Marijuana Advocates Say Special Taxes Lawsuit Could Overturn All Pot Licensing Regs

marijuana.money.565.jpg
In June, we told you about a lawsuit filed by attorney Rob Corry on behalf of a group called No Over Taxation. It contends that special taxes placed on marijuana sales are illegal and unconstitutional; see the complaint and more documents below.

Tomorrow, a hearing in the case is scheduled, and cannabis advocates encouraging attendance contend that should the suit be successful, it could spell the end for marijuana licensing and registration regulations statewide.

See also: Marijuana: Lawsuit claims special pot taxes are illegal and unconstitutional

Plaintiffs in the suit, shared here along with a summons to defendants such as Governor John Hickenlooper and Denver mayor Michael Hancock, include marijuana activist Kathleen Chippi and Miguel Lopez, founder of the Denver 4/20 rally. Here's the complaint's synopsis:

Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, hereby petition and apply for injunctive and declaratory relief, and for a refund and damages, against Defendants and their collection and enforcement of illegal and unconstitutional Marijuana Taxes, as provided in Colorado Proposition AA and Denver Referred Question 2A.
anti.marijuana.taxation.rally.1a.jpg
Rob Corry at an anti-marijuana taxation rally last year.
As we've reported, Corry isn't against taxes on marijuana. However, he believes cannabis should be "taxed just like any other product -- no more and no less. There should not be specific marijuana taxes."

This view would seem to contradict Amendment 64, which calls for an excise tax of up to 15 percent. However, Corry told us in June, "there's nothing in Amendment 64 or the campaign for it that ever mentioned a separate sales tax on top of the excise tax. Basic economics tells you that a 15 percent excise tax is already high, and a sales tax that's directly assessed on the consumer raises costs astronomically when you couple them with the excise tax. But the government has expanded that narrow mandate to create a much more massive tax burden."

The special pot-tax provisions are attacked on a number of fronts that Corry said are "independent causes of action -- they stand alone." Here's his synopses of each one.

"The primary cause of action is based on the Timothy Leary case before the U.S. Supreme Court," he pointed out, referring to 1969's Leary v. U.S. "That case struck down the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 after Leary successfully argued to the court that payment of a marijuana tax was a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

"The second claim is based on the public-policy argument that state and local governments cannot collect taxes expressly on activity that is federally illegal," he went on. "So the taxes are illegal.

"Our third claim," he allowed, "has to do with Amendment 64 itself. The purpose of Amendment 64 was to tax marijuana like alcohol -- and there's also a component in Amendment 64 that prohibits any regulation that is 'unreasonably impracticable.' And this is that. The taxes are so high that it makes it impracticable to run a reasonable business.

"Amendment 64 set out to end prohibition, the black-market trade in Colorado, and transform it from an unregulated, underground market into a regulated, legitimate, tax-paying market. But if you set taxes too high, you empower an underground market. So high taxation is 'prohibition lite.' And even as the state government has made it a criminal offense not to pay marijuana taxes, the federal government has made it a crime to pay the taxes. That puts individuals between a rock and a hard place."

john.hickenlooper.nathan.dunlap.2.jpg
Governor John Hickenlooper is listed as a defendant in the complaint.
Regarding the fourth claim in the complaint, "it's based on equity," Corry maintained. "Equity is a separate legal concept that allows plaintiffs to potentially recover moneys when they don't have a legal remedy because it would be inequitable for the defendants to keep the money. And we're arguing that since state and local governments are retaining money from illegal activities, they ought to refund all of it."

Such arguments will be heard tomorrow -- and a Cannabis Therapy Institute release featuring details about the hearing, which gets underway at 9 a.m. in Denver District Court, suggests that it could have far-reaching repercussions. We've reproduced the release below, but one excerpt reads:

If successful, Corry's lawsuit could be the basis for overturning ALL regulations regarding marijuana licensing and registration in Colorado on the same grounds. As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law, states cannot require people to give any information about themselves in order to distribute or purchase marijuana. ANY and ALL requirements to identify oneself would result in a "real and appreciable" risk of self-incrimination, and would require a citizen to implicate himself in federal crimes.
Continue to see the lawsuit, the summons and the Cannabis Therapy Institute release about tomorrow's hearing.

