News (Media Awareness Project) - US CO: Council Seeks Voter Input On Medical Pot Centers |
Title: | US CO: Council Seeks Voter Input On Medical Pot Centers |
Published On: | 2010-06-18 |
Source: | Pueblo Chieftain (CO) |
Fetched On: | 2010-06-19 15:00:52 |
COUNCIL SEEKS VOTER INPUT ON MEDICAL POT CENTERS
Councilwoman Judy Weaver Pushes Resolution For Ballot
Question.
As cities around Colorado make a decision about whether to allow
medical marijuana centers in their communities, Pueblo City Council
will revisit the matter in the near future because Councilwoman Judy
Weaver would like city voters to weigh in on the decision.
A majority of council has discouraged that in past discussions,
saying Colorado voters approved the medical marijuana amendment in
2000 and that a city vote could make the issue more divisive.
But Weaver's argument is that a majority of Pueblo County voters
rejected the legalization amendment in 2000 -- when there was no
discussion of medical marijuana centers or any other businesses for
distributing the drug.
"I'm willing to abide by whatever city voters decide," Weaver said
Thursday. "But all indications are, no medical marijuana center will
be able to be legally licensed until July 2011, so we have time to
ask city voters what they want. Council's opinion on this shouldn't
matter."
Weaver has asked city staff to prepare a resolution on that ballot
question and council could consider it in two weeks. But Council
President Larry Atencio will be gone from that regular meeting, so
Weaver may ask for the matter to be postponed another two weeks until
all seven members are present.
Councilman Steve Nawrocki also asked city staff to prepare an
analysis of what would happen if voters rejected allowing medical
marijuana centers in the city. He believes opponents might be
surprised at what would occur.
"I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not opposed to putting the
question on the ballot," Nawrocki said Thursday. "But I'm not sure
the public understands that rejecting medical marijuana centers won't
change the fact that people with state-approved cards or caregivers
will still be able to grow it in their own homes. And that would be
without any local taxation or regulation or control over where that
occurs. The state constitution guarantees that."
Council took a first stab at zoning and licensing regulations earlier
this month during a joint meeting with the city's Planning and Zoning
Commission.
There was some pointed discussion about whether to concentrate
medical marijuana centers in certain zones or distribute them across
the city.
The city also is looking at establishing 1,000-foot buffers between
the centers and a long list of locations, such as schools, child-care
centers, hospitals and so on.
At one point, Atencio asked -- only half-jokingly -- whether it was
council's intention to zone and buffer the centers out of the city.
That is why Nawrocki asked for the staff analysis of what would occur
if the city did ban the centers.
"The state amendment allows state-authorized caregivers to have six
marijuana plants each for the (up to five) patients that they serve,"
Nawrocki said. "That's 30 plants. That could be in the house next
door to you or across the street. In any neighborhood."
In fact, according to the city analysis, caregiver operations can
only be in residential areas, not in commercial zones. The same
applies for medical marijuana users who grow their own plants.
Nawrocki's point is that if the city chooses to ban medical marijuana
centers, it could end up guaranteeing that the fast-growing business
of growing and providing medical marijuana will be confined to the
city's residential areas.
"Is that what we want? It's something for the public to think about,"
he said.
On the other hand, if the city regulates and licenses medical
marijuana centers, that would be an incentive for users and
caregivers to use those centers, rather than rely on their own homes
to grow and distribute the drug. Also, banning the centers would
eliminate the city's ability to tax the marijuana.
That's not a small issue. Council will be considering a proposed
ballot question that would impose a 4.3 percent sales or excise tax
on marijuana sales as well as associated paraphernalia.
Still, a ban is thechoice some cities have made, however. Vail, for
example, has voted to ban medical marijuana centers within its city
limits, although officials there acknowledge that centers are readily
available in the surrounding county. There are petition drives in
both Colorado Springs and Aurora to ban the centers.
Boulder, on the other hand, has restricted the location for marijuana
centers.
Councilwoman Judy Weaver Pushes Resolution For Ballot
Question.
As cities around Colorado make a decision about whether to allow
medical marijuana centers in their communities, Pueblo City Council
will revisit the matter in the near future because Councilwoman Judy
Weaver would like city voters to weigh in on the decision.
A majority of council has discouraged that in past discussions,
saying Colorado voters approved the medical marijuana amendment in
2000 and that a city vote could make the issue more divisive.
But Weaver's argument is that a majority of Pueblo County voters
rejected the legalization amendment in 2000 -- when there was no
discussion of medical marijuana centers or any other businesses for
distributing the drug.
"I'm willing to abide by whatever city voters decide," Weaver said
Thursday. "But all indications are, no medical marijuana center will
be able to be legally licensed until July 2011, so we have time to
ask city voters what they want. Council's opinion on this shouldn't
matter."
Weaver has asked city staff to prepare a resolution on that ballot
question and council could consider it in two weeks. But Council
President Larry Atencio will be gone from that regular meeting, so
Weaver may ask for the matter to be postponed another two weeks until
all seven members are present.
Councilman Steve Nawrocki also asked city staff to prepare an
analysis of what would happen if voters rejected allowing medical
marijuana centers in the city. He believes opponents might be
surprised at what would occur.
"I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not opposed to putting the
question on the ballot," Nawrocki said Thursday. "But I'm not sure
the public understands that rejecting medical marijuana centers won't
change the fact that people with state-approved cards or caregivers
will still be able to grow it in their own homes. And that would be
without any local taxation or regulation or control over where that
occurs. The state constitution guarantees that."
Council took a first stab at zoning and licensing regulations earlier
this month during a joint meeting with the city's Planning and Zoning
Commission.
There was some pointed discussion about whether to concentrate
medical marijuana centers in certain zones or distribute them across
the city.
The city also is looking at establishing 1,000-foot buffers between
the centers and a long list of locations, such as schools, child-care
centers, hospitals and so on.
At one point, Atencio asked -- only half-jokingly -- whether it was
council's intention to zone and buffer the centers out of the city.
That is why Nawrocki asked for the staff analysis of what would occur
if the city did ban the centers.
"The state amendment allows state-authorized caregivers to have six
marijuana plants each for the (up to five) patients that they serve,"
Nawrocki said. "That's 30 plants. That could be in the house next
door to you or across the street. In any neighborhood."
In fact, according to the city analysis, caregiver operations can
only be in residential areas, not in commercial zones. The same
applies for medical marijuana users who grow their own plants.
Nawrocki's point is that if the city chooses to ban medical marijuana
centers, it could end up guaranteeing that the fast-growing business
of growing and providing medical marijuana will be confined to the
city's residential areas.
"Is that what we want? It's something for the public to think about,"
he said.
On the other hand, if the city regulates and licenses medical
marijuana centers, that would be an incentive for users and
caregivers to use those centers, rather than rely on their own homes
to grow and distribute the drug. Also, banning the centers would
eliminate the city's ability to tax the marijuana.
That's not a small issue. Council will be considering a proposed
ballot question that would impose a 4.3 percent sales or excise tax
on marijuana sales as well as associated paraphernalia.
Still, a ban is thechoice some cities have made, however. Vail, for
example, has voted to ban medical marijuana centers within its city
limits, although officials there acknowledge that centers are readily
available in the surrounding county. There are petition drives in
both Colorado Springs and Aurora to ban the centers.
Boulder, on the other hand, has restricted the location for marijuana
centers.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...