June 19, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for agricultural law

SB 13-241: Establishing a Program in the Department of Agriculture for the Regulation of Industrial Hemp

April 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On Monday, April 1, 2013, Sen. Gail Schwartz introduced SB 13-241 – Concerning the Creation of a Program in the Department of Agriculture to Regulate Industrial Hemp Production. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill repeals the industrial hemp remediation pilot program in the Department of Public Health and Environment, enacted by House Bill 12-1099, and replaces the pilot program with a program in the Department of Agriculture (department) that requires a person seeking to engage in industrial hemp cultivation for commercial purposes or to grow industrial hemp for research and development purposes to register with the department. The bill renames the Industrial Hemp Remediation Pilot Program Committee, established pursuant to House Bill 12-1099, as the Industrial Hemp Committee, specifies the qualifications and terms of office of members serving on the committee, and tasks the committee with assisting the department and the commissioner of agriculture (commissioner) in the development of the registration program.

The commissioner is authorized to collect fees from registration applicants to cover the costs of the program. Each registrant authorized to cultivate industrial hemp for commercial purposes must submit reports to the department certifying that the crop it plants complies with the delta-9 THC limits, as well as documenting that the registrant has a purchase agreement with an in-state industrial hemp processor.

The commissioner is to develop rules requiring registrants to submit crop samplings for testing and verification of delta-9 THC levels and establishing a process for waiving delta-9 THC limits.

Upon finding that a registrant violated the requirements of the program, the commissioner may impose a civil penalty on the registrant or deny, revoke, or suspend the registration.

The registration program repeals upon the enactment of federal legislation establishing a federal regulatory system for industrial hemp and the economic and financial viability of the industrial hemp industry, as determined by the commissioner in consultation with the industrial hemp committee.

The bill was introduced on April 1 and is assigned to the Agriculture, Natural Resources, & Energy Committee.

Since this summary, the bill was referred, amended, to the Appropriations Committee.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , ,

SB 13-174: Continuing the Colorado Food Systems Advisory Council

March 15, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On Monday, February 11, 2013, Sen. Gail Schwartz introduced SB 13-174 – Concerning the Continuation of the Colorado Food Systems Advisory Council. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

In 2010, the general assembly created the Colorado food systems advisory council (council) to foster a healthy food supply available to all Colorado residents while enhancing the state’s agricultural and natural resources, encouraging economic growth, expanding the viability of agriculture, and improving the health of Colorado’s communities and residents by making recommendations to the general assembly. The council is scheduled to repeal July 1, 2013. The bill continues the council indefinitely. The bill also adds two members to the committee and ensures diversity among the existing members. On Feb. 21, the bill passed 3rd Reading in the Senate; it has been assigned to the Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee in the House.

Since this summary, the Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee referred the bill, unamended, to the Appropriations Committee.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , ,

Governor Hickenlooper Signs Several Bills Into Law

March 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Governor Hickenlooper continues to sign bills into law as they make it through the House and Senate. To date, he has signed 46 bills into law since January 31, 2013. Most recently, he signed 15 bills on March 8, 2013. Five of these bills are summarized here.

The governor also signed four bills on February 27, 2013, which are summarized here.

Prior to this, the governor signed 23 Joint Budget Committee bills and two other bills on February 19, 2013.

For a complete list of the governor’s legislative decisions to date, click here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lawyers Needed to Assist with USDA Hispanic and Women Farmers and Ranchers Claim Process

January 25, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The United States Government has made $1.33 billion available to resolve claims of discrimination by individual Hispanic and women ranchers and farmers for certain periods between 1981 and 2000. The payment awards are available to claimants in three tiers depending on the type and amount of evidence presented to prove the claim.

The National Agricultural Law Center and Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. are developing a network of attorneys to assist claimants pro bono or at a reduced rate capped by the USDA. Attorneys who wish to be listed in the Legal Assistance Network will have their names published in the Legal Assistance Network referral list, available publicly on the National Agricultural Law Center website.

For more information about the Legal Assistance Network, click here, or send your name, state(s) of registration, and attorney registration number(s) to nataglaw@uark.edu for more information and a training video.

Filed Under: Community Tagged With: ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Animal Protection Act Authorizes Court to Permanently Prohibit Abusive Cattle Owners from Future Ownership of Livestock

September 4, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its decision in Stulp, Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture v. Schuman on August 30, 2012.

Animal Protection Act—Permanent Injunction From Owning Livestock—Due Process.

In this action under the Animal Protection Act, defendants Dean Schuman and Schuman Cattle, LLC appealed the permanent injunction entered against them by plaintiff John Stulp, the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture (Commissioner), enjoining defendants from owning, managing, controlling, or otherwise possessing livestock in Logan County. The order was affirmed.

The Colorado Department of Agriculture Bureau of Animal Protection (CDA) inspected defendants’ property after receiving complaints of dead cattle on the ranch. The court found that defendants were not fit to provide for the health and well-being of the cattle they owned. The court ordered the Commissioner to seize all cattle from defendants’ ranch and sell them at auction, and permanently enjoined defendants from owning, managing, controlling, or otherwise possessing livestock in Logan County.

Defendants contended the trial court exceeded its authority by permanently enjoining them from owning, managing, controlling, or possessing livestock in Logan County. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Defendants were starving the cattle to death and failing to treat any injured or sick cattle. They expressed no remorse, took no responsibility for past acts or omissions, and offered no evidence of rehabilitation. The Act authorized the trial court to permanently enjoin defendants from future ownership of livestock to enforce compliance with its provisions.

Defendants also contended that the permanent injunction violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and article II, § 3 of the Colorado Constitution. The rights to own animals and conduct a livestock business are not unlimited and can be abrogated in appropriate circumstances. Under the circumstances presented here, including the overwhelming evidence of defendants’ unwillingness to conform to accepted methods of animal husbandry, it was not a constitutional violation for the trial court to permanently enjoin defendants from owning livestock.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Parcel of Property Does Not Qualify as Agricultural Because it Is Too Small and Has a Residential Improvement

June 25, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its decision in Andrew v. Teller County Board of Equalization on June 21, 2012.

Property Taxes—Nonagricultural Classification.

Respondent Teller County Board of Equalization (BOE) placed a nonagricultural classification on petitioner’s (taxpayer) land. Petitioner appealed the Board of Assessment Appeals’ (BAA) denial of her challenges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the BAA’s ruling.

The subject property is a thirty-five-acre parcel that taxpayer purchased in 1998. It is in a subdivision containing other thirty-five- and twenty-acre parcels. By 2010, nineteen of the parcels had improvements and seventeen were vacant. All the parcels are subject to a conservation easement established in 1990 for the preservation of wildlife habitat. The easement permits building areas of up to two acres on each parcel for residential purposes.

Taxpayer constructed a residence and received a certificate of occupancy in August 2009. Through the 2009 tax year, based on the conservation easement, the parcel was classified as agricultural land. Based on the completion of the residence, the county assessor changed the classification for the 2010 tax year to residential land.

Taxpayer challenged the reclassification before the BAA. She relied on the conservation easement, as well as farming and forestry uses on the land. The BOE asserted that the parcel is less than eighty acres and contains a residence, and that the other bases for agricultural classification had not been established. The BAA denied the petition and upheld the BOE’s classification.

Taxpayer had the burden of proof in the BAA proceedings to show any qualifying basis for classifying the subject parcel as agricultural. The Court looked to CRS § 39-1-102(1. 6)(a)(III), which governs the classification of land as agricultural for property tax purposes based on a perpetual conservation easement. Under this section, the parcel clearly does not qualify, because it is too small and has a residential improvement.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Governor Hickenlooper Continues to Sign Bills Into Law

May 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Governor Hickenlooper continues to sign bills that cross his desk. To date, he has signed over 200 bills into law.

Eight bills were signed by the governor on May 11, 2012. Three of them are summarized here.

  • SB 12-123 – Concerning the Secretary of State’s On-Line Business Filing System, and, In Connection Therewith, Authorizing Enhancements to the System, the Designation of Commercial Registered Agents, and Changes to a Reporting Entity’s Anniversary Month and Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Sen. Scott Renfroe and Rep. J. Paul Brown. The bill requires the Secretary of State to develop and implement changes to the online business filing system.
  • HB 12-1114 – Concerning the Crime of Stalking.
    Sponsored by Rep. Millie Hamner and Sen. Gail Schwartz. The bill modifies the crime of stalking by requiring the issuance of a protection order at sentencing and requiring sentences including stalking charges to be served consecutively.
  • HB 12-1140 – Concerning the Duties of the Department of Public Health and Environment as Coordinator for Suicide Prevention Programs Throughout the State.
    Sponsored by Rep. Matt Jones and Sen. Linda Newell. The bill allows but does not require the Department of Public Health to coordinate with hospitals in order to distribute resource materials to people who have attempted suicide.

On Tuesday, May 15, Governor Hickenlooper signed one bill into law, which bill is summarized here.

  • HB 12-1086 – Concerning Implementation of Recommendations of the Committee on Legal Services in Connection with Legislative Review of Rules and Regulations of State Agencies.
    Sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner and Sen. John Morse. The bill follows recommendations by the Committee on Legal Services regarding certain state agency rules and regulations.

Governor Hickenlooper signed five bills into law on Thursday, May 17, 2012, including HB 12-1238, the READ Act to promote early childhood literacy. This bill and two others are summarized below.

  • HB 12-1238 - Concerning Literacy Education for Students Enrolled in Kindergarten Through Third Grade, and, In Connection Therewith, Creating the “Colorado Early Literacy Act” and Making and Reducing Appropriations.
    Sponsored by Reps. Tom Massey and Millie Hamner and Sens. Mike Johnston and Nancy Spence. The bill strives to ensure that children receive the education needed to ensure they are able to read and succeed in life.
  • HB 12-1213 – Concerning the Penalty for a Person who Escapes from a Place of Confinement Other Than a County Jail or Correctional Facility.
    Sponsored by Rep. Rhonda Fields and Sen. Steve King. The bill exempts some felony escape charges from the designation of a habitual criminal.
  • HB 12-1292 – Concerning Technical Modifications to Laws Relating to the Administration of Elections, and, In Connection Therewith, Harmonizing Current Laws with Federal Law, Altering the Time Periods Within Which Certain Actions Must Be Taken, Raising Certain Fees, and Deleting Obsolete References.
    Sponsored by Rep. Carole Murray and Sen. Rollie Heath. The bill makes various procedural and substantive changes to election laws.

Three more bills were signed into law on Friday, May 19, 2012. These are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1276 – Concerning Child Care Licensure Waivers for Materials Related to a Child Care Center’s Curriculum.
    Sponsored by Rep. Crisanta Duran and Sen. Linda Newell. The bill allows child care centers to use certain materials in their curricula that previously were not allowed to be used without parental approval.
  • HB 12-1286 - Concerning Film Production Activities in Colorado, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Reps. Tom Massey and Mark Ferrandino and Sens. Linda Newell and Jean White. The bill attempts to encourage the production of films in Colorado by offering certain incentives.
  • HB 12-1108 – Concerning the Authority of the Colorado Department of Transportation to Have Signs Within Rights-of-Way on the Highway System.
    Sponsored by Rep. Daniel Kagan and Sen. Mark Scheffel. The bill repeals certain sign restrictions for the Colorado Department of Transportation.

On Saturday, May 19, 2012, Governor Hickenlooper signed three more bills into law as he traveled throughout the state. These bills are:

  • HB 12-1345 – Concerning the Financing of Public Schools, and, In Connection Therewith, Making and Reducing Appropriations.
    Sponsored by Rep. Tom Massey and Sen. Bob Bacon. The bill changes funding for students in K-12 education in Colorado.
  • HB 12-1080 – Concerning Changing the Name of Adams State College to Adams State University.
    Sponsored by Rep. Ed Vigil and Sen. Gail Schwartz. The bill changes the name of Adams State College to Adams State University, and allows the school to provide some graduate level programs.
  • SB 12S-002 – Concerning the Funding of Colorado Water Conservation Board Projects, and, In Connection Therewith, Making Appropriations.
    Sponsored by Sen. Gail Schwartz and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg. The bill appropriates funds from the Colorado Water Conservation Board for certain water-related projects.

Finally, five more bills were signed by the Governor as he journeyed to Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction on Monday, May 21. Two of these are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1329 – Concerning the County Treasurer Becoming the Public Trustee in Certain Counties Where the Public Trustee is Currently Appointed by the Governor.
    Sponsored by Reps. Ray Scott and Dan Pabon and Sen. Jeanne Nicholson. The bill allows the Board of County Commissioners for certain counties to include the budget for the Office of the Public Trustee in its budget. It also specifies which counties will have appointed public trustees.
  • HB 12-1042 – Concerning a State Income Tax Credit Related to the Portion of Colorado Estate Taxes Paid that are Attributable to Agricultural Land.
    Sponsored by Rep. Sal Pace and Sen. Gail Schwartz. The bill allows a state income tax credit for certain agricultural lands equal to the amount of an estate tax credit.

A complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s legislative decisions is available here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Spark the Discussion: Hemp for Victory

May 16, 2012 by 2 Comments
“Spark the Discussion” is a monthly Legal Connection column highlighting the hottest trends in the emerging field of medical marijuana law. This column is brought to you by Vicente Sederberg, LLC, a full-service, community-focused medical marijuana law firm.

By Brian Vicente, Esq. and Rachelle Yeung

In the final weeks of the Colorado legislative session, while House Democrats and Republicans were fiercely battling over same-sex civil unions, a landmark piece of drug policy reform legislation snuck through the Legislature nearly unopposed. The “Hemp Bill,” or HB 12-1099, sets up the framework for the study and use of industrial hemp, and seeks to use this “taboo” crop to clean up contaminated soil through a process called phytoremediation.

The passage of the Hemp Bill is a victory in a 70-year long battle against the prohibition of marijuana and a turning point towards a more sensible approach to drug policy. The regulation of marijuana is a topic of increasing importance to Colorado voters because of Amendment 64, the statewide ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol, which will be voted on in November. Amendment 64 would also make Colorado the first state in the nation to regulate the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp.

Historically, hemp production was encouraged in the United States – from being one of the most important crops in colonial America to being promoted by the federal government in a World War II film called “Hemp for Victory.” However, growing hemp has been outlawed since the Controlled Substances Act, because of its close association with marijuana.

Though it shares the same genus (“Cannabis sativa L.”) as its better-known cousin, industrial hemp is distinguished from marijuana by its low concentration of the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinols, or THC. Industrial hemp contains no more than three-tenths of a percent of THC.

Several factors make Colorado a particularly compelling candidate for hemp-based phytoremediation. Extensive mining throughout the state has left vast tracts of land contaminated with toxic waste. Phytoremediation would remove those toxins from the ground, which could then be used for agriculture and cattle grazing which are cornerstones of the state’s economy. Finally, a plant requiring very little water to grow – like hemp – is a necessity in a water-constrained state like Colorado.

The use of industrial hemp in phytoremediation is not entirely novel. In 1986, the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant caused severe radioactive contamination in areas up to 100 km away. Soil in that area became saturated with toxic waste and heavy-metals which rendered it useless for agriculture. In 1998, a group called PHYTOTECH began growing hemp in the area to decontaminate the soil and, according to Slavik Dushenkov, a research scientist with the company, “Hemp prov[ed] to be one of the best phytoremediative plants we have been able to find.”

Activists hope that phytoremediation is just the introduction of industrial hemp into mainstream use. Hemp is cheap and easy to grow, requiring few pesticides and no herbicides. It can be used in textiles, construction materials, paper products, and even body care products. Hemp seed is considered a “superfood” – a good source of protein and dietary fiber, high in B-vitamins and essential omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Hemp can even be reduced to ethanol and biofuel, a boon to our petroleum-addicted society. Some activists go so far as calling hemp “the plant that could save the world.”

A similar bill was introduced in the Colorado Legislature in 1994 by then-Senator Loyd Casey, but received only a single, sad vote before disappearing into history. If Governor Hickenlooper gives this year’s HB-1099 his stamp of approval – and given its support in the Legislature, there is no reason he would not – Colorado could become the first state in the nation to grow industrial hemp since the 1930s.

Brian Vicente, Esq., is a founding member of Vicente Consulting, LLC, a law firm providing legal solutions for the medical marijuana community. He also serves as executive director of Sensible Colorado, the state’s leading non-profit working for medical marijuana patients and providers. Brian is the chair of the Denver Mayor’s Marijuana Policy Review Panel, serves on the Colorado Department of Revenue Medical Marijuana Oversight Panel, and coordinates the Colorado Bar Association’s Drug Policy Project.The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.
Filed Under: Spark the Discussion Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

HB 12-1334: Extension of Funding for Agricultural Energy Related Projects from Operational Account of Severance Tax Trust Fund

April 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment

On March 29, 2012, Rep. Jon Becker and Sen. Mary Hodge introduced HB 12-1334 – Concerning the Extension of Severance Tax Funding for the Promotion of Agricultural Energy-Related Projects. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Joint Budget Committee.

In 2006, the general assembly approved a transfer of $500,000 from the severance tax trust fund for 3 years to promote agricultural energy-related projects. In 2009, the general assembly approved a two year extension. The bill extends the funding for an additional five years from the severance tax trust fund to promote agricultural energy-related projects. On April 4, the Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee referred the unamended bill the Appropriations Committee to consider the fiscal impact to the state.

Since this summary, the bill was amended in the Appropriations Committee and referred to the House Committee of the Whole.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Cattle Who Were “Produced In” Oklahoma and Shipped to Colorado From Missouri Were Considered Securities

April 17, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Great Plains National Bank, N.A. v. Mount on April 12, 2012.

Summary Judgment—Food Security Act—Security Interests in Cattle—Uniform Commercial Code.

In this consolidated appeal, defendants Jamie Mount and Cattle Consultants, LLC appealed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Great Plains National Bank, N.A. (Great Plains) on their separate motions for summary judgment. The judgment was affirmed.

This consolidated case involved two disputes. Mount claimed under the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA) that he purchased 206 head of cattle free of a security interest claimed by Great Plains. Cattle Consultants and Great Plains each claimed a superior security interest in the 206 head of cattle.

In October 2009, Fred Smith obtained a loan from Great Plains and granted a security interest covering “[a]ll cattle” that he owned at the time or would acquire in the future. On November 19, 2009, Great Plains filed a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statement with the Oklahoma Secretary of State’s office reflecting this interest. Great Plains also filed an effective financing statement (EFS) in Oklahoma, as required by the FSA, on December 17, 2009.

On February 15, 2010, Mount agreed to purchase 206 head of cattle from Smith. That same day, Cattle Consultants financed Mount’s purchase, and Mount granted Cattle Consultants a security interest in the 206 head of cattle. Cattle Consultants filed a UCC financing statement with the Colorado Secretary of State on March 8, 2010.

Mount believed he was buying 206 head of cattle located in Oklahoma, but Smith actually fulfilled the purchase with cattle he had just bought on February 14, 2010 from a broker in Missouri. On February 18, 2010, Smith received a shipment of 231 head of cattle from the Missouri cattle broker. The next day, he loaded 206 of them onto trucks bound for Colorado. Mount paid for the shipping.

Smith paid the Missouri cattle broker with a check with insufficient funds, but Great Plains covered it. Great Plains couldn’t recoup the money from Smith. In April 2010, Great Plains sought to enforce its security interest in the 206 head of cattle purchased by Mount and filed a UCC financing statement against Smith in Colorado.

All parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court ruled in favor of Great Plains. The court concluded that the cattle were “produced in” Oklahoma, such that under the FSA, Mount’s purchase was subject to Great Plains’ financing statement filed in that state. The court further found that Cattle Consultants’ security interest in the cattle was junior to Great Plains’ security interest. Mount and Cattle Consultants appealed.

Mount argued the trial court misinterpreted the phrase “produced in” under the FSA. The Court had to determine whether Mount’s cattle were “produced in” Oklahoma. If so, they were subject to Great Plains’ security interest. If not, they were free and clear of that security interest. Under the FSA, buyers of farm products generally take free of a security interest created by the seller; however, there is an exception under 7 U.S.C. § 1631(e) that applies where (1) the farm product was produced in a state that has a central filing system; (2) the buyer has failed to register with that state’s secretary of state; and (3) the secured party has filed an effective financing statement covering the farm products being sold.

Mount challenged the district court finding that the cattle were produced in Oklahoma, arguing they were produced in Missouri, which has no central filing system. The phrase “produced in” is undefined in the FSA and no case law was found in this regard. The Court of Appeals therefore looked to the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase, which it found ambiguous and, as a consequence, turned to legislative history. It noted that Mount’s argument could result in buyers purchasing farm products subject to security interests they had no practical method of discovering (Mount himself believed he was buying cattle from Oklahoma). Based on the purposes of the FSA as stated in its legislative history, the Court held that “produced in” means the location where farm products are furnished or made available for commerce. Therefore, it affirmed the district court’s decision that Mount purchased the cattle subject to the perfected security interest claimed by Great Plains.

Cattle Consultants argued it had a senior security interest in Great Plains because Mount, not Smith, owned the cattle when they entered Oklahoma; therefore, Great Plains did not have a security interest in them and its purchase money security interest (PMSI) had priority over any competing security interest. The Court disagreed. Under the UCC, a security interest is enforceable against a debtor and third parties with respect to the collateral when (1) value is given; (2) the debtor has rights in the collateral; and (3) the debtor has signed a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral. Here, it was undisputed that Great Plains gave value to Smith; Smith had an ownership interest in the cattle; and Smith gave Great Plains a security agreement with an interest in all cattle owned or later acquired.

