Category

Colorado Medical Marijuana Law

Nov 17
0

It’s Legal To Sell Marijuana In Washington. But Try Telling That To A Bank.

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information, Medical Marijuana Law | No Comments

by Chana Joffe-Walt

November 16, 2012 4:00 AM
Marijuana

David McNew/Getty Images

Voters in Washington and Colorado just approved measures legalizing marijuana for recreational use. But businesses that want to sell marijuana in those states will face a problem: No bank wants to do business with them.

I called several banks in Washington. I called a local credit union, a tiny bank in the San Juan islands. Everybody said basically the same thing. Even if selling marijuana is legal under state law, it’s still illegal under federal law. And banks and credit unions worry that this could get them in trouble.

So people who want to go into the marijuana business — who want to legally grow, distribute, sell marijuana in the state — are going to have to operate, basically, like drug dealers. They’re going to have to run a cash business.

John Davis has been through the problem that future marijuana businesses are going to have. He sells medical marijuana in Seattle (medical marijuana has been legal Washington). And he had a really hard time finding a bank willing to work with him, so for a while he did business in cash.

Payroll was a mess. It’s impossible to order supplies — baggies, lights, display cases — without a credit card. PayPal works for some things, but not for others.

“How do you pay your taxes?” Davis says. “You can’t go into the Department of Revenue and give them a wad of cash.”

Davis learned a bunch of tricks for operating an all cash business, and even teaches a course called “canibusiness.”

In the end, Davis found a work-around that may be he best option for other people who want to get into the industry: Be vague with the bank. Don’t tell them exactly what line of work you’re in.

Davis says he doesn’t feel great about toying with the truth. But, he says, he has a legitimate business, and he needs a bank.

Related NPR Stories

For cannabis consulting information, please visit:

http://quantum9.net

Nov 07
0

Amendment 64: The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information | One Comment

Quantum 9 Medical Marijuana Technology POS

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado

Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 16. Personal use and regulation of marijuana

(1) Purpose and findings.
(a) IN THE INTEREST OF THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES, ENHANCING REVENUE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FIND AND DECLARE THAT THE USE OF MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND TAXED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO ALCOHOL.
(b) IN THE INTEREST OF THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENRY, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT MARIJUANA SHOULD BE REGULATED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO ALCOHOL SO THAT:
(I) INDIVIDUALS WILL HAVE TO SHOW PROOF OF AGE BEFORE PURCHASING MARIJUANA;
(II) SELLING, DISTRIBUTING, OR TRANSFERRING MARIJUANA TO MINORS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE SHALL REMAIN ILLEGAL;
(III) DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA SHALL REMAIN ILLEGAL;
(IV) LEGITIMATE, TAXPAYING BUSINESS PEOPLE, AND NOT CRIMINAL ACTORS, WILL CONDUCT SALES OF MARIJUANA; AND
(V) MARIJUANA SOLD IN THIS STATE WILL BE LABELED AND SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS ARE INFORMED AND PROTECTED.
(c) IN THE INTEREST OF ENACTING RATIONAL POLICIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALL VARIATIONS OF THE CANNABIS PLANT, THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT INDUSTRIAL HEMP SHOULD BE REGULATED SEPARATELY FROM STRAINS OF CANNABIS WITH HIGHER DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL (THC) CONCENTRATIONS.
(d) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FURTHER FIND AND DECLARE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND FAIRNESS IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE MATTERS ADDRESSED BY THIS SECTION ARE, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED HEREIN, MATTERS OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

(2) Definitions.  AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES,
(a) “COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE” MEANS ARTICLE 43.3 OF TITLE 12, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES.
(b) “CONSUMER” MEANS A PERSON TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHO PURCHASES MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FOR PERSONAL USE BY PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, BUT NOT FOR RESALE TO OTHERS.
(c) “DEPARTMENT” MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY.
(d) “INDUSTRIAL HEMP” MEANS THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS AND ANY PART OF SUCH PLANT, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, WITH A DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL CONCENTRATION THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THREE-TENTHS PERCENT ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS.
(e) “LOCALITY” MEANS A COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY.
(f) “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. “MARIJUANA” OR “MARIHUANA” DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT.
(g) “MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES” MEANS ANY EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, OR MATERIALS OF ANY KIND WHICH ARE USED, INTENDED FOR USE, OR DESIGNED FOR USE IN PLANTING, PROPAGATING, CULTIVATING, GROWING, HARVESTING, COMPOSTING, MANUFACTURING, COMPOUNDING, CONVERTING, PRODUCING, PROCESSING, PREPARING, TESTING, ANALYZING, PACKAGING, REPACKAGING, STORING, VAPORIZING, OR CONTAINING MARIJUANA, OR FOR INGESTING, INHALING, OR OTHERWISE INTRODUCING MARIJUANA INTO THE HUMAN BODY.
(h) “MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO CULTIVATE, PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA AND SELL MARIJUANA TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES, TO MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, AND TO OTHER MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, BUT NOT TO CONSUMERS.
(i) “MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT” MEANS A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY, A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, OR A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
(j) “MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA; MANUFACTURE, PREPARE, AND PACKAGE MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; AND SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO OTHER MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND TO RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES, BUT NOT TO CONSUMERS.
(k) “MARIJUANA PRODUCTS” MEANS CONCENTRATED MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS THAT ARE COMPRISED OF MARIJUANA AND OTHER INGREDIENTS AND ARE INTENDED FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EDIBLE PRODUCTS, OINTMENTS, AND TINCTURES.
(l) “MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO ANALYZE AND CERTIFY THE SAFETY AND POTENCY OF MARIJUANA.
(m) “MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED BY A STATE AGENCY TO SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
(n) “RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA FROM MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND TO SELL MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS.
(o) “UNREASONABLY IMPRACTICABLE” MEANS THAT THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE SUCH A HIGH INVESTMENT OF RISK, MONEY, TIME, OR ANY OTHER RESOURCE OR ASSET THAT THE OPERATION OF A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT WORTHY OF BEING CARRIED OUT IN PRACTICE BY A REASONABLY PRUDENT BUSINESSPERSON.

