Pubdate: Mon, 11 Oct 2010
Source: Daily Sentinel, The (Grand Junction, CO)
Copyright: 2010 Cox Newspapers, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.gjsentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2084

VOTE 'YES' ON COUNTY'S REFERRED MEASURE 1A

There will, we realize, be court challenges to any community effort to
ban medical marijuana dispensaries under a state law adopted earlier
this year. Ultimately, the question of whether such bans are
constitutional will almost certainly be determined by the Colorado
Supreme Court.

But there is another question people should consider as they are
deciding whether to vote for Mesa County Referred Measure 1A: What did
voters envision when they approved a medical marijuana constitutional
amendment 10 years ago?

It's hard to believe anyone who voted for Amendment 20 on the 2000
election ballot anticipated the current situation, with medical
marijuana retail outlets seemingly in every neighborhood and shopping
center.

Referred Measure 1A would prohibit the operation of medical marijuana
centers, or dispensaries, in unincorporated parts of Mesa County.

The measure would also prohibit large marijuana cultivation operations
in the county, along with the sale of "marijuana-infused products"
such as marijuana candy.

Since the Grand Junction City Council has already voted to ban similar
operations within the city limits, passage of Referred Measure 1A
would mean a majority of Mesa County would be off-limits to medical
marijuana centers.

But that doesn't mean medical marijuana will be outlawed. Instead, the
situation will revert to essentially what it was for the first nine
years after Amendment 20 passed. Individual care-givers will be able
to provide medical marijuana to up to five patients and grow limited
amounts of marijuana to serve them.

That's clearly the sort of system most Colorado voters had in mind
when they marked their ballots in favor of Amendment 20 a decade ago.
Read the text of the amendment and you'll see lots of references to
medical marijuana patients and their "primary care-givers." There is
no mention of medical marijuana centers or dispensaries.

Unfortunately, "primary care-giver" was defined ambiguously enough
that it has allowed dispensaries to claim care-giver status for a
multitude of customers.

No doubt questions about that definition will be part of any legal
challenge to community bans on medical marijuana centers.

In the meantime, Mesa County residents who believed they voted 10
years ago only for limited amounts of medical marijuana for serious
medical problems, provided by care-givers serving a handful of
patients - not large marijuana retail outlets - have a chance to
reiterate that view this year.

We urge a "Yes" vote on Referred Measure 1A. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake