Colorado Localities Make Own Rules On MJ Sales
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Colorado Localities Make Own Rules On MJ Sales');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Colorado Localities Make Own Rules On MJ Sales
Posted by CN Staff on June 13, 2013 at 08:48:32 PT
By Dan Frosch
Source: New York Times
Aurora, Colo. -- As Colorado moves closer to issuing temporary regulations on the sale of marijuana, now legal in small quantities here, some cities and towns are not waiting for the new rules to take effect. More than a dozen municipalities across the state have decided to enact moratoriums on retail marijuana sales, restricting them for now or at least until after the rules are finalized later this year. 
Others, unsettled at the prospect of dispensaries within their borders, have banned marijuana sales entirely — which they are permitted to do under Amendment 64, the 2012 constitutional amendment passed by voters that legalized recreational use of the drug. “As we talked to our police department and our building code enforcement people, it didn’t seem to be a very logical answer for us,” said Mayor Tom Norton of Greeley, a conservative farm town north of Denver that banned marijuana sales outright this month. “It seemed like it had the potential for creating more mischief than what we wanted to put up with.” Discussions about how marijuana is to be regulated, and how the state will handle a legal drug market, played a central role during Colorado’s 2013 legislative session. Meanwhile, communities from Littleton to Vail have taken it upon themselves to ponder the issue publicly. In the past six months, a task force of lawmakers, representatives of the state’s growing marijuana industry and others have wrestled with developing the rules. Initial regulations, including licensing provisions — described as “emergency rules” by the Colorado Department of Revenue — will go into effect on July 1. Permanent rules will be drafted later this summer. Voters will also consider proposed sales and excise taxes on marijuana on the ballot in November. The first license to sell marijuana in Colorado will not be issued until 2014. But in the meantime, local governments have until October to decide whether they will allow licensed marijuana businesses to start operating in their areas early next year. Not surprisingly, reactions in Colorado’s communities have varied according to whether their citizens supported Amendment 64. In Denver, where residents overwhelmingly backed the measure and medical marijuana dispensaries line thoroughfares, city councilors have indicated their desire to move forward with marijuana sales. Smaller communities like Montrose, the seat of Montrose County, where most voters opposed legalization, have chosen to prohibit sales. Some have opted for a middle ground. City councilors here in Aurora, for example, voted last week to delay the date when residents could start applying for marijuana business licenses to next May, so that local officials could take more time to devise their own regulations. “There is another legislative session next year following the ballot issue this fall, which could change everything,” Mayor Steve Hogan said. “We’re interested in the possibilities related to retail establishments. But we’re not going to do anything until next spring.” According to data compiled by the Colorado Municipal League, nearly three dozen cities and towns have banned retail marijuana sales outright so far, while 25 have passed moratoriums. But Christian Sederberg, a lawyer with the Amendment 64 campaign, pointed out that many local governments had taken no action and were planning to embrace the new law. And he said he thought it was more prudent for officials to examine the regulations after they were codified before deciding on a full-scale ban. “I think opting out before you’ve seen the regulations on July 1 is premature,” he said. “A lot of these officials don’t understand that there is nothing compelling them to act right now.” If, after reviewing the final rules, a community opts out, “then that’s something people can live with,” he added. Officials in the state’s second-largest city, Colorado Springs, will be weighing the issue at a meeting this month. Voters in El Paso County, where the city is situated, were split down the middle on the question of legalization. The City Council president, Keith King, said he believed most residents were in favor of a moratorium on marijuana sales until the final rules and taxes were fully in place. “For us, we’re making sure our approach doesn’t hurt the military bases here and doesn’t hurt the economy,” Mr. King said. “We’ll be very deliberative on this and take our time, no matter which way we go.” A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2013, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Decisions About Marijuana Sales Loom for Colorado Localities.Source: New York Times (NY)Author:  Dan FroschPublished: June 13, 2013Copyright: 2013 The New York Times CompanyContact: letters nytimes.comWebsite:  -- Cannabis  Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 15, 2013 at 04:14:09 PT
Alaska: Push to Legalize Marijuana Begins
June 14, 2013The state will be the next battleground in the effort to legalize marijuana. Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, whose office oversees elections, certified a ballot initiative application on Friday that would make it legal for adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. Supporters will have one year to collect 30,169 signatures from qualified voters across the state to get the question on the ballot. They aim to do this by January. The effort in Alaska comes after voters in Washington State and Colorado legalized marijuana last year. The proposal would make it legal for those 21 and older to use and possess up to an ounce of marijuana, though not in public. 
  A version of this brief appeared in print on June 15, 2013, on page A15 of the New York edition with the headline: Alaska: Push For Marijuana Begins.Copyright: 2013 New York TimesURL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Canis420 on June 14, 2013 at 08:51:34 PT:
I live in Florida and I am pretty sure it was selling, not owning, those implements of brain destruction (sic) that was against the law. It is an obnoxious law nonetheless. Here is an article that discusses this:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Hope on June 14, 2013 at 08:18:06 PT
Colorado! Colorado! Colorado!
