In the wake of the Colorado Legislature's action on medicinal marijuana, everything remains as hazy as a frat house circa 1978.
Gov. Bill Ritter has not yet signed HB1284, which codifies sharp limits on the constitutional right created in 2000. No one thinks Ritter will veto the bill.
Whether the law will ever be allowed to take effect is another matter entirely.
A coalition of about a dozen attorneys has been meeting regularly to plot strategy. While the coalition hasn't settled on when it will act, "we definitely will file for an injunction," Denver attorney Jessica Corry said.
Although various members of the group have differing objections to the soon-to-be state law, there is general agreement about challenging the measure's constitutionality based upon provisions that would:
- require owners of medicinal marijuana dispensaries to be Colorado residents.
- limit caregivers to five patients each.
- allow local governments to hold opt-out elections so medicinal marijuana dispensaries can be banned.
If you think there's no way a court would block HB1284 from becoming law, consider that it's exactly what happened in 1992, when Colorado voters approved a measure allowing discrimination against gays. A state district court granted a motion for an injunction preventing the measure from going into effect. The Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court later agreed.
In 2003, the Legislature passed a bill requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The American Civil Liberties Union was granted an injunction in federal court and that law never took effect, either.
The lesson, and city councils everywhere should heed it, is that just because the Legislature says it's legal doesn't mean it is.
Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, said he voted against HB1284 largely because of the provision for the local opt-out elections. A cancer survivor who knows first-hand about the drug's benefits, Merrifield says it would be wrong to force patients to go to another city for a medication sanctioned by the state constitution.
Fourth Judicial District Attorney Dan May said the opt-out election provision "is constitutional." Beyond that, he said, there are marijuana dealers posing as medicinal dispensaries and "I enforce the laws of Colorado."
Regardless of whether a court rules against HB1284, criminal laws will still apply.
Colorado Springs City Councilman Sean Paige who has led the city's move toward establishing rules for dispensaries, said "There will be cases where people are going to be abusing the law, but that argues for getting rules in place."
That's wise – especially if a court throws out HB1284.
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Colorado Springs Gazette
Author: BARRY NOREEN
Contact: Colorado Springs Gazette
Copyright: 2010 Freedom Communications
Website: Pot law out of joint, courts will clear the air
* Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article
Gov. Bill Ritter has not yet signed HB1284, which codifies sharp limits on the constitutional right created in 2000. No one thinks Ritter will veto the bill.
Whether the law will ever be allowed to take effect is another matter entirely.
A coalition of about a dozen attorneys has been meeting regularly to plot strategy. While the coalition hasn't settled on when it will act, "we definitely will file for an injunction," Denver attorney Jessica Corry said.
Although various members of the group have differing objections to the soon-to-be state law, there is general agreement about challenging the measure's constitutionality based upon provisions that would:
- require owners of medicinal marijuana dispensaries to be Colorado residents.
- limit caregivers to five patients each.
- allow local governments to hold opt-out elections so medicinal marijuana dispensaries can be banned.
If you think there's no way a court would block HB1284 from becoming law, consider that it's exactly what happened in 1992, when Colorado voters approved a measure allowing discrimination against gays. A state district court granted a motion for an injunction preventing the measure from going into effect. The Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court later agreed.
In 2003, the Legislature passed a bill requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The American Civil Liberties Union was granted an injunction in federal court and that law never took effect, either.
The lesson, and city councils everywhere should heed it, is that just because the Legislature says it's legal doesn't mean it is.
Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, said he voted against HB1284 largely because of the provision for the local opt-out elections. A cancer survivor who knows first-hand about the drug's benefits, Merrifield says it would be wrong to force patients to go to another city for a medication sanctioned by the state constitution.
Fourth Judicial District Attorney Dan May said the opt-out election provision "is constitutional." Beyond that, he said, there are marijuana dealers posing as medicinal dispensaries and "I enforce the laws of Colorado."
Regardless of whether a court rules against HB1284, criminal laws will still apply.
Colorado Springs City Councilman Sean Paige who has led the city's move toward establishing rules for dispensaries, said "There will be cases where people are going to be abusing the law, but that argues for getting rules in place."
That's wise – especially if a court throws out HB1284.
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Colorado Springs Gazette
Author: BARRY NOREEN
Contact: Colorado Springs Gazette
Copyright: 2010 Freedom Communications
Website: Pot law out of joint, courts will clear the air
* Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article
