Law Colorado

[Killick]

What a great thread - thanks for the invite! Canada is at a similar crossroads as the original article, in that we've had legal cannabis patients through our Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for several years now. The program is an immense success, and is backed by great research, like this one: https://cannabisdigest.ca/cannabis-study-prescription/

Anyhoo, the government changed to Haircut Guy, and our new minister of DVA, Wheels, decide that 10g/day is too much cannabis for any vet, so the max amount is 3g/day, and they will only cover up to a certain price per gram. Also you need to purchase from one of 40ish Licensed Providers (LPs). Every single LP is, of course, owned by current government officials, family members, and former staffers. And, while Canada preps for 'legalized cannabis' the government is raiding dispensaries and arresting people for possession, clogging up a legal system that regularily releases criminals due to lack of due process - the courts are plugged full. http://montrealgazette.com/business...-legalized-marijuana-change-canada-and-quebec

So, with 'legal recreational' comes rules. Like these ones (paraphrased, of course):
1 - 4 x 100 cm plants max, with a max height of 100 cm. Because at 104 cm they grow teeth and eat small animals.
1a. 1 x 400 cm plant is maybe a crime. No response as yet.
2. Passing a joint to a minor (under 18?) could result in up to 14 years in prison. Yes. 14 years.

So a bunch of 'charlottes web' parents are really running a risk here, amongst a bunch of other silly scenarios (put together by a former cop -http://www.macleans.ca/politics/bill-blair-a-former-top-cop-in-charge-of-canadas-marijuana-file/ ).

ASccording to Health Canada here's the medical guidelines for growing: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/d...n-personnelle/calculator-calculatrice-eng.php

So a bunch of vets are learning to grow. There are veterans teaching others how to medicate. And other veterans teaching others how to grow. Seeds are plentiful - worst case scenario go here a few days ago: www.overgrowcanada.com , but there are loads of other options online.

If any vet anywhere has a question about cannabis as a med please feel free to fire away. PM if necessary. It's done great things for me, and maybe it can help you, as well. Just know it's not all Cheech & Chong, but keep some chips and Floyd handy anyways... :)

PS - I have nothing to sell. I learned through a whole bunch of Q&A and several leaps of faith. A bunch of that help came from people in this very asylum. This is how I try give a bit of that knowledge back.

 

[Baron23]

What a great thread - thanks for the invite! Canada is at a similar crossroads as the original article, in that we've had legal cannabis patients through our Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for several years now. The program is an immense success, and is backed by great research, like this one: https://cannabisdigest.ca/cannabis-study-prescription/

Anyhoo, the government changed to Haircut Guy, and our new minister of DVA, Wheels, decide that 10g/day is too much cannabis for any vet, so the max amount is 3g/day, and they will only cover up to a certain price per gram. Also you need to purchase from one of 40ish Licensed Providers (LPs). Every single LP is, of course, owned by current government officials, family members, and former staffers. And, while Canada preps for 'legalized cannabis' the government is raiding dispensaries and arresting people for possession, clogging up a legal system that regularily releases criminals due to lack of due process - the courts are plugged full. http://montrealgazette.com/business...-legalized-marijuana-change-canada-and-quebec

So, with 'legal recreational' comes rules. Like these ones (paraphrased, of course):
1 - 4 x 100 cm plants max, with a max height of 100 cm. Because at 104 cm they grow teeth and eat small animals.
1a. 1 x 400 cm plant is maybe a crime. No response as yet.
2. Passing a joint to a minor (under 18?) could result in up to 14 years in prison. Yes. 14 years.

So a bunch of 'charlottes web' parents are really running a risk here, amongst a bunch of other silly scenarios (put together by a former cop -http://www.macleans.ca/politics/bill-blair-a-former-top-cop-in-charge-of-canadas-marijuana-file/ ).

ASccording to Health Canada here's the medical guidelines for growing: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/d...n-personnelle/calculator-calculatrice-eng.php

So a bunch of vets are learning to grow. There are veterans teaching others how to medicate. And other veterans teaching others how to grow. Seeds are plentiful - worst case scenario go here a few days ago: www.overgrowcanada.com , but there are loads of other options online.

If any vet anywhere has a question about cannabis as a med please feel free to fire away. PM if necessary. It's done great things for me, and maybe it can help you, as well. Just know it's not all Cheech & Chong, but keep some chips and Floyd handy anyways... :)

PS - I have nothing to sell. I learned through a whole bunch of Q&A and several leaps of faith. A bunch of that help came from people in this very asylum. This is how I try give a bit of that knowledge back.

Great reply, mate. Thank you for this. Wonder how your Government reconciles this Wheels guy setting medication dosages versus your Dr's prerogatives on your medical care. Although I will say that 3 grams a day = 90 grams in a month. Three ounces a month is slightly lower than our Maryland program which is four ounces per month.

 

[CarolKing]

Senior Citizen Evicted For Using Marijuana At An Assisted Living Center In Colorado
By The Associated Press | Apr 27, 2017 | Politics


A man has been evicted from an Aspen assisted living center for using marijuana on the property.

The Aspen Daily News reports a judge approved the eviction Wednesday after 68-year-old Paul Disnard acknowledged he used marijuana on the premises.

Disnard had told the judge he didn’t realize Whitcomb Terrace prohibited the use of marijuana. He says other residents at the living center had used pot in the past.

The center’s director says half of their current 12 residents are on oxygen machines, which is why pot use is dangerous to them.

She says because marijuana remains illegal federally, Disnard’s usage also endangers the center’s license and funding.

 

[Baron23]

Colorado lawmakers remain divided on whether you can smoke marijuana on your front porch
House and Senate lawmakers are deadlocked on a bill to define the prohibition of “open and public” pot use

The question of where you can consume cannabis in Colorado continues to stress lawmakers, even as the state approaches five years of legalization.

The state Senate and House approved different versions of a measure to define the prohibition on “open and public” consumption, and a panel of lawmakers failed Wednesday to strike a compromise just days before the legislative session concludes.

The sticking point is whether you can smoke marijuana on a front porch in public view — one of the most enduring debates since legalization in 2012.

“Welcome to the jungle,” quipped Rep. Dan Pabon, a Denver Democrat and one of the negotiators. “This has been an issue that we have discussed and debated since the inception of Amendment 64.”

(Cont)

You have to be kidding me. Is the CO legislature now a bunch of Talmudic scholars debating if opening a door on the Sabath is proscribed work. Wow, these guys need to up-leveled their involvement a bit and leave people sort out details of polite behavior.

 

[Baron23]

Colorado Seed To Sale System Leaking Cannabis Into Black Market

he METRC cannabis tracking system in Colorado is suffering some “leakage” from the supposedly stringent seed-to-sale system designed to prevent diversion from their regulated adult use cannabis market. Although regulators have determined there have been numerous violations, its impossible to tell just how much marijuana is escaping the system and making it to the black market where it is untaxed and unregulated. They have, in the meantime, issued over $680,000 in fines on licensees that have been deemed in violation of the laws.

The loopholes appear to be in the gray areas where there are allowable losses under the rules. Retail outlets have been fined for selling cannabis outside the taxed and regulated system after reporting cannabis as damaged or contaminated.

Under the Colorado tracking system, regulators are supposed to be able to monitor all the inputs and outputs in the system by tracking every single plant used to produce cannabis for the legal market. Under this plan, plants are tracked, harvest is tracked, and the finished product amounts is supposed to be recorded and tracked until it is sold to the customer.

A person can already start to imagine the massive opportunities to divert product from a registered and licensed grow site, let alone the dispensaries. However, the fines were primarily assessed on dispensaries for an array of violations. KDVR Fox 31 in Denver reported:

A seasoned dispensary employee named Marcus explained how pot routinely disappears. And although the amounts seem small to state regulators, the profits for those who are manipulating the system are good.

“There are many ways to be able to manipulate these numbers and there’s no accountability,” Marcus said. “A lot of people are getting paid poorly. A $1,000 or $2,000 just to shave a few grams here and there every day sounds like a real good idea.”

Marcus said the main goal of using waste and lost fields is usually the same: To fool state regulators into thinking some marijuana was dropped on the floor or contains too many mites, then sell that “missing” marijuana out the back door.

Diversion from the regulated systems remains a major problem in legal marijuana states. In fact, Oregon uses the METRC system, as well. Lawmakers are wrestling with different systems to try and find a solution to the obvious problem…how do you control a plant that grows like a weed?

For many of us, our first reaction to this may be..."eh, so what...good for them". However, this provides ammunition to the anti's claim that legalization will result in MJ flooding black markets and end up in the hands of minors. I get it, I get the low pay part, but its still stealing and it still undermines our arguments that the MJ industry can be controlled and regulated.

 

[Baron23]

CO Governor Candidate Polis Supports Cannabis Social Use

In 2014, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper famously called cannabis legalization “reckless” and added he “wouldn’t have done it” if it were up to him. While Hickenlooper’s stance has since progressed to the extent other states come to him for cannabis reform knowledge, the brewery-owner has been quoted saying, “you don’t choose what you’re legacy is.”

While Hickenlooper has softened his outlook on marijuana, he stated in March, “smoking [cannabis]is very bad for you,” so he doesn’t support cannabis clubs in Colorado. Now, over three years into legalization, Colorado still doesn’t have cannabis clubs or cafes and the topic has become a lingering ailment without a perfect resolution (Initiative 300 should go into effect this Summer, but has limitations).

Hickenlooper’s term won’t end until January 2019, but when it does, at least one potential candidate promises to embrace the role as cannabis ambassador and help social-use move forward. That candidate, Representative Jared Polis, is a long-time cannabis supporter who continually helms a federal bill to declassify marijuana and regulate the substance like alcohol.

More recently, on May 3, Polis helmed the capital’s first “Marijuana Big Thinker Talks”; Polis brought scientists and experts from Colorado to Washington D.C. to discuss the “need for federal cannabis legalization.”

The Westword caught up with Polis, who offered his support to Colorado’s adult-use future. When asked whether or not he shared Hickenlooper’s social consumption concerns, Polis bluntly responded,

Well, no. Colorado has led the way and will continue to lead the way and to the extent we can encourage safe-use habits and safe driving and provide a better way to get it out of our public spaces, I think the clubs could provide a viable alternative if they’re allowed in municipalities and counties….There’s nothing in federal law that prohibits that.​

Moreover, Polis — who just finished showing politicians in D.C. proof that cannabis reform works — wants states and even local government to make these determinations on their own. Polis added that

“We have to get the federal government out of this and let people decide in neighborhoods and cities in our great country exactly how they want to license these.”​

Should Representative Polis run to replace Hickenlooper, there’s no doubt he’s batting for team green.

 

[Baron23]

Denver 4/20 rally organizers receive 3-year ban after event left Civic Center Park trashed
The rally’s organizers pledged to appeal, say penalties motivated by anti-marijuana views

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock’s administration banned the organizer of this year’s 4/20 rally from hosting the event for three years citing a series of violations at the marijuana celebration.

In a letter released Saturday, the administration identified “substantial violations of city requirements” after conducting a review of the 2017 event and imposed $11,965 in fines and $190 in damages in addition to the temporary ban.

“We will continue to ensure that events in our parks are safe, compliant and of high quality,” said Happy Haynes, the executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation in a statement.

An attorney for the Denver 4/20 rally organization called the three-year ban “extreme overkill” on the part of Hancock’s administration and suggested the real explanation is the mayor’s opposition to marijuana. He pledged to get the decision overturned on appeal.

I think we’ll be able to show … the city’s motivation is to silence the message (of the event) because there aren’t any actual concerns or problems, they are all technical in nature,” said Rob Corry, the group’s general counsel.

The city outlined five concerns in its 11-page letter to the 4/20 event organizers — enough to trigger the three-year ban for future event permits. The violations of the city’s public event policy included four noise complaints, untimely trash removal, limited security guards, unlicensed food vendors and street closures.

Corry disputed each issue and the city acknowledged in the letter it never notified the organizers about the noise complaints.

“None of these things remotely come close to justify revoking the event,” Corry said.

The trash issue received the most attention after piles of rubbish remained in Civic Center Park the morning after the event concluded. The rally attracted several thousand people for the 4:20 p.m. marijuana smoke-in and a concert by rapper 2 Chainz.

“Leaving the trash overnight in the park, even if bagged, is not effective or timely removal of trash from the park,” the letter states.

Corry said the permit issued for the event allowed them to continue the cleanup the day after, and in the end, “we leave the park cleaner than we received it.”

The Denver 4/20 rally organizers have 15 days to file an appeal, and Corry said if the violations are not overturned, then they will also consider taking the case to court.

This is not helpful, IMO.

 

[Baron23]

Colorado Governor Signs PTSD Cannabis Bill Into Law

After a hard-fought effort by veterans groups and patient advocates, Colorado has added post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis. Gov. John Hickenlooper on Monday added his signature to SB 17, easing access to cannabis for individuals suffering from PTSD and allowing them the opportunity to talk openly with their doctors about using cannabis as part of a treatment plan.

Colorado, until this point the only state to have denied a request to add PTSD to its list of qualifying conditions, joins 19 other states—as well as Guam, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC—that allow patients with PTSD access to medical cannabis. The change is expected to take effect in coming weeks, after state forms are updated to reflect the change.

Recent years, most recently in July 2015, when the state Board of Health denied a petition in the face of boos and jeers from supporters. The board, which has not added a qualifying condition since the state adopted its medical marijuana law, said there wasn’t sufficient scientific evidence to justify the change.

“While I get the humanity and certainly the cases and the anecdotal experience,” board panelist Christopher Stanley said in 2015, after hearing proponents speak. “I don’t see that the evidence really allows us to be able to add this, according to our particular jurisdiction.” The proposal failed, 6–2.

The rejection led proponents to file a lawsuit against the state, which is currently before a state appellate court. It also encouraged them to bring a bill to to the Capitol, which earned the support of state lawmakers. The Legislature passed the bill in April, and it’s since been sitting on Hickenlooper’s desk.

The bill will allow individuals suffering with PTSD to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program, allowing them access to a wider variety of medically focused products than generally found in adult-use stores. It will also free patients with PTSD to openly discuss with their physicians how cannabis might fit into a more comprehensive treatment plan.

Hoban Law Group, which handled the lawsuit pro bono on behalf of patients such as Army veteran Matthew Kahl, cheered the governor’s decision to sign the bill into law as “the final step of what has been a long journey to justice.”

“We at Hoban Law Group extend our deep gratitude to Senator [Irene] Aguilar, Representative [Jonathan] Singer and the other members of the Colorado General Assembly for making medical marijuana available to PTSD survivors in Colorado,” said Adam Foster, the lead attorney on the case. “It has been an honor to work hand in hand with veterans and other stakeholders to shepherd this critically important bill through the legislative process.”

 

[Baron23]

Social marijuana use in Denver: Residents and business owners divided on rules and regulations at public hearing
City plans to have rules adopted soon, permits in July
Among the main concerns Tuesday night at a public hearing on social marijuana use at Denver businesses were dual consumption of pot and alcohol, cannabis odors, visibility and protecting children from exposure to the drug.

The hearing at the Wellington E. Webb Municipal Office Building before Ashley Kilroy, Denver’s executive director of marijuana policy, drew more than 100 people with dozens of speakers.

For the most part, lines were drawn with Denver residents supporting current proposals for rules and regulations, which have not yet been adopted, and marijuana business entrepreneurs saying that the proposed rules and regulations are overbearing.

Sherri Way, president of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association, said the group board voted 11-0 recently to support current proposed regulations. Still, she voiced concerns about potential visibility of smokers on outdoor patios and asked for vigilance of outdoor buffers and residential zones.

Gertie Grant, a West Washington Park longtime resident, said she walks near a marijuana grow operation and often smells strong odors from the business. She described it as a “skunk smell.”

“Please don’t let Denver become more of a skunk city,” Grant implored, asking for strong odor regulations.

Emmett Reistroffer, campaign director for Initiative 300 and a member of the city’s Social Consumption Advisory Committee, said “99 percent” of business people who were interested in applying for a social consumption license are “no longer interested” because the proposed rules are too restrictive.

“When I read the rules today, we can’t even get off the ground,” Reistroffer said.

Entrepreneurs will not spend thousands of dollars on clean-air systems, walled patios and security measures, among other potential expenses, when the potential for profit is questionable: “For what, to sell a cup of coffee?” Reistroffer asked.

Under proposed regulations, social consumption businesses will not be allowed to sell marijuana. Instead, patrons will bring their own.

Among a long list of proposed rules, designated consumption areas can’t be within 1,000 feet of child care businesses, drug and alcohol facilities or city-owned recreation areas and pools.

Such zoning will force social consumption businesses to the edge of the city in mostly industrial areas, opponents of the rules argued.

An ordinance already exists keeping such potential businesses 1,000 feet away from schools.

In November 2016, Denver voters approved Initiative 300, granting businesses the ability to apply for a permit to allow for adult marijuana consumption in designated areas.

Applications are now available, through the Denver Excise & Licenses office. But they’ll not be accepted and permits will not be issued until final rules and regulations are adopted. Final adoption could come this month, with permits being granted in July.

Among a long string of proposed application requirements are:

• National criminal background checks for on-site employees.
• Compliance with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act.
• Evidence of community support, including restrictions on advertising and operational requirements.
• A security plan to control and monitor potential criminal activity on the premises.

The initiative, which was passed by 53.7 percent of 168,995 voters, calls for a four-year pilot program allowing some businesses, including cafes and yoga studios, to seek permits.

“We’re still fighting to overcome stigma that is rooted in a history of prohibition, and now it appears the city is trying to keep consumers hidden and as far away from the mainstream as possible,” Reistroffer said.

An approved permit will be non-transferable and not valid for “any other location,” according to proposed regulations. The permit will also be considered a “revocable privilege.”

No permit would be granted to any business that serves alcohol.

After the November election, state licensing officials announced rules, effective Jan. 1, that banned marijuana consumption on a premises with a liquor license. In addition, already-licensed marijuana businesses, including dispensaries, cannot allow consumption on premises under state law.

“We have seen an overwhelming show of support for this initiative among Denver residents,” said Kayvan Khalatbari, an opponent of proposed rules. “While we are eager to finally see the program go into effect, we are concerned that not nearly as many businesses can participate as our campaign intended, as a result of new restrictions proposed by the city.”

 

[Baron23]

New marijuana growing rules taking hold in Colorado by start of next year: what you need to know

Colorado law enforcement and marijuana growers will have to make some adjustments regarding marijuana growing in the state over the next six months, as two new laws aimed at reducing illegal marijuana cultivation and dealing will take effect.

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed two bills last week aimed directly at cutting down on high plant limits and reducing the flow of Colorado pot to other states—something law enforcement agencies say has become an increasing problem in recent years.

House Bill 1220 will cap the number of plants allowed for recreational users to only 12 per house or “residential property,” and will cap the number of plants for medical marijuana growers and caregivers at 24.

The law will allow local jurisdictions and municipalities to enact rules to allow growers to raise more plants than the statewide limit, however.

Denver, Colorado Springs, Douglas County, Carbondale and Lafayette were among the jurisdictions that had already capped the number of marijuana plants allowed to be grown on residential property at 12.

Colorado had been the only of dozens of states that have medical marijuana programs to allow patients or caregivers to grow more than 16 plants. The state allowed them to grow up to 99 based off a doctor’s recommendation.

House Bill 1220, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2018, will also allow district attorneys to charge people who break the new plant limit law.

A first offense involving more than 12 plants will be considered a level 1 drug petty offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

A second or subsequent offense involving between 12 and 24 plants will carry a level 1 drug misdemeanor charge, and a second or subsequent offense involving more than 24 plants will be considered a level 3 drug felony.

The bill’s sponsors, Rep. Cole Wist, R-Centennial and Rep. KC Becker, D-Boulder, said the bill will establish much-needed safeguards against illegal growing, which leads to a larger black market for Colorado pot.

And starting on July 1, state and local officials will start cracking down on illegal marijuana growers and distributors as a result of House Bill 1221, which Hickenlooper also signed last week.

The bill creates an enforcement grant program that will allow local jurisdictions to apply for grant money to fight illegal grows and distribution networks, with priority added to rural municipalities and counties with small budgets to do such work.

The bill defines “rural areas” as counties with fewer than 200,000 people and towns or cities with less than 30,000 people that is at least 10 miles away from a town or city with more than 50,000 people.

The grants will help small district attorney’s offices and agencies to cover the costs incurred by identifying and busting unlicensed grows.

The money for the grants would come from either the Marijuana Tax Cash Fund or the Proposition AA refund account. Under the bill, any money not dispersed through grants that is appropriated can be spent the next year without being re-appropriated.

The bill also mandates that beginning Nov. 1, 2019, the Division of Local Government would have to update to Senate and House committees on the program’s effectiveness. Subsequent updates would be required on or before Nov. 1 of each following year.

Around $5.94 million has already been appropriated to the Department of Local Affairs to enact the program starting July 1. Nearly all of the money will be used for the grant program, though $21,000 will cover the purchase of new IT services and around $4,700 will cover legal services.

The bill also allows the prosecution of anyone not in compliance with state caregiver guidelines to begin under the new law starting July 1.

I imagine that the reaction from many CO vaporists will be negative to this restriction on home grow numbers, but I think this is needed. If we want to continue the legalization and acceptance of MJ in our country, we need to squash black markets and smuggling and deny the anti's that argument. 12 plants per house at any given time (so, maybe cycle 3 times for 36 plants annually) doesn't strike me as all that terribly restrictive.

 

[Baron23]

Man who triggered explosion while brewing hash oil not protected by Colorado pot laws, state Supreme Court rules
Austin Joseph Lente was arrested after a hash oil explosion at his Colorado Springs home

A 21-year-old Colorado Springs man who blew up his home’s laundry room after brewing hash oil with a butane burner still needed a license to “manufacture” the oil after Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled.

The Colorado Supreme Court decision on Monday reversed a district court ruling that dismissed a pot manufacturing criminal charge against Austin Joseph Lente on the basis that he was protected under Colorado’s Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana.

The Supreme Court wrote that another state law makes a distinction between the terms “processing” and “manufacturing” marijuana and that extracting hash oil from marijuana is a step above mere processing of marijuana and requires licensing.

“We hold that Amendment 64 does not protect unlicensed hash-oil extraction,” the Supreme Court ruled.

But Colorado Chief Justice Nancy Rice dissented. She said the Colorado law is confusing and contradictory. At one point it refers to manufacturing and processing marijuana as separate terms and in another section manufacturing was encompassed processing.

“Therefore, the statutory scheme was so vague that an ordinary person would not have known that it prescribed hash oil extraction via butane, and Lente’s conviction should be vacated,” Rice wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Colorado Supreme Court Justice Richard Gabriel.

Lente’s case is notable for another reason: it shows how not to manufacture hash oil.

According to court records, Lente told Colorado Springs police and firefighters on Feb. 26, 2015 that he had frozen a jar of marijuana, took it out of the freezer and injected butane into the jar through a hole in the lid. But before he could return the jar to the freezer the bottom of the jar broke, spilling butane on the floor.

The explosion lit the laundry room of a home on the 300 block of Locust Drive on fire. Police arrested Lente and a minor. Along with illegal manufacturing of marijuana, El Paso County prosecutors charged him with arson, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and criminal mischief.

Judge David Prince dismissed the manufacturing charge on Dec. 1, 2015. District Attorney Dan May appealed. The Supreme Court returned the case to Colorado Springs for further proceedings.

Idiots have been blowing themselves up on a regular basis in some legal states....ok, if the law is ambiguous, then change the law, but IMO nobody has the right to process butane extracted hash oil in a residential area (in an open system which is what they use) and I agree that this should be restricted to licensed professionals. If they can't get this moron on the MJ law, they can always go after him for reckless endangerment of his neighbors (and family, and pets, and....)

 

[Baron23]

Federal appeals court gives Colorado marijuana credit union another chance
A Colorado credit union will get another shot in its quest to provide banking services to the state's legal marijuana industry as the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday opened the door for the financial institution to reapply for a master account at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

A Tenth Circuit panel vacated a Colorado federal court’s decision to dismiss Fourth Corner Credit Union’s challenge to the Kansas City Fed’s application denial with prejudice, instead sending it back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the suit without prejudice.

The upshot of the appeals court’s ruling is that the credit union can again ask the Kansas City Fed to grant it a master account, which gives financial institutions access to the Fed’s automated clearinghouse system and the ability to do things like clear checks and perform other transactions on behalf of customers.

Mark A. Mason, an attorney for Fourth Corner, told Law360 in an email Tuesday that the credit union will immediately submit a revised master account application to the Kansas City Fed, characterizing the outcome of the Tenth Circuit's decision as a win that “paves the way for supporters of legalized cannabis and hemp to have their own member controlled not for profit financial institution.”

“While Fourth Corner has to limit its activities to the service of legalization supporters until federal law evolves, legal banking for [marijuana-related businesses] is inevitable,” Mason said. “When it happens, Fourth Corner will be positioned to hit the ground running.”

The battle between the credit union and the Kansas City Fed is part of a broader problem that marijuana dispensaries and other related businesses have with gaining access to financial services in states where the drug is legal for medicinal and adult-use purposes. Because marijuana is still considered illegal under federal law, most banks and credit unions will not provide accounts or other services to marijuana-related businesses.

Fourth Corner Credit Union filed its suit against the Kansas City Fed in July 2015 after the reserve bank refused to grant it a master account on the grounds that marijuana remained illegal under federal law despite Colorado’s move to legalize it for recreational use. Without this account, the credit union has claimed it “cannot function.”

After the lower court upheld that move on the grounds that marijuana is subject to the federal Controlled Substances Act, the credit union appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Fourth Corner argued the lower court decision was incorrect because only the U.S. Department of Justice has the authority to preempt state law under the CSA, not banking regulators.

The credit union asked the appeals court to force the Kansas City Fed to grant it access to a master account or else give a clear reason why federal law trumps Colorado’s policy toward the drug.

Declining to issue such an order, the circuit judges did not reach firm consensus on the deeper issues surrounding conflicting state and federal laws on marijuana, focusing their three separate opinions instead on their disagreements about how much credence to give to Fourth Corner’s promise to serve marijuana-related businesses only if the law allows it.

That promise, made in an amended complaint, should have stopped the lower court from dismissing the case on illegality grounds in January 2016 because the Kansas City Fed never established that what the credit union planned to do was actually illegal, Fourth Corner has argued.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Moritz wasn’t buying it, arguing that the court doesn’t “owe the presumption of truth to illusory allegations.” By its own admission, Fourth Corner endeavors to facilitate what is plainly illegal activity by federal standards, Judge Moritz said, so its pledge to follow the law isn’t worth much, particularly when that pledge has been made conditionally.

“The credit union will either serve [marijuana-related businesses] or it won’t — its allegations can’t depend on the answer to a legal question,” Judge Moritz wrote.

While Judge Moritz would have affirmed the lower court’s dismissal with prejudice, her fellow panel member U.S. Circuit Judge Robert E. Bacharach reached the opposite conclusion. Assessing the credibility of the credit union’s promise is the kind of factual inquiry that is inappropriate for the dismissal stage, the judge argued.

“At this stage, the district court must accept as true all of Fourth Corner’s well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to Fourth Corner,” Judge Bacharach said. “The district court was not free to scuttle these requirements.”

But U.S. Circuit Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. thought Fourth Corner’s only-if-legal promise changed the nature of the suit entirely, pushing it into the realm of hypothetical debates that are not yet ripe for the court to decide.

“The credit union’s plan to serve [marijuana-related businesses] was a key reason why the Reserve Bank denied the master account application,” Judge Matheson said. “With that justification gone, we do not know what would happen under the credit union’s revised stance.”

According to Judge Matheson, Fourth Corner should submit another application reiterating its only-if-legal promise and see how the Kansas City Fed decides. Until then, the judge said, the credit union’s appeal was “premature” and should be dismissed.

Fourth Corner believes that if it reapplies for a master account with this caveat, the Kansas City Fed will not be able to deny its application.

“If the Fed denies it — Judge Bacharach’s opinion is unequivocal — that would be a violation of federal law,” Mason said in an email to Law360.

According to Judge Bacharach, Federal Reserve banks don’t have discretion to deny access to these accounts, and to the extent federal law might preempt Fourth Corner’s charter, it would do so only as far as the charter authorizes serving marijuana-related businesses.

“Thus, Fourth Corner would still be authorized to pursue its broader mission of servicing the supporters of legalization,” Judge Bacharach said. “Because the charter would not be completely invalidated, Fourth Corner would remain entitled to a master account.”

Representatives for the Kansas City Fed declined to comment.

Circuit Judges Matheson, Bacharach and Moritz sat on the panel for the Tenth Circuit.

Fourth Corner is represented by Mark A. Mason and Gabrielle Z. Lee of The Mason Law Firm PA.

The Kansas City Fed is represented by Scott S. Barker, N. Reid Neureiter and Benjamin I. Kapnik of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP.

The case is The Fourth Corner Credit Union v. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, case number 16-1016, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

 

[Baron23]

Denver Businesses Will be First in the Nation to Allow Cannabis Use

On Friday, Denver’s lengthy social marijuana use saga finally reached a conclusion when city officials unveiled the comprehensive set of guidelines for businesses and patrons hoping to partake.

Back in November, Denver voters passed Initiative 300, where Denver businesses can apply for permits to allow for public cannabis consumption on their premises — the first of its kind in the nation. Initiative 300 calls for the rollout of a four-year social use pilot program that will now launch in the coming months.

Denver businesses hoping to acquire a permit for a social consumption area will be able to submit an application until the end of August. Permits will be available on an annual basis for brick-and-mortar businesses or a temporary basis for event organizers. If a business has their application for a permit approved by Denver’s Department of Excise and Licenses, the fees will amount to $2,000, though it is not yet clear how much of that fee would have to be paid in subsequent years to renew a permit.

Which types of businesses are expected to participate?
While coffee shops and restaurants figure to claim many of the social use area permits in Denver, there are a surprising number of other businesses interested in catering to their cannabis-loving clientele. There has been tremendous interest from yoga studios, gyms, bookstores, and other establishments where people who love marijuana also love to spend time. Business owners hope the intersection of cultures will enhance the experience for some of their customers and create increased brand loyalty.

Who is prohibited from applying for a permit?
Businesses already permitted to cultivate or sell marijuana in the City of Denver will be prohibited from applying for a social use permit, as will restaurants and bars that hold liquor licenses. However, there is a loophole that will allow one business to hold a social use permit and a liquor license, provided the business does not serve alcohol while the social use area is actively being used. This means a bar could host a cannabis-driven event after hours when alcohol sales are finished or during the day when the bar is closed. Businesses or events that operate on public property or land owned by the City of Denver will be barred from securing a permit as well, i.e. Red Rocks Amphitheater.

What changes have been made to Initiative 300 since November?
One major change that will make implementation of Initiative 300 run far smoother is the exclusion of a previous requirement that would have asked businesses to collect signed waivers from any customer wishing to enter the social consumption area. Instead, the smoking areas will now only need to be affixed with a sign reminding customers that “they are responsible for their own actions, must consume marijuana responsibly, should not drive impaired and cannot share marijuana in exchange for money.”

Another early provision of Initiative 300 would have called for businesses to develop a new ventilation plan should they allow vaping in their consumption area, a requirement that was deemed redundant considering the city’s current building and ventilation codes.

Though there are still points of contention, such as advertising restrictions for cannabis events and relatively strict zoning regulations, both lawmakers and cannabis advocates alike can at least be proud that they’ve taken a giant leap in progressing marijuana culture forward in Colorado — and hopefully beyond.

So take that, Amsterdam! (or for any fellow aficionados of The Wire....Hamsterdam! LOL). IMO The Wire is still the best drama that's ever been on the tube.

 

[Baron23]

This is a travesty. If, as their chief said, they had a warrant signed by a judge, then both the chief and the judge need to be 86'd.

Special forces soldier sues Fountain SWAT after legal pot grow raid
Fountain’s police chief said the department had a valid search warrant signed by a judge

A former special forces infantryman, who was awarded the Bronze Star and uses marijuana to treat PTSD after tours to Iraq and Bosnia, has sued the Fountain police SWAT team after officers raided his legal marijuana greenhouse.

Eli Olivas and his girlfriend Marisela Chavez sued the city of Fountain and Fountain police Sgt. Matthew Racine, claiming the city failed to properly train its police to investigate pot cases in a state where it’s legal to grow marijuana.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Denver by attorney Terrence Johnson. Olivas and Chavez seek compensatory damages of more than $100,000. Olivas, a paramedic, also wants his guns returned: an AK-47 rifle, a 5.56 millimeter Sig Sauer rifle and a Glock 17, court records show Police confiscated the weapons but haven’t returned them, the lawsuit says.

Fountain Police Chief Chris Heberer said the department had a valid search warrant signed by a judge.

“At the end of the day he was safe, the public was safe and we were safe,” Heberer said.

Olivas is a former U.S. Army Special Forces staff sergeant, infantryman, medic and combat veteran. Besides the Bronze Star, he earned numerous other service medals. He also was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder linked to combat.

Olivas is a registered medical marijuana patient with a permit to grow up to 99 marijuana plants for his own treatment of PTSD. He was growing 18 marijuana plants behind a locked, 6-foot privacy fence. The plants were further enclosed in a greenhouse walled with opaque glass.

At 6 a.m. on July 22, 2016, a Fountain SWAT team raided Olivas’ home with a warrant for marijuana, firearms and ammunition. They used a flash-bang device. The warrant was based on weak and untrustworthy evidence, the lawsuit says.Using a flash-bang explosion during the raid was part of a “blatant display of violence and abuse of authority,” the lawsuit says.

Related Articles

• August 15, 2017 Justice Department has “effectively shut down” marijuana research at DEA
• August 14, 2017 Hawaii’s first medical marijuana dispensary sells out in days
• August 11, 2017 Can marijuana rescue coal country?
• August 11, 2017 Wyoming to the world: Come for the eclipse, but leave your weed at home
• August 8, 2017 National support for medical and recreational marijuana legalization hits all-time high

“Don’t shoot,” yelled Olivas, dressed only in underwear, when he saw SWAT officers pointing assault rifles at him with fingers on triggers. Police handcuffed Olivas and Chavez, who was wearing only a nightgown, the lawsuit says.

“The unconscionable aggression of the police would have traumatized any person, but given plaintiff Olivas’ history serving his country in combat, it affected him exponentially more severely and it has caused a relapse of his PTSD symptoms,” the lawsuit says.

The officers made Olivas and Chavez sit within a few feet of the exhaust pipe on a running police vehicle. Chavez had a prior shoulder injury and told the officers, but they handcuffed her anyway causing further physical injuries, the lawsuit says.

“There was no evidence that she committed a crime, she posed no immediate threat to the safety of the officers and she did not actively resist arrest or attempt to evade arrest by flight,” the lawsuit says.

Olivas and Chavez began to experience symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning including difficulty seeing, faintness, nausea and headaches. With his medical training, Olivas knew the dangerous signs of poisoning, but his request to be moved away from the fumes was refused. He stood up to get fresh air and was ordered to sit down.

The officers destroyed one of Olivas’ gates to enter the fence. They issued a summons and complaint for an illegal marijuana grow even though Olivas had a legal permit, the lawsuit says. The summons was never filed in court, but Olivas still was forced to hire an attorney.

“At all times relevant herein, the individual defendants acted intentionally, willfully and wantonly, maliciously, and with reckless disregard for and deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s rights,” the lawsuit says.

The episode involving Olivas wasn’t an isolated event. It was symptomatic of Fountain’s failure to train officers how to investigate marijuana cases, the lawsuit says.

All the officers had to do was check whether Olivas had a legal permit to grow marijuana, the lawsuit says.

 

[momofthegoons]

This is a travesty. If, as their chief said, they had a warrant signed by a judge, then both the chief and the judge need to be 86'd.

Wow... I got a little queasy reading this article. Such unnecessary violence not to mention a waste of police man power. Don't they have anything better to do?

 

[Baron23]

What the fuck is a "bicycle bar" ? I'm seeing in my minds eye a rickshaw with a bar. LOL

Denver to Start Licensing First Pot Clubs, But Few May Apply
BY KRISTEN NICHOLS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

DENVER (AP) — Colorado’s largest city is on the brink of licensing some of the nation’s first legal marijuana clubs.

But Denver’s elaborate hurdles for potential weed-friendly coffee shops and gathering places may mean the city gets few takers for the new licenses.

Denver voters approved bring-your-own-pot clubs in a ballot measure last year after city officials’ dragged their feet on calls to give legal pot smokers a place to use the drug. The city plans to start accepting applications by the end of the month.

“There are plenty of places where you can consume alcohol. Let’s give people a place to go to consume marijuana,” said Jordan Person, head of Denver NORML, which advocates for pot-friendly public policy.

But Denver’s would-be “social use” clubs have faced one delay after another.

First, the state liquor board prohibited pot use at any place with a liquor license, making bars and many restaurants off-limits. And pot shops can’t allow consumption on the premises.

That left gathering places like coffee shops, art galleries and yoga studios. Furthermore, would-be clubs must stay twice as far as liquor stores from schools and anywhere children congregate, including playgrounds and sports fields.

“We can’t be in places where it makes sense,” said Kayvan Khalatbari, a Denver marijuana consultant who helped run last year’s club campaign.

City officials say the rules are as flexible as possible given stiff resistance from some community groups and marijuana skeptics. The voter-approved club measure also says the club licenses are a pilot program and neighborhood groups must agree to allow a club before it could open.

“There were no surprises in the rules,” said Dan Rowland, spokesman for the Denver department that regulates marijuana businesses. “They reflect all the comments we got from the community.”

One hopeful applicant says the regulations are stringent but still a step forward for the industry.

“A lot of us are hoping this will … open the doors for a new kind of business,” said Connor Lux, who runs a co-work space for the cannabis industry and plans to apply for a social use license to hold public, weed-friendly events at his business just north of downtown Denver. Applying for a license costs $1,000; the licenses itself is $1,000 a year.

Lux envisions open-to-the-public networking events at his space.

“I don’t think anyone’s planning a giant smoke-out, everybody-coming-to-get-high kind of thing,” he said.

Khalatbari has sued Colorado’s liquor regulators over the ban on pot and alcohol in the same location, a lawsuit that hasn’t yet been heard, and says he is considering a lawsuit against the city for what he believes are onerous club rules.

Khalatbari noted Denver has much looser distance requirements for places selling alcohol, even allowing bicycle bars to cruise past schools and churches. The mobile bars with drivers ferry groups of pedaling drinkers from one tavern to the next.

“You can ride these stupid moronic bike bars down the street, getting hammered in public. But we’re not giving people a safer choice, even though voters have said over and over again they want to go that way,” Khalatbari said.

Colorado’s marijuana law neither allows nor denies pot clubs, leaving the state with a patchwork of local club rules. Some cities tolerate them; in others, clubs operate underground, with members arranging meetups using social media.

State lawmakers earlier this year decided against a plan to regulate marijuana clubs statewide. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper warned that passing the measure could invite a federal crackdown.

The situation is similar in other legal-pot states.

Alaska’s 2014 marijuana measure allowed for on-site pot consumption at potential “tasting rooms,” though regulators in that state have yet to allow any to open.

And measures approved last year in California and Massachusetts allowed for pot clubs, but both states are still working out rules.

Person, the marijuana activist, said she’s hopeful that Denver’s limited rules will prove a step forward in a national move toward marijuana acceptance.

“People still aren’t sure how this is going to work or what’s going to be allowed. But this is progress,” she said.

 

[momofthegoons]

What the fuck is a "bicycle bar" ? I'm seeing in my minds eye a rickshaw with a bar. LOL

would-be clubs must stay twice as far as liquor stores from schools and anywhere children congregate, including playgrounds and sports fields.

This makes zero sense to me. Anyone who's been to a dispensary can attest to the check in process. First they take your mmj card and driver's license and check their system. Then you are buzzed into a separate room to obtain your meds. And you can add an extremely serious security guard at the door of mine who would never allow a minor into the place.

Now compare that to your local liquor store. Or hey... how about the corner market where you can stroll in and buy beer, wine and sometimes hard alcohol and cigarettes? And how often do minors get ahold of those products?

I've yet to hear a story about a minor being able to obtain medical cannabis from a dispensary.

 

[Baron23]

This makes zero sense to me. Anyone who's been to a dispensary can attest to the check in process. First they take your mmj card and driver's license and check their system. Then you are buzzed into a separate room to obtain your meds. And you can add an extremely serious security guard at the door of mine who would never allow a minor into the place.

Now compare that to your local liquor store. Or hey... how about the corner market where you can stroll in and buy beer, wine and sometimes hard alcohol and cigarettes? And how often do minors get ahold of those products?

I've yet to hear a story about a minor being able to obtain medical cannabis from a dispensary.

Yep, a rickshaw with a bar. LOL

I never saw one during my trips to Denver. Missed out, I guess. LOL

 

[Baron23]

Well, fuck you too AAA! haha

Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows

By Radley Balko August 5, 2014
Since Colorado voters legalized pot in 2012, prohibition supporters have warned that recreational marijuana will lead to a scourge of “drugged drivers” on the state’s roads. They often point out that when the state legalized medical marijuana in 2001, there was a surge in drivers found to have smoked pot. They also point to studies showing that in other states that have legalized pot for medical purposes, we’ve seen an increase in the number of drivers testing positive for the drug who were involved in fatal car accidents. The anti-pot group SAM recently pointed out that even before the first legal pot store opened in Washington state, the number of drivers in that state testing positive for pot jumped by a third.

The problem with these criticisms is that we can test only for the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for inebriation. Metabolites can linger in the body for days after the drug’s effects wear off — sometimes even for weeks. Because we all metabolize drugs differently (and at different times and under different conditions), all that a positive test tells us is that the driver has smoked pot at some point in the past few days or weeks.

It makes sense that loosening restrictions on pot would result in a higher percentage of drivers involved in fatal traffic accidents having smoked the drug at some point over the past few days or weeks. You’d also expect to find that a higher percentage of churchgoers, good Samaritans and soup kitchen volunteers would have pot in their system. You’d expect a similar result among any large sampling of people. This doesn’t necessarily mean that marijuana caused or was even a contributing factor to accidents, traffic violations or fatalities.

This isn’t an argument that pot wasn’t a factor in at least some of those accidents, either. But that’s precisely the point. A post-accident test for marijuana metabolites doesn’t tell us much at all about whether pot contributed to the accident.

Since the new Colorado law took effect in January, the “drugged driver” panic has only intensified. I’ve already written about one dubious example, in which the Colorado Highway Patrol and some local and national media perpetuated a story that a driver was high on pot when he slammed into a couple of police cars parked on an interstate exit ramp. While the driver did have some pot in his system, his blood-alcohol level was off the charts and was far more likely the cause of the accident. In my colleague Marc Fisher’s recent dispatch from Colorado, law enforcement officials there and in bordering states warned that they’re seeing more drugged drivers. Congress recently held hearings on the matter, complete with dire predictions such as “We are going to have a lot more people stoned on the highway and there will be consequences,” from Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.). Some have called for a zero tolerance policy — if you’re driving with any trace of pot in your system, you’re guilty of a DWI. That would effectively ban anyone who smokes pot from driving for up to a couple of weeks after their last joint, including people who legitimately use the drug for medical reasons.

It seems to me that the best way to gauge the effect legalization has had on the roadways is to look at what has happened on the roads since legalization took effect. Here’s a month-by-month comparison of highway fatalities in Colorado through the first seven months of this year and last year. For a more thorough comparison, I’ve also included the highest fatality figures for each month since 2002, the lowest for each month since 2002 and the average for each month since 2002.

Raw data from the Colorado Dept. of Transportation


As you can see, roadway fatalities this year are down from last year, and down from the 13-year average. Of the seven months so far this year, five months saw a lower fatality figure this year than last, two months saw a slightly higher figure this year, and in one month the two figures were equal. If we add up the total fatalities from January through July, it looks like this:

Raw data from the Colorado Dept. of Transportation


Here, the “high” bar (pardon the pun) is what you get when you add the worst January since 2002 to the worst February, to the worst March, and so on. The “low” bar is the sum total of the safest January, February, etc., since 2002. What’s notable here is that the totals so far in 2014 are closer to the safest composite year since 2002 than to the average year since 2002. I should also add here that these are total fatalities. If we were to calculate these figures as a rate — say, miles driven per fatality — the drop would be starker, both for this year and since Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2001. While the number of miles Americans drive annually has leveled off nationally since the mid-2000s, the number of total miles traveled continues to go up in Colorado. If we were to measure by rate, then, the state would be at lows unseen in decades.

The figures are similar in states that have legalized medical marijuana. While some studies have shown that the number of drivers involved in fatal collisions who test positive for marijuana has steadily increased as pot has become more available, other studies have shown that overall traffic fatalities in those states have dropped. Again, because the pot tests only measure for recent pot use, not inebriation, there’s nothing inconsistent about those results.

Of course, the continuing drop in roadway fatalities, in Colorado and elsewhere, is due to a variety of factors, such as better-built cars and trucks, improved safety features and better road engineering. These figures in and of themselves only indicate that the roads are getting safer; they don’t suggest that pot had anything to do with it. We’re also only seven months in. Maybe these figures will change. Finally, it’s also possible that if it weren’t for legal pot, the 2014 figures would be even lower. There’s no real way to know that. We can only look at the data available. But you can bet that if fatalities were up this year, prohibition supporters would be blaming it on legal marijuana. (Interestingly, though road fatalities have generally been falling in Colorado for a long time, 2013 actually saw a slight increase from 2012. So fatalities are down the year after legalization, after having gone up the year before.)

That said, some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that better access to pot is making the roads safer, at least marginally. The theory is that people are substituting pot for alcohol, and pot causes less driver impairment than booze. I’d need to see more studies before I’d be ready to endorse that theory. For example, there’s also some research contradicting the theory that drinkers are ready to substitute pot for alcohol.

But the data are far more supportive of that than of the claims that stoned drivers are menacing Colorado’s roadways.

CLARIFICATION: I wrote that “we can test only for the presence of marijuana metabolites, not for inebriation.” That isn’t quite accurate. This is true of roadside tests. But a blood test taken at a hospitals can measure for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. That said, even here there are problems. Regular users can have still have remnant THC in their blood well after the effects have worn off. Regular users can also have levels above the legal limit and still drive perfectly well. In Colorado, a THC level of 5 nano grams or more brings a presumptive charge of driving under the influence. However, references to “marijuana-related” accidents in studies, by prohibitionists, and by law enforcement could refer to any measure or trace of the drug. So when officials and legalization opponents talk about increases in these figures, it still isn’t clear what any of this means for road safety.

 

[Baron23]

Five ways Colorado's new marijuana laws are about change
Changes to Colorado's cannabis industry are on the horizon. The Marijuana Enforcement Division has been holding meetings for industry stakeholders and government officials in order to iron out the details of recently passed laws and new regulations, and the public is encouraged to attend those meetings and provide input.

In the first day of an ongoing series of working-group meetings, cannabis lawyers and business owners, doctors, parents and government officials discussed how to implement HB 1034, HB 1261, SB 187 and SB 192, all of which were passed this last legislative session and signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper. As the agency that oversees the pot industry, the MED is looking at a range of ways to enforce these new laws, and there's no shortage of them.

Although the meetings will continue through the end of the month, big changes for the industry have already been discussed. Here are five issues that came up at the most recent meeting:

Employee training
Rule r231 was added as an amendment to SB 187 partly because of the nation's growing proclivity for legalizing cannabis. The new rule puts a program in place for dispensaries hiring and training employees who have been transferred from out-of-state branches. It may also loosen restrictions on employee badge designations in hopes of streamlining training and reducing required supervision. Currently, only employees with a key badge (owners, managers, supervisors) can be in a licensed marijuana business by themselves or without supervision. Support employees (most budtenders, cultivators and day-to-day staff) can't be alone in the business without supervision, and the definition of supervision can change from locality to locality.

In some counties and municipalities, supervision can mean a camera watching employees, while other towns, such as Boulder, take the meaning more literally and require in-person supervision. This hampers some businesses from operating efficiently, says Dan Anglin, a member of the working group and owner of AmeriCanna. In Boulder, his businesses can't open or close unless an employee with a key badge is present, he says, so he hopes that the final draft of the rule will relax some of those industry-badge restrictions. And Anglin is likely to get his wish, as most of the committee (and, more important, Department of Revenue officials) side with his sentiment.

Moving locations
As more counties and municipalities allow medical marijuana businesses within their borders, the state has been dealing with with a growing number of requests to move locations. Since licensing rules and pot business regulations vary widely from town to town, however, moving just a few miles in one direction could be nearly impossible for some medical dispensaries and cultivations. Rule m206 of HB 1034 would require that a business trying to move to a different town simply pay a change-of-location application fee instead of paying all renewal application fees at once, which it currently must do. The new rule would also align local location-transfer policies with the state's, in hopes of shortening the application process.

Retail dispensaries will have more guidance on how to decontaminate flower that fails microbial testing.

Contaminated pot
One rule change that will directly affect consumers is rule r1507 of SB 192, which deals with retail marijuana testing and failed test results. The new law aims to set up a program for microbial testing of retail marijuana products, but it also leaves the option open for decontamination and extraction into solvent-based concentrates. Under the new rule, products that fail contaminate testing may be decontaminated or extracted into concentrates — which can eliminate certain contaminates in flower and trim — and then retested again. If the decontaminated flower or concentrates don't pass two separate sample tests, all of the product must be destroyed.

However, the new law doesn't allow for the retesting of medical products, just those on the retail side, and industry members believe the policies may hamper future technologies that can decontaminate cannabis products using ozone technology and other methods used in the spice and fruit industries. These issues will be readdressed during future catch-all meetings.

Infused products
This new rule impacts business owners more than it does consumers, though there could be a slight reflection in the cost you pay at the cash register and the freshness of your medical flower is. Rule m601 of HB 1034 allows holders of medical-infused product (MIP) licenses to sell wholesale products to other MIP manufacturers and medical dispensaries, and also allows medical MIPs to sell flower previously bought from a different wholesale grower – essentially re-gifting wholesale marijuana. The rule will also ban medical MIPs with cultivation licenses from selling any flower or trim that they grow to other licensed businesses or consumers.

Edibles packaging machines, like this one at the Bronnor Corporation, are often subject to regulatory changes.

Packaging and labeling
The packaging and labeling working group was created to come up with concepts for cannabis packaging and labeling standards that work with HB 1261, which called the issue "a matter of statewide concern." The group has been in contact with Oregon and Washington to create a standard that works with other state-regulated cannabis industries, aiming for more essential information while keeping the materials used for labeling to a minimum.

Cannabis business owners and advocates want only essential information on labeling in multi-layered packages, saying the current rules already require too much ink and paper. Comparing a hash-oil container, which typically comes in a jar placed inside a small box or bottle, to a Russian nesting doll, cannabis attorney Jordan Wellington argues that the entire label could be cut into layers like the packaging, with critical health and safety warnings on the primary packaging and nutrient information on the outer layers.

Child psychiatrist Dr. Charlie Lippolis believes that all cannabis product packaging should be held to the same standard as over-the-counter drugs such as Tylenol. As Lippolis points out, the same product information and warnings found on the box are also on the Tylenol bottle; she thinks cannabis manufacturers have a responsibility to do the same. Adding to the debate is the definition of critical labeling information, which varies from stakeholder to stakeholder. The Colorado Department of Revenue has been consistent in its goal to have packaging as consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards as possible, but labeling issues like edible digestion time and THC potency aren't shared by the FDA.

Much of the packaging and labeling discussion will be revisited during catch-all sessions later this month.

In the meantime, there will be another round of meetings on Thursday, September 14, and Friday, September 15, to discuss state licenses for clinical marijuana research. The meetings will be held in the Colorado Gaming Commission conference room at 17301 West Colfax Avenue in Golden.

Any unresolved issues from the legislation-implementation meetings will be brought up during two separate catch-all sessions on Tuesday, September 19, and Friday, September 22, at the same location. The final day for public and written comment consideration is Monday, October 16, during the final rule hearing.