There is legal precedent for completely ignoring 1284 in.....

Aurora, Commerce City, Denver, Durango, Federal Heights, Ft. Collins, Lafayette, Thornton and Westminister.

Certain laws, state and federal, are only selectively enforced in these cities and the county governments are complicit in allowing this. Obviously, certain Colorado communities, make their own rules. They are based on the idea that those who come here and contribute to the community in a positive way are not just tolerated, but encouraged. This frees law enforcement resources for more important duties, like protecting the community from violent criminals and protects people who are persecuted by draconian legislation elsewhere to live peacefully in our community.

The cities listed above are sanctuary cities and the government entities in these areas have been consistent in supporting this policy of non-compliance with legislation that they, as a community, do not support.

Why do we not afford these same humanitarian courtesies to our own local citizenries? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

good point

it *would* make sense for home rule cities to opt-out of 1284 as then the locality could impose and collect all fees, instead of sending it to the state... to basically pay for enforcement in Denver. Why would Fort Collins want their dollars going to Denver for that?

The government is your enemy. Police are not your friends. The military is a terrorist faction.

Dont trust em. Fight the power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

good point

it *would* make sense for home rule cities to opt-out of 1284 as then the locality could impose and collect all fees, instead of sending it to the state... to basically pay for enforcement in Denver. Why would Fort Collins want their dollars going to Denver for that?

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neversummer

The government is your enemy. Police are not your friends. The military is a terrorist faction.

Dont trust em. Fight the power.

---

Yeah....whatever. This is not very helpful. We have no choice but to work alongside those with whom we may disagree on certain issues.

Law enforcement makes the argument that they need to put the bad guys out of business. The quickest way to put the bad guys out of business is to identify them and take away their funding to continue to be bad guys. I think the question would be at this point, who are the bad guys? Are the bad guys the citizens of Colorado who are exercising their rights under amendment 20 of the state constitution or are the bad guys the cartels and their surrogates here who traffic in pot, methamphetamine, misery and murder? A huge percentage of the cartel revenue is contraband pot. Let's defund them of their main revenue stream from cannabis and free up law enforcement to pursue the tweakers who traffic in misery and death.

Our local municipalities need revenue. How is a draconian law that promises to drive this industry back underground going to help them? It will burden law enforcement and deprive local communities of revenue that would be be made available to them were they to take control of this situation in a sane and humanitarian way...just as they have done with the immigration situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puntacometa

Yeah....whatever. This is not very helpful. We have no choice but to work alongside those with whom we may disagree on certain issues.

Law enforcement makes the argument that they need to put the bad guys out of business. The quickest way to put the bad guys out of business is to identify them and take away their funding to continue to be bad guys. I think the question would be at this point, who are the bad guys? Are the bad guys the citizens of Colorado who are exercising their rights under amendment 20 of the state constitution or are the bad guys the cartels and their surrogates here who traffic in pot, methamphetamine, misery and murder? A huge percentage of the cartel revenue is contraband pot. Let's defund them of their main revenue stream from cannabis and free up law enforcement to pursue the tweakers who traffic in misery and death.

Our local municipalities need revenue. How is a draconian law that promises to drive this industry back underground going to help them? It will burden law enforcement and deprive local communities of revenue that would be be made available to them were they to take control of this situation in a sane and humanitarian way...just as they have done with the immigration situation.

---

"FREE UP" LMAO YOU THINK LEO WANTS TO BE "FREE"TO DO OTHER THINGS? thay can do that now but they choose not to they are the ones pushing for this to be illegal.it's more like they want to be free to come bust you're door in.free to bust you're family up. you do know they still look at mj as the root cause of all evil right? + it's a real easy job to bust mj users.i mean they did'nt really sign up to break a sweat or anything like that....

btw working along side them has gotten us nowhere but enslaved more...

"Let's defund them of their main revenue stream...." Sounds like a good idea...but I would like to apply it to the Federal government myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puntacometa

Aurora, Commerce City, Denver, Durango, Federal Heights, Ft. Collins, Lafayette, Thornton and Westminister.

