HB 1250: Edible Cannabis Medicines to Be Outlawed in Colorado

From CTI:

Please copy and repost this announcement.

HB 1250: Edible Cannabis Medicines to Be Outlawed in Colorado

House Bill 11-1250 Introduced

{Denver} -- House Bill 11-1250 was introduced on Wed., Feb. 9, 2011. This
bill will outlaw all medicinal cannabis edible products in the state,
overturning the licensing scheme for Infused Products Manufacturers that
was created by the state legislature last year.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Cindy Acree (R-Arapahoe and Elbert Counties)
and Sen. Scott Renfroe (R-Weld County). Co-sponsors of the bill include
Reps. Balmer, Conti, Joshi, Ramirez, and Scott and Senators Harvey, King
K., and Lambert.

This bill has been assigned to the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. This
committee is MEETING TODAY at 1:30pm at the state Capitol to discuss a
different medical marijuana bill (HB 1043, the "cleanup bill" that further
erodes the rights of caregivers and patients in the state.).

PLEASE SHOW UP AT THE CAPITOL TODAY AT 1:30pm in the OLD SUPREME COURT
CHAMBERS on the second floor. If you weren't planning on coming to testify
on HB-1043, please come to voice your concern about the prohibition of
edible cannabis foods in Colorado.

Our patients depend on edible cannabis medicines as one of the most
important ways to ingest and benefit from cannabis. The therapeutic value
of consumed cannabis medicinals cannot be understated. This is another
direct attack on patient rights.

At the last big hearing on attacks on patient rights, only a handful of
people showed up to testify and very few of the businesses that are
directly affected. Can we change this apathy on the part of the industry?
Can we pack a hearing room once again, as we did when medical marijuana was
a civil rights movement and not just an "industry"? Let's try today!!!!

SPREAD THE WORD: 1:30pm today!!!
Thurs., Feb. 10, 2011
House Judiciary Committee
Hearing on HB 11-1043
Old Supreme Court Chambers
State Capitol Building
200 E. Colfax, Denver, CO 80201

Remember, this is a hearing on HB 11-1043, but this is the same committee
that will eventually hear HB 1250, so let's take this opportunity to
introduce ourselves to them and educate them.

SAVE CANNABIS EDIBLES!!!

BRING FRIENDS!!!!

We'll be there today. Please participate if you can.

Everybody, get your talking points together.

It's important that we don't appear reactionary to this blatant attack, but rather keep our talking points cogent and collected.

Nothing is worse for our cause than appearing to be anything other than professional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DenverRelief

We'll be there today. Please participate if you can.

Everybody, get your talking points together.

It's important that we don't appear reactionary to this blatant attack, but rather keep our talking points cogent and collected.

Nothing is worse for our cause than appearing to be anything other than professional.

---

Enough is enough, these sobs need to be out of office. That is it. The old saying give an inch and they take a mile has never been more meaningful. I really wonder who the hell is doing all the lobbying here. They are certainly not advocating for patients and that is what A20 is all about...THE PATIENT. Well without a patient base, there will no longer be the MMC model...period.

I do not believe that the "dispensary model" is appropriate and I ultimately opposed the current bill except for the part that gave communities the option to prohibit dispensaries locally... We also regulated the "prescribing" of medical marijuana by physicians in another bill. I supported that and would like to give it an opportunity to work. -Bob Gardner R-COS

Judiciary is going to be a major bitch. I warned about this guy in another thread. Gardner was strongly opposed to 1284, and plans to close all MMCs. He is now the chairman. I don't know how partisan the proceedings will be, but there's certainly a chance house Republicans will co-opt 1043 in order to ban dispensaries. On the other hand, this bill is "small potatoes" in the within the greater context of the GA's agenda so maybe it will go through with minimal fuss.

I told ya!

the Slippry slope speeding up!

dispensaries are next!

patients and caregiver rights are the foundation for all MMJ rights in Colorado. 1284 can be taken away, THIS easily!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

I told ya!

the Slippry slope speeding up!

dispensaries are next!

patients and caregiver rights are the foundation for all MMJ rights in Colorado. 1284 can be taken away, THIS easily!

---

Don't count chickens before they hatch.

I see this playing out very similarly to Boigan's ridiculous suggestions in the Denver City Council. It will be exposed as another reactionary measure that doesn't hold water

Committees have spent the better part of a year defining how infused product manufacturing will take place in Colorado. I don't expect that they will just throw it out now, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

These are the talking points I've put together to bring to the table today.

