If you disagree with a citizen's initiative, just steal the petitions!
I’ve written about Idiot Miguel Lopez acting like an ass and embarrassing the marijuana legalization effort in Colorado, but this time he may have committed a crime.
You may remember a previous post of mine called It Only Takes One Idiot (or: How to Kill Marijuana Reform). In it I tell the tales of “activists” who engage in tactics that, from a public relations perspective, endanger the very legalization of marijuana they claim to be fighting for.
In that post, I described Miguel Lopez as an “idiot” because he got into the face of a legislator, screamed about “secret police”, leading to the legislator tearing up a patient-friendly medical marijuana amendment. Then a group called the “Colorado 420 Coalition” – which included Laura Kriho’s Cannabis Therapy Institute – actually circulated the video via YouTube as an example of how the legislator was out of line.
In Stoners Against Legalization II: Colorado Boogaloo, I told you how Lopez, Kriho, and two other geniuses, Robert Chase and Kathleen Trippi, announced their opposition to what they call the “MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER (MDSS) initiative”, the “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol” petition that is gathering signatures for the ballot.
In that post, you got to read Kathleen Chippi argue to oppose that legalization, vowing “this will be prop 19 [California's failed legalization initiative in 2010] all over again, and we will help kill it with smiles on our faces.” For extra nuttiness, you get Robert Chase accusing NORML’s Paul Armentano of being a fascist and Corey Donahue opining that if only 6 plants and 1 ounce are legalized, then it’s not legalization.
Now Miguel Lopez has gone too far. This isn’t just the shenanigans of an ignorant zealot. This is a theft against democracy itself.
(Colorado Independent) Marijuana legalization advocate Mason Tvert today filed a formal complaint with the Secretary of State’s office alleging that opponents of his group have stolen signed petitions from people circulating them on behalf of Tvert’s Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol organization.
The complaint says that on July 17 Miquel Lopez took a petition out of the hands of someone trying to sign it at Denver’s Skyline Park, threw it in the trash and then stood in front of the trash to prevent anyone from retrieving it. The complaint alleges that a few minutes later Corey Donahue removed the petition from the trash and gave it to Robert Lopez who then left the scene with the petition, which Tvert said had around a dozen signatures on it.
Miguel Lopez and Donahue are known to oppose Tvert’s effort and to support a broader approach to legalization. The Colorado Independent earlier reported that they supported Legalize 2012, but the director of that effort said they are not affiliated with Legalize 2012. “They have no capacity whatever with Legalize 2012,” said Laura Kriho.
Rrrright. Miguel Lopez isn’t officially a part of Legalize 2012, though Lopez has been allied with the Cannabis Therapy Institute, Kriho’s group and a part of the Legalize 2012 Citizen Advisory Board, at the legislature and in anti-”Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol” activism. Neither is Corey Donahue, though Cannabis Therapy Institute has worked with and praised him for his activism. It’s hard to verify these ties, however, since most of Legalize 2012′s Citizen Advisory Board organizations do not list their boards on their websites.
When reached by phone, Miguel Lopez said is was Tvert’s organization that was interrupting an event his group was sponsoring and that the petitioner had been asked to leave. “Their petition was creating a distraction while we were holding a rally and giving an educational talk. The individual we took the petition from was not trying to sign it; he was trying to destroy it. They were warned not to be there,” he said.
Tvert said that Lopez’s account is a fantasy. “That is entirely false based on the accounts of all the witnesses, but I wouldn’t expect them to acknowledge what they did.”
While Lopez was allegedly actively thwarting the democratic process, his brother-in-idiocy Corey Donahue was getting himself arrested trying to thwart the organization of the democratic process.
(Boulder Daily Camera) A Boulder activist was arrested this week after refusing to leave a meeting at the public library that was organized by advocates of a statewide marijuana legalization initiative.
Michael Corey Donahue, 28, was booked into the Boulder County Jail on suspicion of trespassing and using fighting words with a police officer.
The incident began at about 7 p.m. Tuesday after members of a coalition — including the Colorado chapter of NORML and Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation — convened an instructional meeting for volunteers who are circulating petitions.
Donahue is an active proponent of marijuana legalization but said he opposes the efforts led by the coalition because the measure it is pushing would be only a limited legalization of the drug. He is instead hoping for complete legalization of marijuana for adults 18 or older.
And therein lies the problem. Lopez, Donahue, Kriho, Chase, Trippi and their ilk are what I call the “Treat It Like Tomatoes” (TILT) crowd – “complete legalization” in their mind means once you turn eighteen, you can grow all you like, sell all you like, possess all you like, all with no taxes, no licenses, no regulation. Never mind that selling your own tomatoes is a project laden with taxes, licenses, and regulations and Colorado already has plenty of laws to comply with regarding tomato sales.
These TILTers are true believers zealots who cannot be reasoned with. They really think they can put a measure on a ballot where marijuana is equated with tomatoes and a majority of the public will vote for it. What they are blind to is the fact that tomatoes don’t get you high. Nobody is worried you’ll pig out on tomatoes and get behind the wheel of a car. No parent is concerned their kid will jump the fence and steal your tomatoes for a chips-n-salsa party. (Speaking of kids, if it’s like tomatoes, why an eighteen-year-old limit? Supporting that limit acknowledges you know it’s not like tomatoes!)
There may be a legitimate cause for opposing “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol” and there is no controversy in running a competing “Legalize 2012″ initiative. Colorado joins Oregon, Washington, and California in that respect; it used to be we had no legalization efforts, now each of these states have two (or more!) ballot initiatives competing to legalize marijuana.
Competition in the market of ideas is a good thing and the more shots we have at the ballot box the better. However, tactics that are designed to obstruct and thwart the other ideas cannot be tolerated. It will be difficult enough for voters to remember which initiative they’ve signed during the petition process. Reformers should be encouraging voters to sign ALL the marijuana legalization petitions, not only to place them all on the ballot and let voters decide which plan is best, but also to ensure the confused voter hearing “don’t sign THAT one” doesn’t mistakenly pass up your petition.
Besides, the opponents of legalization will all be working in lock-step. We can’t afford to have our own community aiding them in thwarting any effort to legalize.
Loading ...
[...] a legislator into dropping a patient privacy amendment, lecturing legislative committees, and accused of stealing and destroying legalization petitions. Corey Donahue was jailed for disrupting a meeting organizing supporters of a legalization [...]
[...] a legislator into dropping a patient privacy amendment, lecturing legislative committees, and accused of stealing and destroying legalization petitions. Corey Donahue was jailed for disrupting a meeting organizing supporters of a legalization [...]
“…I concede that irrational fears of access by minors and of DUID…” And there’s where you lose.
There is nothing irrational about fearing whether your kids will be getting high and whether the driver next to you will be stoned. These are the two primary fears the public still holds about marijuana legalization. You’ve got it backwards – it’s not that putting “DUID and transfer to kids remains illegal” is going to lead the opponents to using those attacks… THEY ARE USING THEM NOW and would use them against any initiative with or without those words.
Reactionary, perhaps, because we do need to react to these legitimate public safety concerns. Disingenuous, not at all, because we really do want to keep pot out of the hands of kids and drivers.
“How anyone could imagine…” gee, look at every other state that has passed a marijuana reform initiative since 1996. EVERY one was drafted and funded by national backers. “Deliberately excluded…” gee, who wants to work with people who call you “liar”, “narc”, and say your legalization effort isn’t legalization? What you want is national orgs and backers to come to Colorado, kiss your ring and bow to the wisdom and experience of local activists who have caused scenes at the legislature, organized anti-NORML rallies on 4/20, caused a scene leading to arrest at a library, and other shenanigans.
Well, gee, if y’all had the backing and support and winning language and organization and political acumen, why, you wouldn’t need any out-of-staters, would ya? You’d have legalized marijuana in Colorado years ago, right?
But please, folks, don’t stop reading this blog… where else will you get to read Bobby Chase’s batshittery?
Thanks for the correction – it is Kathleen Chippi. I imagine it was a Freudian slip, because this woman said she would fight against a measure that would legalize one ounce and six plants, and that, to me, is trippy.
I wonder how she feels about healthy people’s rights? You know, the rest of us who still get tickets, arrested, and thrown in prison because we’re too healthy to use marijuana are getting mighty tired of your “oooh, the state is infringing on patient rights!” whining. If she’d drop your “I Gots Mine” attitude and fight for the right of all people to use cannabis, all the problems patients face would go away.
Apparently Bobby Chase doesn’t understand the “fire in a crowded movie house” and other limitations on First Amendment speech. For example, if people are peaceably assembling at the library to discuss one legalization initiative, and a proponent of a different initiative shows up to disrupt the process, that is not protected speech or protected assembly and the people are within their rights to call a cop to remove the offender.
Keep calling me a liar, Bobby Chase. You amuse me.
Belville is also lying about Corey Donahue’s arrest. Our explicit rights under the First Amendment are more important than re-legalizing cannabis — if proponents attack the First Amendment just because they think it is expedient for their petition drive, they are enemies of the People. Go home, Emmett Reistroffer!
P.S. Who is Kathleen Trippi? If you’re going to attack the chief sponsor of the Patients and Caregivers’ Rights Litigation project (which is suing Colorado over its unconstitutional depredations on patients and caregivers’ rights), at least spell her name correctly! Are you trying to be cute, or was that just a Freudian slip?
I hadn’t realized that Belville was making these scurrilous attacks until recently — I strongly encourage readers to look back at http://stash.norml.org/stoners-against-legalization-ii-colorado-boogaloo/comment-page-1#comment-78139 to see the (untimely) responses of those he has mischaracterized as “stoners against legalization”. Belville functions as the propaganda minster for your organization: “I told you how Lopez, Kriho, and two other geniuses, Robert Chase and Kathleen Trippi, announced their opposition to what they call the “MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER (MDSS) initiative”, the “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol” petition that is gathering signatures for the ballot.” — this is a lie; I have never announced my opposition to the “so that driving under the influence of marijuana shall remain illegal” (as I describe it).
I concede that irrational fears of access by minors and of DUID are threats to re-legalization efforts; Inititiative #30, though, falls over itself trying to reassure voters, going so far as to state that the purpose of this putative legalization amendment is “so that driving under the influence of marijuana shall remain illegal” and to maintain the illegality of transfer to minors — this is not true, and our enemies will have a field day pointing to the reactionary and disingenuous language in the measure as evidence that proponents know it would exacerbate these perceived problems. How anyone could imagine that an initiative drafted by out-of-state groups that deliberately excluded the grassroots activists who have been testifying at hearings and opposing Colorado’s prohibitionists at every turn (this group does not include Mason Tvert by the way, who has absented himself from most public discussions about cannabis, official and otherwise, for the past three years!) is the one to back, I cannot fathom, but that is NORML’s position. If readers want to understand what is happening with cannabis in Colorado, don’t rely on Belville’s biased accounts; try looking at Westword’s Latest Word Blog to read what activists in Colorado are doing and saying.
Corey,
Thanks for posting our previous e-mail correspondences which affirm that neither I nor NORML ‘backed’ nor “argued in favor” the proposed marijuana DUI bill.
“NORML is neutral on this proposal as I don’t believe that the state has shown any need for such an amendment to their traffic safety laws.”
Further, the proposed bill contained language making the proposed standard a ‘permissible inference,’ not per se.
“As I stated before, the far larger issue of contention is not the proposed threshold but keeping this estimation a ‘permissible inference’ that may be rebutted in court, not a per se standard. I would argue that this should be your focus.”
I’ve arguably lobbied more against the enactment of marijuana DUI per se statutes than anyone in this country, so you are barking up the wrong tree — as usual. Goodbye.
1) You’re speaking of Paul Armentano, who pointed out that we were neutral on the bill, but that the existing science shows blood/THC levels of 5ng/ml are indicative of recent cannabis use? Or how he pointed out that if such a 5ng/ml limit were established, it should be a rebuttable presumption and not a per se inference?
2) Our director is Allen St. Pierre. While he has a law degree, I do not believe he is a practicing lawyer. But how sweet of you to note the suicide of a woman prosecuted for marijuana to smear NORML. Hey, by any chance did she happen to have less than six plants at the time… you know, what you consider to not be legalization?
3) So, you have evidence of Ethan Nadelmann torturing Chileans? Or do you, like Bobby Chase, just like to hurl the most dastardly of accusations at successful activists with far more contacts, successes, money, influence, intelligence, and spelling ability than yourself?
Here’s one for you: “Colorado: where so-called marijuana activists think keeping people out of prison for one ounce and six plants is a bad idea.”
What no comment from radical Russ on how your deputy director backed a bill that specifically targeted cannabis users with an unscientific and unconstitutional blood draw for a arbitrary 5ng/ml thc blood level? A bill NORML, Safer, Sensible, MPP, DPA supported and the local activists defeated.
And no word on how your Director is such a bad lawyer that his client killed herself after she plea barged something that any capable lawyer could have gotten her off.
Or no word on how Eathen Natelman tortured Chileans when he was down in Chile with the Drug Enforcement Agency.
No words on your shitty language that will go in the constitution of Colorado? If you cant even talk about your shitty language then why should we trust you carpetbaggers to change our constitution?
And here’s one for you, “Colorado where water and weed are for fighting and whiskey is for drinking.”
Corey, if you want to post a novel, get your own blog.
First, learn how to spell the names of the people you’re hating on.
Second, if I hold an open meeting in a public library in order to organize a flag football league and some idiot named Corey shows up telling us all how flag football sucks and it ought to be tackle football and who wants to sign up for Corey’s tackle football league, then yes, I and the library are well within our rights to ask you to leave. “Public” doesn’t mean “open to anyone who wants to subvert the public meeting’s agenda.”
Third, stay out of Colorado? Gosh, if your coalition of TILTers (Treat It Like Tomatoes) represents the overwhelming majority of Coloradoans, then why would you even worry what I, NORML, SAFER, or anyone else says? If the CTI/Kriho/Lopez/Donahue concept is “true legalization” and the will of the people, then MPP/DPA/SAFER/NORML shouldn’t be able to get even a toe-hold in the state, right? And certainly, some guy blogging for NORML in Oregon wouldn’t be asked repeatedly by the organizers of KushCons, HIGH TIMES Cannabis Cups, and NORML in Denver to opine on the situations in Colorado before audiences of hundreds if, indeed, they found his message to be contrary to “true legalization”.
Do you remember the parable of the blind men and the elephant? One feels the trunk and thinks he’s got a snake, another feels the leg and thinks it’s a tree, and so forth. The point is that they are too close to the elephant and lacking the vision to see the big picture… like you. You and some like you in every other state, are immersed in cannabis culture. Everyone you know uses cannabis and most can quote “The Emperor” by heart. You swim in a little pool of like-minded people who all know the truth about cannabis and are flabbergasted that everyone else can’t see that it should be treated like tomatoes.
But we at NORML get to interface with the rest of the real world. People who believe marijuana is the first step toward heroin or crack. People who think if their kid smokes a joint he’ll start sporting dreads and following jam bands on tour. People who can’t separate the effects of prohibition from the effects of cannabis. People who read the screeds of people like you and think “flower power anarchist libertine bohemian dirty stinky hippies!” You see medical marijuana and think society finally came to its senses at least somewhat about cannabis medicinal properties, not realizing the only reason medical marijuana exists in 16 states is because people think pot is evil, but it is less evil than letting a cancer patient suffer. Now, many of those people see what medical marijuana has turned into and think they’ve been bamboozled by the “flower power anarchist libertine bohemian dirty stinky hippies!” into a quasi-legalization they didn’t vote for.
Hey Radical Russ
, don’t forget your meeting was held in a public library and in a room that according to Jennifer Bray, a spokeswoman for the library, said “the Boulder Creek Room is required to remain open to anyone, regardless of which group reserves it. Groups can reserve the library theater for private events, she said.”
So it looks like I was arrested at a public meeting in which I was invited to through Facebook in a public library in a room which must remain open to anyone, regardless of which group reserves it discussing a proposed amendment to the constitution of Colorado. So if you had any knowledge of the democratic process you so opine for you would know you violated my first amendment rights, but keep toting the propaganda.
And why did NORML’s deputy director argue in favor of HB-1261 in Colorado which specifically targeted MMJ patients with an unscientific and unconstitutional 5ng per ml limit on cannabis in the blood stream? (Corespondents below). Or why did Keath Stoop director of NORML advise his client in VA to plea bargain a small drug possession charge which she did and subsequently hung herself, having you client kill herself does not a good lawyer make? Or why did Eathen Natlmen the Director of DPA keep silent about the torture he witnessed and took part in when he was working in Chile with the Drug Enforcement Agency? Or why are you so misguided as to say we are against legalization when Steve Fox said in front of the Colorado State Title Board, “What we are doing is regulating marijuana. There is a significant legal difference. It would be inaccurate to call this legalization.” We are against regulation of marijuana we want legalization what do you want?
Oh and we are not in your community we want legalization you and your ilk obviously want regulation. As shown by your proposed initiative in Colorado. (Initiative language Below)
My advice to you Radical Russ, is stay in Oregon and keep your nose out of Colorado because the people here take a great deal of offense when you try to mess with our constitutional rights.
Corey,
I fear we have exhausted this discussion via e-mail. Sewell’s own work, which I’ve cited twice, provides credence to impairment above 5ng/ml.(e.g., serum concentrations of THC higher than 5 ng/mL are associated with an increased risk of accidents.”) Numerous studies and reviews by international experts also indicate that such a threshold may be suitable. Likewise, there are other papers that argue for an even lower threshold of 2ng/ml (See attached) or even 1ng/ml, (as a reporter recently told me NIDA’s Marilyn Huestis had advocated for, and the Walsh Group has lobbied for) which in my opinion truly would be an arbitrary standard. I can tell you with certainly that there were many involved in this issue behind the scenes that lobbied for a much lower standard.
<>
The clinical results of Papfotiou et al (attached) would disagree.
An evaluation of the sensitivity of the Standardised Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) to detect impairment due to marijuana intoxication
“The results revealed that there was a pos- itive relationship between the dose of THC administered and the number of participants classified as impaired based on the SFSTs. Results also revealed that the percentage of participants classified as impaired decreased from Time 1 to Time 3 and that the addition of a new sign, head movements or jerks (HMJ), increased the percentage of participants classified as impaired in both the low and high THC conditions. These findings suggest that impaired performance on the SFSTs is positively related to the dose of THC administered and that the inclusion of HMJ as a scored sign in the SFSTs improves their predictive validity when testing for THC intoxication.”
As I stated before, the far larger issue of contention is not the proposed threshold but keeping this estimation a ‘permissible inference’ that may be rebutted in court, not a per se standard. I would argue that this should be your focus.
Best regards,
–
Paul Armentano
Deputy Director
NORML | NORML Foundation
paul@norml.org
****Please join me at NORML’s 40TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE in Denver,
April 21-23, 2011. For more information visit:
norml.org/conference. Or call toll-free 888-67-NORML or send an email to
.
On 3/8/11 5:44 PM, “COREY DONAHUE” wrote:
Hi Paul,
I don’t know if we are talking across purposes? But I contacted Mr. Sewell again about the research and he said:
Well, more the issue is that levels of THC in the blood don’t correlate well with levels in the CNS. Alcohol is water-soluble, so it dissolves equally in all the compartments. Levels in blood equals levels in saliva equals levels in spinal fluid equals levels in neurons.
THC is fat-soluble, in contrast. Levels in blood quickly redistribute to more fatty myelinated tissues like neurons, then more slowly to even more fatty tissues like fat, which is where it all ends up. So levels in the CNS are increasing even as levels in the blood are dropping. Early blood measurements (like ~20 minutes) are likely to
overestimate levels of impairment, whereas later measurements are likely to underestimate it.
Field sobriety tests are a much better measure of functional impairment. The current field sobriety test is tuned to pick up on alcohol. I don’t think they’ve developed one for cannabis yet, but that would be the way to go, not blood measurements. You didn’t read the paper, did you. It’s all in there.
–Andrew richard.sewell@yale.edu
Also both those reports you provided me were listed a sources in the research I provided you. So I don’t understand why older research would be used to support a bill when current research shows that there is still no accurate way to show impairment or that the capability even exists with marijuana use? Am I way off target here or is Rep. Levey going to use out dated information to support a bill that has serious constitutional ramifications?
Thank you,
Corey Donahue
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:47:44 -0800
Subject: Re: Cannabis and driving
From: paul@norml.org
Message body
Sewell’s own conclusion supports this rational basis: She writes on page 8: “Case-control studies are inconsistent, but suggest that while low concentrations of THC do not increase the rate of accidents, and may even decrease them, serum concentrations of THC higher than 5 ng/mL are associated with an increased risk of accidents (Figure 2).”
For other references, See Grotnehermen et al: (attached)
“A comparison of meta-analyses of experimental studies on the impairment of driving-relevant skills by alcohol or cannabis suggests that a THC concentration in the serum of 7–10 ng/ml is correlated with an impairment comparable to that caused by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Thus, a suitable numerical limit for THC in serum may fall in that range.”
See Drummer et al.: (attached)
Drivers positive to psychotropic drugs were significantly more likely to be culpable than drug-free drivers. Drivers with 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their blood had a significantly higher likelihood of being culpable than drug-free drivers (odds ratio (OR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.02–7.0). For drivers with blood THC concentrations of 5 ng/ml or higher the odds ratio was greater and more statistically significant (OR 6.6, 95% CI 1.5–28.0).
There are numerous others like the work of Ramaekers et al., Laumon et al., and so on…
On 3/8/11 1:37 PM, “COREY DONAHUE” > wrote:
Paul,
A quick question. Which studies provide the rational scientific basis for the proposed threshold in this bill? Laura sent me all the studies Rep. Levy used to justify this bill but through the research and particularly the meta-analysis which I sent you I could not find a rational accepted scientific basis. There were 99 reports in the meta-analysis by Dr. Seewell so if there is one that was over looked I would love to find it. I am asking you this so I don’t over look a report in my public testimony on Thursday.
Thank you,
Corey
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:45:58 -0800
Subject: Re: Cannabis and driving
From: paul@norml.org
Message body
Corey,
Thank you for contacting me and sending me the attached papers.
From Sewell’s paper:
“Case-control studies are inconsistent, but suggest that while low concentrations of THC do not increase the rate of accidents, and may even decrease them, serum concentrations of THC higher than 5 ng/mL are associated with an increased risk of accidents (Figure 2).”
This summation is in line with the literature that I am also familiar with.
<>
But of course there is. Fortunately, that proposed CO statute is not as I understand it a per se standard, so defendants’ who test at this level or higher could still defend themselves in court. Further, there is a rational scientific basis for the proposed threshold, whereas similar proposals in other states have chosen arbitrary cut-offs.
That said, NORML is neutral on this proposal as I don’t believe that the state has shown any need for such an amendment to their traffic safety laws. Blood/THC evidence and its association with impairment is already admissible in DUI cases, and should be, as this information can be a valuable tool in determining psychomotor impairment. But it should not be the only tool and in my opinion the present multidisciplinary standard is a practical one and in most cases an accurate indicator at determining impairment.
Regards,
Paul
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado
Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 16. Personal use and regulation of marijuana
(1) Purpose and findings.
(a) IN THE INTEREST OF THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES, ENHANCING REVENUE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FIND AND DECLARE THAT THE USE OF MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND TAXED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO ALCOHOL.
(b) IN THE INTEREST OF THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENRY, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT MARIJUANA SHOULD BE REGULATED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO ALCOHOL SO THAT:
(I) INDIVIDUALS WILL HAVE TO SHOW PROOF OF AGE BEFORE PURCHASING MARIJUANA;
(II) SELLING, DISTRIBUTING, OR TRANSFERRING MARIJUANA TO MINORS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE SHALL REMAIN ILLEGAL;
(III) DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA SHALL REMAIN ILLEGAL;
(IV) LEGITIMATE, TAXPAYING BUSINESS PEOPLE, AND NOT CRIMINAL ACTORS, WILL CONDUCT SALES OF MARIJUANA; AND
(V) MARIJUANA SOLD IN THIS STATE WILL BE LABELED AND SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS ARE INFORMED AND PROTECTED.
(c) IN THE INTEREST OF ENACTING RATIONAL POLICIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALL VARIATIONS OF THE CANNABIS PLANT, THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT INDUSTRIAL HEMP SHOULD BE REGULATED SEPARATELY FROM STRAINS OF CANNABIS WITH HIGHER DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL (THC) CONCENTRATIONS.
(d) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND FAIRNESS IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE MATTERS ADDRESSED BY THIS SECTION ARE, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED HEREIN, MATTERS OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.
(2) Definitions. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES,
(a) “COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE” MEANS ARTICLE 43.3 OF TITLE 12, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES.
(b) “CONSUMER” MEANS A PERSON TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHO PURCHASES MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FOR PERSONAL USE BY PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, BUT NOT FOR RESALE TO OTHERS.
(c) “DEPARTMENT” MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY.
(d) “INDUSTRIAL HEMP” MEANS THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS AND ANY PART OF SUCH PLANT, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, WITH A DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL CONCENTRATION THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THREE-TENTHS PERCENT ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS.
(e) “LOCALITY” MEANS A COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY.
(f) “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT.
(g) “MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES” MEANS ANY EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, OR MATERIALS OF ANY KIND WHICH ARE USED, INTENDED FOR USE, OR DESIGNED FOR USE IN PLANTING, PROPAGATING, CULTIVATING, GROWING, HARVESTING, COMPOSTING, MANUFACTURING, COMPOUNDING, CONVERTING, PRODUCING, PROCESSING, PREPARING, TESTING, ANALYZING, PACKAGING, REPACKAGING, STORING, VAPORIZING, OR CONTAINING MARIJUANA, OR FOR INGESTING, INHALING, OR OTHERWISE INTRODUCING MARIJUANA INTO THE HUMAN BODY.
(h) “MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO CULTIVATE, PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA AND SELL MARIJUANA TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES, TO MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, AND TO OTHER MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, BUT NOT TO CONSUMERS.
(i) “MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT” MEANS A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY, A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, OR A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
(j) “MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA; MANUFACTURE, PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; AND SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO OTHER MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES, BUT NOT TO CONSUMERS.
(k) “MARIJUANA PRODUCTS” MEANS CONCENTRATED MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS THAT ARE COMPRISED OF MARIJUANA AND OTHER INGREDIENTS AND ARE INTENDED FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EDIBLE PRODUCTS, OINTMENTS, AND TINCTURES.
(l) “MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO ANALYZE AND CERTIFY THE SAFETY AND POTENCY OF MARIJUANA.
(m) “MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED BY A STATE AGENCY TO SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
(n) “RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA FROM MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND TO SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS.
(o) “UNREASONABLY IMPRACTICABLE” MEANS THAT THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE SUCH A HIGH INVESTMENT OF RISK, MONEY, TIME, OR ANY OTHER RESOURCE OR ASSET THAT THE OPERATION OF A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT WORTHY OF BEING CARRIED OUT IN PRACTICE BY A REASONABLY PRUDENT BUSINESSPERSON.
(3) Personal use of marijuana. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
(c) TRANSFER OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT REMUNERATION TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.
(e) ASSISTING ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IN ANY OF THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (d) OF THIS SUBSECTION.
(4) Lawful operation of marijuana-related facilities. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
(a) MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, OR PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR THE SALE OF MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(b) POSSESSING, DISPLAYING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; OR SALE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF A LICENSED RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
(c) CULTIVATING, HARVESTING, PROCESSING, PACKAGING, TRANSPORTING, DISPLAYING, OR POSSESSING MARIJUANA; DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA TO A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY; SELLING MARIJUANA TO A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, OR A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE; OR THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY.
(d) PACKAGING, PROCESSING, TRANSPORTING, MANUFACTURING, DISPLAYING, OR POSSESSING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY; SELLING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; OR THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
(e) POSSESSING, CULTIVATING, PROCESSING, REPACKAGING, STORING, TRANSPORTING, DISPLAYING, TRANSFERRING OR DELIVERING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IF THE PERSON HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY.
(f) LEASING OR OTHERWISE ALLOWING THE USE OF PROPERTY OWNED, OCCUPIED OR CONTROLLED BY ANY PERSON, CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY FOR ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED LAWFULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (e) OF THIS SUBSECTION.
(5) Regulation of marijuana.
(a) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2013, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADOPT REGULATIONS NECESSARY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION. SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL NOT PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR THROUGH REGULATIONS THAT MAKE THEIR OPERATION UNREASONABLY IMPRACTICABLE. SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL INCLUDE:
(I) PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, RENEWAL, SUSPENSION, AND REVOCATION OF A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT, WITH SUCH PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE 24 OF THE COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OR ANY SUCCESSOR PROVISION;
(II) A SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION, LICENSING AND RENEWAL FEES, PROVIDED, APPLICATION FEES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WITH THIS UPPER LIMIT ADJUSTED ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES A GREATER FEE IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS SECTION, AND PROVIDED FURTHER, AN ENTITY THAT IS LICENSED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO CULTIVATE OR SELL MARIJUANA OR TO MANUFACTURE MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AT THE TIME THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT AND THAT CHOOSES TO APPLY FOR A SEPARATE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY AN APPLICATION FEE GREATER THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;
(III) QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE THAT ARE DIRECTLY AND DEMONSTRABLY RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(IV) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS;
(V) REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT THE SALE OR DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE;
(VI) LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED BY A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(VII) HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AND THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA;
(VIII) RESTRICTIONS ON THE ADVERTISING AND DISPLAY OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; AND
(IX) CIVIL PENALTIES FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
(b) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE MOST SECURE, RELIABLE, AND ACCOUNTABLE SYSTEM FOR THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBSECTION, IN ANY COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS THE DEPARTMENT SHALL HAVE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHETHER AN APPLICANT:
(I) HAS PRIOR EXPERIENCE PRODUCING OR DISTRIBUTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT; AND
(II) HAS, DURING THE EXPERIENCE DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I), COMPLIED CONSISTENTLY WITH SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE AND CONFORMING REGULATIONS.
(c) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY IS PROTECTED, NOTWITHSTANDING PARAGRAPH (a), THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT REQUIRE A CONSUMER TO PROVIDE A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE WITH PERSONAL INFORMATION OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION TO DETERMINE THE CONSUMER’S AGE, AND A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACQUIRE AND RECORD PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT CONSUMERS OTHER THAN INFORMATION TYPICALLY ACQUIRED IN A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION CONDUCTED AT A RETAIL LIQUOR STORE.
(d) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT AN EXCISE TAX TO BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED BY A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY TO A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE AT A RATE NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PERCENT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2017 AND AT A RATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF ALL TAXES LEVIED. PROVIDED, THE FIRST FORTY MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE RAISED ANNUALLY FROM ANY SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE FUND CREATED BY ARTICLE 43.7 OF TITLE 22, C.R.S., OR ANY SUCCESSOR FUND DEDICATED TO A SIMILAR PURPOSE. PROVIDED FURTHER, NO SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA INTENDED FOR SALE AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
(e) NOT LATER THAN OCTOBER 1, 2013, EACH LOCALITY SHALL ENACT AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION SPECIFYING THE ENTITY WITHIN THE LOCALITY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCALITY AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH LICENSES SHOULD THE ISSUANCE BY THE LOCALITY BECOME NECESSARY BECAUSE OF A FAILURE BY THE DEPARTMENT TO ADOPT REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OR BECAUSE OF A FAILURE BY THE DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS AND ISSUE LICENSES AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (g).
(f) A LOCALITY MAY ENACT ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS, NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS SECTION OR WITH REGULATIONS OR LEGISLATION ENACTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, GOVERNING THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER AND NUMBER OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT OPERATIONS; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, SUSPENSION, AND REVOCATION OF A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (h) OR (i), SUCH PROCEDURES TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE 24 OF THE COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OR ANY SUCCESSOR PROVISION; ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL OPERATING, LICENSING, AND APPLICATION FEES FOR MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS, PROVIDED, THE APPLICATION FEE SHALL ONLY BE DUE IF AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (i) AND A LICENSING FEE SHALL ONLY BE DUE IF A LICENSE IS ISSUED BY A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (h) OR (i); AND ESTABLISHING CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION GOVERNING THE TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT THAT MAY OPERATE IN SUCH LOCALITY. A LOCALITY MAY PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITIES, OR RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF AN ORDINANCE OR THROUGH AN INITIATED OR REFERRED MEASURE; PROVIDED, ANY INITIATED OR REFERRED MEASURE TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITIES, OR RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES MUST APPEAR ON A GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT DURING AN EVEN NUMBERED YEAR.
(g) EACH APPLICATION FOR AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL:
(I) BEGIN ACCEPTING AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS ON OCTOBER 1, 2013;
(II) IMMEDIATELY FORWARD A COPY OF EACH APPLICATION AND HALF OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO OPERATE THE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(III) ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FORTY-FIVE AND NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS ENACTED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OR THE DEPARTMENT IS NOTIFIED BY THE RELEVANT LOCALITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, PROVIDED, WHERE A LOCALITY HAS ENACTED A NUMERICAL LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND A GREATER NUMBER OF APPLICANTS SEEK LICENSES, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SOLICIT AND CONSIDER INPUT FROM THE LOCALITY AS TO THE LOCALITY’S PREFERENCE OR PREFERENCES FOR LICENSURE; AND
(IV) UPON DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION, NOTIFY THE APPLICANT IN WRITING OF THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR ITS DENIAL.
(h) IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ISSUE A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (g) AND DOES NOT NOTIFY THE APPLICANT OF THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR ITS DENIAL, IN WRITING AND WITHIN SUCH TIME PERIOD, OR IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOPTED REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) AND HAS ACCEPTED APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (g) BUT HAS NOT ISSUED ANY LICENSES BY JANUARY 1, 2014, THE APPLICANT MAY RESUBMIT ITS APPLICATION DIRECTLY TO THE LOCALITY, PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (e), AND THE LOCALITY MAY ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT. A LOCALITY ISSUING A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT SHALL DO SO WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE RESUBMITTED APPLICATION UNLESS THE LOCALITY FINDS AND NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS RESUBMITTED AND THE LOCALITY SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IF AN ANNUAL LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT. IF AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO A LOCALITY UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FORWARD TO THE LOCALITY THE APPLICATION FEE PAID BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DEPARTMENT UPON REQUEST BY THE LOCALITY. A LICENSE ISSUED BY A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (g) AND THE HOLDER OF SUCH LICENSE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR ENFORCEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE TERM OF THAT LICENSE. A SUBSEQUENT OR RENEWED LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH ON AN ANNUAL BASIS ONLY UPON RESUBMISSION TO THE LOCALITY OF A NEW APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (g). NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL LIMIT SUCH RELIEF AS MAY BE AVAILABLE TO AN AGGRIEVED PARTY UNDER SECTION 24-4-104, C.R.S., OF THE COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OR ANY SUCCESSOR PROVISION.
(i) IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ADOPT REGULATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (a), AN APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION DIRECTLY TO A LOCALITY AFTER OCTOBER 1, 2013 AND THE LOCALITY MAY ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT. A LOCALITY ISSUING A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT SHALL DO SO WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION UNLESS IT FINDS AND NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IF AN ANNUAL LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT. A LICENSE ISSUED BY A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (g) AND THE HOLDER OF SUCH LICENSE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR ENFORCEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE TERM OF THAT LICENSE. A SUBSEQUENT OR RENEWED LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ADOPTED REGULATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (a) AT LEAST NINETY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE UPON WHICH SUCH SUBSEQUENT OR RENEWED LICENSE WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OR IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOPTED REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) BUT HAS NOT, AT LEAST NINETY DAYS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF SUCH REGULATIONS, ISSUED LICENSES PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (g).
(j) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2014, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP.
(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.
(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.
(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.
(c) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA, WITH OR WITHOUT REMUNERATION, TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE OR TO ALLOW A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE TO PURCHASE, POSSESS, USE, TRANSPORT, GROW, OR CONSUME MARIJUANA.
(d) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON, EMPLOYER, SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, DETENTION FACILITY, CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.
(7) Medical marijuana provisions unaffected. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED: (a) TO LIMIT ANY PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER, OR LICENSED ENTITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (b) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT; (c) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN A MANNER OR FROM A SOURCE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (d) TO PERMIT ANY MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER LICENSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO OPERATE ON THE SAME PREMISES AS A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.; OR (e) TO DISCHARGE THE DEPARTMENT, THE COLORADO BOARD OF HEALTH, OR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FROM THEIR STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
(8) Self-executing, severability, conflicting provisions. ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE SELF-EXECUTING EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED HEREIN, ARE SEVERABLE, AND, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE TEXT, SHALL SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING STATE STATUTORY, LOCAL CHARTER, ORDINANCE, OR RESOLUTION, AND OTHER STATE AND LOCAL PROVISIONS.
(9) Effective date. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE VOTE HEREON BY PROCLAMATION OF THE GOVERNOR, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1(4) OF ARTICLE V.