dragracer
The Fast One
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 10
today's editorial:
sponsors aren't interested in the dispensary model.
So why are they bothering to create a new bureaucracy that would oversee a regulatory system so complex as to be unworkable?
The bill sponsored by Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, succeeds in clarifying legal rights for caregivers who could supply marijuana to a handful of patients. Doing so is appropriate and in keeping with voter intent, as the caregiver model was described in the constitutional amendment passed in 2000, whereas dispensaries were not.
Because the amendment states that a caregiver "has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition," we think that if the state wants to significantly change how medical marijuana is to be distributed, the voters ought to do it.
Dispensary advocate Brian Vicente is moving to present just such a ballot measure.
Meanwhile, the Massey-Romer bill would require that medical marijuana dispensaries be established as non-profits, gain a state license through an overly burdensome process and be subject to numerous restrictions.
For example, the state's newly created Medical Marijuana Licensing Board would put applicants for licenses through a subjective approval process so weighted against the would-be merchant that practically any objection from the public could derail the approval.
Unless granted a special waiver, dispensaries couldn't operate within 1,000 feet of anything remotely to do with children, from day cares to high schools.
That's assuming the host city even allows dispensaries, because the bill would give cities the power to ban them.
The licensing board would define what "good moral character" means, and applicants would have to both pass criminal background checks and be of good moral character.
Assuming all those conditions were met, the applicant would have to fully build out his business with all its fixtures and furnishings and undergo an inspection that still could result in the rejection of an application. How many entrepreneurs could afford such risk?
The licensing board would set rules about the size, shape and coloration of the shop's sign. Advertisements wouldn't be allowed to show images of marijuana or even quote prices. Stores would have to close at 7 p.m., and never hold more than 1,000 ounces of marijuana.
If lawmakers want to favor the caregiver model, they should simply do so and drop the licensing board idea.
If not, let the voters take this up and settle the dispensary debate once and for all.
So why are they bothering to create a new bureaucracy that would oversee a regulatory system so complex as to be unworkable?
The bill sponsored by Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, succeeds in clarifying legal rights for caregivers who could supply marijuana to a handful of patients. Doing so is appropriate and in keeping with voter intent, as the caregiver model was described in the constitutional amendment passed in 2000, whereas dispensaries were not.
Because the amendment states that a caregiver "has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition," we think that if the state wants to significantly change how medical marijuana is to be distributed, the voters ought to do it.
Dispensary advocate Brian Vicente is moving to present just such a ballot measure.
Meanwhile, the Massey-Romer bill would require that medical marijuana dispensaries be established as non-profits, gain a state license through an overly burdensome process and be subject to numerous restrictions.
For example, the state's newly created Medical Marijuana Licensing Board would put applicants for licenses through a subjective approval process so weighted against the would-be merchant that practically any objection from the public could derail the approval.
Unless granted a special waiver, dispensaries couldn't operate within 1,000 feet of anything remotely to do with children, from day cares to high schools.
That's assuming the host city even allows dispensaries, because the bill would give cities the power to ban them.
The licensing board would define what "good moral character" means, and applicants would have to both pass criminal background checks and be of good moral character.
Assuming all those conditions were met, the applicant would have to fully build out his business with all its fixtures and furnishings and undergo an inspection that still could result in the rejection of an application. How many entrepreneurs could afford such risk?
The licensing board would set rules about the size, shape and coloration of the shop's sign. Advertisements wouldn't be allowed to show images of marijuana or even quote prices. Stores would have to close at 7 p.m., and never hold more than 1,000 ounces of marijuana.
If lawmakers want to favor the caregiver model, they should simply do so and drop the licensing board idea.
If not, let the voters take this up and settle the dispensary debate once and for all.
