An update on Jeffco and the marijuana recreational sales moratorium: Jeffco panel to make recommendations on pot sales County wants to learn experiences of other jurisdictions
By Josie Klemaier
YourHub Reporter
Posted: 12/31/2013
Officials from the county, the city of Golden and the town of Morrison decided in 2013 to place temporary moratoriums on recreational marijuana sales. They want to see how other civic entities such as Denver and Edgewater handle the new state laws before moving forward with their own.
"There was a lot of discussion and, to be quite honest, we didn't have a lot of information," Don Rosier, Jefferson County District 3 commissioner, said. "We decided as a board to take a more reserved approach and that is to look at others that are going before us."
Rosier said that the county's planning and zoning department has been tasked with forming a committee of representatives from the marijuana industry, law enforcement, the school district, the health department and other groups. The plan is to form the committee by the end of January and put it to task by February.
The county's moratorium applies only to the sale of recreational marijuana in its unincorporated areas, not to the home cultivation or personal use allowed by the new state law, and it ends in 2015, which Rosier considers a deadline.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
I think Wheat Ridge is permitting recreational sales too. Estimates of 77 million in tax receipts for the state. Should the towns that allow it get the majority of the tax receipts?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Should the towns that allow it get the majority of the tax receipts?
Yes they should, unless you believe in the idea that those who did nothing whatsoever to create income should share equally with those who risked their own $$ and worked for it.
If you did nothing to earn it, why should you share it?
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
Isn't that going to be the case by default given that the lion's share of the projected revenue is going to be spent to fund the regulation of the industry and the drug's impact? IIRC the measure that was passed last November took 40% of the taxes for school building projects but the other 60% was to be spent on marijuana specific areas. Now what happens if the revenue exceeds the cost of regulating the industry remains a bit murky, but I have faith in the politicians. If there is one thing they have demostrated themselves to be competent in it is spending other people's money.
Freezeman wrote: IMO All this action has done is increase the incentive and profits of the black market.
No doubt. New wrinkle, per 710KNUS Peter Boyles this morning, the retail stores are scanning photo ID's of all the buyers. Think people will choose to avoid being put in one more database by buying from their local back alley dealer?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
PrintSmith wrote: Isn't that going to be the case by default given that the lion's share of the projected revenue is going to be spent to fund the regulation of the industry and the drug's impact? IIRC the measure that was passed last November took 40% of the taxes for school building projects but the other 60% was to be spent on marijuana specific areas. Now what happens if the revenue exceeds the cost of regulating the industry remains a bit murky, but I have faith in the politicians. If there is one thing they have demostrated themselves to be competent in it is spending other people's money.
Are you implying these taxes will later be used by politicians as they wish?
Here is an example from History, your Gov. Ritter and the state MMJ slush fund.
I voted against this amendment purely because of the tax money grab. Ho Hum
"The plan Ritter announced Monday to bridge a nearly $60 million shortfall in the current budget year relies on $9 million from the state's Medical Marijuana Program Cash Fund, financed by fees on patients who get cards to use medical pot."
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Another new wrinkle? Anecdotal story: from one of my coworkers this morning, his dad has driven up from Mexico for Christmas and went to buy some MJ yesterday. Since he wasn't a resident, they didn't want him to take it out of state so he had to consume it all while on premises. I thought the state didn't want this?
Looks like details still need to be hammered out.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