My Voice Nation Help
184 comments
Chris Clayton
Chris Clayton

Just goes to prove my point, If you give someone an inch they want the whole ruler. These people were not happy because the state wouldn't legalize it, the state legalized and taxed it. Now the people aren't happy it's legal because they have to pay taxes on it. Stoner logic I suppose, personally I think it's ridiculous.

sucka1
sucka1

Who cares how high the taxes are or where the money is going?  I can buy schwag in a store and that's all that really matters.  Tax me harder for all I care but don't jeopardize my access to warehouse weed!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

The primary issue comes down to this -- 


Can the State of Colorado arbitrarily decide to ignore extant Federal Criminal Laws if they determine they can profit from it via taxing said criminal activity?


Can the State of Colorado encourage and "license" private citizens to violate those same extant Federal Criminal Laws offering them a share of the illegal profits?


Can Lawyers -- officers of the court -- deliberately and willfully engage in the violation of Federal Drug and Money Laundering laws, and/or counsel, advise, aid and abet their clients in those ongoing Continuing Criminal Drug Dealing Enterprises if those lawyers determine they can PERSONALLY PROFIT from such premeditated unethical and criminal conduct?


What other random Federal Criminal Laws might be profitable to ignore and tax?


Can Cities and Counties therefore do the same with regards to State Criminal law(s), encouraging citizens to willfully violate those existing State criminal statutes, then licensing said criminal behavior and taxing the profits made from those deliberate violations of State law?

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Just wait till round two! Suits can be amended, you know, or re-filed. The request for a preliminary injunction may have failed, but Judge Madden indicated that the plaintiffs had shown a reasonable probability that they would prevail at trial (requesting a permanent injunction). The bankruptcy of the State and City's legal position was just abject. They were reduced to cavilling about the expertise of witnesses and the relevance of their testimony, the same ridiculously false claims that the Cole memo is a set of guidelines for violating the CSA we've been hearing from industry shills since it was issued, and an apparent attempt to prepare to argue that the State has a compelling public interest in regulating edibles -- pretty weak stuff, especially in comparison with the public interest in maintaining our Fifth Amendment rights! Without accusing Madden of bias (to the contrary; his analyses may benefit both sides), the defendants are damned lucky he was there, to challenge Rob's points far more acutely than their lawyers did. A whole lot of lawyers connected with the State or the City were in the courtroom, though only three spoke, Rob and one colleague representing the plaintiffs -- for a David-and-Goliath contest such as this, we did extremely well! Activist and plaintiff Kathleen Chippi of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project did excellent service, drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that A.G. Suthers is talking out of both sides of his mouth in Dish v. Coates and the present case.


The defense, I think, is alarmed, and it should be; its attempt to claim that people buying cannabis face no likelihood of prosecution is undercut by evidence that information gathered from purchasers' drivers licenses has been collated by the State, potentially exposing them to prosecution, and by the Cole memo itself, which expressly reserves the right of the Feds to prosecute any violation of the CSA anywhere, anytime. The State and City's position would be weaker still, except that getting a dispensary owner to step forward exposes him or her both to retaliation from the MED (in the form of license suspension or non-renewal), and to federal prosecution. Dispensary owners are inarguably at risk due to their licensure by the State, their documented payment of cannabis-specific taxes, and recent federal prosecutions in Colorado in the case of VIP Cannabis, but so are purchasers, and Judge Madden indicated his acceptance of the principle that the registration of participation in federally-prohibited acts could constitute an injury to such. Look out, super drug-kingpin Gov. Hack!


P.S. The main lawyer for the State's bald claim that the CSA applies only to organizations other than political units -- what can they possibly say to back this up, should the need arise (and it will soon)?


P.P.S.  The DP's John Ingold was there; he even wrote an accurate article (leaving out some of the most interesting, salient points).  Westword was absent, as were any of the expected cheerleaders for the industry in the audience.

AsokAsus
AsokAsus

Hey, I have an idea! Let 'em try refusing to pay income taxes on their pot profits and see how that goes first.

Chad Shepperd
Chad Shepperd

Coincidence this is posted at 4:20? I think not.

Cassie Jones
Cassie Jones

I would like the right to NOT lose my job because 'pee lady' detected my mmj!!!

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

Denver District Court Honorable Judge John Warren IV denied the request for a preliminary injunction on a technicality (no cannabis store owners would testify due to self incrimination), but said the case had merit enough to move forward. The judge says the issues are "fascinating" and that he is "looking forward" to hearing the rest of the case at trial. On to the next step! "

http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/08/22/pot-taxes-violate-self-incrimination-rights-activists-raise-issue-court/18548/

Ashley Kittrell
Ashley Kittrell

This is ridiculous. It's still priced way cheaper than you can get on the black market anywhere else. It's good weed for cheap. I can't believe anyone has complaints. Excise taxes are no new thing nor are they specific to marijuana. The tax revenue is why many people supported the legislation.

canokorn
canokorn

And let's require mandatory pesticide testing and see who stays in business.

canokorn
canokorn

You'll never get rid of the black market.  It will only grow where legalization occurs.  To think otherwise is simply ignorant, delusional and irresponsible.

Jay Cismaru
Jay Cismaru

I don't know why the government can't figure it out the taxes too high and the black market still thrives make the tax is same as everything else 5.1 6.8 whatever it is and then watch people flock to the marijuana stores

Travis Santoro
Travis Santoro

This makes too much sense, it doesn't have a chance in hell.

Snig A Loon
Snig A Loon

Good idea. 30% draconian tax has kept MJ sales in the black market. And CO state wonders why the tax revenues are so low...

Christopher D. Ortiz
Christopher D. Ortiz

It would be nice to get some rights back. there was an medical Marijuana Amendment before a Recreational one this is why some dumb butts have now Idea whats really going on.

Greg Jabuki DeRuckus
Greg Jabuki DeRuckus

this is Merica where you don't mess with the rich or government getting it's taxes. With supreme court precedence they actually do have a case. This goes to the heart of 64 to treat thc the same as alcohol. I think it's going to be near impossible though as even alcohol is regulated. demanding no identification of selling thc would mean it's the same as buying cold medicine at the grocery store which definitely wasn't the intent of 64 either. Ultimately i agree that sales tax should not be added on top of the excise tax as that is excessive and absolutely prohibition lite maintaining the black market. Ask any that was smoking before 64 if they go to retail shops for the convenience and i'm sure you will find the majority that don't have medical cards still use underground means directly because of the excessive tax. Then again i personally view the medical as the price for state citizens and retail the price for tourists, which i think is absolutely fine. Although getting a medical card is a joke and i'm fine with that too. i would tie medical cards to requiring filing a Colorado tax form every year so that it's truly only for state citizens(a drivers license is a joke for proving residency). if people that really don't live here want to pay taxes here for a medical card then that's great.

Shaughnessy McDaniel
Shaughnessy McDaniel

If a BS lawsuit like this overrules the democratic rule of the people it simply proves that the system is broken. The premise of the lawsuit alone is on shaky ground. If it does rescind legal MJ the congratulations Corry you've managed to cost Colorado billions of dollars of revenue, what a friggin' hero.

Doug Hubka
Doug Hubka

Such a great idea from Corry, does anyone think that people may just rescind legal MJ altogether is it just results in lawsuits and quibbling ?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

The State didn't LEGALIZE it, you daft dipshit.


Are all Facebook fools as stupid as you are?

KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay yes--- I believe it's safe to say that the state seems to believe that the majority of the voters 'legalized' pot for the gov. only and intended on keeping it illegal for themselves.  amazing.


RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

The large sales tax surcharges placed on cannabis are not comparable to the way we tax alcohol, nor do they have anything to do with why the electorate supported Amendment 64 -- the sales tax surcharges were approved by voters in 2013; Amendment 64 passed in 2012!  None of the sales tax revenue is going to schools or any other productive purpose; it goes to support our ongoing Prohibition of cannabis under State law (see unconstitutional C.R.S. 18-18-406)

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Ashley Kittrell <== clueless

sucka1
sucka1

@canokorn  I like pesticides and harsh buds.  It reassures me that the product actually came from a legal, state licensed marijuana retail store.   

