Colorado Legalizes Recreational Marijuana!

Obsidian · Nov 7, 2012

cobcoop said:
The way I read it is that you can posses the mj grown by your 3 plants, regardless of weight.

you are correct sir.

Obsidian · Nov 7, 2012

POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN
means if I have a plant that produces 5lbs, it stays at home
this means any amount as Rob cory has stated.
this is a closed loop hole.

$$DBA Invoice1 · Nov 7, 2012

Skip said:
And what will the Feds do about the new legalization laws in CO and WA?

This is a big FU! to the Feds.

BTW, I'm not seeing any requirement for people who grow at home to inform or get approval of their landlord!

Let the growing begin!

Now is the Time for all good people to OVERGROW the planet!

As of course It will eventually end up in the Supreme Court.

Gdood9 · Nov 7, 2012

Skip said:
(3) Personal use of marijuana. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
(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.
(c) TRANSFER OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT REMUNERATION TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.
(e) ASSISTING ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IN ANY OF THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (d) OF THIS SUBSECTION.

It's pretty well written that it's not a hard limit when it comes to your own production. What you produce you can keep. You can only buy one ounce at a time and if you're not growing you can only possess one ounce at a time.

Obsidian · Nov 7, 2012

Skip said:
And what will the Feds do about the new legalization laws in CO and WA?

This is a big FU! to the Feds.

BTW, I'm not seeing any requirement for people who grow at home to inform or get approval of their landlord!

Let the growing begin!

Now is the Time for all good people to OVERGROW the planet!

(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.
(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.
(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA OR TO SUPERSEDE STATUTORY LAWS RELATED TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA, NOR SHALL THIS SECTION PREVENT THE STATE FROM ENACTING AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OR WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA.
(c) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA, WITH OR WITHOUT REMUNERATION, TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE OR TO ALLOW A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE TO PURCHASE, POSSESS, USE, TRANSPORT, GROW, OR CONSUME MARIJUANA.
(d) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON, EMPLOYER, SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, DETENTION FACILITY, CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.

Mr. Bongjangles · Nov 7, 2012

$$DBA Invoice1 said:
As of course It will eventually end up in the Supreme Court.

Nope, this has already been decided in the Feds favor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

On a more humorous note, came across this -

cobcoop · Nov 7, 2012

Obsidian said:
POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN
means if I have a plant that produces 5lbs, it stays at home
this means any amount as Rob cory has stated.
this is a closed loop hole.

Agreed. That is how the amendment reads.

Skip · Nov 7, 2012

Obsidian said:
(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.

(d) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON, EMPLOYER, SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, DETENTION FACILITY, CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.

Thanks for the clarification. So it looks like renters will need the permission of the property owners. What's weird is that it sorta puts the property owners in the position of legislators since they can put whatever restrictions they choose on the use of the property. Makes it sound like they can OK sales of cannabis (which would require a state license).

It also implies they can prohibit marijuana smoking, just like they can prohibit tobacco smoking on premises.

So let's see, if you're a renter and your landlord prohibits you from smoking on the premises, and you can't smoke in public, means you'll have to find a friend's house where you can smoke, or a "coffeeshop" if those ever become reality.

Obsidian · Nov 7, 2012

I think you read that wrong.
It says no one can stop a person from growing on the premises

1. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON

2. OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.

it says the owner can not regulate.

fungzyme · Nov 7, 2012

Obsidian said:
I think you read that wrong.
It says no one can stop a person from growing on the premises

1. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON

2. OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.

it says the owner can not regulate.

Seems like the exact opposite of that (?) - says nothing shall prohibit an owner, etc. from prohibiting or regulating the above stuff on his property, right?? Kind of like a double negative only with the word 'prohibit'...?

Growcephus · Nov 7, 2012

Congratulations citizens of Colorado and Washington!!

FINALLY we have citizens with BALLS willing to step up to the plate and END the demonization and criminalization of a plant that had been a LEGAL and BENEFICIAL part of American culture for almost 200 fucking years.

FUCK YEA!!!

YOU ROCK!!!

/RESPECT

Ziggaro · Nov 7, 2012

yeah obs you have that wrong it says the owner/occupier/controller cannot be prohibited from regulating
but then again the renter is the occupier and technically the controller of the house so what does that mean?

purple_man · Nov 7, 2012

DAMN FAMBZ!!!

i hope this is for REAL (no time for in detail reading), but could it finally be happening? time for a celebration spliff

blessss
ps.: well done colorado folks!

huligun · Nov 7, 2012

Renters think they can put anything in a lease they want, but often times leases are found to be against a higher standard or set of rules that the lease would violate. You can make any contract you want, but can only collect if the lease is legal to begin with.

Obsidian · Nov 7, 2012

I mis read the prohibit from prohibiting

my bad

I own my own properties, I'm not worried.
If growers in the past had respected property owners maybe a different story.
To many greedy out of state a holes came here in 2009-present and destroyed so many homes with their shady grow ops.

Arthritis_sucks · Nov 7, 2012

MacGyver420 said:
you did miss something;

i hope this is clear for you:

1 ounce is the hard limit for maximum you can have; and that ounce is not to leave the premises of where it was grown.

No more than one ounce for travel within state and you keep everything your 3 flowering plants produce in-home. umkay, read it again.

Obsidian · Nov 7, 2012

sitting here in the shop, and we're all discussing this over coffee, chai, and nugs.

What do you all think this will do to/for regulation of clone and seed sales now?

We've been flooded with phone calls all morning here asking about our clones, and seeds.

It won't be until July 2013 that this whole commercial op license stuff starts, that's more than enough nuff time to formulate and get fundage. We have the team here, in fact the whole town is devoted to growing, soon as you pass the church you can smell the funkadunk.

OZZ_ · Nov 7, 2012

Aren't we all jumping the gun here? Its still against federal law... correct? I don't see them just laying down on the issue. surely they can over turn it or something right?

Or is that that? Its passed and that's all there is to it? If so... ill fucking move ...and take my skills in a very high demand career field with me.

Kushed · Nov 7, 2012

I agree OZZ_ I wouldnt want to get my hopes up.. and since the supreme court ruled on a very similar law that cali passed if i remember correctly what does this mean then? Cant/wont they just reaffirm their stance? Id stay on the low till you know for sure, but im hoping for the best for all!

Zoolander · Nov 7, 2012

Feds can still crush your dreams so stay safe

Colorado Legalizes Recreational Marijuana!

Active member

Active member

$$DBA Invoice1

Member

Active member

Head Brewer

Puttin flame to fire

Active member

Active member

Member

Member

Ziggaro

Well-known member

Professor Organic Psychology

Active member

The Dude

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Member