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

[copobo]

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.

copobo Reviewed by copobo on 05-24-2011. 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 Rating: 5

[HighPopalorum]

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.

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.

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.

[senorx12562]

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.

[copobo]

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.

[copobo]

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

[Zedleppelin]

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.

[copobo]

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.

[HighPopalorum]

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.