List of CO recreational MJ stores to open Jan 1, 2014

[DurangoJoe]

Originally Posted by coloradoalimony

Gay marriage is a tenth amendment issue, too.

Who is winning that one, the states or the Feds?

Gay marriage is an individual rights issue. Apples & oranges.

[highplainsrus]

Some general research, but no specific evidence, suggests recreational prices might be as much as double the usual prices for medical, including taxes. this is a medium-high estimate. $400/oz, $100/qtr, $50/eighth. probably depends on strain popularity and strength. will vary due to demand. if anybody has better estimates, please let us know.

i'm guessing about $100k total day1 gross sales state-wide,
with about $25k tax going to the state and local entities?

[highplainsrus]

Originally Posted by highplainsrus

Some general research, but no specific evidence, suggests recreational prices might be as much as double the usual prices for medical, including taxes. this is a medium-high estimate. $400/oz, $100/qtr, $50/eighth. probably depends on strain popularity and strength. will vary due to demand. if anybody has better estimates, please let us know.

i'm guessing about $100k total day1 gross sales state-wide,
with about $25k tax going to the state and local entities?

i think i dropped a zero somewhere. $1mil gross, $250k taxes?

[coloradoalimony]

Originally Posted by DurangoJoe

Gay marriage is an individual rights issue. Apples & oranges.

Op-ed: Gay marriage is latest federal encroachment on Utah values | The Salt Lake Tribune

[Eddyline]

Originally Posted by coloradoalimony

- Obama/Holder have ordered more raids of MMJ shops and growers in their term than Bush did in his entire eight years.

- Holder issued his infamous "letter" in August outlining the conditions under which the Feds can shut down marijuana sales.

- The eight conditions Holder outlined are GUARANTEED to occur. All eight will be violated within the first week, and a few of them, like pot being moved across state lines, will occur THOUSANDS of times just in the first month.

Better buy early and buy often, because a year from now you will be crying in your beer over ALL pot sales being shut down, yes, by your untouchable leader, Mr. Obama, and his narcissistic minion, Mr. Holder.

You made this prediction in another thread.
When I called you on it, you vanished.
See my prior bet below.

How about a friendly bet? Or are you afraid Obama/Holder will arrest you for illegal gambling?

I think it is time to put your money where your mouth is. How about a friendly bet?

On Jan 1, 2015, if "recreational" marijuana is NOT available for "legal" purchase in Colorado, I will buy you a case of your favorite micro brew. If it IS legally available, you buy me an eighth ounce of my favorite green.

[Timmyy]

Originally Posted by highplainsrus

i think i dropped a zero somewhere. $1mil gross, $250k taxes?

I was about to say that seemed extremely low. $1 million sounds more like a possibility.

[DurangoJoe]

Originally Posted by coloradoalimony

Op-ed: Gay marriage is latest federal encroachment on Utah values | The Salt Lake Tribune

Ummmmm..... precedent was set this summer when the SCOTUS struck down portions of DOMA. Nobody in Utah should be surprised. Also, the Utah law was in direct conflict with federal law after the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA.

Apples & oranges...... still.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by DurangoJoe

Amendment 64 was carefully constructed to avoid challenge in the form of the supremacy clause by not creating a positive conflict with federal law & instead leaving the fed to enforce their laws on their own, the exact same way it was done with alcohol prohibition. And we all know how that ended.

Well, you're wrong again. Even some attorneys that I know who are in favor of marijuana legalization call Amendment 64 one of most poorly crafted Amendments that Colorado has ever seen. It is written in a way that will make the regulations to implement it almost certainly confusing and contradictory. In addition to the federal challenges that I have enumerated, there will likely be nearly endless court battles over the statutes and regulations enacted to actually implement the Amendment. In that regard, it is very similar to the TABOR Amendment--another Amendment rife with contradictory and ambiguous language. TABOR has been on the books for nearly 20 years, and provisions of it are STILL being litigated in the courts, due to its poor construction.

And you're foolish to bring up Federal Prohibition. The Volstead Act was very clear about the prohibition of the production, sale and transport of alcohol. No state ever challenged the constitutionality of the Volstead Act, nor did any enact laws to violate it because they knew that such a state statute would be struck down by the federal Courts using the Supremacy Clause.

Federal prohibition failed because it never did target the users of the product for prosecution, just the producers, transporters, and sellers. Because the production, transport, and sale of alcohol was so often an interstate activity, one can understand the difficulty of local and state jurisdictions trying to enforce the ban. In fact, the current federal law enforcement and drug enforcement structure was born out of necessity during Prohibition. Federal prohibition was repealed (thus making federal enforcement of it unconstitutional) because the public convinced a majority in the US Senate and House of Representatives and the President of the United States to support referring another Constitutional Amendment to the states that repealed the 18th Amendment. What the marijuana legalization crowd has yet to do is convince the Congress and President to end the federal ban on marijuana. The fact that the legalization crowd is trying this state run-around the law is prima facie evidence that they don't have the number of supporters nor the political clout to make it happen through lawful means at the federal level.

And the snarkers on this forum can hate on me all they want, call me all the names that they want, and try to prove how they are in the right on this legally, but a couple of centuries of federal case law says that they are not.

[DurangoJoe]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Well, you're wrong again. Even some attorneys that I know who are in favor of marijuana legalization call Amendment 64 one of most poorly crafted Amendments that Colorado has ever seen. It is written in a way that will make the regulations to implement it almost certainly confusing and contradictory. In addition to the federal challenges that I have enumerated, there will likely be nearly endless court battles over the statutes and regulations enacted to actually implement the Amendment. In that regard, it is very similar to the TABOR Amendment--another Amendment rife with contradictory and ambiguous language. TABOR has been on the books for nearly 20 years, and provisions of it are STILL being litigated in the courts, due to its poor construction.

Still waiting..........

Originally Posted by jazzlover

And you're foolish to bring up Federal Prohibition. The Volstead Act was very clear about the prohibition of the production, sale and transport of alcohol. No state ever challenged the constitutionality of the Volstead Act, nor did any enact laws to violate it because they knew that such a state statute would be struck down by the federal Courts using the Supremacy Clause.

Prohibition failed because the states refused to enforce federal prohibition law, just like Colorado & Washington are now doing with federal marijuana laws & are well within their rights to do.

Originally Posted by jazzlover

And the snarkers on this forum can hate on me all they want, call me all the names that they want, and try to prove how they are in the right on this legally, but a couple of centuries of federal case law says that they are not.

Seems that you're the name caller here Jazz because when people disagree with you, the claws come out & you start calling names. Have you ever taken a debate class? Do you ever wonder why people challenge your assertions? You do hate to be proven wrong.... don't you?

Here is some additional legal information for you. Not that these organizations know as much as you do about constitutional law:

On the Limits of Federal Supremacy: When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans | Cato Institute

And BTW, according to the Brookings Institute, your opinion represents one of four actions the fed can take & is therefore not the only choice. You seem to think that your way is the only way..... that in itself says a lot about your lack of respect for other's opinions.

Q&A: Legal Marijuana in Colorado and Washington | Brookings Institution

Originally Posted by Brookings Institute

8. Under current federal law, what are options are available to the federal government in responding to the new state laws?

Given the constraints imposed by current federal law, the federal government could (1) sue to invalidate the state laws under the Supremacy Clause and to enjoin state authorities from issuing licenses to marijuana growers and sellers; (2) use injunctions, threats of asset forfeiture, or criminal prosecution to shut down state-licensed marijuana businesses; (3) unilaterally establish a set of enforcement priorities to de-emphasize attacks on state-legal businesses; or (4) enter into cooperative enforcement agreements with the states that could implicitly allow state-regulated systems to function, though without making them legal under federal law.

The CSA itself (21 U.S.C. §873) directs that the Attorney General “shall cooperate” with the state and local governments in enforcing the drug laws, and gives him the power “to enter into contractual agreements [...] to provide for cooperative enforcement and regulatory activities.”

Federal accommodation of the new state laws would offer several potential advantages. It would increase the capacity of governments at all levels to shape the behavior of marijuana-industry participants; it might enable a joint enforcement focus on inter-state transactions; it would acknowledge the sovereign powers that the states share with the federal government; and it would enable the acquisition of more knowledge than is now available about the operations and consequences of legal, open marijuana markets. On the other hand, it would involve effective acquiescence by the executive branch in the open violation of unrepealed federal criminal laws, and its consistency with treaty obligations is questionable.

Shutting down regulated and taxed enterprises, whose operations could potentially be confined within the boundaries of a single state, might expand the scope of operation for unregulated and untaxed enterprises with far less reason to pay attention to state boundaries. Therefore it is an open question whether the goal of reducing drug abuse would be better served by accommodation or by a federal effort to shut down the Colorado and Washington systems.

Notice how the administration chose options 3 & 4, rather than your option 1. Most likely because they know that there is a high risk they'd lose this case under the tenth amendment.

As shown above Jazz, it's just not your way or the highway. Based upon the lack of federal preemption to date, I would say that I'm not the one who is wrong here. But then, you are obviously of greater legal wit than the "legally ignorant" Cato & Brookings Institutes.

So just keep beating that dead horse. Based upon other commentary here though, I'd say you'll continue to do it by yourself. You obviously seem to enjoy it. Oh, and so far Jazz, nothing you have been predicting since the summer of 2012 during the height of the Amendment 64 campaign has come to pass. Not - one - damn - thing. Shouldn't that tell you something?

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Apparently it's Vistaian that has his/her mind made up and won't be swayed. Nobody seems to read my posts with enough comprehension to understand what I'm saying. And I'm not going to lower myself to Kindergarten language to try to get through to the clods, but I'll try one more time..

I don't know any forum that let's you call us clods...that must have slipped thru.