U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:40 AM
 
16,438 posts, read 19,088,771 times
Reputation: 9513

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdumbgod View Post
We ought not confuse weed smokers with speedfreaks or junkies.
No argument there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:50 AM
 
16,438 posts, read 19,088,771 times
Reputation: 9513
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
Ouch!

California, meet Jazzlover... Colorado's Border Patrol.
If only it could be so...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 08:31 AM
 
459 posts, read 672,289 times
Reputation: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
The irony is that smoking marijuana is likely to be limited by the Colorado Indoor Clean Air Act. Like tobacco cigarettes, there will be a whole host of places that you will not be able to smoke marijuana.

See the list of restrictions here

The law was already been amended to include smoking marijuana.

This prohibition will effectively prohibit the creation of marijuana cafes, and the amendment itself prohibits smoking in public so....

Immovable object, meet unstoppable force.
The Clean Air Act was amended in 2010 explicitly for Medical Marijuana. I know Medical Marijuana and Marijuana are the same substance but lawyers love those little differences. I believe the Clean Air Act needs to be amended again to be applicable to Marijuana obtained in accordance with Amendment 64.

On the other hand I also find it very unlikely the legislature will allow people to smoke in the middle of a cafe when they amend the clean air act again. Either way smoking marijuana in public should also still be illegal under state law since the language of Amendment 64 should not invalidate other existing laws prohibiting smoking marijuana in public. However I would not be surprised if some loopholes are left open for people from out of state to smoke in private areas.

There's too much uncertainty right now though to say anything definitively though. For all we know the feds could take a hard line on this and send in the national guard to shut down all marijuana related activities. I do not think that is likely to happen, but we are in waters that have not been charted since the late 1920's and the shoreline has changed a lot since then.

Last edited by robertgoodman; 11-09-2012 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:07 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,785,875 times
Reputation: 9132
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertgoodman View Post
Either way smoking in public should also still be illegal under state law since the language of Amendment 64 should not invalidate existing laws prohibiting smoking marijuana in public. However I would not be surprised if some loopholes are left open for people from out of state to smoke in private areas.
The Amendment contains language that permits employers and private property owners to restrict or prohibit the possession or use of marijuana on their premises, but the initiative is pretty much silent on such a prohibition on most public property other than schools, hospitals, and other such facilities.

Still, the very troubling provision contained in this initiative is the "self-executing" provision that most of them now contain, and that have caused unending legal problems in other Amendments (my emphasis in italics):

Quote:
(8) Self-executing, severability, conflicting provisions. All provisions of this section are self-executing except as specified herein, are severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supercede, conflicting state statutory, local charter, ordinance, or resolutions, and other state or local provisions.
In other words, the Amendment can roughshod over all nature of existing law, even if it is not directly related to marijuana, if language in the Amendment conflicts with such law. That is a ticking Constitutional time bomb that will likely cause all kinds of unintended grief for Coloradans.

I refuse to vote for any Colorado Constitutional Amendment that contains that self-executing language--even if I agree with the premise of the Amendment. I've seen firsthand far too many times how that nasty language can wreak havoc with the law. Of course, all of that is lost on most laypeople, who wouldn't even understand the meaning of such legal language even if they actually read the amendment. I doubt that most voters (especially the stoners) ever even bothered to read the whole Amendment. Maybe they should have. Here it is:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elec...12/30Final.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:23 AM
 
1,742 posts, read 2,691,019 times
Reputation: 1925
Jazz, breath, I don't want your head to explode.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Colorado
11,640 posts, read 7,207,243 times
Reputation: 20962
Seriously, I think a lot of assumptions are going on with this, too. Just because Colorado says "we are going to cease State prosecution of this" does not mean they're saying "we want to turn Colorado into Amsterdam." You can't assume that cafes are going to spring up all over, though I'm sure some folks will want to make money on it, although I think it should be legal I do NOT think it should be done in public places. And I'm betting many, probably most Colorado residents would agree. I really think smokers need to keep in mind that the reason for their victory was not that the state is so full of smokers that it's hippie heaven, but rather that Colorado is full of libertarians who want small government and the freedom for people to make their own choices. But don't think for a minute that means any Coloradan is going to let you walk all over their freedoms, including the right to live a pot-free lifestyle if they choose.

I just really think it's amazing how uncommon common sense can be... People just need to respect each other. Smokers need to keep it in their own homes and not pollute the airspace of non-smokers. Non smokers need to not judge people if their actions aren't impacting your way of life. It's really not that hard.

As far as businesses and employers go, this too is reasonably simple. An employer concerned with this being problematic needs to put a zero tolerance clause into the employment offer which prospective employees need to sign as a condition of employment. You test hot, you're fired, and it's totally legit because YOU AGREED TO IT IN WRITING. Beyond that, if a company doesn't want to test for pot, then people can be terminated for attendence issues or poor performance of their job duties, the same as a non-smoker who has job issues can be fired. (I know this topic is more the other convo thread but I don't feel like writing a seperate post.) If a pot smoker doesn't have job performance or attendence issues, then it shouldn't be a problem...

I swear, there's a lot of stuff being talked about that people are making more complicated than it needs to be...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Renton Washington
256 posts, read 453,072 times
Reputation: 178
Washington State will even it out for you =)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 10:23 AM
 
113 posts, read 315,018 times
Reputation: 113
Quote:
The irony is that smoking marijuana is likely to be limited by the Colorado Indoor Clean Air Act. Like tobacco cigarettes, there will be a whole host of places that you will not be able to smoke marijuana.

See the list of restrictions here

The law was already been amended to include smoking marijuana.

This prohibition will effectively prohibit the creation of marijuana cafes, and the amendment itself prohibits smoking in public so....

Immovable object, meet unstoppable force.
We had a similar clean air law here in Idaho and they got around the no smoking in "public" clubs by calling them private clubs and you had to pay a small yearly fee to be part of the "private club" (Basically sign a paper at the front door and your in) Once your on the list you can smoke inside.... There will be loop holes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 10:49 AM
 
459 posts, read 672,289 times
Reputation: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
The Amendment contains language that permits employers and private property owners to restrict or prohibit the possession or use of marijuana on their premises, but the initiative is pretty much silent on such a prohibition on most public property other than schools, hospitals, and other such facilities.
The language I was referring to was section 3(d) of amendment 64 and how it excludes the right to smoke publicly and openly. I would think this would mean C.R.S 18-18-406(3)(a)(I) would still make smoking in public a petty offense even with section 8 of amendment 64. I believe it also allows for the legislature to regulate it further if needed setting up specific provisions for places such as hospitals etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 11:18 AM
 
3,103 posts, read 2,835,994 times
Reputation: 4029
I support 64, but do not condone smoking of any kind in public places. Even if it's on private property your neighbors shouldn't have to put up with the smell and smoke.

Hopefully more people will put down the bong and pick up a vaporizer. Clean, smoke free and healthy way to consume cannabis. A lot more discrete as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top