In the interest of full disclosure let it be known, I am a Trustee for the Town of Lyons, a patient advocate member of the Department of Revenue’s (DoR) Medical Marijuana Working Group, I am a patient myself, a caregiver, and a current business license holder. At this time I have NO financial interest in any medical marijuana business. I write this as an individual member of these various communities. I don’t speak for the Board of Trustees (BOT), and I don’t speak for anyone else but myself.
This is the first in a series of articles I am preparing on the subject of medical marijuana. I intend to put as many facts on the table as possible for your consideration. I think it is
important that the public is accurately informed, so their input carries the weight it should in the discussion of local rules and regulations. I will outline the distinctions and significant impacts relevant to Amendment 20 and HO(HB)-1284 so you will be familiar with where the power to currently regulate is, and where it isn’t. Lyons has already spent a lot of time, and a fair portion of our limited resources, trying to figure out what is best for all concerned. The impacts of any regulations are significant to the patients, the business owners, to the residents, and to the community as a whole and they should be thoughtfully and fairly considered.
I will briefly highlight the history of cannabis in the U.S. so you will have an understanding of why we find ourselves in this situation in the first place. The last article will be my personal comments, and the talking points I offer for your consideration. These are topics that I think are necessary to do this subject the real justice it deserves. These are relevant and important topics beyond the scope of government involvement. I expect that these topics and comments will make some people very uncomfortable, I accept that going in. Again, I am writing this as an individual, with a sincere drive for justice, fairness, and a bitter distaste for hypocrisy. My hope is that we can begin a dialogue that addresses the reality of the situation on all levels, taking into consideration the valid concerns of all interested parties, and look for answers where the real solutions lie. There is a lot of wisdom in this Town, and Lyons is a fertile ground to dig deeply into this subject and come up with effective solutions to the real problems.
I will openly share this very personal information to give context to my ambitions. It sets a foundation as to why I am involved with medical marijuana, and why I have invested so much time and effort to grasp it’s nuances and complexities.
After an auto accident, I was left with what was diagnosed as un-retractable nerve pain. My insurance company spent $105,000 on numerous doctors, surgery, epidurals, nerve blocks, 320 barbaric prolo-therapy injections, chiropractic care, and every kind of painkiller imaginable. Nothing touched the pain. It was suggested that I take one prescription medication after another to try and manage the side effects - of the side effects - of the pain medicine. My quality of life was so poor that I welcomed death. This went on for years. When I could no longer function because of how severe the side effects were, I opted to not take the narcotics. I was better off with just the pain. My prominent Boulder County pain specialist, (after being informed by his staff that I was at my insurance payout limit) told me that opiates usually don’t do much for nerve pain anyway, and now that there is no more money to keep treating me, I may have better luck with marijuana, on my own.
Finding no expert in Colorado, I moved to California and found a doctor that specialized in medical marijuana and I educated myself for nearly 6 months before taking my first dose of cannabis. I have suffered almost all my life with asthma; in fact, five times I needed CPR and lived for a while on a respirator. So I was very cautious about inhaling anything, especially something I had perceived to be smoke. I was 41 years old when I tried marijuana for the first time. I never, even once, used it recreationally and I hadn’t considered using it during my pain treatment before the doctor suggested it. So I had no history at all with cannabis, but I am not exaggerating when I say that using it saved my life.
The subject of medical marijuana regulation has been ongoing for some time now, on both a local and state level. My interest, part of the reason I ran for office here in Lyons, and why I applied for the DoR working group is, because I want this issue handled truthfully and fairly. Over the years I have come to know many people, suffering severely, that have found well-needed relief through cannabis.
The same persistence that drove me to challenge Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) about the traffic light at the intersection of Stone Canyon/McConnell Dr. and US36 is driving me here. CDOT through it’s own bureaucratic encumbrances, had been allowed to ignore the serious peril that was the reality of that intersection. I merely did not let C-Dot continue to ignore that reality. Now we are on track to get the traffic light that will be our best shot at minimizing the hazards of that intersection. I feel the same way about the reality of medical marijuana. I have no secret agenda, nor have I made up my mind if, or how, the Town should further regulate this industry. I have not, as of yet, even offered any suggestions. But what troubles me is that, in my opinion, the discussions are not really focusing on the things our attention should be on.
Medical marijuana in Colorado is a very complicated issue. Marijuana is a federally banned substance as it is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which simply means it has no medicinal value and is considered to have a strong potential for abuse or addiction. In 2000 Colorado voters passed Amendment 20 to the Colorado State Constitution. This assured broad protections for patients and caregivers as to their right to use and cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. These rights have repeatedly been upheld in Colorado courts.
Additionally, with the passage of HB-1284 there is another level of regulation and inferred protection available to those interested in the medical marijuana business. Through state statute, HB-1284 governs the “business” of medical marijuana, not the caregivers or patients, though through this legislation both parties are significantly impacted. Once the dust settles, it is generally expected that it will be the courts that ultimately decide where the lines between these two are drawn.
Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation has found it’s way into the Town’s discussion. Prior to the Dec. 6 Board of Trustee meeting, I requested that the 90 pages of draft rules, crafted out of the substantial efforts of the DoR’s Medical Marijuana Working Group, be sent to the relevant town parties including; business owners, related Boards and Commissions, and other interested parties who are part of the Town’s email list.
My intention was to provide some factual insight as to the scope and detail with which medical marijuana is being regulated in the state of Colorado. I believed that most reasonable people would be able to just scan through the proposed list of rules and gain a basic understanding of how severely the medical marijuana businesses across the state would be regulated, and it would settle some of the concerns I hear from people in town.
Unfortunately, when the proposed rules were sent from Town Hall they included, in bold-faced text, “DRAFT OF MMJ REGULATIONS TO BE PROPOSED TO THE LEGISLATURE NEXT SESSION” This is completely wrong. The proposed rules have nothing to do with the upcoming legislative session. These proposed rules are fulfilling the statutory requirements of HB-1284, which is already law. The State Licensing Authority of the Colorado Department of Revenue, not the Legislature, will be considering these proposed rules along with any additional industry proposals and public comments submitted at a public hearing on January 27 and 28, 2011. The Executive Director of the Department of Revenue will make the final decision as to what rules are adopted.
In all fairness, there are a number of “legislative fixes” to HB-1284 that are in the works. These issues will be debated during the upcoming legislative session, but the whole issue of regulating medical marijuana is not up for reconsideration. Some of the unofficial proposed changes to HB-1284 are: A) Changes to the “35 day rule,” the current time that a patient has to wait before they can obtain medicine from a center; B) The ability for a caregiver to be a business; C) The ability for caregivers in the same space to co-mingle their grows. These are not rules the DoR can just change on their own, because there is no statutory authority to do so. Every single proposed rule is based on some part of HB-1284 that is already the law. The proposed rules are posted on the Colorado Department of Revenue’s website: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue-Main/XRM/1222943467539.
“The State Licensing Authority promulgates these regulations pursuant to the authority granted in sections 12-43.3-201 and 12-43.3-202, C.R.S., of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code (House Bill 10-1284), which became effective on July 1, 2010, and section 24-4-103, C.R.S., of the Administrative Procedure Act.”
General Background Information
Article 43.3 of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (House Bill 10-1284) went into effect on July 1, 2010. Known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code (“Code”), the Code gives the State Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority the ability to promulgate rules necessary for the proper regulation and control of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and sale of medical marijuana and the enforcement of the Code. In addition, section12-43.3-202(2)(a)(I), C.R.S., allows the State Licensing Authority to promulgate rules for compliance with and enforcement of any provision of the Code and section 12-43.3-202(2)(a)(XX), C.R.S., allows the state licensing authority to address such other matters as are necessary for the fair, impartial, stringent, and comprehensive administration of the Code.
When the General Assembly implemented the Code, it sought to create a vertically integrated closed-loop commercial medical marijuana regulatory scheme by: (1) the formation of a dual licensing system with a local optional opt-out provision; (2) the establishment of suitability standards for ownership and employment based on Colorado residency and a determination of good moral character; (3) the promulgation of a set of minimum security, surveillance, and reporting rules; and (4) requirements aimed at ensuring public safety, facilitating full operational transparency, and eliminating illicit diversion of marijuana.
It think it’s imperative that any serious discussion start with everyone involved being on the same factual page. I have spoken ad nauseam about this topic, and have tried to keep anyone, that has taken the time to ask me, as informed as possible. I am truly disturbed by the amount of hypocritical, biased, and uninformed comments that pepper this issue.
The reality of the situation is that cannabis also exists in a third distinct category in Colorado. This falls under the umbrella of unregulated. Unregulated marijuana can include any of a number of scenarios- from highly illegal behavior to actions that would most likely not provoke any interest from law enforcement at all. Examples range from a large scale “underground” growing operation, like the one discovered just outside of town this year marijuana being brought into the state from other parts and distributed, to something as innocuous as an individual growing a couple cannabis plants in his yard or basement for his or her own personal use. This third category is absent from the discussion, I’m assuming, because there are already many laws in place to deal with these situations. The distinction is that these practices are going on all around us, and unless they are discovered and brought into the light of day, no one ever knows about them. Yet it is the fall out of some of these actions, that are muddying the waters of the medical marijuana discussion.
To demonstrate the breadth and epic detail to which the Department of Revenue, through it’s Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division (MMED), will be regulating the medical marijuana industry, here is the table of contents for the 99 pages of proposed rules. Each and every medical marijuana center (MMC), optional grow facility (OPC), and medical marijuana infused products manufacturer (MIP) will have to comply with the final rules and regulations.
Table of Contents
Definitions
Chapter 1 General Rules and Regulations
Compliance
Engaging in Business, Optional Premises Cultivation License –Prohibited Activity, Infused Products Contracts, Interference with Officers, Duty to Report Offenses
Enforcement
Registration of a Primary Center, Inventory, 70/30 Rule
Violations
Complaints Against Licensees – Suspension and Revocation of Licenses, Temporary-Summary Suspension, Declaratory Orders
Chapter 2 Duties of Officers and Employees of the State Licensing Authority Inspectors and Medical Marijuana Supervisors
General Duties
Chapter 3 Instructions for Local Licensing Authorities and Law Enforcement Officers
Chapter 4 Inspections, Investigations, and Searches and Seizures Inspections
Investigations, Searches and Seizures
Warrants, Return on Warrant, Loss of Property Rights
Chapter 5 Range of Penalties
General Provisions
Penalty Schedule, with suggested aggravating and, mitigating factors
Chapter 6 Unfair and Prohibited Practices
Advertising Practices
Medical Marijuana Center Sales
Chapter 7 Informational and Product Displays
Chapter 8 Identification Card and Background Checks, Occupational Licenses Required
Who may/must obtain a license
Procedure for Obtaining a License
Application, identity and age verification, fingerprints, and background check required
Duty to Report
Change of address, Criminal actions, rule violations or other suspicious acts
Chapter 9 State Licensees, General Disclosure Requirements
Unlawful Financial Assistance, Transfer of Ownership and Changes in Entities
Chapter 10 Security Requirements
General Provisions
Limited Access Area, Display of License Required – Limited Access Area
Alarm Systems
Minimum Requirements
Lock Standards
Minimum Requirements
Video Surveillance
Minimum Requirements
Chapter 11 Storage and Transportation, General Provisions for Storage
Storage-Warehouse Storage Permit
General Provisions for Transportation
Transportation-authorization and licenses required
Chapter 12 Sanitary Requirements, Physical premises
Reasonable Measures and Precautions
Waste Disposal
Minimum Requirements
Chapter 13 Verifying a Sale
General Provisions
Acceptable Identification
Chapter 14 Labeling Standards
General Provisions
Product Labeling, Substitution, Sampling and Analysis
Chapter 15 Record Retention by Licensee and Access by Others
Chapter 16 State Licensing Procedures
Initial Licenses
Application – General Provisions, Change in Class of License, Change of Location
Changing, Altering, or Modifying Licensed Premises, Change of Trade Name
Renewals
Reinstatements
Payment of Licensing Fees
Chapter 17 Sales Tax
General Provisions
Reporting and Transmittal of Monthly Tax Payments
Chapter 18 Access to Licensing Information by Department of Revenue
Chapter 19 Administrative Citations
General Provisions and Definitions
Applicability, Citation – Defined, Administrative Citation, Fine and Late Payment Fee, Violation – Defined
Citation Violation List and Schedule of Penalties
Practice and Procedure
Hearing Request for Administrative Citations, Hearing Officer, Hearing Procedure for Administrative Citations, Recovery of Administrative Citation Fines & Costs
Administrative Citations - Notices
For example, in HB-1284 it is stated: “THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY SHALL: (determine) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY PREMISES LICENSED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, INCLUDING, AT A MINIMUM: LIGHTING, PHYSICAL SECURITY, VIDEO, ALARM REQUIREMENTS, AND OTHER MINIMUM PROCEDURES FOR INTERNAL CONTROL AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY TO PROPERLY ADMINISTER AND ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE, INCLUDING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGES, ALTERATIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREMISES;”
The proposed rules for the “Specifications for Video Surveillance” are themselves 11 pages long and cover everything from the cameras technical specifications, to the type of cable that must be used to connect the camera. (“a. All cabling for camera transmission should be unshielded twisted pair Category 5e or RG-59u cable coupled with low-voltage cable (Siamese cable.) b. All cabling shall be Ethernet compliant and shall conform to the Ethernet guidelines for distance and installation on all IP-based cameras.”)
