Fairplay enacts ordinance against Co64?

[Hydro-Soil]

Section 5, paragraph f of amendment 64 states (in part)...

A locality may prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the enactment of an ordinance or through an initiated or referred measure; provided, any initiated or referred measure to prohibit the operation of marijuana culitvation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores must appear on a general election ballot during an even numbered year.

So... even if a city/county wanted to make their spot of land a 'dry' spot... it would still have to pass on a general vote. Do I have that correct?


Fairplay just passed an ordinance covering this very topic...
I don't have the exact wording, but ordinance 2013-3 is listed in the flume as having the wording

"prohibits the consumption or growth of marijuana in a place accessible to the general public"

Umm... Ok, that's almost what the amendment says... almost.

The flume also goes on to say that the following wording also appears

"Consumption or growing of marijuana in any place not used for residential purposes where individuals gather to consume or grow marijuana, regardless of whether such place calls itself private or public or charges an admission or membership fee.

Ok... now, my limited understanding of legalease says that they're out of line and could be sued if they prevented anyone from complying with the amendment.

Am I correct?

Stay Safe!

 

[BOMBAYCAT]

From what little I understand, the possession of and growing of marijuana are protected activities under the constitution. A city can prohibit shops and commercial grow establishments etc. though. I am a MMJ and have a lisence in CO. I can grow outside but recreational grows must be indoors the way I understand. The city of Greenwood Village passed an ordinance to not allow weed on city facilities. The city also defined city facilities as all roads and sidewalks. This would mean you can't even grow because the seeds or clones can not travel by using city roads and sidewalks. Use airdrops to the backyard maybe? LOL I expect that ordinance to be ruled unconstitutional soon. They are really struggling in the state to get their act together.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Was the ordinance in Greenwood approved by general vote by the people?

If not, it falls under the same issue as the Fairplay ordinance... they just passed it by comittee vote or whatever.

Interesting that the Flume made it a point to show that no one from the 'public' showed up to contest the ordinance. I barely heard mention of 'something' coming up but no concrete info... that was 2 days ago. lol

Definitely didn't make it very publicly known like a lot of other ordinances they've passed in the past.

Stay Safe!

 

[BOMBAYCAT]

The Greenwood Village ordinance was passed by the city fathers (to protect us from that evil weed I guess). Arvada and Westminster have both passed ordinances against MMJ dispensaries and commercial grows. I went to all the Westminster city council meetings for MMJ and got a bad feeling. There were at least 8 different groups of people that spoke in favor of MMJ but it didn't matter what they said. The city council voted against MMJ dispensaries and my favorite one is now in Denver.

If the state ever gets their act together on recreational weed it will be somewhat similar I guess.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Are all the city attorney's of these places that bad... or am I just interpreting this incorrectly?

Stay Safe!

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Ok... so the wording that bothers me is where they say a locality may enact an ordinance or through an initiated or referred measure to prohibit... -snip- provided the initiative or referred measure ... is put to a general vote.

What's missing is the word ordinance after the word 'provided'...

Was the amendment worded incorrectly or does that actually give them sweeping ordinance power?

Stay Safe!

 

[BOMBAYCAT]

The way I understand it is that marijuana possession and growing legal amounts are protected by ammendment 64. There are weight limits, and grow room requirements and plant limits etc. Some people feel that there must be a veg room and a flower room. The limit is 3 flowering plants and 3 young ones so the idea is to keep a continuous grow going. A lot of municipalities (older conservative) are banning MMJ dispensaries and soon to be recreational stores and commercial grows. Under Ammendment 64 they are not allowed to ban the possession and growing of marijuana if the state limits are obeyed. Seems silly to me and it all will have to be sorted out in courts as people file lawsuits. It is all undiscovered territory and people are struggling to figure it out.

 

[monsoon]

My take:

The verbiage reads "through the enactment of an ordinance or through an initiated or referred measure"

The key word is "or". IMO....this means, as a council, they can enact an ordinance through majority vote OR they can waffle about (as governing boards often do), failing to reach a position everyone can agree upon within council, and this forces them to take it to a vote of the people. However, in no way do they HAVE TO take it to a vote. A vote is usually taken when the subject at hand is >very> controversial and the council doesn't want to walk the gauntlet of public scrutiny for their decision. Bottom line, the city/town council already HAS sweeping power. That is why they were elected. If every decision was taken to the voters, not only would it get very expensive, there would then be no need for a council in the first place.

In the end, their decision ala 64 can only affect commercial operations. Individual rights are solid.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Suckko...

I was hoping that wasn't the case, but I tend to agree with your interpretation. Bleah. Thanks.

Sucks that they can tell a property/business owner what to do... from a state of complete ignorance. *sigh*

Stay Safe!

 

[monsoon]

I have mixed feelings on their "powers". I hear you regarding the regulation of private property. It can go overboard at times.

However, on the flip side, the general public >cannot< seem to self-regulate. This is to a fault. As a result, regulations are put in place, usually as a backlash because, yes, some chucklehead started a pot grow or a titty bar next to a church or a daycare or has 1000 plants in his yard because "it's legal now". Extreme examples...but you get the picture. Rules are made for the folks with no common sense, basically, and as it always has been, we all suffer because of the actions of a few.

We MIGHT see things loosen up in a few years on many fronts IF people use some restraint today. If they don't, things will simply tighten across the board as a reaction to "whatever" behavior is deemed a problem.

Bottom line: Pot being "legal" doesn't change the standard way that business is carried out at Gov't level or give anyone any extra rights/privileges etc. over any other business practices.

 

[Jhhnn]

From what little I understand, the possession of and growing of marijuana are protected activities under the constitution. A city can prohibit shops and commercial grow establishments etc. though. I am a MMJ and have a lisence in CO. I can grow outside but recreational grows must be indoors the way I understand. The city of Greenwood Village passed an ordinance to not allow weed on city facilities. The city also defined city facilities as all roads and sidewalks. This would mean you can't even grow because the seeds or clones can not travel by using city roads and sidewalks. Use airdrops to the backyard maybe? LOL I expect that ordinance to be ruled unconstitutional soon. They are really struggling in the state to get their act together.

The whole thing about outdoor grows is still up in the air, given the vague wording of A64-

(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.

It remains to be seen if discreet outdoor grows in privacy fenced & locked yards are legal, or not. A64 renders all the old statutes unconstitutional, and there is currently no newly established law on the subject, at all.There are no penalties as of yet, either, beyond confiscation.

There's still a lot of silliness in it all. A jumbo plant growing in the back yard may not be legal, but once it's cut down, it can be hung to dry on the front porch, but only smoked out of public view. 3 giant indoor plants yielding 3lbs apiece is fine, but more than 3 scrawny ones (per household adult) in flower isn't. Go figure.

"Conservative" communities who ban or try to ban things allowed under A64 are only hurting themselves, because they'll lose out to more open minded places who don't. Young hipsters with money to spend will flock to well located pot shops, and the effect will spill over into nearby business, as well. An Amsterdam style coffeehouse on Broadway near First Avenue here in Denver would be an instant hit, a cause celebre, the most In Place of all in a city teeming with them...

 

[Hydro-Soil]

"Conservative" communities who ban or try to ban things allowed under A64 are only hurting themselves, because they'll lose out to more open minded places who don't. Young hipsters with money to spend will flock to well located pot shops, and the effect will spill over into nearby business, as well. An Amsterdam style coffeehouse on Broadway near First Avenue here in Denver would be an instant hit, a cause celebre, the most In Place of all in a city teeming with them...

Truth.

Stay Safe!

 

[monsoon]

From what I've seen of the recommendations, there isn't an allowance for "coffeeshops" ala amsterdam (open to the public) but there may be an allowance for "private" clubs.

Word of 40% tax on all sales is also circulating

No telling what the lawmakers will do to/with these recommendations

Then there's the Feds. Still lots of hurdles to jump on the entire matter.