GARFIELD COUNTY PUTS MEDICAL POT BAN TO VOTERS

Nov. Ballot Will Contain Three Questions Relating To
Industry

The decision of whether to permit or ban medical marijuana facilities
in unincorporated Garfield County is now up to the voters.

The Board of County Commissioners voted Tuesday, by a margin of 2-1
(with Mike Samson dissenting), to put three questions on the November
general ballot, asking voters in regard to unincorporated county areas
if they want to ban dispensaries; ban marijuana growing operations; or
ban facilities that produce "medical marijuana infused" products, such
as cookies, ice cream or other comestibles laced with marijuana.

The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, as well as the
cultivation and sale of it for that purpose, were approved by the
state's voters in 2000. A recent state law aims at refining and
tightening the restrictions on the resultant industry.

The commissioners' decision came after a four-hour hearing on the
topic, including remarks from attorneys and owners of medical
marijuana "centers" aimed at discouraging the commissioners from
putting the matter to a vote.

"You have a danger of the tyranny of the majority occurring,"
explained attorney Brett Barney.

Barney argued that voters acting out of emotional opposition to
marijuana as a recreational drug, or a lack of information concerning
the true nature of medical marijuana, might override the
constitutional rights of those patients who say they need marijuana to
deal with debilitating or painful illnesses.

Noting that only 2 percent of the general population is believed to
need and use medical marijuana, he said there is "a significant
segment of the population who does not believe that marijuana has a
medicinal use."

Another attorney, Robert Corry, said it is estimated that there are
1,000 medical marijuana patients currently living in Garfield County.

The commissioners, however, were in agreement that the question should
be put to the voters, through there was considerable debate about
whether it should be in one, all-inclusive question, or three distinct
questions covering each of the three aspects of the industry.

Industry representatives said they preferred the three-question
approach.

Among the topics debated on Tuesday, it was noted that industry
representatives have said they are as eager as anyone to keep medical
marijuana out of the hands of children.

But Roaring Fork School Board member Miles Rovig said the local
schools have reported 20 expulsions of students for dealing pot this
year, compared to one or two in prior years. He said there also have
been 50 suspensions of kids for using pot in school, compared to a
fifth of that many in prior years.

He offered no proof tying the incidents to medical marijuana
dispensaries, but implied that the link exists, "No matter how
beneficial [medical marijuana is for patients] we're going to have
youngsters who do not have the experience ... to make the decision" of
whether to use pot or not, he said.

Some mentioned that if the county bans cultivation of marijuana in the
unincorporated areas, that will push growing operations and "infusion"
activities into the municipalities.

Several advocates argued that medical-marijuana cultivation fits into
the county's zoning categories, just as any agricultural operation
does.

Commissioner John Martin declared that marijuana is different because
it is used to make other products, meaning "infused" foods, and thus
does not fit in the "agriculture" category. Others countered that the
cultivation of corn, tomatoes or other produce are not specifically
mentioned in the zoning code, either.

"We're not recognizing marijuana growing as agriculture," Martin
stated emphatically.

The ballot questions will simply ask voters whether they want to ban
or permit one or all of the three different aspects of the medical
marijuana business, and leave the details of regulation up to the
commissioners.

Among the issues the board will face, if the voters come out in favor
of medical marijuana, will be whether to "grandfather in" operations
that were in existence before the county imposed a six-month
moratorium on all new medical marijuana facilities in June.

More than one operator claimed to have called the county planning
department before the moratorium was announced. They said they were
told that medical marijuana cultivation was considered an allowed use
under agricultural zoning, set up operations based on that
information, and now wanted assurances they would be allowed to
continue operations.

There was no conclusive ruling on that question, although Martin said
after the meeting that he felt there would be no "grandfathering in"
of existing dispensaries no matter what happens with the vote.

The vote came after a hurried closed-door meeting with the county
attorney. Commissioner Samson made a motion that a single question
should be placed on the ballot.

But Commissioner Tresi Houpt disagreed, saying that since each aspect
of the business required a different license from the state and was a
different kind of land use, they should be addressed by three separate
questions.

Commissioner Martin sided with Houpt, he said, for "defensibility
reasons," in the event of legal challenges from the industry.