Pubdate: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 Source: Tribune, The (Greeley, CO) Copyright: 2010sThe Greeley Publishing Co. Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/2T4s2YlD Website: http://www.greeleytribune.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3165 Note: Note: typically publishes LTEs from circulation area only Author: Sherrie Peif DECISION ON MEDIGROW INJUNCTION NOT DUE FOR AT LEAST A WEEK A decision about whether a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries by the Windsor Town Board is constitutional will have to wait. Weld District Court Judge James Hartmann heard two hours of testimony Thursday concerning whether he should grant Windsor an injunction against MediGrow dispensary, but with nearly four hours of Town Board meeting recordings still to listen to, Hartmann said his written ruling won't come for at least a week. The town of Windsor asked the Weld District Court judge to issue an injunction against Lazarus Pino, owner of MediGrow, 1292 Main St. Unit 1, for continuing to operate his dispensary against a moratorium put in place in December. Pino's attorney Daniel Taylor of Wheatridge, asked Hartmann to dismiss the request based on the same claims he argued in Windsor Municipal Court last month, arguments Taylor says make the moratorium unconstitutional. Windsor Municipal Court Judge Michael E. Manning shot down those arguments. Windsor passed the emergency ordinance on Dec. 16, but allowed two dispensaries to remain open. MediGrow was told not to open, but Pino had already opened three days earlier and continues to operate against the ordinance. The Town began citing Pino the next day for violating the ordinance. In addition, he is receiving citations for building code violations. Both carry fines of up to $300 a day. Taylor says there are at least four different violations of local, state and federal laws, including failure to provide proper notice of a public meeting and enacting an emergency ordinance where no emergency existed; hampering, by unreasonable and arbitrary governmental interference, one's right to engage in a lawful business; equal protection; and retroactive law making. Most of Thursday's hearing focused on the equal protection and retroactive law making portions. Pino believes the Town Board allowed two other dispensaries to remain open although he was further through the building permit process than either In Harmony Wellness or A New Dawn Wellness. At issue in the equal protection argument are town building codes that require a certain amount of outside air to be filtered into the business. At the time of the ordinance, none of the three dispensaries had the system in place. A New Dawn has since come into compliance, and In Harmony has not applied for a building permit yet, McCargar told Hartmann. Additionally under the moratorium, only those businesses in operation for five days or longer at the time of enactment were allowed to remain open. "The moratorium punishes past conduct that sets forth a requirement that can't be met," Taylor said. "The other dispensaries have been operating illegally also, just for a longer period of time. That makes no sense." Hartmann appeared to have concerns on both sides of the case, first questioning McCargar on what made the moratorium an emergency and if all three dispensaries were operating illegally at the time of the moratorium. "What was the emergency that happened between the 14th and the 16th of December," Hartmann asked McCargar in reference to a vote on the moratorium that failed on first attempt but then passed during a special meeting. "The same members of the board voted on the 16th that voted on the 14th, but the vote was different only two days later?" McCargar explained the emergency was in place on both dates, that only the wording of the ordinance changed. That was done to get it to pass, McCargar said. McCargar said that on the 16th, only A New Dawn and MediGrow were not compliant, but that A New Dawn had been told by the town that it could open before the building was brought to code. Hartmann then told Taylor that he wasn't convinced the equal protection argument was proven. "If he opens even though he is in direct violation of the law, should he be considered to be in the same situation as the others?" Hartmann said. "Doesn't that put the municipalities at the whims of the citizens rather than the ordinances?" - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake