Rob Corry rips apart another Senator Chris Romer bill — this one about relationship between doctors and medical marijuana patients
By Michael Roberts in Follow That Story, Marijuana, PoliticsMon., Jan. 25 2010 @ 12:10PM

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/01/rob_corry_rips_apart_another_s.php

Rob Corry has his red pencil out again.

​Earlier this month, we told you about medical marijuana attorney Rob Corry’s shredding of Senator Chris Romer’s draft bill to regulate the medical marijuana industry — an action that predated Romer’s decision to withdraw the legislation.

Since then, Representative Tom Massey has taken on the chore of assembling a bill to regulate the industry — one likely to impose law-enforcement-supported doctor-patient limits that might destroy the dispensary business. As for Romer, he’s putting forward a bill focusing on the doctor-patient relationship — one Corry sees as problematic enough to warrant another line-by-line dissection, offered in a letter sent to all Colorado legislators earlier today.

Corry’s analysis of the latest bill, on view here, albeit with the occasional editorial cross-out, isn’t as vituperative as the first. Indeed, there are numerous passages to which he doesn’t object. Nevertheless, he sees the document as a whole as “a major shift in government interaction and oversight of the doctor-patient relationship, and there are probably parts of it that are unconstitutional.”

Exhibit A: Romer’s call for “a government-appointed board of overseers to second-guess a doctor’s recommendation,” Corry notes. “That has major constitutional implications.”

To illustrate this point, Corry applied the Romer bill’s provisions to abortion: Read that document here. And in his letter, he raises the specter of lawsuits should the legislation be passed as is. He writes:

My clients’ lives literally depend on their access to medicine, and SB 10-109 thus causes concern, and we hope you or the sponsors will consider modifying it or withdrawing it. If not, and it becomes law, it will cause unnecessary human suffering and may expose the State of Colorado to costly litigation.

There are certainly no shortage of medical marijuana issues that strike Corry as litigable. Note the question of whether employers can prevent licensed medical marijuana patients from using the substance under the provision of company drug policies — the subject of this Denver Post article.

“I’ve represented people on this issue,” Corry says — and while he hasn’t yet filed a lawsuit to address it, that’s because “we’ve usually been able to work things out with the employer.” Still, he continues, “I do think people might have an ADA-type claim based on disabilities from a debilitating medical condition.

“The constitution says employers don’t have to make accommodations for workplace use, which makes some sense,” he acknowledges. “But as far as what an employee does on his or her own time, that’s not the business of the employer” — not should someone’s boss be able to decide what prescriptions should be used to treat an individual’s ailments.

In the meantime, Corry says he hopes to work with legislators “to get the bad parts of Senator Romer’s bill taken out — and I’m going to be putting forward a package of legislative proposals in the next few days.”

Here’s guessing they’ll be significantly different from Romer’s.

The Letter:

Robert J. Corry, Jr.
Attorney at Law
~
600 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2800 South Tower
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-634-2244 telephone
303-260-6401 facsimile
Robert.Corry@comcast.net
www.RobCorry.com

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

January 25, 2010

Colorado State Senators
Colorado State Representatives
State Capitol
Denver, Colorado

Re: Preliminary Comments on Senate Bill 10-109
“Regulation of the Physician-Patient Relationship for Medical
Marijuana Patients”

Dear Senators and Representatives:
Thank you for considering these comments on SB 10-109, “Concerning
Regulation of the Physician-Patient Relationship for Medical Marijuana Patients,”
attached hereto.
I am a lawyer who has specialized in Medical Marijuana issues for
approximately nine years. Some of my relevant experience includes: I
successfully sued the State of Colorado and Department of Health over its illegal
five patient per caregiver limit, won an injunction against the City of Centennial
over its illegal prohibition of the constitutional right to medical marijuana, tried
seven felony criminal jury trials involving medical marijuana, have represented or
currently represent over 100 criminal defendants where medical marijuana was an
issue in the case, have represented or currently represent over 40 caregivers
assisting patients with their medical marijuana, have four appeals cases currently
in front of the Colorado Supreme Court or Colorado Court of Appeals involving
medical marijuana, and have persuaded courts to order the return of medical
marijuana to patients that was illegally seized by law enforcement, including
receiving marijuana grow equipment formerly held by the United States Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA). I serve as Chairman of the Colorado
Wellness Association, the industry trade association designed to self-regulate the
medical marijuana industry without government “help,” and I also serve on the
2
Board of Sensible Colorado. I formerly served as Republican Majority Counsel to
the U.S. of Representatives Judiciary Committee and Constitution Subcommittee,
so I am familiar with the legislative process.
In helping to build the medical marijuana community over the years and
experiencing the personal joy of seeing this formerly underground illegal criminal
enterprise blossom into a legal, safe, job-creating, tax-paying, space-renting,
vibrant and beautiful economic force in a relatively short time, I am familiar with
the unique challenges facing patients, caregivers, and physicians who specialize in
this area. My clients’ lives literally depend on their access to medicine, and SB
10-109 thus causes concern, and we hope you or the sponsors will consider
modifying it or withdrawing it. If not, and it becomes law, it will cause
unnecessary human suffering and may expose the State of Colorado to costly
litigation.
In general, the top three problems facing Colorado’s Medical Marijuana
patients are (1) high cost; (2) choices and consistent supply; and (3) quality control
and labeling. Fundamental laws of supply and demand — which the legislature
cannot repeal — hold that only way to lower cost, on both a short- and long-term
basis, is to increase supply. SB 10-109 would significantly increase costs to
patients, thereby placing the most vulnerable of them in danger.
As a threshold legal matter, the medical use of marijuana is a constitutional
right, which cannot be limited by the legislature without amending the state
constitution. Your legislative oath of office to support the Colorado Constitution
(Colorado Constitution, Article V § 2) means the voters have entrusted you to
uphold all aspects of the Colorado Constitution, even those with which you may
personally disagree. We understand that the medical use of marijuana is
controversial, but majority rules, and the majority of Coloradoans placed this in
our constitution.
Specific subsection-by-subsection analysis follows. I am happy to meet
and confer with any elected official or staff member who wishes to discuss my
position in greater detail.
Section 1(1)(a)(I), page 2:
Requires physician and patient to have “a treatment or counseling
relationship,” which implies that patient must have seen the particular physician
on more than one occasion. If this is not the intent of the bill, it should be so
clarified. If it is the intent of the bill, then it should be modified as it conflicts with
the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14(1)(e), which defines and establishes
the qualifications of the physician as “a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good
standing, a license to practice medicine issued by the State of Colorado.” The
requirement of multiple physician visits is discriminatory against, and harmful to,
patients who have limited incomes, or those do not have medical insurance, or
3
those veterans who served our country in time of war and who see doctors
affiliated with the Veterans Administration which as a federal governmental
entity, has shown some hostility against permitting its physicians to advise
medical marijuana.
Section 1(1)(a)(II), page 2:
Requires physician to consult with the patient before the patient applies for
registry identification card. I have no objections to, or concerns with, this
subsection.
Section 1(1)(a)(III), page 2-3:
Requires physician to provide follow-up care and treatment, including
physical examinations, to determine efficacy of medical marijuana. There are
similar concerns as with Section 1(a)(I) above; it is discriminatory and harmful to
patients with limited incomes or without health insurance, to pay for these
additional government-mandated doctor visits. It is also inconsistent with the
Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14.
Section 1(1)(b), page 3:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(1)(c)(I), page 3:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(1)(c)(II), page 3:
Requires physician to hold a valid, unrestricted license to practice
medicine. Some physicians are permitted to practice medicine on restricted
licenses for a variety of reasons dependent on case-by-case factors. Some of these
restrictions may result from a physician’s own illness or injury, incurred through
no fault of the physician. Physicians on restricted licenses are typically permitted
to practice medicine. Some are permitted to practice in their respective specialties,
which may be highly complex. If a physician on a restricted license can perform
heart surgery, for example, then surely she is qualified to advise patients re
medical marijuana. If a physician satisfies the definition in the Colorado
Constitution, Article XVIII § 14(1)(e), then the legislature cannot further restrict
this constitutional definition, which a physician with a restricted license satisfies.
Section 1(1)(c)(III), page 3:
Requires physician to hold a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
controlled substances registration and have a lifetime perfect record of never
4
having same suspended or revoked. First, a DEA controlled substance registration
is optional, not required to practice medicine in Colorado, and many M.D.s and
D.O.s in Colorado forego or give up such registration because they are familiar
with the damaging effects of addictive synthetic narcotics and are not interested in
prescribing controlled substances to their patients. This section would also
exclude a physician who had a one-day suspension of her DEA license 25 years
ago. Second, to permit the DEA any say in whether a Colorado physician is able
to recommend medical marijuana under our State’s Constitution invites
unconstitutional federal oversight of our state. The DEA continually demonstrates
its disrespect for the will of Colorado’s voters as regards medical marijuana by
working to undermine our medical marijuana law almost from its inception,
including the DEA setting the illegal Five Patient limit, according to sworn court
testimony of a Colorado Department of Health official in the 2007 LaGoy v. Ritter
case in Denver District Court, which I litigated and which struck down the DEA’s
Five Patient limit. The State of Colorado must not provide this potent weapon to a
hostile federal police force.
Section 1(d), page 3:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(e), page 3:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(e)(2), page 3:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(2), page 3:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(2)(a), page 4:
Requires registry card to bear the name of the physician certifying the
debilitating medical condition, and permits the confidential [sic] registry
containing the physician’s name to be communicated outside of the confidential
[sic] registry as a device to refer physicians to the Colorado Board of Medical
Examiners. This “witch hunt” provision is unconstitutional. Colorado
Constitution, Article XVIII § 14(c)(2) provides that “No physician shall be denied
any rights or privileges for the acts authorized by this subsection.” It also provides
that all information about physicians remains confidential. Article XVIII §
14(3)(a). This means that any physician is free to advise as many patients as she
chooses, and cannot be legally denied any rights or privileges, i.e., the license to
practice medicine, for doing so. Further, requiring a single physician’s name on
5
the card makes no sense. As to any given patient, there could be many doctors
who, through the years of the patient’s history, diagnose the patient with a
debilitating medical condition or conditions. There is no legal requirement that a
patient disclose his complete medical history to the Health Department that issues
the cards. Requiring the physician’s name on the card also invites unnecessary
disclosure and further witch hunts by law enforcement that may come into contact
with the registry cards, and which have shown little restraint in persecuting
courageous doctors who try to do the right thing by their patients.
Section 1(2)(b), page 4:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(2)(c), page 4:
Eliminates confidentiality of registry card. This is unconstitutional. The
Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14(3)(a) provides that the registry is
confidential. In 2001, the Legislature passed a criminal statute creating a
misdemeanor criminal offense for any person, including law enforcement or
government officials, who discloses information within the medical marijuana
registry without the patient’s consent. C.R.S. § 18-18-406.3.
Section 1(2)(d), page 4:
Requires physician “recommendation” [sic] to be on a state-prescribed
form. The Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14(1)(j) defines “written
documentation” as “a statement signed by the patient’s physician or copies of the
patient’s pertinent medical records” as the requirements to obtain a registry card.
Thus, a patient need only submit his medical records to confirm his diagnosis of a
debilitating medical condition and physician advice, in order to obtain the registry
card. Furthermore, physician advice need not even be written and can be verbal.
The constitution only requires that “[t]he patient was advised by his or her
physician … that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana,”
The first jury trial in Colorado that used the constitutional affirmative defense of
medical marijuana involved verbal advice by a physician. See People v.
Margenau, Gunnison District Court Case No. 05CR42. The jury acquitted my
client Ryan Margenau of all felony counts even though he did not have a shred of
paper reflecting this physician advice. The physician testified at trial that he
verbally advised Mr. Margenau, the judge and conservative rural jury accepted
that as a valid defense, Mr. Margenau walked out of court with all of his marijuana
and grow equipment, and the prosecution did not waste time and taxpayer monies
appealing the verdict, because the result was legally obvious and there was no
error by the District Court in permitting the defense based on verbal advice.
Further, SB10-109 uses incorrect terms. No where does the constitution refer to a
“recommendation” by a physician. All the constitution requires is that the
physician provide “advice” that marijuana “might” benefit the patient, or that the
6
condition “may” be alleviated by the use of marijuana. Colorado Constitution,
Article XVIII § 14(1)(a)(II); § 14(2)(a)(II); § 14(c)(I); § 14(c)(II); § 14(3)(b)(I).
There is no requirement of a “recommendation” in the constitutional provision. It
only requires physician “advice,” and that “advice,” verbal or otherwise, need only
be that the patient “might” or “may” benefit from marijuana. Thus the voters
engraved in stone a sensible standard, permitting access to medical marijuana,
perhaps because the concept of a leafy plant is not offensive to a majority of
mature adult voters. Unfortunately this bill tightens the voters’ expressed desire to
an unconstitutional degree. Physician “advice” under this constitutional provision
is not a written “prescription,” as Attorney General John Suthers concluded in a
formal opinion holding that medical marijuana sales can be taxed. Colorado
Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 09-06 (November 16, 2009.)
Section 1(2)(e), page 4:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection, other than
concerns expressed above regarding the definition of “bona fide physician-patient
relationship.”
Section 1(2)(f), page 5:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(2)(g), page 5:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(2)(h), page 5:
Provides that the Department has the authority to impose “sanctions” for
physicians who violate this bill, including revocation or suspension of the
physician’s “privilege” to make medical marijuana “recommendations.”
Government bureaucrats in this Department have no authority to revoke any
privilege held by physicians, to whom the voters provided strong immunity in
relation to advice given to medical marijuana patients. Please refer to comments
above, detailing the unambiguous command of the Colorado Constitution, Article
XVIII § 14(c)(2) that “No physician shall be denied any rights or privileges for the
acts authorized by this subsection.”’ Please also refer to comments above
detailing that this is not a “recommendation,” it is “advice.” Even federal appeals
courts have determined that physicians are immune under the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution for advice given to a patient. Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d
629 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 387 (2003) (physician has First
Amendment right to advise patients re medical marijuana and cannot be
prosecuted or otherwise have license affected).
Section 1(3)(a), page 5:
7
Requires that a physician “certify to the department” that a patient may
benefit from the medical use of marijuana. The constitution does not require the
physician to have any communication whatsoever with the health department or
any other government bureaucracy. All communications between the physician
and patient are confidential and privileged, and it is the patient who holds this
privilege and decides whether to waive it and seek optional state registration.
Increasing numbers of patients opt to cut out the health department out altogether,
as patients suffer the State’s four month-delay in issuing registry cards, and as
patients continue to rack up court victories with physician advice and no registry
cards, and wellness centers correctly accept physician advice alone. By its own
delays, excessive fees, and hoarding millions of dollars in patient funds, the State
is rendering registry cards irrelevant and superfluous to the process.
Section 1(3)(b), page 5-6:
Requires physicians maintain separate record-keeping system for patients
for whom physician has “recommended” medical marijuana and will turn over
these “separate but equal” patient records to the government upon demand so
bureaucrats can go through peoples’ private medical records. Such an intrusive
provision does not belong in the United States of America.
Section 1(3)(c)(I), page 6:
Prohibits a physician from being compensated for his or her work, except
by the patient directly. This is a requirement that no doctor in any other specialty
must follow. Most doctors are compensated by the hospitals in which they
practice, and doctors rarely collect money directly from their patients. Typically,
in all areas of medicine payments for medical services are made to third parties,
receptionists, or cashiers.
Section 1(3)(c)(II), page 6:
Prohibits a physician from offering a discount to patients. Under this
section, physicians are prohibited from helping poor or disadvantaged people,
disabled veterans, homeless, and others on limited incomes, unless the doctors
charge a homeless man the same price as a millionaire. We thought the problem
was that docs were making “too much” money from medical marijuana. There is
nothing wrong with discounts for suffering patients. Low-cost or discounted
medical services should be encouraged, not prohibited. This bill hurts suffering
people who happen to benefit from marijuana. But doctors could still legally hand
out Oxycontin like candy, for free.
Section 1(3)(III), page 6:
8
Prohibits a physician from seeing patients at locations where medical
marijuana is distributed. The same standard, applied to any other drug, would
eliminate all hospitals where drugs are distributed, essentially every hospital in
Colorado nearly of which have their own pharmacies in the same building under
the same roof. Medical marijuana caregivers are happy to comply with reasonable
regulations (although we are a freedom-loving bunch and will regulate ourselves
better than government can), but should not be held to a standard with which no
hospital could comply.
Section 1(3)(IV), page 6:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(4), page 6-7:
Creates the “Medical Marijuana Review Board,” which will intrude upon
and interfere with confidential physician decisions regarding individual patients
under the age of 21. The specter of these vulnerable young patients facing a
Government board of overseers for “permission” to access his or her
constitutionally-protected, physician-recommended medicine does not belong in a
free country. This Board’s very existence is unconstitutional.
Section 1(5), page 7:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 1(6), page 8:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection, other than to
point out that the Legislature’s April 20, 2009 transfer of $258,735.00 in patient
funds to the general fund is probably unconstitutional under the Colorado
Constitution Article XVIII § 14(3)(i) which allows the fees to be collected to
administer the registry card program, not to enrich government’s coffers for
general pork projects. Colorado’s suffering medical marijuana patients are not the
Legislature’s personal piggy bank. These monies should be refunded to patients.
Section 2, page 8:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection other than those
stated above regarding the existence of the “Medical Marijuana Review Board.”
Section 3, page 9:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection other than those
stated above.
9
Section 4, page 9:
I have no objections to, or concerns with, this subsection.
Section 5, page 9:
Safety clause. There is no evidence whatsoever that this bill is “necessary
for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.” As of
September 30, 2009, over 800 physicians in Colorado have advised patients that
marijuana might benefit them. No negative impacts on public peace, health, and
safety have resulted from these recommendations. In fact, this bill would harm
public health and safety for all of the reasons detailed above.
In conclusion, in working to help build this community over the past nine
years, I understand that marijuana remains a controversial medicine, although that
is rapidly shifting with even the conservative American Medical Association
accepting it. Luckily, the majority rules, and Colorado’s compassionate voters are
more numerous than those who would deny others this miracle medicine.
SB 10-109 is larger and more significant than just medical marijuana. It
creates unprecedented governmental intrusion into the sacrosanct physicianpatient
relationship. The bill opens the door to further government oversight of
doctors in all fields. In conceptualizing SB 10-109, it may be helpful to consider
another controversial medical issue, abortion. Using SB 10-109 as a model, we
have drafted proposed legislation, attached, for regulating the physician-patient
relationship in the abortion industry. If SB 10-109 were to become law and
withstand legal challenge, then the Colorado Legislature would set forth a national
blueprint for further regulation of that industry. The government “Abortion
Review Board” for abortion patients under 21 years of age, closely modeled after
this bill, would be very interesting to watch.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please call me at 303-634-
2244 or email me at Robert.Corry@comcast.net with any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Corry, Jr.
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Attachments:
SB 10-109
Model Legislation “Concerning Regulation of the Physician-Patient Relationship
for Abortion Patients”

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/01/rob_corry_to_state_health_depa.php

Rob Corry to state health department: Where has all the medical marijuana registration money gone?
By Michael Roberts in Follow That Story

Tue., Jan. 19 2010 @ 9:23AM
Bet the folks at the health department love getting mail from Rob Corry.

​Attorney Rob Corry, one of the most aggressive medical marijuana advocates on the current scene, isn’t about to ease up as the Colorado legislature prepares to consider legislation on the subject.

His latest gambit? Earlier today, he sent an open-records request to the Colorado Department of Health relating to revenue generated by medical marijuana. Via e-mail, he writes that the state has received “conservatively $1.7 million… from suffering patients paying for the privilege of waiting four months for a paper card that doesn’t fit in normal wallets and falls apart in one wash.” He wants to know where the money has gone.

In the letter, Corry documents 19,691 patients who received registry cards between June 2001 and September 2009, but that figure is clearly out of date. As Joel Warner reported on Monday, the health department recently set a record, receiving 1,650 applications in a single day.

Read Corry’s letter below:

Dear Custodian of Records:
We hereby request, pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. §24-72-201 et seq., any and all “writings,” under C.R.S. § 24-72-202(8), and public records,” under C.R.S. § 24-72-202(6)(a)(I), relating to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Medical Marijuana Registry financial records.

According to the CDPHE website, as of September 30, 2009, a total of 19,691 patients have applied for registry cards since June 2001, when the registry commenced. Multiplying this number by the $90.00 fee means the State has taken in at least $1.7 MILLION from suffering patients. This number is quite conservative, as there have been thousands of additional applicants between September 30, 2009 and the present. Additionally, for years the fee was $110.00. Given the CDPHE’s admitted four-month severe delay in issuance of cards to patients, CDPHE’s “mission creep” in compiling these unnecessary and intrusive statistics, and evidently scrutinizing physician recommendation data and referring allegedly too-prolific physicians to the Board, serious questions are raised as to the allocation of the patients’ funds.

