more great news for fans of 1284: Fort Collins to fall next?

Voters deserve voice on MMDs | The Coloradoan | coloradoan.com

Voters deserve voice on MMDs

Many of you are aware a petition is being circulated to ask voters if they want to allow voters to decide as to whether marijuana distribution centers are allowed in the city of Fort Collins or not; this was never voted on before by the people. In fact, it was decided, in 2009, by unelected officials who overturned your vote, thus departing from Amendment 20 and allowing storefront marijuana distribution.

In 2000, Colorado voters approved Amendment 20 of the Colorado Constitution to allow medical marijuana use. The amendment doesn't allow distribution through dispensaries. Since that decision, parents and schools, substance abuse treatment providers and police officials have experienced significant negative effects plaguing our youths and community.

The decision to allow or deny these dispensaries represents a significant public policy issue for our community. Voters deserve the opportunity to vote as to whether they want to allow these marijuana distribution centers in their community.

The June 26 Coloradoan quote: "Banning medical marijuana centers would deprive patients of the medicine and professional guidance they need to treat ailments such as chronic pain and muscle spasms," said Terri Gomez, campaign manager for the group, is misleading. Colorado is the only state that allows commercialized marijuana. All other states are functioning well with providing marijuana to people who truly need it without the commercialized stores. The "professional guidance" is given by doctors, not marijuana store clerks.

Under the law, patients are allowed one primary caregiver. The absence of regulatory practices has resulted in some "patients" registering with numerous caregivers, allowing them to purchase more marijuana than recommended by the intended primary caregiver. This has created an abundant supply of marijuana for sale in what is now known as the "new Black Market."

On April 26, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado, reversed course in a memo to the Colorado Attorney General advising state officials that they will not condone distribution of marijuana in the state and will federally prosecute, because of the growing problems. Why is the City Council acting in defiance of the law when they were sworn into office to uphold the law? The City Council approved some of the most lax regulations in the state on the marijuana shops (overriding almost all restrictions on proximity to schools, day care centers, etc).

Local law enforcement officials are seeing an increase in violent or dangerous crimes relating to marijuana usage since the decriminalization of these commercial distributors, while at the same time, other crimes are generally falling and overall public safety budgets are decreasing with many law enforcement agencies.

If you are interested in allowing people to have a right to vote on this matter, you can sign the petition: From 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mondays through Fridays at Illustrated Light, One Old Town Square, call ahead: (970) 493-4673; from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays; and 8:15 a.m. to noon at Harmony Presbyterian Church, 400 E. Boardwalk Drive, in Fort Collins; call ahead: (970) 226-0603; and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Sundays front of Reader's Cove, 1001 E. Harmony Road, in Fort Collins.

Ray Martinez is the former mayor of the city of Fort Collins.

Let 'em vote.* I wish more issues were settled this way.






*Since the cost of a special election is high and municipal budgets are tight, it might be best to defer the vote to next April's regular election.

rights are for minority groups. there's no need to protect the majority. every single real issue with retail sales can be solved with zoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

rights are for minority groups. there's no need to protect the majority. every single real issue with retail sales can be solved with zoning.

---

Well, there are three ways a city can ban MMCs (or strip clubs, billboards, brake pad plants etc.). The can do it by ordinance or serial moratoria at the city council, they can zone them out, or they can put it to a vote. I think this issue is important enough to go to the expense of a vote. Think about it: for twenty or thirty grand there would be a real, empirical basis for law. It's never a good thing for a city to start shuttering honest businesses, but they owe the owners and employees the certainty that the act is an accurate reflection of the community's desires and standards.

There's also a broader underlying issue: for city government to ban a business or business practice, there has to be an interest. In theory, government has to prove there are negative externalities, secondary consequences to the community from these businesses. That conversation should be public, not in a planner's office or even in a council session. Like trials, elections aren't a perfect process for distilling truth or wisdom, but supporters of the ban would be forced to make their case in the court of public opinion and people like you and me will there to tear it to shreds when they do.