Senator Bennet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Horeseshit. There are lots of pro-gun Democrats in this state, including Senators Udall and Bennet.

Denver post July 22, 2009:

Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall are proving reliably pro-gun with their support today of a narrowly failed amendment that would have allowed holders of concealed-carry permits to transport their hidden pistols across state lines.

...

Only two months ago Bennet and Udall supported the passage of a new law that allows concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons in national parks.

That hardly sounds like they are trying to take your concealed carry permit away. In this state, Democrats running for statewide office are largely pro-gun. The only ones who can afford to thumb their noses at gun owners are local politicians in Denver. So now you know that you can vote Democratic without fear they will take either your concealed carry permit or your registry card.

---

The issue is that you are not eligible for a concealed carry permit in colorado if you are breaking or have broken federal laws. Registration/redcard in colorado is pretty strong evidence you are breaking federal law since it's still illegal, even if you are a compliant patient. (edit: find the requirements for concealed carry eligibility in colorado if you like.)

Wouldn't MMC employees now be banned from having concealed carry permits? Assuming everyone agrees that pot related stuff is legal locally but illegal according to the feds?

I think that's what kathleen at onebrownmouse was so upset about, is the fact that MMC's are basically giving the government everything they need, so that if the DEA subpoenaed the MMJ database, they'd have a goldmine of info to use to bust big grow ops with, and since MMC's waive their right to privacy etc, they're screwed. With vertical integration, every single MMC will be over 99 plants, which in my opinion, is a major issue with the DEA.

Why wouldn't the DEA be busting MMC's? It took them 24 hours to get to the guy in highlands ranch. But he wasn't paying his taxes, so the government is making money by keeping MMC's open. They lose all of those licensing fees etc if the MMC's go away.

Again, it's not like large scale home grows were paying taxes on that income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

The issue is that you are not eligible for a concealed carry permit in colorado if you are breaking or have broken federal laws. Registration/redcard in colorado is pretty strong evidence you are breaking federal law since it's still illegal, even if you are a compliant patient. (edit: find the requirements for concealed carry eligibility in colorado if you like.)

Wouldn't MMC employees now be banned from having concealed carry permits? Assuming everyone agrees that pot related stuff is legal locally but illegal according to the feds?

I think that's what kathleen at onebrownmouse was so upset about, is the fact that MMC's are basically giving the government everything they need, so that if the DEA subpoenaed the MMJ database, they'd have a goldmine of info to use to bust big grow ops with, and since MMC's waive their right to privacy etc, they're screwed. With vertical integration, every single MMC will be over 99 plants, which in my opinion, is a major issue with the DEA.

Why wouldn't the DEA be busting MMC's? It took them 24 hours to get to the guy in highlands ranch. But he wasn't paying his taxes, so the government is making money by keeping MMC's open. They lose all of those licensing fees etc if the MMC's go away.

Again, it's not like large scale home grows were paying taxes on that income.

---

This brings up an interesting point, and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but being a federal crime seems to be almost a loophole.

It's against the 5th Amendment to require someone to bear witness against themselves, and IMO the new laws require dispensary owners to collect and record evidence that can be used against themselves in a federal court of law.

Maybe grounds for a lawsuit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

The issue is that you are not eligible for a concealed carry permit in colorado if you are breaking or have broken federal laws. Registration/redcard in colorado is pretty strong evidence you are breaking federal law since it's still illegal, even if you are a compliant patient. (edit: find the requirements for concealed carry eligibility in colorado if you like.)

Wouldn't MMC employees now be banned from having concealed carry permits? Assuming everyone agrees that pot related stuff is legal locally but illegal according to the feds?

I think that's what kathleen at onebrownmouse was so upset about, is the fact that MMC's are basically giving the government everything they need, so that if the DEA subpoenaed the MMJ database, they'd have a goldmine of info to use to bust big grow ops with, and since MMC's waive their right to privacy etc, they're screwed. With vertical integration, every single MMC will be over 99 plants, which in my opinion, is a major issue with the DEA.

Why wouldn't the DEA be busting MMC's? It took them 24 hours to get to the guy in highlands ranch. But he wasn't paying his taxes, so the government is making money by keeping MMC's open. They lose all of those licensing fees etc if the MMC's go away.

Again, it's not like large scale home grows were paying taxes on that income.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hizeman

This brings up an interesting point, and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but being a federal crime seems to be almost a loophole.

It's against the 5th Amendment to require someone to bear witness against themselves, and IMO the new laws require dispensary owners to collect and record evidence that can be used against themselves in a federal court of law.

Maybe grounds for a lawsuit?

---

I'm not a lawyer either, but I would imagine we'll have to wait for someone to be charged with a crime before they file a lawsuit, or something.

I think the first people busted will be large scale growers who chose not to be compliant. I would use someone like kathleen at brownmouse as an example, although I'm not sure and I hesitate to use a specific person as an example. I'll use the name Katy, and assume Katy grows for 1500 patients and chose not to file paperwork to remain compliant, so if Katy grows for more than herself and up to 5 patients, than Katy is now operating outside the law.

I think it's important to note this new legislation. Look at matt cook's ignorant ass. But, he probably saw how much revenue his department was losing out on, since large scale private caregivers like Kathleen and Katy probably don't pay taxes on the revenue they generate. Some might. So now, he just ensured that his department will get their money via licensing taxes and fees, etc. Also, with his 5 patient cap, he screws the large scale home grows that don't want to pay to pay, like Katy and Kathleen (and my primary caregiver). It wasn't the dispensaries pushing a patient cap, they got their exception. Why would an MMC want large scale private grows to go out of business? By requiring things like vertical integration, 5patient cap on private caregivers, requiring all this personal info for MMC's who choose to remain compliant, this simply ensured the state that this semi-legit industry would get their share of tax revenue.

Cook's explanation of the high licensing fees is akin to building a house, in that the majority of startup costs come at the beginning. He's talking about his new enforcement division at his department of revenue. He's using these high fees to create jobs to enforce his rules. He's saying that he needs lots of money right now, that's why everything is so expensive now. But, he's an asshole because they'll never lower the fees. They'll always be high, and the state will always enjoy that revenue. Does anyone really think the fees will be lower next year or when this enforcement division gets past the initial fees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

More anti MMJ people vote (old people) than pro MMJ people, so any elected official will likely take an antiMMJ stance, or point to heavy regulation.

You won't find a winner.

---

Wrong. Almost 70% of seniors are in favor of medical marijuana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

Wrong. Almost 70% of seniors are in favor of medical marijuana.

---

Can you cite a source? Are you referring to a survey or something? I'm pretty sure I would be able to find something that says 70% of seniors don't favor medical marijuana. What do those people say about full legalization of pot? What about other drugs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

Can you cite a source? Are you referring to a survey or something? I'm pretty sure I would be able to find something that says 70% of seniors don't favor medical marijuana. What do those people say about full legalization of pot? What about other drugs?

---

I believe he's talking about the 2004 AARP survey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cologrower420

Can you cite a source? Are you referring to a survey or something? I'm pretty sure I would be able to find something that says 70% of seniors don't favor medical marijuana. What do those people say about full legalization of pot? What about other drugs?

---

Medical Marijuana, ABC News Poll Analysis - ABC News

'Eight in 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use and nearly half favor decriminalizing the drug more generally, both far higher than a decade ago.'

'Medical marijuana, for its part, receives majority support across the political and ideological spectrum, from 68 percent of conservatives and 72 percent of Republicans as well as 85 percent of Democrats and independents and about nine in 10 liberals and moderates. Support slips to 69 percent among seniors, vs. 83 percent among all adults under age 65.'

---------------------

75% IN AARP POLL BACK MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE

US: 75% in AARP Poll Back Medical Marijuana Use


Lets see your poll.

Well, your poll doesn't appear to address voting versus non-voting poll respondents.

I am in total disagreement with you, and I don't have time to find a link at this moment, but my point still stands, that many old people who vote, are anti MMJ. You countered that 70% of seniors are in favor, I question how many of those people vote.

Wouldn't there be more MMJ friendly people? Or do you think the antiMMJ crowd is just really loud right now?

Can you cite anything that states the percentage of voting seniors? That would be better to use than seniors in general, since we're discussing old people who vote, not old people who respond to polls. I'm probably nitpicking though.

edit: I guess I'm going to have to be better convinced that the voting public over age 55 supports medical marijuana, because my poor anecdotal evidence says otherwise. Hopefully all the old people in California vote for prop 19.

And overhearing your mother talk on the phone is more of a scientific poll to you?

I would think a poll by the AARP would be about as good a source as you can get on the subject. They have no reason to skew the numbers.