James Mc 
Member since Jun 22, 2011


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Tennessee man says quality of Colorado Springs weed 'is an absolute fraud'

The couple moved here a week and a half ago.

Pray tell - just how did they get a red card that fast? It takes getting a Colorado ID first - and that alone would take at least 10 days, then you have to see a doctor, mail that mmj application in and then wait for the redcard in the mail.

I am calling BS on this.

29 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by James Mc on 07/20/2014 at 3:12 PM

Re: “Amendment 64's other shoe drops with Proposition AA

The people endorsing Proposition AA - people like Attorney General John Suthers, State Representative and Minority Leader Mark Waller, State Rep Rhonda Fields, and the groups The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, Smart Colorado, and The Colorado Municipal League, are the very same people and groups that actively tried to stop Amendment 64.

Vote NO on AA!!!

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by James Mc on 10/20/2013 at 9:14 AM

Re: “Talking shop with members of the governor's marijuana task force

Meg Sanders - You said "The thing that's most upsetting to me is that we're now seeing out-of-state big money hiring lobbyists at the last minute to sidestep the public and kill key parts of the recommendations behind [closed] doors."

You are clearly referring to vertical integration(VI).

You are also stating this backwards. The Governors task force voted on VI initially and defeated the idea 10-2. The only no votes were you, and Norton Albarvez(sp?)(who was sitting in Mike Elliot's position) - You own a MMJ business and Norton/Mike are a mmj industry business group known as MMIG(medical marijuana industry group). When the issue was brought up again, the vote changed enough for it to pass. Clearly, "behind closed doors" lobbying went on - and it was perpetrated by either you or Mike/Norton. How else could the vote against VI shifted so dramatically???

As I have stated repeatedly, I am against VI. It is not needed, and is nothing more than vested interests trying to protect/monopolize their interests. Coloradan's did not vote for that - why would they???

If you are going to continue to fight VI, I suggest you use another strategy than crying out that you want your investment protected by government regulations to keep others out. Because that is exactly what VI does.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by James Mc on 04/17/2013 at 6:56 AM

Re: “Another marijuana debate tonight

I went to the debate yesterday.

One of the questions asked to two panelists was the same question KC Stark of Go Green Cross has been asking/scare mongering on various internet board. The question was - Will the Feds come in and shut the A64 model down, and will this cause the A20 harm. The answer from the Anti-64 was "NO" The Fed will not come to Colorado and shut it down, just like they have not with A20.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by James Mc on 10/02/2012 at 7:46 AM

Re: “Weeding out the truth

Jeff, Your analysis of Amendment 64 is not correct. What you are basing your analysis on is the clause in the Amendment where it states existing dispensaries will have the "competitive advantage" over new dispensaries IF, and this is a big if, a municipality chooses to limit the number of stores in its boundaries. That is the only time the "competitive advantage" clause is used in a laws such as this.

5 (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.


Amendment 64 simply does not create any monopolistic structure, in fact, you can say it does the opposite through its other provision.

5(a) (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;

This clause sets a low enough licensing fee that a serious small time person can enter this market without paying exorbitant fees to regulating agencies.


VOTE YES ON 64!

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by James Mc on 07/24/2012 at 11:49 AM

Re: “CannaBiz: MMJ advocate leaving

WE MISS YOU MARY!!!!

Posted by James Mc on 06/22/2011 at 10:24 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation