WHY MESA COUNTY SHOULDN?T BAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS

Although I didn't vote in favor of Amendment 20, which amended the
state Constitution to permit the use of marijuana for medical
purposes, I don't support Ref 1A, which bans medical marijuana centers
in unincorporated Mesa County.

As an elected official, I took an oath of office to uphold the
Constitution and I don't get to pick and choose the parts of it I
like. Likewise, the voters of one part of the state shouldn't be
allowed to opt out of the Constitution on a county-by-county basis.

Gov. Bill Ritter might not have voted in favor of the Taxpayers' Bill
of Rights (TABOR), but as our governor he has the obligation to uphold
TABOR. And when I believe he hasn't, I have spoken out against his
failure to do so. It would be hypocritical to not speak out about any
other part of the Constitution that is not upheld.

Those who debate the ban, based on whether or not medical marijuana
works or is appropriate, are missing the point. That debate already
happened 10 years ago, and it was resolved when the citizens of
Colorado amended our Constitution. If we don't like how it has been
implemented, then we have an option to amend the Constitution again,
which requires a vote of the entire state. But this shouldn't happen
on a county-by-county basis.

There are some who want to ban medical marijuana centers because they
don't approve of medical marijuana and believe it's potentially
harmful to children. There are others who don't approve of guns and
believe they are potentially harmful to the children. And still others
who don't like TABOR and believe it, too, is potentially harmful to
the children. Be careful what you ask for.

Some support the ban of medical marijuana centers because the ballot
language didn't specifically mention such centers. Following that
logic, one could take the position that gun shops could be banned,
simply because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't
specifically mention gun shops. Be careful what you ask for.

Some voters assumed that if medical marijuana was to be used for
medical purposes, it would be sold through pharmacies. But it is still
a schedule-one controlled substance and therefore can't be obtained
through a pharmacy.

This year, in order to deal with the medical marijuana centers that
have been popping up all over the place, with no process to monitor or
regulate them, the Legislature passed two bills -- SB 109, which
regulates the patient-physician relationship, thereby controlling the
access of medical marijuana cards; and HB 1285, which regulates
medical marijuana centers.

So concerns about healthy people in their early 20s obtaining a
medical marijuana card because of an ingrown toe nail, from a
fly-by-night doctor selling cards to anyone with the cash, have been
addressed by SB 109. Physicians must have previously consulted with
the patient prior to any request for medical marijuana, and they must
continue to treat the patient.

Additionally, physicians may no longer have their offices in the same
location where medical marijuana is sold. The cards expire annually,
so anyone who obtained a card fraudulently must reapply under these
new and more restrictive rules.

Concerns about the medical marijuana centers themselves also have been
addressed on many levels. In some instances, the regulations for
medical marijuana centers are stricter than regulations for
pharmacies. Individuals applying to operate a center, and all of their
employees, must pass a criminal background check. Center owners must
not have any delinquent taxes to state or local governments, cannot
have defaulted on student loans or owe any outstanding child support.

The centers must be at least 1,000 feet from a school or a
drug-treatment facility and hours of operation are limited. Local
governments may also add additional restrictions to the operation of
the center if they choose.

Some believe that banning the centers does not take away one's
constitutional right because patients can still access medical
marijuana through caregivers. But regulations on caregivers, when
coupled with a ban of the centers, do restrict the ability of citizens
to obtain medical marijuana.

Caregivers who care for a chronically or debilitatingly ill person are
usually parents, spouses, adult children or health care providers who
are hired to provide that service. They are typically not experts in
growing or curing medical marijuana or making tinctures or other
medical marijuana products.

If centers are banned, and a patient's primary caregiver is not able
to grow, cure or make marijuana products, the patient would be forced
to find an independent caregiver who most likely is not a health care
provider, who is virtually unregulated and who would then be required
to be that patient's primary caregiver. The family member or health
care provider could no longer be their primary caregiver, under HB
1284.

HB 1284 also requires that products infused with medical marijuana,
such as tinctures, salves, creams and edibles (products that don't
require being smoked) be produced in a licensed commercial facility.
That's good. But Ref 1A not only bans centers, it bans those
production facilities. So if Ref 1A passes, those products would be
commercially unavailable and the patient would have to make these
things themselves. Would we ask this of any other patient using any
other prescription?

Whether you agree with medical marijuana or not, it is a part of our
state Constitution and banning the centers will take away the
constitutional right of the individual. Be careful what you ask for.