRUMPS Misdemeanor Displaying in Public Offense \

DonkeyHotay = Epic Civics 101 FAIL

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 Hey fuckwit, prior to A64, possession of up to 2 (TWO) ounces was a NO JAIL petty offense, proving that your absurd claim of 90% of marijuana arrests were for possession of one ounce to be a PATHETIC LIE.

Keep lying, you ignorant fuckchop.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... you really are dumber than a bag of bricks.

Possession of up to 2 ounces was and is a SUMMARY petty offense under Colorado statute, regardless of A64.

Your laughable claim that 90% of marijuana arrests were for possession of 1 (one) ounce or less illustrates both your ignorance and your proclivity to fabricate LIES.

Keep sucking, sucker.

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay = too stupid to get that under A64 possession of less than an ounce is not a criminal offense AT ALL. Criminal offense before A64 = conflict with A64.

DonkeyHotay = Epic FAIL

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 = ignorant fucktard too stupid to know what "conflict" means.

If there is no conflict, there is nothing to supersede,  ipso facto.

State the specific "conflict" in your bong-addled delusion.

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay@stuka1Do you even know what a Statute is?  do you even know what Supersede means?  Colorado Statute = a State Statuatory Provision that A64 supersedes.

"ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION...SHALL SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING STATE STATUTORY PROVISIONS"

DonkeyHotay = Epic English 101 FAIL

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... in what depraved part of your dope-addled brain do you perceive a conflict?

Suupka1 = too stupid to know that Colorado Statute had made possession of up to 2 (two) ounces a NO JAIL PETTY offense -- for anyone without age or residency restriction -- long before A64.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay

@stuka1 What part of
ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION...SHALL SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING STATE STATUTORY PROVISIONS do you fail to understand?


Donkey Hotay = Epic Reading Comprehension FAIL

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "dismiss all pending criminal cases of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, "

Those were SUMMARY PETTY offense cases, you stammering jackass. There was NO JAIL penalty for those cases, only a fine of $100, under Colorado Statute.

You = still sucking shit.


stuka1
stuka1

DonkeyHotay: "A64 = ZERO reductions in Arrests and Incarceration for Marijuana Crimes."

 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_21994403/boulder-da-dismissing-marijuana-possession-cases-light-amendment

[Boulder] District Attorney Stan Garnett will dismiss all pending criminal cases of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, saying the overwhelming support for Amendment 64 in Boulder County makes it highly unlikely a jury would ever reach a guilty verdict in any of those cases.

"*****You've seen an end to mere possession cases in Boulder County under my office,*******" Garnett said Wednesday, becoming the first Colorado district attorney to drop pot cases because Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 earlier this month. 

 http://kdvr.com/2012/11/15/denver-prosecutors-to-stop-filing-new-charges-in-minor-pot-possession-cases/

 The Denver District Attorney and the city attorney have agreed there will be no new charges filed in cases where someone over the age of 21 is carrying less than an ounce of marijuana.

Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 which legalizes possession of a small amount of marijuana for people over 21. Voters in the state of Washington passed a similar measure.

There are currently 70 cases pending in Denver where someone is accused of possessing a small amount of marijuana. The DA asked the city attorney who handles these cases to review all 70 of them for possible dismissal according to District Attorney’s office spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough.

 Donkey Hotay = Epic Current Events 101 FAIL

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay 

THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO...

ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION...SHALL SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING STATE STATUTORY, LOCAL CHARTER, ORDINANCE, OR RESOLUTION, AND OTHER STATE AND LOCAL PROVISIONS COLORADO...

[and]...SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE VOTE HEREON BY PROCLAMATION OF THE GOVERNOR

DonkeyHotay = armchair lawyer FAIL


PS; nice sock puppet collection ya got there.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1

More irrelevant cut-and-paste nonsense from Stupa1.

Colorado Revised Statutes prior to A64 and still today states that possession of up to 2 (two) ounces for anyone of any age is merely a summary offense, fine only, NO JAIL time.

You're a clueless imbecile to make the absurdly false assertion that 90%%%% of ARRESTS for marijuana are (or even were) for possession of less than 1 (one) ounce.

Fucking retard.

stuka1
stuka1


@anon14 (8) Self-executing, severability, conflicting provisions. ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE SELF-EXECUTING EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED HEREIN, ARE SEVERABLE, AND, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE TEXT, SHALL SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING STATE STATUTORY, LOCAL CHARTER, ORDINANCE, OR RESOLUTION, AND OTHER STATE AND LOCAL PROVISIONS.

(9) Effective date. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE VOTE HEREON BY PROCLAMATION OF THE GOVERNOR, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1(4) OF ARTICLE V

stuka1
stuka1

@anon14 

From A64:


(3) Personal use of marijuana. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA

anon14
anon14

@stuka1 Under 2 oz. is a summary offense. Ticket no jail.

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay @stuka1 LMAO how do you fogure that ,when 90%% of arrests are for under an oz or for pataphernalia? i


Tell it to Marvin Booker, he'll be glad to hear it.



Oh, wait...

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ...

A64 = ZERO reductions in Arrests and Incarceration for Marijuana Crimes.


stuka1
stuka1

...which they would still be doing had A64 been defeated, as you would have liked to have happened.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...