Get Active Subscribe Support Us

RESIDENCY RULE COULD BITE MARIJUANA SHOPS

Proposal Would Require Employees To Have Lived In State For 2 Years

LAKEWOOD - Medical marijuana dispensaries would have to fire employees who have not lived in Colorado for two years under a potential new rule that state regulators considered Monday.

Marijuana retailers oppose the plan, saying it interferes with their right to hire employees, and some are threatening a lawsuit.

The dispute stems from the marijuana regulation bill the Legislature passed this spring, House Bill 1284.  The bill set up a system for licensing marijuana shops and cultivation operations, but it left the job of working out details to the Department of Revenue.

On Monday, the department's State Licensing Authority held an emergency hearing to consider the residency rules.

An administrative law judge for the department heard Monday's testimony and will decide on the residency requirement.

Matt Cook, head of the state's new medical marijuana licensing division, asked for the ruling to clarify the matter.  HB 1284 requires dispensary owners to be Colorado residents for two years.  It also requires their employees to be Colorado residents but doesn't explicitly say for how long.

About three dozen people turned out for the hearing, many of whom were dispensary owners and their lawyers.  They want regulators to waive the two-year residency requirement for employees.

Cook said his division would not seek proof of residency from employees until January, after the Legislature convenes.  He would not oppose a new bill from the Legislature in 2011 to allow employees to escape the two-year requirement, he said.

"Unfortunately, at this point, the statutory mandates are the statutory mandates, and I get paid to follow the statutes.  I don't get to pick and choose which ones I get to follow," Cook said.

Jessica Corry, a lawyer who pushes for lighter regulation of marijuana, said the state has no right to exclude nonresidents from running businesses or working in Colorado.

"It is an egregious violation of the U.S.  Constitution and state constitution," Corry said.

She promised to sue the state if the rule is adopted.

"We're talking about lawsuits that could cost the state money, and that's not fair to the taxpayer," Corry said.

Cook said he expected a decision from the licensing authority soon.