Colorado: End the ‘war on patients’ access to marijuana

[kcjnz]

If you havent read or seen about the study the government did to come to the conclusion that Marijuana kills brain cells you really should. It will blow your freaking mind...

Link please, I haven't seen that report

 

[hazedandinfused]

its a very old report, it predates the internet so you wont find it online (or at least i couldnt)

but there is more information to be had right here
http://www.rexresearch.com/hhusb/hmphlth.htm#hhl10

Richard Cowan, then head of NORML, pointed out the dangers of anti-drug propaganda in the National Review:
"The fact is that the "narcotics" bureaucrats had been making a variety of wild claims about the perils of pot for decades, making it virtually impossible to do research on the subject. Today, since they can no longer block all research on the drug, the narcocrats simply sponsor ideologically reliable researchers who can be counted on to produce politically useful results. And conservatives generally swallow it whole, because they do not apply to marijuana the same high intellectual standards with which they analyze other subjects, nor do they apply the same standards to the laws against it that they apply to other laws...
"In general, the politicization of drug research undermines the credibility of valid drug information. In the short run, untrue but frightening reports about the dire effects of pot may result in reduced consumption. In the long run, these reports will be seen to be false, and users will, in reaction, disbelieve even the reports that are true. Even worse, warnings about the effects of other drugs also lose credibility, with most unfortunate consequences. Statements such as "marijuana is the most dangerous drug" are not just harmless hyperbole --- they necessarily imply that angel dust, speed and heroin are "safer"...
"Consider the implications of what I am saying, if I am correct. The narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy with billion-dollar budgets, and multi-billion graft opportunities. They have lied to us for fifty years about the effects of marijuana and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with "scientific" support. Some of these people are fanatics who distort the legitimate truth of others for propaganda purposes. "I realize that this is much more extreme than saying that marijuana is harmless, which, again, it is not. If I am right, then the anti-marijuana propaganda campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering in well-intentioned conservatives... and countless frightened parents..."

heres the info on it

The only research scientist who ever claimed that pot damages brain structures was a guy named Dr. Gabriel Nahas, who used to work for the National Institutes of Health in the 70's. He did a study on rhesus monkeys with marijuana, and his results seemed to indicate that pot caused brain damage, so the drug warriors like to include that little tidbit in their speeches, pamphlets, and so forth.

The problem is that it isn't true. Dr. Nahas' research was astoundingly bad. After he published his study, dozens of scientists came forward to question his methods. He made pretty much every mistake someone can make - if this were a science project, he would have flunked. A few examples:

* the size of the research group was small - only 4 monkeys.
* there was no control group.
* the amount of pot smoke the monkeys ingested was several thousand times higher than anything a human could smoke - these poor monkeys basically spent 16 hours a day in a room full of pot smoke.
* Nahas misidentified normal monkey brain structures as "damaged."
* in his bibliography, he cited 31 sources. Of those 31, 4 were legitimate.
The rest were either quoted out of context in a misleading way, misquoted, or plain-old made up.
* He lied about his results. The "brain damage" that he observed in the monkeys brains disappeared as soon as the monkeys stopped receiving marijuana, and he chose to not mention it in his report.

So basically, this was like the world-class worst scientific study ever. It was so bad, he got shit-canned by the NIH, and he made a public speech disavowing the research, and admitting he messed it up.


more information however :

Smoking pot DOES kill brain cells, because smoke contains carbon monoxide (CO). CO is a toxic gas naturally found in trace amounts in air. Incomplete burning, such as smoldering, results in CO, and it interferes with oxygen supply throughout the body. The brain is just more sensitive to oxygen deprivation than other organs. Brain-damage-wise, you're better off smoking a couple of reefers a day than the daily pack of cigarettes many smokers "enjoy". It's more accurate to say simply, "smoking kills brain cells".
The caveat: Your brain cells are dying all the time, and there's nothing particularly sinister about the effect of moderate smoking (tobacco, pot, etc.) on the natural attrition rate. If you're really into killing brain cells, alcohol is where it's at. In a neurobiology class discussion some years ago, the professor showed some slides of brains taken from lifelong alcoholics. Compared to a healthy brain, they were smaller, smoother, and visibly misshapen. Alcohol had literally eaten away much of the brain mass, more than a third in some cases.

 

[kcjnz]

Hazed, much thanks for that post, good info to know.

 

[hazedandinfused]

guys i just got more info abot stan garnett's personal war on medical marijuana patients

heres a letter he wrote in response to the huge amount of people upset by his actions:

LETTER #2
Below is an email from DA Stan Garnett to Colorado attorney Richard L.
Everstine.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Garnett, Stanley" <sgarnett@bouldercounty.org>
To: "greymule" <greymule1@xxx.xxxt>
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:06 AM
Subject: Medical Marijuana Issue

Mr. Everstine,

Thanks for your email. I'm assuming that someone told you, as some medical
marijuana groups suggested in the Colorado Daily yesterday, that I am
declaring a "war on patients." Nothing could be further from the truth.

I understand and appreciate that medical marijuana does a lot of good for
many people. My interest is one that most of the Medical marijuana
supporters that I have talked to share: getting clarity so that
dispensaries, providers and license holders know the parameters of what's
legal and so that law enforcement won't waste its time. I suggested a
declaratory or injunctive action as a means to do so, and a number of
Medical marijuana supporters have called me supporting the idea as
progressive. If the department of health can get the job done, instead
(although they've had some difficulty making much progress) that's fine
with me.

I certainly have no interest in harassing dispensaries. If that were my
goal, I could simply prosecute them and let the chips fall where they may,
as the more conservative DA's in some other Colorado Districts are
contemplating.

I have been a little disturbed by the tone of some of the discussion. This
is a complicated issue that needs to be resolved. I raised the issue (which
everyone familiar with the issue acknowledges is an issue that must be
resolved) and suggested a solution, which is far from declaring a "war on
patients." If someone has a better solution, I have yet to hear it.

Thanks again for getting in touch. Please feel free to circulate this email
as widely as possible. I will respond to anyone with questions about my
position on medical marijuana which is, I am confident, the most
progressive of any DA in Colorado.

Stan Garnett

------------------------

You can read Mr. Everstine's original letter here:
http://www.colorado420.com/news/lauve/da.letters2.html

 

[Tripsick]

I could simply prosecute them and let the chips fall where they may,
as the more conservative DA's in some other Colorado Districts are
contemplating.

Do it, lets see where these chips lay...

 

[Marshmello]

I certainly have no interest in harassing dispensaries. If that were my
goal, I could simply prosecute them and let the chips fall where they may,
as the more conservative DA's in some other Colorado Districts are
contemplating.

With the shit crackin' off in SD, that's pretty harsh language.

 

[Tripsick]

So in SD its all Non Profit? But that's not the case in Colorado?
Or do you just give yourself a good salary and then that's where the profits go?

San Diego Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Shut Down
By Caleb Groos on September 11, 2009 1:47 PM

Is profit forbidden under California's medical marijuana laws?

More than two dozen people were arrested and 14 medical marijuana dispensaries shuttered late this week by local authorities in the San Diego area.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis emphasized that the string of arrests "has nothing to do with legitimate medical marijuana patients or their caregivers."

Instead, authorities claim that the busts targeted dealers operating dispensaries in alleged violation of state medical marijuana laws and the Attorney General's Guidelines on enforcing them.

The round-up reiterates that although California has seem many medical marijuana store-front operations, only those operating as cooperatives or collectives are technically allowed under California law.

Here are the full Guidelines from the Attorney General's office surrounding the dispensing and use of medical marijuana in California. The primacy of whether a dispensary is operating for profit comes from a California statute stating that patients and primary caregivers may "associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes."

This is important because "cooperatively" here means not simply working together, but rather being organized as a specific type of legal business entity - a cooperative, which by definition cannot operate for its own or its members' profit.

Under California law, cooperatives are "democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons." Cooperatives must register as such with the state.

"Collectives" are a bit less clear. State law does not define them, but the Attorney General's guidelines state that they should be jointly owned and operated by their members, and not involve selling to or purchasing from any non-members.

All of this is completely aside from other legal requirements such as paying taxes on the sale of medical marijuana and having local business licenses and/or sellers' permits in place.

source:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/09/san-diego-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-shut-down.html

 

[feltonmuggs]

Fight the power

 

[Tripsick]

So maybe this is coming to a head

the case is likely to provide precedent for how Colorado defines a “primary caregiver.”
The People, represented by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, argue that the primary caregiver must personally know the people that they grow marijuana for. The opening brief states that a caregiver must have “significant responsibility for managing the well being of a patient—which requires a relationship beyond providing marijuana.”

http://www.statebillnews.com/?p=3166


Hmm i know most of the Bud Tenders does that count?

Court Of Appeals Will Hear Important Medical-Marijuana Case On Tuesday

Posted on 21 September 2009

By Kate Klein, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — The Colorado Court of Appeals will hear a critical case regarding medical marijuana dispensaries Tuesday. People v. Clendenin originated in 2006 in Boulder’s County trial court.
Most significantly, the case is likely to provide precedent for how Colorado defines a “primary caregiver.”
The People, represented by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, argue that the primary caregiver must personally know the people that they grow marijuana for. The opening brief states that a caregiver must have “significant responsibility for managing the well being of a patient—[which] requires a relationship beyond providing marijuana.”
A response brief from the Stacy Clendenin’s attorney, Robert Corry, counters this idea of significant responsibility as unreasonable. Corry makes the analogy that much more serious pharmaceutical drugs do not lie under the same strict definition.
Corry argues that “the State does not address in its brief Ms. Clendenin’s commonsense and apt analogy between medical marijuana caregivers and pharmacies, which supply even harder narcotics to thousands of Colorado patients every day without face-to-face meetings between patients and those in the production chain.”
Other arguments to be made Tuesday will include a challenge of probable cause for the original search warrant; issues of vague language in statutes surrounding medical marijuana; and unfair prevention of Clendenin to bring forward numerous people to testify on her behalf in the trial court.
On Oct. 6, 2006, Boulder police searched Clendenin’s home and discovered 44 total marijuana plants. The Boulder trial court did not allow Clendenin to bring forth proof of medical marijuana documentation for all the patients she grew for. In trial court Clendenin was convicted of felony criminal charges for the marijuana grown in her home.
Clendenin is herself a medical-marijuana patient.
The case will be heard by appeals court judges Alan Loeb, Robert D. Hawthorne and Nancy J. Lichtenstein.
Separately, the Colorado 420 Coalition, which identifies itself as the lead group in Colorado for legalizing marijuana, is inviting the public to pack Tuesday’s hearing, according to Westword. Although this is an uncommon request, the 420 Coalition wants to show support for Clendenin because the courts have been particularly vague on medical marijuana laws recently.

 

[cobcoop]

There's lots of good reading in Corry's documents this will be a good one to follow. This one caught my attention;

The constitution exists to protect the people against the powers of the
State to imprison and destroy, not as an additional weapon in the State’s
already-formidable arsenal of built-in advantages. See Colorado
Constitution, Article II § 1 (“All political power is vested in and derived
from the people.”) Constitutions and statutory provisions, where
ambiguous, must be construed in favor of the criminally accused, not the
State. Courts should err on the side of those people whose liberty is at stake,
not on the side of that entity which seeks to take liberty away. In this case,
the trial court failed to follow the simple language of the constitution and
added additional requirements not in the constitution, all to the detriment of
Ms. Clendenin.

http://www.colorado420.com/news/clendenin/reply.brief.pdf

 

[cobcoop]

More news:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090916/NEWS/909169984&parentprofile=search

http://www.kbdi.org/on_demand/video_player.cfm?video=1545

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090920/OPINION/909199945&parentprofile=search

On the agenda for tonight...

http://www.greeleygov.com/CityClerk/City%20Council%20Worksession%20Agendas/09-22-09%20Worksession%20Agenda.pdf

Looks like they (code department) is recommending regulating the dispensaries as opposed to banning them.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

If you havent read or seen about the study the government did to come to the conclusion that Marijuana kills brain cells you really should. It will blow your freaking mind...

