Growing at Home

I hate to be buzz killington but the definitions cited above, including the requirement to have a separate space if someone under 21 lives there, got stripped from the final version. Instead they created (yet another) commission to make recommendations. Proposed sb 13-283 and the final version are here:

http://www.leg.state.co.us//clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont2/4B75534D3719DBD687257B490074E195?Open

Good analysis of the effects of the bills that were approved:

http://www.cml.org/web/cle_wed_marijuana_now.pdf

Sorry!
 

ststephen

Member
In fact, sb 250, as passed, criminalizes growing 6 or less plants. Scroll down to CRS 18-18-406(3)(c)

http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2013a/sl_333.htm

So yeah, apparently the legislature is not going along with the grow at home parts of A64
This bill your referencing is a sentencing guideline bill. The penalties listed are only doled out if you are convicted first. CRS 18-18-406(3)(c) would apply in the case where an individual was growing 4 to 6 mature plants, but only allowed 3 mature plants. A crime involving 6 or fewer plants. Anyway, there is no way they are going to overturn the will of the people.
 
While I personally agree that your interpretation is probably the only way to harmonize A64 and 18-18-406(3)(c), it would've been nice if they drafted it that way. Without a legislative fix soon, someone is going to have to get busted before a judge can come to a similar conclusion. Also please note on page 2 of the second link, wherein the attorneys advise cities to come up with their own definitions of enclosed space, openly and publicly, etc. if you live in a conservative town, they may feel emboldened to eliminate home growing via excessive land use or similar ordinances. There's no money for the state in home growing, so I would not expect the legislative definitions (whenever they are prppsed/enacted) to be home grow friendly. Note also that there is (arguably) tension in A64 in terms of home growing and having minors in your house. With all of this I would be wary of home growing, and I would not go calling the cops if your grow gets stolen. All they gotta do is call the DEA, and ur doing 20 years
 

Jus Naturale

Active Member
Billy, you're absolutely right. The definition cited were stripped before implementation, so it's sort of the wild west. The State Constitution says retail marijuana and home-growing is OK, but the statutes haven't caught up on the home-grow stuff yet. They were set to do so, but that's not what was ultimately signed into law. Of course, the State Constitution trumps the statutes, so any enforcement of conflicting statutory provisions is plainly unconstitutional.

The upshot seems to be, though, that home grows are not really regulated. You can (because the Constitution says so) grow six plants, with three flowering. You can (because the Constitution says so) possess up to an ounce.* You can (because the Constitution says so) possess, display, etc., "marijuana accessories" such as pipes, bongs, oil rigs, and such as lights, nutrients, pots, etc..

Of course, the Constitution does state that growing must "take[] place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale." Though those terms aren't defined in the amendment or statutes, it'd probably be wise to not test the limits. While you may escape conviction, you'll still be out many, many hours and many, many thousands of dollars in legal fees. And, that's assuming your locality hasn't adopted local laws defining those terms, which may still lead to a local conviction. To be safe, check your local laws for definitions, and keep things "enclosed" and "locked," which likely means a roof, a floor, and four walls (though the material's not specified, so it could be brick, fence, twine, who knows...); don't grow "openly or publicly," which likely means indoors or behind a privacy fence (somewhere you have a reasonable expectation of privacy -- back yard versus front yard, for instance); and don't sell, which likely means don't sell. :lol:

Cheers!


* This is an affirmative right under the state constitution, as opposed to the affirmative defense with regard to mmj.
 

TibetanBowl

Member
This set of laws is starting to remind me of the moonshine world, where the product is legal but only certain people can make it and violating the regs can land you in prison. Too many rules to keep up with, the cops/courts/prisons are going to keep doing a great business.
it's like that in every medical state... you can do this, and not that, but if you're caught with too much off to prison you go. the way the system is set up is to catch people using the medical marijuana as a front for dealing/trafficking to other states. they know its going to happen, that's why even after you're medically cleared to grow/possess it can only be so much at a time/a certain number of plants in flower, etc.

i agree that it should be more clear cut instead of zigzag in operation, but all of this is new to people regulating/taxing and all that. is it a mess right now? yes, but its a step in the right direction.
 

SnapsProvolone

Well-Known Member
it's like that in every medical state... you can do this, and not that, but if you're caught with too much off to prison you go. the way the system is set up is to catch people using the medical marijuana as a front for dealing/trafficking to other states. they know its going to happen, that's why even after you're medically cleared to grow/possess it can only be so much at a time/a certain number of plants in flower, etc.

i agree that it should be more clear cut instead of zigzag in operation, but all of this is new to people regulating/taxing and all that. is it a mess right now? yes, but its a step in the right direction.
Right now it seems to be a dick licking contest. Big money being involved and whatnot...
 
>
Top