Pubdate: Thu, 31 May 2001 Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News (CO) Copyright: 2001 Denver Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.denver-rmn.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/371 Author: Bill Owens, Ken Salazar Note: Owens is Governor and Salazar is Attorney General of Colorado Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) OWENS' AND SALAZAR'S JOINT STATEMENT ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA Last fall, a majority of Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a state registry program for medical marijuana. We spoke out against this amendment at the time and worked to defeat it. And we remain strongly opposed to it -- as officials responsible for upholding anti-drug laws; as private citizens concerned about drug-related crime; and as husbands and fathers concerned about legitimizing illicit drug use among Colorado's young people. We also opposed this effort because the physician community made it clear that marijuana offered no benefits to patients that were not already provided by existing drugs. Nevertheless, once the voters had spoken, we accepted the will of the majority and immediately took steps to implement the marijuana registry program within the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The future of state medical marijuana programs was put in doubt, however, by a May 14th ruling of the United States Supreme Court. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative case, the Court ruled that there is no medical necessity to the federal Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. In light of the Oakland decision, a number of news commentators and editorial writers assumed that Colorado's medical marijuana program would be scrapped. Our solemn duty as elected constitutional officers, however, was to analyze the Supreme Court's ruling carefully to determine whether the will of a majority of Colorado voters could still somehow be given effect. For us to ignore the legal possibility that Colorado's marijuana program might still survive -- even after the Oakland decision -- would be to substitute our personal opinions for that of the will of the majority. This we cannot and will not do. For whatever our grave personal concerns about medical marijuana, we have sworn to protect Colorado's constitution and laws at all times. After exhaustive research and vigorous debate by attorneys in both our offices, we have concluded that the Supreme Court's holding in the Oakland case was deliberately narrow enough to permit Colorado's medical registry to go forward. This is admittedly a close question, on which reasonable attorneys can and do disagree. Frankly, the Supreme Court's decision does not strike any of us as a model of clarity. The legal experts with whom we have consulted all agree that it seems to raise more questions than it answers. However, we are persuaded that the question presented in the Oakland case was presented in extraordinarily narrow terms. The Court struck down the ability of so-called marijuana "buyers' cooperatives" to distribute marijuana for medical purposes. Yet the justices did not expressly invalidate the registry program. On balance, the Court's ruling appears to leave at least some room for Colorado to implement its marijuana program -- as absurd and wasteful as that result may be. The registry part of that program will therefore take effect tomorrow as provided by last fall's amendment. However, we remind anyone intending to register for the program -- as well as physicians considering prescribing marijuana to their patients - -- that it remains a federal crime to possess, manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana. To fulfill our duties under federal law, we are today contacting the Colorado Medical Association to remind the physicians of Colorado that doctors who dispense marijuana for any purpose risk federal criminal prosecution. We are also writing the acting United States Attorney for the District of Colorado to encourage the criminal prosecution of anyone who attempts to use this state program to circumvent federal anti-drug laws. Finally, it is our hope that the federal courts and Congress will address the medical marijuana issue in the near future. For states such as Colorado to establish registry programs with no apparently valid legal purpose strikes us as an unfortunate but unavoidable reality of current federal law. Revisiting this question, before additional state resources are needlessly expended on what amounts to a state-sanctioned protest vehicle against federal drug laws, would be in the best interests of all Colorado voters. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk