[vta]

URL: https://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n441/a10.html
Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
Author: Wayne Laugesen , editorial page editor, for the editorial
board.

How Individual Rights Protect Commerce

City Councilman and lawyer Darryl Glenn makes sound policy statements much of the time. Yet, he's the latest to repeat a myth about medical marijuana that's promulgated mostly by a small group of prosecutors, former prosecutors and Attorney General John Suthers.

"The issue is the dispensaries because that's the part that's ambiguous under ( Amendment 20, which legalized medical marijuana )," Glenn told Gazette city government reporter Daniel Chacon.

It's not ambiguous at all. Amendment 20 says: "'Medical use' means the acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia..."

One cannot practically acquire and possess a good or service without finding a willing seller. So, the right to acquire a product means little if governments ban sellers or impoverish them by limiting their customer base to five.

Amendment 20 of the Colorado Constitution is typical of constitutional law because it enhances freedom for individuals and limits the authority of government. It's true the amendment doesn't specify a right to medical marijuana stores. But what in the state or federal constitution grants a right to sell Bibles, books or liquor or to run a 7-Eleven?

The right to sell medical marijuana is inherent in the right of individuals to acquire and possess it. If it's not, we can eliminate any right by simply banning vendors of protected goods and services.

The U.S. Constitution protects the individual's right to worship, for example. For some, worship requires a church, a megachurch, a mosque, a synagogue or a temple. The constitution doesn't mention worship facilities, yet it protects them. The First Amendment doesn't mention bookstores, yet it has protects them -- even the dirty ones. The Second Amendment doesn't mention gun sales, yet the right to keep and bear arms protects them.

In most of the U.S., any law-abiding adult age 21 or older has the right to acquire and consume alcohol. The 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us from federal interference with drinking.

Yet, in the debate over medical marijuana stores, it's often pointed out that hundreds of counties throughout the Old South forbid liquor stores despite the Constitution. If local governments can ban liquor stores, the argument goes, they can ban marijuana stores despite Amendment 20.

But there's a huge distinction between the repeal of prohibition and the affirmative right to obtain medical marijuana. Local governments are able to forbid alcohol sales because the 21st Amendment specifically lets them. Section 2 of the 21st Amendment states: "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

Amendment 20 says nothing of the sort, and it's far from ambiguous. It enhances the rights of individuals and impedes the authority of government.

Banning marijuana stores will require the amending or repeal of the Amendment 20. Local laws won't hold up.

[Skunkmiester]

They need to recognize the fact that like any other biz, dispensaries are what cg's aspire to become someday, open my own shop kind of think. But not forced into it abruptly. Motorcycles kill people everyday, yet they let Harley & Davidson operate in a garage before having the finances to open a bigger shop. This system is way messed up.