New Pot Law making people wanting to move to Colorado? (Denver: transplants, for sale)

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by CALIFRE

Now that this natural substance has been elevated to the level of respect it deserves, the proper descriptive term is: CANNABIS.

Marijuana: is a derogatory mexican name given to it by our government in the 1937, as part of their scare tactics. That name should be abandoned, as it is prohibitionist by nature.

Pot, Grass, Weed, Etc. are just slang words for....CANNABIS!

Hemp.
Ganja. Kung Sa. Crazy Weed.

[CosmicWizard]

jazzlover wrote: Yes, there are people who were/are quite successful while using or addicted to alcohol or illicit drugs. You have to wonder how much MORE successful that they might have been without the chemical dependency. Ever think about that?

Good point. I would also ask these questions. Would they have been AS successful without their dependencies? Would they have even gotten into their successful career field without their dependencies? There's always the other side of the story to consider.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by hollyt00

I do have a question: dispensaries cannot legally sell marijuana for recreational use until next October. I take that to mean as well that smoking weed will not be legal until next October- is that correct?

Possessing and using marijuana will not be legal under Federal law even then. The probability of the Colorado initiative ever being actually enacted is near zero for the reasons that I've already enumerated.

Some people who I know at the state who will be involved in the actual implementation call the Amendment one of the most poorly written Amendments ever put before the Colorado voters. It is rife with legal ambiguity, numerous unintended legal consequences, potentially legally dangerous conflicts with state statutes not even related to drug law. One individual opined that "whoever wrote the damned thing must have been high as a kite when he wrote it." That comment from a guy who is actually in favor of federal decriminalization of marijuana. Unfortunately, Colorado's far-too-lenient Constitutional Amendment process has filled the State Constitution with ill-conceived, stupidly written crap that is nearly impossible to remove from the State Constitution. It has gotten so bad--this Amendment being the latest addition to the pile of horse manure now in the Colorado Constitution--that some Colorado legal experts are recommending the radical and potentially dangerous step be made by the Legislature to call a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the State Constitution from top to bottom.

The provision for calling a State Constitutional Convention is contained in Article XIX, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution:

Section 1. Constitutional convention - how called



The general assembly may at any time by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house, recommend to the electors of the state, to vote at the next general election for or against a convention to revise, alter and amend this constitution; and if a majority of those voting on the question shall declare in favor of such convention, the general assembly shall, at its next session, provide for the calling thereof. The number of members of the convention shall be twice that of the senate and they shall be elected in the same manner, at the same places, and in the same districts. The general assembly shall, in the act calling the convention, designate the day, hour and place of its meeting; fix the pay of its members and officers, and provide for the payment of the same, together with the necessary expenses of the convention. Before proceeding, the members shall take an oath to support the constitution of the United States, and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully discharge their duties as members of the convention. The qualifications of members shall be the same as of members of the senate; and vacancies occurring shall be filled in the manner provided for filling vacancies in the general assembly. Said convention shall meet within three months after such election and prepare such revisions, alterations or amendments to the constitution as may be deemed necessary; which shall be submitted to the electors for their ratification or rejection at an election appointed by the convention for that purpose, not less than two nor more than six months after adjournment thereof; and unless so submitted and approved by a majority of the electors voting at the election, no such revision, alteration or amendment shall take effect.

[Prodigal Native]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Yes, and that "pothead" that buys your house will be a scientist, inventor, artist...etc. Maybe it will be Kevin Smith: https://twitter.com/ThatKevinSmith He tweeted that he will be seeing us more often because of the amendment. But, I am sure, because you don't smoke pot, that your accomplishments are greater than his impressive resume as an actor and producer.

Get over yourself.

I don't know that I would point to Kevin Smith as a model pot smoker. All of his best work came well before he started smoking... Just sayin.

[Dunbar42]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

The probability of the Colorado initiative ever being actually enacted is near zero for the reasons that I've already enumerated.

Given the way the law is written the probability is close to 100%. If the governor doesn't sign it within 30 days it automatically becomes law.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Dunbar42

Given the way the law is written the probability is close to 100%. If the governor doesn't sign it within 30 days it automatically becomes law.

Wrong. What you wrote has NOTHING to do with a Colorado Constitutional Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment is ADOPTED and made part of the State Constitution upon passage by the voters. See Article XIX, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution.

Enactment is another matter. State Constitutional Amendments can not be reviewed by the Courts as to State or Federal Constitutionality prior to adoption--per Polhill v. Buckley, 923 P.2d 119 (Colo. 1996). But they sure can be court challenged after adoption, and this one surely will be. Amendment 64 clearly violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and will almost undoubtely be prohibited from enactment by the Courts.

I would suggest that before you blindly spew stuff about Colorado's initiative and amendment process that you actually read the Colorado Constitution and understand something about law.

[McGowdog]

Ouch!

California, meet Jazzlover... Colorado's Border Patrol.

[delta07]

Jazz, we get it. Cannabis is still illegal on the federal level. No one is arguing that. The people of Colorado have spoken. While this may very well be a law that isn't enacted in the near future, it's setting precedent. Sooner or later our federal government is going to have to listen to the people and realize we are tired of marijuana being classified as a schedule I drug, alongside heroin and other hard drugs.

[Dunbar42]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I would suggest that before you blindly spew stuff about Colorado's initiative and amendment process that you actually read the Colorado Constitution and understand something about law.

So what happened with the Colorado medical marijuana laws? They are just as illegal at the federal level.

[The Homogenizer]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Unfortunately, Colorado's far-too-lenient Constitutional Amendment process has filled the State Constitution with ill-conceived, stupidly written crap that is nearly impossible to remove from the State Constitution.

If the representatives weren't out of touch with the citizens, this wouldn't be a problem.