The Court also disagreed that the PMSI had priority. Great Plains filed its financing statement on November 19, 2009. This filing was done before Smith acquired rights in the cattle and thus was perfected at the moment of attachment. Cattle Consultants did not file their financing statement until March 2010. Great Plains was the first to file, and therefore had priority.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , , ,

HB 12-1322: Requiring the United States to Sell Agricultural Public Lands by December 31, 2014

April 16, 2012 by Leave a Comment

On March 9, 2012, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg and Sen. Scott Renfroe introduced HB 12-1322 – Concerning the Disposition of Federal Agricultural Public Lands. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill requires the United States to sell agricultural public lands on or before December 31, 2014, and provides that any agricultural public lands that the United States does not sell as of that date will no longer be exempt from property tax. The bill further requires the United States to pay the state 5% of the net proceeds of the sales of any agricultural public lands and specifies that these revenues be deposited into an internal improvements fund, a portion of which is dedicated to the state education fund. Assigned to the Education Committee; the bill is on the committee calendar for action on Monday, April 16 at 1:30 p.m.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

Spark the Discussion: Amendment 64 and Medical Marijuana

March 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment
“Spark the Discussion” is a monthly Legal Connection column highlighting the hottest trends in the emerging field of medical marijuana law. This column is brought to you by Vicente Sederberg, LLC, a full-service, community-focused medical marijuana law firm.

It’s official.  Coloradoans will be voting this November on Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act.  This landmark legislation raises many issues which will be widely debated (and discussed in this column) in upcoming months as Colorado considers becoming the first state in the nation—and the first geographic area in the world—to make the possession, use, and regulated production and distribution of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older.

How will this Constitutional amendment affect current medical marijuana users, medical marijuana businesses, and the lawyers that advise them?  Here are some quick bullet points which provide an overview of Amendment 64 and explore its relationship to Colorado’s existing medical marijuana laws.

Amendment 64 DOES:

  • Create legal marijuana retail stores that are authorized to sell to adults 21 and older.
  • License cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, and testing facilities for this adult market with licenses expected to be issued in 2014.
  • Direct the Colorado Department of Revenue to regulate the cultivation, production (including infused products), and distribution of marijuana.
  • Allow local municipalities to ban or restrict these new business licenses at any time through a local governing body, but citizen-initiated bans can only go in front of voters in “even year” general elections.
  • Require the general assembly to enact an excise tax of up to 15 percent on the wholesale sale of non-medical marijuana applied at the point of transfer from the cultivation facility to a retail store or product manufacturer, with the first $40 million of revenue raised annually directed to the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund.
  • Allow for the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp.

Amendment 64 DOES NOT:

  • Change existing medical marijuana laws for patients, caregivers, and medical marijuana businesses.
  • Subject medical marijuana sales to the excise tax discussed above.
  • Change existing laws regarding driving under the influence of marijuana, or the ability of employers to maintain their current employment policies.

In summary, all medical marijuana laws—both statutory and Constitutional—will remain 100% intact if Amendment 64 passes.  Of course, the initiative does not change federal law, which has categorized marijuana—whether for medical use or not—as firmly illegal for decades.  Given this federal stance, combined with the fact that the federal government has allowed several hundred medical marijuana stores to thrive in Colorado, it is difficult to say how the federal government may react to Amendment 64’s passage.  Regardless, marijuana advocates have included a generous timeline in Amendment 64—no marijuana retail business licenses are required to be issued until 2014—which leaves ample time to “take the temperature” of the state and federal governments before anyone applies for these new licenses.

To read the full initiative see:  http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/about#Initiative

Brian Vicente, Esq., is a founding member of Vicente Consulting, LLC, a law firm providing legal solutions for the medical marijuana community. He also serves as executive director of Sensible Colorado, the state’s leading non-profit working for medical marijuana patients and providers. Brian is the chair of the Denver Mayor’s Marijuana Policy Review Panel, serves on the Colorado Department of Revenue Medical Marijuana Oversight Panel, and coordinates the Colorado Bar Association’s Drug Policy Project.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.
Filed Under: Spark the Discussion Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts
Protected

2013-06-19 10:23:51