Pubdate: Fri, 28 May 2010
Source: Aurora Sentinel (CO)
Copyright: 2010 Aurora Sentinel
Contact:  http://www.aurorasentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1672
Author: Sara Castellanos

CANNABIS CAMPAIGN SET TO BEGIN IN AURORA

Voters Are Poised To Decide Future Of Medicinal  Marijuana Within City
Limits This Fall

AURORA - Voters will be asked point-blank whether they  want to ban
dispensaries within city limits if Aurora  City Council members follow
through with a proposal to  introduce the item on the November ballot.

Council members agreed May 21 at their spring workshop  that voters
should be asked whether the city's doors  should be closed to
dispensaries, and they also said  the city's current moratorium on
dispensaries should be  extended to July 1, 2011. The council still
has to  formally vote on the issue.

The Colorado Legislature passed a law this year that  allows cities to
ban dispensaries at their own  discretion or allow voters to decide
whether they want  to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in their
city.  Under the measure, a city can only extend a moratorium  until
July 1, 2011.

The new law allows for ballot language that can only  ask voters
whether they want to prohibit the operation  of medical marijuana
centers, grow operations, and  manufacturers' licenses for medical
marijuana-infused  products. The city won't include language about
location of dispensaries and other restrictions, said  the city's
attorney, Charlie Richardson.

"We want to stay as close as possible to the state  law," Richardson
said.

He said any action that the city takes on medical  marijuana would
likely be wrought with legal issues  because of controversies
surrounding medical marijuana,  and advocates won't want to wait until
mid-2011 to have  dispensaries in the city.

"Under any of these scenarios, some would say there may  be the
possibility of litigation or there will be the  possibility of
litigation," Richardson said.

Medical marijuana supporters say they have enough  evidence to suggest
that voters would approve regulated  marijuana dispensaries within
their city.

About 65 percent of people polled throughout the state  said they
approve of dispensaries, said Mason Tvert,  executive director of the
Safer Alternative for  Enjoyable Recreation.

"I think there is going to be a lot of support," Tvert  said of the
potential ballot initiative in Aurora. "I  think people of Aurora are
sensible and recognize that  individuals need a local place to access
their legal  medicine."

He said the proliferation of dispensaries in Aurora  would be a
revenue generator for the city.

"Right now they are requiring all of their residents to  purchase a
product that's in high demand from other  cities," he said. "Not only
is it a fiscal mistake to  ban dispensaries, but it's really
uncompassionate."

Even if voters in Aurora in November approve  dispensaries, the city
may not see its first one open  until the moratorium is lifted because
council members  suggested they extend the moratorium to the maximum
limit. The city's moratorium on dispensaries has  already been in
place for eight months.

"That's a mistake," Tvert said. "They are delaying the  inevitable,
and Aurora is putting itself at risk to  potentially have to defend
itself in court and spend  funds on that."

If dispensaries don't start cropping up in Aurora soon,  the city
could face some legal ramifications, said  Brian Vicente, a lawyer and
executive director of  Sensible Colorado, a medical marijuana advocacy
group.

Vicente calls the moratorium is a 'de facto ban' which  doesn't
correlate with the state's laws.

"The state ... allows people to access medical  marijuana and allows
the dispensary models to exist at  a local level," he said. "I think
there's a good chance  of a lawsuit that the city would have to pay
for if  they continue to ban dispensaries."

The majority of voters in Aurora approved Amendment 20,  which
legalized medical marijuana, according to data  introduced at the
spring workshop. Judging by that  fact, some council members suggested
that the majority  of voters would approve of medical marijuana
dispensaries in Aurora as well.

"My preference would be to ban it in Aurora. But given  the fact that
people voted in favor (of Amendment 20),  we can talk all day about
whether anything has  changed," said Councilman Bob Broom. "I'd say
let's go  to the voters to see if they want to ban it or not."

But Mark Ratdke, a policy advocate for the Colorado  Municipal League,
says voter sentiment might not be as  prone to medical marijuana
dispensaries as marijuana  advocates tend to believe.

"Many people I have spoken to did not envision these  retail
storefront operations when they voted for  (Amendment 20)," said Mark
Ratdke, policy advocate for  the Colorado Municipal League. "They
envisioned what we  had in the first seven years, where we had
patients who  were under the care of caregivers, and it wasn't what
we have today."

Since the bill just passed this month, Radtke said he  has not yet
heard of any city other than Aurora that  has proposed to leave the
decision of whether to ban  dispensaries up to the voters.

"It's awfully early," he said. "Lots of people are  scratching their
heads and deciding what to do now."

Before the November ballot item is introduced, the city  should
already have some regulations in place regarding  dispensaries, said
Councilman Ryan Frazier at the  spring workshop.

"We shouldn't wait until the vote is cast to start  working on rules
and regulations," Frazier said. "We  should have something that we
could have ready to give  to the public to digest and give us feedback
on."

Mayor Ed Tauer said the dispensaries should be in  industrial areas
only. Under municipal rules, Aurora is  allowed to make zoning
regulations for businesses in  which ever way they deem
appropriate.

Councilwoman Renie Peterson suggested that the city  propose zoning
regulations with the ballot item in  November.

"There are people that would vote for it if they knew  it was not
going to be next to their school or in their  neighborhood," Peterson
said. "There are people that  would be in support of it in that case
but would not if  they had no idea."

Richardson said that zoning regulations could not be  introduced with
the ballot item because the state law  precludes the city from doing
that, and because that  would mean that future city council members
would have  to follow the previous council's regulations, even if
they didn't agree with them.

"It's inconsistent with the question," Richardson said.  "In a
question that says 'to prohibit' you wouldn't  want to say 'subject to
reasonable regulations.'"

The conversation turned from marijuana dispensaries to  caregiver
operations towards the end of the spring  workshop discussion.

The bill that was passed earlier this year does not  allow cities to
ban "caregivers" within city limits,  but councilwoman Sue Sandstrom
said she'd like to see  stricter regulations and enforcement of rules
regarding  caregiver operations.

"We're probably going to extend the moratorium and go  to the ballot,
but none of that effects caregiver  operations," Sandstrom said. "I
would like to see  something going forward to deal with caregiver
operations."

Caregivers can grow six marijuana plants and serve up  to five
patients, and Sandstrom says there is a  caregiver operation in her
ward that is causing  controversy.

"There is one caregiver operation that is causing  havoc," she
said.

Since January 2009, there have been more than 45 grow  operations in
homes within the city that the Aurora  Police Department has
identified, said Aurora Police  Chief Dan Oates.

"We see that it causes anxiety because of electrical  issues, walls
being taken out, high intensity heat  lamps," Oates said. "We're
seeing that it calls out for  some type of regulations." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D