(3) Personal use of marijuana.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
(a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
(c) TRANSFER OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT REMUNERATION TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.
(e) ASSISTING ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IN ANY OF THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (d) OF THIS SUBSECTION.

(4) Lawful operation of marijuana-related facilities.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE UNDER COLORADO LAW OR BE A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
(a) MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, OR PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR THE SALE OF MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
(b) POSSESSING, DISPLAYING, OR TRANSPORTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; OR SALE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF A LICENSED RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.
(c) CULTIVATING, HARVESTING, PROCESSING, PACKAGING, TRANSPORTING, DISPLAYING, OR POSSESSING MARIJUANA; DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA TO A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY; SELLING MARIJUANA TO A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, OR A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE; OR THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY.
(d) PACKAGING, PROCESSING, TRANSPORTING, MANUFACTURING, DISPLAYING, OR POSSESSING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY; SELLING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE OR A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY; THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA FROM A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY; OR THE PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS FROM A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, IF THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
(e) POSSESSING, CULTIVATING, PROCESSING, REPACKAGING, STORING, TRANSPORTING, DISPLAYING, TRANSFERRING OR DELIVERING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IF THE PERSON HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT, VALID LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY OR IS ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS AN OWNER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF A LICENSED MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY.
(f) LEASING OR OTHERWISE ALLOWING THE USE OF PROPERTY OWNED, OCCUPIED OR CONTROLLED BY ANY PERSON, CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY FOR ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED LAWFULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (e) OF THIS SUBSECTION.

