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.
rightwinger Reviewed by rightwinger on . 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 Rating: 5