We would love to see a good turn out so that we can have a unified voice at this committee hearing.

1. Edibles are a vital part in the treatment of many of our patient's conditions for which they have been recommended the use of medical marijuana. In many cases the use of edible cannabis cannot be substituted for smoked cannabis either because the patient's condition is contraindicated for smoke entering the lungs (i.e. lung cancer) or an edible is a more effective, longer lasting method of medicating.

2. We have several patients who are in wheelchairs who use edibles to sleep through the night. They have painful conditions like muscular dystrophy that have them in constant discomfort. If such a patient were prohibited the ability to use the edibles that last throughout the night, unlike smoked cannabis, that patient's right to access has been infringed upon.

3. Other patients for personal reasons simply do not wish to expose their lungs to smoke, a choice that should remain open to them. Were regulations to pass that would remove the edible option from these patients, their constitutional right to access granted by A20 would be infringed upon.

4. Amendment 20 grants access to medical marijuana. It does not dictate what form that marijuana must take in order to be medical. Edibles provide long lasting and easily dosable relief for many Colorado medical marijuana patients, and it is not up to the legislature to determine what form of cannabis may be considered effective or medical. That is between the patient and their doctor.

5. Questions of efficacy should remain between the doctor and the patient.

6. In many cases the doctor has explicitly recommended the use of edibles to treat the condition. The recommendation gives the MMJ patient a constitutional right to access and the recommendation may explicitly state that the patient should use edible cannabis as opposed to smokable cannabis.

7. Does the state have regulations dictating how other medications are administered, such as "Tylenol must be taken intravenously", or "Percocet must be used as a suppository"? The state has not interfered in how doctors administer other medicine. What is different about cannabis that it must intervene in how doctors administer it?

8. This proposal is undue interference with the medical practice of doctors who have knowledge to actually make these decisions. Politicians are not qualified to determine what is best for patients with serious conditions and should not be allowed to interfere in treatments recommended by licensed doctors.

9. I hate to bring it up again, but the impact on tax revenue should again be considered. Edibles constitute a large percentage of our revenue, and if you take that away from MMC's you take the same percentage away from the state.

10. Jobs - unless it is the intention of the legislature to actively undermine employment, this bill should be voted down. Infused product manufacturing in Colorado employs bakers, gardeners, graphic designers, delivery staff, etc.

11. With all the requirements in HB1284 regulating how infused product manufacturing must take place, is the legislature really ready to throw that all out after months have been spent by the industry getting into compliance?

12. The safety of infused products should not be in question. Is there evidence that edibles have been causing illness, injury, or death? Is their evidence that edibles present a public health issue? Have there been incidences that require legislative attention. Has cannabis ever caused a death from overdose? No

13. I can go to the supermarket right now and buy something that I could easily overdose on. A patient can walk into an MMC and buy as much as they could eat without needing their stomach pumped, or needing to go to the hospital because of a critical condition induced by toxic compoounds.

Quote:

---

Safety clause.
The general assembly hereby finds,15determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety

---

The question would be at least to me; Who's safety has been impaired or is in need of preservation.

@Relief: I'd love to be there, but with this short a notice, and having to work, it's impossible. Loath the way I'm treated by our representatives. This really pisses me off. Excellent talking points BTW.

audio is here, it just began
Old Supreme Court Chamber

can anyone post a report on what happened?

sorry this is OT, but ReleafCenter and DenverRelief are 2 different centers or are you 2 different people at releaf center?

(I have no problem w/either, just confused)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

audio is here, it just began
Old Supreme Court Chamber

---

Thank you. That was educational. Shows these folks are playing sliegh of hand...

Key words they used..

Clone: Seems like a plant was the issue right? Wrong... CLONING IS SECRET SQUIRREL LINGO FOR DOUBLE AGENTS, TIS WHY HE CHUCKLED ..LOCAL/DEA UNDER FEDREAL DTF CONTRACT. NOTICE THE RESPONSE.. I NOW SEE THE PROBLEMS HERE. i.e. all state csa statutes are clones of federal csa.;)


He next then got into bringing back the focus too...

What constitutes a plant is clear:

"Plant" means any marijuana plant in any stage of growth.



See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17) (defining "plant" as "an organism having leaves and a readily observable root formation (e.g., a marihuana cutting having roots, a rootball, or root hairs is a marihuana plant)") (emphasis added); see also Foree, 43 F.3d at 1581 (holding that "cuttings and seedlings are not marihuana plants unless there is some readily observable evidence of root formation") (quotations omitted).

Neither the statute nor the current Sentencing Guidelines define the term "marihuana plant." But although the question is one of first impression in this circuit, every other court that has considered the issue has concluded that, for sentencing purposes, root formation is the sine qua non of a marijuana "plant." See United States v. Delaporte, 42 F.3d 1118, 1994 WL 706105 at * 2- * 3 (7th Cir. 1994); Marijuana plants have three characteristic structures, readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant itself but a mere piece of some other plant. We therefore adopt the rule that cuttings are not "plants" unless there is "readily observable evidence of root formation." Burke, 999 F.2d at 601; Edge, 989 F.2d at 879. We think that requiring readily observable evidence of root formation is a common-sense approach that will prevent the costly and confusing "battle of botanical experts which occurred in this case." Appellee's Brief at 13.; United States v. Burke, 999 F.2d 596, 601 (1st Cir.1993) ("at the first sign of roots, a plant exists for sentencing purposes"); United States v. Edge, 989 F.2d 871, 876-79 (6th Cir.1993) (plant exists if there is "some readily observable evidence of root formation"); United States v. Curtis, 965 F.2d 610, 616 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Bechtol, 939 F.2d 603, 604-05 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Eves, 932 F.2d 856, 858-60 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 884, 112 S. Ct. 236, 116 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1991); [**26] United States v. Carlisle, 907 F.2d 94, 96 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Angell, 794 F. Supp. 874, 875 (D.Minn.1992), sentence vacated on other grounds, 11 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 2747, 129 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1994); United States v. Fitol, 733 F. Supp. 1312, 1314-16 (D.Minn.1990) ("To distinguish two plants from one plant cut into two pieces, there must be some evidence of individual growth after the severance, such as the growing of roots from a cutting.") 12

U.S. V. Robinson, 35 F.3d 442;, (9th cir. 1994)
Marijuana plants have three characteristic structures, readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant itself but a mere piece of some other plant. We therefore adopt the rule that cuttings are not "plants" unless there is "readily observable evidence of root formation." Burke, 999 F.2d at 601; Edge, 989 F.2d at 879. We think that requiring readily observable evidence of root formation is a common-sense approach that will prevent the costly and confusing "battle of botanical experts which occurred in this case." Appellee's Brief at 13.

si·ne qua non (sn kwä nn, nn, sn, kw)
n.
An essential element or condition: "The perfect cake is the sine qua non of the carefully planned modern wedding" (J.M. Hilary).
[Late Latin sine qu (caus) nn, without which (cause) not : Latin sine, without + Latin qu : ablative of qu, which, what, who + Latin nn, not.]

Here is the DTF of your state.. I will find the contracts and show you exactly on point what they are doing with the clone issue.. wink wink nod nod..

COLORADO D.T.F.

Boulder County Drug Task Force
P.O. Box 20386
Boulder, CO 80308
Phone Number
303-441-1690
Fax Number
303-247-1449
Email
Unknown

Includes Boulder Police Department, Boulder County Sherfif's Office, University of Colorado Police Dept, Louisville Police Department, Lafayette Police Department and Erie Police Department




Larimer County Drug Task Force

P.O. Box 945
Loveland, CO 8053
Phone Number
970-416-2560
Fax Number
970-416-2563
Email
Unknown



Includes Colorado Air National Guard, Colorado State Univeristy Police Department, Fort Collins Police Services, Larimer County Sheriff's Office, Loveland Police Department and Estes Park Police Department



North Metro Task Force

Phone Number
303-298-9151
Fax Number
Unknown
Email
Unknown



West Metro Drug Task Force

Phone Number
303-424-4779
Fax Number
Unknown
Email
[email protected]



Includes Arvada Police Department, D.E.A., Golden Police Department, Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Lakewood Police Department and Wheat Ridge Police Dept.

South Metro Drug Task Force

P.O. Box 549
Littleton, CO 80160
Phone Number
720-748-2995
Fax Number
720-748-2945
Email
[email protected]



Includes Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Bow Mar Police Department, Castle Rock Police Department, Cherry Hills Police Department, Columbine Valley Police Department, Douglas County Sheriff's Office, Elizabeth Police Department, Glendale Police Department, Greenwood Village Police Department, Littleton Police Department, Lone Tree Police Department, Parker Police Department and Sheridan Police Department.

Air national guard ? DEA? HUH?

Are your eyes decieving you? NO THEY ARE NOT !!!

Are you are being duped...we all are.

NORTHERN COLORADO DRUG TASK FORCE
The Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCDTF) is made up of sixteen sworn and non-sworn members dedicated to identifying, addressing and impacting drug crimes and criminals in Larimer County. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from the following agencies:
Colorado Air National Guard: 1
Colorado State University Police Department: 1
Fort Collins Police Services: 9
Loveland Police Department: 5

Area of Coverage:
The NCDTF investigates drug cases in Larimer County, Colorado, and also assists surrounding counties and different agencies in the WAR AGAINST DRUGS. The Interstate 25 corridor provides drug traffickers with easy access in Larimer County. In addition, they provide technical assistance to other Criminal Investigation Divisions

http://www.peerassistanceservices.or...ct%20Sheet.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denvertoad

The question would be at least to me; Who's safety has been impaired or is in need of preservation.

@Relief: I'd love to be there, but with this short a notice, and having to work, it's impossible. Loath the way I'm treated by our representatives. This really pisses me off. Excellent talking points BTW.

---

Your point applies with just as much force in the context of cannabis in general; who's safety is threatened and how, sufficiently to justify any regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DenverRelief

We'll be there today. Please participate if you can.

Everybody, get your talking points together.

It's important that we don't appear reactionary to this blatant attack, but rather keep our talking points cogent and collected.

Nothing is worse for our cause than appearing to be anything other than professional.

---

Professional???:eek:.you mean like these fucking idiots?
Across street from pro-pot rally, House rolls out medical-marijuana rules - The Denver Post
yeah....the ones who stood out in public in direct violation of Amendment 20 while the people in the building behind them used them as proof positive that MMJ needs to be regulated out of existence because the people who are asking for their constititional rights to be protected don't even respect the law that they think they were supporting. I'll wager there were none more satisfied that day watching this than those who were determined to overturn AM 20 by whatever means....and 1284 was a damn good start.

I think this case explains what's going on..

http://boards.cannabis.com/colorado-...olorado-2.html post #41 ;)

Once one understands this case and the courts opinion... you will see why this is happening.

Anything outside the care-giver model is ILLEGAL. Any cannabis infused food, is illegal under state law... there is absolutely no coverage for it being legal in legislation..

An initiative process should be used for this coverage.. NOW. a SUIT WILL NOT WORK.. As no legislation exists for an remedy at law.. because it is ILLEGAL UNDER STATE LAW.:(:(:(

Also as a side note, see state v. fry, the last Wa. Supreme court ruling that cannabis is still illegal even though a patient has complied with the act... as cannabis is still illegal under the UCSA of Wa, NO MEDICAL USE OR VALUE... i.e. a schedule 1 drug..not a schedule II prescription...has medical use/value.

Colorado edible marijuana bill not a brownie killer | Colorado Independent

The sky didn't fall after all.

I think that Rep. Cindy Acree does have a somewhat valid point in wanting edibles not look so appealing to children and to look more 'medical'.

If the extracts used in edibles could be just as effective when placed into capsules or molded into tasteless nondescript tablets, etc - I'm all for it.

I'm also biased because I don't like candy, desserts or sodas and think the edibles industry has gotten a little silly.

Anyone care for an mmj chocolate truffle infused with macadamia nuts, star anise and bacon? Anyone? :D

unless patients owners and citizens unite and fight this crap, and in my opinion talking has done nothing, it's time for civil disobedience! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dietblonde

Colorado edible marijuana bill not a brownie killer | Colorado Independent

The sky didn't fall after all.

---

No, but it's starting to fall again!
Montana House votes to repeal medical marijuana law | Colorado Independent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

sorry this is OT, but ReleafCenter and DenverRelief are 2 different centers or are you 2 different people at releaf center?

(I have no problem w/either, just confused)

---

We are two different MMC's. Friendly competitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BurningKrome

No, but it's starting to fall again!
Montana House votes to repeal medical marijuana law | Colorado Independent

---

I live in montana.

I'm not worried. :jointsmile::jointsmile::jointsmile:

Our governor is a badass. :cool: