In a little-noticed move last week, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered what could prove to be a devastating blow to those who take an expansive view of the constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana. The state Supreme Court declined to take up an appeals court decision saying primary caregivers had to do more than just give pot to medical marijuana patients.
Refusing to take a case might seem like a minor move, but what it means is that the prior decision stands.
That prior decision could provide significant legal support for efforts to define a caregiver — efforts that have been resisted by some who would prefer that caregivers essentially be suppliers with no other responsibilities. And it lends support to the idea, embodied in medical marijuana legislation passed this session, that dispensaries are not a model contemplated in the constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2000.
The Supreme Court’s action — or lack of action — could provide legal backup for the state as it defends itself against lawsuits threatened by medical marijuana proponents.
The case at issue began in 2006 when a Longmont police detective received a tip from an informant who noticed a lot of traffic at the home of Stacy Clendenin. Authorities had enough evidence to get a search warrant, and they found two grow rooms and 44 marijuana plants.
Clendenin was successfully prosecuted criminally, but she challenged the conviction under the state’s medical marijuana constitutional amendment. She said she qualified as a “primary caregiver” because merely providing the drug to patients constituted being a caregiver.
The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected that argument. “We conclude that to qualify as a ‘primary care- giver’ a person must do more than merely supply a patient who has a debilitating medical condition with marijuana,” the court wrote. That decision was made last October.
Fast-forward to this past legislative session where medical marijuana advocates fought against efforts to define caregivers and the idea that the dispensary model wasn’t contemplated in the constitutional amendment.
In the end, the bill defined caregivers as small-time providers who in most cases serve no more than five patients. The bill also legitimized dispensaries, a move that we have opposed as an unacceptable expansion of the constitutional amendment.
But in a move that tempers our objections, the legislation gives local communities the right to opt out of having dispensaries in their communities.
The medical marijuana issue probably will be fought out in the courts for years to come, and it’s quite likely that the Clendenin decision will be a major factor in the outcome of those battles.
We think it’s good news for those who believe the medical pot scene in Colorado needs to be reined in.