yeah they used the tiny recesses monkeys on gas masks. and gave them something like 60+ joints in 15 minuts. well as many of you know if your brain is deprived of oxygen for more than five minuts you will start to exterminate brain cells. so basicaly to get the conclusion they wanted, they cut off the supply of oxygen to the monkeys and only allowed them the cannabis smoke. so when they died from lack of oxygen they opened their head and said "see the monkeys that smoke have far less braincells than the monkeys who didnt smoke".

its funny how much attention that study got compared to the 10 other reports from all the worlds scientists and researchers debunking the study and dangers of cannabis. INDIA, JAMAICA, UNITED STATES, CANADA, DUTCH, CHINA AND OTHERS have all produced reports indiccating the safety of cannabis yet it still remains this propaganda induced taboo subject....

 

[Kola Radical]

How to make a Molotov Cocktail out of a lighter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMEcwnTHflw

 

[SNIPER420]

This might be old, but has everyone seen this letter from Stan?

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13368308?IADID=Search-www.dailycamera.com-www.dailycamera.com

Boulder DA: Seeking clarity on medical marijuana
As District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District, I am committed to having the most progressive approach to medical marijuana of any DA`s office in the state. Although it has been reported that I am commencing a "war on MM patients," nothing could be further from the truth. I have been raising issues that must be clarified. I would like to see these issues clarified outside of the context of a criminal prosecution, unlike many of my more conservative elected DA colleagues across the state who are preparing to approach the issue quite aggressively by prosecuting dispensaries and seizing grow operations. As anyone who has thought about these issues knows, it does no good to put our heads in the sand about how confusing the law is.

Amendment 20, which I voted for, passed in 2000. Amendment 20 authorizes two things: licensees to obtain a MM license from a physician for a list of ailments, some of which are fairly general and, some would say, somewhat subjective. And, it authorizes a "caregiver" to provide the marijuana. It says nothing about dispensaries and, other than permitting a licensee to presumptively possess a small number of plants or amount of marijuana, it says nothing at all about where the licensee is to obtain the marijuana or whether it is legal to engage in large scale commercial grows. There are respectable arguments that dispensaries are legal under Amendment 20, and there are also respectable arguments that they are not and, until the courts, or a new constitutional amendment clears it up, the debate between lawyers and legal scholars will continue.

Medical marijuana proceeded on a small scale in Colorado, over the last several years, until two things happened this year:

1. The Obama administration announced that it would not prosecute possession and small scale sale of marijuana in states that had a medical marijuana law (a decision I support), even though the federal law continues to prohibit it; and

2. The Department of Health did not adopt regulations at a hearing in July, which hasn`t cleared anything up. (Their previous effort to adopt regulations was found to conflict unconstitutionally with the terms of Amendment 20.)

We are now seeing a proliferation of dispensaries in Boulder County. However, since there are no regulations requiring dispensaries to register, it is hard to know how many. There are at least two on University Hill, and an estimated 14 in the county. Many are trying very hard to be responsible business owners and at least three have had their lawyers meet with me. I have assured them that I will not prosecute dispensaries since I don`t want the obvious lack of clarity about their operations to be resolved in a criminal context. The BOCO Drug Task Force agrees with me.

Here are some questions I have regarding Amendment 20:

* Is large scale commercial growing legal? We have received notice of an operator wanting to put a large grow in a warehouse across from a middle school in Longmont. Is this legal? This was the operation that caused me to wonder aloud to the Daily Camera whether a declaratory or injunctive action could help clear things up without putting anyone at risk of a felony conviction, an idea that was well received by a number of MM lawyers, though not by others, who accused me of a "war on patients." The dispensaries argue that if they are entitled to dispense the marijuana legally, they implicitly have the right to get it from somewhere. This is an argument that could be made in a civil court of law.

* Are dispensaries legal? How large can they be? Who regulates to make sure that they are dispensing the right amounts to the right people? Who regulates their advertisements (e.g., the back page of the Boulder Weekly, about which I have had many complaints. Many dispensaries quite openly offer kickbacks and incentives to potential licensees (particularly CU students) that would be totally illegal for a pharmacy or other business.

* If dispensary owners are "caregivers" what needs to be done to assure that their employees can handle and dispense marijuana legally? Are the employees caregivers as well? Many have interpreted "caregiver" under Amendment 20 as someone providing other services to the patient, not just the supplier of MM.

Because of the high cash value of marijuana and the large amount of cash on the premises of some of the dispensaries, the Drug Task Force is concerned about threats of violence and other crime around the dispensary operations, many of which are in residential areas. We have already had one robbery out of a dispensary.

Colorado continues to have sweeping anti-marijuana laws on the books, prohibiting the sale, use and possession of marijuana (many of which conflict directly, until the courts, or somebody sorts them out, with the current dispensary and grow operations). If the legislature doesn`t step forward, either to legalize marijuana entirely, or to otherwise clear up the confusion, what role is law enforcement to take in enforcing these laws?

These are all interesting issues to me, and under the Constitution, it is part of my job to raise and publicly discuss areas where the law is unclear, which is why I have raised these issues about medical marijuana.

Stan Garnett is the Boulder County District Attorney.

 

[Kola Radical]

Everybody Must Get Stoned...

I love Boulder. No doubt about that.

(Looks to me like the Boulder Daily Scamera might have damaged Stan the Man's reputation.)

 

[Tripsick]

Some More news the showed up in my Inbox.


Broomfield says no to marijuana dispensaries

Broomfield says no to marijuana dispensaries
At Tuesday meeting, council directs staff to reject proposoals based on zoning code
By Michael Davidson
Posted: 09/16/2009 10:15:42 AM MDT

Shaun McGinness of Green Medicals in Northglenn, Colorado, works with another employee in identifying the quality of medical marijuana sold at the store on Wednesday afternoon. McGinness is the son of the store owner. Photo by Paul Aiken / The Camera (PAUL AIKEN)

Fresh on the heels of several recent proposals to open medical marijuana dispensaries in Broomfield, City Council on Tuesday instructed the Planning Department to deny applications to potential distributors and told the City Attorney's Office to prepare to support council's decision.

Citing a provision in city zoning code that stipulates business proposals can be rejected if they are not “in conformity with all other provisions of law,” council told staff to deny requests to open dispensaries.

Colorado voters in 2000 decided to allow marijuana for medical use, but federal law prohibits all uses of the drug.

On Tuesday, the organizers of three potential dispensaries contacted Broomfield to see if they could open dispensaries in the city, Planning Director Dave Shinneman said. The organizers of one dispensary were far enough along they found a location and filed papers to allow them to collect sales tax revenue, one of the final steps before a business can open its doors.

At least one group also contacted the Broomfield Police Department, Chief Tom Deland said.

Rules governing dispensaries were established by state health officials this year after protracted and emotional debate.

Colorado law states that a designated “caregiver” can provide marijuana to a patient suffering from chronic pain or a debilitating health condition, but it's not clear to many exactly who or what constitutes a caregiver. In many cases, dispensaries operating out of storefronts and strip malls, have taken on that role.

Figuring out how to treat medicinal marijuana is a new problem recently thrust on many communities. Tami Yellico, deputy city and county attorney, said her peers around Colorado have been trying to determine how to guide communities' policies on the issue.

Amendment 20 — the provision in the Colorado Constitution voters passed in 2000 that allows the use of medicinal marijuana — is unclear on how marijuana can be distributed, Deland said.

State health officials ruled Colorado residents can possess up to six marijuana plants if they have a prescription and are registered with the state. Amendement 20 doesn't mention dispensaries and leaves open to interpretation just how the 10,000 patients who want medicinal pot statewide can legally obtain it.

“The fact that there are too many unanswered questions, that makes it difficult for me to support,” Councilwoman Lori Cox said. She said the idea of dispensaries distributing large quantities of marijuana “sounds too much like a free-for-all.”

It might take a court decision to determine where the law stands, Yellico said.

One person looking for answers is Chuck McGinness, owner of Green Medicals LLC, a dispensary in Northglenn.

Last week, McGinness applied for a business license to open a dispensary in Broomfield. He wants to remodel a long-closed convenience store on U.S. 287 near Laurel Street and turn it into the city's first dispensary.

McGinness said staff in the city's Community Development Department were helpful and told him other city departments and City Council had to discuss the matter before a permit could be issued.

“I'm a little bit surprised,” McGinness said of council's decision on Tuesday. “But every city has the right to decide their own policies. I'm disappointed, but they treated me very good.”

McGinness acknowledged the state's regulations for dispensaries aren't very detailed, and cities have to find their own way forward on the issue.

Broomfield Police Chief Tom Deland agrees the state isn't providing guidance for how to regulate dispensaries.

“It wasn't well thought out and there's been very little direction. None of this has been spelled out. There are no guidelines,” Deland said.

Deland thinks Broomfield's decision to prohibit dispensaries was necessary because distributing marijuana still violates federal law.

But it isn't illegal to grow or possess marijuana in Broomfield, provided people follow the state's guidelines for medicinal use. If police find a grower who is complying with those provisions, and has the registry card and documentation to prove it, he or she is within the law.

“We won't confiscate (plants) or issue a ticket,” Deland said.

The city doesn't know how many people might be growing marijuana legally in Broomfield, Deland said, but "he suspects it's pretty prevalent."

City Council was set to discuss the issue in a study session before the requests were made. But instead of focusing on the politics or beliefs driving the issue, staff tried to frame the discussion in the driest terms imaginable — how the city zoning code would govern where dispensaries could be built.

But the sudden number of permit requests and council member's personal opinions quickly took the discussion in a different direction and gave it a sometimes-emotional edge. Council members and staff initially treated the topic with a light touch and more than a few bad puns, but Councilman Randy Ahrens sobered the discussion when he spoke about his wife Mary Jane's long battle with cancer.

Any doctor in the state can prescribe Marinol, a medication that contains synthetic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, Ahrens said. His wife uses the medication daily and it's been beneficial, he said after the meeting.

But Ahrens adamantly opposes distributing marijuana in other forms.

“What we're talking about is some people's need for weed. If they really have a medical condition, they have a way to get it,” Ahrens told council.

Other council members worried dispensaries would increase crime and legitimize the use of a drug banned by the federal government. Others were troubled by how the dispensaries would be regulated.

Councilwoman Linda Reynolds was the most outspoken critic of allowing dispensaries in Broomfield. Her opinion is that it will create more crime.

Licensed patients “don't have to come to Broomfield to get it,” she said. “There are enough places nearby. Let them handle the crime.”

Councilwoman Bette Erickson was the only council member to say she supported Amendment 20. But even she didn't want the banned substance distributed in Broomfield.

“If I, or anyone I cared for (needed it), we could drive to Northglenn to get it,” she said.

Source:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_13347113?source=email

 

[Tripsick]

more...

its a little late.. I wonder how it turned out.

Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009
Oral Arguments
1:30 pm
Open to the Public: Supporters are encouraged to attend

Where:
Colorado Court of Appeals
2 E. 14th Ave., Third Floor, Denver
(On 14th and Broadway across from the State Capitol)

Click here to read the briefs in the case:


{Denver} -- On Sept. 22, the Colorado Court of Appeals will hear oral
arguments in one of the first appeals concerning a medical cannabis
conviction in Colorado. One of the key issues in this appeal is whether a
person can act as a "primary caregiver" for a patient without having met
the patient in person. Stacy Clendenin, a medical cannabis patient and
caregiver, was convicted of felony possession and distribution of marijuana
in October 2006 in Boulder County. Stacy served as a cannabis primary
caregiver for multiple patients. The trial court ruled that none of Stacy's
patients would be allowed to testify in court if they did not have personal
contact with Stacy while she was serving as their caregiver. Stacy was
convicted by a jury on all charges.

Rob Corry, one of the state's top experts on medical cannabis law, is
asking the Court of Appeals to overturn Ms. Clendenin's conviction on
several grounds. Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution
(Colorado's Medical Marijuana Law) defines "primary caregiver" simply as a
person having "significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a
patient." Corry argues that there is no Constitutional provision or law
that requires the primary caregiver to have face-to-face contact with the
patient and that the trial court erred by making an arbitrary decision to
prevent patient witnesses from testifying. Corry will argue that Ms.
Clendenin had significant responsibility for the well-being of several
patients, all of whom should have been allowed to testify to the jury.

"An analogy is a pharmacist who dispenses medicine manufactured by a drug
company: there is no need for the individuals who produce the medicine at a
drug company far away to personally meet the patients who ultimately use
the medicine," Corry writes in his opening brief. "Any contrary rule
unreasonably restricts a beneficial, life-saving medicine from those who
need it to survive but who are incapable of producing it on their own, and
unreasonably punishes those like Ms. Clendenin who generously help
suffering people."

The Colorado State Board of Health recently supported Corry's
interpretation of the law, in new rules adopted on July 20, which state
that "significant responsibility" could mean simply providing a patient
with medical marijuana.

Rob Corry will also ask the Court of Appeals to review other issues from
Ms. Clendenin's trial, including the validity of the search warrant and the
denial of the "end user" defense by the trial court.

http://www.colorado420.com/news/clendenin/

 

[cobcoop]

A couple good articles from the Westword, including an interview with the Boulder DA.
http://www.westword.com/2009-10-01/...or-otherwise-has-become-the-toke-of-the-town/

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/09/does_boulder_da_stan_garnett_w.php

Not so for Garnett, who's stated he's "committed to having the most progressive approach to medical marijuana of any DA's office in the state." In fact, in a recent e-mail to Westword, he notes he's even willing to consider the idea of legalizing marijuana.

 

[puphdown]

what happened with the caregiver case, any news?

 

[Surrender]

Boulder DA: Enforcing pot laws is lowest priority

Boulder DA: Enforcing pot laws is lowest priority

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_13450163?source=rss

Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett said Tuesday that the state's medical marijuana laws desperately need more clarity, and he's not interested in prosecuting cases that fall in the gray areas between legalization and prohibition of the drug.

Enforcing marijuana laws is his office's lowest priority, Garnett told the Boulder County commissioners.

"I want to spend as little of my office's resources as possible prosecuting marijuana cases," he said. "I want to be practical and helpful to the medical marijuana community. I also want to be realistic about what the law is."

The commissioners asked Garnett to address the enforcement around medical marijuana after Superior and Broomfield moved to ban medical marijuana dispensaries and comments Garnett made questioning whether dispensaries are legal caused on uproar within the medical marijuana community.

In response to the controversy, a group of dispensary owners will meet Wednesday in Longmont to discuss forming a trade association to self-regulate the industry. They hope to forestall harsher regulations at the state or local level.

Mark Rose, owner of Grateful Meds in Nederland, said in a phone interview that dispensary owners need to be mindful of their impact on the community and remember that not everyone is comfortable with marijuana use.

"The people and the voters of Colorado have given us a great opportunity to do something really great for people," he said. "What really gets me is the people pushing the limits and putting a stick in the eye of the people who didn't vote for this. If you push it too far, the backlash is going to be way worse than what we have now."

In Longmont, a grower tried to lease warehouse space across from a middle school, but the landlord backed out in the face of public outcry, Garnett said. Some people want to see commercial growing operations that supply dispensaries. He heard of another dispensary owner who wanted to put in Fussball tables, a non-medical touch for a supposedly medical dispensary.

Garnett said there should be regulations around these issues, similar to the way liquor stores and bars are regulated. But as the law stands, he said, it's not clear whether dispensaries are even allowed by the state constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana. That amendment allows "caregivers" to possess marijuana to give to patients.

Garnett said he is convinced by arguments in favor of dispensaries and understands the logic of allowing commercial growing operations to supply them. He also thinks there are strong arguments the state constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana does not allow for dispensaries. He does not believe the law allows for commercial growing operations.

Garnett said without either self-regulation or state intervention, more towns may try to ban dispensaries, while others will use zoning to severely limit where they can operate.

Garnett said the Legislature should provide more clarity; his job is to decide which cases to prosecute.

"Trials should be about the facts, not the law," he said. "Cases should not be prosecuted when there is real doubt about what the law is."