Drug War

Can Regulations Stop Medical Marijuana Raids?

|

Yesterday Washington, D.C., and Boulder, Colorado, approved rules for medical marijuana dispensaries. The D.C. regulations, which implement a 1998 ballot initiative that Congress until recently prevented the District from enforcing, will allow up to eight dispensaries, which may grow no more than 95 plants each and supply patients with up to two ounces at a time (a limit the mayor is authorized to double if he thinks it's necessary). The covered conditions are HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and any other "chronic and lasting disease." Unlike D.C., Boulder is imposing restrictions on existing dispensaries, which operate as "primary caregivers"* under Colorado's 2000 law allowing medical use of marijuana by patients with "chronic or debilitating medical conditions" such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, and glaucoma. The city already has granted sales tax licenses to about 100 marijuana businesses, although it's not clear how many are actually operating. The new regulations include hefty license fees ($5,000 to start, then $2,000 annually), location restrictions (dispensaries must be at least 500 feet from schools or day care centers), prohibition of on-site consumption, and a requirement that patients younger than 18 be accompanied by a parent or guardian. And then there's this:

Those businesses that grow the plant would be required to offset 100 percent of their electricity by purchasing wind power, participation in a community solar garden or on-site solar power.

Boulder's rules may be pre-empted by regulations the state legislature is considering.

In the May issue of Reason, Brian Doherty considered L.A.'s attempt to impose order on the city's medical marijuana dispensaries. While there are reasons to criticize many of the regulations that have been proposed in various jurisdictions, clarifying the requirements for growers and sellers will test the Justice Department's promise to leave medical marijuana suppliers alone when they comply with state law. It's one thing to argue about the meaning of caregiver or patient collective, quite another to raid government-licensed dispensaries that comply with specific regulations. In the case of D.C., the regulations will take effect only if Congress declines to override them, so they will have implicit federal approval. And in states such as Maine and Rhode Island, which explicitly allow state-licensed dispensaries, medical marijuana suppliers will be "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws," as the Justice Department's policy demands.

*Addendum: Under California law, a "primary caregiver" is "the individual designated by the [patient] who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person," and the state Supreme Court has said this means a primary caregiver must do more than supply marijuana. But the definition under Colorado law is looser: someone who "has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient."

NEXT: Arizona's Un-American Immigration Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “” Unlike D.C., Boulder is imposing restrictions on existing dispensaries, which operate as “primary caregivers” under Colorado’s 2000 law “”

    The last I recall, the dispensaries in CO are not care givers under CO law, which led to the dispensaries busted. No?

  2. Or we could tax and regulate it like alcohol and put and end to all this bullshit.

    1. Shhhhh ! That would make too much sense and there is little room for sense on this topic.

  3. Nothing will stop cops from getting easy pot busts to fill their quotas until they are unable to arrest people for possession or use because pot has been legalized.

  4. Can Regulations Stop Medical Marijuana Raids?

    No.

  5. It’s . . . quite another to raid government-licensed dispensaries that comply with specific regulations.

    The feds raid state-licensed businesses all. the. time. Licensing these dispensaries will do nothing to affect DEA raids.

    1. Nor should it because it is currently schedule 1, meaning it is unsafe even under strict medical supervision, has a big potential for abuse, and has no currently accepted medical use, period, end of discussion.

      1. This was determined by congress when it passed the CSA in 1970.

        1. You’d think even Congress would have a learning curve shorter than 40 years, but noooo.

      2. it is unsafe even under strict medical supervision, has a big potential for abuse, and has no currently accepted medical use

        Except it isn’t, it doesn’t, and it does.

      3. Juanita…do you think the goverment cares about you. Also who do you trust the most doctors or politicians? Finally is alcohol dangerous just because it is involved in 1 out of 25 deaths worldwide? All the illegal drug deaths combined can’t touch those numbers. In the mean time the longest and most costly war in American history does nothingto stop me from getting marijuana. Do you feel like your taxes are going to good use on this matter ?

  6. I’m against states’ rights! But California should be able to decide their own drug policy!

    1. I love that argument. Classic. “States Rights is a racist policy made for slave states to legally justify their abominations, but yes I do think CA should be able to decide its own mj laws for itself without federal interference. So yes , I disagree with states rights.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.