Petition filed with Supreme Court to challenge 1284

For immediate release, Jan. 6, 2011

Contact:
Andrew B. Reid, Senior Counsel
Springer and Steinberg, P.C.
Phone: 303-861-2800

Kathleen Chippi
Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
Phone: 1-888-328-4367

Patients File Petition to Overturn Unconstitutional Laws

{Denver} -- A original jurisdiction petition was filed with the Colorado
Supreme Court on Wed. (1/5) asking the court to overturn large parts of
laws passed by the Colorado legislature last year (HB 10-1284 and SB
10-109) because they restrict medical marijuana patient access to medicine
and violate patient privacy rights guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution.

Click here to read the petition:
Cannabis Lawusit: Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project

The petition was filed by Andrew B. Reid, senior counsel for Springer and
Steinberg, P.C., a Denver law firm, on behalf of Kathleen Chippi, a
Nederland caregiver and dispensary owner, and the Patient and Caregivers
Rights Litigation project, an association of patients, caregivers and
physicians that have been harmed by the passage of these laws.

Chippi says, "This petition was necessary to stop the state's blatant
attack on fundamental constitutional patient and caregiver rights.
Coloradans need immediate clarification on rights they enjoyed from 2000
through 2009 and why some of those rights were extinguished by the state
legislature in 2010. Medical marijuana patients are sick of being treated
like second-class citizens. Cannabis in Colorado is a Constitutional right,
just like the right to free speech, and the state has no authority to
destroy those rights. I hope that the Supreme Court takes this case out of
compassion for the patients, because we have found none in the state
legislature, the Health Department or the Department of Revenue."

Damien LaGoy has been Colorado's most outspoken patient for years. Damien
is concerned about the state's new database system that will replace the
formerly confidential registry information with a massive database and
surveillance system and open to law enforcement and other government
agencies.

Damien has been living with HIV/AIDS since 1985 and uses cannabis to treat
a variety of symptoms. "We went through this 20 years ago with HIV/AIDS
patients when the government decided to create a national AIDS database.
People were afraid to come out and get tested because they feared their
information would be made public. A lot of my friends died because they
were afraid to get treatment because they didn't want to get on the list.
The same thing is happening now with medical marijuana. I don't want to see
patients die because their confidentiality is no longer protected and they
are afraid to get their medicine."

ORIGNIAL JURISDICTION PETITIONS
The Supreme Court has the power of original jurisdiction to hear this case
and declare these laws unconstitutional on their face. This is different
from its appellate jurisdiction when the Supreme Court reviews a lower
court's decision. Relief under the original jurisdiction rule is
discretionary. Although the Supreme Court can decline to take this case,
the plaintiffs are calling on the court to take action in this urgent
manner and have compassion for the thousands of patients negatively
affected by these laws statewide who need access to their medicine restored
immediately.

SUMMARY OF PETITION
Attorney Reid's petition asks the Supreme Court to rule on two questions:
1) Do HB 10-1284 and SB 10-109 violate patients' rights to their medication
as secured by the Colorado Constitution?
2) Do the information disclosure provisions of HB 10-1284 violate patients'
Constitutional rights to privacy?

LOCAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA BANS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Attorney Reid also asks the court to overturn the "local option" provision
of HB 10-1284 that allows cities and counties to ban medical marijuana
distribution. Reid argues that there is neither a rational basis for this
provision nor is there a compelling state interest. Reid writes:

"There is no 'rationality' in allowing municipalities and counties to
regulate to death and ban access of patients to doctor recommended,
constitutionally sanctioned, medical marijuana medication while not giving
these same local governments authority to similarly regulate and ban far
more potent and dangerous, if abused, substances such as pharmaceutical
narcotics and alcohol."

DEPT. OF REVENUE'S REGULATORY SCHEME IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The petition asks the Court to rule that it is unconstitutional to give the
Department of Revenue or local governments the authority to regulate
medical marijuana in any way.

Attorney Reid writes, "Nowhere in Constitution is there the slightest
reference to participation by the State Department of Revenue in the
regulation or administration of the medical marijuana program."
"The medical marijuana program was clearly designed in the Constitution as
primarily a program for the provision of healthcare, not revenue."

CAREGIVER RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The petition also attacks HB 10-1284's restrictions on caregivers, such as
their ability to serve more than 5 patients and to make a profit off their
business.

Reid writes, "The existence and ready and widespread availability of
primary care givers to patients is an integral part of the scheme set out
in the Colorado Constitution" for providing medicine to patients.

Reid writes that "virtually all attendants, home-visit nurses, therapists,
hospice employees, and other providers of medical services to persons with
debilitating conditions" serve more than 5 patients.

Reid concludes, "The restrictions undercut the scheme of the Colorado
Constitution and the ready access of patients to their medication in a de
facto denial of their constitutional rights under the Constitution."

PHYSICIAN RESTRICTIONS IN SB10-109 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The petition also asks the court to rule restrictions on physicians in SB
10-109 are unconstitutional. SB 10-109 attempted to redefine the definition
of a physician "in good standing" to restrict physicians who could
recommend medical marijuana. Reid writes, "This severely restrictive
legislative redefining of the constitutional phrase 'in good standing' has
the result of disqualifying hundreds of physicians for reasons having
nothing to do with the physician's competency to recommend medical
marijuana."

"Placing such irrational restrictions on available physicians deprives
qualified patients of access to their medication in contravention of the
express language of the Colorado Constitution."

Reid concludes, "The General Assembly was without any authority to
legislatively rewrite provisions in the Colorado Constitution."

HB 10-1284 VIOLATES PATIENT PRIVACY RIGHTS
The petition asks the court to rule that the confidentiality and privacy
provisions of the Constitution will be violated by HB 10-1284's requirement
that Medical Marijuana Centers collect patient information and share it
with law enforcement.

Reid writes that this will "expose the confidential information of the
hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients and care-givers in
blatant violation of the Colorado Constitution."

Reid continues "Only last week, a large number of confidential 'medical
marijuana registry forms with all these people's personal information on
each one of those sheets' was found by happenstance by a passerby in a box
by an alleyway trash bin behind a medical marijuana dispensary. H.B.
10-1284 required the dispensary to collect this information from patients
and their care-givers."

Reid writes, "There is an additional confidentiality concern in regards to
medical marijuana because its possession and cultivation and acquisition
may still be illegal under federal law although legal under state law." He
continues, "Patients who are 'outed' as users of medical marijuana,
although legal and constitutional, risk losing their freedom, health
insurance coverage, government benefits, college tuition loans and grants,
employment, children, and other such harms."

CONCLUSION
Reid asks the court to take swift action. "The constitutionally secured
privacy of over 100,000 qualified medical marijuana patients and Colorado
residents and citizens stands to be irreparably invaded unless there is
immediate action by the Court."

The petition concludes:
"Amendment 20 was not only approved by the citizens of Colorado but made
part of the highest law of our State, its Constitution. The right of
qualified medical marijuana patients to their medication to ease their
suffering is now enshrined in our Constitution. Certain legislators, even
a majority of them, or a majority of voters in some communities, may want
to second guess medical experts and the People of their State and disagree
with the limited and highly controlled use of marijuana as a physician
recommended medication by fellow citizens and residents diagnosed with
debilitating medication conditions. But, that does not give these
'representatives' nor the majorities of limited geographical areas of the
State the right to veto the will of the People or deny the fundamental
constitutional rights of others, anymore than the majority can silence free
speech, or take one's liberty or property or life or health without due
process of law."

"It is the duty of this Court to interpret and enforce and protect those
rights. The will of the clear majority of the People of Colorado and the
health and quality of life of hundreds of thousands of citizens and
residents of this State suffering from debilitating and life-threatening
conditions lie with this Court."

ATTENTION ATTORNEYS: AMICUS SUPPORT REQUESTED.

Click here to read the full petition:
Cannabis Lawusit: Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project

:thumbsup::thumbsup:THANK-YOU KATHLEEN !!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Yep, I was wondering if I'd ever see 1284 get challenged. Thanks Kathleen!

Yep, its about damn time. Hopefully The Supreme Court will hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zedleppelin

Yep, its about damn time. Hopefully The Supreme Court will hear it.

---

This is great.Now what can we do to make sure they hear it?

I am SO GLAD Kathleen Chippi is involved with this.

she is absolutely in it for the right reasons.

this is awesome!

Looks like Andrew B. Reid, senior counsel for Springer and Steinberg, P.C could end up being our new lawyer superman.

Go get em Kathleen.. freedom fighter of the year!

It is well past the time for this and we all must get involved at some point....

kathleen we miss you...glad your back with a vengeance...

Nederland dispensary owner challenges state's medical marijuana laws - Boulder Daily Camera

Nederland dispensary owner challenges state's medical marijuana laws
Attorney cites privacy, access concerns
By Heath Urie, Camera Staff Writer
Boulder Daily Camera
Posted:01/06/2011 11:50:48 AM MST

A Nederland medical marijuana dispensary owner has filed a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court asking it to overturn large parts of recently approved state laws governing the medical marijuana industry.

Attorney Andrew Reid, with the Springer and Steinberg law firm in Denver, filed the petition Wednesday on behalf of Kathleen Chippi, owner of the One Brown Mouse Cannabis Healing Arts Center in Nederland.

In the complaint, Reid wrote that House Bill 10-1284 and Senate Bill 10-109 restrict medical marijuana patient access to medicine and violate patient privacy rights guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution. Many of the rules are expected to take effect later this year.

"We believe that the legislation is actually defeating the will of the people," who in 2000 approved a constitutional amendment which gave Colorado residents the right to use medical marijuana, Reid said Thursday.

Reid said he believes the new laws prevent patients from getting access to medication, partly because of a provision that allows local municipalities to ban dispensaries or prevent the delivery of medical marijuana products to bedridden patients.

"They are condemned by these unconstitutional bans on their access to medication to suffer unnecessarily and even die prematurely," Reid wrote in the court brief. "There is no rational basis, let alone any compelling state interest in such local regulation or bans."

Reid said the petition also targets parts of the bills that put limitations on primary caregivers, and which allow patient records to be shared among state and local licensing authorities.

The petition asks the court to declare the bills unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

Chippi, who was forced to shutter her Nederland dispensary after she refused to apply for a state license to sell medical marijuana, said the state laws are hindering access to medical marijuana by "frightening the patients away from the centers; by cutting off their access to caregivers."

"I know there's a lot of (medical marijuana centers) who are not happy with me for filing this, but they have to realize... they are in legal limbo," Chippi said.

It is up to the discretion of the Colorado Supreme Court whether it will consider the case.

"I know there's a lot of (medical marijuana centers) who are not happy with me for filing this, but they have to realize... they are in legal limbo," Chippi said.

Too bad if they are not happy with your decision to file this, I would risk saying that the majority of patients and caregivers are ecstatic!!, Way to go Kathleen!

only the mmc's that are in league with the devel will not want this...this will help all mmc;s down the road if some things are overturned.

the lesson will be, when we go to regulate, it MUST be within the confines of Constitutionality.

Lawyers who WOULD have taken this up in a heartbeat a couple years ago got too busy making money off of pushing paper through this regulatory kluge.

They (the MMJ lawyers) KNEW this was coming. and now that most of the paperwork is complete and the lawyers are paid, this unconstitutional POS is going to get shot down.

:thumbsup:

Well I wouldn't call Springer & Steinberg a MMJ law firm but they are one of the top law firms in the area, and have handled many drug-related cases.. Hell they've handled Kolby Bryant's mess and plenty of Bronco mistakes. They know how to get their "ducks in a row" and when to fight. I retained their services a few years back when I had a little run in with the law and was very happy with the results. I also know quite a few growers who keep them on retainer too.

I don't want the local option provision Reid discussed in that article overturned. Simply put, there are towns and counties in this state that don't want dispensaries and have voted to keep them out. I get up on my hind legs about this kind of thing, but it is right and damned proper to decide certain controversial issues by popular vote! We manage liquor, gambling and gun possession with a variety of local restrictions in addition to statewide rules; we can do the same with pot. It isn't the end of the damned world if folks in Grand Junction vote to ban dispensaries. It's democracy, and it's a bitch some times.

the constitution is not there to protect the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

the constitution is not there to protect the majority.

---

Two green :thumbsup:thumbs up

If this were a question of an oppressed minority, I would be screaming to send in the National Guard.* It isn't. It's about a group of businesses who are naturally and understandably hostile to regulation of their industry because it makes their businesses less profitable. Without a local option, marijuana will never be legalized. As Marsellus says, that's a "hard motherfuckin' fact of life, but it's a fact of life your ass is going to have to get realistic about." There's nothing wrong with letting voters settle these issues, and it's the only way they are going to accept legal pot.

FWIW, I welcome all judicial challenges. It's what makes our system flexible and resilient. I only wish this particular challenge had not made the local option their prime target. To my mind, the caregiver restrictions and issues surrounding patient privacy are more serious problems with 1284.

*I actually am screaming to Ritter/Hick/Suthers to sic the NG on a group of chimos operating in my area. For real, were this issue about the rights of minorities or dependents, I would be on the other side.

blah blah rambling high response. Chillax all.

right on kathleen.....finally.....you go girl.....1284 bad..bad...bad
we 'can' shoot it down peeps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I don't want the local option provision Reid discussed in that article overturned. Simply put, there are towns and counties in this state that don't want dispensaries and have voted to keep them out. I get up on my hind legs about this kind of thing, but it is right and damned proper to decide certain controversial issues by popular vote! We manage liquor, gambling and gun possession with a variety of local restrictions in addition to statewide rules; we can do the same with pot. It isn't the end of the damned world if folks in Grand Junction vote to ban dispensaries. It's democracy, and it's a bitch some times.

---

Actually, its not a democracy, its a constitutional republic, and rights enshrined in the constitution (in this case the State of Colorado's) are not subject to the "majority rules" aspect of an actual democracy. Just a hard motherfuckin' fact of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senorx12562

Actually, its not a democracy, its a constitutional republic, and rights enshrined in the constitution (in this case the State of Colorado's) are not subject to the "majority rules" aspect of an actual democracy. Just a hard motherfuckin' fact of life.

---

Obvious response: where in the Const is this right enshrined? It isn't in A20, which deals with patients' rights exclusively. Hell, the Const "enshrines" (lol) gambling in this state, but that doesn't mean Harrah's can build a casino anywhere they like. Likewise, Kathleen Chippi and other commercial operators cannot set up shop where she is not welcome. You're on real shaky legal ground, since the local option has been a matter of settled law since the end of alcohol prohibition. Just as there are still wet and dry counties, there will be green counties which allow MJ sales and "brown counties" which do not.

FWIW, the cover story of Reason is on legalization, and the local option is discussed briefly. (and complimentarily, as you would expect in a libertarian magazine.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

...Just as there are still wet and dry counties, there will be green counties which allow MJ sales and "brown counties" which do not...

---

If Mj ever become legal, I see no problem with this. As it stands MJ is quasi-legal for medicinal purposes - for this reason I don't think bans should be in place. Alcohol is different. Even in dry counties you can still buy a bottle of NyQuil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Obvious response: where in the Const is this right enshrined? It isn't in A20, which deals with patients' rights exclusively. Hell, the Const "enshrines" (lol) gambling in this state, but that doesn't mean Harrah's can build a casino anywhere they like. Likewise, Kathleen Chippi and other commercial operators cannot set up shop where she is not welcome. You're on real shaky legal ground, since the local option has been a matter of settled law since the end of alcohol prohibition. Just as there are still wet and dry counties, there will be green counties which allow MJ sales and "brown counties" which do not.

FWIW, the cover story of Reason is on legalization, and the local option is discussed briefly. (and complimentarily, as you would expect in a libertarian magazine.)

---

I'm not aware of any dry counties in Colorado, but then I haven't tried to drink in all of them. My point was that any attempt to regulate/legislate that has the effect of impacting the exercise of a constitutional right, in this case the right of a medical marijuana licensee to obtain and use their medicine, such as it is, is subject to a higher level of scrutiny if challenged. I don't know that "We don't want it here, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah"( oh, sorry, "they're not welcome") would be found to be sufficient to defeat the right to smoke the chronic. If the Colorado Supreme Court were to subject 1284 and/or 109 to what is called "strict scrutiny", which would be consistent with precedent when it comes to an explicit constitutional right, well, lets just say that vanishingly few laws subjected to "strict scrutiny" survive such scrutiny.

As for the situation with alcohol, it is utterly inapposite, as no constitutional provision creates any right to obtain, possess, or consume alcohol, medicinally or otherwise. And if I'm not mistaken, the enshrinement (actually a term of art among those with a legal education, but I'm glad you find it amusing) of gambling in the Colorado constitution actually specifies the locales in which it is to be allowed, a type of specificity which I don't believe is present in Amendment 20. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The shaky legal ground is actually under your feet, my condescending correspondent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senorx12562

As for the situation with alcohol, it is utterly inapposite, as no constitutional provision creates any right to obtain, possess, or consume alcohol, medicinally or otherwise. And if I'm not mistaken, the enshrinement (actually a term of art among those with a legal education, but I'm glad you find it amusing) of gambling in the Colorado constitution actually specifies the locales in which it is to be allowed, a type of specificity which I don't believe is present in Amendment 20. Correct me if I'm wrong.

---

First off, as you correctly guess, I'm not an attorney and very much over my head, but you're wrong about A20. It's specific. Where we disagree (I think) is on whether or not allowing localities to restrict or ban MMCs is a violation of a patient's right to acquire MMJ. I don't think it is, since the patient is free to pursue all other avenues. That's where the comparison with dry counties comes in: living in a dry county is not a significant bar to acquiring and enjoying alcohol.

There's middle ground as well; there are ways to ensure patient access without trampling local electorates. A few that come to mind: raising caregiver patient limits in brown counties, raising patient possession limits so rural or disabled patients would have to travel less frequently, providing an affirmative defense for MMJ delivery services. Another sensible restriction would be to allow the bans only by popular referendum and not by statute or ordinance, as we do for alcohol sales.

Actually I'm not sure that we do disagree. As a matter of policy, I'm all for as much local control as possible. My point was that since the proponents of A20 chose to make MMJ a constitutional issue, rather than a statutory one as it is in every other state that has legalized MMJ, any impact on a patients rights resulting from 1284 and 109 would not have to be "significant" in order for those laws to be thrown out. Even a minor impairment may be enough. That will be for some court to decide. The Constitution trumps a statute. And since when did Amendment twenty provide a geographic limit to its own operation as the gambling amendment does? How specifically am I wrong again? Forgive me , I'm a little slow.

Well, you're absolutely right about one thing: the court will decide. We won't have long to wait.

This is tangential, but what do you think would happen if 1284 was sent back to the legislature? I haven't digested the new committees, but one new chair stands out: Bob Gardner, who makes no secret of his desire to close all MMCs: "I don't think the dispensary model is appropriate." He was overruled the first time around, but now he will be the one holding the gavel in those committee hearings. He has a plan to sell MMJ through prescriptions and pharmacies, a de facto death penalty for MMJ in Colorado. I think you would be mistaken to celebrate the end of 1284, because the legislature is much more hostile to marijuana than it was a year ago. There are some unknowns (DelGrasso) and of course Summers, but my read is that a new Republican bill would be more restrictive than the current one.

this industry has been called legitimate, mmj is becoming more mainstream in the media, on every tv sitcom/drama, people are using it. It IS mainstream. Colorado has bragged about it. There is no shutting it down unless they roll in the national guard.

1284 and 109 bought this industry the legitimacy they needed to set up shop. Paying your fees was paying your dues, and did buy the legitimacy you needed.

When key provisions of 1284 and 109 are killed, you will still have what you paid for. You may not have the competitive edge you once did, but that's good for everyone. Keep paying your taxes and mmj in CO is going nowhere.

I don't know whether a dispensary model is "appropriate" either, shit, I don't even know what he means by appropriate. I do know that the language of the amendment does not mandate or prohibit such a thing, so I guess that is one more thing that some court (at the district court level) will decide, and the state Court of Appeals will review (assuming the dispensary/grower/definitely defendant has the $ and inclination and time to fight, again) and the state Supreme Court will review the decision of the Court of Appeals(see preceding parenthetical)etc., etc., etc., (see Yul Brynner in The King and I).

I hate to climb back up on my soapbox, with its grooves the exact size of my feet worn to translucence, but this rigamarole is all about this wink,wink, nudge, nudge, (see Eric Idle) "medical" marijuana crap. Marijuana is no more or less "medical" than opium, alcohol, or any other psychoactive substance. We are forced into this intellectually dishonest position by the prohibitionists in our midst of course, but that position is indefensible. The defensible and morally correct position is that we all have the absolute right to ingest the substances we choose without any interference from anyone else, individually or collectively. Just for the fuck of it, prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senorx12562

I don't know whether a dispensary model is "appropriate" either, shit, I don't even know what he means by appropriate. I do know that the language of the amendment does not mandate or prohibit such a thing, so I guess that is one more thing that some court (at the district court level) will decide, and the state Court of Appeals will review (assuming the dispensary/grower/definitely defendant has the $ and inclination and time to fight, again) and the state Supreme Court will review the decision of the Court of Appeals(see preceding parenthetical)etc., etc., etc., (see Yul Brynner in The King and I).

I hate to climb back up on my soapbox, with its grooves the exact size of my feet worn to translucence, but this rigamarole is all about this wink,wink, nudge, nudge, (see Eric Idle) "medical" marijuana crap. Marijuana is no more or less "medical" than opium, alcohol, or any other psychoactive substance. We are forced into this intellectually dishonest position by the prohibitionists in our midst of course, but that position is indefensible. The defensible and morally correct position is that we all have the absolute right to ingest the substances we choose without any interference from anyone else, individually or collectively. Just for the fuck of it, prove me wrong.

---

I couldnt disagree more. i use cannabis to function normally. i dont use it to get drunk or stoned.

i also believe it should be legal and available to anyone over 18.

you really should do some research on the medical benefits of cannabis too.

i dont know of any medical benefit to alcohol. of course opiats are used as pain killers and anethetics during surgery.

its apples and oranges, cannabis should be in a class of its own, its not comparable to opium or alcohol any more than caffeine is comparable to cocaine.

Forgive me for my failure to do any research. You're right , I'm an idiot.

I agree that MMJ invites all sorts of deceptions and logic contortions. Still, though I think MMJ is a stop on the road to legalization, and I'm happy we're here. I do think it is tedious to maintain the "medical" veneer and look forward to the time when adults can purchase and use marijuana for any reason they choose. It is indeed intellectually dishonest to maintain the position that only certain sick people should be allowed safe access when we all use this drug for recreation as well as for its proven medicinal effects.

I feel a headache coming on. It should arrive around the time the BCS championship game kicks off. wink wink nudge nudge.

Personally I agree with BOTH filings!!:thumbsup:

"ENSHRINED" in the Constitution. Is a perfect way to describe it. As, being in the Constitution means it is the HIGHEST LAW, also referred to as THE LAW OF THE LAND!

ANY law which alters, or contradicts the Constitution is illegal UNDER the Constitution. According to the U.S. Constitution (The nationwide "Law of the land").

ALL local governments can regulate INSIDE the Constitutional restraints, but CAN NOT "legally" ignore them. The ONLY way to change what is said in the Constitution is to vote to CHANGE the Constitution!!:thumbsup:

As usual, Highpop has it all wrong. YES gambling IS in the Colorado Constitution. However the amendment ALSO says,.. Where, when, how large, and what KIND of gambling is allowed!! Therefore restricting if, or where Harra's can build IS part of the Constitution.

IF, WHERE or HOW a dispensary is regulated is NOT in the Constitution. So it CAN be regulated.

HOWEVER,.. The Doctor bans, Caregiver regulation, Patient Record keeping, Outright banning of certain growers, do to being of "questionable character", Forcing growers to pay out to "privately owned" security companies, Employing "Gestapo type" surveillance, forcing background checks looking for persons of "questionable character" and BANNING them from ever even WORKING in the industry, and BANNING home delivery are ALL not legal under the Constitution. Every one of these (and likely more) are specifically banned in Amendment 20's wording! Or Constitutional Employment rights!

Do you think when Alcohol prohibition ended, that people who made alcoholic beverages DURING prohibition were outright banned from ever being involved in the very business being legalized? :wtf: NO, because THAT would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

The people who supported these bills, and passed them (without the people's vote). Knew before they passed the bills (because the crowds TOLD them), That WE "the people" were AGAINST it! THAT is why they have been SO defensive and "against" MMJ (other then their own mmj businesses of course)! They took the "Kids and users just want to get stoned" side immediately after passing the bill!! Acting as though it protected the kids! BECAUSE they KNEW in court it would likely NOT stand up against the State Constitution. By taking that stand, fighting the regulation was looked at (and deemed on the news) AS trying to get drugs to users and kids!:mad:

So, you CAN change it Highpop, all you have to do is CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!! Unfortunately our Local, State and Federal "officials" love to regulate outside their legal power. Because WE never (or at least rarely ever) fight it. Most often WE don't even realize what they are doing!!

I use the term "WE" meaning the bulk of the U.S. people. As for myself (and a growing population) Politics IS my Football!!:thumbsup: I could not care less if ANY sports team wins OR looses. However I'll cheer on ANY politician who fights for my rights. I'll also FIGHT against any politician who LIES, or IGNORES the "law of the land". I REALLY hate the 90% which say one thing, and vote the other way!!

That's called Treason!!:cursing:

According to the U.S. Constitution, States are Countries joined under an END-ABLE agreement(hence the term "UNITED STATES"). Meaning if the Country as a whole goes against the State or it's ideals. The state can choose to leave the union all together. Giving States authority OVER the "Federal" government.

THIS Country was supposed to be ruled from the BOTTOM UP!! Not from an unruly Central Government!:beatdeadhorse:

So, WAY to go on the court filings!!:thumbsup: I'm ALWAYS for forcing the government to live by the same rules WE are supposed to live under! I was wondering how long it would take to get something going on this!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

I agree that MMJ invites all sorts of deceptions and logic contortions. Still, though I think MMJ is a stop on the road to legalization, and I'm happy we're here. I do think it is tedious to maintain the "medical" veneer and look forward to the time when adults can purchase and use marijuana for any reason they choose. It is indeed intellectually dishonest to maintain the position that only certain sick people should be allowed safe access when we all use this drug for recreation as well as for its proven medicinal effects.

I feel a headache coming on. It should arrive around the time the BCS championship game kicks off. wink wink nudge nudge.

---

Feel free to medicate at your leisure. Unfortunately, I am randomly tested at work, so I'll have to rely on you to medicate for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vancefish

Personally I agree with BOTH filings!!:thumbsup:

"ENSHRINED" in the Constitution. Is a perfect way to describe it. As, being in the Constitution means it is the HIGHEST LAW, also referred to as THE LAW OF THE LAND!

ANY law which alters, or contradicts the Constitution is illegal UNDER the Constitution. According to the U.S. Constitution (The nationwide "Law of the land").

ALL local governments can regulate INSIDE the Constitutional restraints, but CAN NOT "legally" ignore them. The ONLY way to change what is said in the Constitution is to vote to CHANGE the Constitution!!:thumbsup:

As usual, Highpop has it all wrong. YES gambling IS in the Colorado Constitution. However the amendment ALSO says,.. Where, when, how large, and what KIND of gambling is allowed!! Therefore restricting if, or where Harra's can build IS part of the Constitution.

IF, WHERE or HOW a dispensary is regulated is NOT in the Constitution. So it CAN be regulated.

HOWEVER,.. The Doctor bans, Caregiver regulation, Patient Record keeping, Outright banning of certain growers, do to being of "questionable character", Forcing growers to pay out to "privately owned" security companies, Employing "Gestapo type" surveillance, forcing background checks looking for persons of "questionable character" and BANNING them from ever even WORKING in the industry, and BANNING home delivery are ALL not legal under the Constitution. Every one of these (and likely more) are specifically banned in Amendment 20's wording! Or Constitutional Employment rights!

Do you think when Alcohol prohibition ended, that people who made alcoholic beverages DURING prohibition were outright banned from ever being involved in the very business being legalized? :wtf: NO, because THAT would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

The people who supported these bills, and passed them (without the people's vote). Knew before they passed the bills (because the crowds TOLD them), That WE "the people" were AGAINST it! THAT is why they have been SO defensive and "against" MMJ (other then their own mmj businesses of course)! They took the "Kids and users just want to get stoned" side immediately after passing the bill!! Acting as though it protected the kids! BECAUSE they KNEW in court it would likely NOT stand up against the State Constitution. By taking that stand, fighting the regulation was looked at (and deemed on the news) AS trying to get drugs to users and kids!:mad:

So, you CAN change it Highpop, all you have to do is CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!! Unfortunately our Local, State and Federal "officials" love to regulate outside their legal power. Because WE never (or at least rarely ever) fight it. Most often WE don't even realize what they are doing!!

I use the term "WE" meaning the bulk of the U.S. people. As for myself (and a growing population) Politics IS my Football!!:thumbsup: I could not care less if ANY sports team wins OR looses. However I'll cheer on ANY politician who fights for my rights. I'll also FIGHT against any politician who LIES, or IGNORES the "law of the land". I REALLY hate the 90% which say one thing, and vote the other way!!

That's called Treason!!:cursing:

According to the U.S. Constitution, States are Countries joined under an END-ABLE agreement(hence the term "UNITED STATES"). Meaning if the Country as a whole goes against the State or it's ideals. The state can choose to leave the union all together. Giving States authority OVER the "Federal" government.

THIS Country was supposed to be ruled from the BOTTOM UP!! Not from an unruly Central Government!:beatdeadhorse:

So, WAY to go on the court filings!!:thumbsup: I'm ALWAYS for forcing the government to live by the same rules WE are supposed to live under! I was wondering how long it would take to get something going on this!!

---

Thank you for explaining that regulations cannot interfere with constitutional RIGHTS! If the Supreme Court hears this petition and agrees (not on mmj) but on constitutional rights--ALL people statewide can go back to what they were doing pre 1284 and 109. And yes, highpop, that means I will return to business, as it was not anyone else telling me I couldn't continue, I refused to apply to be an mmc, as I firmly believe I was a legal caregiver, protected by the constitution. The town of Nederland loved my sales taxes and openly have admitted they have lost the money my state licensed business was generating.

And if they rule against or throw the case out, people who had retail sales tax or wholesale business licenses granted from the state of CO pre 1284 will need to realize we all need to file takings lawsuits. The government cannot issue one a business license and then pass laws to ban your business--ie 'taking' your livelihood from you, without compensating you for up to 20 years of income from that business. We will bankrupt the state.

This petition is forcing the government to play by the same rules we do. MMJ does not make anyone a second class citizen. Anyone who believes we should bend over just because mmj is 'controversial', is believing 2010 reefer madness.

highpop is usually wrong, and I won't give you a further response. If you have read the full petition, posted on cannabislawsuits.com, you clearly don't understand it. Maybe read the westword latest word interview with my attorney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colodonmed

"I know there's a lot of (medical marijuana centers) who are not happy with me for filing this, but they have to realize... they are in legal limbo," Chippi said.

Too bad if they are not happy with your decision to file this, I would risk saying that the majority of patients and caregivers are ecstatic!!, Way to go Kathleen!

---

I agree. At this point if your MMC does not have literature or signs or if they haven't even mentioned to their patients what is going on, patients should ask them why not and then run! (and take your paperwork with you!)

I want to let everyone know that I was contacted by 2 MMC applicants who said thank you after my filing. Colorado Care on Iris in Boulder and North Fork Natural Healing in Peonia. They are concerned for themselves and their patients and are educating their patients on this issue. And NFNH is being closed by a local ban in March.

In the long run, when they start closing most MMC's down, like NFNH, they will see that this petition is their only ray of light. It's good for everyone. And if they still say it isn't good for them, then you know they loved the fact that their competition was kicked out by 1284, because that is all 1284 did--cut out the constitutionally protected patients and caregivers from providing their overflow to other patients and caregivers in need.

And I agree, patients and caregivers are ecstatic! The positive response from them has flowed. I really don't care if 1000 people in the state who applied for this draconian statute MMC status hate me. Almost 3 million people are residents and will be affected by this either directly, as they are a patient or a caregiver, or they have a family member who will be a patient or a caregiver. 1 in 3 people in CO gets some form of cancer. That's 33% of the population qualifying for mmj on cancer alone.

So not having support from those who want me to be disqualified from my constitutional RIGHTS is not a loss for me. It's a good riddance. http://boards.cannabis.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

Patients NEED to educated themselves on who is on their team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighPopalorum

Well, you're absolutely right about one thing: the court will decide. We won't have long to wait.

This is tangential, but what do you think would happen if 1284 was sent back to the legislature? I haven't digested the new committees, but one new chair stands out: Bob Gardner, who makes no secret of his desire to close all MMCs: "I don't think the dispensary model is appropriate." He was overruled the first time around, but now he will be the one holding the gavel in those committee hearings. He has a plan to sell MMJ through prescriptions and pharmacies, a de facto death penalty for MMJ in Colorado. I think you would be mistaken to celebrate the end of 1284, because the legislature is much more hostile to marijuana than it was a year ago. There are some unknowns (DelGrasso) and of course Summers, but my read is that a new Republican bill would be more restrictive than the current one.

---

Nice how you try to sway it that my petition is going to bring a worse response from the legislature. You just don't get it--NO statute can override our constitutional RIGHTS. As far as patients and caregivers see it this hb1284 IS as bad as it gets.

As far as it getting worse for MMC's--the legislature's have already got their prohibition language to "correct the flaws in HB1284" for months now. There are already "10 times the mmj lobbyist from 2009 at the capitol". They are NOT lobbying patient rights, but MMC rights--which are not protected by the constitution. The legislature listened to the 10 to one public comment against 1284 and passed it anyway. They are not on team patient/caregiver. Never have been. It was we the people of Colorado who voted for mmj. Politicians don't get to ignore that. The only means left for patients are the courts, and the courts will decide in the end anyway.

If the Supreme Court throws this out, the patients will know the top judges in CO want them to suffer for 2-3 more years as we will just file in a lower court and appeal our way back up to the Supreme Court and they will be forced to make the ruling then.

I am hopeful, and so are my attorneys, that they see the urgency for patients and see the future takings lawsuits that will inevitably bankrupt the state(unfortunately it is the money that talks) and just rule now.

Believe it or not Kathleen, I look forward to the day when owning and operating a commercial marijuana growing business is no more difficult than running a restaurant or a convenience store. I hope you do return to business and that the regulations your industry faces are not too onerous.

apply to be MMC's may now have their hands tied. They chose their team. They can't advise a client (MMC applicant) to fill out the forms (required by hb1284) and then support the calling of the same legislation (hb1284) as unconstitutional. They very well could be charged with mis advising their clients (MMC's).

Keep this in mind as we wonder why they did nothing on behalf of the patients--the patients didn't give them hundreds of thousands of dollars, the MMC's did.

So money won over doing whats RIGHT and just.

When I called Andrew Reid, he told me straight up--he was NOT an MMJ attorney. He had numerous calls from people asking to represent them and their dispensaries pre 1284. He declined ALL. He said I was the ONLY ONE who called asking about a constitutional action on everyone's behalf. And I asked Andrew to do whatever it took to get as many rights restored to as many people in Colorado as possible, as fast as we could, hence the Original Action to the CO Supreme Court. He took this case because it was the right thing to do for everyone.

The CO Supreme Court only hears 20% of the cases put before it. But Andrews law firm believes we have a solid case that could very well be heard due to urgency and the number of negatively impacted people statewide and it is a health concern. Send positive vibes to the court to do the right thing. I am remaining cautiously hopeful that justice will prevail and the court will hear the case.

(After all, Chris Romer promised to close down 80% of the businesses with hb1284 and most MMC applicants believe they will be the 20% who survive.) I'm gonna think like they do( Hahaha) and hope that my (our) petition will survive the Supreme Courts 80% rejection rate, because this is constitutional and negatively impacts people who are sick statewide who could further suffer loss of job, health insurance, kids, gov aid and even freedom or life.

Well... good on you for putting the state to the test. I hope they hear your case! All our laws should be regularly challenged. I appreciate the financial outlay you provide, even if we disagree about the ideal level of regulation.

Well The Supreme Court already denied hearing the petition......


{Denver} -- The patient petition filed with the Colorado Supreme Court
last week was denied on Monday (1/10), only 5 days after it was filed. The
Supreme Court opted not to decide the case, forcing the patient and
caregiver plaintiffs to start in lower courts and work their way through
the appellate courts, a process that will take much longer.

The petition had been filed on Jan. 5, 2011 by Andrew B. Reid, senior
counsel for Springer and Steinberg, P.C., a Denver law firm, on behalf of
Kathleen Chippi, a Nederland caregiver and dispensary owner, and the
Patient and Caregivers Rights Litigation project, an association of
patients, caregivers and physicians that have been harmed by the passage
of these laws.

The petition was an original jurisdiction petition, asking the Supreme
Court to decide urgent constitutional issues. The Court has discretion on
whether to decide original actions and hears only a small percentage of
such petitions filed each year. So its denial of this case was not a total
surprise, but patients had hoped for more compassion from the court.

"Apparently, the Supreme Court does not think that it is a matter of great
urgency that sick and dying people in Colorado are being denied their
constitutional rights of safe and confidential access to medicine," says
plaintiff Kathleen Chippi. "This delay in deciding these constitutional
issues only harms patients by forcing them to wait months or years for the
Court's decision and spend thousands of dollars to decide issues that the
Court knows it will be ruling on eventually. In the meantime, the
Department of Revenue and the state legislature will continue with
impunity to enact unconstitutional laws that harm patients." She says,
"We are being treated like second-class citizens yet again."

The petition had asked the court to overturn large parts of laws passed by
the Colorado legislature last year (HB 10-1284 and SB 10-109) because they
restrict patient access to medicine and violate patient privacy rights
guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution.

The Department of Revenue is in the process of replacing the Colorado
Department of Health and Environment's confidential patient registry with
their own massive government database of patient medicine information. The
new Patient and Medicine Tracking Database and Surveillance System will
cost the state at least $4 million to set up and will be shared by 5
government agencies and state and federal law enforcement. It will include
up to 16,000 different security cameras in Medical Marijuana Centers,
visible to law enforcement via Internet web cameras 24/7. The MMCs will be
required to videotape patients as they purchase their medicine and log
each patient purchase into the database. All of this will be open to law
enforcement, including CBI and DEA, and other agencies on demand.

Just as the state has taken away the Constitutional protection of
caregivers, they are now taking away the Constitutional protection for
patients. MMC applicants were forced to revoke their constitutional right
to be a caregiver in exchange for the statutory privilege of applying to
operate an MMC. Similarly, patients are being told they must revoke their
constitutional right to patient confidentiality in order for the
"privilege" of purchasing their medicine at an MMC. Not only is this is
completely backwards of how the constitution was supposed to work, but it
opens patients up to immeasurable harm if (when) their information is
leaked from the government database. Patients stand to lose their homes,
their jobs, their health insurance, their children and more if it becomes
known that they are medical marijuana patients. That is why
confidentiality is at the foundation of Colorado's Medical Marijuana
Constitutional Amendment.

Chippi and other patients are worried these electronic patient records can
never be secured on the Internet, as evidenced by WikiLeaks and other
recent "accidental" disclosures of records. Once the records have been
leaked, the harm has been done and is irreparable to patients.

Chippi will now file her action in District Court. The Patient and
Caregiver Rights Litigation Project event on Wed. evening to discuss these
issues will continue as scheduled. Please spread the word and invite your
friends:

PUBLIC MEETING
Wed., Jan. 12, 2011
Casselman's Bar and Venue
2620 Walnut Street, Denver, CO 80205

The Patient & Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
the Cannabis Trade Council and the Cannabis Therapy Institute will be
hosting a Public Meeting and Medical Marijuana Legal Panel

FREE and open to the public.

Schedule:

6:00pm - 6:30pm: Mingling and cash bar

6:30pm - 7:30pm
PATIENT & CAREGIVER RIGHTS LITIGATION PROJECT
Discussion of current lawsuits to regain patient and caregiver rights and
the positive benefits for cannabis business. * Andrew B. Reid, Senior
Counsel, Springer and Steinberg, P.C., author of Original Action Petition
to Colo. Supreme Court filed 1/5/11. * Kathleen Chippi, Patient and
Caregiver Rights Litigation Project * Kristy A. Martinez, Attorney at Law,
offered Amicus Support for Original Action Petition * Peter Loyd Weber,
Attorney at Law, offered Amicus Support for Original Action Petition *
Richard M. Gee, Attorney at Law, offered Amicus Support for Original
Action Petition * Eric Moutz, Attorney at Law, offered Amicus Support for
Original Action Petition

CANNABIS TRADE COUNCIL
Discussion of security issues regarding new DoR rules and organization of
CTC Committees. * Anthony P. Ibarra, security expert (DigaNET, Inc.,
Denver) Head of Cannabis Trade Council Electronic Security Committee *
Veronica Carpio, medical cannabis business owner (420 Highways) Head of
Cannabis Trade Council Committee Organizing

7:45pm - 9:15pm
MEDICAL MARIJUANA LEGAL PANEL
Moderated by the Cannabis Therapy Institute
Topics for discussion will current and future lawsuits, compliance with
the new DoR rules, the bleak legislative picture, and the prospects of a
ballot initiative in 2012. Opportunity for Q & A from the audience.

Panelists

Dennis Blewitt (Boulder)
Civil Rights Attorney and Author of Dr. Gonzo's Blog
gonzo2's posterous - Home

Richard Gee (Blackhawk)
Phone: (303) 569-6430
MC Squared Law

Danyel Joffe (Denver)
Attorney at Law
Phone: 303-757-6572
The Joffe Law Firm

Bill Lahey (Littleton)
Lahey Law Firm, P.C.
Phone: 303-399-3308
Home | Lahey Law Firm, P.C.

Kristy A. Martinez (Longmont)
Phone: 303-772-3230

Eric Moutz (Boulder)
Phone: 303-440-3923
The Law Offices of Eric J. Moutz, LLC - Colorado Trial Attorney Providing Legal Service to Denver, Boulder, and the Front Range.

Ann Toney, Lawyer (Denver)
Phone: 303-399-5556
Ann Toney, P.C. - Index

Peter Loyd Weber
Attorney at Law (Broomfield)
303-818-8625
http://www.peterloydweberlaw.com

For more information, see:

Patient and Caregivers Rights Litigation Project
http://www.CananbisLawsuits.com/

Cannabis Trade Council
Cannabis Trade Council: A Cannabis (Medical Marijuana) Professional Trade Organization and Industry Group

Cannabis Therapy Institute
Cannabis Therapy Institutue - - Medical Cannabis (Marijuana) Research, Education and Advocacy in Colorado