Jump to content

Talk:2012 Colorado Amendment 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resources for Expanding

[edit]

A quick and brief list of resources for expanding this

Rorybowman (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.legalize2012.com/

Dagme (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El Paso county passed A64

[edit]

The map should be updated to reflect that, in the final count, amendment 64 passed by 10 votes in El Paso county. [1].

Cthunter01 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hemp

[edit]

The article currently states that the law does not affect industrial hemp, and cites section 1c of the amendment. however, that section states (according to this page):

(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.

Previous to this, industrial hemp was treated as though it was the same as marijuana, and was therefore illegal to grow. It would seem that this amendment *does* change the treatment of hemp, although the specifics of such regulations are still to come through legislation. I'm still trying to find a better source for the text, but it is probably accurate. Obviously we will need to ultimately find a secondary source analysing the text. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah I saw this too. Found the relevant information:

Section 5 

(j) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2014, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP.

I updated the page with the new information. Section 2 also has information on what exactly industrial hemp is as well.

Fonos (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election results by county

[edit]

I don't know if this is just me but the picture shows all the counties as white... So what is the purpose of the image? Devourer09 (t·c) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

[edit]

This legislation is a huge deal. It's literally the first time in the history of the country that recreational cannabis has been voted legal. There are bound to be reactions to this, including the Colorado governor's quote about Cheetos and Goldfish. There should be a section for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.154.16.32 (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

First sentence of the "Support" section says "A large number of supporters of Amendment 64 do so simply because they believe government should play no role in regulating the market for cannabis—that government interference of any sort in the market is highly inefficient." Isn't that exactly what A-64 does? I mean, directing the state to regulate the market for cannabis? I've never written on a talk page before, this just seemed so blatantly wrong, I'm wondering if there's a reason? 198.213.240.19 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone flagged the lack of citation in November... I'm just going to delete/modify this sentence. I can't see any way it's relevant. Sorry for cluttering the talk page. Let me know if I f'ed up, or just delete these comments. 198.213.240.19 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Washington law?

[edit]

Would it be useful to create a comparison of the Washington and Colorado laws for each page? They have differnet provisions but were passed on the same day.Rainyhemptree (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The logical place for this seems to me in the broader entries Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States or Legal history of cannabis in the United States. This would provide for more expansion and increased relevance over time, since these two measures are merely the first among many likely to come. Rorybowman (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe thinking more states will decriminalize is false. A comparison would be appropriate for this historic amendment.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the logical place to compare Oregon Ballot Measure 80 (2012), Colorado Amendment 64 (2012) and Washington Initiative 502 (2011) is Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. I'll begin it there. Rorybowman (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colorado Amendment 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado Amendment 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colorado Amendment 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Colorado_Amendment_64&oldid=1196612319"