WhirledPeasPlease
WhirledPeasPlease

@canokorn  there is a HUGE black market for cigarettes and alcohol...Not! There is a small black market for cigarettes and alcohol which is dwarfed by the legal market for those items

sucka1
sucka1

Draconian taxes are what this country was founded on!  You going to toss all the taxed marijuana ino the Atlantic?  Didn't think so.  Pay the man.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

... go suck on some overpriced, overtaxed dispensary schwag, chump.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Does anyone think that?  Virtually all of the disengaged media dupes who believe that voters approved the taxes authorized in Amendment 64 and that they go to schools thinks that, but you all are woefully misinformed.  The suit is asking for an injunction against the collection of taxes which amount to self-incrimination and are prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The State managed to administer the operation of medical dispensaries for two years from license fees and the general sales tax (applied not just to cannabis) without benefit of the unconstitutional sales tax surcharge the General Assembly slapped on retail cannabis alone -- there is no reason to suppose that the State cannot regulate retail cannabis successfully without charging  exorbitant tax the payment of which implicates both seller and purchaser alike in federal crimes.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@KathleenChippi ... perhaps the 14,000 arrests that lyin' Brian Vicente and bullshit Betty Aldworth claimed would be prevented every year by A64 were for Government Employees who profiteer from marijuana ... while the rest of the citizenry must still suffer every FELONY -- plus newly enhanced Class 1 felonies -- that remain in full force in Colorado Statute.



KathleenChippi
KathleenChippi topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @KathleenChippi     I usually walk away thinking of what my flaws were....not today.  I kicked ass today in a limited amount of time!  All this legal shit that everyone ignores/avoids (between dabs and money counting) and gives me shit for working on.

What was important today?

1. The City and the state and the judge "just heard about the states brief in Coats v. Dish" (in my testimony).  Dropping that into the 'mix' was so fulfilling....

2. And the judge believes we have merit.  And I have never heard a judge say he was "fascinated" and "couldn't wait" to dig in.  Fresh, intelligent, eager, fair eyes is what we the people need to correct this huge problem.  I think we need to amend our arguments and a 'self incrimination' ruling is ours to lose.

3. Vicente and Sederberg were on the states witness list (apparently to support taxation that incriminates) so they are clearly on the states "team violate the voters".  (Vicente didn't show and they never called Sederberg, who was there all day).


My highlights: 

1. I was able to address the states current position as "an on going criminal enterprise under the same federal laws the state says we the people are all violating",  twice.   

2. I was able to enter the A64 SCAMpaigners transcripts from their title board hearing where the argued that their "language did not legalize cannabis, and to say so would be legally inaccurate". 

3. in the judges final comments, he said "I agree with Ms. Chippi......"   Happy dance.  It's either legal for all of us including the state gov or it's illegal for all of us including the state gov.  The state cannot have it both ways, especially at the same time.  imo, it's worse than the state doing a flip flop on the issue alltogether. 

sucka1
sucka1

@RobertChase "The large sales tax surcharges placed on cannabis are not comparable to the way we tax alcohol."  Excellent point!  As a supporter of the A64 like alcohol campaign I'm sure you would agree then that the licensing fees and taxes on alcohol should be raised substantially to be similar to the licensing and tax rates of marijuana, for the children.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase ... Proposition AA passed OVERWHELMINGLY at the polls. That politically naive nitwits like you thought -- even for a second -- it would fail shows how myopically out of touch you are with reality.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@WhirledPeasPlease ... are you really that ignorant?


The Black Markets for Cigarettes and Alcohol in the U$A are BILLIONS of $$$ annually.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sucka1 "You going to toss all the taxed marijuana ino the Atlantic?"


Gulf of Mexico ... while disguised as Hispanic Republicans

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@KathleenChippi


... it'd also be interesting to cross examine Lyin' Brian under oath as to how much DRUG $$ he and his firm have received from the Continuing Criminal Enterprises - dispensaries -- since 2009, and whether he fulfilled his legal obligation to Report each and every one of those Suspicious Financial Transactions  -- SAR -- to the U$ Treasury / IRS. 


Did he fill out and immediately file the requisite Currency Transaction Reports - CTR -- for every $10k cash transaction he was involved in?


Did he help structure, aid, abet and hide the ownership / source / destination of $$ from his various Continuing Criminal Enterprise clients -- Money Laundering -- no different than the recently indicted lawyer David Furtado.


As a witness for the State Tax Pigs, he can hardly be considered impartial -- he and his firm are hugely conflicted, representing both sides of competing disparate groups -- the State (Pueblo County), Dispensary Cartels, and Individuals. He's personally received $100s of thousands of $$ from the very same drug dealing criminal enterprises he now argues should be allowed to continue to violate federal drug and money laundering laws.


Does anyone expect him to tell and confess the truth? ... that he deliberately and willfully engaged in the facilitation, aiding and abetting of the violation of Federal Criminal Drug and Money Laundering Laws -- on a DAILY BASIS --  all for HIS OWN PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN?



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@KathleenChippi


LYIN' Brian Vicente and Slippery Sederberg can, and should, be impeached as witnessess for lack of credibility and the demonstrated LIES and FALSEHOODs they spewed during the A64 scampaign -- "prevents 10,000 arrests annually" and the "Pat Robertson supports A64" lies to name a few. LYIN' Brian will no doubt cower behind some specious absurd "study", but it was A64 that commissioned and paid for the study and fed the impossible conclusion in advance.


WRT to claim #3, the idiotically phrased double-negative "unreasonably impracticable" nonsense that some clueless drooling fool placed into A64 -- don't waste too much time, or any, pursuing it -- a sober Rob Corry should have dropped it by now -- since it doesn't have a chance, semantically or legally. 


The claim fails on its face because 


1) there is a reason for the taxes -- revenue -- hence they aren't "unreasonable", especially since they were approved by a vast majority of "reasonable" people i.e. Voters.


2) they aren't "impracticable" since they are in statewide practice now, by every dispensary. They may be "high" but they are in practice statewide, every day, Given the greedy dispensaries were even able to RAISE their base unit prices 2x to 3x and still charge those taxes -- to 10,000s of morons, fools and tools who patronize them -- the argument that they are both "unreasonable" AND "impracticable" fails.


"unreasonably impracticable" ... LOL! ... as opposed to what? -- reasonably impracticable? ... or unreasonably practicable ?


Seriously, which one of the IDIOT AUTHORS of A64 is responsible for that turd?


3) this is an argument on behalf of Dispensaries, and lacks standing unless Rob incorporates at least one dispensary as a plaintiff in the case, which is why the Preliminary Injunction was denied. Perhaps a failing dispensary that is about to close anyway can be enlisted to join the suit -- or the already indicted VIP and/or Jane Medicals. Whatever dispensary does join -- must join so the claim isn't lost for lack of standing -- they can recite and document their well-founded FEAR of Prosecution / Retaliation for joining the suit and request that the Court / State guarantee them IMMUNITY from (state and federal) Prosecution before they testify or continue. Of course the State / Court cannot grant them immunity from Federal criminal prosecution and will have to confess that, which proves the Case in Point -- ipso facto.






DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sucka1 @RobertChase


And every Bartender, Waitress, Stockboy and Cashier at every restaurant, bar, liquor store, grocery and 7.11 shall be forced to pass a criminal background check and apply for a license -- "badge" -- before they can work anywhere near alcohol, wine or beer.


And every drop of alcohol shall be tracked from distillery to urinal with encoded nano-taggants.


And the Alcohol Industry shall propose a constitutional amendment where they offer to impose an Excise tax upon themselves, offering the legislature an UNLIMITED tax rate with a minimum target of $40 million / year for Special Ed. schools and a fleet of short buses to haul the fetal alcohol syndrome children to class

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @RobertChase I suppose the only way someone as apparently obsessed with the subject could be so wrong is by being totally reliant on other people and the Internet for information, as opposed to actually participating in the political, legislative, and regulatory processes and having the benefit of firsthand experience.  That you often make a fool of youself in consequence here is a generally accepted fact.

I never had any illusions about the difficulty facing the campaign against AA and 2A.  It is true that the electorate as a whole would have been predisposed to approve large taxes on cannabis because most of them don't use it irrespective of any other factor, but another important determinant was the media's de facto conspiracy to deny knowledge of the policy issues involved to the public.

There was no discussion of whether the sales tax surcharge comported with the constitutional injunction that cannabis "should be taxed like alcohol" (obviously, it did not).  There was no serious debate over whether taxes so large would undercut the regulated market (they did).  There was little discussion of how the revenue from the sales taxes would be used, although Hack did lay out his program of reaction.  The electorate was led to believe that they could tax the hell out of cannabis and get some benefit out of it; that was a lie.  Had the truth been disclosed by the media as hack and the GA thwarted the intent and even contradicted the letter of Article XVIII, Section 16 of the Constitution, and had we found some money with which to campaign, who knows?  Our defective political system and hopelessly politically naive electorate gives the Governor carte blanche to make an ass of himself, flout the overwhelming will of the People, and, very likely, be re-elected to another four-year term.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "I opposed Proposition AA"


Might as well have opposed the weather.


YOU set the stage for the INEVITABLE passage of Prop AA via your mindless support for that festering turd of commercialization with a continuation of criminal prohibition known as A64.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase


A64 "Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund;"


d) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT AN EXCISE TAX TO BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED BY A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY TO A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE AT A RATE NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PERCENT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2017 AND AT A RATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF ALL TAXES LEVIED. PROVIDED, THE FIRST FORTY MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE RAISED ANNUALLY FROM ANY SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE FUND CREATED BY ARTICLE 43.7 OF TITLE 22, C.R.S., OR ANY SUCCESSOR FUND DEDICATED TO A SIMILAR PURPOSE. PROVIDED FURTHER, NO SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA INTENDED FOR SALE AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @RobertChase So?  That was totally unresponsive (and anyone who thinks it is responsive has some screws loose themselves).  Few read and comprehended Proposition AA before voting for it.  The Denver Post simply endorsed it, without disclosing the fact that voters were denied the opportunity to vote on the specific tax they had authorized the year before, without exploring the implications of what Hack was saying about how the revenue would be spent, and without exploring the implications for the regulated market of a tax so high -- that's the second time I've made reference to the relevant issues; if none of you care to discuss the relevant facts of last year's political history, I will stop casting pearls before swine.


I think I get it; the rut you all have worn in your brains means that no (historical) possibility of defeating AA/2A can be admitted -- in your tiny minds, it was inevitable consequence of evil Amendment 64, yes?  I am reminded of the way the prohibitionists have argued that cannabis, the plant itself, is charged with malevolence and danger; it casts humankind in an incredibly reactionary posture, if it is supposed to be defending itself from a plant.  Likewise, the crazy people still campaigning against Amendment 64 (of 2012) are so reactionary that they are endlessly reliving the events of 2+ years ago and have no concept of taking affirmative action against Prohibition in the here and now whatsoever.


This collective psychosis seems to be preventing action to end felonies for cannabis.  I make the case effectively, but the crazies cannot make an argument for our rights on the basis of Article XVIII, Section 16 of the Constitution -- in their minds, it can only be cited for the purpose of campaigning against the amendment that instituted it (Amendment 64, of 2012).  So, for the sake of the insane determination of a few to return to 2012, no one will join me in campaigning to end felonies for cannabis?  Real activists against Prohibition will embrace this cause -- about two years ago.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase "That was totally unresponsive (and anyone who thinks it is responsive has some screws loose themselves)"


There's that psychopathic double-denial that GuestWho pointed out.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase @DonkeyHotay @WhirledPeasPlease


First, you concede the UTTER IDIOCY of these remarks:


"I do not believe that there will be any fallout for medical cannabis" -- Robert Chase


"There has been no fallout from having passed Amendment 64" -- Robert Chase


"I affirm the truth of my previous remarks; I have nothing to explain or excuse" -- Robert Chase

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @RobertChase Train yourself to read.  Take a few deep breaths first, then start at the beginning, and try to read all the words, sentences, and paragraphs through to the end, seeking the author's meaning, as well as his or her errors.  You have ignored so much, over the years, by way of getting in a response; the principle here is simply to bury all sense with your witless ad hominem, (given that most can't get through much more than a tweet).

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...