Pubdate: Fri, 15 Jul 2016
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2016 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122

ANTI-POT SIDE'S DUBIOUS CLAIM

News that backers of an antipot ballot measure decided to shelve 
their campaign should count as a hollow victory for Colorado's 
cannabis industry - and as a clear wake-up call.

For one thing, the surprising claim that the marijuana industry gamed 
the system to keep Amendment 139 from voters would be, if 
substantiated, a public relations nightmare. But that's not all. The 
ballot fight stirs up a second perception problem that marijuana 
sellers would be smart to address on their own.

First, the charge that pot industry supporters paid key 
petition-gathering companies to not work for 139's backers. It's not 
coming from nowhere land, but it strikes us as dubious.

Colorado's former speaker of the House, Frank McNulty, the attorney 
representing the ballot backers, tells us his understanding is that 
supporters from the pro-pot side paid Colorado Springs-based Kennedy 
Enterprises up to $200,000 to sit out this fight. When asked by 
Cannabist editor Ricardo Baca about such claims, Kennedy declined to 
comment on any of its possible clients.

But Neal Levine, of the pro-pot Colorado Health Research Council, 
tells us that the anti-139 effort did no such thing.

We marvel at the logic behind McNulty's claim.

Wouldn't an experienced operative like McNulty have been able to 
secure a petition-gathering service from the outset? McNulty's 
Healthy Colorado Coalition was willing to pay north of $1 million to 
gather petitions. With that kind of money on the table, you'd think 
at least one of the 20 companies presently available to gather 
petitions in Colorado would have come forward. Campaign finance 
disclosures show that the pro-pot effort had raised less than 
$250,000 by the last reporting deadline on July 1.

Complicating matters, it is not unheard of, or illegal or unethical, 
for groups to hire circulators to work to advance their cause against 
a rival's petition-gathering effort.

Fortunately, the law should settle this mystery. Come Aug. 1 - the 
next campaign finance filing deadline - the anti-139 camp would have 
to document such an expense.

Meanwhile, there is the second public relations problem the antipot 
ballot measure ostensibly sought to address: THC levels.

We doubt most Colorado voters who agreed to legal pot sales 
envisioned concentrates that pack huge percentages of THC. The idea 
of limiting THC content would be an easier task for the anti-pot 
folks to advance.

The pot industry has reasonable-enough sounding answers: you can't 
die of a THC overdose; forbidding high-THC products just sends them 
back to the black-market days of exploding garages; the 16 percent 
THC level the antipot ballot measure called for would outlaw 80 
percent of the pot products now being sold; didn't Colorado learn its 
lesson after decades of 3.2 beer? But the anti-pot internal polling 
suggests that they have a winner on this argument.

Make no mistake, 139 was an antipot measure designed to gut the 
industry. And it'll be back. If the cannabis industry is to continue 
to thrive, it will have to watch out for these bare-knuckled tactics.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom