Medical marijuana is the political topic that just keeps on giving.
One bill pending in the legislature would set a legal limit for driving while under the influence of marijuana. Another would ban edible marijuana-infused products.
The legal-limit measure is an important bill that has been well-researched and should be passed. The edible ban, which the sponsor has said she intends to amend, is so problematic we don’t see why it should survive the session.
First, the edible ban.
Kids should not be getting their hands on brownies or candies infused with medical marijuana. On that, we agree with law enforcement officials and state lawmakers who spoke Tuesday about the bill to ban medical marijuana edibles.
However, outlawing edibles is a draconian step that would unacceptably limit the use of medical marijuana. There are many people who cannot or do not want to smoke it.
By the end of the hearing, the bill’s sponsor seemed to get that. Rep. Cindy Acree, R-Aurora, said she would amend House Bill 1250 to keep edibles legal, but would mandate stricter labeling, packaging and marketing requirements.
We’re not sure exactly where Acree is going with that idea since the state already passed a comprehensive, 60-page medical marijuana law last year that addresses edibles.
In addition, a state panel has devised 91 pages — yes, 91 — of regulations. Those proposed regulations thoroughly detail labeling and packaging rules, and include three pages of banned substances that cannot be used in the production of medical marijuana.
The bottom line when it comes to labeling marijuana-infused products is that the type of labeling that would be useful either isn’t practical or possible.
Scientifically verified amounts of active ingredients, such as THC, would help sick people determine how much of a product they ought to ingest. However, it’s expensive — about $120 a plant, we’re told — to do such testing. And since marijuana is illegal at the federal level, testing protocols are not standardized.
Measurements of active ingredients done by different laboratories can vary by 20 percent. How could the state mandate such precise labeling if it has no way to enforce it?
As for the THC threshold bill, House Bill 1261 is an important tool for prosecutors to prove someone is driving under the influence. It says anyone with a blood content of 5 nanograms or more of THC could be charged.
Rep. Mark Waller said the measurement captures a component of marijuana that typically stays in the bloodstream for only three to four hours, so the law would not penalize people who had residual levels resulting from use days or weeks ago.
The specific limit was recommended by the Colorado Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice, which thoroughly investigated the topic.
As Colorado continues its medical marijuana journey, regulatory issues will continue to emerge. They must be addressed with rigorous research, and not knee-jerk reactions to emotional pleas.