(5) Regulation of marijuana.
(a) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2013, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADOPT REGULATIONS NECESSARY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION. SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL NOT PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR THROUGH REGULATIONS THAT MAKE THEIR OPERATION UNREASONABLY IMPRACTICABLE. SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL INCLUDE:
(I) PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, RENEWAL, SUSPENSION, AND REVOCATION OF A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT, WITH SUCH PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE 24 OF THE COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OR ANY SUCCESSOR PROVISION;
(II) A SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION, LICENSING AND RENEWAL FEES, PROVIDED, APPLICATION FEES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WITH THIS UPPER LIMIT ADJUSTED ANNUALLY FOR INFLATION, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES A GREATER FEE IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THIS SECTION, AND PROVIDED FURTHER, AN ENTITY THAT IS LICENSED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO CULTIVATE OR SELL MARIJUANA OR TO MANUFACTURE MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AT THE TIME THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT AND THAT CHOOSES TO APPLY FOR A SEPARATE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY AN APPLICATION FEE GREATER THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION;
(III) QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE THAT ARE DIRECTLY AND DEMONSTRABLY RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(IV) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS;
(V) REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT THE SALE OR DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE;
(VI) LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED BY A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(VII) HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AND THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA;
(VIII) RESTRICTIONS ON THE ADVERTISING AND DISPLAY OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS; AND
(IX) CIVIL PENALTIES FOR THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
(b) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE MOST SECURE, RELIABLE, AND ACCOUNTABLE SYSTEM FOR THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUBSECTION, IN ANY COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS THE DEPARTMENT SHALL HAVE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHETHER AN APPLICANT:
(I) HAS PRIOR EXPERIENCE PRODUCING OR DISTRIBUTING MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT; AND
(II) HAS, DURING THE EXPERIENCE DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I), COMPLIED CONSISTENTLY WITH SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE AND CONFORMING REGULATIONS.
(c) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY IS PROTECTED, NOTWITHSTANDING PARAGRAPH (a), THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT REQUIRE A CONSUMER TO PROVIDE A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE WITH PERSONAL INFORMATION OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION TO DETERMINE THE CONSUMER’S AGE, AND A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACQUIRE AND RECORD PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT CONSUMERS OTHER THAN INFORMATION TYPICALLY ACQUIRED IN A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION CONDUCTED AT A RETAIL LIQUOR STORE.
(d) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT AN EXCISE TAX TO BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED BY A MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITY TO A MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITY OR TO A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE AT A RATE NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PERCENT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2017 AND AT A RATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF ALL TAXES LEVIED. PROVIDED, THE FIRST FORTY MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE RAISED ANNUALLY FROM ANY SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE FUND CREATED BY ARTICLE 43.7 OF TITLE 22, C.R.S., OR ANY SUCCESSOR FUND DEDICATED TO A SIMILAR PURPOSE. PROVIDED FURTHER, NO SUCH EXCISE TAX SHALL BE LEVIED UPON MARIJUANA INTENDED FOR SALE AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.
(e) NOT LATER THAN OCTOBER 1, 2013, EACH LOCALITY SHALL ENACT AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION SPECIFYING THE ENTITY WITHIN THE LOCALITY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCALITY AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH LICENSES SHOULD THE ISSUANCE BY THE LOCALITY BECOME NECESSARY BECAUSE OF A FAILURE BY THE DEPARTMENT TO ADOPT REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OR BECAUSE OF A FAILURE BY THE DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS AND ISSUE LICENSES AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (g).
(f) A LOCALITY MAY ENACT ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS, NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS SECTION OR WITH REGULATIONS OR LEGISLATION ENACTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, GOVERNING THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER AND NUMBER OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT OPERATIONS; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, SUSPENSION, AND REVOCATION OF A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (h) OR (i), SUCH PROCEDURES TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE 24 OF THE COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OR ANY SUCCESSOR PROVISION; ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL OPERATING, LICENSING, AND APPLICATION FEES FOR MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS, PROVIDED, THE APPLICATION FEE SHALL ONLY BE DUE IF AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (i) AND A LICENSING FEE SHALL ONLY BE DUE IF A LICENSE IS ISSUED BY A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (h) OR (i); AND ESTABLISHING CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION GOVERNING THE TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT THAT MAY OPERATE IN SUCH LOCALITY. A LOCALITY MAY PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITIES, OR RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF AN ORDINANCE OR THROUGH AN INITIATED OR REFERRED MEASURE; PROVIDED, ANY INITIATED OR REFERRED MEASURE TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES, MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES, MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITIES, OR RETAIL MARIJUANA STORES MUST APPEAR ON A GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT DURING AN EVEN NUMBERED YEAR.
(g) EACH APPLICATION FOR AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL:
(I) BEGIN ACCEPTING AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS ON OCTOBER 1, 2013;
(II) IMMEDIATELY FORWARD A COPY OF EACH APPLICATION AND HALF OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO OPERATE THE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT;
(III) ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FORTY-FIVE AND NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS ENACTED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OR THE DEPARTMENT IS NOTIFIED BY THE RELEVANT LOCALITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, PROVIDED, WHERE A LOCALITY HAS ENACTED A NUMERICAL LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND A GREATER NUMBER OF APPLICANTS SEEK LICENSES, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SOLICIT AND CONSIDER INPUT FROM THE LOCALITY AS TO THE LOCALITY’S PREFERENCE OR PREFERENCES FOR LICENSURE; AND
(IV) UPON DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION, NOTIFY THE APPLICANT IN WRITING OF THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR ITS DENIAL.
(h) IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ISSUE A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (g) AND DOES NOT NOTIFY THE APPLICANT OF THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR ITS DENIAL, IN WRITING AND WITHIN SUCH TIME PERIOD, OR IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOPTED REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) AND HAS ACCEPTED APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (g) BUT HAS NOT ISSUED ANY LICENSES BY JANUARY 1, 2014, THE APPLICANT MAY RESUBMIT ITS APPLICATION DIRECTLY TO THE LOCALITY, PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (e), AND THE LOCALITY MAY ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT. A LOCALITY ISSUING A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT SHALL DO SO WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE RESUBMITTED APPLICATION UNLESS THE LOCALITY FINDS AND NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS RESUBMITTED AND THE LOCALITY SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IF AN ANNUAL LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT. IF AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO A LOCALITY UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FORWARD TO THE LOCALITY THE APPLICATION FEE PAID BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DEPARTMENT UPON REQUEST BY THE LOCALITY. A LICENSE ISSUED BY A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (g) AND THE HOLDER OF SUCH LICENSE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR ENFORCEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE TERM OF THAT LICENSE. A SUBSEQUENT OR RENEWED LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH ON AN ANNUAL BASIS ONLY UPON RESUBMISSION TO THE LOCALITY OF A NEW APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (g). NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL LIMIT SUCH RELIEF AS MAY BE AVAILABLE TO AN AGGRIEVED PARTY UNDER SECTION 24-4-104, C.R.S., OF THE COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OR ANY SUCCESSOR PROVISION.
(i) IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ADOPT REGULATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (a), AN APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION DIRECTLY TO A LOCALITY AFTER OCTOBER 1, 2013 AND THE LOCALITY MAY ISSUE AN ANNUAL LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT. A LOCALITY ISSUING A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT SHALL DO SO WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION UNLESS IT FINDS AND NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (f) IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IF AN ANNUAL LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT. A LICENSE ISSUED BY A LOCALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (g) AND THE HOLDER OF SUCH LICENSE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR ENFORCEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE TERM OF THAT LICENSE. A SUBSEQUENT OR RENEWED LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ADOPTED REGULATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (a) AT LEAST NINETY DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE UPON WHICH SUCH SUBSEQUENT OR RENEWED LICENSE WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OR IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ADOPTED REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) BUT HAS NOT, AT LEAST NINETY DAYS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF SUCH REGULATIONS, ISSUED LICENSES PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (g).
(j) NOT LATER THAN JULY 1, 2014, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP.

(6) Employers, driving, minors and control of property.
(a) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY, TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.
(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA OR TO SUPERSEDE STATUTORY LAWS RELATED TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA, NOR SHALL THIS SECTION PREVENT THE STATE FROM ENACTING AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OR WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA.
(c) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA, WITH OR WITHOUT REMUNERATION, TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE OR TO ALLOW A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE TO PURCHASE, POSSESS, USE, TRANSPORT, GROW, OR CONSUME MARIJUANA.
(d) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON, EMPLOYER, SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, DETENTION FACILITY, CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES, OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY.

(7) Medical marijuana provisions unaffected.  NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED: (a) TO LIMIT ANY PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OF A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT, PRIMARY CAREGIVER, OR LICENSED ENTITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (b) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT; (c) TO PERMIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN A MANNER OR FROM A SOURCE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE; (d) TO PERMIT ANY MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER LICENSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE TO OPERATE ON THE SAME PREMISES AS A RETAIL MARIJUANA STORE.; OR (e) TO DISCHARGE THE DEPARTMENT, THE COLORADO BOARD OF HEALTH, OR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FROM THEIR STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES TO REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE.

(8) Self-executing, severability, conflicting provisions.  ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE SELF-EXECUTING EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED HEREIN, ARE SEVERABLE, AND, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE TEXT, SHALL SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING STATE STATUTORY, LOCAL CHARTER, ORDINANCE, OR RESOLUTION, AND OTHER STATE AND LOCAL PROVISIONS.

(9) Effective date.  UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION, ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE VOTE HEREON BY PROCLAMATION OF THE GOVERNOR, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1(4) OF ARTICLE V.

May 14
0

Denver Lawyer Loses Liability Insurance over Mmedical-marijuana Clients

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information, News | No Comments

5/13/2012 By John Ingold The Denver Post

In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind event nationwide, a Denver lawyer has lost her liability insurance because part of her practice involves representing medical-marijuana businesses.

Ann Toney’s insurance company told her last month that it will not renew her malpractice coverage. In its terse notice, the Hanover Insurance Group explained that Toney’s practice “does not meet current underwriting guidelines because of the following risk factors: Area of practice involving medical marijuana.”

Toney, a former prosecutor who has taught classes on medical-marijuana law for the Colorado Bar Association, said she was surprised. Most of her work representing medical-marijuana businesses came one or two years ago, when the state’s laws for such businesses were in flux.

She said she has always advised clients that marijuana sales remain illegal federally and made sure her clients are in compliance with state medical-marijuana law.

“You represent people under the laws of Colorado,” she said. “What’s the alternative? No one’s going to get any help following the law in Colorado?”

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he knows of no other lawyer to lose insurance because of work with medical-marijuana businesses.

“We’re certainly afraid we’re going to start seeing more now,” St. Pierre said.

He said 625 lawyers nationwide are members of NORML.

Toney’s nonrenewal started brewing earlier this year, when she asked to add a new lawyer to her firm’s coverage. The insurance company asked for more information about Toney’s work in the medical-marijuana field. T

oney replied that 70 percent of her practice involves drunken- and drugged-driving cases, with the remaining 30 percent consisting of criminal defense and medical-marijuana business representation.

Hanover’s nonrenewal notice followed Toney’s response.

Toney said her insurance broker has told her that she will have a hard time getting new insurance because she was dropped by a previous carrier.

Still, Toney said she is confident she can find another carrier willing to take her business.

“I’ll find coverage,” she said. “My only question is, How much more is it going to cost me?”

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

For cannabis consulting information, please visit:

http://quantum9.net

May 05
0

Connecticut Senate passes Medical Marijuana Bill

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, Medical Marijuana Law, Medical Marijuana Technology | No Comments

Reuters 5/5/2012 11:16:26 AM ET By Mary Ellen Godin

HARTFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) – The Connecticut Senate passed a bill on Saturday legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes with tight restrictions aimed at avoiding problems that have plagued some of the 16 other states where pot is now legal.

After nearly 10 hours of debate, the Senate voted 21-13 in favor of the measure, which already cleared the House.

Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy was expected to sign the bill. Once he does, Connecticut will join 16 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing use of marijuana to treat sick patients.

Connecticut’s legislation calls for tight regulation of the plant, a move advocates say is aimed at avoiding problems that have plagued some of the other states, include disagreements with the federal government.

Under the bill, patients and their caregivers must register with the Department of Consumer Protection. In addition, their doctors must certify there is a medical need for marijuana to be dispensed, including such debilitating conditions as cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or epilepsy. And, medical marijuana would be dispensed only by pharmacists with a special license.

(Editing by Barbara Goldberg and Eric Beech)

For cannabis consulting information, please visit:

http://quantum9.net

Apr 04
0

Lawmakers In 5 States Tell Feds To Back Off Medical Marijuana

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information, Medical Marijuana Law, News | No Comments

Posted: 04/ 2/2012 4:26 pm by

WASHINGTON — Elected lawmakers in five states have a message for the federal government: Don’t interfere with state medical marijuana laws.

In an open letter to the federal government, lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle called on the government to stop using scarce law enforcement resources on taking pot away from medical marijuana patients.

“States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states,” the lawmakers explained in their letter.

“Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law.”

The letter — signed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Wash.), Rep. Antonio Maestas (D-N.M.), Sen. Cisco McSorley (D-N.M.), Assemblyman Chris Norby (R-Calif.), Rep. Deborah Sanderson (R-Maine) and Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Colo.) — comes directly on the heels of a federal raid in the heart of California’s pot legalization movement: medical marijuana training school Oaksterdam University in downtown Oakland, where U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials on Monday blocked off doors with yellow tape and carried off trash bags full of unknown substances to a nearby van. An IRS spokeswoman could not comment on the raid except to say the agents had a federal search warrant.

The lawmakers called on President Obama to live up to his campaign promise to leave the regulation of medical marijuana to the states, adding raids would only “force patients underground” into the illegal drug market.

The president as a candidate promised to maintain a hands-off approach toward pot clinics that adhere to state law. At a 2007 town hall meeting in Manchester, N.H., Obama said raiding patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes “makes no sense.” At another town hall in Nashua, N.H., he said the Justice Department’s prosecution of medical marijuana users was “not a good use of our resources.” Yet the number of Justice Department raids on marijuana dispensaries has continued to rise.

Read the full letter here:

Over the last two decades, 16 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to depart from federal policy and chart their own course on the issue of medical marijuana, as states are entitlir doctors’ medical advice or risking arrest and prosecution. They have stopped using their scarce law enforcement resources to punish patients and those who care for them and have instead spent considerable resources and time crafting programs that will provide patients with safe and regulated access to medical marijuana.States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states.

Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law; to provide a safe and reliable source of medical marijuana; and to balance and protect the needs of local communities and other residents in the state. The laws were drafted with considered thoughtfulness and care, and are thoroughly consistent with the American tradition of using the states as laboratories for public policy innovation and experimentation.

Unfortunately, these laws face a mounting level of federal hostility and confusing mixed messages from the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and the various United States Attorneys. In 2008, then candidate Obama stated that as President, he would not use the federal government to circumvent state laws on the issue of medical marijuana. This promise was followed up in 2009 by President Obama with a Department of Justice memo from former Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden stating that federal resources should not generally be focused “on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” This provided welcome guidance for state legislators and administrators and encouraged us to move forward with drafting and passing responsible regulatory legislation.

Nonetheless, the United States Attorneys in several states with medical marijuana laws have chosen a different course. They have explicitly threatened that federal investigative and prosecutorial resources “will continue to be directed” towards the manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. These threats have generally been timed to influence pending legislation or encourage the abandonment of state and local regulatory programs. They contradict President Obama’s campaign promise and policy his first year in office and serve to push medical marijuana activity back into the illicit market.

Most disturbing is that a few United States Attorneys warn that state employees who implement the laws and regulations of our states are not immune from criminal prosecution under the federal Controlled Substances Act. They do so notwithstanding the fact that no provision exists within the Controlled Substances Act that makes it a crime for a state employee to enforce regulations that help a state define conduct that is legal under its own state laws.

Hundreds of state and municipal employees are currently involved in the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana producers and providers in New Mexico, Colorado, Maine, and California, and have been for years. The federal government has never threatened, much less prosecuted, any of these employees. Indeed, the federal government has not, to our knowledge, prosecuted state employees for performing their ministerial duties under state law in modern history. It defies logic and precedent that the federal government would start prosecuting state employees now.

Recognizing the lack of any real harm to state employees, a number of states have moved forward. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie drew on his own experience as a former United States Attorney in deciding that New Jersey state workers were not realistically at risk of federal prosecution in his decision to move forward implementing New Jersey’s medical marijuana program. Rhode Island, Vermont, Arizona, and the District of Columbia are also in the process of implementing their state laws.

Nonetheless, the suggestion that state employees are at risk is have a destructive and chilling impact. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed legislation to regulate medical marijuana in her state and Delaware Governor Jack Markell suspended implementation of his state’s regulatory program after receiving warnings from the United States Attorneys in their states about state employees. Additionally, a number of localities in California ended or suspended regulatory programs after receiving similar threats to their workers.

We, the undersigned state legislators, call on state and local officials to not be intimidated by these empty federal threats. Our state medical marijuana programs should be implemented and move forward. Our work, and the will of our voters, should see the light of day.

We call on the federal government not to interfere with our ability to control and regulate how medical marijuana is grown and distributed. Let us seek clarity rather than chaos. Don’t force patients underground, to fuel the illegal drug market.

And finally, we call on President Obama to recommit to the principles and policy on which he campaigned and asserted his first year in office. Please respect our state laws. And don’t use our employees as pawns in your zealous and misguided war on medical marijuana.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-CA)

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-WA)

Representative Antonio Maestas (D-NM)

Senator Cisco McSorley (D-NM)

Assemblymember Chris Norby (R-CA)

Representative Deborah Sanderson (R-ME)

Senator Pat Steadman (D-CO)

For cannabis consulting information, please visit:

http://www.quantum9.net

Apr 02
0

US Attorney Continues Medical Marijuana Crackdown

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law | No Comments
5:37 PM, Mar 23, 2012 Written by: Chris Vanderveen

BOULDER – Colorado’s top federal prosecutor has made good on his promise to continue his crackdown on the state’s medical marijuana industry.

On Friday, US Attorney John Walsh sent letters to the owners of 25 medical marijuana dispensaries telling them they had a month and a half to either shut down or face the possibility of prosecution and property seizure. All, he said, are located within 1,000 feet of a school.

Two months ago, Walsh sent out similar warnings to 23 dispensaries.

“I would say to any medical marijuana dispensary owner whose facility is within a thousand feet of a school that they will be receiving this letter,” he told 9NEWS in January.

Friday’s round of warnings, according to a news release put out by his office, represents a “second phase of an initiative to close all marijuana stores within 1,000 feet of schools.”

The letters, according to the release, formally notify “them that action will be taken to seize and forfeit their property if they do not discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marijuana within 45 days from today.”

Walsh was unavailable for comment on Friday.

This all comes at a time when the Boulder County District Attorney is continuing to ask Walsh to halt the ongoing crackdown.

Last week, Boulder County DA Stan Garnett wrote a letter to Walsh asking the feds to focus their resources elsewhere.

“The people of Boulder County,” he wrote, “do not need Washington, D.C. or the federal government dictating how far dispensaries should be from schools.”

He added that prosecution of dispensary owners acting within the confines of state law serves “no practical purpose.”

This week, Walsh responded with his own letter to Garnett which said that he respectfully disagrees with the state prosecutor’s opinion.

“I believe that enforcing federal law to protect our children and young people from drug abuse is not only a legitimate use of federal resources, but a core responsibility for me and this office,” Walsh wrote.

Garnett said on Friday that he will hold firm with his position.

“I think there are other laws that could be enforced that would actually help us with public safety and not just be symbolic window dressing which this seems to be to me,” he said.

Marijuana, medical or not, remains illegal under federal law. In 2000, Colorado voters approved the limited use of medical marijuana.

(KUSA-TV © 2012 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)

For cannabis consulting information, please visit:

http://www.quantum9.net

Mar 09
0

Colorado Poised to Regulate Marijuana for Adult Use While Feds Cling to Prohibition

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information, Medical Marijuana Law, News | No Comments

Posted: 02/27/2012 7:34 pm

by Art Way

Today the Colorado Secretary of State announced that a marijuana legalization initiative has qualified for the 2012 ballot, ensuring voters will have a chance to make history this November by ending marijuana prohibition in the state. Proponents of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol are emboldened by recent polls indicating that a slight majority of Colorado voters support the legal regulation of marijuana for adult use.

The campaign initially fell 2,400 valid signatures short, triggering a 15-day “cure period” allowed under state law to gather the additional signatures needed to qualify. The campaign kicked into high gear and obtained another 14,000 total signatures, surpassing their own goal of 9,000. Moreover, the volunteer efforts during the cure period netted more signatures than the paid effort — a good sign of strong grassroots support in the state.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol — now known as Amendment 64 – would eliminate criminal penalties statewide for adults who possess up to one ounce of marijuana. It also encourages the Department of Revenue or local jurisdictions to devise a system of regulation and taxation for the production, distribution and retail sale of marijuana to adults.

Nationally, public support for making marijuana legal has shifted dramatically in the last two decades, especially in the last few years. For the first time, a recent Gallup poll has found that 50 percent of Americans support making marijuana legal, with only 46 percent opposed. Majorities of men, 18 to 29-year-olds, 30 to 49-year-olds, liberals, moderates, Independents, Democrats, and voters in Western, Midwestern and Eastern states now support legalizing marijuana.

Yet, over the past year, the federal government has relentlessly attacked the implementation of medical marijuana regulatory systems in many of the 16 states that allow for the medical use of marijuana. In fact, on this very day, as the Secretary of State announced the qualification of the non-medical initiative, 23 medical marijuana dispensary owners were forced to shut their doors.

The specifics of Amendment 64 have been designed with this reality in mind. It is not a mandate to implement a legal regulatory approach in every Colorado jurisdiction, but it does open the door for the Department of Revenue to do so. If voters decide to legalize marijuana this November, lessons learned from regulating the medical marijuana industry will provide valuable insights. The Colorado Department of Revenue will know better than any agency in the country how to implement a legal regulatory framework that is as fed-proof as possible.

The amendment is a moderate approach to marijuana legalization, as it places limits on possession and does not allow for public use. It is also important to note that the proposal does not impact current traffic and workplace safety laws. But by simply allowing adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, the proposed law will compel law enforcement and Colorado’s judiciary system to redirect their resources to combat serious crime. This is the essence of legalization.

Amendment 64 puts forth the question of whether this widely-used commodity can be regulated in ways that enhance public safety, public health and the state’s bottom line. It begs whether we should continue to spend upwards of $80 million as a state to prohibit a substance that can bring in up to $40 million annually — a gross savings of $120 million. Ultimately, it drives home the point that prohibition is more harmful than the drug itself.

Prohibitionists often cite the “gateway theory” — yet the science simply does not support it. To say that teenage marijuana use leads to hard drug use and addiction is like saying riding a tricycle as a toddler leads to higher incidents of fatal bike accidents for pre-teens. There is a correlation, but no proof of causation. In fact, the evidence shows that most people who try marijuana as a teen don’t become habitual marijuana users, let alone users of other “hard” drugs.

Marijuana prohibition, under the current system, is the primary gateway into the criminal justice system for our youth. After seventy-five years of sensationalized rhetoric, typified by “Reefer Madness” and its progeny, law enforcement and educators have lost credibility in the eyes of our youth. We should ask the same question as our allies in Washington state, where voters will also decide whether to legalize marijuana this November: “Isn’t it time for a new approach?”

Art Way is Colorado Manager for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Feb 16
0

Medical Marijuana Banking Bill Dies in Committee

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information, Medical Marijuana Law | No Comments

DENVER – An effort to help Colorado’s hundreds of medical marijuana businesses get bank accounts failed on Tuesday evening.

Banks won’t do business with the industry because it would be considered money laundering since marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law.

State Senate Bill 75 would have allowed dispensaries and patients to join financial co-ops, which would run just like credit unions.

The bill died in the Senate Finance Committee by a 5-2 vote on Tuesday evening.

Those in the medical pot business say it would have kept them from dealing in cash, which they argue is dangerous.

“[Dispensaries] are already selling medical marijuana now, they are sometimes forced to have cash on hand and that can just make them more of a target for criminals,” Brian Vicente, who runs the marijuana advocacy group Sensible Colorado, said.

The banking industry came out in opposition to SB 75, warning that the federal government would certainly step in to shut down any co-op serving the medical marijuana industry.

“So that’s the greatest threat this institution would face,” Jenifer Waller, with the Colorado Bankers Association, said. “Another challenge would be just having access to the payment system, being able to issue checks and do wire transfers.”

Waller says institutions need federal insurance to access payment systems, which means the co-ops created by SB 75 might have effectively been reduced to little more than vaults for holding deposits.

Some in the medical marijuana industry would welcome having a co-op targeted by federal law enforcement as a reason to get the issue into court.

Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Denver) says he hoped that wouldn’t happen, but added “with this issue, that court case is lurking around every corner.”

Steadman sponsored SB 75 along with Rep. Tom Massey (R-Poncha Springs.)

At a Tuesday hearing, medical marijuana patients said they also feel vulnerable paying in cash, but that many dispensaries won’t take anything else because they don’t have business bank accounts.

Several lawmakers experessed concern about the feasibility of establishing the co-ops under federal regulations.

(KUSA-TV © 2012 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)

Feb 08
0

Hemp bill in Colorado legislature risks more headaches with feds

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information, Medical Marijuana Law, News | No Comments

2/2/2012 The Denver Post by John Ingold:

With a deadline looming at the end of this month in the most dramatic federal-state showdown yet in Colorado over marijuana, a state lawmaker has proposed a bill that would raise another cannabis clash.

Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, has introduced a bill to study using the growing of industrial hemp to clean polluted soil, a process known as phytoremediation. McKinley said there is some evidence that hemp plants can suck toxic substances out of the ground.

“There’s not a whole lot known about it,” he said. “So, this is a pilot program to study it.”

Growing hemp, though, is illegal under federal law without approval from the Drug Enforcement Administration, which rarely grants permission. Hemp and marijuana are taxonomically identical versions of cannabis plants.

Although hemp advocates argue that hemp and marijuana are the same in the way that Pomeranians and St. Bernards are, a DEA spokeswoman said the growing of any cannabis plant without DEA approval is a felony.

“State law provides no immunity to private persons or state officials who violate federal law,” DEA spokeswoman Dawn Dearden wrote in an e-mail.

That, however, doesn’t ruffle McKinley. His bill — which is co-sponsored by House Agriculture Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling — wouldn’t even require researchers to seek federal approval before putting plants in the ground.

“If we worried about what the feds were going to do, we wouldn’t get anything done,” McKinley said. “We just have to go do it ourselves and see what happens.”

Colorado is already in something of a stare-down with the federal government over the state’s medical-marijuana laws. Last month, federal prosecutors sent letters to 23 dispensaries operating in compliance with state law but within 1,000 feet of a school. The dispensaries were given until Feb. 27 to close or face federal criminal or civil punishment.

Hemp advocates have long extolled the virtue of the plant as an agricultural product.

Unlike marijuana, hemp contains very little THC, the chemical that creates marijuana’s high. But, because of the federal prohibitions, all hemp products currently in the U.S. — from hemp clothing to hemp rope to hemp seeds in granola — come from imported sources.

Tom Murphy, the national outreach director for Vote Hemp, said he knows of no one growing industrial hemp legally in the United States.

David West — who, as head of the now-defunct Hawaii Industrial Hemp Research Project, was one of the few people ever to receive DEA approval to grow cannabis — said the process to obtain a license is prohibitively difficult.

“They want to grow it out there?” West said when told of McKinley’s bill. “There’s a fat chance that’s going to happen.”

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

Read more: Hemp bill in Colorado legislature risks more headaches with feds – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_19873580#ixzz1loXGSdlR
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

 

 

Jan 02
0

Colorado becomes the Fourth State to ask the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to Reclassify Marijuana

By | Colorado Medical Marijuana Law, General Medical Marijuana Information, Medical Marijuana Law, News | No Comments

January 1, 2012 By Matt Smith, CNN

(CNN) — Medical marijuana advocates are hoping state governments can succeed where their efforts have failed by asking federal authorities to reclassify pot as a drug with medical use.

Shortly before Christmas, Colorado became the fourth state to ask the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to reclassify marijuana as a narcotic in the same league as heavyweight painkillers including oxycodone. The governors of Washington and Rhode Island filed a formal petition with the agency in November, and Vermont signed onto that request shortly afterward.

All four are among the sixteen states and the District of Columbia that have laws on the books that allow the medical use of marijuana, even though the drug remains illegal under federal law. Meanwhile, federal authorities have asserted their power by raiding dispensaries in states including California and Washington.

Supporters say the public is on their side, and the state requests show the feds are increasingly isolated on the issue. But they acknowledge it’s still an uphill battle.

“I don’t think that we’re going to see to much change in Washington’s position on this until public opinion and state-level support reaches a little bit higher a tipping point,” said Morgan Fox, a spokesman for the D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project.

The DEA said it would “reply accordingly,” but noted that similar petitions had been rejected before. DEA spokeswoman Barbara Carreno told CNN that the agency gives “great respect” to state governments, but their requests would get “the same attention as a petition from a medical group or anything else.”

Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I drug by the DEA, meaning it’s dangerous and has no medical use. Medical marijuana advocates, including the states that have petitioned the agency, say it should be listed under Schedule II, comparing it to other prescription painkillers that have a high potential for abuse.

In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restated its opposition to medical marijuana, saying “no sound scientific studies” support its use. State laws authorizing it “are inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the FDA approval process,” it added.

But in their November petition, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire and Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee argued that “the vast majority of modern research” has found marijuana useful for treating patients with glaucoma, for relieving the nausea suffered by cancer patients in chemotherapy and for relieving symptoms of degenerative nerve diseases.

They cite a 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences that recommended research into the “potential therapeutic value” of cannabis, though it warned that smoking pot was a “crude” method “that also delivers harmful substances.”

“Since the last FDA review in 2006, the scientific process has identified and clarified even more of the therapeutic effects of cannabis through ongoing research and assessment of available data,” wrote Gregoire, a Democrat, and Chafee, a former Republican-turned-independent. “This petition presents this further evidence. It is now time for the DEA to reschedule the substance.”

The Obama administration says it is willing to support research, but has taken a stiff position against medical marijuana. In October, in response to online petitions, White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said marijuana “is not a benign drug.”

Medical marijuana group sues Obama administration

“Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine,” Kerlikowske wrote. “To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.”

Carreno said petitions to reschedule a drug take years to review. The DEA does its own analysis, then refers the requests to the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, which review their own research.

“Then they send recommendations back to us, and based on the recommendation we get, we make a decision,” she said.

Critics call medical marijuana a “Trojan horse” for legalizing the drug entirely, and federal authorities mounted a string of high-profile raids in California, Washington and Montana in 2011.

The Justice Department says it isn’t targeting patients who are in “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state laws. In October’s raids in California, prosecutors said they were targeting organizations that had become large-scale commercial traffickers, operating beyond the limits of state law.

In their petition, Gregoire and Chafee said rescheduling was needed because states can’t make rules governing medical marijuana “without putting their employees at risk of violating federal law.”

“From a patient perspective, there’s a lot of things up in the air,” Gregoire spokesman Cory Curtis told CNN. He said the state hopes “to give them clarity and peace of mind, both in the environment in which they get it and the prescription and dose they get.”

A round of federal raids targeted dispensaries in the Seattle area in November, but agents were targeting “folks who were distributing without a medical purpose,” Curtis said.

Washington allows patients to grow their own marijuana and keep a 60-day supply, which it defines as up to 24 ounces. Patients and designated health-care providers can keep “collective gardens.”

Rhode Island allows patients to grow up to 12 plants and possess up to 2.5 ounces of pot for their own use, as long as a doctor has certified that it may alleviate symptoms and the potential risks don’t outweigh the benefits. It also allows “compassion centers” to cultivate and dispense marijuana, as long as it stays within those limits for each patient.

In Colorado, legislation passed in 2010 allows state regulators to keep a tight rein on dispensaries and required them to request reclassification from the DEA.

“As long as there is a divergence in state and federal law, there is a lack of certainty necessary to provide safe access for patients with serious medical conditions,” Barbara Brohl, the executive director of Colorado’s Department of Revenue, wrote in a December 22 letter to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart.

Since the law went into effect, more than 700 people have applied for licenses to sell medical marijuana, said Mark Couch, a spokesman for Brohl’s office. The state collected about $5 million in sales taxes in the last fiscal year, which ended in June — a tiny fraction of the state’s $8 billion general fund, he said.

Fox said the state’s requests to reclassify the drug “could and certainly should” give the states some breathing room, “but I really don’t think it will.”

“I think that it’s not going to provide any real tangible benefits immediately,” he said. But it if succeeds, “It will definitely bring the federal government more in line with currently accepted science.”

In the meantime, “There’s no reason for the federal government to be wasting resources going after medical marijuana providers,” he said.

All rights reserved PFMMJ | Patients for Medical Marijuana