Pubdate: Tue, 17 Sep 2013
Source: Vail Daily (CO)
Copyright: 2013 Vail Daily
Author: Fredric Butler


Within the town limits, Eagle has effectively banned the 
establishment of pot shops, save one - and "one" does not a market 
make. As I understand it, Eagle would allow another shop to compete 
once its population reaches 10,000 people.

One wonders how the determination was made that one shop for every 
10,000 people, and no more, was necessary to preserve or maintain the 
health, safety and welfare of the public, when such a cap is not 
placed upon the number of liquor stores, bars, gun shops, etc., in 
Eagle. Only need and desire of the inhabitants of the neighborhood 
would determine the number of liquor outlets - here, the people 
determine the accessibility of alcohol for the consumer, whereas, 
only the town Board of Trustees have determined, by some calculation, 
the number of outlets for the purchase of marijuana - kinda like 
"global warming" research.

As it stands now, the market for the sale of marijuana has been 
monopolized by one outlet via governmental fiat. The value of this 
one license has accordingly been enhanced, not by success in the 
market place, but by an arbitrary constraint impressed by government 
itself that creates a rarity (one retail outlet for the whole town).

That said, of course the issue of whether to ban competition in the 
market place for this commodity should be put to the vote of the 
people, since that is the only way we can avail ourselves of 
anti-trust remedies, provide for competition, increase tax revenue 
for the town, and in turn benefit the consumer by lowering the price 
for the product.

The equation for allocating retail outlets should be the same for 
marijuana as it is for alcohol - need and desire of the denizens of 
the neighborhood. Besides, there are strict controls already in place 
for limiting the number of outlets through town zoning and the 
restrictions placed on location by state law. Reasonable regulation 
of the marketplace is an "American thing," and quite different than 
prohibition, abolition or deprivation of personal rights to shop in a 
competitive market (a "dictatorial thing").

The existence of this one marijuana dispensary in Eagle is due to the 
sense of fairness and equity of the people in Eagle through their 
vote at the last referendum when the town resolved to renege on a 
privilege previously granted.

And I do not believe these same voters intended to thereafter shut 
out competition in order to shelter that privileged outlet from the 
vagaries of the marketplace or assure its continued prosperity.

In November, the people of Eagle will vote for competition. They will 
opt for the right of the individual to choose his elixir or poison, 
and they will negate the exclusive trust agreement that exists 
between the Board of Trustees and Eagle's one and only retail outlet 
for marijuana - I guarantee you this, or my name is John Galt. To 
place a $5 fee for every transaction involving the sale of marijuana 
is as arbitrary as establishing one retail dispensary for every 10,000 people.

The town already benefits from the sales tax generated in the deal.

Is the reasoning behind it all to punish the "pot-head" through a higher price?

Is it to pacify the abolitionists among us by exacting tribute from 
the supposed "devil's weed"? Why not such a fee for the sale of 
firearms, tobacco or alcohol?

They are known to have caused harm in the past. Other than alcohol, 
marijuana is the only other consumptive commodity in Colorado that is 
specifically sanctioned by the Constitution. So why discriminate 
against this one product and not others of lesser authority?

A "yes" vote for competition, without a penalty imposed, is in 
keeping with the people's sentiments of fair play, and they will come 
through once again.

Fredric Butler

- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom