HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/09/2010 - PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENS DATE: February 9, 2010
STAFF: Jerry Schiager, Steve WORK SESSION ITEM
Dush, Peter Barnes, Ginny Sawyer, FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Linda Samuelson, and Teresa
Ablao
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Regulations for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (MMDs).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City staff has prepared proposed regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs) for
Council's consideration. These regulations are scheduled to be presented for formal consideration
by the Council on First Reading on March 2, 2010.
The proposed regulations for MMDs include a licensing process, zoning and other location
requirements for retail MMD operations and their cultivation sites,and requirements governing the
operation of both kinds of facilities. The regulations would also address the cultivation of marijuana
by patients and primary caregivers serving a single patient that do not constitute an MMD. The
overall purpose of the regulations is to protect the public health, safety and welfare, as well as the
rights of patients and their primary caregivers,while discouraging the potential abuse of those rights
by those seeking to circumvent the prohibition against the use of marijuana for purposes other than
medical treatment.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is requesting Council feedback regarding the reasonableness of the proposed regulations and
whether they strike an appropriate balance between accommodating the lawful use of marijuana for
medical purposes while,at the same time,prohibiting abuses and protecting the community from the
secondary effects that may accompany the establishment of MMDs.
Staff is also interested in knowing whether any of the following seem too restrictive, too lenient,
unnecessary or impractical:
• licensing requirements;
• zoning regulations;
• separation requirements;
• grandfathering options;
• operating requirements for retail establishments; and
• limitations on cultivation sites of the MMDs.
February 9, 2010 Page 2
BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 128, 2009 (the "Moratorium
Ordinance"),which established a moratorium on the acceptance and processing of any applications
to the City for the approval of licenses, permits, or development proposals related to the
establishment or operation of MMDs and on the processing of any pending applications for such
licenses or permits. During the moratorium, no MMDs have been allowed to establish their
businesses or continue to operate except those that had been issued a sales tax license (if required
by the City Code)prior to November 17,2009,and that were in zone districts that currently permit
such businesses, that is, those that allow retail sales.
The Moratorium Ordinance also directed the City Manager to analyze the following issues and
develop for Council consideration such regulations as he deems necessary and appropriate to address
those issues:
• the extent to which MMDs are legally protected under the Amendment;
• the impact of MMDs on the character of residential neighborhoods and commercial areas
where they may be located; and
• any increase that will likely occur in vehicular traffic or in nuisance or criminal activities in
areas where MMDs are located.
Prior to the effective date of the Moratorium Ordinance, 108 businesses falling within the category
of an MMD had obtained sales tax licenses from the City. These are in addition to any sales tax
licenses held by pre-existing businesses that have expanded their operations to include the sale of
medical marijuana. Of those 108, eleven have closed out their licenses, leaving a total of 97. The
locations of those holding sales tax licenses for MMDs are shown on Attachment 2.
City staff has met on several occasions over the last three months to develop the proposed
regulations and has reviewed various models from other jurisdictions. Staff has also engaged the
public through numerous outreach efforts. Policy decisions for Council include the MMD licensing
components,zoning and other location regulations,grandfathering existing MMDs,retail operation
requirements, and cultivation limitations.
Amendment 20
The legal framework for consideration of the proposed regulations is Amendment 20 to the Colorado
Constitution (Attachment 4), which was approved by Colorado voters in November, 2000.
Essentially,Amendment 20 creates an exception and an affirmative defense to the state's criminal
laws so that patients and their"primary caregivers"who are in lawful possession of a card issued by
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(the"Health Department")may possess
and use a certain amount of marijuana for medical purposes. The presumptive amount that is, by
definition,"lawful"under Amendment 20 is two ounces or six plants per patient. However,a person
charged under state law may assert and prove that greater amounts were medically necessary.
February 9, 2010 Page 3
The Amendment states that no person shall be entitled to the protection of Amendment 20 for
acquisition,possession,manufacture,production,use,sale,distribution,dispensing or transportation
of marijuana for any use other than medical. The use or distribution of marijuana is prohibited by
federal law;however,federal law enforcement officials have indicated that federal resources should
not be used to prosecute people who are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. State
criminal laws also prohibit the production,use or distribution of marijuana,except to the extent that
such use is allowed by Amendment 20.
There is considerable debate among state and local legislators and law enforcement officials about
the scope of Amendment 20,and attempts to clarify its application to MMDs are ongoing. Pending
clarification at the state level, many municipalities have enacted local ordinances on the subject,
ranging from total bans (one of which is currently the subject of a court challenge) to very limited
regulation.
As noted above,the direction of the City Council was to use the moratorium period to develop local
regulations and present those to the Council with the understanding that the regulations may need
to be revisited if the state legislature enacts new laws on the subject.
Definition of MMDs
The proposed ordinance contains the following definition of"medial marijuana dispensary."
Medical marijuana dispensary or dispensary shall mean the use of any property, structure, unit,
facility or location where one or more primary care givers distributes delivers, transmits, gives,
dispenses or otherwise provides medical marijuana in any manner to patients in accordance with the
constitution and other laws and regulations of the State of Colorado. A medical marijuana
dispensary does not include a patient or primary caregiver that provides medical marijuana to only
one patient.
Licensing requirements
The proposed licensing requirements would require payment of an application fee and an annual
renewal fee. The fees would cover costs associated with the zoning review, mapping required to
determine if separations are met, application coordination, routing to other departments, issuance
of license,background checks,police inspections and compliance checks.The initial application fee
is estimated to be approximately$1,500.
The first step in the licensing process would be to conduct a background check on the applicant and
all of the financial interest holders in the proposed MMD as well as all of the primary caregivers and
other employees. Applicants would have to be at least 21 years of age. No license would be issued
to persons who,within the last ten years,have been released from any form of court supervision for
a felony criminal conviction or any crime involving fraud,embezzlement,larceny or distribution of
a controlled substance; or to a person who has had an MMD license revoked or who has submitted
any fraudulent information in connection with the application.
Prior to issuance of the license, the proposed premises would be inspected for compliance with all
building and fire codes. No person or entity would be licensed to operate more than three local
February 9, 2010 Page 4
MMDs. The purpose of this limitation is to recognize that a single person or entity may wish to have
multiple locations for the convenience of patients, and to also ensure that the licensee is able to
effectively supervise each establishment's compliance with all applicable regulations.
All MMDs doing business in the City would have to be licensed, even if they are just delivering to
patients in the City from an out-of-town business establishment. City sales tax would be collected
on all such transactions.
Location Requirements
1. LUC Zone districts.
The City's Land Use Code will be amended to specifically identify MMDs as a permitted use in
those zone districts where MMDs are considered to be compatible with neighboring uses. MMD
retail establishments will likely be located in those districts that permit other commercial operations,
and the cultivation sites for MMDs will be located elsewhere—most probably in the I-Industrial zone
and other, similar areas of the City.
2. Seuaration requirements.
In addition to the zoning designations,staff is recommending separation requirements. The purpose
of these is twofold. First, the 1,000-foot separation requirement from other MMDs is intended to
avoid"clusters"of MMDs so as to minimize their cumulative impact on any particular area of the
community. Second,community feedback and model ordinances from other communities suggest
that separation requirements from schools, places of worship, parks and recreation areas are
advisable because of the concern that exposure of youth to MMDs could decrease their perception
of harm related to the'use of marijuana or other drugs.
3. Home occupation licenses.
The third component of the location requirements deals with the issuance of home occupation
licenses for MMDs in residential neighborhoods. Experience has shown that MMDs are very
susceptible to burglaries,robberies and other crimes against persons and property,primarily because
of the nature of their inventory, the amount of cash involved in the transactions that occur on site,
and the fact that marijuana is still an illegal substance under federal and state law except when used
for medical purposes.
This reality has prompted widespread concern among residents of the City. Accordingly, the
proposed regulations would ban MMDs as a home occupation. MMDs that currently have home
occupation licenses would be limited to maintaining just an office at the licensed residential premise,
with no on-site sales, no indoor or outdoor cultivation and no inventory. Once the existing home
occupation licenses expire,no new home occupation licenses for MMDs would be issued. Existing
licenses have a two-year term from the date of issuance.
February 9, 2010 Page 5
Grandfathering of existing locations
Staff is presenting two options for Council's consideration with regard to whether the new location
requirements would apply to existing locations. Under Option A,existing MMDs would be allowed
to remain where they are as long as they have an actual, substantial use established at that location
and they can comply with all other licensing and operational requirements. Under Option B, all
MMDs in the City, including those that were established prior to the effective date of the
Moratorium Ordinance, would have to meet all new requirements, including the new zoning and
location requirements. An initial review of the current MMD locations indicates that a large
percentage of the existing locations would not be in compliance with the 1,000 foot separation
requirements. There may be several ways to alleviate some of those conflicts if Council chooses to
impose the recommended location requirements on existing MMDs, such as reducing the distances
from some or all of the protected facilities, institutions and businesses.
Operating requirements for retail MMD establishments
The following requirements would apply to the retail outlet of an MMD.
• The retail establishment would,have to be operated by the licensee or.another primary
caregiver employed by the licensee.
• On-site sales would be allowed only to patients and primary caregivers that have a single
patient. Sales could include marijuana, in any usable form, starter plants, seeds,
paraphernalia, and other retail merchandise. No mature marijuana plants could be sold or
maintained at the MMD. Quantities of marijuana would be limited to amounts permitted
under Amendment 20 for personal medical use,with a presumptive limit of two ounces per
customer per week. Larger amounts would be permissible if supported by a licensed
physician's determination of medical necessity.
• Only persons with state registry cards would be permitted to enter the premises.
• Food products containing marijuana would have to contain warning labels explaining legal
limitations on possession and use.If the food has not been inspected by state or county health
officials, the label would have to so indicate.
• No on-site consumption of marijuana would be permitted.
• No on-site cultivation of marijuana plants would be permitted.
• Security requirements would include safes and video cameras.
• Hours of operation would be limited.
• Detailed transaction records would be required, and books and records would be subject to
inspection by the City to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
February 9, 2010 Page 6
• All normal Sign Code requirements would have to be met. In addition, if the term
"marijuana"or an equivalent symbol(e.g.,marijuana leaf)was used on a sign,it would have
to be preceded by the word "medical."
• Advertising fliers could not contain any false or misleading information about the availability
of medical marijuana or invite any illegal activity.
Limitations on cultivation sites
Because MMDs could sell only to patients and single-patient primary caregivers and because the
quantities would be limited to amounts permitted for medical use by those individuals under
Amendment 20,MMDs would not be able to obtain their inventory from other MMDs;instead,they
would need to grow their own marijuana. They could do so at a cultivation site that was located
either within or outside the City. If the site was located in the City, it would be subject to the zoning
requirements mentioned above and to the following additional regulations:
• To the extent permitted under the Colorado Open Records Act,the location of the site would
not be made available by the City for public inspection.
• The cultivation site would have to be operated by the licensee or another primary caregiver
employed by the licensee.
• No signs indicating the nature of the operation would be permitted.
• No outdoor cultivation would be allowed.
• No on-site consumption or sales would be allowed.
• Marijuana grown at the site could be distributed only through the retail outlet of the same
MMD.
Limitations on cultivation by individual patients and single-patient primary caregivers
Staff is also proposing that individual patients and primary caregivers having only one patient be
allowed to cultivate marijuana at their residences,but only indoors. Quantities would be limited to
no more than twelve plants, including six that are mature. This limitation is consistent with the
presumptive level permitted under Amendment 20 for two persons.
Public Outreach
Public outreach regarding the purpose and content of the regulations has been broad and in-depth,
especially considering the short time-frame. Staff conducted individual interviews with operators
of both a retail MMD operation and a home delivery model MMD. Focus groups were conducted
with patients, MMD operators, and with a group of interested citizens including business groups,
property managers and school representatives. There was a communitywide open house, which
approximately 100 people attended. Comments received were documented and made available for
Council and public review.
February 9, 2010 Page 7
Next steps
First Reading of an ordinance adopting the proposed regulations is scheduled for March 2, 2010,
with Second Reading on March 16. On February 18, the Planning and Zoning Board is scheduled
to consider the proposed zoning changes since those would be contained in the Land Use Code.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Power point presentation
2. Map of locations of existing MMDs.
3. Ordinance No. 128,2009 and Agenda Item Summaries(First Reading and Second Reading)
4. Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution
ATTACHMENT 1
-PP
J' � ty J� J �� f� � •
r � �y
CO
Staff is seeking direction from Council on
11
proposed regulations for medical marijuana
dispensaries
1
Council Conside ' on
Policy decisions include .
MMD licensing components
Zoning regulations
Separation requirements
Grandfathering options
Retail operation requirements
Cultivation limitations
tolls
3
General Purpose
Protect the public health , safety
and welfare , as well as the rights o
patients and their primary
caregivers , while discouraging the
potential abuse and distribution of
marijuana for recreational use .
4
��s
De
What is an MMD ?
— An MMD is a primary caregiver or caregivers who
provide medical marijuana for more than one
patient . License required .
— Individual patients or primary caregivers with only
one patient are not MMDs . No license required .
— Some MMDs have a storefront/retail operation .
— Some MMDs have a home occupation license with
a delivery service model .
Ol
t
Proposed Licensing Components
Application fee and annual renewal fee .
— Fee would be set to cover staff costs including
application processing , zoning review ,
building inspection , compliance checks , etc .
F6?t Collins
6
' censi
Background check of applicant , all
interest holders , primary caregivers an
other employees .
c or
i-F�t�s
7
Proposed Licensing Components
No license issued to anyone :
- who has been convicted of a felony or any
crime involving fraud , embezzlement ,
larceny , or distribution of a controlled
substance within the last 10 years ;
- who has had an MMD license revoked ;
- or who has submitted fraudulent
application information .
F�r of
cins
s
PronosP..�l�icensi
Applicant must be 21 or over .
No more than three licensed premises per
person or entity .
Inspection of proposed licensed premises fo
compliance with Building and Fire Codes .
ctY or
9
-F�t�S
Propose ire is
Establish new Land Use Code zoning
requirements for MMDs that define
appropriate zones and separation
requirements .
Limit current home occupation MMDs to
offices only , with no on -site sales , no indoor
or outdoor cultivation and no inventory .
aty or
Oft CO��If15
10
Proposed Location Requirements
Require 1 , 000 foot separation between
MMDs and schools , places of worship ,
day care centers , halfway houses ,
recreational facilities , parks , or other
MMDs .
ctY or
11
F�t�
Pro osed Require
Option A :
Existing MMDs allowed in current locations if
all other licensing requirements and
regulations are met .
Option B :
Existing MMDs allowed as non -conforming
uses under new zoning regulations but still
subject to new separation requirements .
Frc��s
12
Proposed Retail O
Requirements
Allow the on - site sale of marijuana ,
including starter plants and seeds , food
paraphernalia and other products .
Allow sales only to patients and
primary-givers with one patient .
Olt
t `'=s
13
Proposed R ration
Requ
Only allow people with state registry cards to
enter a dispensary .
Food products containing marijuana must
contain warning labels and , if not inspected
by State or County Health Department , must
also contain a statement to that effect .
or Collins
14
Prop Op
ui ents
No on -site consumption of marijuana .
No on -site cultivation of flowering marijuana
plants .
Impose security requirements such as safes
and video cameras .
15
Pro ose ' IOper
ri
Limit hours of operation .
Licensed premises including books and
records would be subject to inspection by City
officials to ensure compliance .
�t Collins
16
Prop Op
ui ents
Enforce applicable sign code requirements
and require use of the term " medical " if the
word marijuana or equivalent symbols are
used .
Prohibit distribution of advertising fliers that
contain false or misleading information or
that invite illegal activity .
17
Pro ose RetailOper
it
Impose record keeping requirements to
ensure that :
— all sales are to patients or primary
caregivers who care for only one patient .
— sales do not exceed 2 ounces per patient
per week unless a larger quantity is
recommended by a physician .
�t Collins
18
Proposed '
Local cultivation facilities must be located in
zone districts designated by the City , such as
Industrial zones .
Marijuana grown within the City limits can
only be distributed in the City through the
licensed MMD of the primary care-giver who
grows the marijuana .
ctY or
19
osed Cultivation Lij J , o. jon
No signs that indicate that medical marijuana
is being grown at that location .
Location not public record .
No outdoor cultivation .
No on -site consumption or sales .
10
F�rc��s
Zo
Propo rking Model
Primary Caregiver Cultivation site must be
Cultivator operated by a Primary
Caregiver who distributes to
Q Primary Caregiver his or her patients through a
MMD licensed MMD , including home
► e delivery .
oa ee a ee
--�i Cultivation operation cannot
° sell to another MMD .
-a
Patient
,�t�l�s
1
ose
Home Occupation MMDs are not allowed to grow
marijuana or maintain inventory in residential areas .
Individual patients and Primary Caregivers for only
one person can grow no more than 12 marijuana
plants with no more than 6 mature plants . All
growing must be indoors .
F8'r't Collins
22
Public Outreach
Individual meetings
Focus groups
Community Open House
Collected emails and comments
Fot23
try"
xt Steps
Draft an ordinance based on Council direction
Planning and Zoning Board - February 18
City Council regular meeting - March 2
City Council regular meeting - March 16
�F`otry Collins
24
� J r -r riJ j
• 11JJrsItJJ1l �'
13
ATTACHMENT 2
Medical Marijuana
Sales Tax Licenses and City Zoning
Mountain=Vista= DJJ
ry
m
1 1, ly — ' Vine= Dr r
I — —
I I
- -IL-JI .`.
i O Mulberry_St 14
-- Prospect:Rd
I
I
I -
- Q >
Qj O Q
a�Drake- Rd
�o E
J
O ~ ��
Horsetooth- RId
—_iI LJ L \
� Ir III
�J
Harmony
I
I J
I
281
II `I
_1
l 7f
T
TrilbY-Rd l ,
Ll
ZONE , LICENSES SUMMARY TOTAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 13
0 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT, 1 COMMERCIAL , 57
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - POUDRE RIVER DISTRICT, 1
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 11 RESIDENTIAL, 40
DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, 16
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 1 m
LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 1
LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, 8 IN E
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 26
MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, 4 IS
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 7 City Of
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - BUFFER DISTRICT, 1 F0 C0111n`S
• NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, 1 GIS
• RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, 1
• SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, 5 Printed : February 04, 2010
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty
as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map
products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from
any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and
shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity.
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO. 128, 2009 ,.
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES OR PERMITS RELATED TO
BUSINESSES THAT SEEK TO DISPENSE MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND
ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF ANY SUCH NEW
BUSINESSES IN THE CITY
WHEREAS, at the general election held in November, 2000, the voters of the State of
Colorado adopted Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution(the"Amendment")adding Article
XVIII to the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the Amendment creates an affirmative defense to, and exception from, state
criminal laws pertaining to the possession and use of marijuana when such possession or use is for
the treatment of debilitating medical conditions and when certain conditions specified in the
Amendment are met; and
WHEREAS,over recent months,55 businesses offering medical marijuana for sale or other
distribution have obtained or applied for sales tax licenses in the City, and the City is receiving
inquiries on a daily basis from persons interested in establishing additional such businesses in the
City; and
WHEREAS,under the general zoning laws of the City,these businesses, referred to herein
as medical marijuana dispensaries or"MMDs,"likely constitute retail sales operations or clinics that
are permitted uses in a wide variety of zone districts, including those that are primarily intended for
residential use; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has no land use or business regulation concerning the
operation of MMDs; and
WHEREAS, the unregulated operation of MMDs in the City presents serious health and
safety concerns to the citizens of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, ambiguities in the wording of the Amendment have created uncertainty as to
which MMDs may properly be considered "primary care-givers" under the Amendment for the
purpose of providing medical marijuana to patients suffering debilitating medical conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the
"Department"), which is responsible for the administration of the medical marijuana program
established by the Amendment, is continuing to consider changes in its administrative regulations
that govern MMDs as primary care-givers; and
WHEREAS,the same question about MMDs as primary care-givers is currently under review
by the Colorado appellate courts and may also be the subject of proposed legislation in the upcoming
session of the state legislature; and
WHEREAS, municipalities throughout Colorado are struggling to gain control over the
recent proliferation of MMDs and have enacted various kinds of local regulations in an attempt to
curtail abuses of the medical marijuana exception created by the Amendment; and
WHEREAS,a significant period of time will be required in order for the City Manager and
City Attorney and their respective staffs to clarify the evolving state of the law with regard to
MMDs,and to formulate recommended amendments to the City Code to deal with the subject;and
WHEREAS, with the influx of MMDs, the City Council is concerned about its ability to
protect the public welfare and preserve the character of the City's neighborhoods and commercial
areas where MMDs might be located; and
WHEREAS, the imposition of a moratorium for a reasonable period of time on the,.
acceptance, consideration, and approval of all applications for City licenses, permits, and
development proposals related to the operation of MMDs,and on the establishment of MMDs in the
City, will allow City staff and the City Council to investigate the City's ability to regulate such
businesses and develop and implement appropriate regulations; and
WHEREAS,three to four months is a reasonable period of time and no longer than necessary
for the City to determine the extent to which MMDs will be regulated on a statewide basis and to
properly investigate,develop,and, if appropriate,adopt and implement any local regulations related
to MMDs; and
WHEREAS, neither the proprietors of existing and proposed MMDs nor the patients they
serve or intend to serve will be unduly prejudiced by the imposition of such a moratorium,since the
number of existing MMDs in the City should be adequate to meet the medical marijuana needs of
such patients for said period of time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLfNS as follows:
Section 1. That the recitals contained in this Ordinance are hereby adopted and
incorporated as findings of fact of the City Council.
Section 2. That the proliferation of unregulated MMDs in the City warrants the
imposition of a moratorium because of the serious health and safety concerns presented by such
unregulated MMDs, including the following:
(a) operators of MMDs are subject to a greater risk of violent burglaries and
robberies than the operators of most other businesses because of the presence
of marijuana and substantial amounts of cash on the premises;
-2-
(b) it is very hard to determine which MMDs are lawful and which are not since
there are no licensing or permit requirements for such businesses, no
requirement that records be kept of the number of patients served, no
limitations on quantities or on-site consumption,and no other regulations that
could help investigating officers make such determination;
(c) the on-site production of marijuana can create unsafe conditions on the
business premises such as excessive electrical connections that create fire
hazards and mold and fungus in the areas used to grow the marijuana; and
(d) in the absence of licensing requirements such as those associated with liquor
establishments, there is no way to limit the ownership and operation of
MMDs to persons of good moral character, so as to minimize the illegal
activity that can be associated with such businesses.
Section 3. That, for the purposes of this Ordinance,the following definitions shall apply:
a. Medical mariyuana dispensary or MMD shall mean a property or structure
used to sell, distribute, transmit, give, dispense or otherwise provide
marijuana in any manner to patients or primary care-givers pursuant to the
authority contained in Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution and the
implementing state statutes and administrative regulations, except those
properties or structures that are used by an individual primary care-giver to
provide marijuana to a single patient.
b. Patient shall mean a person who has a debilitating medical condition.
Section 4. That it is necessary for thepreservation of the public safety,health,and welfare
to delay the acceptance and processing of applications for City licenses,permits, and development
proposals related to the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City
until the City has had a reasonable opportunity to determine the extent of the City's regulatory
authority over such businesses and to further determine what regulations,if any,should be imposed
by the City upon these businesses.
Section 5.
a. That a moratorium is hereby imposed, as of the effective date of this
Ordinance (the "Effective Date"), on the acceptance and processing of any
applications to the City for the approval of licenses,permits,or development
proposals related to the establishment or operation of medical marijuana
dispensaries, and on the processing of any pending.applications for such
licenses or permits.
-3-
b. That this moratorium shall continue in effect until the 31st day of March,
2010,or such earlier date as maybe determined by the City Council by ordinance.
C. That no medical marijuana dispensaries shall be established or shall operate
within the City after the Effective Date and until the expiration of this
moratorium, except those medical marijuana dispensaries that: (i) to the
extent required under Sections 25-73 or 25-74 of the City Code, have been
issued a sales tax license pursuant to an application filed with the City prior
to the Effective Date,and(ii)are in compliance with all zoning requirements
for the property on which they are located.
Section 6. That no license,permit,or development proposal related to the establishment
or operation of a medical marijuana dispensary that was approved by the City prior to the Effective
Date of this ordinance may be amended during the term of this moratorium.
Section 7. That all persons applying to the City for the issuance or amendment of a sales
and use tax license during the term of this moratorium shall indicate, on a form approved by the
City, whether any part of the business that is the subject of the application involves the provision
of medical marijuana to patients with debilitating medical conditions or their primary care-givers.
Section 8. That the failure of any person to provide the information required under
Section 7 of this ordinance, or the provision of any false information to the City related to a sales
tax application,or the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana dispensary contrary to the
provisions of Section 5of this Ordinance during the term of this moratorium shall constitute a
misdemeanor criminal offense punishable as provided in Section 1-15 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins.
Section 9. That,during the term of this moratorium,the City Manager and City Attorney
are hereby directed to analyze the following issues and develop for City Council consideration
regulations as they may deem necessary and appropriate to address said issues:
a. the extent to which MMDs are legally protected under the Amendment;
b. the impact of MMDs on the character of residential neighborhoods and
commercial areas where they may be located; and
C. any increase that will likely occur in vehicular traffic or in nuisance or
criminal activities in areas where MMDs are located.
Section 10. That on or.before March 2, 2010, the City Manager and City Attorney are
further hereby directed to present for the City Council's formal consideration such laws and
regulations relating to medical marijuana dispensaries in the City as the City Manager considers
-4-
necessary and appropriate for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of
the City.
Section 11. That nothing herein shall be construed as decriminalizing or making lawful
in the City any MMD or other business involved in the acquisition, possession; manufacture,
production,use,sale,distribution,dispensing,or transportation of marijuana or related paraphernalia
that is not lawful under state criminal laws.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
November,A.D.2009,and to be presented for final passage on 1 s day of December,A.D.2009.
Mayo
ATTEST:
••
)., V
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1 st4oece, ber,A.D. 2009.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-5-
DATE: November 17, 2009 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
STAFF: Darin Atteberry _
T COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Steve Roy
� .�
Emergency Ordinance No. 128, 20091 Imposing a Moratonumr on Acceptance of Applications for the Issuance of
Licenses or Permits Related to Businesses That``Seek t'o/Dispense Medical Marijuana and on the Establishment of
Such Businesses in the City. \1\il � JLL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has recently seen a proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries ("MMDs") within its boundaries, some
of which are operated as "home occupations" in zone districts that are primarily residential in character. As of
November 9, 2009, twenty-six such businesses had been issued sales tax licenses by the City, twelve of which have
been issued in the last month, and City staff continues to receive inquiries from persons interested in establishing
additional such businesses at the rate of approximately ten per week.
Fort Collins Police Services has serious concerns about the secondary effects of MMDs. Staff has held a number of
meetings to discuss this issue and, on November 5, 2009, the City Manager, City Attorney, Chief of Police, Planning
Director and members of their respective staffs met with their counterparts from Larimer County and the City of
Loveland to discuss a coordinated approach to dealing with MMDs. Because court rulings and regulations at the state
level are rapidly changing with regard to MMDs and because there is a strong possibility that the state legislature will
address this subject during its upcoming.legislative.sess\o^n,City:staff-recommends that the City Council impose a ten-
month moratorium on MMDs,by meansiofthis emergency ordinance,until ftie laws and regulations that govern MMDs
are clarified and until the City has had(an opportu pity to determine how best to deal with them at the local level in the
event that statewide regulations proveNto be iinadegquat/
This moratorium would maintain the status quo in that those MMDs that have been established would be allowed to
continue to operate unless, under current law, they are illegal.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The origin of MMDs in Colorado.
The reason that MMDs have come into existence is that, in November of 2000, the voters of the state of Colorado
approved a constitutional amendment(the Amendment)that created an exception and an affirmative defense to the
state's criminal laws so that patients and their "primary care-givers" who are in lawful possession of a registry
identification card can possess and use a certain amount of marijuana for medical purposes. The presumptive amount
which is, by definition, "lawful" under the Amendment, is two ounces or six plants per patient. However, as an
affirmative defense to any prosecution, a person charged understate law may assert and prove that greater amounts
were"medically necessary." I
The Amendment states that no person/sha' II be entitle�e pr' otection ofthe Amendment for acquisition,possession,
manufacture, production, use, sale distri�but�ion, dispensing o trr anspo�n of marijuana for any use other than
medical use.
The Department of Public Health and Environment (the "Department") is required and authorized under the
Amendment to maintain a confidential registry of patients who have applied for and are entitled to receive a registry
identification card. Local law enforcement officers can access the registry only if they have"stopped or arrested a
person who claims to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana and is in possession of a registry identification card
or its functional equivalent"and only for the purpose of verifying that the individual is lawfully in possession of the card.
The Amendment sets forth in detail the criteria and procedures for obtaining such a card. Patients may, but are not
required to, designate a primary care-giver.
November 17, 2009 -2- ITEM 21
The Amendment defines a primary care-giver as a person other than the patient and the patient's physician who is
eighteen years of age or older and who has a"significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who
has a debilitating medical condition." However, the Amendment does not define the term "significant responsibility
for managing the well-being of a patient."
A combination of factors have led tof ainsurgence of M�D)�i Cn olora municipalities.
In the absence of a constitutional definition of this term, the rules made by the Department have largely determined
the extent to which the Amendment has provided a�saf6 hamor"for MMDs. Initially,there was limited growth on the
medical marijuana registry and in 2004, the Department created an administrative guideline that a primary care-giver
could provide for only five registered patients. In 2007, however, a Denver District Judge overturned this limitation
because of process concerns with the way the guideline had been adopted, including the fact that no public hearings
were conducted by the Department.After this ruling, more MMDs began to open in communities throughout the state.
In July of this year, the Department, through formal action of its Board following a public hearing, adopted a rule
defining the term "significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical
condition" that further opened the door to MMDs. It defined the term to mean "assisting a patient with daily
activities,including but not limited to transportation or housekeeping or meal preparation or shopping or making any
necessary arrangement for access to medical care or services or provision of medical marijuana." (Emphasis
added.)
This rule adopted by the Board suggested that MMDs that have little, if any,actual responsibility for managing the well-
being of patients could claim entitlement to the protection of the Amendment as primary care-givers. At its July
hearing, the Board not only revised the definition to include the provision of marijuana as a way of assisting a patient
with daily activities, but it also declined to limit primary care-givers to a certain number of patients.
�� 7��
In addition,shortly after the Board hearing,the Obama administration announced that,even though the manufacture,
1 I I pF'� N l /./ �,h
distribution, possession and use of ma`ijuana islp�ohibited bylfederal laW, federal law enforcement agencies should
not seek to prosecute marijuana cases��hich the defendant is in compliance with states' medical marijuana
programs. This reduced the risk that a MMD would be raided t5y the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Finally, the state legislature has not tried to clarify or limit the extent to which MMDs fall within the protection of the
Amendment, which has led to an even larger influx of MMDs in Colorado.
In combination,these factors have created a huge growth in number of patients on the medical marijuana registry and
a blossoming industry for producing and distributing the drug.
In Fort Collins,the first sales tax license for a MMD was issued by the City on February 5, 2008,with a second issued
on July 28, 2008. There have been 24 more issued to date in 2009 (12 in the last month). It also appears that more
physicians have begun recommending marijuana to their patients and the number of written recommendations of
medical marijuana issued by those physicians has increased dramatically.As of August 17, 2009, 732 of the 17,142
physicians licensed in Colorado(4.3%)had made recommendations for medical marijuana. Two of those physicians
have written 38% of the recommendations, and the top 15 have made 76% of the recommendations.
Recent rulings are more limiting.
-7-7 771
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled �n'late October that the actpf supplying marijuana for medical use, by itself, is
insufficient to constitute significant management responsib�ilityvfor a,patient's well-being, and consequently is
insufficient to constitutionally qualify a person doing\o asla Dnm' ary care-giver." People v. Stacy Clendenin,Colorado
Court of Appeals, announced October 29,_2009`However;-the court-did-not address the question of whether the
Board's regulatory definition of the term"significant responsibility for manage the well-being of a patient"would have
changed its ruling because that definition was not in effect at the time of the defendant's trial and conviction in the case
before the court. On the heels of the Court of Appeals decision, the Board repealed its definition of "significant
responsibility for managing the well being of a patient" so as to be consistent with the court ruling. That decision of
the Board, like the 2004 administrative guideline, was subsequently overturned by the Denver District Court.
Therefore, at the present time, because of the conflict between the Court of Appeals decision and the Department
regulations, it is unclear whether MMDs must provide daily assistance to patients beyond just providing marijuana to
them. Hopefully,the courts,the Board or the state legislature will soon clarify what MMDs need to do in order to qualify
November 17, 2009 -3- ITEM 21
as "primary care-givers". In the meantime, City staff continues to have serious concerns about the unregulated
proliferation of MMDs in the City.
The health and safety problems presented by M�MDss. ���
Police Services has identified a number o" f specific health and' 'safety proble"ins associated with MMDs. They include
the following: %�/ � 111,
1. Thousands of people who do not meet the intended definition of"debilitating medical condition"are receiving
certificates for medical marijuana.The number is growing too fast to obtain current statistics, but the number
may be approaching 20,000 registered patients. About 10% of the certificate holders reside in Larimer
County.
2. There are no regulations regarding MMDs. The term"dispensary"is not defined at the state level. There are
no rules limiting the location, hours of operation, use on site, or criminal background of people who operate
MMDs. At least six of the MMDs in Fort Collins are in residential areas. In Loveland, there is a MMD
immediately next to a high school. Several of the Fort Collins MMD operators have arrest records for drugs
and other serious crimes, criminal histories, including felony convictions for marijuana cultivation and
distribution.
3. Due to the unregulated nature of MMDs and marijuana growing operations, and the quantity of money and
drugs involved, there is serious crime associated with them. There have been several violent robberies and
burglaries of MMDs and growers in Fort Collins. Many associated crimes go unreported because of the
potentially illegal actions of the victims.
ho �.
4. A large amount of marijuana is'being grown in resitlehtial houses 1A being imported from other areas to meet
this demand. There is no provision in th6e Amendment'for third party producers; however,this is the manner
in which many MMDs obtain their s pply�to meet the recent demand. There has been damage to rental
properties and disruption to neighborhoods ro hoodss c"sed�by these marijuana growing operations. There are also
hazards associated with electrical wiring coupled with high electrical demand of indoor growing operations,
air quality issues and mold and fungus that develops in these indoor grows. There are also no controls to
ensure thatthe marijuana grown and distributed underthe protective umbrella oftheAmendment is consumed
by registered users. There have been local cases where medical marijuana has been distributed on the illegal
market and even to high school students.
5. There is no requirement that a business disclose that it is providing medical marijuana on its sales tax
application. While there are 23 businesses that have specifically listed it, Police Services believes that there
are other businesses that are dispensing marijuana under licenses listing products like horticulture supply,
paraphernalia and herbal medicine. Some MMDs may not have sales tax licenses at all. There is no way to
determine how many MMDs are actually operating in the City.
6. Investigating unregulated MMD's for possible criminal violations is extremely difficult. For example, there is
no requirement,as exists at liquor licensed establishments,that MMD operators allow police into their facility
to ensure that applicable laws are being followed. Some MMDs advertise popular music, game rooms and
smoking rooms where young u er_tea n"medicate"together. These look more like bars than medical facilities
with none of the regulatory fra ework;. � l
7. The laws and regulations conl/cerning MMDs at the stlate and fede dal levels are unsettled at best,with several
changes in the past few monttis~T:his/makes:itivery•difficult for Police Services to differentiate between legal
and illegal marijuana activity. There are also liability risks if perceived errors are made in this uncertain
environment. It is very difficult to create an enforcement strategy until these issues are resolved. In addition,
Police Services does not have adequate staffing to devote to these investigations. This contributes to the
completely unregulated nature of the marijuana business in the Fort Collins area. Depending on actions taken
at the state level,further regulation maybe necessary at the local level to regulate this industry in accordance
with local values.
Possible Regulatory Approaches.
November 17, 2009 -4- ITEM 21
Colorado municipalities have taken a variety of approaches to addressing MMDs. Many have enacted ordinances
establishing a moratorium on MMDs pending further study. Long-term approaches range from adopting no local
regulations to imposing a total ban. Regulations include locational requirements (e.g., minimum distances from
schools or particular zone districts)aswell as regulations limiting on-site quantities,signage,hours ofoperation,on-site
consumption etc. Some municipalities issue permits to MMDs and make the permits subject to suspension or
revocation much like a liquor license./Each of these approache reflectsN particular policy position with regard to
MMDs and each is designed to address certein perceived 1p�Aems\`such as their proximity to facilities that are
occupied or frequented by school ages children`�or the possibility that MMDs will serve as "fronts" for illegal drug
trafficking, etc. ` /
Before City staff can make an informed recommendation to the City Council as to how to deal with MMDs,much needs
to be determined. First and foremost, the law needs to be clarified as to just what the Amendment allows and does
not allow. This clarification can come from either the Board or the state legislature or both. In addition,City staff needs
to investigate the most reasonable approach to dealing with MMDs at the local level. Finally, the City needs to
coordinate its efforts with Larimer County,Loveland and other neighboring municipalities so that the approach it adopts
takes into consideration the impact of the City's regulations on neighboring communities.
The recommended ten-month period of time should be sufficient to allow for the formulation of recommended
amendments to the City Code to deal with MMDs in the City. In the interim, staff believes that an adequate number
of MMDs already exist in the City to meet the intent of the Amendment at the local level.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
• Potential sales tax and licensing revenues associated with MMD's during the Moratorium.
• Staff time and resources assoc((iaated°with,re es arrch and potential code'changes to address the use.
\, \\ // l.�_ 1L
SUSTAINABILITY: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Part of the purpose of this proposed moratorium is to understand the economic, environmental and social impacts
associated with MMDs. It is unclear as to the impacts MMD's as allowed by State Law would have on our community.
The economic impacts associated with regulating and enforcement is unknown as well as the impacts of not regulating
or enforcing them as a complete and unfettered allowance of the use may have economic impacts associated with
safety issues as the use and potential negative impacts enter into residential neighborhoods. The environmental
impacts are also unclear as there are potential issues associated with the varying scales of the MMD's. Finally, the
social impacts are also unclear as the absence of any regulatory criteria may cause the residential character of
neighborhoods to decline and sensitive uses such as schools, places of worship, daycare facilities, etc could also be
impacted. The proposed moratorium will allow the City to review potential impacts and provide the City Council with
information to make an informed decision regarding the appropriate regulatory methods to address MMD's
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ��j--� ��
For the foregoing reasons, City staff recommends t�� hat the City immediately adopt aten-month moratorium
on the issuance of sales tax licenses�fo\MMDsland on the establishment of such businesses in any zone district in
the City. On or before the terminatiorndate,of the,moratorium, staff willlprovide recommendations and proposed
legislation to the Council for dealing with MMDs.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Amendment 20
DATE: December 1, 2009
STAFF: Darin Atteberry _
Steve Roy
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129.2009 flmposing prato ium o the Acceptance and Processing of
Applications for the Issuance of Licenses or Permits Related to Businesses hat Seek to Dispense Medical Marijuana
and on the Establishment or Operation of a Any Such New�inesseshe City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance,which was presented for Council's consideration on November 17,2009,as an emergency measure,
was instead approved by Council on First Reading. Council also amended the Ordinance so that, if approved on
Second Reading, it will impose a moratorium on new medical marijuana dispensaries for approximately three months
rather than ten months. At the end of the Council discussion, staff was invited to inform the Council as to whether,
in staffs opinion, a moratorium is still advisable and, if so, what the length of the moratorium should be.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff does believe that a moratorium is still advisable. On Second Reading, staff is recommending the following
changes to the Ordinance:
1 ? 7mora�orium
1. Instead of imposing a ten-mnth moratorium;th will,be in place from the effective date
of the ordinance, December 11, 2009, throug 312010. While this is more than three
months,staff believes tha4elxtendinglt6 moratorium beyondithe second Council meeting in March
will allow for better process ing=ofAthe proposed regulations that-staff will be bringing forward. That
process will include development of the regulations,review of any Land Use Code changes with the
Planning and Zoning Board, review of the draft regulations with the Council in a work session, and
public outreach.
2. The Ordinance no longer provides for a case-by-case review of applications for sales tax license
application for MMDs that are pending on December 11. When the Ordinance was presented as
an emergency measure, that review was intended to allow applicants additional time to have their
applications processed after adoption of the Ordinance if they had made substantial,nonrevocable,
good faith investments in real or personal property based upon the expectation that they would be
able to obtain a sales tax license for an MMD. Since Council decided not to adopt a moratorium on
MMDs on an emergency basis, staff believes that those members of the public who are interested
in establishing a new MMD will have had ample opportunity to apply for and obtain a sales tax
license by the time this Ordinance takes effect. Therefore, under the Ordinance as presented on
Second Reading,only those MMDs that have actually had a sales tax licenses issued by December
11, 2009, that date and that conform to all existing zoning requirements will be allowed to operate
during the moratorium.
3. The declaration of emerge nc�been r�� emo ed. ,The risks hat businesses present to the City,
�. u
which are listed in Section 2 of the lordinanceiare now recited in support the imposition of a
moratorium rather than in<sgppoft of�a ddeclar tion of e�gency. Those risks, which were
previously listed in one of the`'whereas clauses of the Ordinance as well as in Section 2, have been
consolidated and now appear just in Section 2.
4. A new section has been added directing the City Manager and City Attorney to present proposed
regulations to Council for its formal consideration no later than the March 2, 2010 Council meeting.
5. Minor wording changes have been made and some sections have been renumbered or relocated.
December 1, 2009 -2- ITEM 24
Preliminary ScheduleMorkplan:
The following is a preliminary outline of action items and schedule for completing the review of potential regulations
and enacting regulations by the time the moratorium expires on March 31, 2010.
December 2009 research; dr aft regulation cppcepts
r d + c3y Yr�
January 2010 outreach (focus groups or a communi&i eting;
modify+regulation concepts b sa ed on feedback and draft ordinance
February 9, 2010 Council;Work Sessions
February 18, 2010 Planning and Zoning Review
March 2, 2010 First Reading of Regulating Ordinance
March 16, 2010 Second Reading of Regulating Ordinance
March 26, 2010 Ordinance and Regulations take effect
All other provisions of the Ordinance remain the same as on First Reading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary- November 17, 2009.
(w/o original attachments) �;
0
Statute 0-4-287 Page 1 of 5
a ATTACHMENT 4
Colorado ,,,eicome to...
'.. Live Help Advanced Search
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
0-4-287 - ARTICLE XVIII - Miscellaneous Art. XVIII - Miscellaneous
0-4-287-ARTICLE XVIII-Miscellaneous Art.XVIII -Miscellaneous
Section 14. Medical use of marijuana for persons suffering from debilitating medical conditions. (1)As used in
this section,these terms are defined as follows:
(a)"Debilitating medical condition"means:
(1)Cancer,glaucoma,positive status for human immunodeficiency virus,or acquired immune deficiency
syndrome,or treatment for such conditions;
(II)A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition,or treatment for such conditions,which produces,for
a specific patient,one or more of the following, and for which,iri the professional opinion of the patient's
physician,such condition or conditions reasonably may be alleviated by the medical use of marijuana:
cachexia;severe pain; severe nausea;seizures,including those that are characteristic of epilepsy;or
persistent muscle spasms,including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis;or
(III)Any other medical condition,or treatment for such condition,approved by the state health agency,
pursuant to its rule making authority or its approval of any petition submitted by a patient or physician as
provided in this section.
(b)"Medical use`means the acquisition,possession,production, use.or transportation of marijuana or
paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana to address the symptoms or effects of a patient's
debilitating medical condition,which may be authorized only after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating
medical condition by a physician or physicians,as provided by this section.
(c)"Parent"means a custodial mother or father of a patient under the age of eighteen years,any person
having custody of a patient under the age of eighteen years,or any person serving as a legal guardian for a
patient under the age of eighteen years.
(d)"Patient"means a person who has a debilitating medical condition.
(e)"Physician"means a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good standing,a license to practice medicine
issued by the state of Colorado.
(0"Primary care-giver"means a person,other than the patient and the patient's physician,who is eighteen
years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a
debilitating medical condition.
(g)"Registry identification card"means that document,issued by the state health agency,which identifies a
patient authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and Such patient's primary care-giver, if any has
been designated.
(h)"State health agency"means that public health related entity of state government designated by the
governor to establish and maintain a confidential registry of patients authorized to engage in the medical use
of marijuana and enact rules to administer this program.
(i)"Usable form of marijuana"means the seeds, leaves,buds,and flowers of the plant (genus)cannabis,and
any mixture or preparation thereof,which are appropriate for medical use as provided in this section,but.
hit„.rn,,,,.,., "Ink. ctoto p„ on nno
Statute 0-4-287 Pace 2 of 5
excludes the plant's stalks,stems,and roots.
6)"Written documentation'means a statement signed by a patient's physician or copies of the patient's
pertinent medical records.
(2)(a)Except as otherwise provided in subsections(5), (6), and(8)of this section,a patient or primary care-
giver charged with a violation of the state's criminal laws related to the patient's medical use of marijuana will
be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such allegation where:
(1)The patient was previously diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition;
(11)The patient was advised by his or her physician,in the context of a bona fide physician-patient
relationship, that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a debilitating
medical condition;and
(111)The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only
as permitted under this section.
This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other defense where a patient or primary care-
giver is charged with a violation of state law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana.
(b)Effective June 1,2001,it shall be an exception from the slate's criminal laws for any patient or primary
care-giver in lawful possession of a registry identification card to engage or assist in the medical use of
marijuana,except as otherwise provided in subsections(5)and(8)of this section.
(c)It shall be an exception from the state's criminal laws for any physician to:
(1)Advise a patient whom the physician has diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition,about the
risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana or that he or she might benefit from the medical use of
marijuana,provided that such advice is based upon the physician's contemporaneous assessment of the
patient's medical history and current medical condition and,a bona fide physician-patient relationship;or
(11)Provide a patient with written documentation,based upon the physician's contemporaneous assessment
of the patient's medical history and current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship,
stating that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and might benefit from the medical use of
marijuana.
No physician shall be denied any rights or privileges for the acts authorized by this subsection.
(d)Notwithstanding-the foregoing provisions,no person,including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be
entitled to the protection of this section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture,production, use,
sale,distribution,dispensing,or transportation of marijuana for any use other than medical use.
(e)Any property interest that is possessed,owned,or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana or
acts incidental to such use,shall not be harmed,neglected,injured,or destroyed while in the possession of
state or local law enforcement officials where such property has been seized in connection with the claimed
medical use of marijuana.Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any provision of state law
providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense
or entry of a plea of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by state or local law
enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection with the claimed medical use of
marijuana shall be returned immediately upon the determination of the district attorney or his or her designee
that the patient or primary care-giver is entitled to the protection contained in this section as may be
evidenced,for example,by a decision not to prosecute,the dismissal of charges,or acquittal.
(3)The state health agency shall create and maintain a confidential registry of patients who have applied for
and are entitled to receive a registry identification card according to the criteria set forth in this subsection,
effective June 1,2001.
(a)No person shall be permitted to gain access to any information about patients in the state health agency's
confidential registry,or any information otherwise maintained by.the slate health agency about physicians and
littD:HwNkrU-.cdghe.state.co.us/hs/MediCallnarjjuaiia/mjaineiidment.littnl 9/1/2009
Statute 0-4-287 Page 3 of 5
primary care-givers, except for authorized employees of the state health agency in the course of their official
duties and authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies which have slopped or arrested
a person who claims to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana and in possession of a registry
identification card or its functional equivalent,pursuant to paragraph(e)of this subsection(3).Authorized
employees of stale or local law enforcement agencies shall be granted access to the information contained
within the state health agency's confidential registry only for the purpose of verifying that an individual who
has presented a registry identification card to a stale or local law enforcement official is lawfully in possession
of such card.
(b)In order to be placed on the slate's confidential registry for the medical use of marijuana. a patient must
reside in Colorado and submit the completed application form adopted by the state health agency,including
the following information, to the state health agency:
(I)The original or a copy of written documentation stating that the patient has been diagnosed with a
debilitating medical condition and the physician's conclusion that the patient might benefit from the medical
use of marijuana;
(11)The name,address,date of birth,and social security number of the patient;
(III)The name, address,and telephone number of the patient's physician;and
(IV)The name and.address of the patient's primary care-giver,if one is designated at the time of application.
J
(c)Within thirty days of receiving the information referred to in subparagraphs(3)(b)(I)-(IV), the state health
agency shall verify medical information contained in the patient's written documentation.The agency shall
notify the applicant that his or her application for a registry identification card has been denied if the agency's
,review of such documentation discloses that:the information required pursuant to paragraph (3) (b)of this
section has not been provided or has been falsified;the documentation fails to state that the patient has a
debilitating medical condition specified in this section or by state health agency rule;or the physician does not
have a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado.Otherwise, not more than five days after
verifying such information,the state health agency shall issue one serially numbered registry identification
card to the patient, stating:
(1)The patient's name, address,date of birth,and social security number;
(11)That the patient's name has been certified to the state health agency as a person who has a debilitating
medical condition,whereby the patient may address such condition with the medical use of marijuana;
(111)The date of issuance of the registry identification card and the date of expiration of such card,which shall
be one year from the date of issuance; and
(IV)The name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if any is designated at the time of application.
(d)Except for patients applying pursuant to subsection(6)of this section,where the state health agency,
within thirty-five days of receipt of an application,fails to issue a registry identification card or fails to issue
verbal or written notice of denial of such application, the patient's application for such card will be deemed to
have been approved. Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred upon delivery to the state health agency,or
deposit in the United States mails. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no application shall be deemed received
prior to June 1, 1999.A patient who is questioned by any state or local law enforcement official about his or
her medical use of marijuana shall provide a copy of the application submitted to the state health agency,
including the written documentation and proof of the date of mailing or other transmission of the written
documentation for delivery to the state health agency,which shall be accorded the same legal effect as a
registry identification card,until such time as the patient receives notice that the application has been denied.
(e)A patient whose application has been denied by the state health agency may not reapply during the six
months following the dale of the denial and may not use an application for a registry identification card as
provided in paragraph(3)(d)of this section.The denial of a registry identification card shall be considered a
final agency action.Only the patient whose application has been denied shall have standing to contest the
agency action.
(f)When there has been a change in the name, address,physician,or primary care-giver of a patient who
htil)://xk.\k,\N:.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/Medicalnlai-ijuana/ntiameiidnlent.litnil 9.1,11,2009
Statute 0-4-287 Page 4 of 5
has qualified for a registry identification card,that patient must notify the state health agency of any such
change within ten days.A patient who has not designated a primary care-giver at the time of application to the
state health agency may do so in writing at any time during the effective period of the registry identification
card,and the primary care-giver may act in this capacity after such designation.To maintain an effective
registry identification card,a patient must annually resubmit,at least thirty days prior to the expiration date
stated on the registry identification card,updated written documentation to the state health agency,as well as
the name and address of the patient's primary care-giver,if any is designated at such time.
(g)'Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall immediately notify the state health
agency when any person in possession of a registry identification card has been determined by a court of law
to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or its implementing legislation,or has pled guilty to such
offense.
(h)A patient who no longer has a debilitating medical condition shall return his or her.registry identification
card to the state health agency within twenty-four hours of receiving such diagnosis by his or her physician.
(i)The state health agency may determine and levy reasonable fees to,pay for any direct or indirect
administrative costs associated with its role in this program.
(4)(a)A patient may engage in the medical use of marijuana,with no more marijuana than is medically
necessary to address a debilitating medical,condition.A patient's medical use of marijuana,within the
following limits,is lawful:
(1)No more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana;.and
(11) No more than six marijuana plants,with three or fewer being mature,flowering plants that are producing a
usable form of marijuana.
(b) For quantities of marijuana in excess of these amounts,a patient or his or her primary care-giver may
raise as an affirmative defense to charges of violation of state law that such greater amounts were medically
necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical condition.
(5)(a)No patient shall:
(1)Engage in the medical use of marijuana in a way that endangers the health or well-being of any person;or
(II)Engage in the medical use of marijuana in plain view of,or in a place open to,the general public.
(b) In addition to any other penalties provided by law,the state health agency shall revoke for a period of one
year the registry identification card of any patient found to have willfully violated the provisions of this section
or the implementing legislation adopted by the general assembly.
(6)Notwithstanding paragraphs(2)(a)and (3) (d)of.this section,no patient under eighteen years of age shall
engage in the medical use of marijuana unless:
(a)Two physicians have diagnosed the patient as having a debilitating medical condition;
(b)One of the physicians referred to in paragraph (6)(a)has explained the possible risks and benefits of
medical use of marijuana to the patient and each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado;
(c)The physicians referred to in paragraph (6) (b)has provided the patient with the written documentation,
specified in subparagraph (3)(b)(1);
(d)Each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado consent in writing to the state health agency to permit
the patient to engage in the medical use of marijuana;
(e)A parent residing in Colorado consents in writing to serve as a patient's primary care-giver;
(f)A parent serving as a primary care-giver completes and submits an application for a registry identification
littp:/hN,wv-.cdplie.state.Co.us/hs/Medicalmarijuana/liijament(ment.11 till] 9/1/2009
Statute 0-4-287 Page 5 of 5
card as provided in subparagraph(3)(b)of this section and the written consents referred to in paragraph (6)
(d)to the state health agency;
(g)The state health agency approves the patient's application and transmits the patient's registry identification
card to the parent designated as a primary care-giver:
(h)The patient and primary care-giver collectively possess amounts of marijuana no greater than those
specified in subparagraph(4)(a)(1)and (II);and
(i)The primary care-giver controls the acquisition of such marijuana and the dosage and frequency of its use
by the patient.
(7)Not later than March 1,2001,the governor shall designate, by executive order,the slate health agency as
defined in paragraph (1)(g)of this section.
(8)Not later than-April 30,2001.the General Assembly shall define such terms and enact such legislation as
may be necessary for implementation of this section, as well as determine and enact criminal penalties for:
(a)Fraudulent representation of a medical condition by a patient to a physician,state health agency,or state
or local law enforcement official for the purpose of falsely obtaining a registry identification card or avoiding
arrest and.prosecution;
(b)Fraudulent use or theft of any person's registry identification card to acquire, possess, produce,use,sell,
distribute,or transport marijuana,including but not limited to cards that are required to be returned where
patients are no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition;
(c)Fraudulent production or counterfeiting of,or tampering with,one or more registry identification cards;or
(d)Breach of confidentiality of information provided to or by the state health agency.
(9)Not later than June.1,2001,the state health agency shall develop and make available to residents of
Colorado an application form for persons seeking to be listed on the confidential registry of patients. By such
date,the state health agency shall also enact rules of administration,including but not limited to rules
governing the establishment and confidentiality of the registry,the verification of medical information,the
issuance and form of registry identification cards,communications with law enforcement officials about
registry identification cards that have been suspended where a patient is no longer diagnosed as having a
debilitating medical condition,and the manner in which the agency may consider adding debilitating medical
conditions to the list provided in this section. Beginning June 1,2001,the state health agency shall accept
physician or patient initiated petitions to add debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in this section
and,after such hearing as the state health agency deems appropriate,shall approve or deny such petitions
within one hundred eighty days of submission.The decision to approve or deny a petition shall be considered
a final agency action.
(10)(a)No governmental, private,or any other health insurance provider shall be required to be liable for any
claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana.
(b) Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any
work place.
(11)Unless otherwise provided by this section,all provisions of this section shall become effective upon
official declaration of the vole hereon by proclamation of the governor,pursuant to article V, section(1)(4),
and shall apply to acts or offenses committed on or after that date.
Enacted by the People November 7,2000--Effective upon proclamation of the Governor.
litto://wwxe.cdilhe.state.co.us/hs/Meciicalt»ariii.iana/miamenrlmenl.litml