Pubdate: Tue, 23 Feb 2016
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2016 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122

TIGHTEN THE RULES FOR GROWING POT

Lawmakers often give lip service to protecting minors from exposure 
to alcohol and drugs, but if they're sincere in this concern they 
will soon be able to show it. They can support a Colorado Senate bill 
that would apply the same standard to marijuana grown in a residence 
for medical use as exists for non-medical use.

It's a simple concept, really. Amendment 64, which legalized personal 
possession and retail sale of marijuana in 2012, mandated that 
growing the plant had to take place "in an enclosed, locked space." 
And the legislature put that language into statute two years ago, 
saying that such a space could be the residence itself so long as no 
one under 21 lived at the address.

If someone under 21 did live there, the legislation explained, the 
cultivation area itself must be enclosed and locked.

This actually amounted to common sense, and was surely in line with 
the expectation of voters when the amendment passed.

State Sen. Linda Newell, D- Littleton, would extend those conditions 
to the residential growing of medical marijuana with Senate Bill 80. 
It's a good idea that can help prevent the diversion of pot into 
unlawful hands.

Significantly, the Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Counties 
Inc., both strong exponents of local control, support the bill 
because they believe that basic standards involving growing marijuana 
are matters of statewide concern, as they surely are. And absent such 
a bill, what happens is that local communities pass a patchwork of 
ordinances that can be wildly inconsistent.

Medical marijuana patients and advocates testified against the bill 
in a Senate committee, arguing that it was unnecessary and an affront 
to those who are only exercising their constitutional right under an 
amendment passed in 2000. But if non-medical users can exercise their 
right to possess pot under a "enclosed, locked" restriction for 
growing the plant, then medical pot growers should be able to as 
well. Treatment of the two forms of marijuana can't be entirely 
consistent given the separate amendments governing them, but this is 
an instance when consistency is possible and practical.

If anything, the need for security is greater for medical marijuana 
since growers are legally allowed to tend a larger number of plants. 
And as one proponent of the bill testified, whether the pot grown at 
a home is for medical or recreational purposes makes no difference to 
teenagers who visit.

Speaking of matters of statewide interest involving marijuana, the 
legislature continues to neglect defining another phrase in Amendment 
64, namely the statement that consumption of marijuana may not occur 
"openly and publicly." With the growing clamor by marijuana activists 
to get cities to authorize private marijuana clubs and bars for on- 
premises consumption, it's high time the legislature stepped into 
that debate, too.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom