Petition filed with Supreme Court to challenge 1284

[ThaiBuddhaMan]

...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.

[senorx12562]

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.

[HighPopalorum]

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.

[senorx12562]

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.

[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.

[copobo]

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.

[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.

[MtnLionCO]

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.

[MtnLionCO]

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.

[senorx12562]

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