Petition filed with Supreme Court to challenge 1284

[denverbear]

only the mmc's that are in league with the devel will not want this...this will help all mmc;s down the road if some things are overturned.

[copobo]

the lesson will be, when we go to regulate, it MUST be within the confines of Constitutionality.

Lawyers who WOULD have taken this up in a heartbeat a couple years ago got too busy making money off of pushing paper through this regulatory kluge.

They (the MMJ lawyers) KNEW this was coming. and now that most of the paperwork is complete and the lawyers are paid, this unconstitutional POS is going to get shot down.

:thumbsup:

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

Well I wouldn't call Springer & Steinberg a MMJ law firm but they are one of the top law firms in the area, and have handled many drug-related cases.. Hell they've handled Kolby Bryant's mess and plenty of Bronco mistakes. They know how to get their "ducks in a row" and when to fight. I retained their services a few years back when I had a little run in with the law and was very happy with the results. I also know quite a few growers who keep them on retainer too.

[HighPopalorum]

I don't want the local option provision Reid discussed in that article overturned. Simply put, there are towns and counties in this state that don't want dispensaries and have voted to keep them out. I get up on my hind legs about this kind of thing, but it is right and damned proper to decide certain controversial issues by popular vote! We manage liquor, gambling and gun possession with a variety of local restrictions in addition to statewide rules; we can do the same with pot. It isn't the end of the damned world if folks in Grand Junction vote to ban dispensaries. It's democracy, and it's a bitch some times.

[copobo]

the constitution is not there to protect the majority.

[Delta9Caregivrs]

the constitution is not there to protect the majority.

Two green :thumbsup:thumbs up

[HighPopalorum]

If this were a question of an oppressed minority, I would be screaming to send in the National Guard.* It isn't. It's about a group of businesses who are naturally and understandably hostile to regulation of their industry because it makes their businesses less profitable. Without a local option, marijuana will never be legalized. As Marsellus says, that's a "hard motherfuckin' fact of life, but it's a fact of life your ass is going to have to get realistic about." There's nothing wrong with letting voters settle these issues, and it's the only way they are going to accept legal pot.

FWIW, I welcome all judicial challenges. It's what makes our system flexible and resilient. I only wish this particular challenge had not made the local option their prime target. To my mind, the caregiver restrictions and issues surrounding patient privacy are more serious problems with 1284.

*I actually am screaming to Ritter/Hick/Suthers to sic the NG on a group of chimos operating in my area. For real, were this issue about the rights of minorities or dependents, I would be on the other side.

blah blah rambling high response. Chillax all.

[grobro]

right on kathleen.....finally.....you go girl.....1284 bad..bad...bad
we 'can' shoot it down peeps

[senorx12562]

I don't want the local option provision Reid discussed in that article overturned. Simply put, there are towns and counties in this state that don't want dispensaries and have voted to keep them out. I get up on my hind legs about this kind of thing, but it is right and damned proper to decide certain controversial issues by popular vote! We manage liquor, gambling and gun possession with a variety of local restrictions in addition to statewide rules; we can do the same with pot. It isn't the end of the damned world if folks in Grand Junction vote to ban dispensaries. It's democracy, and it's a bitch some times.

Actually, its not a democracy, its a constitutional republic, and rights enshrined in the constitution (in this case the State of Colorado's) are not subject to the "majority rules" aspect of an actual democracy. Just a hard motherfuckin' fact of life.

[HighPopalorum]

Actually, its not a democracy, its a constitutional republic, and rights enshrined in the constitution (in this case the State of Colorado's) are not subject to the "majority rules" aspect of an actual democracy. Just a hard motherfuckin' fact of life.

Obvious response: where in the Const is this right enshrined? It isn't in A20, which deals with patients' rights exclusively. Hell, the Const "enshrines" (lol) gambling in this state, but that doesn't mean Harrah's can build a casino anywhere they like. Likewise, Kathleen Chippi and other commercial operators cannot set up shop where she is not welcome. You're on real shaky legal ground, since the local option has been a matter of settled law since the end of alcohol prohibition. Just as there are still wet and dry counties, there will be green counties which allow MJ sales and "brown counties" which do not.

FWIW, the cover story of Reason is on legalization, and the local option is discussed briefly. (and complimentarily, as you would expect in a libertarian magazine.)