FEW ON EITHER SIDE HAPPY WITH PROPOSED MEDICAL-MARIJUANA LICENSING RULES

Marijuana activists and law enforcement officials sparred Thursday as
the bell rang on the fight over medical-marijuana dispensary
regulations at the state Capitol.

The first committee hearing on House Bill 1284 -- which would require
dispensaries to be licensed by both state and local governments and is
the more controversial of the two medical-marijuana bills at the
Capitol -- stretched into the evening. Lawmakers said late Thursday
that they would not vote on the measure until another date.

What was most clear in early rounds was that neither the law
enforcement community nor large sections of the medical-marijuana
community much care for the bill.

Activists argued the bill could restrict patient access to marijuana,
infringe upon constitutional rights and lead to suffering. Law
enforcement groups raised concerns that a legal dispensary system
would lead to fraud and a perpetuation of the illegal marijuana market.

A rewrite of the bill unveiled at the hearing would require
dispensaries to first obtain a license from a local government and
then get a state license. Dispensaries would have to grow most of the
marijuana they sell. But the new version would also allow for separate
licenses for marijuana-growing facilities tied to dispensaries --
which could sell a portion of what they grow to other dispensaries --
and for marijuana product-makers.

Perhaps the biggest change is that dispensaries would be allowed to
operate as for-profit companies with few advertising restrictions,
whereas previous drafts required dispensaries to be nonprofits with
tight advertising restrictions.

The bill would also give local governments the authority to ban
dispensaries in their communities.

Amendment 20, passed by Colorado voters in 2000, allows small amounts
of marijuana to be used by patients suffering from a list of eight
symptoms, provided they receive the endorsement of a physician and a
license issued by the state.

Rep. Tom Massey, a Poncha Springs Republican who is the bill's
sponsor, said the measure is needed to ensure Colorado's
medical-marijuana industry operates responsibly. He said he tried to
strike a balance between tight regulations and reasonable
accommodations.

"Every interest that we've worked with has had to give a little bit
for this to come to fruition," Massey said. "So we feel this is a good
bill because everybody's had to feel the pain a little bit."

Groups that felt that pain, though, were more than happy to shout
about it Thursday.

"Do not be fooled," attorney Rob Corry told about 50 people who
attended a pro-marijuana rally outside the Capitol before the hearing.
"Some elements of the government are trying to take away your
constitutional rights."

Geoff Blue, a state deputy attorney general, was equally upset at the
bill, though for different reasons.

"The dispensary model will be abused, and people will be able to
access marijuana through the dispensary model who should not be able
to access it," he said.

One group that expressed cautious optimism about the bill was
dispensary owners, who said the measure would take away the regulatory
uncertainty under which they currently operate.

"This represents an unprecedented effort by state legislators to give
our industry legitimacy and to provide clear guidance for our
businesses to follow," said Matt Brown, executive director of the
pro-dispensary Coloradans for Medical Marijuana Regulation.