JUDGE SAYS NO TO LOVELAND MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

A judge on Tuesday denied a request to allow three Loveland medical
marijuana dispensaries to remain open while attorney Robert J. Corry
fights against cities prohibiting the sale of medical marijuana.

Judge Daniel Kaup ruled in 8th Judicial District Court that the
temporary restraining order and permanent injunction requested were
not proved by three medical marijuana dispensaries and two unnamed
medical marijuana patients, represented by Corry.

"Granting an injunction would disserve the public," Kaup said. "It
goes against the expressed voter will and the majority of voters in
the city of Loveland."

Kaup said Corry did not prove all the elements necessary to require
the injunction and restraining order, therefore, it was denied.
Additionally, he said Corry did not prove medical marijuana is a
fundamental right.

Kaup also said the court understands that some patients might be
inconvenienced by having to drive farther or pay more for their
marijuana but those factors do not justify an injunction against the
city of Loveland. Loveland forced the dispensaries to close March 1
after voters approved a ban on the shops in November.

Corry said he was disappointed with the judge's ruling.

"There is no love in Loveland," he said after the hearing. "It was
unexpected."

On Tuesday, Corry made his closing argument in the case, as did Josh
Marks, a private attorney representing the city of Loveland, and
Geoffrey Blue, the deputy attorney general for the state of Colorado.

"I was pleased," Blue said of the decision. "I think the judge got it
right."

Blue said the attorneys in the case will have a conference by phone on
April 22 to see where the case will go next. Part of Corry's suit asks
a judge to find the city of Loveland's prohibition of the dispensaries
unconstitutional and also seeks "relief" -- which could mean monetary
compensation.

During the hearing, Corry referenced Colorado House Bill 1284, which
established specific regulations for dispensaries under the department
of revenue, allows local governments to ban the dispensaries and
requires dispensaries to apply for state licenses, which will go into
effect July 1. Kaup asked Corry if he was challenging that law. Corry
responded "yes."

After the hearing, Corry said discussion of that legislation, along
with discussion of relief, could take the case to trial, which the
attorneys will discuss during the April 22 phone conference.

It could be difficult to continue the case because the business
plaintiffs can no longer operate, he said. Additionally, he said the
judge's ruling will affect the health of patients directly.

"This is a step back for patients," Corry said. "This will have a
significant impact on their lives.

Much of the attorney's closing arguments focused on the issues of
whether or not the shops that closed in Loveland were licensed medical
marijuana centers or primary caregivers, whether or not people have a
fundamental right to marijuana and how patients and the public would
suffer depending on the judge's ruling.

"The public interest was set forth in the ordinance that Loveland
created," Marks argued during his closing statement. "Also, it was
enunciated by the ban enacted by the voters. The plaintiffs are asking
the court to ignore all that."

Blue said fundamental rights are "essential to individual liberty in
our society" and that medical marijuana rights are not essential to
individual liberty. He also said possessing or selling medical
marijuana remains illegal on the federal level.

Corry countered that point, wondering why the city and state would
note the illegality of something while collecting sales tax from the
sale of that illegal item at the same time.

"I find it funny when local governments profit from an activity that
is still a federal crime," Corry said.