WEIGHING THE COSTS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN DURANGO

In 2000, the voters of Colorado passed Amendment 20 in a supposed
effort to make marijuana available to people suffering from serious
pain or terminal illness. Then, after the 2008 election, the Obama
administration said that it would not bring federal marijuana charges
in situations where medical marijuana is legal under state law.

The functional result has been a widespread proliferation of private
and commercial marijuana growing operations and dispensaries - often
in unprecedented densities equaling or exceeding those of coffee shops
and liquor stores.

Telluride, with a population of fewer than 2,000 people, has five.
Durango has eight. The typical medical marijuana cardholder is a young
male under the age of 30. It is a popular but false argument to assert
that those who are now questioning the wisdom of these policies are
prudish, old fashioned, ignorant of the medicinal benefits or
hypocritical in their acceptance of alcohol and tobacco but not marijuana.

It is now impossible to deny that deeper issues are in play than the
back-and-forth taunting would suggest. Furthermore, the current ruse
of medicinal marijuana is clouding rather than clarifying the debate.

First, we have the small issue that marijuana is still against federal
law. Right or wrong, it is classified as a Schedule I narcotic, and
ignoring that fact will not make it go away. Our current president and
attorney general chose not to enforce this law. But we may have
another administration in slightly more than 20 months, what will it
do? How are we, as a city, going to untangle the fact that we are
licensing businesses in clear violation of statutes that could be
enforced at any moment?

Could that have financial repercussions in the form of denied grants
and other funding? What happens when an entire industry is forced out
of business overnight because of the imminent threat of
prosecution?

Why is the city issuing licenses to businesses producing and selling
food laced with the powerful drug of marijuana without health
inspection, when it is impossible to sell coffee and doughnuts without
a rigorous health inspection?

Why as a city were we so urgent to distribute licenses until these
issues were sorted out? It was a false rush, and we are headlong in
the mud at this point. This is a situation that could have easily been
avoided.

The next issue we have to face is the practical realty of increased
use. We know well from tobacco that when costs are increased and
opportunities to use are constrained, tobacco use declines. The social
stigmatization of tobacco has also contributed significantly to a
decline in the number of users. All fine and good but the hard truth
is that the opposite holds as well.

Right now we are in the process of increasing the supply, venues and
opportunities for using marijuana while simultaneously decreasing the
cost and removing the stigma. It is foolish to assume the result will
be anything less than a dramatic increase in use - most likely among
our youths. This is not speculation, it is a fact. What sort of
impression is this making on our youths?

Add to that the image we are displaying to our tourists. This city,
the railroad, ski resort and local businesses have spent decades
establishing the Durango brand as a family friendly environment. Are
head shops on Main Avenue selling drug paraphernalia family friendly?

Our neighborhoods are known for low crime and safe streets. Does the
"caregiver" next door growing scores of pounds of marijuana with a
street value in the hundreds of thousands of dollars increase the
safety of our neighborhoods? Does it support property values or add to
our quality of life? Is it possible that the home next door with its
"caregiver" grow operation could be an attraction to people who like
to get money the easy way - through violence and theft? Do we want
this potential in our community, let alone in our residential
neighborhoods?

Finally, we come to the issue that is most easily resolved. Amendment
20 was essentially a fraud on the voters of Colorado. It was passed
primarily on the goodwill of citizens desiring to allow legitimately
and gravely ill people to avail themselves of pain relief. It has
turned out to have simply been an underhanded effort to legalize the
drug for recreational use. And as such, it has denied voters a real
debate on the clear question: Do we, or do we not, want to legalize
marijuana in the state of Colorado?

Let's abandon the silly rhetoric of medicine and take the issue head
on. I am not here making an argument for or against legalization -
only that we recognize the gravity of the question and take seriously
its implications. Do the benefits of legal marijuana outweigh the costs?

Paul Broderick is a member of the Durango City Council.