- Posts: 331
- Thank you received: 2
Jeffco County bans medical marijuana dispensaries
08 Jul 2010 19:36 #22
by BuyersAgent1
Replied by BuyersAgent1 on topic Jeffco County bans medical marijuana dispensaries
I'm not "supporting dispensaries" but rather commenting on the awkward process of reconciling the text with the recent legislation.
In more ways than one!
In my experience, the CO legislature usually resolves ambiguities by creating new, additional ones. So I wasn't much surprised at the bill, but having approved dispensaries affirmatively (while the amendment itself was silent in that regard) did not feel it should have gone on to approve "moratoriums" in selected communities. The thrust of the amendment was to provide for access by sick and injured people, and presumably those persons' needs do not vary from county to county.
This is by far not the first time I've seen the government make three wrongs a purported right. rofllol By making no sense at all, to anyone, they apparently feel a sense of overall balance.
My feeling on the actual issue was that the legislature should deal with the "dispense" text one way or another, either by declaring that only "caregivers" are authorized, or by legitimizing "dispensaries" as an implied extension of the approved text. Instead it's my understanding that dispensaries will be sanctioned by the state...but only the big and currently existing operations in certain areas. Not only is that basic result contrary to my (informal) concept of the spirit of the amendment, but more to the point I was trying to make, is not supported by any part of the text voted upon by the populace.
Maybe this is secretly Genius at Work: they all sit around deciding to enact laws that can't be understood or enforced, the actual "legislative intent" of which are to get the heck out of the building in time for dinner and optimally get re-elected for another term.
In more ways than one!
In my experience, the CO legislature usually resolves ambiguities by creating new, additional ones. So I wasn't much surprised at the bill, but having approved dispensaries affirmatively (while the amendment itself was silent in that regard) did not feel it should have gone on to approve "moratoriums" in selected communities. The thrust of the amendment was to provide for access by sick and injured people, and presumably those persons' needs do not vary from county to county.
This is by far not the first time I've seen the government make three wrongs a purported right. rofllol By making no sense at all, to anyone, they apparently feel a sense of overall balance.
My feeling on the actual issue was that the legislature should deal with the "dispense" text one way or another, either by declaring that only "caregivers" are authorized, or by legitimizing "dispensaries" as an implied extension of the approved text. Instead it's my understanding that dispensaries will be sanctioned by the state...but only the big and currently existing operations in certain areas. Not only is that basic result contrary to my (informal) concept of the spirit of the amendment, but more to the point I was trying to make, is not supported by any part of the text voted upon by the populace.
Maybe this is secretly Genius at Work: they all sit around deciding to enact laws that can't be understood or enforced, the actual "legislative intent" of which are to get the heck out of the building in time for dinner and optimally get re-elected for another term.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.143 seconds
sponsors