The people just cleaning the camera’s lens have to be licensed with the Department of Revenue. Whheeeeewww! Right?
For anyone concerned about a child or an unlicensed person being able to enter a MMC and be able purchase marijuana... Well... Rest assured, the rule dictates: “A single fixed camera shall be placed above at each Point of Sale location allowing for the clear and certain identification of the transacting individual and related identification. A single fixed camera shall be placed at above each Point of Sale location allowing for the recording and recognition of any transacting individuals identification and medical marijuana removed from the premises. This will be accomplished by temporarily placing the authorized identification, and registry card in a 12” x 12” area on the counter top, where they will be captured from the above mounted camera. In addition, all medical marijuana shall be placed on a Department of Agriculture approved and calibrated weight scale so that the amount removed from the licensed premises may by captured from the above mounted camera. As an alternative, a licensed center may, through their point of sale system, can simultaneously capture fixed images of the transaction and the individual making the purchase. For all transactions time, date, amount and weight of purchase, and identifying registry number shall be captured with the transaction and overlaid on the POS transaction or text overlay on the video transaction.”
If you worry that there still must be a way for a dastardly center owner to circumvent the surveillance system, just to sell that child as much marijuana as she could buy with her allowance, (And ignoring the fact that even a single occurrence would result in that center owner losing their license and going to jail.), well you can relax, there’s a rule for that! The MMED must have full control capability over camera operation over all other remote access service equipment located outside of the surveillance room.
History
The most basic questions one could ask is: why was cannabis ever removed from the Pharmacopeia, after being used as a botanical medicine for thousands of years and across dozens of cultures all over the world? There is little debate as to the answers.
It was a drug related to immigrants and ethnic minorities,;this was a concern openly discussed in Congress. It was said to make the user crazy and an addict. In the early 1930‘s Mexican laborers frequently used cannabis after a hard day’s work, and the puritanical establishment took umbrage to their help appearing jovial after being worked like slaves. The amount of exaggerated propaganda disseminated through the 1930’s was profound.
A very prominent newspaper man, who happened to own vast forests with trees destined for paper mills, used his influence to have hemp (a fast growing, non-psychoactive form of cannabis) outlawed in the U.S, to avoid the competition from hemp paper. It was also wildly known he hated Mexicans after losing 800,000 acres of timberland to Mexico’s Pancho Villa.
Alcohol interests, which had prospered since prohibition ended in 1933, had gained a powerful organized voice that had their own financial reasons for wanting marijuana criminalized. Ironically, members of established law enforcement became strange bedfellows as many were out of work after prohibition ended, and they needed another substance to protect the public from. Marijuana, with its unfamiliar Mexican name, was the perfect choice.
Also, there was pressure to ban cannabis from Dupont Chemical who had recently patented nylon and didn’t want the competition from hemp, to dampen the high financial expectations of it’s new- found nylon rope business.
Pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly commonly sold cannabis products that were recommended for a variety of ills, like one product whose label lists under it’s uses, “For those temporary periods of insanity peculiar to women.” Another drug company had a very popular children’s cough medicine called “CureCough,” which had cannabis as it’s main active ingredient. But when the opportunity came to ban it, they supported the movement because they didn’t like the fact that anyone could grow their own cannabis and not have to purchase it’s byproducts from a large company.
And without much fanfare or attention, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal.
I’ll end this weeks article with a fun-fact.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report states that during 2009 more than 1,663,000 drug arrests were made. Over half (51%) of the drug arrests were for marijuana, of those, 88% were for simple possession. This occurred under Obama’s watch. We need to take seriously the cost to society for marijuana; incarceration in this country, for it is enormous. It is reported that every 37 seconds someone is arrested for marijuana. That means, that during the time it took you to read this, 34 people were arrested because of marijuana.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
