It's unfortunate that long time grass roots activists in Colorado are coming out against A64. Why?
3 reasons:
They failed to get their initiative on the ballot and therefore all other initiatives suck.
They can't grow it in their basement and sell it on the street.
They have established Medical Marijuana businesses and don't want the retail competition.
1. A64 does not repeal the majority of jail-able offenses (felonies)and leaves marijuana in the definitions of the state Controlled Substances Act, which makes all cannabis users subject to lose: employment, unemployment benefits, housing, school grants, government aid,child custody, fire arms and occupational licenses (of which DORA says 75% of workers in Colorado have). To suggest that under Amendment 64 all adult use and cultivation of marijuana is no longer criminalized is not only misleading, but will result in increased arrests.
Like brewing beer, you can brew it at home but you cant sell it. You are also limited on how much beer you can brew. On would think that in order to lose all the things you have stated, that you must first be convicted of a crime. Your claims of losing all of the above seem to be somewhat fear mongering. This initiative does not worsen the situation for any of the above... it simply remains the same as it is right now. A64 does allow legal possession, legal cultivation, and legal consumption, within reasonable constraints. Your claim of increased arrests is just absolutely false and more misleading than the other claims you make against the initiative. Your tactics reek of those used for years by prohibitionists. Make horrific claims, yet provide no data or distorted data to back it up. Seriously, MORE arrests? Impossible.
3. Provides no relief for the most affected and arrested adults age 18 - 20. (especially those from disadvantages communities).
Yeah, It is going to remain a petty offense for them as it is today. However, it does not make it any worse than it is right now.
4. Amendment 64 contains no proper legal deterrent to federal intervention and the surplus of $40 million via a constitutionally infirm excise tax will not stand in court. The soonest authorized retail sales for adults could be 2014, if at all. Forcing adults to rely on the black market in the interim.
Adults are not "forced to rely on the black market". They can use their current red card at a MMJ dispensary. They can grow their own. When retail shops are open, they can shop there. You are tweaking the truth to make it seem like this initiative will make things worse than they are today. Your "interim" is today as things stand. People already use the black market. It's been that way for many years. With retail facilities established they will be free of the black market. Nobody is being forced into the black market.
5. Amendment 64 is designed to shut down MMJ. (A64 fiscal impact white paper predicts an 79% defection in registered MMJ patients to the recreational market) No MMJ centers can survive such a decline in the MMJ market.
It was not designed to shut down MMJ. I do believe that if patients no longer have to pay and go to the doctor to get a rec, pay the state fee, and enter the state database with their application, that they won't do it. Most Medical Marijuana Centers, as a result, will likely close due to the diminished patient base. Medical Marijuana Caregivers are not impacted in their ability to grow for their patients. Patients will still be able to grow for themselves if they wish. But why would they go through the hassle and expense for a Red Card if it wasn't required? [Unless they needed more than 6 plants]
6. Amendment 64 allows towns to ban all marijuana sales, which bolsters the black market, as most of the state has already banned MMJ (over 95 bans statewide). This forces adults in ban areas to rely on illegal sales and risk criminal prosecution.
You are misleading with your statement that "Most of the state has already banned MMJ" Adults in ban areas are not "forced to rely on illegal sales". They can legally grow their own or they can shop in non banned areas just like patients do today. Their ability to legally obtain marijuana improves over the situation we have today, not worsens as your misleading statement projects.
7. Amendment 64 sets a dangerous legal precedent of applying taxes to agricultural seed. (viable marijuana seed is defined as marijuana in Amendment 64). Per 39-26-716(4)(b) all sales and purchases of seeds are exempt from sales tax in Colorado. Amendment 64 taxes viable marijuana seed and specifically creates an excise tax on viable marijuana seed and this precedent could be incredibly harmful to Colorado farmers who use viable seed to produce non cannabis agriculture.
lol... who cares. You really think this will lead to taxing all agricultural seed? No way in hell.
8. Amendment 64 provides no legal guidance on hemp and merely mandates the general assembly to pass legislation. This still allows the general assembly to ban hemp production.
Here is the text regarding hemp from the initiative:
(j) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2014, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP.
Your statement is very misleading.
9. Amendment 64 enshrines "driving while under the influence" (any amount over zero) and "driving while impaired" into our constitution, by deferring to current State DUID limits could prevent MMJ patients and other wise responsible adults who consume cannabis from legally driving."
Again, your statement is misleading. Here is the text from the initiative:
(III) DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA SHALL REMAIN ILLEGAL;
and
(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA OR TO SUPERSEDE STATUTORY 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.
That's it.. No "any amount over zero" as you attempted to mislead with. It's just not in there. There is a difference between having residual THC in your system and being under the influence. There are already laws on the books regarding driving while impaired by anything. Not sure about you, but if somebody is actually impaired and fails a roadside test, I don't want them on the road with me.
10. At least 99% of the marketing of A64 over the last year has been done in violation of 1-13-109CRS-Concerning the election offense of making false statements designed to affect the vote. (
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2005a/sl_305.htm). Telling everyone that A64 legalizes when the A64 campaign argued at title board hearings that A64 did NOT legalize, qualifies--and the question becomes--why lie? Why promise voters the whole enchilada only to serve up white rice?
You are not the judge and jury here. It has not even been charged that any A64 promotion has been out of line.
It saddens me that the different factions regarding marijuana, medical marijuana, and legalization of marijuana can not get past their own petty issues and egos to work together toward a common resolve. More energy is spent fighting between the factions than is spent moving legalization forward. Tactics used on marijuana infighting are worse than those used by even the prohibitionists that we have come to loathe over the years. Misrepresented facts, outright lies, and fear mongering are our own worst enemies. No wonder this prohibition has been in place going on 80 years.
Bottom line, Citizens will be able to Grow their own, legally posses, legally consume, and purchase without the black market..of course within the reasonable limits. Is this bill perfect? Probably not. Is it better than what we have right now? I think so.
