Land Use - Boulder County

Land Use
Courthouse Annex • 2045 13th Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 • Tel: 303.441.3930 • Fax: 303.441.4856
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 471 • Boulder, Colorado 80306 • www.bouldercounty.org
BOULDER COUNTY
September 26, 2013
Hearing Room, Third Floor
Boulder County Courthouse
Docket DC-13-0002: Proposed amendments to Article 4-512.I of the Land Use Code pertaining to
Medical Marijuana Centers - Proposed text amendments to Article 4-512.I of the Land Use Code
pertaining to Medical Marijuana Centers – Types of Medical Marijuana Centers, setback
requirements, and cleanup of outdated provisions.
Staff Planner: Dale Case, AICP
Background
On June 8, 2010 the County Commissioners adopted Land Use Regulations that specifically dealt
with the regulation of Medical Marijuana Land Uses in the Unincorporated County. The BOCC has
authorized staff to draft and process amendments to the Boulder County Land Use Code regarding
Medical Marijuana Centers 4-512(I) of the Boulder County Land Use Code. Amendments are
necessary to address several issues that have arisen during implementation and to remove
outdated provisions. These amendments are not concerning recreational marijuana sales or
production.
Proposed changes and analysis
Clarify the definition and what is included as a Medical Marijuana Center (MMC) and to add Medical
marijuana infused products manufacturing and medical marijuana research facility as uses under
this definition. Currently infused products and research with marijuana fall under a Light Industrial
Use classification and not under the MMC use. This causes confusion with licensing (they still
require a Medical Marijuana License through the state and locally but could be allowed without any
of the other additional requirements under 4-512.I) and causes practical difficulties with the County
Land Use Code’s requirements when there are multiple principal uses on parcels. Currently a
location with a Infused products manufacturing and a retail outlet is two principal uses which
automatically triggers Special Review. There currently is not a separation requirement for the Light
Industrial Use of infused products.
Medical Marijuana Center
1. Definition: A business that grows, sells, and/or distributes medical marijuana as authorized
under Section 14 of Article XVII of the Colorado Constitution and other applicable state law.
This use includes the following
a. Medical marijuana retail center;
b. Medical marijuana-infused products manufacturing;
c. Optional premises cultivation: and
d. Medical Marijuana testing and/or research facility
Amendments to setback requirements for Medical marijuana-infused products manufacturing,
Optional premises cultivation and Medical Marijuana research facility
Amendments are proposed which impact how the County imposes spacing requirements from
certain critical facilities (drug and alcohol treatment facilities, schools, day care). The proposed
Cindy Domenico County Commissioner
Deb Gardner County Commissioner
Elise Jones County Commissioner
changes will more effectively reflect the rationale for these spacing requirements. Optional premise
cultivation, research facilities, and infused products are industries which do not have the same
presence and impact on the street as retail centers (no signage, retail sales, and customers/public
access) and thus the same setback standards as required for dispensaries are not necessary. As a
matter of fact these facilities are not permitted to have public access. The City of Denver regulates
spacing in a similar fashion -- no spacing from critical facilities for grow and infused product
manufacturing.
Below is an example of current buffers (need color copy to distinguish layers):
Letters (C,LI, T correspond to County Zoning Districts)
Green is 500’ buffer around current Medical Marijuana Centers – Applies in Commercial and
Business Zoning Districts only and is not proposed for change.
Tan with brown outline is the 1,000’ buffer from treatment facilities. This is being proposed to be
changed so Optional Premise Cultivation, Infused product manufacturing and Medical Marijuana
Research Facilities would not be required to meet this buffer. In the map above there are several
existing grow operations marked with orange splat ( ) within this buffer that access off a different
road and are not visible or accessible to anyone visiting the treatment facility. Currently these
facilities cannot obtain licensing because they don’t meet the zoning setback requirements
prescribed in the Code.
5. Additional Provisions:
a. This useA Medical marijuana retail center shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
an alcohol or drug treatment facility, a licensed child care facility, or an educational
facility with students below the college grade level (including facilities in the
unincorporated County or substantially similar facilities in an adjacent municipality),
as measured from the closest point of the subject parcel lines.
b. Medical marijuana-infused products manufacturing, Optional premises cultivation,
and Medical Marijuana testing and/or research facility are not subject to the above
setback requirement provided there is not an associated dispensary – option: Still
require some setback between this use and child care and educations facilities –
2
Change to remove language no longer necessary e. Any Medical Marijuana Center established or operating in the unincorporated County as of
August 1, 2010, shall register with the County Land Use Department by that date. Any Medical
Marijuana Center established or operating after August 1, 2010, shall register with the County Land
Use Department within 30 days after establishment or commencement of operations. Registration
information shall include, but is not limited to, the legal name of the business, its owner, and on-site
manager; contact information for the owner and manager; date of establishment of the business;
description of the nature and extent of the business; and identification of all structures, floor area,
and property occupied by or associated with the business. Registration shall not be required for any
Medical Marijuana Center which receives a County license on or after July 1, 2011 pursuant to
Colorado House Bill 10-1284.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 2013. Several members of the public
spoke. The concern voiced most was strong sentiment against the County imposing a moratorium
on retail marijuana. For the amendments proposed the speakers agreed with them with two
speakers raising a concern the setbacks for retail establishments were still too strict and suggested
the use be treated like any other use without a more restrictive setback. A concern was also raised
regarding the exclusion of medical marijuana “testing” facilities from the definition. Based on the
testimony and Planning Commission action the language above has been changed to include testing
facilities.
Planning Commission recommended on a 7-0 vote the proposed amendments to Article 4-512.I of
the Land Use Code pertaining to Medical Marijuana and certified the Docket for action to the Board,
which certification includes the approved text of the Docket, and the official record of the Docket
before the Commission with its staff comments, public testimony, and Commission
discussion/action.
Recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE Docket DC-13-0002: Docket DC13-0002: Proposed amendments to Article 4-512.I of the Land Use Code pertaining to Medical
Marijuana.
3
________________________________________
From: Shawn Coleman [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:13 PM
To: Gardner, Deb; Jones, Elise; Domenico, Cindy
Cc: Case, Dale; Michelle Kreezek
Subject: Retail Marijuana
Commissioners,
I first want to thank you for your continued commitment to your public duties as Boulder County
begins recovery. Please find attached, policy recommendations that I hope you will find helpful as you
prepare for your September 26th meeting.
I am available to discuss any of these items at your convenience.
Thanks
-Shawn
Shawn Coleman
President
36 Solutions
[email protected]
720-839-1560
36 SOLUTIONS
public affairs and consulting
SHAWN COLEMAN, PRESIDENT
720-839-1560
[email protected]
MEMORANDUM
Policy options for Boulder County to implement Retail Marijuana Regulations
Recommendations:
No moratorium
Add retail marijuana establishments to the existing code with the same zoning and regulatory
requirements
Executive Summary
In November 2012, Amendment 64 earned 66% of the vote in Boulder County. The Amendment
made legal, the private cultivation of up to 6 marijuana plants by a person of age 21 years or
above, possession of the harvest of such plants on the premises where it was cultivated or the
possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana. The Amendment also authorizes the Department of
Revenue to promulgate rules and issue licenses for the commercial cultivation of marijuana,
manufacture of marijuana products and retail distribution of marijuana and marijuana products.
The legislature has passed HB13-1317, establishing the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code. The
Department of Revenue issued rules for both medical and retail marijuana businesses on
September 9, 2013. Prior to the release, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo
of guidance for U.S. Attorneys indicating 8 enforcement priorities in context of the Department
declining to challenge the retail and medical marijuana laws in the 20 states and the District of
Columbia that have such statutes. The state statute and rules contemplate operations and
regulations for retail marijuana establishments that are nearly identical to medical marijuana as
explained by Department of Revenue Executive Director Barbara Brohl:
" Although the emergency rules governed only Retail Marijuana, the State Licensing Authority
determined that it would be in the public interest to adopt similar regulations for Medical
Marijuana Businesses. First, current Medical Marijuana Businesses will comprise the potential
applicant pool for Retail Marijuana Establishment licenses between October 1, 2013 and July 1,
2014. Second, under certain circumstances, a Medical Marijuana Business licensee may also
have a Retail Marijuana Establishment license. Having a consistent set of rules where possible
will allow for a more effective regulatory scheme for the regulated community, the public and the
Marijuana Enforcement Division. Due to differences between the Retail Code and the Medical
Code, and the impact of Amendment 64, in some places the rules differ but where possible they
are consistent."
Regulatory Options for Local Jurisdictions
As a result of the action of the General Assembly, there remains only 2 requirements for local
jurisdictions, one constitutional, the other statutory:
Designation of a licensing authority (constitutional): Local governments are required to
designate a local licensing authority by October1, 2013. The designation of a licensing authority
does NOT require the jurisdiction to issue licenses or allow retail marijuana establishments.
Inform the Department of Revenue in writing what the local jurisdiction allows (statutory): Local
governments are required to inform the Department of Revenue in writing if:
1. The jurisdiction allows retail marijuana establishments and requires a local license
2. The jurisdiction allows retail marijuana establishments pursuant to zoning and does not
require a local license.
3. The jurisdiction does not allow retail marijuana establishments.
Both the Amendment and the statue allow local governments to regulate the time, place and
manner of retail establishments, require a local license or ban retail establishments. There is no
requirement in the Amendment or the statute for a local government to regulate or zone retail
marijuana establishments differently than medical marijuana establishments.
Licensing options for Boulder County
Add retail marijuana uses to the existing code:
The Colorado Retail Marijuana Code establishes a regulatory regime and resulting business
operations that are nearly identical to medical marijuana. The code allows for co-location of
retail and medical establishments. To accommodate the separation of medical and retail
inventories, the use of the state Marijuana Inventory Tracking Solution (MITS) is required for all
licensees beginning January 1, 2014. A simple way to think of a retail marijuana license is an
endorsement to a medical marijuana license. The retail license grants a medical license the
ability to cultivate and sell retail marijuana to customers as well as registered patients. For colocated facilities, both a retail and medical license must be maintained and in effect. The
applicant must pay a fee for both applications and both licenses. Likewise for a local license they
must maintain and pay for both licenses.
Moratorium on new marijuana establishments:
Under the state statute, only entities that are licensed or have applied for a license and have not
been denied a license for medical marijuana may apply for a retail marijuana license until next
June. However, a current medical marijuana licensee may move their facility to a new location in
the state. If the county would as policy, seek to prevent increasing the number of establishments
for a period of time a moratorium on new applicants in the county would serve that purpose.
Moratorium on all retail establishments:
The county could place a moratorium on any retail license application. It should be noted that
under all of these scenarios the county must still designate a licensing authority by October 1 per
the constitution and notify the Department of Revenue of which types of licenses it will allow or
disallow per the statute. A moratorium would be detrimental to county businesses.
Staff concerns
At the September 18 Planning Commission hearing, county staff indicated three primary
rationale for a moratorium:
Time to analyze code changes
Time to understand the state code
Concern that marijuana uses may monopolize commercial space
While the county may want to consider code changes as a matter of policy, there is no statutory
or constitutional requirement to make code changes to accommodate retail marijuana licenses.
The state rules for medical and retail can be easily cross referenced as the similar provisions have
the same number. Example:
Retail Marijuana rules:
R 309 – Retail Marijuana Establishments: Marijuana Inventory Tracking Solution (MITS)
A. MITS Required. A Retail Marijuana Establishment is required to use MITS as the primary
inventory tracking system of record. A Retail Marijuana Establishment must have a MITS
account activated and functional prior to operating or exercising any privileges of a license.
Medical Marijuana Businesses converting to or adding a Retail Marijuana Establishment must
follow the inventory transfer guidelines detailed in Rule R 309(C) below.
B. MITS Access - MITS Administrator
1. MITS Administrator Required. A Retail Marijuana Establishment must have at least one
individual Owner who is a MITS Administrator. A Retail Marijuana Establishment may also
designate additional Owners and occupationally licensed employees to obtain MITS
Administrator accounts.
2. Training for MITS Administrator Account. In order to obtain a MITS Administrator account, a
person must attend and successfully complete all required MITS training. The Division may also
require additional ongoing, continuing education for an individual to retain his or her MITS
Administrator account.
3. MITS Access - MITS User Accounts. A Retail Marijuana Establishment may designate
licensed Owners and employees who hold valid Occupational Licenses as MITS Users. A Retail
Marijuana Establishment shall ensure that all Owners and Occupational License Licensees who
are granted MITS User account access for the purposes of conducting inventory tracking
functions in the system are trained by MITS Administrators in the proper and lawful use of
MITS.
C. Medical Marijuana Business License Conversions - Declaring Inventory Prior to Exercising
Licensed Privileges as a Retail Marijuana Establishment
1. Medical Marijuana Inventory Transfer to Retail Marijuana Establishments. Each Medical
Marijuana Business that is either converting to or adding a Retail Marijuana Establishment
license must create a Retail Marijuana MITS account for each license it is converting or adding.
A Medical Marijuana Business must transfer all relevant Medical Marijuana inventory into the
Retail Marijuana Establishment’s MITS accounts and affirmatively declare those items as Retail
Marijuana and Retail Marijuana Product.
2. No Further Transfer Allowed. Once a Licensee has declared any portion of its Medical
Marijuana inventory as Retail Marijuana, no further transfers of inventory from Medical
Marijuana to Retail Marijuana shall be allowed.
D. RFID Tags Required
1. Authorized Tags Required and Costs. Licensees are required to use RFID tags issued by a
Division-approved vendor that is authorized to provision RFID tags for MITS. Each licensee is
responsible for the cost of all RFID tags and any associated vendor fees.
2. Use of RFID Tags Required. A Licensee is responsible to ensure its inventories are properly
tagged where MITS requires RFID tag use. A Retail Marijuana Establishment must ensure it has
an adequate supply of RFID tags to properly tag Retail Marijuana and Retail Marijuana Product
as required by MITS.
Medical Marijuana Rules:
M 309 – Medical Marijuana Business: Marijuana Inventory Tracking Solution (MITS)
A. MITS Required. A Medical Marijuana Business is required to use MITS as the primary
inventory tracking system of record. A Medical Marijuana Business must have a MITS account
activated and functional on or before December 31, 2013. After December 31, 2013, a Medical
Marijuana Business without a MITS account that is activated and functional shall not operate or
exercise any privileges of a license. Medical Marijuana Businesses converting to or adding a
Retail Marijuana Establishment must follow the inventory transfer guidelines detailed in Rule R
309 (D) below.
B. MITS Access - MITS Administrator
1. MITS Administrator Required. A Medical Marijuana Business must have at least one
individual Owner who is a MITS Administrator. A Medical Marijuana Business may also
designate additional Owners and occupationally licensed employees to obtain MITS
Administrator accounts.
2. Training for MITS Administrator Account. In order to obtain a MITS Administrator account, a
person must attend and successfully complete all required MITS training. The Division may also
require additional ongoing, continuing education for an individual to retain his or her MITS
Administrator account.
C. MITS Access - MITS User Accounts. A Medical Marijuana Business may designate licensed
Owners and employees who hold a valid Occupational License as a MITS User. A Medical
Marijuana Business shall ensure that all Owners and Occupational Licensees who are granted
MITS User account access for the purposes of conducting inventory tracking functions in the
system are trained by MITS Administrators in the proper and lawful use of MITS.
D. Medical Marijuana Business License Conversions - Declaring Inventory Prior to Exercising
Licensed Privileges as a Medical Marijuana Business
1. Medical Marijuana Inventory Transfer to Retail Marijuana Establishments. Each Medical
Marijuana Business that is either converting to or adding a Retail Marijuana Establishment
license must create a Retail Marijuana MITS account for each license it is converting or adding.
A Medical Marijuana Business must transfer all relevant Medical Marijuana inventory into the
Retail Marijuana Establishment’s MITS account and affirmatively declare those items as Retail
Marijuana and Retail Marijuana Product.
2. No Further Transfer Allowed. Once a Licensee has declared any portion of its Medical
Marijuana inventory as Retail Marijuana, no further transfers of inventory from Medical
Marijuana to Retail Marijuana shall be allowed.
E. RFID Tags Required
1. Authorized Tags Required and Costs. Licensees are required to use RFID tags issued by a
Division-approved vendor that is authorized to provision RFID tags for MITS. Each licensee is
responsible for the cost of all RFID tags and any associated vendor fees.
2. Use of RFID Tags Required. A Licensee is responsible to ensure its inventories are properly
tagged where MITS requires RFID tag use. A Medical Marijuana Business must ensure it has an
adequate supply of RFID tags to properly tag Medical Marijuana and Medical Marijuana-Infused
Product as required by MITS.
The Planning Commissioners heard the concern about the monopolization of commercial space
by marijuana industry from staff. It should be noted that until June 1, 2014, only entities that
have a current medical marijuana license may apply for a retail marijuana license. Further,
though state law allows an existing licensees transfer the license to another jurisdiction, the
transfer is subject to approval by the new jurisdiction. Finally, the intensive capital cost of
building out a facility makes it unlikely there will be significant migration of current licensees
during the transition period.
Negative Impacts of a moratorium
Regardless of when an entity applies for a retail marijuana license, the state application process
takes 90 days. Due to the requirement that a cultivation facility must be commonly owned by a
retail facility (vertical integration) if a entity has a facility in Boulder County and a commonly
owned facility in another jurisdiction, the entity would not be able to apply for a retail license for
either facility until both jurisdictions allowed for it.
Regionally, jurisdictions that are allowing retail marijuana are generally accepting applications
beginning October 1, 2013 (See table 1). A business that has its entire investment and operations
in Boulder County would therefore be at a significant competitive disadvantage. For entities with
cultivation in the county and retail in Denver, this would be magnified as they are not facing
regional, but direct competition from businesses that are able to serve both retail and medical
customers while they would be limited to the medical market place. A moratorium would likely
be the most devastating to infused products manufacturers. Pursuant to state law, only like
licenses may transact (i.e. medical to medical or retail to retail). During a moratorium many
infused products manufactures would be unable to sell their products to their retail center
customers.
Even if the county would want to consider changes to time, place and manner restrictions
moving forward, the county could simply add retail license uses to the code and allow the current
businesses to remain viable during the conversion period.
Finally, at the planing commission, commissioners expressed concern about the county licensing
pipeline. Staff correctly noted that the setback amendment adopted by the planning commission
would allow some applicants to move forward and be licensed however there are other zoning or
compliance issues that are outstanding for other applicants. The state law allows an applicant
who applied for a license and has not been denied to also apply for a retail license in concurrence
with the pending medical marijuana license application. Therefore to address the pipeline issue,
the county should strongly consider maintaining the land use and compliance requirements for
both medical and retail so that these processes may work in tandem to clear the existing queue.
Table 1: Conversion timeline, allowable uses and zoning provisions by municipality
Boulder*
Breckenridge
Denver
Nederland
Steamboat
Springs
State
Dual Use
TBD
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Retail
application
date for
existing
licensees
TBD
OCTOBER 1, OCTOBER 1, OCTOBER 1, OCTOBER 1, OCTOBER 1,
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
Application
date for new
licenses
TBD
January 1,
2015
Retain
existing
zoning
TBD
YES (except YES
Downtown
Overlay zone)
JANUARY 1, JULY 1, 2014 JULY 1, 2014 JULY 1, 2014
2016
YES
*Boulder will be amending a second reading ordinance on October 8.
Table 2: Operation requirements per license type
MMC: Medical Marijuana Center
RMC: Retail Marijuana Center
OPC: Medical Marijuana Cultivation Facility
RCF: Retail Cultivation Facility
MIP: Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer
RMIP: Retail Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer
YES
NO
SETBACK
DISTANCE
FOR ANY
USE
MMC
RMC
OPC
RCF
MIP
RMIP
Age
Restriction
18
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Retention of
Video
Surveillance
40 Days
40 Days
40 Days
40 Days
40 Days
40 Days
Hours of
Operation
8 a.m. -7 p.m. 8 a.m. - 12
N/A
a.m. subject to
local
ordinance
N/A
N/A
N/A
MITS
inventory
tracking
required
January 1,
2014
January 1,
2014
January 1,
2014
January 1,
2014
January 1,
2014
January 1,
2014
Age restriction 21
for co-location
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Inventory/Pro Function of
duction
state license
control
class
Function of
state license
class
Function of
state license
class
Function of
state license
class
Function of
state license
class
Function of
state license
class
Required
additional
facilities
RCF (repealed MMC
Oct 1, 2014
OPC
RMC
N/A
(repealed Oct
1, 2014
N/A
Direct Sale to Registered
Adults 21 and NO
Customer
Patients Only above only
NO
NO
NO
Setback from 1,000 ft unless NONE
Sensitive use distance
changed
(increased or
decreased) by
local
ordinance
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
________________________________________
From: Shawn Coleman [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:51 AM
To: Shawn Coleman
Subject: DOR Retail Marijuana Rules
Complete Retail Marijuana Rules attached, I will also the medical marijuana rules for comparison.
________________________________________
From: Shawn Coleman [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:52 AM
To: Shawn Coleman
Subject: Final Medical Marijuana Rules - ADOPTED 090913
Medical Marijuana rules attached
From: Shawn Coleman [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:41 AM
To: Shawn Coleman
Subject: Fwd: Retail Marijuana Licensing Information
FYISent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Wellington - DOR, Jordan" <[email protected]>
Date: September 25, 2013 at 10:26:36 AM MDT
To: Jordan Wellington - DOR <[email protected]>
Subject: Retail Marijuana Licensing Information
Hi All,
Please pass this info along to any and all interested parties.
A quick point of clarification on retail marijuana licenses and state tax ID numbers:
If an applicant intends to co-locate the retail marijuana establishment with its existing medical
marijuana business, then the applicant does NOT need to obtain an additional state tax ID.
If an applicant does not intend to co-locate the retail marijuana establishment with its existing
medical marijuana business, then the applicant MUST obtain an additional state tax ID prior to
application with MED. Therefore, the MED will ONLY accept applications for non-co-located
retail marijuana establishments if the applicant has a tax ID for the new location.
Hope this clarifies everything for everyone,
Jordan Wellington
Senior Regulatory Analyst
Marijuana Enforcement Division
(303) 866-3789
[email protected]
From: Paul Heller [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:47 AM
To: Boulder County Board of Commissioners
Subject: Please don't pass a moratorium on marijuana
Dear Commissioners – I’m writing to request that you refrain from passing any moratorium on
marijuana retail sales in the unincorporated county. I understand you still have some regulations
to finish and are probably very busy with flood-related business.
However, Boulder County approved A-64 by a higher margin than any major county in the
state. Anything you do that appears to slow down or punish businesses that are legal under law
sends a very bad message to people statewide and nationwide. The A-64 vote is one of the most
historic measures in recent U.S. history. It is the very first stake in the heart of the failed war on
drugs. And we are at the very epicenter. Let’s step up, reflect the will of the people, and provide
an example to rest of state and nation.
I have no involvement with marijuana business in anyway. But I do have concern about the
success of entrepreneurs who have taken a lot of risk to bring us to this point. Let’s do
everything we can to support these pioneers. We celebrate the breweries and pubs and in some
cases provide tax incentives. I’m a bit concerned by an attitude of minor distain toward pot
businesses among many Boulder politicians. I can understand it but at same time it runs directly
counter to the voters message. Respectfully, Paul Heller, 1321 Cedar Ave, Boulder,
80304. 444-7909.
From: judd golden [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 1:48 PM
To: Boulder County Board of Commissioners
Subject: BldrCtyACLU-No Moratorium on Am. 64 Implementation
Dear Commissioners:
Attached and in text below is a letter urging you to implement Amendment 64 and to not
impose a moratorium on retail sales. Thank you for considering our views.
Boulder County ACLU by
Judd Golden, Chapter Chair
303.442.6355
----------
Re: Full and timely implementation of Amendment 64 in Boulder County
Dear Commissioners:
The Boulder County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado
(ACLU), on behalf of our many Boulder County members, urge you to fully implement
Amendment 64, including the licensing and regulation of retail recreational marijuana sales to
adults by January 1, 2014, and to not impose a moratorium.
We are writing because we understand that on September 25, 2013, you will be
considering imposing a ten-month moratorium, effective October 1, 2013, on the sale of retail
(non-medical) marijuana in unincorporated Boulder County for the purpose of developing local
retail marijuana regulations and, if warranted, adopting appropriate related taxes and fees.
The ACLU has long favored the repeal of marijuana prohibition. Eliminating criminal
penalties and establishing a legal market and source in unincorporated Boulder County will limit
the sort of profiling, selective enforcement and resource drain that so often accompanies
marijuana law enforcement and that has burdened thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens
with criminal records.
Amendment 64 provides that adults over the age of 21 may legally purchase, grow, and
consume small amounts of marijuana. However, many County adults, including minorities,
younger people and the working poor, are not willing - - or able - - to grow their own marijuana,
and would need to get it somewhere. Rather than “regulate marijuana like alcohol,” delaying
implementation will leave some law-abiding adults with no lawful way to obtain or smoke
marijuana, despite the fact that it is legal to possess one ounce or less.
Imposing a moratorium will result in more criminal charges, with the impact felt most by
the young, the poor, and minorities, who disproportionately are victims of marijuana prohibition.
There is significant evidence of racial and age disparity in marijuana-related arrests in
Colorado. According to the 2012 Marijuana Arrest Research Project study and report, since
1987, there have been over 210,000 marijuana possession arrests, nearly 60,000 of which have
been since 2006. From 2002-2012, 10.5% of all marijuana possessions arrests were African
Americans, even though they are only 3.8% of Colorado residents. Latinos comprised 25% of all
marijuana possession arrests during this same time period, even though Latinos have never
accounted for more than 19% of the population. From 2001-2010, there were 108,000 Colorado
arrests for marijuana possession, and 69% were 25 or younger. The overwhelming majority of
these arrests (79%) were of people under 29.
Continuing marijuana prohibition by not allowing retail sales will not stop the use,
purchase and cultivation of recreational marijuana in unincorporated Boulder County. It instead
will encourage otherwise law-abiding citizens to trade in the black market or to engage in
technical law violations.
For these reasons, the Boulder County ACLU urges Boulder County to fully implement
Amendment 64, including the licensing and regulation of retail recreational marijuana sales to
adults, by the January 1, 2014 deadline, and to not adopt unreasonable or vague regulatory or
licensing provisions that risk civil liberties violations.
Thank you for considering our views.
Board of Directors of the Boulder County ACLU
/s/ Judd Golden
By Judd Golden, Chapter Chair
Copies:
Boulder County ACLU
ACLU of Colorado
Media
From: Ann Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:33 PM
To: Boulder County Board of Commissioners
Subject: marijuana moratorium
Dear Boulder County Commissioners,
Regarding your discussions and voting surrounding retail marijuana sales, I would like to
encourage you to delay making any decisions until a later date. I believe that more work
still needs to be done to ensure that teenagers and young adults are protected.
I am attaching a letter with some suggestions which I emailed to Boulder City Council on
September 9, 2013. I also feel that until we know whether there will be enough tax
money to adequately educate the public, no regulations should be finalized.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Best,
Ann Clark
Boulder, CO
September 9, 2013
Dear Boulder City Council Members,
Regarding your discussions surrounding the policies and regulations affecting recreational
marijuana, I thank you all for making it a priority to protect teenagers and young adults from
marijuana use, and I hope you will continue to do everything possible to make that the
highest priority. I have a few additional concerns which I hope you will take the time to
read and consider.
First, I think it is important that the regulations be based on an understanding that marijuana
can have both very good and very bad effects on people. This is due in part to the age of
the user, certain genetic markers in some individuals which have yet to be understood, and
the fact that the two active ingredients in MJ have quite opposite effects on the brain and
behavior. THC (9-tetrahydrocannabinol) can increase anxiety, hallucinations, feeling
“stoned” and psychosis, while CBD (cannabidiol) can have positive medical benefits like
anti-pain, anti-inflammatory and anti-convulsion. The marijuana industry aggressively
promotes the positive medical benefits, so I feel there is a need for the regulations to address
the possible negative side effects.
Therefore, some thoughts, ideas and questions that might be worth discussing and
considering include:
Encourage the importance of “testing facilities”. The consumer needs to know the
THC and CBD content, and what it means. With less emphasis on medical marijuana
sales in the future, this important information could get downplayed and lost to the
consumer.
Put restrictions on marijuana with a high THC content of over 15-20%. What is
the benefit of a THC content of 35%? It increases paranoia and delusional thoughts,
and slows reaction time similar to drunkenness.
Keep the number of plants per grow operation limited to 1000. As you know, it is
easy to increase the number later if needed. All this talk about a shortage of plants
increasing the potential for a black market is a form of blackmail, and in reality, couldn’t
a surplus of plants increase the black market potential in other states?
What will the penalty be for any black market activity of buying and selling
marijuana?
Please keep in mind that this would be the main way those under 21 would still have
access to the drug.
Please consider requiring that all MJ retail stores in Boulder distribute a list of
possible side effects with every sale. This way you would be getting the right
information to the right people. All other drugs, whether being advertised on TV or
purchased at a pharmacy, require that a complete list of side effects be disclosed, no
matter how small the risk. Marijuana should be no different. This same list of warnings
could also be distributed to middle school and high school kids. Some examples of side
effects on the list could be warnings on youth use, possible addiction, decrease in IQ,
anxiety, depression and psychosis. Please consider using some of the tax dollars to
educate in this way.
Set an example for all other communities by setting aside a small amount of tax
revenues for future research. The federal government should really be doing this, but
Boulder could be a leader in this area.
Many in the MJ industry feel that because Amendment 64 passed by such a wide margin in
Boulder, those in the industry should have a lot of leeway in setting up the policies. Please
remember that there was absolutely no debate in Boulder. The public was bombarded with
pro-legalization TV commercials and pro-legalization letters in the newspaper. The letter
which I wrote “Marijuana Not Harmless for Everyone” was the only letter published in the
Daily Camera before Amendment 64 was passed that addressed any health concerns
whatsoever. If you didn’t read it, I hope that you will. Please know that after that letter ran
on October 14, 2012, I was contacted by two other mothers in the Boulder area whose sons
had the same experience as my son.
The pro-legalization movement in Colorado was extremely well organized, well financed and
excellent at ridiculing and silencing all opposition. Their slogans about “reefer madness”,
“prohibition” and “Don’t be caught on the wrong side of history” were all very effective,
even to those who had never smoked pot. Channel 7 reported after the election that
$297,000 was spent before the election against legalization, and 2.4 million (almost all from
out of state sources) was spent in favor. So please keep this in mind when you are being
pressured to make decisions.
As you know the legalization movement will probably spread to other states, and whatever
regulations you set up will probably be copied by many other cities. I would like to
encourage you to continue to recognize that you have the responsibility to set up the safest
model possible of a “completely untried experiment”. Please do not be influenced by
concerns about competing with other neighboring cities and getting behind them, or about
competing for tax revenues with them. Boulder’s only mission should be about being the
leader in safety, caution and protection of our youth and the most vulnerable. Thank you.
Best,
Ann Clark