M
MacGyver420
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regulate-marijuana-alcohol-act-2012
i have read over the amendment several times an i have to say, i find it to be very disappointing.
in my opinion HB 1284, is a travesty; it is totally against the spirit of amendment 20.
and now, amendment 64 is bankrolled and supported by the same groups of people who pushed 1284 through.
its being marketed as recreational legalization but that is not what the bill is.
you would be allowed 6 plants maximum and 1 ounce of "bud" maximum.
(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
please note that it allows you to buy but not sell... more on this later....
(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
cities get to decide who gets the warehouse grow licenses. going to be a VERY limited amount of these going out.
(h) “MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO CULTIVATE, PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA AND SELL MARIJUANA TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES, TO MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, AND TO OTHER MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, BUT NOT TO CONSUMERS.
(b) POSSESSING, DISPLAYING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; OR SALE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF A LICENSED RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
basically my issue with the bill is: there is still plenty of room for you to get busted by the police under amendment 64. you go over that 6 plant count limit or more than 1 ounce and you are still a criminal. you will still be charged.
meanwhile its opening the door for certain groups to nearly monopolize the commercial side of growing.
(II) A SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION, LICENSING AND RENEWAL FEES, PROVIDED, APPLICATION FEES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WITH THIS UPPER LIMIT ADJUSTED ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES A GREATER FEE IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS SECTION, AND PROVIDED FURTHER, AN ENTITY THAT IS LICENSED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO CULTIVATE OR SELL MARIJUANA OR TO MANUFACTURE MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AT THE TIME THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT AND THAT CHOOSES TO APPLY FOR A SEPARATE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY AN APPLICATION FEE GREATER THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;
b) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE MOST SECURE, RELIABLE, AND ACCOUNTABLE SYSTEM FOR THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBSECTION, IN ANY COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS THE DEPARTMENT SHALL HAVE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHETHER AN APPLICANT:
(I) HAS PRIOR EXPERIENCE PRODUCING OR DISTRIBUTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT; AND
(II) HAS, DURING THE EXPERIENCE DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I), COMPLIED CONSISTENTLY WITH SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE AND CONFORMING REGULATIONS.
basically the dispensary owner operators who pushed for HB1284 are setting themselves up to further consolidate their market share.
(g) EACH APPLICATION FOR AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL:
(I) BEGIN ACCEPTING AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS ON OCTOBER 1, 2013;
(II) IMMEDIATELY FORWARD A COPY OF EACH APPLICATION AND HALF OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO OPERATE THE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(III) ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FORTY-FIVE AND NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS ENACTED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OR THE DEPARTMENT IS NOTIFIED BY THE RELEVANT LOCALITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, PROVIDED, WHERE A LOCALITY HAS ENACTED A NUMERICAL LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND A GREATER NUMBER OF APPLICANTS SEEK LICENSES, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SOLICIT AND CONSIDER INPUT FROM THE LOCALITY AS TO THE LOCALITY’S PREFERENCE OR PREFERENCES FOR LICENSURE;
there is its folks; whoever greases the squeaky wheel is going to get that oh so valuable license to grow and sell; everyone else is going to be shit out of luck.
i will not be voting yes on amendment 64 because it is not legalization it is a trick; the people who paid the lawyers to write this amendment are the ones in the best possible position to corner the market, and eliminate their competition.
only those approved by the city with proper license will be able to sell it; and again that will be very limited creating a monopoly-like situation.
all i see is that amendment 64 does little to NOTHING to protect the marijuana growing citizens in the state of Colorado.
it does however set up some powerful legal defenses for the owner/operators of the "licensed grow facilities". but still leaves the average citizen left unprotected.
this is just how i feel about it; maybe my interpretation is wrong, i am open to that idea. what do you guys think?
i have read over the amendment several times an i have to say, i find it to be very disappointing.
in my opinion HB 1284, is a travesty; it is totally against the spirit of amendment 20.
and now, amendment 64 is bankrolled and supported by the same groups of people who pushed 1284 through.
its being marketed as recreational legalization but that is not what the bill is.
you would be allowed 6 plants maximum and 1 ounce of "bud" maximum.
(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
please note that it allows you to buy but not sell... more on this later....
(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
cities get to decide who gets the warehouse grow licenses. going to be a VERY limited amount of these going out.
(h) “MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO CULTIVATE, PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA AND SELL MARIJUANA TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES, TO MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, AND TO OTHER MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, BUT NOT TO CONSUMERS.
(b) POSSESSING, DISPLAYING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; OR SALE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF A LICENSED RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
basically my issue with the bill is: there is still plenty of room for you to get busted by the police under amendment 64. you go over that 6 plant count limit or more than 1 ounce and you are still a criminal. you will still be charged.
meanwhile its opening the door for certain groups to nearly monopolize the commercial side of growing.
(II) A SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION, LICENSING AND RENEWAL FEES, PROVIDED, APPLICATION FEES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WITH THIS UPPER LIMIT ADJUSTED ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES A GREATER FEE IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS SECTION, AND PROVIDED FURTHER, AN ENTITY THAT IS LICENSED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO CULTIVATE OR SELL MARIJUANA OR TO MANUFACTURE MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AT THE TIME THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT AND THAT CHOOSES TO APPLY FOR A SEPARATE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY AN APPLICATION FEE GREATER THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;
b) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE MOST SECURE, RELIABLE, AND ACCOUNTABLE SYSTEM FOR THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBSECTION, IN ANY COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS THE DEPARTMENT SHALL HAVE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHETHER AN APPLICANT:
(I) HAS PRIOR EXPERIENCE PRODUCING OR DISTRIBUTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT; AND
(II) HAS, DURING THE EXPERIENCE DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I), COMPLIED CONSISTENTLY WITH SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE AND CONFORMING REGULATIONS.
basically the dispensary owner operators who pushed for HB1284 are setting themselves up to further consolidate their market share.
(g) EACH APPLICATION FOR AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL:
(I) BEGIN ACCEPTING AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS ON OCTOBER 1, 2013;
(II) IMMEDIATELY FORWARD A COPY OF EACH APPLICATION AND HALF OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO OPERATE THE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(III) ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FORTY-FIVE AND NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS ENACTED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OR THE DEPARTMENT IS NOTIFIED BY THE RELEVANT LOCALITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, PROVIDED, WHERE A LOCALITY HAS ENACTED A NUMERICAL LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND A GREATER NUMBER OF APPLICANTS SEEK LICENSES, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SOLICIT AND CONSIDER INPUT FROM THE LOCALITY AS TO THE LOCALITY’S PREFERENCE OR PREFERENCES FOR LICENSURE;
there is its folks; whoever greases the squeaky wheel is going to get that oh so valuable license to grow and sell; everyone else is going to be shit out of luck.
i will not be voting yes on amendment 64 because it is not legalization it is a trick; the people who paid the lawyers to write this amendment are the ones in the best possible position to corner the market, and eliminate their competition.
only those approved by the city with proper license will be able to sell it; and again that will be very limited creating a monopoly-like situation.
all i see is that amendment 64 does little to NOTHING to protect the marijuana growing citizens in the state of Colorado.
it does however set up some powerful legal defenses for the owner/operators of the "licensed grow facilities". but still leaves the average citizen left unprotected.
this is just how i feel about it; maybe my interpretation is wrong, i am open to that idea. what do you guys think?
