WEIGH COSTS, BENEFITS TO SET POLICY

In 2000, Colorado voters approved an initiative that permitted the
use of marijuana as a medical aid in easing the pain and discomfort
experienced from specific chronic or debilitating diseases. After
all, why shouldn't a doctor be able to authorize marijuana?

It seemed to make sense to many -- as long as it was restricted to
six or fewer plants and less than 2 ounces of processed marijuana in
the user's possession.

Since initiatives do not afford the benefit of debate and testimony
that the legislative process provides, many did not see the
unintended consequences looming on the horizon.

Although law enforcement and district attorneys, including
now-Attorney General John Suthers, were vocal about the possible
adverse impacts, the amendment still passed.

In retrospect, they may have been right in nearly every aspect of
their prediction.

The unintended consequences:

A loosely defined "primary caregiver" was interpreted as a person
supplying marijuana to another.

Doctors were charging up to $500 per authorization without physicals
or verification of the severe pain.

The six-plant, 2-ounce maximum was being ignored by new
establishments called "dispensaries."

Dispensaries were protected by confidentiality rules in the
Department of Health from revealing the names of their patients, thus
thwarting law enforcement efforts to detect violations and abuses.

No quality control or testing standards for marijuana strength,
dosage or frequency of use

"The number of medical marijuana applications the state received on
January 12, 2010, was a whopping 1,650 -- an all-time record for one
day," says state registrar Ron Hyman, who oversees the applications.
Colorado had about 5,000 at the end of 2009.

Some of the marijuana was being supplied by cartels out of Mexico in
order to keep up with demand.

Local police departments reported an increase in violent home
invasion crimes, with money or drugs being sought.

The "severe pain" condition was not defined, thus 91 percent claim
severe pain as their reason for needing marijuana.

Municipalities were being flooded with more than 100 requests for
sales tax licenses for the new marijuana dispensary business.

Under the new law, there is some tightening of the rules, but the
dispensary concept -- now called "centers" -- is still alive.

Cities will be allowed to opt out of the provision that allows
centers to operate within their boundaries. Council members should
consider the following:

Is there an impact on our children regularly seeing an illegal drug,
marijuana, being advertised as a helpful medicine?

Are there other valid intrinsic reasons that should be
considered?

Are there potential abuses by centers as was seen before the latest
statute was passed?

Is this a business the citizens want to encourage, when it is still a
violation of federal law?

Does allowing marijuana centers leave visitors with a positive
impression of our city?

Were "centers" anticipated under the amendment or were voters
thinking that the amendment would simply protect a person who, while
under a doctor's care, wanted to grow and use marijuana for medicinal
purposes?

As always, policy discussions have to be made by weighing the
benefits against the cost to the citizens.

Let your city council representatives know how you want them to
handle the commercial distribution of marijuana in our community.

Larry Abrahamson is district attorney for the 8th Judicial District
in Larimer and Jackson counties.