Top

blog

Stories

 

Colorado towns and counties mulling recreational pot rules

Categories: Marijuana

ST-3-bud.jpg
According to Amendment 64, local municipalities that allow recreational cannabis businesses will need to have their rules and licensing processes in line by October 1 -- which is less than three months away. That means towns and counties across the state that haven't already banned recreational marijuana are starting to debate just how they should go about instituting the newly-formed industry.

Denver City Council is beginning to get serious about discussing regulations and how to tax an industry that doesn't yet exist.

According to the city's financial department, an extra 5 percent Denver sales tax could mean as much as $9.2 million for the city to use for enforcement, drug counseling programs and paying as many as 26 special marijuana cops for enforcement. The current plan would allow the 5 percent tax to be increased to as much as 15 percent down the line; city council will vote on that proposal July 29. If it passes, it will then go on the ballot for Denver voters to consider in November.

The pace is no quicker elsewhere in the state. Pitkin County commissioners are still kicking around ideas on how they should regulate retail cannabis businesses -- if they allow them at all. At last week's commissioners' meeting, County Attorney John Ely -- who's cautioned against allowing medical marijuana businesses in the county in the past -- reminded the commissioners that they can regulate businesses more strictly than the state will.

"We really can do a great number of things to effect whatever it is the board wants to accomplish," Ely said, according to the Vail Daily. But for the most part, commissioners in Pitkin County seem open to recreational cannabis, even though several are wary of cultivation facilities (and their smells). They're more supportive of retail stores, which are likely to be located in and regulated by towns like Aspen, Snowmass Village, Basalt and Woody Creek.

In Colorado Springs, the debate is much more contentious; the Colorado Springs City Council is as divided as the city's residents over whether to allow retail stores at all. At a meeting Monday, councilmembers opposed to recreational marijuana sales used the usual public-safety and protect-the-children arguments, but several also mentioned the impact that allowing cannabis sales might have on military staffing around Colorado Springs.

According to the Pueblo Chieftain, Fort Carson is being considered for expansion by up to 3,000 troops, and brass at the base have already warned that Amendment 64 and allowing cannabis "goes against good order and discipline."

Others on the council argue that the city should respect the wishes of the majority of Colorado Springs voters, who approved Amendment 64 -- even if the margin was a slim ten votes. By the end of Monday's meeting, the council had agreed to draft two resolutions: one banning recreational cannabis sales altogether, and one that puts a moratorium on businesses until after the tax issues are settled in the November election.

The Colorado Springs City Council will decide which way to go at the July 23 meeting.

More from our marijuana news archive: "Solace Meds the first dispensary to reopen in Fort Collins"; "Denver's projected revenues from recreational pot won't cover expenditures"


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
129 comments
RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

"El_Derpo", "George", "GuestWho", and who knows how many other fake entitites are not real people at all, but just aliases of Donkey, who knows that he cannot expect people who use cannabis to agree with him despite all his efforts to confuse the issue of what side he is on, but needs to create an impression that he speaks for others.  Juan, you are a real person, but I think that you must be a poor judge of character to credit Donkey -- for anything; he appears here for the express purpose of perpetuating Prohibition.

GuestWho
GuestWho topcommenter

@RobertChase   <--- you are delusional and are making false, yet hilarious, accusations.  relax robert.  nobody is forcing you to post under your real name.  take up an alias if you can't handle it.  juan seems to accept everyone which is a good thing....try it sometime....believe it or not you could learn a thing or two from people you perceive as adversaries.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "but just aliases of Donkey"

Pathetic Paranoid Delusion


@RobertChase "to create an impression that he speaks for others."

LOL! ... that's rich, coming from the prevaricating dilettante poseur who FABRICATES PHONY "coalitions", appoints himself King and Spokesidiot, and Attempts to Deceive Public Servants -- a FELONY -- when he spews his misguided meddling nonsense in front of the State Legislature.


RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@GuestWho  I am glad to post under my own name, and if you have the courage of your convictions (it helps to have some first) and take responsibility for them, you should too.  You may not be Donkey (I really need better writing samples from both of you), but anyone so dim as to be taken in by his line of cant is a fool, and not contributing to ending Prohibition.  I make mistakes, and when I perceive that I have, I readily admit them and move on -- so much for "delusional".  I do not imagine that WW is the focus of great interest for the prohibitionist police, but there is reason to believe that they do monitor it, and Donkey's efforts aid them.  As far as learning from my adversaries, Donkey has nothing to teach me -- I am not interested in obfuscating, distorting, or lying, and these are not valid rhetorical techniques either, I can manage as much ad hominem as I feel appropriate, and I try to at least ground it upon a foundation of fact.

BReal
BReal

@DonkeyHotay

So you contend that you aren't posting under El_Derpo, that you aren't occasionally talking to yourself and that you don't consistently go back and "like" your own comments?

So noted, liar.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  The Colorado Coalition for Patients and Caregivers is an extremely loose coalition, but patients and caregivers have expressed some appreciation for my work on their behalf.  You should rush that interpretation of Colorado's crazy "attempting to influence a public servant" law to the prohibitionists in the GA right away!  There is no reason to believe that you have ever attended any of the cannabis-related hearings before committees of the General Assembly -- do you listen in, or are you just accepting my assertion that I regularly testify at such hearings at face value?  If I am a "lying liar" as you frequently claim, that would seem imprudent.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@GuestWho  You may have mistaken me for a member of the General Assembly -- I don't need to write a law, WE need to demand that OUR representatives draft a bill reducing the penalties for cannabis-related offenses to misdemeanors; this should already have happened.

"... complaining about A64 and doing the same old nonsense will get you nowhere" -- you oblivious moron!  You, Donkey, and the other lurkers are the ones whining about Amendment 64.  There must be a black hole in your brain where everything intelligible about the Amendment disappears.  One more time:  the declaration of the People of Colorado that cannabis "should be regulated like alcohol" is a tool we can use to eviscerate Prohibition -- that is not a complaint, dimbulb!

GuestWho
GuestWho topcommenter

@RobertChase   This says it all - "If you want felony penalties rescinded - you need to write a new bill or amendment" - and the same applies if you want specific "like alcohol" laws....you need to write a new bill or amendment if that is what you want and find a way to make it law because complaining about A64 and doing the same old nonsense will get you nowhere.  If you haven't gotten what you wanted out of A64 you're not going to get it through A64.  The legislators are following the law you supported....please quit complaining.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@ShutUpRobertChase , you are one more thoughtless dupe; is there anyone with wit and conscience out there, or is Donkey completely right about "stupid stoners"?

The declaration of the People in Article XVIII, Section 16 needs to be implemented.  It is full of import despite not being a provision having legal force.  Unless you are a prohibitionist or an idiot, you would take it up as the tool to attack Prohibition it plainly is.  Get off your ass and call your State Representative, State Senator, and even Gov. Hack -- unless you want to keep on paying taxes to criminalize your fellow Coloradans for cannabis.

You must be stupid to swallow Donkey's lies whole like that.  If you are so out of it that you cannot recognize the truth when you read it, know that others do.  It is the prohibitionists' intention that no effective political leadership exist in the cannabis-community, and it would seem that many people who use cannabis are so dim as to gratify that desire without a second thought.  The grand progress, the inexorable march of greed, can and may be checked at any time by nothing more than the decision of a new presidential administration to do so, and there will be many casualties in Colorado if that happens.  We should have a robust political movement to end Prohibition in Colorado, one that aspires to repeal the Federal CSA, but people who use cannabis here are so abjectly ignorant and apolitical that they seemingly won't even undertake to reform our own criminal law after outside organizations and the electorate have given us the means to do so.  Absolutely pathetic!

ShutUpRobertChase
ShutUpRobertChase

"When I can write that we have an opportunity to rescind felony penalties for cannabis and elicit exactly no response, there is clearly some massive disconnect in the minds of the readership"

The only disconnect is in your brain. You should really talk to an attorney -- even one of the shitty marijuana ones -- before spouting off such legal ridiculousness.

If you want felony penalties rescinded - you need to write a new bill or amendment because Amendment 64 didn't and won't do that. Especially not the introduction of the bill.

And please: SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY. your constant back and forth with the resident Westword douchebag is pathetic and has completely discredited what little reputation you carried in the past. As he points out: you represent nobody but yourself, so quit acting like the community spokesman and internet flak.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  What, is my willingness to throw your caca back in your face evidence of egomania?  I hardly think so.  You would monopolize this forum, and because I have the audacity to refute you call me an egomaniac.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase **I** have just recounted the facts.  Anyone is free to post here, or to testify for our rights, and some do.  **I** do not own the idea that felony penalties for cannabis should be rescinded; **i** would be perfectly happy if others advocated this obvious course of action together with **me** or on their own.  Anyone with enough initiative to do so would not be swayed by your ridiculous attempts at character assassination or your conceit that this is some idiosyncratic effort on **my** part."


@RobertChase  "This isn't about me at all."


You betcha!

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  I have just recounted the facts.  Anyone is free to post here, or to testify for our rights, and some do.  I do not own the idea that felony penalties for cannabis should be rescinded; i would be perfectly happy if others advocated this obvious course of action together with me or on their own.  Anyone with enough initiative to do so would not be swayed by your ridiculous attempts at character assassination or your conceit that this is some idiosyncratic effort on my part.  

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "This isn't about me at all."

LOL!

@RobertChase " **I** marvel that **I** am about the only person publicly demanding the rescisssion of felony penalties for cannabis, and **I** hope others will do so too.  ... **I** have consistently testified ..."

I !!... I !! ... I !! ... ME! ... ME!! ...ME!!! ...

count the number of times your bloviating bombastic blather uses the first person pronoun on these blogs, you egomaniacal delusional dipwad.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  This isn't about me at all.  I marvel that I am about the only person publicly demanding the rescisssion of felony penalties for cannabis, and I hope others will do so too.  As for your lies about "supporting Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels", that is an absurd nonsense utterly untattested in the extensive record of my comments here or anywhere else.  The "industry" is a fact on the ground, it has gotten medicine to oatients who need it, and it has lowered the cost of that medicine -- these are simply facts, not advocacy on my part.  I have consistently testified against prohibitionists' attempts to use children as part of their scare tactics -- virtually everything you write is an outright lie!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "When I can write that we have an opportunity to rescind felony penalties for cannabis and elicit exactly no response, there is clearly some massive disconnect in the minds of the readership"

Or ... people don't want a self-appointed meddling dilettante egomaniacal poseur like YOU as their Spokesidiot  in Chief. 

They've seen the habitual errors, lies and damage you've done by supporting Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels, the Commercialization of Marijuana, Massive New Taxes, Capitulation to Anti-pot Politicians, and your insipid Prohibitionist Rhetoric about the "danger marijuana poses to children".


hth.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  How can you possibly write that when you have never even articulated your own position?  You write to people so abysmally ignorant of the processes of representative government that they cannot understand the value of speaking to (and when they fail to listen, at) their own representatives.  When I can write that we have an opportunity to rescind felony penalties for cannabis and elicit exactly no response, there is clearly some massive disconnect in the minds of the readership (or they lack minds at all).  Advocacy of that principle could not be characterized as an "impediment to ending Prohibition", except in Newspeak.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase

HipTip: meddling dilettante poseurs like yourself are an IMPEDIMENT to ending prohibition.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  -- I just cast a critical analysis of recent history and the political situation facing those who want to end Prohibition -- before swine.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@GuestWho  "... embrace what you voted for ..." -- I do; I have written that we should use the declaration of the People that cannabis "should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol" to rescind felony penalties for cannabis many times already just in this thread.  The General Assembly cannot be compelled by any other means than a constitutional amendment that changes its own constitution or procedures, and the single-subject rule means that A64 could not have included language compelling them to do anything.  You seem to be insinuating that the GA cannot be trusted -- an obvious point, but, like all other points in a debate, one worthy of declaration (as opposed to insinuation).  You are confused as to the nature of my dissatisfaction -- it has nothing to do with something unrealized about A64's foundational deficiencies (although you allude to them -- the Amendment does tacitly endorse the inappropriate and unconstitutional hijacking of responsibility for regulating medical cannabis from the "state health agency"), nor does it have anything to do with the GA's implementation of the Amendment (although I do criticize the GA's failure to respect the intent of the Amendment); my chief complaint is that HB13-1318's referral of a tax initiative encompassing a whopping sales tax surcharge on top of the excise tax we did authorize does not comport with the requirement of Article XVIII, Section 16 (5)(d) that "The general assembly shall enact an excise tax to be levied upon marijuana sold or otherwise transferred ...".  The referred initiative is defective in that voters do not have the choice of approving the excise tax they authorized last November without also approving the sales tax surcharge they did not authorize.  While the General Assembly can  refer any initiative it wants to the voters, the one it did refer disregards the explicit language of the Constitution, and cannot be claimed to be the fulfillment of the requirement of (5)(d) quoted above.

The General Assembly as a separate branch of government cannot be compelled by the Courts; this has come up repeatedly in connection with their perversions of the Blue Book, and just last year, when the Denver District Court ruled against a challenge to the Legislative Council striking about 60% of proponents' arguments for the Amendment, so it cannot be claimed (or assumed, or insinuated) that some defect in Amendment 64 gave the GA an out to sabotage it.  No, if the General Assembly and municipalities succeed in levying prohibitive taxes, it cannot be blamed on Amendment 64, because the prerogatives of those governments to levy taxes could not have been curtailed in the Amendment due to the single subject rule.  We the People already have the right to reject any tax, and we should do exactly that with all the proposed sales tax surcharges.

Our problem is that that pesky 80%+ of the electorate who do not use cannabis may well approve all the taxes.  This could vitiate much of the intent of A64 to establish a licit market in cannabis, but, it does not alter the fact that the People have now declared that cannabis "should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol".  Moreover, while our unrepresentative government may temporarily succeed in bamboozling the electorate, we will have a strong argument that they are throttling the Amendment; this could be a basis for constitutionally limiting tax rates, or getting rid of some of the deadwood in the GA and local governments.

The central issue here is that I do not regard the market in legal cannabis to be the chief benefit of the Amendment.  Having declared that adults may grow and use a little cannabis is a step forward, and the declaration I have quoted so many times provides the basis for applying pressure for further change, especially to the criminal law.  Before you assume (or insinuate) that this is useless, consider that the People may be more amenable to making further constitutional changes once the GA's intransigence is appreciated -- an amendment to strike all felony penalties for cannabis or limit tax rates on cannabis may become far more practicable as a result.

Opponents of Amendment 64, including people I thought able and from whom I learned much, adopted the puerile line that it would not end Prohibition and threw up their hands -- I and many others realized that we were not yet in the position of being able to overthrow Prohibition, and decided to take what we could get.  If the proportions of the population that uses cannabis and doesn't were reversed, we might expect to be able to prevail outright in the General Assembly; as it stands, we are only 1/5 of the electorate or less.  Political realism dictates that we adopt a longer view, and the value of having constitutional provision for adults to use cannabis as a principle cannot be underestimated.  Colorado's Establishment may win the next battle, the battle of the ridiuculous taxes, but it has set itself on a collision course with the will of the voters with regard to the use of cannabis, and we will win the war.

The fact is that most of the money and organization that passed Amendment 64 came from out of state.  If we want to prevail in the battles to come, we desperately need to educate our base here and to organize politically.  To those ends, wringing our hands about imagined deficiencies in Amendment 64 is totally counterproductive; it has been placed in our Constitution, and opponents still whining about it are doing absolutely nothing to change our future.  The discussion here is indicative of the prostration of the movement to end Prohibition in Colorado -- Donkey can excoriate those who led the campaign for Amendment 64, and find lurkers who like his comments, but this has nothing to do with effecting positive change in our laws now; not one of you has so much as intimated that you think we should attempt to repeal it, which would be the logical course if it really were the source of our present problem.  We can agree that Amendment 64 did not achieve all the purposes claimed by its campaign; if we want a reasonably regulated market in cannabis or an end to the criminalization of Coloradans for cannabis, we need to move on and begin to work together to achieve those ends.

GuestWho
GuestWho topcommenter

@RobertChase  "I am not putting on an act, surprised by the reaction in govenrment to the Amendment, or having so much as a second though about having supported Amendment 64" - another typo and another paradox.  you oppose how the law is being implemented yet claim you knew this would happen and supported it anyway.  for good reason you opposed  hb1284...but we all know how that turned out...as with hb1284, opposition to a64's implementation is also futile and you are delusional if you think otherwise.  break free of your paradox robert - stop complaining and embrace what you voted for or admit that supporting a64 was a mistake...

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  You are just a bit too quick to cite typographical errors (and so pompous and disingenuous as to mischaracterize them as grammatical) -- I spotted that one on my own and had time to correct it, so I did.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase = LYING Cunt who edited his error ex post facto.

Your credibility = ZERO

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "you may need to read the definition of this coomon [sic] word"

FAIL again.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  That is what is called a typographical error ("grammar capacity fail" is ungrammatical, and insinuates a falsehood -- you try to work at least one lie into every one of your posts, however short).

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@GuestWho " Keep acting like a victim of the very laws you helped implement."

Robert BEGGED the Government to insert THE FIST of REGULATION and massive TAXATION up his ass ... now complains that he forgot to include a lubrication clause.


RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@GuestWho  I am sorry that you have such a limited understanding of the Law, and so little interest in acquiring more.  I am not putting on an act, surprised by the reaction in govenrment to the Amendment, or having so much as a second though about having supported Amendment 64 -- your insinuations serve only to demonstrate that you are completely out of touch.  You should increase the sativa to indica ratio of your medication regime; you might not be such a sonambulist!

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay If you had any capacitry to experience that emotion yourself, your archive would be overflowing with your own posts.

GuestWho
GuestWho topcommenter

@RobertChase <---- says the living paradox.  your cognitive dissonance makes it impossible to communicate with you.  Yawn!  Yawn, yawn, yawn!  Keep acting like a victim of the very laws you helped implement...I wouldn't expect anything less.  

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "I am not interested in obfuscating, distorting, or lying"


Note to Self -- purchase larger hard drive for the overflowing Archive of Shame.

CloudGang
CloudGang

@RobertChase @George I am real, and I agree with donkey........what is hard to understand? That YOU people handed over control of marijuana to the state of Colorado instead of allowing myself and others to control it ourselves.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "I wrote that <snip> on insufficient evidence....I was wrong "

The story of your life.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@George  No; I wrote that "El_Derpo", you, and "GuestWho" were Donkey's inventions, on insufficient evidence .  "GuestWho" is, apparently, a human; you, I'm not so sure about.  Others have accused Donkey of inventing likers, and I wouldn't put it past him, given his evident lack of regard for the truth -- "El_Derpo", do you claim an independent existence too?

I was wrong to make that accusation, but it has apparently brought one or more lurkers to life, which is not the same as eliciting a meaningful dialog, but it's a start.  Tell me, do you favor rescinding felony penalties for cannabis, or do you consider the issue insignificant?  If the former, is it more important to inveigh against certain aspects of Article XVIII, Section 16 of the Constitution, the process by which it was drafted, or its framers, or should we now use it to end felony penalties?  That was a rhetorical question, but I would appreciate a cogent answer.

George
George

@RobertChase A minute ago you said all the "disaffected imbeciles" that support DH were really DonkeyHotay himself. Flip-flop much?

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  No, I will continue to work to end Prohibition, no matter how many disaffected imbeciles you dredge up here to discount my efforts.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  I still believe that your idiocies are affected for the purpose of thwarting the legalization of cannabis, but I must admit that you have some skill in gathering dimwitted navel-gazers who use cannabis around you.  There is even some grim amusement to be found in the fact that they think you are making some kind of coherent case -- against what is now part of our Constitution -- even as you directly call them "stupid stoners".  You are right; there are some (actually, many) "stupid stoners", and the dumbest are those who like your incessant assault on meaningful action to end Prohibition.  I realize that many or most young people who use cannabis are too ignorant and disengaged to take part in helping to end it, and that they resort to the irrational belief that they need only wait around a little bit longer.  It may be true that the generational shift will eventually achieve the goal, but I want to end Prohibition in my lifetime and to see more people taking the concrete political actions which will be necessary.  The laws do not change themselves, and it should not be necessary for me to belabor the point; everyone who uses cannabis should take a hand in applying pressure to our politicians and in electing more who recognize that adults should be able to use it.  There has been progress (and Amendment 64 is unquestionably a milestone in that progress), but we need more than a handful of middle-aged activists who understand the issue in its entirety to get involved.  I am asking for help in rescinding felony penalties because the opportunity now presents itself.  If no one stands with me, felony penalties will persist, even if the odds of getting convicted (especially if one is white and middle class) go down.  There is no justification whatsoever for the bland contempt you work so hard to elicit, because people are being convicted and going to prison now, and they will continue to if retail sales commence next January.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "The basis for my support then and now is the fact that it does legalize some conduct involving cannabis"

Pathetic Poseur who SURRENDERED TOTAL CONTROL of Marijuana to the PROHIBITIONIST Politicians, Insatiable Dept. of Revenue and Law Enforcement Goons who've been running the drug war against the citizens ... in exchange for a PALTRY OUNCE!

If Robert von Münchhausen appointed himself the chief negotiator for the Palestinians, he'd surrender The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem to the Zionists ... in exchange for 1 (one) can of olives, and 6 fig trees ... no more than 3 of which are producing any figs ... maintaining criminal sanctions against all Palestinians under 21 years old.


RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay I have been utterly consistent, and anyone who reads those statements (in context, at least) and imagines that I am not is an easily manipulated idiot.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@GuestWho  I don't expect you to have read everything I have written here and elsewhere, but your arch insinuation that I should be content now that Amendment 64 is Article XVIII, Section 16 is idiotic.  The basis of my criticism of it when it was Initiative 30 was the full understanding that it would not end Prohibition.  The basis for my support then and now is the fact that it does legalize some conduct involving cannabis.  If you still fail to understand that the declaration of the People of Colorado that cannabis "should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol" is a basis for demanding the rescission of felony penalties for it, then your mental processes are defective.  Article XVIII, Section 16 is not a problem, but an opportunity; the only question is whether there are enough people who use cannabis who have the wit and gumption to use it.  Your question makes exactly no sense -- the People passed the Amendment, and the General Assembly is ignoring its most important part (the phrase referenced above); moreover, the GA and local governments are attempting to sabotage legal sales with exorbitant taxes not authorized in the Constitution.  Your assumption that relatively insignificant issues such as the GA's carrying over vertical integration and the moratorium on new entrants to the business of selling cannabis at the behest of our fascist police chiefs and sheriffs somehow call into question the validity of the Amebndmnet itself is daft and unsupported by any reasoned examination of the facts.  We knew long before the election both that the Amendment was imperfect and that the GA would do everything it could to thwart the intent of the Amendment -- if you think that that serves as some excuse for failing to organize politically, you are completely wrong.  The Constitution now implies that there should be no more felony penalties for cannabis; if you agree, you should be helping instead of carping.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @GuestWho @RobertChase


"Amendment 64 would not stop unjust imprisonment for offenses related to cannabis, legalize cannabis, or regulate it like alcohol "
 -- Robert Chase 

"Colorado's statutes proscribing cannabis with felony penalties are unconstitutional."
-- Robert Chase

" I am scrupulously truthful, and far more concerned for accuracy and exactitude than most" -- Robert Chase

"I wrote that Vick's VapoRub contains methamphetamine, and the statement is true."
-- Robert Chase

[A64 is full of] unnecessary limitations and regulations" -- Robert Chase

"Granting the DOR regulatory authority over retail sales of cannabis is not bad at all"
-- Robert Chase 

"Of course I do not trust them ... I do not like the MMED" -- Robert Chase

"The DOR's regulations have not resulted in a single arrest" [sic] -- Robert Chase

" I am scrupulously truthful" -- Robert Chase

"It is insane to call me a prohibitionist" -- Robert Chase

"I oppose the recreational use of cannabis by minors" -- Robert Chase

"Amendment 64 legalized every adult [sic] in Colorado growing some cannabis and their personal use of it." -- Robert Chase

"I agree that [A64 ] should not be called a 'legalization initiative'". -- Robert Chase


Schizophrenic much?

GuestWho
GuestWho topcommenter

@RobertChase

Didn't you hear robert?  A64 passed...prohibition is over.  Marijuana laws in Colorado are becoming a model for the rest of the country to follow.  You supported it and supposedly voted for it.  Why are you complaining?  So far marijuana regulation has gone exactly as the majority of voters thought it would.  I don't know why you are surprised at how the amendment is being implemented.  You don't seem to understand that this is what you voted for.  Do you admit that you were wrong in supporting A64 or are you going to quit complaining and start commending the lawmakers and DOR for carrying out the will of the voters? You can't have it both ways. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "I have worked with other activists"

HipTip: a Circle-Jerk does not a Coalition make.

hth.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  You wouldn't know from the vantage of your bedroom, but I have worked with other activists -- when there were still some sane ones -- and I continue to hope that people who want to end Prohibition will realize the need to work together and join forces.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "The Colorado Coalition for Patients and Caregivers is an extremely loose coalition,"

Translation = a COMPLETE FABRICATION of Robert Chase's delusional imagination and ego.


Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...