Interpreting Amendment 64

The exact definition of enclosed is not yet clear, but out of sight is, so if your fence is a 6 footer that cannot be seen thru and is a locked space, you are probably fine. If you put razor wire on your chain link fence you will get a visit. If your neighbor has a second story window that can view your outdoor garden, that could be an issue, so keeping on friendly terms with the neighbors in that case would be prudent. If you can see it from the grade school playground you will have the swat team visiting. Common sense needed with this and a few bad situations can screw it up for everyone, so we should be careful how we grow.

I'm glad you can chime in about time

TruenoAE86coupe said:

This thread should be called "misinterpreting amendment 64".
Balzac, several of your posts that you quote the laws, your interpretation is entirely backwards.
(IE

This one in particular says that it is NOT illegal and they cannot seize your property, yet you put that they can. Most of your post regarding the laws are only correct in the posting of the law, your interpretation is backwards on many. Please don't spread misinformation.
I could go on and on about the discrepancies you have posted, but there is so many i just don't have the time.

Judge: huge grey area here, currently law states that plants must be grown in an enclosed, locked space. No where does it define enclosed, so a fence does qualify until you get that over zealous cop.

Click to expand...

I doubt very much that it means anything other than surrounded on all sides. I wouldn't grow openly behind a fence.

We need to be smart about this because what happens during this period before the new laws are created will in part drive how those laws are drafted. What we do not need is for some thug-gangsta people to step into the interim period and screw things up by getting busted selling to kids or growing a field of waving buds in the back yard of a rental, or burning down buildings with butane or electrical fires... Got to lay low and play by the rules and use good sense. If you are not going to participate in the process by getting involved, either directly or by supporting the folks at Sensible Colorado, NORLM and others, then please do not wreck it for everyone by being stupid. Appreciate the OP wanting to understand the law, just gotta be smart about how we act.

That is what I have been saying I was hoping maybe some members had incite. The finalized rules I believe will have more to do with dispensaries. I doubt it will define much more of the recreational growing beyond what it has already.

I want everyone to have a good understanding of what is excepted under the new laws.

This thread is a good idea, but you need to be interpreting the laws that were just passed as well as A64 directly. I don't have all the bill numbers with me but I think there were 2 or 3 of them.

Unfortunately the media has only focused on the retail sales legislation but I thought there was one bill that dealt more with consumer law. It defined things like "enclosed locked space" and open container, etc. I do recall that you must have a roof and a lock around your plants. The way I read it I think a greenhouse would be fine. It didn't even specify that the enclosure needed to be solid (as in wood or glass), which seems like a gray area.

I read that the guy growing hemp got the seeds from a farmer buddy of his from Kansas/Nebraska/some state that has field hemp left over from wwii. The two other bills are House Bill 1318 and Senate Bill[FONT=arial, sans-serif] 283. They do define enclosed to fully enclosed on all sides but the top can be removable. It says you can give away but with no remuneration, so maybe you could get away with buying something else and "giving" away marijuana, but that's not really legal. Or else you'd have sandwich shops selling expensive sandwiches with free sex lol.

Other little tid bits in there, the house bill is just tax stuff. Worth a read.[/FONT]

Senate bill 283 is the most confusing bill i have ever read.
I will do my best to interpret (and fix my previous answers) this as soon as possible.
I am thinking we should start a new thread outlining the exact laws, i will make it a sticky.

TruenoAE86coupe said:

Senate bill 283 is the most confusing bill i have ever read.
I will do my best to interpret (and fix my previous answers) this as soon as possible.
I am thinking we should start a new thread outlining the exact laws, i will make it a sticky.

Click to expand...

This is what I wanted. I'm not trying to do anything but figure this out. As long as it remains a group effort.

bobsstory182 said:

I read that the guy growing hemp got the seeds from a farmer buddy of his from Kansas/Nebraska/some state that has field hemp left over from wwii. The two other bills are House Bill 1318 and Senate Bill 283. They do define enclosed to fully enclosed on all sides but the top can be removable. It says you can give away but with no remuneration, so maybe you could get away with buying something else and "giving" away marijuana, but that's not really legal. Or else you'd have sandwich shops selling expensive sandwiches with free sex lol.


Other little tid bits in there, the house bill is just tax stuff. Worth a read.

Click to expand...

Yeah hemp grows all along the railroad right of ways through Kansas. I even picked a cola once. Seriously there must have been a couple hundred seeds lol. Freaked me out when I saw it growin there in front of god n everyone, so like any good stoner, I slammed on the brakes, ran over and chopped one down and threw it in the trunk. What a rube

Haha^...

Funny ass story...lol

Reason being?...I did the EXACT same thing...haha...

I told my wife..wtf?...seriously, stop...haha.

Same exact thing...threw it in the trunk..

btw... I think it'll be near the beginning of 2014 before the laws are really set into place.

So many discrepancies, loop-holes and mis- interpretation exists as of now

For now...I would stick to 3 flowering, plants...and 3 in veg.

Even with an increased plant count from the doctor, I've read in Culture Magazine,

There is a 150$ fee to be paid to the state, and the doctor is supposed to make that clear.

But he bumped my plant count to 18 !!!

Never mentioned any extra fees though...so, as usual I'm super confused...lol
Edit: The article I was referring to was actually The Hemp Connoisseur.
The 4/20 edition.

I see AE86 has this under control. Thanks for hijacking the thread than doing squat.

Anytime homie.
Some of us have this thing called a life, we don't just spend all our time on here.
But thanks for the attention during my time of absence!!!

I don't really think much can be composed at this time.

Simply because, nothing really has been ” set in stone” per se, so attempting to outline the laws of A64 is kind of pointless, because these fucking idiots haven't clarified a damn thing yet.

We passed A 64 as a damn Amendment of our state Constitution...lets get the ball rolling, and start generating revenue, I don't know what the delay is, seriously.

Every state in our beloved country it's suffering somewhat financially, A64 has a realistic chance of fixing the national deficit which had plagued our government since it was initiated.

Sorry for the rant...lol

TruenoAE86coupe said:

Anytime homie.
Some of us have this thing called a life, we don't just spend all our time on here.
But thanks for the attention during my time of absence!!!

Click to expand...

Are you implying that I spend all my time on here?

I missed you.

Don't leave ever again

Back on topic... The $150 fee for increased plant count, where is this defined? My doc gave an increased count and wrote "edibles" on his form, but the fee was like $40 and there was no mention of a $150 upcharge for increased count. I am staying very close to my 6 plants per adult, but sometimes go a couple over, like when germinating seeds, so the increased count could be a factor...

Important to me was meeting the lawyers who wrote 64 and seeing that they were just as unclear about the details. When asked if we can grow 6 medical and 6 recreational they were like, OK, sounds reasonable. I kind of like the grey area, but then I am not the guy growing 99 plants in a rental, those are the people who can really fuck this up for me and other quiet residential growers.

there is no $150 fee for increased count. Many docs will charge more, supposedly because of the increase documentation they *should* be doing to justify. An IPC is useless if the doc isn't ready to stand up behind his rec - ie if he doesn't show up in court, you may be screwed. Most localities and LEO are respecting the IPCs though ,as the dept of health will confirm the IPC, and patients should keep the doctors rec on the door of their grow room.

Sorry for dredging up a couple week dead thread, it's the ADD I think

420circuit said:

Back on topic... The $150 fee for increased plant count, where is this defined? My doc gave an increased count and wrote "edibles" on his form, but the fee was like $40 and there was no mention of a $150 upcharge for increased count. I am staying very close to my 6 plants per adult, but sometimes go a couple over, like when germinating seeds, so the increased count could be a factor...

Important to me was meeting the lawyers who wrote 64 and seeing that they were just as unclear about the details. When asked if we can grow 6 medical and 6 recreational they were like, OK, sounds reasonable. I kind of like the grey area, but then I am not the guy growing 99 plants in a rental, those are the people who can really fuck this up for me and other quiet residential growers.

Click to expand...

I pulled this directly for the Center for Health and Environment website, regarding state fee's for the license. The application fee was reduced to $35 effective January 1, 2012.

Regulation 7: Determination of fees to pay for administrative costs of the medical use of marijuana program

A. Application fee. The department shall collect thirty five dollars from each applicant at the time of application to pay for the direct and indirect costs to administer the medical use of marijuana program, unless the applicant meets the criteria set forth in section (b) of this Regulation (7) establishing indigence.

The establishing indigenes just means, if your income for your household is lower than set forth in the Federal Poverty Standards for the size of your household, then you can have certain fee's waived or reduced. I believe then you can get your smoke without having to pay state taxes. (I need to double check that).

B. Indigence fee waiver. Any individual submitting an application for the registry may request an indigence fee waiver if he or she submits at the time of application a copy of the applicant’s state tax return certified by the department of revenue that confirms that the applicant’s income does not exceed one hundred eighty-five percent of the federal poverty line, adjusted for family size.


C. Notification of indigent status. Individuals who meet the indigence standard after they have been approved for the medical marijuana registry may complete a form, to be determined by the department, notifying the department of their status and supplying a copy of the applicant’s state tax return certified by the department of revenue that confirms that the applicant’s income does not exceed one hundred eighty-five percent of the federal poverty line, adjusted for family size. Upon receipt and confirmation of the information, the department shall issue a new medical marijuana registry card for the remaining term of the current card noting said indigent status for tax exemption purposes.


Sorry kinda got side tracked on the indigence issue. So the fee to the state is $35 now. There are some clinics that advertise and increased plant count, however they also charge more for the plant count. There is nothing that the state is getting from the patient for the increased count, you just have to pay the doctor.

Does anyone have any connections with a lawyer that might be willing to help us interpret the new regulations correctly? I worked in local government training rules and regulations, they are not as always so cut and dry as we all our finding out.

Sorry that I haven't come back to in regard to the 150.00$ figure.It was sourced from the Hemp Connoisseur pg 32-33I was going to retype the while thing but, I'm lazy..hahaSo, I dig up the article and snapped some pics, hopefully is legible.

Is it really true that "...hundreds of Colorado patients have already been convicted..."?

Thanks for posting this and the source, it should spook anyone who follows their doctor's advice regarding a higher plant count. I have no idea where to look to see the 'crime' statistics to see how many people have been prosecuted for exceeding their plant count. Is it easy to look up? I hope this is incorrect, it would be depressing to find out that the cops and courts are still trying to put people in jail for growing this plant in CO.