8 Ballot Initiatives submitted today by out of state interests and they mimic 1284

Restrictive Pot Initiatives Complicate Colorado Cannabis Reform

Will out-of-state interests amend Colorado's Constitution again?

{Denver} -- On the heals of historic grassroots victories in the state legislature, Colorado cannabis patients and advocates are confused and surprised by an attempt to undermine these victories by a conservative faction of national and local drug policy reform groups.

According to the Denver Post, members of the Marijuana Policy Project, the Drug Policy Alliance, SAFER and Sensible developed 8 different versions of a ballot initiative and filed them with the Colorado Secretary of State on Thursday, May 19, 2011. The MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER initiative would create a Constitutional amendment for a marijuana distribution system controlled by law enforcement.
Colorado pot backers aim for legalization vote in 2012 - The Denver Post

This filing comes as a surprise to other cannabis reform groups in Colorado. Members of the Legalize2012 Campaign, who have been working on their own ballot initiative language for over a year, were shown a draft of one of the MPP/DPA initiatives only a few days ago. The MPP/DPA/SAFER/Sensible alliance never indicated that they were on the verge of filing. On the contrary, they had seemed open to listening to ideas from other groups in the state.

Westword editor Patricia Calhoun had recently agreed to moderate a community policy debate on June 22 amongst all the cannabis reform groups that were considering running ballot initiatives in 2012. The event was to be called "The Great Legalization Debates of 2012 - Part One", scheduled for June 22 at Casselman's Bar and Venue in Downtown Denver. The debate was conceptualized by the Cannabis Policy Institute as a way to start to bring the cannabis movement together in Colorado to search for common ground in future cannabis policy reform and 2012 ballot initiatives.

Mason Tvert of SAFER had agreed to participate, and had just sent an email to Legalize2012.com on May 16, 2011 that said, "I can't stop thinking about how exciting and impactful it would be if we were able to join forces and move forward together. It would be such a huge catalyst for the movement, and we could really make things happen."

Given Tvert's letter on Monday, Laura Kriho of the Legalize2012.com Campaign and the Cannabis Therapy Institute was very surprised to hear that they had filed the initiatives today. "I'm not sure why they did this without telling anybody. Even the legislature gave us more notice to comment on their proposed legislation than they did. It really shows their bad faith. This is the same strategy that MPP/DPA used in 1998 in Colorado when they wrote Amendment 20. Their goal is to divide and ignore the grassroots, and win an initiative no matter what the initiative says."

As of 11:30pm on Thursday night, no mention of the 8 initiatives is made on any MPP/DPA/SAFER/Sensible website. SAFER did provide Legalize2012.com with a draft on May 12, 2011. Click here to read it:
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute....ible.may12.pdf

According to the May 12 draft, the proposed Constitutional amendment mimics HB 10-1284, a law created by the Colorado legislature in 2010 that gutted Colorado's medical marijuana law. HB 10-1284 took control of the medical marijuana program out of the health agency and gave it to law enforcement within the Department of Revenue. Senator Chris Romer (D-Denver) who authored the HB 10-1284, said the bill was designed to put 80% of the dispensaries in Colorado out of business. Many grassroots cannabis reform groups, legislators, and attorneys in Colorado opposed HB 10-1284 and lobbied aggressively against it for almost 2 years. The bill attacked patient privacy and removed Constitutional protection from caregivers and patients. The bill created a whole new branch of law enforcement dedicated to cannabis. The MMC model has been subjected to increasingly expensive over-regulation, and many of the smaller businesses have been forced out.

The DOR has been adversarial to the medical marijuana program from the beginning. They have denied licenses without good cause, harassed applicants, held secret meetings, and are on the verge of going online with a massive Patient and Medicine Tracking Database and Surveillance System that will track every seed and gram in the state. The DOR has not granted one license to an MMC applicant, in almost a year since they started accepting applications. Why does MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER trust the DOR so much and want to give them total control over cannabis in Colorado?

"I would at least wait until the Department of Revenue had issued one license to an MMC applicant successfully, before I submitted an initiative law that let the DOR run a whole new marijuana program," says Kriho.

INITIATIVE LANGUAGE FLAWS
SAFER provided Legalize2012.com with a draft on May 12, 2011. Click here to read it:
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute....ible.may12.pdf

Ironically, Denver conservative cannabis group SAFER has always espoused the belief that marijuana should be treated like alcohol. But the MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER (MDSS) initiative treats cannabis much stricter than alcohol. By limiting cannabis consumers to one ounce at a time, unlike alcohol with no limits, the MDSS initiative will ensure greater scrutiny on cannabis consumers than any alcohol consumer ever had. Currently, two ounces or less of cannabis is a "petty offense" in Colorado and results in only a ticket and $100 fine. Medical patients are also allowed to have two ounces under Amendment 20. Creating a Constitutional standard that only one ounce is safe will only cause confusion.

A one-ounce standard will also require the Department of Revenue to convert their massive Patient and Medicine Tracking Database and Surveillance System to a massive database for all cannabis and cannabis users, to track how much cannabis is bought and sold. The MDSS initiative does contain some language that attempts to restrict the Department of Revenue from gathering names of cannabis consumers, but this provision is not well-worded, and may be thrown out as unenforceable.

The MDSS Initiative would also allow for and set Constitutional standards for driving discrimination, employment discrimination, and tenant discrimination of marijuana users. The MDSS Initiative makes "Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana" a new Constitutional crime, completely wiping away victories scored by patient advocates to kill a THC/DUI bill in the state legislature this year.

Some of the 8 versions of the MDSS Initiative reportedly also allow a 15% excise tax, which will create more funding for the Department of Revenue marijuana police force. The MMED already has a budget larger than the entire Colorado Bureau of Investigation, all funded by the medical marijuana industry. Do we really want to be handing over a 15% per ounce extra tax to buy more handcuffs?

This initiative exacerbates the situation created by HB 1284: one group of cannabis consumers is now paying to prosecute, harass and discriminate against the other group of cannabis consumers. Good pot users paying to jail bad pot users. We have seen with the bloated MMED budget that all their money is going to investigate, track and harass medical cannabis consumers. Do we really want to unleash this law enforcement force onto all cannabis users? This is not is "legalization".

The rest at....
Legalize 2012: Colorado Marijuana Legalization

That draft seems reasonable to me. I agree with the main point: anyone can smoke, possess or grow, and transfers under an ounce are OK without money changing hands. Commercial growers will be regulated similar to MMCs: labeling, security, health and safety, and some advertising and signage restrictions.

Also, as a general matter, I trust SAFER more than I do CTI. In any case, I'll be happy to support whatever proposition makes it on the ballot. Any liberalization of drug policy will get my vote.

Ugh. CTI just dropped another press release this morning urging all of us to oppose the legalization initiative and to stop supporting SAFER, Marijuana Policy Project and Sensible Colorado.

it IS VERY disappointing these groups didn't work together on this.

not at all surprising though.

Well, we can only hope that once we're in the signature-gathering phase, these groups will bury their differences and we can all work together to get legalization passed. Still, I hate to see the first shots fired at Vicente, Corry and Tyvert because they've done good work in Colorado. The two press releases make them sound like the army of carpetbaggers that descended on the South after the war, complete with insinuations that they are funded by Jews.

I suppose I'm more sensitive to racial language than most, but the press release about Soros and Zimmerman seemed "fishy" to me.... so I dug:

When you go to the website directed by the second press release, levellers.org, you will find links to "Bilderberg" conspiracy sites that explain how George Soros and other international Jewish financiers are planning a new world order. Among the claims made: 9/11 was an inside job (the Jews did it), the bombings in London were placed by secret Israeli agents (the Jews did it), and Princess Di was assassinated. (Jews helped) A whois request shows that levellers.org is owned by the Colorado Hemp Initiative of Nederland, an organization with which Ms. Kriho has been publicly identified. Promoting these kinds of racial conspiracy theories is sordid even if it stops short of outright anti-semitism. It's a free country and I love colorful speech, but Kriho and CTI should either cleanse their old domains of this material or stop linking them in press releases: it is not helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

That draft seems reasonable to me. I agree with the main point: anyone can smoke, possess or grow, and transfers under an ounce are OK without money changing hands. Commercial growers will be regulated similar to MMCs: labeling, security, health and safety, and some advertising and signage restrictions.

Also, as a general matter, I trust SAFER more than I do CTI. In any case, I'll be happy to support whatever proposition makes it on the ballot. Any liberalization of drug policy will get my vote.

---

What seems reasonable about giving the DOR more control and restricting cannabis more so than alcohol? As it stands now anyone over 21 can possess up to 2 ounces and its a petty offense, yet they are pushing for an ounce limit. We're not limited on how many bottles of Tequila we can buy or possess, why should it be that way for one of the least dangerous substances on the planet? What they are proposing is another 1284 on a broader basis.

A one ounce limit is too low. Agreed. That doesn't mean I will be voting against this.

EDIT: I can brew 600 gallons of beer a year, but can only grow six pot plants. That's a head scratcher indeed. Heh heh.

we don't need unworkable, low limits for cannabis.

why don't they regulate something that kills people. like big macs or gasoline.

Out of curiosity, is there anything in the initiative that is a "dealbreaker" for you (or anyone else)? Would anyone vote against this if it appeared on the ballot as-is? If so, what would have to be removed or added in order to change your mind?

yea, one ounce doesn't work. take that out!

6 (A) Employers - remove this! this puts med patients at risk
6 (B) Driving, section not needed
6 (D) who/what can remove your rights at whim - wtf? get it out

and please, define a clone.

Quote:

---

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 MAINTAIN EXISTING POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF
MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.

---

6A is absolutely necessary. Employers cannot be expected to allow their employees to get high on the job. Schoolbus drivers? Air traffic controllers? This is a necessary reassurance to business groups like the CoC that legalization does not mean there is a right to get high while at work, and that state law will not interfere with private contracts w/r/t drug testing etc. I'm ok with all this.

Quote:

---

THING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA OR TO SUPERSEDE
EXISTING 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.

---

6B is just an affirmation of existing law. Not needed, I agree.

Quote:

---

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

---

6D, like 6A, is just a re-affirmation of private property rights. I don't think it's necessary, but I approve.

Although there's nothing specific, I would prefer the bit about the excise tax taken out. It isn't a deal-breaker, but I'm not a fan of excises, particularly sin taxes. I sin a lot.

I've still not seen here or elsewhere any persuasive argument for regulation in any form of broccoli, er sorry, cannabis. One thing I am sure of though, I will vote against any provision that increases the role of government, especially law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

6A is absolutely necessary. Employers cannot be expected to allow their employees to get high on the job. Schoolbus drivers? Air traffic controllers? This is a necessary reassurance to business groups like the CoC that legalization does not mean there is a right to get high while at work, and that state law will not interfere with private contracts w/r/t drug testing etc. I'm ok with all this.

6B is just an affirmation of existing law. Not needed, I agree.



6D, like 6A, is just a re-affirmation of private property rights. I don't think it's necessary, but I approve.

Although there's nothing specific, I would prefer the bit about the excise tax taken out. It isn't a deal-breaker, but I'm not a fan of excises, particularly sin taxes. I sin a lot.

---

6B covers use outside of work use as well. There ARE MANY employers in Colorado that make exception for use because of legality now, and more to follow. We don't need to affirm drug war hysteria. the PUC covers school bus drivers, etc.
6D - property rights? What does the contents of someone's pockets or backpack on a campus or at a hospital have to do with protecting property rights? No smoking laws or the right to restrict open use on privately owned property should suffice.

excise tax? I really don't care. those that wanted a retail model have been using this carrot on a stick for awhile, and it may lead to more legalization. I have no problem with tax on recreational commercial mj as long as folks retain a right to provide for themselves.

yea, one ounce doesn't work. take that out!

6 (A) Employers - remove this! this puts med patients at risk
6 (B) Driving, section not needed
6 (D) who/what can remove your rights at whim - wtf? get it out

I will not support anything that treats cannabis more dangerous than alcohol and gives special interests a monopoly. The purpose of Amendment 20 was to no longer make it a crime to grow and use for medical purposes, not to create a new web of regulations that once again criminalizes caregivers helping patients because dispensaries can't stand the competition.

it's amazing to me that there are 'pro-pot' groups arguing for legislation that is more restrictive than the current framework.

the plant limit should be where it is limited, otherwise as soon as someone chops, they are illegal. at least medical patients can bring an affirmative defense or have recs from their doctor for more. This will put people in jeopardy.

Well, I hope that by the time you're in the voting booth you can overcome your objections and look at this initiative as a compromise: it isn't going to give us everything we want, but it's a step in the right direction. We should gather our spoils where we can.