MARIJUANA BILL IS TOO COMPLEX

It's good that a state senator is taking on the issue of medical
marijuana regulation, but we question the legislation's details.

State Sen. Chris Romer has crafted a 63-page bill that attempts to
throw a regulatory harness on the blossoming medical marijuana industry.

We appreciate the hard work that went into creating the bill, but our
first reaction is to question whether it really ought to be so complex.

Romer's draft bill would create three classes of clinic and grower
licenses; it would create a medical marijuana review board to look at
requests from those younger than 21; and it would allow some medical
professionals, such as registered nurses, to become medical marijuana
caregivers.

And that's just the beginning.

It's clear Romer has listened to the constituencies involved, and is
trying to devise a bill that professionalizes medical marijuana delivery.

Think doctor's office instead of head shop.

And we believe that is the way medical marijuana delivery should be
structured. That certainly is in keeping with what voters approved in
2000 when they supported medical marijuana use for sick people.

Medical marijuana shouldn't be a back-door to legalizing pot, but we
have a system now that allows for "patients" to lie to doctors who
then, with a wink and a nod, sign off on its use. Yet, that's clearly
what we have in Colorado, and the industry is growing by leaps and
bounds.

It is obvious that lawmakers need to get a handle on the situation.
But in looking at the proposed new regulations, licenses, reviews and
potential taxes in the legislation, we are left wondering whether it
should be so complicated.

Colorado is at a crossroads, and lawmakers must decide if they want
to return to the system we had before the proliferation of
dispensaries or endorse a regulated market of marijuana
dispensaries.

We are not willing to so quickly give up on the system that seemed to
work well enough until this summer. That was a system whereby
caregivers were limited to five patients, a framework that did not
economically support large-scale medical marijuana
dispensaries.

We question whether, as some assert, the model would force sick,
older people to a dark parking lot to buy medical marijuana from
someone they met on the Internet.

And Romer admitted to us that the vast majority of the 14 other
states that have legalized medical marijuana have a similar
limitation on patient loads.

Even in the limited patient scenario, it is clear that something
would have to be done legislatively to provide legal footing for
growers so that quality marijuana could be provided for the truly
sick.

We also strongly support tightening up the process by which patients
get on the registry, and we would like to see a system through which
phonies would be culled from the registry over time.

We're pleased Romer has opened the discussion with a weighty document
that surely will prompt debate, but we think it's a long way from
being something legislators ought to approve.