Since hemp will be soon grown legally there, I wish someone would pay attention to my plea to try thick strips of hemp plantings as firebreaks.It seems to me, that it would be worth a try.Remember the cannabis fields in Afghanistan that our military had a very hard time burning? Such a hard time that it made the news. They even tried to use white phosphorous, I think it was, to burn it and it just wouldn't catch and spread. I don't know if it's because the plant holds it's moisture even in drought conditions or because of it's density. But there is something to be considered in those remarkable and fruitless efforts to burn those fields. I don't think it was just a fluke. I think there is something to be studied in that situation. And not like a dim witted prohibitionist would either... to find a way to better destroy it... but to find out how and why it resists burning like it does... when it's only a plant.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by afterburner on June 14, 2013 at 07:34:34 PT
OT -- The Wild Wild West Will Soon Be Overruled...
by Foreign Multinationals. Can anything of value survive this assault on local, state and national governments?AlterNet / By Katherine Paul, Ronnie Cummins. 
Secret Trade Agreements Threaten to Undo Our Last Shreds of Food Safety.
You could soon be eating imported seafood, beef or chicken products that don’t meet even basic U.S. food safety standards.
June 13, 2013 trade pacts, Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) , are the stepchildren of the hated Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), that Obama campaigned against. Look them up: it's not a tasty buffet!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by HempWorld on June 13, 2013 at 17:12:43 PT
It's the Wild Wild, West...
All this strutting and posturing by people who show themselves to be completely ignorant on the subject.On another note: 
Own a water pipe? In Florida, you’ll go to prison for five years.Former Tea Party Governor Makes Possession of Bong a FelonyKurt Nimmo
 June 13, 2013Own a water pipe? In Florida, you’ll go to prison for five years.
It’s another sign that the Tea Party meme is an excuse to institute more statist coercion. Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed legislation that will make possession of a pipe a third degree felony beginning July 1. A third degree felony in Florida could result in a five year prison term, a loss of the right to vote (for career politicos like Scott), and a lifelong criminal stigma.
 Back in 2010 the Tea Party rallied around Scott and it was acknowledged that the party was largely responsible for his election victory.
 In all fairness, the honeymoon ended soon thereafter when Scott showed his real colors, most recently when he had a Second Amendment supporting sheriff, Nick Finch, arrested.
 The Florida Tea Party support for Republican Scott is simply another example of how politically naïve Tea Party members are. That naivety resulted in the near effortless takeover of the Tea Party by Republican operatives who scoured it of any original libertarian influence or connection to Ron Paul. It was quickly reduced to a cheering section for the establishment.
 Rick Scott is “really the Benedict Arnold of the tea party/patriot movement in Florida. Most conservatives feel betrayed by him and members have been calling me and saying they want him fired,” Everett Wilkinson of the South Florida Tea Party told the Associated Press.
 Scott is a tax-and-spend Republican who exploited a sophomoric Tea Party to get elected. He is a true blue lover of the state and believes in the divine right of government to rule over the individual and use violence against him. Due to this, Scott thinks he has the right to put people in corporate-run prison for possessing the following:
 (a) Metal, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic smoking pipes, with or without screens, permanent screens, or punctured metal bowls. (b) Water pipes. (c) Carburetion tubes and devices. (d) Chamber pipes. (e) Carburetor pipes. (f) Electric pipes. (g) Air-driven pipes. (h) Chillums. (i) Bongs. (j) Ice pipes or chillers.
 The Tea Party needs to get with the program or face irrelevance. It needs to get out of the establishment Republican Party and return to its roots, if that is even possible.
 The Tea Party began as the Boston Tea Party in 2006. It was founded by a group of former Libertarian Party members who criticized the party for its “abdication of political responsibilities,” declaring that “Americans deserve and desperately need a pro-freedom party that forcefully advocates libertarian solutions to the issues of today.” The Boston Tea Party opposed statism at all levels. “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”
 It needs to return to these values. But probably never will. Instead, we can expect basically good-hearted folks to be fooled over and over ad infinitum by the establishment.
 Related Articles
 •Every living American can be arrested right now for felony possession of drugs made in their own brains
 •Establishment Tea Party Diva Palin Announces East Coast Tour
 •Former Governor Calls For Paul-Ventura Ticket
 •Tea Party declares war on military spending
 •Subverted Tea Party Movement Told to Embrace Republican Platform
Info Wars!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on June 13, 2013 at 15:46:40 PT:
So much concern...over the wrong drug
"The City Council president, Keith King, said he believed most residents were in favor of a moratorium on marijuana sales until the final rules and taxes were fully in place.“For us, we’re making sure our approach doesn’t hurt the military bases here and doesn’t hurt the economy,” Mr. King said. “We’ll be very deliberative on this and take our time, no matter which way we go.” As former military, I can say that all you have to do to see how much damage is done to any municipality that's next to a military base is to watch what happens on a military payday night. It's not pretty, as the local PD's and their MP counterparts will both agree. And the damage is literally fueled by alcohol. But then, alcohol has always played a role in the military, any military. For example, in the Hindu caste system, only the warriors, the Kshatriya were allowed alcohol. Given how much violence alcohol is associated with, the connection should be obvious. Whereas, most cannabists tend to be violent only towards inanimate objects, such as drink cans, snack food wrappers and the contents of refrigerators.Such worry-wort hand-wringing is aimed at the wrong substance those municipalities that choose to deny cannabis entry to their economy will soon discover to their regret...while the booze and the blood continues to flow. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Museman on June 13, 2013 at 12:37:14 PT
This is not "legalization" this is feedom!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment