July 18, 2019

Archives for June 16, 2010

June 23: Ritter Enacts Medical Marijuana Reform That Is Topic of Upcoming CLE Program

Last week, Gov. Ritter signed into law two milestone legislative bills that will provide regulatory oversight of Colorado’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry.

SB 10-109 (sponsored by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Senate Minority Whip Nancy Spence, R-Centennial; and Reps. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Beth McCann, D-Denver) regulates physicians authorized to prescribe medical marijuana. To wit, the bill requires that prescribing physicians have a “bona fide” relationship with patients for whom they have prescribed medical marijuana, which includes conducting a full medical history and discussing the condition for which medical marijuana is being prescribed and possible alternative treatments. The law also prohibits doctors from receiving compensation from medical marijuana dispensaries.

Of the two bills the governor signed, HB 10-1284 (sponsored by Reps. Massey and Ken Summers, R-Lakewood; and Sens. Romer and Spence) was by far the more controversial. It creates a regulatory framework for the distribution of pharmaceutical cannabis in Colorado. Among is provisions are:

  • Dispensaries operating in Colorado must be licensed at both the state and local level.
  • Municipalities and voters can ban dispensaries and large-scale growers from operating in their communities.
  • Convicted felons are prohibited from operating a dispensary.
  • Dispensary operators must have been Colorado residents for at least two years before opening a dispensary.
  • Dispensaries must grow at least 70 percent of the medical marijuana they sell.

Learn more about the impact of HB 10-1284 on Thursday, June 23, when CBA CLE hosts Rep. Massey, HB 10-1284’s main sponsor, and Warren Edson, architect of the constitutional amendment codifying the legalization of medical marijuana in Colorado, in a joint presentation, Medical Marijuana Reform: The Definitive Update on HB 10-1284.

Rep. Massey will present a comprehensive overview of the new medical marijuana law, and explain what it intends to accomplish; its role in protecting the public; and its intended impact on clients, patients, caregivers, law enforcement, and the public.

Edson will address how the newly enacted law is anticipated to affect the regulation of the medical marijuana industry and what these changes mean to clients, patients, caregivers, and law enforcement. He will also discuss how the new law impacts medical marijuana dispensaries as we know them today, and will point out the areas overlooked by the new legislation and how they will survive the new law.

The program will close with a 30-minute Q&A session moderated by Denver attorney Ann Toney.

The presentation will also be available as a a live webcast, an mp3 download, and video on demand for those unable to attend in person, and has been submitted for four general CLE credits.

If you’d like to familiarize yourself with the issues, CBA CLE is your statewide source in providing the most timely updates in Colorado cannabis law:

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 6/15/10

The Tenth Circuit on Tuesday issued three published opinions and seven unpublished opinions.


In Hydro Resources, Inc. v. EPA, the Court vacated Respondent EPA’s final land status determination. The Supreme Court, in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), provided two requirements for defining Indian lands; the land in question must be explicitly set aside by Congress for use as an Indian community, and the land must be dependent and under federal superintendence. The EPA’s land status determination was improperly based on a pre-Venetie rule allowing for land to be qualified as Indian country if a sufficiently significant percentage of the land in question neighbored Indian land.

In United States v. Sanchez, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress the admission of marijuana found by probation officers during a home visit. Petitioner’s fifteen-year-old daughter had actual authority to consent to the home visit and the officers properly relied on her consent; the daughter’s consent was freely and intelligently given and officers used no coercion; the daughter’s age is not a bar to consent, as age is but one consideration in the totality of the circumstances for voluntary consent. Additionally, Petitioner cannot show that the discovery of the marijuana would not have come to light but for the government’s unconstitutional conduct; officers would have visited the home’s garage on their search based on the tip that Petitioner was living beyond his means, not solely based on the other evidence they found inside the home.

In United States v. Terrell, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion for a reduction of sentence. Petitioner claimed that his sentence was improperly enhanced as a result of double-counting. Double-counting occurs when the same conduct by the defendant is used to support separate increases under separate sentence enhancement provisions “which necessarily overlap, are indistinct, and serve identical purposes.” The Court determined that the number of weapons involved in the underlying offense to a conviction for possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime is a separate type of offense conduct than that punished by the conviction and sentence and is, therefore, not double-counting.


Abbott v. BNSF Railway Company

Wiggins v. Cullugh

DuHall v. Lennar Family of Builders

Henderson v. Astrue

Johnson v. State of Oklahoma

Smith v. City of Tulsa

Trujillo v. Bravo