Legalize? I call bullshit

  • Thread starter rockymtnbuds
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
D

DoobyScoo

432
0
You have 15 posts
MUTHAFUCKKA!

How the hell you gonna tell me how the 'system' works!,
Oar TK, (Mean't no Dis TK., just couldn't find a weigh to rep you.)
For that matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!

I got a question for you!
What is the "Legal Definition" of "Competitive License" or comept app???

We may be stoners,
But we ain't that Stoopid!
 
C

canaguy27

435
18
You have 15 posts
MUTHAFUCKKA!

How the hell you gonna tell me how the 'system' works!,

I got a question for you!
What is the "Legal Definition" of "Competitive License" or comept app???

We may be stoners,
But we ain't that Stoopid!

dude calm down. Quit being "stoopid". He's from sensible, the group that put the 2012 ballot initiative together.
 
Texas Kid

Texas Kid

Some guy with a light
4,159
263
All the guys that are currently in the game have just spend the last 3 or so years and millions and millions of dollars to get it as regulated as it is now, most, if not all, of the current came from the despensaries and their lobby. My guess is that they are not going to take lightly opening up the retail market place and creating a super saturation sceanario where they are competing with every mom and pop that can secure a retail liscence..

Where would that product come from? there is no state sanctioned cultivation model at all for this so would they buy from the despensaries or the eventual state run production facility? maybe they would create an additional liscense/regulation process for small growers/caregivers to sell back into the system..not likely.

The biggest problem with the arguement IMO is that you are arguing for accessability and for patients rights and that is not the biz the state is in, they are into regulation, taxation, criminal enforcement, and revenue business.

On the alcohol model, would you only be able to buy 3-5%thc content weed at the store but have to go to a despensary to get the strong stuff just like the the silly 3.2 beer at the grocery store but ya gotta go to the liquir store to get real beer.

Im not for legalization at all but love the medical destinction, for me personally, prohibition is much better...

Tex
 
S

SensiCO

24
0
All the guys that are currently in the game have just spend the last 3 or so years and millions and millions of dollars to get it as regulated as it is now, most, if not all, of the current came from the despensaries and their lobby. My guess is that they are not going to take lightly opening up the retail market place and creating a super saturation sceanario where they are competing with every mom and pop that can secure a retail liscence..

Where would that product come from? there is no state sanctioned cultivation model at all for this so would they buy from the despensaries or the eventual state run production facility? maybe they would create an additional liscense/regulation process for small growers/caregivers to sell back into the system..not likely.

The biggest problem with the arguement IMO is that you are arguing for accessability and for patients rights and that is not the biz the state is in, they are into regulation, taxation, criminal enforcement, and revenue business.

On the alcohol model, would you only be able to buy 3-5%thc content weed at the store but have to go to a despensary to get the strong stuff just like the the silly 3.2 beer at the grocery store but ya gotta go to the liquir store to get real beer.

Im not for legalization at all but love the medical destinction, for me personally, prohibition is much better...

Tex

Tex- I have visited more dispensaries (300+) in the State than most people, and I have talked to each (almost) dispensary owner/s, or manager at least once. And I can say, with authority, that very FEW operators have millions of dollars. Your also assuming some operators crafted the regulations. They did not - it was Senator Romer(fmr.) and Representative Massey which did this. HOWEVER, some dispensary owners did hire lobbyists to influence those bills. That being said, 90-95% of dispensaries I have talked to are very excited about this initiative, and very much want to be a part of it. There are many reasons why they are excited for this. One of the main reasons is that sales could very realistically increase by 1000%. The other big reason is that our initiative does indeed allow for medicinal cannabis patients to have greater limits then they currently do.

On your next point, the cannabis for the non-mmj retail stores will NOT have to come from the same places as the MMJ dispensaries. There will be an independent growers license that does not have to be affiliated with a dispensary. These growers would be able to sell too many different dispensaries without worrying about the current 70/30 rule. So through this license, small time growers can get back to selling their product to dispensaries for retail sale. While you say this is not likely, it is actually a core component of our plan, and will happen.

Next, you say the State is into regulations and taxation. True. But this bill will mandate they create a system that is less restrictive and with less regulations then the existing model.

Next, you bring up Colorado’s 3.2 law. This law is very unique to Colorado and is tied to many other regulations inherit to Colorado’s Alcohol system, such as, liquor store owners not being able to own more than one liquor store. I do not think it is a valid comparison here.

Finally, if this initiative is passed in 2012, it, (the retail store portion) will not be implemented for 14 months after passage. During these months a system will be created and presented to the Federal government. They may very well not let this system take place. However if they do try to prevent implementation of the retail system, the other rights created by this initiative will stand (21+ 1oz possession, and 6 plants + all they produce).

I’d like to answer any more questions you all on here have. If I do not know the answers I will get someone who has the answer to help me, help you.

TG- Sorry its taken me so long to get back on this board, I've been involved with some "can't lose" issues, and this work has been on the back-burner. I will try to post the reply to your questions from July, today.
 
D

DoobyScoo

432
0
dude calm down. Quit being "stoopid". He's from sensible, the group that put the 2012 ballot initiative together.

The 'Devil' is in the details.

But yeah, I'm going to shut up now.
Sorry guys. This just resembled Prop 19 in my eyes.

And sorry SensiCO, I should have been more civil.

"Competetive Application Process" is just a dirty phrase in my book.
 
D

DoobyScoo

432
0
stuff just like the the silly 3.2 beer at the grocery store but ya gotta go to the liquir store to get real beer.

Funny thing is that most mass market beer is 3.2.
B/c there is a distinction made between Alcohol by Weight, and Alcohol by Volume. (I learned that in College)
 
S

SensiCO

24
0
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol huh - sounds flawed just in the name

who regulates alcohol? the atf - a federal entity and we all know how they feel about medical marijauna

I agree, the name does sound a little odd. But the point of the name is to best draw an analogy on how this system will be set up.

Where as the current MMJ system could best analogized as "Regulate Marijuana like a Schedule 1 Drug". The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol system will be much less restrictive (like how the Alcohol industry is set up in Colorado), and for adults only.
 
D

DoobyScoo

432
0
With respect,
I think our argument is best summed up as
"excessive taxatation and regulation/ vs Legalization".
Or, 'Taxation without Representation'. (take your pick)

Still, convince me that your "competitive application process" won't result in extortion by local Gov'ts, and I'm on your side.
Like what it cost to open up shop in Oakland?
How many applications the City was accepting?
 
S

SensiCO

24
0
BOLD 1st response to TG
Regular = Response from TG
Italics = 2nd response to TG
FYI - I think this reply format is very confusing, and I prefer not to do this type of format again.

If you have any questions about the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol, please ask me them, but limit it to 2 or 3 questions at a time. Thanks.
~James


SensiCO - Actually the initiative provides extra protection in addition to A20 because it permits a person to possess all the marijuana he can grow on his six plants. Thus, it fixes the harvest problem where a patient finds himself with more than two ounces because he is too good of a grower. In addition, patient with red cards will be able to grow double the amount of plants ( 6 under Amendment 20 and 6 under our initiative, for a grand total of 12).

True Grit - That is nice to be safely allowed 12, but lets be realisitic, that is not going to be probable for most growers. Not every grower grows the same way, and not every grower should be required to, to simply fit a theoretical guideline. A guy with a 4x4 with 16 plants is in violation regardless of how much he can produce- even if its under 2oz. Once again you have now created another criminal. MMC's are allowed thousands of plants by state law, why not work to provide protection under the Federal minimum and eliminate all gray area?

SensiCO - Our initiative will also permit independent growers, thus if you obtain a license you can grow unlimited amounts of marijuana not linked to any patient count that you could then sell to any retail establishment. The 6 plant limit is just for individuals who neither want to obtain a license nor sell marijuana to anyone. In addition, there is no felony restrictions in our initiative, so individuals with felonies will be able to obtain a growers license. Also, there is restrictions on the state passing to many or prohibitive regulations.




SensiCO -We are not creating a “new class of criminals” this class already exists. Private sales/trade happens every day. All we are doing is making it legal for EVERY adult to possess limited amounts of marijuana – not changing any other laws or making any new crimes.

True Grit - Yes, and as soon as you state that the legal medicine is only legal with in your domicile- there will be people carrying, selling, and trading outside of that....which means there will be enforcement. If you think this doesn't create a new criminal then you are being naive. I would not attempt it currently in fear of harassment, why would you think when everyone can do it, there wouldn't be extra concern for enforcement? Whether it wants to be admitted or not, once everyone can grow access to minors will be even more readily available... that will be a point of legislators and LEO and they will do what they can to enforce.

SensiCO - You are right there might be enforcement for those who sell marijuana to children or grow more than is allowed without a license. What's the problem with that? They should follow the law. Technically though, no new crimes will be created. All our initiative does is say that you cannot be prosecuted for growing 6 plants and having one ounce - no matter what. It also provides a license system for independent growers and retail stores. In addition, if any licensed business breaks the law - they only face civil fines not criminal penalties like current MMC's face now.




SensiCo - It’s actually true – you can possess forever however much you can continuously grow on six plants.

True Grit- And the reality is that we would be 1 of 50 states with legal access. This means that LEO/legislators will be expecting trafficking across state lines due to this. Really doubt they will allow people to legally keep multiple pounds with no harassment because of that fear. Just thinking logically here.

SensiCO - The legislator wont have a choice because possessing unlimited amounts will be protected in our constitution. However, you do raise an interesting point about what other states will do.




SensiCO - Right now, only patients can possess marijuana which is one of the reasons they are harassed because law enforcement believes they are the people to blame for illegal marijuana in our society. Once every adult can possess marijuana, law enforcement’s hand will be tied. They won’t be able to question a patient’s status because everyone can possess it. Patient won’t be this discriminated group of people for using marijuana because everyone will be able to use it. In addition, patient will also have two laws that protect them for LEO – not just one.

True Grit - Again and idealistic goal here. Legal adults will be harassed due to what I stated above- we will be the only legal state and there will be fear of trafficking to non-legal states with the surge of "legal" pot. They can't prove patients are to blame currently for all the outside sales, trafficking, black market, etc but as you stated we are blamed- and thats only around what 250k people? What do you think the concern will be once its statewide?

SensiCO - You are pessimistic in the exact opposite manner I am optimistic. However, it is worth pointing out that our law enforcement's hands will be tied, so they will not be able to do enforcement against any one following the limits in our initiative. Also, it is worth noting that California and Missouri (Possibly Oregon and Washington too) are also running legalization initiatives in 2012. So hopefully, we won't be the only state will legal recreational marijuana at that time.




SensiCO - We passed the lowest priority measure in Denver, and the cops did not listen to us.

True Grit - That was in Denver and under an ounce, not for cultivation or private sales. Big difference. Statewide if you drop penalities for cultivation would be much more effective. And if the first wasn't effective to remove harassment- do you think a statewide legal measure would be? Our constitutional rights are not even being protected as medical patients. I'm assuming this would be a legalization measure/bill? Or would it be solidified constitutionally? Again lets make the criminal not worth the chase. When its wastes judges time, that trickles down. I've been part of some very influential lobbying groups where the reality is district court judges acknowledge drug crimes being a waste, and if penalties are reduced they let LEO know what they think, and should do. otherwise they state what the LEO should do, but still exact current penalties.

SensiCO - That's why are initiatives is a constitutional amendment. Law enforcement will give up on marijuana crimes because they will never be able to obtain a conviction in court. Furthermore, patients and caregivers will be protected by two constitutional amendments.





SensiCO - We have been and we are. In the past, we have sued the state, testified in front of the board of health, petitioned to add new debilitating conditions. In fact, we have asked the CDPHE to lower the fee hundreds of times. Thankfully, right now they have plans to lower the fee to $35.

True Grit - Again thanks for you efforts, I don't always know what legal actions are being taken or more what "successes" have been made as it still seems an uphill battle even for patients.

SensiCO - It's definitely an uphill battle. REMOVED Sentences here since they were "confidential"(SensiCO. In addition, if you know of any patients or caregivers who are sympathetic and charged criminally for something that was protected under A20, please have them contact Josh @ Sensible Colorado because he is interested in fighting in court for patients and caregivers who are charged criminally for clearly following the law.




SensiCO - We are trying too. Every day I am on the phone with patients who have faced systemic discrimination in the work place, with their landlords, in court, and in child custody battles. We are planning on running a bill this upcoming legislative session to protect patients from employment discrimination. Also, we should be a launching a new patient PR campaign over the next month to help sway public opinion that patients should not be systemically discriminated against.

True Grit - That is awesome, would be outstanding to have workplace protection as patients.

SensiCO - Trying to get a bill together this legislative session.




SensiCO - You don’t have to register in our state to have protections under Amendment 20. How would you suggest amending the laws?


True Grit - I hear mixed things on this. I believe as you say, but many who have had visits or would like to get jobs in the MMC have stated they need redcards.

SensiCO - Patients have an affirmative defense from criminal prosecution with only a doctor's recommendation. However, they have immunity from arrest with a red card. In addition, only patients with a red card or an application for a red card can go in to MMC because MMC have nothing to do with A20.

True Grit - Currently the best platform I have seen is what Nevada was proposing. Not sure where it sits, but basically stated that-
a. Registries are not being kept confidential which is a danger to patients- to fix this patients will only be required a medical recommendation from their doctor
b. The recommendation and plant count is determinable by the doctor and as long as under Fed minimum, is protected by state law even without registering with the state.
c. Unlimited caregivering with reimbursement for services. And services only need to be growing of medical cannabis. Do believe you have to stay under Fed minimum regardless of patient count though.
d. protection of doctors who write valid recs to patients.

Think theres more, but can't think of it off the head. Not sure where this is sitting during this session for them though.

SensiCO - I have not seen the Nevada Law, but we have to remember that if our initiative passes and its not good enough - we can always lobby the legislature or pass another initiative.




SensiCO - Every day I work for patients. I honestly believe that the best way for patients who have PTSD, bipolar, depression, narcolepsy to be able to use the medicine they need is to legalize marijuana for the masses. In addition, I do believe that once it is legalized, patients will no longer face systemic discrimination because they will not be the only class of people using marijuana.

That would be nice, is PTSD being recognized currently for military? I know VA is allowing meds for patients in med states. Bipolar does need to be addressed though, as being bipolar my psych did suggest MMJ to me instead of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics causing adverse reactions to manic issues.

SensiCO - PTSD is not currently being recognized. The CDPHE denied our petition. However, some vets who have ptsd can get a red card for side effects of ptsd including chronic pain or nausea.




SensiCO - declare personal cultivation a matter of statewide concern – thus it will be impossible for locals to regulate or zone it. In fact, all the regulations (like in Denver) regarding a limitation on plants numbers would likely be voided after our initiative.

True Grit - Frankly like i said, it would only take one incident to cause a public backlash and at least some form of enforcement. Its inevitable. To assume things would just continue on unchecked, is just not realistic if there are no other concerns with the rest of the laws.

SensiCO - There might be a backlash issue if we legalize marijuana for all adults. However, we should address that when it comes. The only way we can get to a back lash is if we pass our initiative. A lot of issues I would have put in a dream initiative we did not include do in part because of a possibility of a back lash. e.g. smoking in public, growing unlimited amounts, selling marijuana without a license etc.
 
S

SensiCO

24
0
With respect,
I think our argument is best summed up as
"excessive taxatation and regulation/ vs Legalization".
Or, 'Taxation without Representation'. (take your pick)

Still, convince me that your "competitive application process" won't result in extortion by local Gov'ts, and I'm on your side.
Like what it cost to open up shop in Oakland?
How many applications the City was accepting?

Dooby - Are there taxes on alcohol? Are there regulations on alcohol? Yes, of course there are. Are they excessive? - I think that is all relative.
 
Texas Kid

Texas Kid

Some guy with a light
4,159
263
If I just jumped thru hoops and spent a small fortune for grow facilities related to my despensary, it would not be in my best interest to let anybody who wants to grow and sell back into the despensary system, plus the state just went to extrodinary means to regulate the supply chain down to friggin chain of custody logs, delivery routes, and tamper proof boxes it is not likely that they are goin to give that up without a major fight...like pullin meat from a Pitbull.

Unfortunately its the 5% with the money that are goin to be the keepers of the keys at least for the next little bit, the other 95% are so tapped out financially and exhausted by the process all they can do is stand and take it or get out....

I chose to get out and never looked back, what a waste of three years and a pile of money

Tex
 
D

DoobyScoo

432
0
Dooby - Are there taxes on alcohol? Are there regulations on alcohol? Yes, of course there are. Are they excessive? - I think that is all relative.
And unless CERN undermines the 'theory of relativity', relativity still applies.
And a wise English man once told me in Amsterdam "when they can figure out how to tax it, it will be legal". Then I offered him the joint, but he refused as they smoke their cones with tobacco over there.

You just made my day.
Thank you, and sorry for my earlier rant (I shall edit the profanity).
Thank you for being transparent, also.

Accolades:
1) Destroying the systematic discrimination of 'Marijuana Addicts'!
+1

2) Providing additional 'Constitutional' protection Statewide.
+1

3) Realizing that Cali is going to pass it next year.
+1

Questions:
1) I still have a problem with "Competitive Application Process", only because it opens the door for some real abuse by the 'Good Ol' Boys'? And Oakland already proved that experiment flawed, the whole Prop 19 thing.


In summary we appreciate your address to our concerns. If we seem a little PaRaNoId, well it's just 'cause "it's not paranoia if they have microphones in your teeth".
Or, we meet a lot of 'wolves in Sheep's clothing' and are tired of being spoon-fed bullshit.

And please, really do keep posting transparently on here. As you know, there are many that read but do not post.

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to help clear some things up.
 
S

SoCoMMJ

313
28
Sensi, Can you address how this bill will impact the 18-21 year olds? I sense that it may put that block into a much worse legal position than they are currently under with the Co Decrim laws.

And as aside, many folks think that dispensary owners are against anything that would chink the armor of their weedopoly.. We have a copy of the petition on our counter.

We willingly deal with the impact on business in order to support a bill that will lessen the current legal abuse against our fellow citizens. Nobody should be jailed or legally harassed for using this plant.
 
D

DoobyScoo

432
0
@ SensiCO"Can you address how this bill will impact the 18-21 year olds?"

Why is it blocking me from giving SoCo respekt?
I've hated enough on him, I might as well let me give him a +1 twice in a row.

"Old enough to die for your country, old enough to get high in your country?"
Don't ask me who said that, 'cause I can't remember.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


Call me naive...
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
you gotta rep 20 other cats before you can rep somebody again
 
C

canaguy27

435
18
One of the concerns from the MMC owners I hear is:

"If we open it up to everyone, and it is not "medical" anymore, will that bring the Feds."
 
S

SensiCO

24
0
Questions:
1) I still have a problem with "Competitive Application Process", only because it opens the door for some real abuse by the 'Good Ol' Boys'? And Oakland already proved that experiment flawed, the whole Prop 19 thing.

Sorry it takes me so long to reply to these messages.

The Competitive Application Process you mention, in our initiative only deals with existing dispensaries. If a town does like Oakland did, and limits the # of dispensaries, the existing MMJ dispensary/s will have an advantage in the Competitive Application Process, if they choose not to continue as a MMJ dispensary, and instead chooses to go with the retail type model this initiative would create.

I'm not sure this is answering your question, so please get back to me with some more specific points and I'll try to answer you more completely.
 
Top Bottom