Justin Smith at the Coloradoan

[Rucker61]

Anyone else here?

[beast556]

What's going on there???

[Rucker61]

He was responding to an editorial claiming his efforts against the 2013 laws was malfeasance in office, abs Q&A from the editorial board and public.

[Great-Kazoo]

It's interesting how the same folks who are OUTRAGED over Smiths selective enforcement. Want LCSO, FCPD , CSU and other entities to "look the other way" when it comes to ticketing and enforcing any vagrancy laws (still on the books) the homeless.

[OneGuy67]

He did well. Very well spoken.

[Ah Pook]

Video?

I like that guy.

[Zundfolge]

It's interesting how the same folks who are OUTRAGED over Smiths selective enforcement. Want LCSO, FCPD , CSU and other entities to "look the other way" when it comes to ticketing and enforcing any vagrancy laws (still on the books) the homeless.

And they want the Feds to look the other way when enforcing drug laws when it comes to our quasi legal weed.

[Waywardson174]

link?

[Great-Kazoo]

link?

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2016/04/25/watch-live-sheriff-justin-smith-visits-coloradoan-editorial-board/83504074/

[Rucker61]

He did well. Very well spoken.

Yeah, the Editorial Board seemed a bit nonplussed after he gave them his response, and especially after a couple of seniors put in their two cents.

He made a point on the marijuana laws that I hadn't read before, that by making it part of the Colorado Constitution and not just decriminalizing it puts law enforcement in a tight spot. If someone gets arrested for a large grow operation, and the DA decides not to prosecute, he's required by the state constitution to give it back. Trafficking in weed, though, is a federal felony, which would make him ineligible to hold the office he holds. Serious conundrum.

[OneGuy67]

Yeah, the Editorial Board seemed a bit nonplussed after he gave them his response, and especially after a couple of seniors put in their two cents.

He made a point on the marijuana laws that I hadn't read before, that by making it part of the Colorado Constitution and not just decriminalizing it puts law enforcement in a tight spot. If someone gets arrested for a large grow operation, and the DA decides not to prosecute, he's required by the state constitution to give it back. Trafficking in weed, though, is a federal felony, which would make him ineligible to hold the office he holds. Serious conundrum.

And it goes farther than that. If we as law enforcement take a large operation, we are required to maintain it so there is no loss to the person if they win their case or the case is dismissed. So in effect, we become growers. The failure to do this requires us to compensate the person for their loss 'of crop' if the DA doesn't prosecute or the suspect gets acquitted at trial. Some agencies are large enough to do this, some are not. One of the reasons why many agencies do not want to touch a grow if at all possible, especially now with the size of the grows. It is beyond the time of a handful of plants.

All the Amendments voted on change our constitution; they are 'Amendments to the Constitution' not a change of laws. One of the issues we have here in Colorado is how easy it is to change our Constitution and how to put new language into our Constitution. Just takes 50.01% of the popular vote. And it is one of the reasons why we are in such a financial conundrum. As listed, it requires 2/3rds of the legislative body to approve an amendment to the state Constitution, but again, only 50.01% of the popular vote. The Constitution has been amended 152 times from 1876 through 2007. The citizen initiative has grown exponentially in this area. Proposed Amendment #15 (which seems to be as far back as I can research on short notice) was in 1994 and was a voter approved change to campaign contributions. So only 14 prior citizen initiatives for changing the Constitution prior to that from 1876 to 1994. Then an explosion of them. Amendment #20 in 2002 for medical marijuana; Amendment #64 ten years later in 2012 for legalizing marijuana and 44 citizen amendment attempts and/or successes; Amendment # 67 in 2014 for 'Personhood' and Amendment #69 this year for Universal Health Care Coverage. All change the Constitution, not just the laws. This is wrong, in my opinion.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_26793678/say-no-constitutional-amendments

"In 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case which hasa much greater chance of examining the fundamental inter-relationship betweenColorado’s new marijuana laws and the federal Controlled Substances Act. In People v.Crouse, 2013 WL 6673708 (Colo. App. December 19, 2013), the Colorado Springs cityattorney and the district attorney for El Paso County argued that compliance with theprovision of Amendment 20 requiring the “return” of medical marijuana by lawenforcement to an MMJ patient (Art. XVIII, § 14(2)(e), Colo. Const.) would cause thepolice department to violate federal law by unlawfully distributing a controlled substance. Thus, they argued, the “return provision” should be deemed preempted by federal law. Adivided panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the return provision is notpreempted by federal law, because the federal Controlled Substances Act contains a safeharbor provision which “exempts state and local officers when lawfully engaged inenforcing any state law related to controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. § 885 (d). Themajority concluded that, when a Colorado law enforcement agency complies with the“return provision” of the medical marijuana amendment, they are in effect “enforcing” alaw related to controlled substances." 2014-15 Survey of Local Government LawDavid W. Broadwell, Assistant City AttorneyOctober 2, 2015

[spqrzilla]

"In 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case which hasa much greater chance of examining the fundamental inter-relationship betweenColorado’s new marijuana laws and the federal Controlled Substances Act. In People v.Crouse, 2013 WL 6673708 (Colo. App. December 19, 2013), the Colorado Springs cityattorney and the district attorney for El Paso County argued that compliance with theprovision of Amendment 20 requiring the “return” of medical marijuana by lawenforcement to an MMJ patient (Art. XVIII, § 14(2)(e), Colo. Const.) would cause thepolice department to violate federal law by unlawfully distributing a controlled substance. Thus, they argued, the “return provision” should be deemed preempted by federal law. Adivided panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the return provision is notpreempted by federal law, because the federal Controlled Substances Act contains a safeharbor provision which “exempts state and local officers when lawfully engaged inenforcing any state law related to controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. § 885 (d). Themajority concluded that, when a Colorado law enforcement agency complies with the“return provision” of the medical marijuana amendment, they are in effect “enforcing” alaw related to controlled substances." 2014-15 Survey of Local Government LawDavid W. Broadwell, Assistant City AttorneyOctober 2, 2015

The problem with the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion is that no Federal court is bound by it.

[OneGuy67]

The problem with the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion is that no Federal court is bound by it.

Agreed. I was providing context to what Sheriff Smith mentioned about the state/federal conundrum.

[BPTactical]

What a flustercluck for LE.


"Unintended Consequences" indeed....

[Martinjmpr]

The safest path for LE would be to destroy the MJ and then if/when the owners sue the agency for the loss, the agency can raise Federal law as a defense.

[Gman]

"Unintended Consequences" indeed....
I don't see this as something that has caught us by surprise. This was my primary reason for voting against the measure. Either fix the laws to make it fully legal, or keep it illegal, otherwise we end up with a mess that ties up the courts and LE. This 'semi-legal' game we have going on now is nuts.

[Jer]

I don't see this as something that has caught us by surprise. This was my primary reason for voting against the measure. Either fix the laws to make it fully legal, or keep it illegal, otherwise we end up with a mess that ties up the courts and LE. This 'semi-legal' game we have going on now is nuts.

Then there's the tax aspect where we pay our government to allow us to do things we should just be allowed to do if we choose to begin with.

IMHO it should be decriminalized & unregulated. You wanna roll up a plant a smoke it? Have at it. Doesn't affect me one bit. If it does affect me, well... we already have laws against that sort of thing so whatever.