Certain laws, state and federal, are only selectively enforced in these cities and the county governments are complicit in allowing this. Obviously, certain Colorado communities, make their own rules. They are based on the idea that those who come here and contribute to the community in a positive way are not just tolerated, but encouraged. This frees law enforcement resources for more important duties, like protecting the community from violent criminals and protects people who are persecuted by draconian legislation elsewhere to live peacefully in our community.

The cities listed above are sanctuary cities and the government entities in these areas have been consistent in supporting this policy of non-compliance with legislation that they, as a community, do not support.

Why do we not afford these same humanitarian courtesies to our own local citizenries? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

---

The city I live closest too has already adjusted the distance--the 1000 ft. rule down to 500'--because it was unrealistic to place a new dispensory within the 1000 ft. rule. So we will see cities adapt to the state rules with their own--and possibly more friendlier version of 1284.

BUT--after reading this legislation there is no doubt in my mind that it will be challenged in court as to the constitutionality of it. Because of that--this bill will turn into a prosecutors worst nightmare. Therefore, wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars in the process for expenses related to law enforcement, court costs, attorney fees, and possibly incarceration. To add--what if business is disrupted, and or there are people are incarcerated over 1284 and then a district court or the Colorado Supreme court finds this bill unconstitutional? I imagine the cost to the state, counties and cities could be in the millions for enforcement of this bill should it be overturned in court.

I think one of the most blatant in this bill is the 5 patient per caregiver, "with special circumstances"--noting that if a patient lives a long distance from a medical marijuana center--the "state" may allow a local caregiver to have more than 5 patients. HOWEVER--this clause alone is in the face of not only the Colorado Constitution--but the U.S. Constitution. The government cannot "dictate" whom a patient chooses to do business with.

There are many medical marijuana patients that would choose to be supplied with a private caregiver--versus walking into a local public place where they may be recognized by others. Professionals, business owners and basically anyone who would prefer not to let others know that they are a medical marijuana patient. Yet according to 1284--if this person lives close to a medical marijuana center--and there are either no caregivers, or the caregivers there already have 5 patients--this individual is forced into the medical marijuana center. This is unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by throatstick

"FREE UP" LMAO YOU THINK LEO WANTS TO BE "FREE"TO DO OTHER THINGS? thay can do that now but they choose not to they are the ones pushing for this to be illegal.it's more like they want to be free to come bust you're door in.free to bust you're family up. you do know they still look at mj as the root cause of all evil right? + it's a real easy job to bust mj users.i mean they did'nt really sign up to break a sweat or anything like that....

btw working along side them has gotten us nowhere but enslaved more...

---

This is not true everywhere. Maybe where you are, but not everywhere. Do not assume that certain areas of Colorado are anything like Denver. I assure you, some of them are not.

I think one of the most blatant in this bill is the 5 patient per caregiver, "with special circumstances"--noting that if a patient lives a long distance from a medical marijuana center--the "state" may allow a local caregiver to have more than 5 patients. HOWEVER--this clause alone is in the face of not only the Colorado Constitution--but the U.S. Constitution. The government cannot "dictate" whom a patient chooses to do business with.


I full agree with your above statement. I addressed this earlier and never really got an answer. It basicly says if a patient lives x amount of distance from a mmc that a caregiver can service them even if that care giver has 5 patients already. So, my question was.... what is x distance? 5 miles, 10 miles, 15 miles?

I know every one is talking about someone filing this law suit or that one over dispencaries. But has anyone heard of a lawyer "cory" or anyone that is fighting the 5 patient rule?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cowgirl1

I know every one is talking about someone filing this law suit or that one over dispencaries. But has anyone heard of a lawyer "cory" or anyone that is fighting the 5 patient rule?

---

It's Robert Corry. He's one of Colorado's lead PRO- MMJ Lawyers. He speaks at almost every major MMJ gathering, as well as offering free services to many people with MJ charges. I've heard, but not confirmed that he also helped draft Amendment 20. :thumbsup:

Sorry not sure on the distance needed question.

i heard what they did was unconstitutional. anyone who thinks gov isnt corrupt just take a look at mj. they show their true colors then.

meded is a hell of a drug

It will be challenged in court, which is good. It won't be overturned in total, but we will see individual lawsuits nibble away the more unjust parts until we're left with the bland regulatory bill the dispensary industry needs. I