For current information, go to Denver420.com

The Colorado Hemp Initiative Project (CO-HIP) is the longest established cannabis reform organization in the state, having worked for the re-legalization of cannabis for medicinal, industrial and personal uses for over seven years.  In January 1998, members of CO-HIP along with several patients and health professionals formed Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis (CCCC) to focus strictly on the medicinal uses of cannabis.  There has been some confusion about whether CO-HIP or CCCC is sponsoring Amendment 19, a medical marijuana initiative proposed for the November ballot in Colorado.  To clarify the situation, neither the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project nor Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis has any involvement in Amendment 19.

The proponents of Amendment 19 are a group called Coloradans for Medical Rights.  CMR was formed in 1997 as an affiliate to Americans for Medical Rights.  AMR is based in Santa Monica, California and is funded primarily by billionaire George Soros.  Bill Zimmerman is the campaign manager for AMR and Dave Fratello is the spokesperson.

While we support the legal regulation of cannabis for all its uses, we have some serious concerns about Amendment 19.  Although the initiative may be well-intentioned, it is poorly written and may actually endanger patients rather than help them.  It is based on a law enforcement model of medicine, which drastically departs from the California therapeutic model (The Compassionate Use Act) passed in 1996 by voters.

We expressed our concerns (outlined below) about the initiative to AMR in the fall of 1997.  We learned that the initiative was drafted primarily by people from outside the state.  A representative of AMR’s funders told us that the initiative is only “symbolic”: designed to send a message to the feds, but not ever to be actually implemented.  AMR believes a restrictive initiative can get the support of law enforcement and thereby more easily win.
 
We do not believe amendments to our Constitution should be "symbolic." We believe that the welfare of patients should be just as important as winning an election.  We believe it is possible to write a good law that will win and benefit patients.
 
In January 1998, Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis submitted an alternative initiative, the Compassionate Therapeutic Cannabis Act <http://www.levellers.org/ctca.htm>.  The initiative was approved for circulation by the state, but we never actually printed or circulated it.  Our goal in submitting the CTCA was to:
1) provide a backup initiative in case the AMR petition was ruled invalid for some technical reason or legal error
2) provide people with an alternative to the law enforcement model being promoted by AMR across the country
We never intended to circulate the initiative alongside the AMR petition.  We felt that would have been too confusing for voters.  Circulating competing initiatives is not good strategy.

It is still unclear whether or not the AMR initiative can be enacted by Colorado voters.  It will appear on the ballot, but the votes for it may not be counted.  The Secretary of State’s office has come under great criticism this year for their incompetent counting of initiative signatures.  The AMR initiative was originally ruled to have insufficient signatures by the Secretary of State.  AMR appealed the signature count, and a Denver district court judge ordered the initiative placed on the ballot, pending a review by the Supreme Court.  On Monday, October 5, the Colorado Supreme Court order Secretary of State Victoria Buckley to do a line by line count of the signatures collected (she had previously counted only a random sample.) According to the Denver Post the justices said, “When the polls close on Nov. 3, Buckley is to count the votes cast for the initiative ‘if, and only if,’ she has already determined there were a sufficient number of valid signatures...”

Whatever the outcome of the signature count, we feel it is important to state our concerns about the initiative to allow voters to make an informed decision about Amendment 19.  We have researched the amendment extensively and have concluded that the initiative will endanger patients and may make Colorado marijuana penalties worse than they already are.  We believe the effect of its passage may actually set Colorado efforts at cannabis reform backwards.

Below are some of the concerns we have Amendment 19.  We have tried several times recently to get AMR to comment on these specific concerns.  Dave Fratello wrote to us on September 15, 1998, their goal was to “communicate with tens of thousands of undecided voters, not to persuade opponents to change their views.”  So we are not able to provide a rebuttal to these concerns from the initiative proponents.   If you have any questions for them, mail them at: <amr@lainet.com> or <http://www.medicalmarijuana.com>

Summary of Concerns:
1) The AMR initiative fails to create a distribution system for patients to obtain marijuana. In fact, the initiative makes distribution unconstitutional by setting low limits on possession and cultivation that would preclude the state health department or any other entity from distributing marijuana to patients.

2) This lack of a distribution system will endanger patients by forcing them to obtain their medicine on the streets.

3) Passage of the AMR initiative will increase the number of patients purchasing marijuana on the streets. This will needlessly endanger law enforcement by expanding the black market in marijuana.

4) Because the AMR initiative is a constitutional amendment, it creates a constitutional standard that marijuana for non-patients is illegal.  (Marijuana is currently not mentioned in the constitution and is only regulated by statutes.)

5) Currently, possession of one to eight ounces of marijuana is a misdemeanor in Colorado; less than one ounce is a petty offense, punishable only by a ticket. The AMR initiative creates a constitutional standard that only two ounces is a “safe” amount of marijuana. The AMR initiative gives the government the reason and the power to increase penalties for possession of more than two ounces, even for non-patients.

6) The federal government provides eight patients with eight ounces of cannabis each month as part of a now-defunct federal medical marijuana program.  The AMR amendment prohibits patients from possessing more than two ounces or cultivating more than three plants.  Since it is impossible to maintain an adequate supply (by federal standards) from only three plants, any patient who tries to maintain an adequate supply will be prosecuted.  This will be detrimental to patients who will not often be physically or financially capable of enduring a lengthy court battle.

7) The AMR initiative interferes with the physician/patient relationship by limiting the diseases for which a physician can recommend marijuana and dictating the dosage and frequency of medicinal use.

8) The AMR initiative opens physicians up to unspecified penalties if the physician discusses marijuana with a patient who does not have one of the “approved” medical conditions designated by the authors of the initiative.

9) The AMR initiative would require patients to register with the state and obtain a photo I.D. card in order to receive protection from the law.

10) The AMR initiative would allow only those patients with an “approved” medical condition to argue a medical necessity defense in court.  Patients who use cannabis as medicine for an illness that is not listed would not be given the right to present evidence of their medical need in court.
 
11) The AMR initiative would allow law enforcement to have access to the registry of medical marijuana users to determine whether a patient has legitimately registered with the state.  Although the initiative states that the registry should be “confidential”, there are no penalties set for violation of this confidentiality.  Without a harsh penalty, it is unclear the extent to which law enforcement will be allowed to scrutinize the registry and patient medical records.

12) The AMR initiative may outlaw sterilized cannabis seeds, which are currently legal and used in a variety of food products.  The initiative creates a new definition of marijuana that does not exclude sterilized seeds, as Colorado and federal statutes currently do. Therefore, a patient would not be allowed to possess more than two ounces of sterilized seed.  (Currently, any amount is legal to possess.)  Furthermore, since constitutional law often overrides statutes, the initiative may outlaw sterilized seeds even for non-patients.

13) The AMR initiative makes marijuana appear to be a dangerous drug. No other medication has limits on its use written into the constitution.  In addition, state bureaucrats are not allowed to make medical decisions for other illnesses/treatments.

These concerns are serious but have been ignored by the proponents of Amendment 19.  The question is, will Amendment 19 be a step in the right direction or will it endanger patients and make Colorado law worse?  This is the question for Colorado voters who support medicinal cannabis.

The AMR initiative is a constitutional amendment. Therefore the flaws in the initiative cannot be ironed out by the state legislature; the amendment can only be changed by a vote of the people.  Since the process to get an initiative on the ballot is lengthy and expensive, any flaws in the language of the amendment are likely to be with us for a long time, should the initiative become enacted.