by Kathleen Wells, Ph.D. and Liz O’Sullivan
Amendment 64 promised that recreational marijuana would be regulated like alcohol. It is not being regulated like alcohol in the City of Denver. Denver’s approximately 200 medical marijuana dispensaries were established without input from neighborhood residents or organizations, and these facilities are now able to acquire retail marijuana licenses without attention to the “needs and desires” of the neighborhoods in which they are located, which must be considered in the establishment of new liquor stores.
Instead, the Director of Excise and Licenses may grant a retail marijuana license to any dispensary that applies, unless opponents can show that a particular facility previously operated in a manner that violated relevant codes, or adversely affected the health, welfare, or safety of the immediate neighborhood in which it is located, or that the issuance of a retail license will adversely affect the neighborhood in the future.
It is nearly impossible to determine whether a dispensary has violated codes or previously operated in a manner that adversely affected a neighborhood. Performance audits of medical marijuana regulatory systems by the State and the City both show wide-spread regulatory breakdown. As a result, there are very limited data with which to judge compliance with regulations and related adverse effects of dispensaries on neighborhoods. In addition, short of robberies or shootings, calls to the police about illegal behavior related to dispensaries are unlikely to be answered in sufficient time for police reports to be filed.
Determining future harm is equally problematic. Although guidelines (City Attorney’s Office, Sept. 4, 2013 memo) indicate that evidence may be presented as to how a retail facility “potentially will” affect the neighborhood in the future, the officer (William Hobbs) in the hearing that we attended (Nov. 20, 2013), disallowed any testimony considered speculative. He argued that speculation is insufficient to establish “good cause” to deny the license. This is a problem: There is no way to demonstrate harmful future effects without introducing speculation. In addition, because there are no existing retail marijuana stores anywhere, no fact-based evidence can be provided as to how retail marijuana stores affect neighborhoods.
Despite attempts to change its classification, marijuana remains a Schedule I Controlled Substance: It has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use, and is unsafe. This classification, along with fact-based scientific evidence of the serious, adverse, and permanent effects of early and persistent marijuana use, was not admitted at this hearing. Testimony from an administrator of group homes for men in recovery within 2 blocks of the facility, an administrator of a preschool within 4 blocks, parents and neighbors concerned with “drug tourism” and its related effects (parking problems, public drug use, unsafe condition of users driving out of neighborhoods) were not persuasive. Information from Denver’s Office of Drug Strategy showing that teenagers obtain drugs through social contacts “and the more legal opportunities to purchase the drug in the community results in greater opportunities for youth to obtain those drugs,” was also disallowed.
The City Council is aware that Denver is saturated with dispensaries, all of which could convert to retail marijuana stores. The City Attorney’s memo refers to “the extremely high concentration of medical marijuana businesses already existing in Denver.” Yet Council has endorsed policies that favor the marijuana industry over child and neighborhood, especially inner-city neighborhood, welfare.
The majority of citizens do not want marijuana to be regulated LESS strictly than alcohol: However, this is what City Council has delivered. We call for immediate action to correct this mistake.
Kathleen Wells, Ph.D., child welfare scholar, and Liz O’Sullivan, architect, are both residents of Greater Capitol Hill in Denver.
Regulate It 
Jerry
/ December 16, 2013Your claim is wrong. A majority of Denverites do indeed want cannabis regulated less strictly than alcohol. The evidence of this is the multiple votes the citizens have taken on the issue – with the most telling being the one that made cannabis crimes the “lowest possible” priority for the Denver police.
regulateit
/ December 16, 2013Thanks for reading.
Your comment primarily addresses decriminalization. Decriminalization is different from legalization. Legalization is different from regulation. Almost 2/3 of Denver voters voted for Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana. So clearly, Denverites are pro-decriminalization, since they’re pro-legalization.
The voters have had no say in REGULATION, however. Amendment 64 did not do much to address REGULATION of marijuana. It left that up to local governments.
Many people use the services of medical doctors. You could say we’re pro-doctor. But most of us are glad for the regulations that require schooling, training, testing, and licensure of medical doctors. These things are regulations.
Plenty of people use gasoline, but don’t want it sold next door to their homes. Regulations are a major factor in determining where gasoline can be sold.
Denver voters are for marijuana. But that certainly does not mean that they do not wish for strict regulations on the sale of marijuana. Colorado’s governments get to decide who gets to grow it, who gets to sell it, and where it can be sold. The way Denver has set up regulations regarding locations of sales is LESS STRICT than those regulations regarding liquor stores.
We Denverites like to use our voices. But regulations regarding locations of retail pot stores in Denver don’t allow us to.
Niles Aronson
/ December 16, 2013“Despite attempts to change its classification, marijuana remains a Schedule I Controlled Substance: It has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use, and is unsafe. This classification, along with fact-based scientific evidence of the serious, adverse, and permanent effects of early and persistent marijuana use, was not admitted at this hearing.”
Lies and Drug War Propaganda straight from D.A.R.E.!
regulateit
/ December 16, 2013Just explaining the Controlled Substances Act to readers. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/812.htm