NEW POT RULES TORCHED

Board Votes Not to Implement New Medical Marijuana
Rules

Medical marijuana advocates walked away from a 12-hour Board of Health
hearing yesterday hooting and hollering over the fact that the board
preserved rights already afforded to medical marijuana patients.

The nine-member board's 5-4 vote came after a marathon of testimony
from opponents of the health department's proposal to limit so-called
caregivers to five patients and require them to perform "significant"
care for their patients, including far-reaching services like cleaning
patients' houses and picking up groceries.

But with nearly 200 speakers taking to the microphone in favor of
current medical marijuana laws set by voters in 2000, the board
ultimately voted in favor of medical marijuana advocates.

The usual stereotypes associated with marijuana users went up in smoke
yesterday, as the crowd came well-dressed in suits and ties -- they
even left their demonstration signs at the door. Despite pleas from
organizers to "be on your best behavior," some, however, let emotion
get the best of them as they occasionally hissed and booed at
supporters. Overall, though, the meeting yesterday was a demonstration
of democracy at its best, on both the part of the board and the public.

The throngs of more than 500 advocates -- including lawyers, patients,
caregivers, war veterans and doctors -- gathered at the Auraria Campus
and spoke one after the other of the harmful affect the new rules
would have on their and their patients' lives. It was the largest
health department hearing in history.

Damien LaGoy, an HIV and Hepatitis C patient, said the new rules would
force him to the street to find marijuana, which helps him fight
nausea caused by the plethora of medications he takes to keep him alive.

"Imagine what happens to me if all 100 pounds of me goes looking for
marijuana on Colfax Avenue?" LaGoy asked the Board of Health.

He was named as a plaintiff in a 2007 lawsuit filed against the state
for imposing similar rules. District Judge Larry Naves ruled at the
time that the state had imposed the new rules illegally by not holding
public hearings, and that the state had made a "capricious decision"
to enact the rules. Naves' decision is what brought the board to hold
a public hearing yesterday. Opponents of the proposed rule changes
cheered the twist of fate in their direction.

LaGoy said it would be difficult for him to find a caregiver if they
were all capped at five patients. He said his apartment is too small
for him to grow himself, and he's often too sick to grow.

Despite losing once before, state health officials still attempted to
pass the new rules, bringing to the hearing yesterday a handful of law
enforcement officials who support the change.

Marijuana Laws Overall Hard to Enforce?

Police officials and district attorneys said the current law makes it
very difficult for them to enforce overall marijuana laws.

They called the current law "vague" and said the system makes it
difficult to determine which caregivers are legitimate.

"While Amendment 20 is clear in its intent, which is to provide for
the use of medical marijuana, the definitions are vague enough that
the deputy district attorneys can't meaningfully give advice to those
people on the street who are responsible for enforcing the marijuana
laws," said Helen Morgan, chief deputy district attorney for Denver's
drug prosecution unit.

Two accounts were also given at the hearing yesterday of medical
marijuana ending up in the hands of school children, including one
student who found his father's medical marijuana lollipop and shared
it with friends. But supporters did not present reports or documents
yesterday with details.

Dr. Ned Calonge, chief medical officer of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, made the argument that capping
caregivers to five patients is necessary to ensure quality of service.

"We define a primary caregiver as significantly participating in a
patient's everyday care," he said. "If those caregivers are making
home visits to each patient, considering travel time, they could visit
five patients a day."

Calonge added that it is not uncommon for dispensaries to advertise
that they will pay the cost of medical bills and fees to add
individuals to the medical marijuana registry. He called it a
marketing ploy to gain customers.

The doctor also testified that marijuana is an "unproven public health
benefit with modest private health benefit."

One board member, Joan Sowinski, asked Calonge why his department
didn't push for rules on how to dispense marijuana in 2000 when the
law was crafted.

"Why is there nothing in the definition about providing medical
marijuana," she asked, as the room burst into applause.

Calonge simply replied, "It didn't seem necessary to put that in the
definition."

Another board member, Dr. Philip Mehler, asked Calonge for the
definition of chronic pain, then alluded to the broad definition that
comes with it.

Supporters of the rule change pointed out that the majority of
patients use medical marijuana for chronic pain, which can be overly
encompassing.

Proponents also argued that the medical marijuana registry is getting
out of control. Ron Hyman, registrar for the Colorado Department of
Vital Statistics, said his office is seeing at least 1,000 additions
to the registry every month.

There are currently more than 9,000 Coloradans on the medical
marijuana registry; state officials expect that number to climb past
15,000 by the end of the year.

Hyman said one significant problem with the system is that there is no
regulation process for medical marijuana dispensaries. He also added
that his office is seeing incidents of fraud. But when asked by a
board member for statistics on fraud, Hyman said he did not have those
statistics.

The board said that it will engage in discussions with stakeholders to
possibly reach a compromise on regulating medical marijuana practices.

Was Board Trying to Overstep Its Authority?

They were inspired by hundreds of opponents to the new rules who stood
in unison to show their concern. Beyond concerns raised over the
impact on patients, attorneys say the Board of Health does not have
the authority to make changes to the law since it was approved by
voters. They say only the Legislature, or a vote of the people can
change the law.

Attorneys representing opponents had planned on filing a lawsuit this
morning if the vote did not go their way.

"If you base your decision on all these premises that are wrong, then
your decision will be wrong," Sean McAllister, an attorney and
co-founder of medical marijuana advocacy group Sensible Colorado, said
to a room full of cheers.

Caregivers also pointed out that they are a revenue booster to the
state, paying all applicable taxes.

Michael Lee, owner of Cannabis Therapeutics in Colorado Springs, the
state's largest dispensary with 400 patients, said he pays more than
$30,000 in taxes every month.

Attorney Rob Corry, who has a practice defending medical marijuana
patients and was one of the lead attorneys planning on filing a
lawsuit, said the state would have ultimately lost anyway.

"I had the honor of suing Gov. Ritter and other state officials the
first time they tried this regulation," he said. "I'm a big supporter
of recycling. But in this particular case, this is the wrong thing to
recycle."

"People are going to be harmed," he continued. "This is a life or
death issue for this board."

Board President Glenn Schlabs called the meeting to a close after just
over 12 hours, thanked the public for speaking, then reflected on his
role in the process.

"This was the greatest public service I've ever done in my life," he
said.