Pubdate: Fri, 07 Jun 2013
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2013 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: John Ingold

STATE BACKS OFF POT MAGAZINE LAW

Regulators, at Least Initially, Won't Enforce the Measure That 
Requires the Publications Be Kept Behind Store Counters.

Colorado regulators will not enforce - at least initially- a new law 
requiring marijuana-themed magazines to be kept behind the counter at 
stores that sell them.

But lawyers for the magazines and for booksellers still want a 
federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional, arguing that the 
state could later change its mind.

"There is a fear that what the Department of Revenue giveth, the 
Department of Revenue may take away," attorney David Lane said at a 
hearing Thursday on two lawsuits that challenge the law.

The legislature adopted the new law earlier this year as part of a 
major bill for regulating recreational marijuana sales. The law says 
marijuana magazines must be sold behind the counter in stores that 
people under 21 are allowed to visit-such as a bookstore or newsstand.

The law has prompted two lawsuits in federal court challenging its 
constitutionality, one by three marijuana themed publications and 
another by booksellers and backed by the American Civil Liberties 
Union. The lawsuits say the law violates free speech by restricting 
distribution of the magazines based on their content.

In an emergency rule issued Wednesday, regulators with the state 
Marijuana Enforcement Division concluded the law is unconstitutional.

"Such a requirement would violate the United States Constitution, the 
Colorado Constitution" and state law, the rule states.

The state attorney general's office signed off on the emergency rule.

"We support the laudable goal of keeping retail marijuana out of the 
hands of those under 21, but that has to be consistent with the 
Constitution," attorney general's spokeswoman Carolyn Tyler said.

Tyler said the emergency rule is only temporary and could be changed 
during a permanent rulemaking process scheduled to start next month.

Deputy Attorney General David Blake, arguing for the state, said the 
emergency rule means the law isn't in effect. "There is no district 
attorney who has a law to enforce," Blake said.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch agreed he didn't need 
to decide the case immediately.

"I don't think we have the hot breath of a district attorney on any 
of the plaintiffs," he said.

Matsch ordered the state to respond to the lawsuit formally by the 
end of the month.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom