Protests, public turnout, and passionate testimony: Public hearing on HB 1284 had it all

Marijuana takes over the captiol.

Wikitravel/A. Macdonald

Last week, the Colorado House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing to discuss House Bill 10-1284 (2010). Before the meeting started protests outside the state capitol led to one arrest of a protestor who was apparently pissing off the wrong cops. The revised bill wasn’t officially released until the meeting started, which made testifying more challenging. So much for letting everyone have a chance to be prepared, but hey, that’s politics, right?

The large room was full, and a lot of people were left standing. As the meeting drew on, police officer after prosecutor, after police officer testified to the gateway effect of marijuana; essentially demonizing the one plant and holding it accountable for all that is wrong in the world. One kid actually neglected his own accountability for his bad choices, and blamed it all on marijuana. It just goes to show that some people will find anything to blame to avoid looking at themselves as part of the problem.

One thing that was slightly different with this bill and others was the unclear division of police, dispensary owners, and patients. All three groups had people testify for and against the bill. What it seemed to come down to was the police didn’t want to legitimize the dispensary industry and see the bill as a way to do this; dispensary owners were in favor of regulations but felt the bill would create unreasonable restrictions; and patients felt the bill would cost them money by making the price of medicine go up and increase the investment to obtain a permit (something of which is not necessary for anyone taking any pharmaceuticals or obtaining any other medical treatment).

I have to give credit to Rep. Daniel Kagen and Rep. Sal Pace for their research and preparation for the untrue argument presented by the majority of law enforcement regarding dispensaries causing increased crime. They were both very aware of a recent report by Charlie Beck, Los Angeles Police Chief, where the chief reported a no association with dispensaries and crime (Castro 2010).

At the end of the day, the bill seems to address too many different issues. It seems to me that the more granular the approach to an issue the better the resolution. Beyond this, the bill still has antiquated terms like “good moral character” that really don’t set well with me, and lead me to think there is a lot of discrimination in the intent of the bill.

Any regulation of medical marijuana needs to be based in the same principals as medicine (see how the word medical is attached to marijuana in medical marijuana-which is what the voters voted for). There are regulations in place that determine the ways in which medicines can be dispensed, and the manner in which a doctor must interact with a patient. When we start singling out specific types of medical treatments for legislative restriction, we have crossed the line of more government interaction than was ever intended by the founding fathers of the U.S.. While I hardly think they anticipated pharmaceuticals would exist and be what they are, I do know that the simple declaration that all [wo/]men are created equal, and entitled to certain unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It seems like a good time to simplify our approach, and get back to the foundations that have been destroyed by years of abusive politics, and destructive personal agendas by people who have been given, or taken too much power. 

References

Castro, Tony. 2010. “LAPD chief: Pot clinics not plagued by crime.” Americans for Safe Access. http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5874 (accessed March 8, 2010).

Colorado House of Representatives. 2010. Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. 67th General Assembly, 2nd session. HB 10-1284.