Pubdate: Wed, 04 May 2016
Source: Colorado Springs Independent (CO)
Column: CannaBiz
Copyright: 2016 Colorado Springs Independent
Contact:  http://www.csindy.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1536
Author: Nat Stein

SQUABBLE OVER PUEBLO COUNTY RETAIL SALES AND A PLANT-COUNT VOTE IN THE SPRINGS

Sued in Pueblo

A Pueblo resident is suing to roll back a ballot initiative that's 
trying to roll back retail pot in the county. That initiative, pushed 
by a group called Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo, is unconstitutional 
according to the complaint filed this week in district court asking 
for injunctive relief.

Local attorney Dan Oldenburg and tree-services company owner Kenny 
Gierhart filed for a petition on April 8. Pueblo County Clerk and 
Recorder Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz certified it a few days later, saying 
they'd need signatures from 5 percent of registered county voters to 
make it onto the ballot. The question asks voters if they want to ban 
retail marijuana facilities, including cultivation, infused-product 
manufacturing, testing and stores.

Plaintiff Micheline Smith (represented by Denver law firm Holland and 
Knight) contends 5 percent is too low a threshold. The complaint's 
central argument is that because Amendment 64 declares "marijuana 
should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol," the petitioners 
should need to get signatures from 15 percent of registered voters, 
as is required by the statute pertaining to citizen-led bans on alcohol sales.

Clerk Ortiz stands by his decision. "I can't talk too much about it 
because we're going to court, but I wouldn't have gone forward with 
it if I didn't think it was the right call," he told the Independent.

Former Pueblo County Sheriff Dan Corsentino disagrees.

"Both the letter and the spirit of Amendment 64 explicitly states 
that marijuana in Colorado is to be regulated like alcohol," he said 
in a statement. "The majority of voters in Pueblo agreed with the 
legalization of retail cannabis on those grounds."

Corsentino is now spokesman for the pro-pot Growing Pueblo's Future 
campaign. "Our group supports this lawsuit, in order to protect 
living wages in our town as well as to keep tax dollars here in 
Pueblo County instead of elsewhere," he continued. "This is about 
standing up for the over 1,300 jobs and over $3 million in tax 
revenue that our opposition is set on eliminating. As we all move 
forward, we simply ask that the intent of Amendment 64 is upheld and 
the will of the voters is respected."

The defendants named in the suit - Ortiz, the Pueblo County Board of 
Commissioners and the two petition-filers - have yet to file a response.

One vote away

Colorado Springs City Council took its first vote last Tuesday on a 
proposed ordinance that would limit residential marijuana grows to a 
maximum of 12 plants. The ordinance passed with a unanimous vote 
after passionate testimony from supporters and opponents of the measure.

Both sides agreed there are illegitimate operations violating 
existing state and federal law and shipping marijuana out of the 
state. And both sides agreed there are medical patients with 
legitimate reasons to grow and consume cannabis. But as for how many 
home grows belong to patients vs. criminals, here's a sketch.

There are 185,041 residential homes in Colorado Springs, according to 
the state demography office's most recent count. Federal agents with 
the Drug Enforcement Agency told Council they're aware of around 186 
homes in the area that have been converted to large-scale grow 
operations allegedly trafficking marijuana across state lines. 
Commander Sean Mandel of Colorado Springs Police Department's Metro 
Vice, Narcotics and Intelligence Unit agreed with that estimate when 
asked how many of this scary variety exist in the Springs.

That 186 out of 185,041 is 0.1 percent.

Owner of the Speakeasy Vape Lounge and City Council hopeful Jaymen 
Johnson acknowledged that those 0.1 percent of grows are a problem. 
"But what we're referring to is a very small faction, not the 
majority of our community whatsoever," he said, adding, "Also I just 
want to reiterate that everything that has been brought up already is illegal."

It's true that growing more than 36 plants is already illegal in El 
Paso County. Out-of-state trafficking, of course, violates federal drug laws.

Criminal penalties are attached to the new plant-count ordinance - a 
fine of no more than $2,500 and jail time no longer than 198 days - 
though the city's zoning and law enforcement divisions say that for 
those who they deem to be legitimate caregivers, that would be a last 
resort. Compliance is the No. 1 priority, according to Mandel.

Before the vote, Councilor Larry Bagley, who brought the measure from 
the city's marijuana task force to Council, explained that he just 
wants to give law enforcement more tools to do their job.

Tuesday's vote did not seal the deal. The ordinance will get its 
second and final reading on May 10.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom