Broomfield bans medical marijuana businesses

Broomfield bans medical marijuana businesses - Boulder Daily Camera

Broomfield bans medical marijuana businesses

By Michael Davidson Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 07/27/2010 10:34:35 PM MDT

BROOMFIELD -- Medical marijuana businesses will be banned in Broomfield effective Aug. 8, following the City Council's 8-2 vote to ban dispensaries and cultivation facilities.

The decision came Tuesday night after 37 Broomfield residents testified in a lengthy public hearing. Supporters of the ban outnumbered opponents by a margin of 3-to-1.

The vote is intended to be the city's final word on an issue that arose in September 2009, when the city received its first application from a medical marijuana dispensary that sought a business license.

Colorado voters gave residents the right to use marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions in 2000, when Amendment 20 was added to the state constitution.

Council members who supported the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries said their vote was not on the merits of medical marijuana or the social impact of the drug. Nor was it an attempt to keep Broomfield residents from exercising a right protected by the state constitution.

"Anyone who interprets this vote as rendering opinions in that regard would be misguided," Councilman Todd Schumacher said. "Nothing about the ban will prevent someone from legally obtaining medical marijuana."

Council members backing the ban noted that patients and caregivers could grow their own small amounts of marijuana or obtain it from dispensaries in neighboring cities.

Councilmen Sam Taylor and Bob Gaiser voted against the ban.

Taylor said cities such as Denver and Boulder might have let the number of dispensaries get out of control, but Broomfield could come up with smarter policies.

"I have firm belief in our regulatory system that we could do better than that," Taylor said. "I'm not in favor of having a ban, I'm in favor of having control."

While council members narrowed their focus to dispensaries, many residents who provided testimony spoke to broader issues.

Some of the ban's supporters said they fear dispensaries will make it easier for children to obtain and use marijuana.

"I don't want Dr. Reefer next to Safeway when I'm going shopping with my kids," Dan Bradfield said.

Don Larsen argued the dispensary system was something voters could not have anticipated a decade ago. Advocates of marijuana legalization were using the amendment to further their own ends, he said.

"We've seen massive exploitation of that sense of compassion, which brought us to where we are today," Larsen said. "I simply don't believe that we're that sick as a state."

Opponents of the ban focused on the needs of patients.

Banning dispensaries just puts obstacles in the way of seriously ill patients, said Laura Pionke. She said she had firsthand knowledge because her best friend was a medical marijuana user before succumbing to an AIDS-related illness.

"We're not discussing legalization, we're discussing access to medication their doctors recommended," Pionke said.

The vote at least clarified the law, Chuck Teeples said. Teeples operates North Metro Caregivers out of his home in the Front Range Mobile Community.

Resolution was needed because nobody knows "what's safe or what's not," Teeples said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

"I don't want Dr. Reefer next to Safeway when I'm going shopping with my kids," Dan Bradfield said.

---

LOL Yeah! How is that going to make the liquor store on the other side of Safeway look!

that liquor store will look just fine. guys like him stop in for a handle then head home and drink the entire thing in front of the kids while being rude to their mom.

I guess they are too f-n stupid to use ZONING to control sinage, so the minds of the young aren't scarred by a glimpse of the demon leaf.

so, now, caregivers in Broomfield get an upgrade from limit 5 patients to limit 16 patients, ie 96 plants.

There is no limit on the number of caregivers that can operate in an area.

Patient up kids!

I fear this is a trend to come after the new laws went into effect. Until MMC's are protected by state law this will continue. Local govt will make up their own laws and a few years down the road this will be a huge mess. It will force legal people back underground to obtain medicine or drive a 100 of miles in some cases to a city that allows MMC's, After they gave the shaft to caregivers they will be a dying breed and will either quit or go undergound.

Legislation and local govts are slowly taking away our rights as Medical Patients. Its gonna get worse before its over. There is already a movement in Montana to repeal the MMJ laws. If that happens it will give people against MMJ in other states motivation to try it elsewhere. The movement to eliminate MMJ is growing in some states ...sadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

so, now, caregivers in Broomfield get an upgrade from limit 5 patients to limit 16 patients, ie 96 plants.

There is no limit on the number of caregivers that can operate in an area.

Patient up kids!

---

So caregivers in towns that ban MMC can legally have more patients and plant count?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

that liquor store will look just fine. guys like him stop in for a handle then head home and drink the entire thing in front of the kids while being rude to their mom.

I guess they are too f-n stupid to use ZONING to control sinage, so the minds of the young aren't scarred by a glimpse of the demon leaf.

---

Yeah... Maybe I should have put a [/sarcasm] after that. :D

perhaps that got pulled from the final version. it looks like anything over 5 is supposed to be approved by the DOH

Interesting, is they recognize that the Registry is not compulsory, even for caregivers

(III) AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT REGISTERED BUT IS WILLING TO
14 PROVIDE PRIMARY CAREGIVING SERVICES MAY SUBMIT HIS OR HER
15 CONTACT INFORMATION TO BE PLACED ON THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER
16 REGISTRY.

It's not a bad thing for local communities to make choices about what kinds of businesses are allowed and under what circumstances. For example, we do not allow strip clubs in our city because most of us agree that it would hurt the town's public image and because they adversely affect property value. (We also do not allow commercial grow operations within city limits.) I agree with the previous poster that zoning seems a better method of restraining MMCs than banning them, but I absolutely believe that decisions regarding local businesses should be made on the local level when possible rather than by state lawmakers, or (even worse) the federal government. Federalism in action, baby!

In this respect, state lawmakers have treated MMJ as they have alcohol - by giving local communities the option to ban MMCs altogether. This means there's going to be some "dry" counties in Colorado. (One small change to the law that would make it more equitable, would be to require cities or counties to hold a referendum before banning MMCs, rather than banning them by ordinance or statute. That would result in fewer bans, I believe.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

so, now, caregivers in Broomfield get an upgrade from limit 5 patients to limit 16 patients, ie 96 plants.

There is no limit on the number of caregivers that can operate in an area.

Patient up kids!

---

I'm in Broomfield and was wondering how to go about getting this 'exemption' for 16 patients. Any ideas??

it looks like that didn't make it in the bill.

now, it appears, one needs to petition to the CDPHE to have an increased count.

but seriously, weren't you directly involved in the passing of this bill? don't you know what is in it? I thought this was a victory?

actually, my apologies.

You reposted a Matt Brown letter here awhile back, and I thought you were posting as Matt.

At least your posts were a good excuse for me to tell Matt to fuck off.

No worries. I had heard about 'petitioning', but what exactly does that entail? Can I simply send a letter saying I'm in Broomfield, with a ban, and to help patients obtain medicine, I am willing and wanting to carry 16 patients?

I think the increased plant count comes as a recommendation from the state department of health, which is now different than where MMJ is oversaw. Now it's being overseen by cook at the dept of revenue.

As I understand it, even the higher plant count isn't an affirmative defense. Is that wrong?

Yeah the additional patients for banned communities was taken out in one of the last versions of HB10-1284.

Maybe Broomfield will be the first to test the constitution and 5 patient cap on patients.

Sucks for Broomfield patients....

We have our own little slice of Democracy brewing down here in the Springs.
UGH!

It's still there...........page 46 of 60......right on the DOH website.

Note: This is STILL in the DOH realm.....not like licensing that went to DOR!

(6) Patient - primary caregiver relationship. (a) A PERSON SHALL
BE LISTED AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR NO MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS ON
THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM REGISTRY AT ANY GIVEN TIME; EXCEPT
THAT THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY ALLOW A PRIMARY CAREGIVER TO
SERVE MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN
DETERMINING WHETHER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, THE STATE
HEALTH AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE PROXIMITY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
CENTERS TO THE PATIENT. A PRIMARY CAREGIVER SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST
OF HIS OR HER PATIENTS INCLUDING THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD
NUMBER OF EACH PATIENT AT ALL TIMES.


A BAN should automaticallly mean they can't deny you...but we shall see.

And Hell...with the backlog on paperwork @ the State (and more to come) as license aps keep coming in and now...as folks reaarrange caregivers/etc.... you can send in the form and probably get a coupla 96 plant bloom cycles done before you get approved or disapproved. LOL

blackhash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolishPotFarmer

No worries. I had heard about 'petitioning', but what exactly does that entail? Can I simply send a letter saying I'm in Broomfield, with a ban, and to help patients obtain medicine, I am willing and wanting to carry 16 patients?

---

that's a real good question. Ask the DOH. what do you have to lose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackhash

It's still there...........page 46 of 60......right on the DOH website.

Note: This is STILL in the DOH realm.....not like licensing that went to DOR!

(6) Patient - primary caregiver relationship. (a) A PERSON SHALL
BE LISTED AS A PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR NO MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS ON
THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM REGISTRY AT ANY GIVEN TIME; EXCEPT
THAT THE STATE HEALTH AGENCY MAY ALLOW A PRIMARY CAREGIVER TO
SERVE MORE THAN FIVE PATIENTS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN
DETERMINING WHETHER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, THE STATE
HEALTH AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE PROXIMITY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
CENTERS TO THE PATIENT. A PRIMARY CAREGIVER SHALL MAINTAIN A LIST
OF HIS OR HER PATIENTS INCLUDING THE REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD
NUMBER OF EACH PATIENT AT ALL TIMES.


A BAN should automaticallly mean they can't deny you...but we shall see.

And Hell...with the backlog on paperwork @ the State (and more to come) as license aps keep coming in and now...as folks reaarrange caregivers/etc.... you can send in the form and probably get a coupla 96 plant bloom cycles done before you get approved or disapproved. LOL

blackhash

---

Right on for that, thanks man. I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

that's a real good question. Ask the DOH. what do you have to lose?

---

True, I think I will send them a letter and see what I can get done or at least find out.