Becky wrote: Why does everyone assume that it is all a bunch of hippies and stoners that are in this business?
I think many would be shocked to know who is in this business.
Perfectly normal people with good values. Pillars of the community. geeeeeez
I have made no such assumptions Becky, and I would be surprised if others had. Even perfectly normal people with good values are not immune to participation in ventures that have the potential to earn them lots of money during a recession. There is not anything in the amendment that the voters passed which mandates or establishes retail outlets for the medicine so each community gets to decide whether or not they wish to have such retail establishments within their community. Jeffco, and Park, have made what I believe is a wise decision in this area by prohibiting so called dispensaries in their communities.
I'm just going by my own personal knowledge on this subject. I know several people who are now involved in this.
And I gotta say - they are all hippies and stoners!
They thought that they were going to make it rich selling dope, and I warned them that it probably wouldn't happen like they thought it would. I saw them welcoming the government to regulate them - and I told them that it was a mistake and that it would catch up with them.
Well, it's catching up with them.
I personally do not agree with the bans. If the people of Colorado have made this legal then there needs to also be a way to grow and distribute the stuff legally.
It's like saying you can have a gun - you just can't have any bullets. It's like saying you have a right to free speech - as long as you keep your mouth shut.
I think everyone has lost their mind - seriously. If you have a right to use it - and many people are prohibited from growing it (kids in the house) or are not capable of growing it - how the hell are they going to have access to it if every county puts a ban on distributing it?
I'm not trying to support my dope smokin hippie stoner friends here, I come to this conclusion as a libratarian thinker. Has everyone lost their frickin mind?
My intellectual analysis has a hard time with the banning of dispensaries.
I've a longterm understanding that the constitution takes precedence over legislation. The constitution directly refers to the legal "dispensing" of the substance. By making it possible for certain communities to ban "dispensaries," it seems to me they are violating the state constitution, and I'll expect to see a suit filed that claims the exact argument -- once a suitable group of plaintiffs can be located.
By "suitable," I would expect to see the careworn family member of a seriously ill patient...not a hippie and certainly not a youngster "in terrible pain." The 70YO mother of an AIDS patient hanging out at Colfax & Broadway hoping to "score" is exactly the scenario voters were trying to avoid. I think the same thing is true for that poor lady to be left having to travel far distances from her stricken patient in order to make a legal "score" and would be willing to make a small (less than $1) bet the legislation will be found unconstitutional for that very reason.
Someday......a long day away.
My intellectual analysis has a hard time with the banning of dispensaries.
I've a longterm understanding that the constitution takes precedence over legislation. The constitution directly refers to the legal "dispensing" of the substance. By making it possible for certain communities to ban "dispensaries," it seems to me they are violating the state constitution, and I'll expect to see a suit filed that claims the exact argument -- once a suitable group of plaintiffs can be located.
By "suitable," I would expect to see the careworn family member of a seriously ill patient...not a hippie and certainly not a youngster "in terrible pain." The 70YO mother of an AIDS patient hanging out at Colfax & Broadway hoping to "score" is exactly the scenario voters were trying to avoid. I think the same thing is true for that poor lady to be left having to travel far distances from her stricken patient in order to make a legal "score" and would be willing to make a small (less than $1) bet the legislation will be found unconstitutional for that very reason.
Someday......a long day away.
I totally agree. We can sit around all day long and nit pick about what right some county has to ban an activity that the people have deemed legal by constitutional amendment - at the end of the day - the citizens have said this is permissable. Any county ban or other "infringing" behavior by local governments is in direct conflict with the new law - or at least in conflict with the sprit of it.
BuyersAgent wrote: The constitution directly refers to the legal "dispensing" of the substance.
Could you tell me where in the statute that language is found? I have reviewed the full text of Amendment 20 and can't find that word anywhere within it.
The amendment text "backs into it" with the following statement:
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of this section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana for any use other than medical use.
That's a pretty thin argument if this is the language you were speaking of. It is describing lack of protection under the amendment for use other than medicinal use. That's a pretty good stretch to establishing under the amendment the ability to open a dispensary.......