This CORA request includes bank statements, accounting, financial spread sheets, analyses, memoranda, and other documents reflecting any and all funds or monies received by the CHPHE for Medical Marijuana Registry cards covering the period from the inception of the registry program in approximately 2000 through the present day. This request includes, but is not limited to, any financial statements or other records reflecting the number of patients applying for the card and paying the fee, and the total amount of funds and fees received by CDPHE paid by patients, caregivers, and others for the registry card, as well as specifics regarding how the current $90.00 fee funds the operation of the program, accounting of all costs and staff, whether the current $90.00 fee charged to patients is excessive or insufficient to fund the program, and the amount of funds leftover after this fee is collected from patients, and how the CDPHE and/or the Colorado Legislature arrived at the figure of $258,735.00 that the Legislature deducted from the medical marijuana cash fund and diverted to the general fund on April 20, 2009, and how the Legislature selected that particular date to take these fees away from the administration of the registry program.

Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-72-203(3)(a) and § 24-72-205(1), please make the records available for inspection and copying as soon as possible. If you decide to withhold from inspection any part of the requested records, please provide a written statement of the grounds for denial pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-72-305(6).

Please email Law Clerk Travis Simpson of my staff at travisbsimpson@gmail.com or me at Robert.Corry@comcast.net or call 303-634- 2244 if you have any questions and to arrange for inspection and/or copying of the records. If it is easier, please make electronic copies and forward to my office. Before incurring any costs, please advise me. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Corry, Jr.

cc. Travis Simpson, Law Clerk

Robert J. Corry, Jr. Attorney at Law, commended State Senator Chris Romer for ending his quest to regulate Colorado’s Medical Marijuana community. Senator Romer’s decision was posted on the Huffington Post web site on Saturday night, January 9, 2010. A debate between the Senator and Robert Corry on the bill aired on Jon Caldara’s “Independent Thinking” on KBDI Friday night, January 8, 2010. Robert Corry sent a letter to the Senator critiquing his bill on Thursday, January 7, 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-romer/colorado-medical-marijuan_b_417488.html

Senator Romer: “So my attempts to bring medical marijuana out of the shadows through a complex regulatory structure are now over.”

Death of Romer’s Medical Marijuana Bill Presents Meaningful Opportunity For Quality Reform
By Jessica & Robert Corry

The legislation would have required Coloradans to inform on each other Soviet-style. It sought to forfeit power to the federal government at the expense of rights afforded under the Colorado Constitution. And it advocated for industry rules that would have turned law-abiding entrepreneurs into marked targets for unrepentant thieves.

The bill deserved to die. And on Saturday evening, it was pronounced dead by its own author.

Amidst the current and often passionate debate over medical marijuana regulation, Denver Democrat Chris Romer was never able to move the proposal beyond relentless criticism coming from all sides. Shredded by opponents, questioned by reporters, mocked by constitutional scholars, and ignored by law enforcement officials, it also faced the threat of a mountain of lawsuits had it even dared to pass.

Still, as Senator Romer and his fellow lawmakers prepared to kick off the 2010 legislative session this week, it promised to play a starring role in the Capitol’s opening days. Thousands of medical marijuana activists organized to descend upon Denver for a Thursday lobbying day. Then Senator Romer announced he was pulling the bill.

While we sincerely applaud him for making the right decision, and have no reason to believe he has acted at any step of the process with anything other than the best of intentions, we remain deeply concerned about his fundamental misunderstanding of why his bill failed before it was ever even introduced. His response suggests he confuses anecdotes with documented trends, and emotion with fact.

“Without a patient face like Janice Beecher or an effective lobbying and education campaign by the MMJ community, I see more and more obstacles to any editorial, bi-partisan or even limited partisan support for a set of common sense rules,” he concluded on the Huffington Post’s Denver site. LINK HERE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-romer/colorado-medical-marijuan_b_417488.html

As Romer went on to explain, Beecher is a Colorado medical marijuana patient who contacted him months ago to express concern about the explosive growth in medical marijuana dispensaries following favorable legal developments at the state and federal levels. As he tells it, her compelling personal story inspired him to take action, ultimately resulting in his bill.

“Unfortunately for Janice–and thousands of patients like her–access to sophisticated care is being jeopardized because both sides in this debate cannot seem to grasp the importance of finding common ground.”

While Romer courageously entered the lion’s den of his opponents multiple times to engage in respectful dialogues, his specific proposal made finding common ground nearly impossible. (See Mr. Corry’s 12-page in-depth analysis of the bill by clicking here: LINK http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/01/rob_corrys_line-by-line_shredd.php). For starters, as a Senate bill, it violated state rules mandating that tax bills originate in the House. It sought changes in tax policy that violated the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). It removed a federally granted Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for many patients. And that’s just a few of its technical problems.

As we’ve publicly noted, it also neglected genuine opportunities for worthy regulatory changes in favor of imposing new rules that would have inevitably created a whole new host of issues. As our above-mentioned analysis concluded, “In general, the top three problems facing Medical Marijuana patients are (1) high cost of medicine; (2) choices and consistent supply of medicine; and (3) quality control and labeling of medicine.”

Romer could have put forth a proposal that would have gotten to a major culprit behind these woes, namely by encouraging increased supply as a way to lower costs and incentivize quality competition. But his proposal did just the opposite.

Troubling on multiple levels, it created a cumbersome administrative structure that granted government bureaucrats almost endless discretion to restrict patient and caregiver access to those who could prove “good moral character.” For those hoping that open dispensaries, the process was even more bizarre, requiring them to provide fingerprints ultimately passed on to the FBI, as well as a “personal history information concerning the applicant’s qualifications.” Allowing government to pick winners and losers to such a degree is nothing short of Communist.

While Senator Romer attributes greed and ignorance to the lack of support behind his bill, this assessment couldn’t be further from the truth. The vast majority of dispensary owners see responsible regulation as a way to gain legitimacy as an industry. They view commonsense changes as a way to protect their own financial interests, creating a level playing field from which all participants compete with the same set of rules.

As Senator Romer now pledges to revamp his legislative strategy, we hope to work with him in whatever way possible. We owe it to our clients, our friends, our neighbors, and even ourselves as invested taxpayers, however, to fight any future proposal that unjustly restricts constitutional rights, patient access, or free market competition.

On Sunday, Senator Romer wrote that he hoped to “buy a few weeks” to mobilize patients in support of his latest strategy. We’d encourage him to shift his focus a bit, first evaluating why his original bill failed to ever gain any sort of measurable support from the tens of thousands of Colorado voters who are medical marijuana patients or caregivers.

He now hopes to introduce two bills. The first, a Senate bill, will “deal solely with the need for a meaningful doctor patient relationship to get a MMJ referral and the creation of a 24-hour per day registry for patients.”

In an effort to spare Senator Romer more wasted energy, we caution him to avoid drafting another bill that rushes to impose arbitrary and emotional requirements on all doctor-patient relationships as a way to somehow address the abuses of a handful of doctors who have failed to use proper restraint in recommending patients for the state’s medical marijuana registry. In fact, legislative action may be an inappropriate response together, with health care licensing officials now investigating and exploring disciplinary options against specific physicians accused of abusing the system.

In the second bill Senator Romer announced Sunday, he says he will attempt to impose a five patient per caregiver cap. His justification here is downright incoherent. His last bill would have allowed dispensaries to serve over 1,000 patients. A few days later, he wants to handicap caregivers by imposing a five-patient restriction. At minimum, the proposal would make operating a operating a viable dispensary more difficult and more expensive. Even while proposing this, he goes on to say, “I will continue to fight for clinics to serve patients like Janice, but I am getting increasingly skeptical that either side understands her needs.”

He wants to fight for clinics, but then significantly limit their legal ability to operate. He wants to fight for patients but then wants to drive up costs, decrease centralized access, and increase security concerns for many of our state’s most physically vulnerable residents. The strategy doesn’t make sense and could ultimately drive more patients to obtain their medicine from the black market.

Any arbitrary five-patient limit is also likely to fail in court as an arbitrary restriction on a constitutionally-protected right. Senator Romer need look no further than the experience of the State Health Board, a body that has seen its repeated efforts to impose a similar limit on caregivers struck down over the state’s own administrative violations. If wise, Romer should review court transcripts to hear the scolding the state’s attorneys received over their pompous disregard of patient needs and constitutional rights. LINK HERE: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/11/live_blogging_the_denver_distr.php

In closing his announcement Sunday, Senator Romer lamented the death of his bill. “What a shame,” he wrote. “We really could have set the national model for medical marijuana including research and sophisticated evidence-based medicine, but the same old fight on both sides–and the failed status quo–appears to have prevailed.”

Senator Romer, if your goal is truly to create a model for other states to follow, don’t destroy viable opportunities or incentives for patients and caregivers to interact in a well-lit system that leaves violent drug dealers scurrying for black markets elsewhere.

Jessica Corry is a Denver land use attorney with Hoban & Feola, LLC. Robert J. Corry, Jr., is a Denver attorney specializing in medical marijuana and serves as chairman of the Colorado Wellness Association, a business organization devoted to improving self-regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Together, the Corrys represent several medical marijuana patients and caregivers.

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

January 7, 2010

The Honorable Chris Romer
Colorado Senate
Denver, Colorado

Re: Preliminary Comments on Draft Text (Dec. 30, 2009) Regulate Medical Marijuana

Dear Senator Romer:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to your draft “Regulate Medical Marijuana” bill. I enjoyed our appearance on KBDI January 5, and am encouraged you committed to consider significant modifications to your draft, which cannot be supported by any serious patient or caregiver in Colorado’s Medical Marijuana community. On a personal note, though I appreciate our collegial and respectful dialogue, your obvious diplomatic skills are no replacement for substance. My clients’ lives literally depend on their access to medicine, and we will fight any government proposal that would restrict supply and raise costs, such as this proposal.

In general, the top three problems facing Medical Marijuana patients are (1) high cost of medicine; (2) choices and consistent supply of medicine; and (3) quality control and labeling of medicine. As an economist, you know that the only way to lower cost, on both a short- and long-term basis, is to increase supply. Your proposed bill would significantly increase costs to patients, thereby placing the most vulnerable of them in danger. Your bill would reduce the selection and consistency of medicine, driving most of the supply back to the dangerous criminal underground. Your bill does nothing to address quality and labeling of medicine, which the community is already developing faster and more effectively than government could for this unique community formed under slowly-clearing clouds of Prohibition.

Patients are caregivers are rightfully concerned with your stated motivation, as quoted in both the Boulder Daily Camera and Denver Post, to put half of Colorado’s existing, taxpaying, job-creating, economically viable, caregivers “out of business.” There is currently a shortage of caregivers, and we hope that eventually the supply and availability of medicine can increase to create significant decrease in price.

Specifically, the bill suffers from numerous deficiencies as follows. These comments are of a preliminary nature only, and given more time to study your 39-page proposal I might locate other defects. I thought it preferable to highlight the main problems rather than take the time to develop a comprehensive analysis since you indicated you were contemplating changes anyway.

Page 3, Section 1. Legislative Declaration:

The first sentence incorrectly limits the benefits of medical marijuana to treating “pain.” Although pain relief is one major benefit of medical marijuana, many scholarly studies, physicians, and patients report that medical marijuana can actually improve or cure certain medical conditions, and prevent other conditions, rather than merely relieving pain. Medical marijuana is more than a band-aid for many patients. There are many other reasons for medical marijuana in addition to pain relief, and the declaration should reflect this significant fact.

Page 3-8, Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority:

In these times where our state government is literally bankrupt, we cannot afford to create an additional unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that will exist perpetually and carve out an imaginary justification for its own existence like a parasite, sucking tax dollars for generations. The Department of Health is already bloated, obstinate, hostile, and inefficient enough with documented misinformation about the average age of patients and its inexcusable and illegal delay of over 120 days in issuing simple registry cards and overcharging patients $90.00 for the privilege of waiting nearly a half a year for a card that expires in a year. Patients cannot afford another hostile army of bureaucrats whose mission is to undermine the Colorado Constitution.

Page 4, Line 12:

Improperly delegates too much power and discretion to local authorities on an issue of statewide concern. Local governments have already demonstrated an extreme hostility to suffering patients and their needs, instead opting, ostrich-like, to try to hide from the future. Local governments, with some positive exceptions, have generally shown by their own arrogant and illegal actions (see Frasher v. City of Centennial, Arapahoe District Court 2009, which I litigated, successfully striking down an illegal local prohibition on medical marijuana) that they cannot be trusted to exercise any reasonable discretion on this issue. Of course locals should retain neutral zoning power as to location of businesses, but nothing more. Giving these heartless local bureaucracies any more power is an invitation to them to continue to discriminate against suffering patients. For example, the City Council of Westminster, Colorado callously opted to shutter the doors of existing dispensaries while flatly refusing a courteous written engraved invitation to even take 15 minutes out of their day to personally visit the viable businesses they destroyed. Most other city council members are similarly arrogant. There are exceptions: some Denver City Council members have actually visited the businesses they seek to regulate, and you have as well, which we appreciate.

Page 4, Line 21:

Requires a public hearing on ALL complaints (and there will be some, especially when opponents (or even business competitors) discover this burdensome procedural hammer) made against a clinic or grower licensee, thus burying licensees and the government in expensive perpetual litigation. Believe it or not, there is a shortage of real lawyers who are competent and experienced in dealing with medical marijuana-related court or administrative proceedings. My law firm is too busy already.

Page 6, Line 9:

Criminal background checks as a requirement for serving as a caregiver are unconstitutional and unreasonably restrict patient choice of caregiver. Pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII § 14, the voters already defined a caregiver as an adult with a significant responsibility for the well-being of a patient, period. Not an adult who has lived an error-free life. Not an ordained saint, although some caregivers should qualify for that designation. The practical reality is that many caregivers, since they are knowledgeable in how to cultivate and produce marijuana, picked up criminal convictions at some point in their lives. These people now seek to turn their valuable knowledge into something that helps suffering patients. They should be welcomed to the business world, not shut out in the cold.

Page 7, Lines 9-15:

The Devil’s Dictionary definition of “morality” is “that sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, may actually be having a good time.” The case against medical marijuana closely relates to this irrational mentality, typically held by those individuals so dissatisfied with their own empty lives that they actually obsess about the manner in which other unknown people alleviate their physical conditions. Most of the complaints and concerns regarding medical marijuana relate to the signage on the physical locations themselves. This can be attributed mostly to a very vocal minority of fanatical biddies, grandmothers, and other Communist nanny-types who are somehow “offended” that some suffering people use a 10,000-year-old Old and New Testament-recognized scientifically-proven holistic organic plant remedy instead of synthetic chemicals and pills. Until these poisonous haters die off (from their own narcotic and alcohol addictions that could be cured by the plant they hate), as an elected politician, you probably still have to put some grease on these very irritatingly squeaky wheels. Thus, a reasonable restriction on signage is probably an area that this community would reluctantly compromise on and which government could properly regulate. Your bill does the opposite by allowing unfettered advertising. We should discuss some acceptable compromises in this area along the lines of the tobacco industry, which agreed to limit its own ability to advertise.

Page 7, Lines 16-27:

This section provides that a person cannot refuse, even under the right to remain silent against self-incrimination, to provide testimony to the apparently god-like medical marijuana licensing authority. The Colorado State Legislature can never repeal the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and should not even waste the court’s time in attempting to do so. I will file a lawsuit against this bill in the unlikely event it becomes law over the objections of a thousand screaming patients, but I would rather have a challenge instead of a slam-dunk.

Page 8, lines 4-5:

This permits the all-powerful licensing authority to deny a license “in its discretion.” For the reasons earlier expressed, government cannot be trusted to exercise any real discretion regarding medical marijuana, or the power to deny a license on a whim, regarding an alternative medicine it abhors.

Page 10, Lines 1-7:

This requires any growing location to post a sign on the planned grow location visible to all in the neighborhood, including children. This is ridiculous. This is an advertisement and open invitation for children and teenagers to break in and steal the marijuana they think might be inside, and get shot or killed in the process. This provision is dangerous and unenforceable, and must be eliminated. Grow operations must be as discrete and unknown as possible. Any alternative rule harms children and infringes on public peace and safety. No grower worth anything will comply with this. This requirement would drive grow operations back underground, all for the enjoyment and profit of foreign criminal drug cartels. I expect the prison-industrial complex, led by Warden Suthers, to strongly support this harmful provision, since it is full employment for them and their government-funded satraps.

Page 10, Lines 8-11:

This allows so-called “parties in interest” and other nattering self-important neighborhood nabobs to subpoena, cross-examine, and inquire into confidential medical information. This has no place in the United States of America, still a free country.

Page 11, Lines 22-23:

This would allow neighborhood residents to exercise a veto over location of an existing or new dispensary or caregiver operation on their whim. It gives effect to irrational prejudices against marijuana and must be eliminated.

Page 11, Lines 24-26:

This would allow the government, never a good assessor of supply and demand (see the Former Soviet Union with its interminable bread lines), to deny licensure of existing or new caregivers if there are already adequate (in the judgment of government) suppliers in the area. This is anticompetitive and creates government-imposed marijuana monopolies. Ironically, this is antithetical to the purpose of the bill in that it locks in the early movers (who are presumably offensive) and excludes the newer entrepreneurs who seek to bring their business acumen to bear on this burgeoning industry. If the existing players are somehow offensive, why would this bill lock in their market share in perpetuity and create a government-sponsored syndicate that excludes competition, all in the worst tradition of mob-style crime families?

Page 12, Lines 12-13:

Allows the government, with all of its evident knowledge about marijuana and the medical needs of each patient, to create a “cap” on the number of patients a particular caregiver can serve. This is illegal, and a violation of the constitutional right of the patient to determine his or her own caregiver. It would also harm the most vulnerable of patients who already have difficulties obtaining medicine at a low cost.

Page 13, Lines 10-12:

Grants the government the subjective discretion to deny a clinic or grower license based on the “character” of the applicant or its officers, if the government thinks that violations of this statute might occur. This allows petty government bureaucrats to completely shut down the medical marijuana supply chain on their imaginary whims, and if past actions are any guide, they will abuse every inch of power this statute gives them, and it gives them miles.

Page 13, Lines 13-18:

Again permits government to deny a license based on its own assessment as to whether local customers are already served by existing businesses, thus locking in a marijuana monopoly. Government as Al Capone. See comments above.

Page 14, line 10:

Prohibits government from issuing a license to “a person who is not of good moral character.” This would apply to growing licenses and clinic licenses. It is unlikely that Dr. James Dobson or The Pope will apply for these licenses, therefore government could deny any other fallible human sinner a license and effectively choke off the entire supply, or more probably just drive it back underground. The judgment of “good moral character” is also based partially on business persons/competitors and neighbors within the area, as determined by the local government. So both the state and local governments get to determine the “good moral character” issue. No real adult human being can survive such scrutiny.

Page 14, lines 19-22:

Requires 100% of officers, directors and 90% of stockholders in any business also be of “good moral character.” No company in the United States could meet such a standard. No legislature in the United States could meet such a standard. No city council in the United States could meet this standard. No governor’s office could either. Marijuana should not be held to standards no other entity can satisfy.

Page 15, Lines 4-5:

This prohibits a peace officer, or any member of a peace officer’s family, from obtaining a clinic or grow license. As a criminal defense lawyer, I know that a minority of police officers have difficulty complying with the “good moral character” requirements in this bill, but most of them are upstanding moral members of our community. If we do not trust police officers, or even more strangely and arbitrarily, their families to help suffering people who need marijuana, then who can we trust? One of my favorite dispensary clients has a son who serves as a Sheriff’s Deputy, and there is no problem whatsoever with this situation. This bizarre provision makes no sense, like the rest of this bill.

Page 15, line 23:

Requires clinic and grower licensees to provide fingerprints along with “personal history information concerning the applicant’s qualifications” to obtain a license. Like the “good moral character” requirements critiqued above, this would only inspire local witch hunts against medical marijuana caregivers who already have enough problems with conducting this controversial business. As for “qualifications,” under this standard, a first-time beer brewer such a John Hickenlooper probably would have been denied his permission to brew beer, lacking any “qualifications” in this regard, so the man you may succeed as Mayor might have been denied the business platform that launched him to the Mayor’s Office in the first place. Someday, a dispensary owner may rise to be Mayor but your bill would deprive the community of such new innovative career-changers such as Mayor Hickenlooper.

Page 16, line 3:

Requires the State of Colorado to forward fingerprints, names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and other identifying data of growers and clinics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a federal background check. This makes the state government into a federal snitch, an unprecedented development in the history of separation of powers in the United States of America. With this extreme requirement, no self-respecting clinic or grower will ever comply with this law, making it even more unenforceable then current criminal prohibition against recreational marijuana, widely ridiculed by the populace. The State of Colorado should be protecting its citizens from the depredations of foreign sovereigns such as the federal government, which despite President Obama’s pronouncements, continues its hostility against the voters of the State of Colorado and our firm desire that medical marijuana be legal. Your earlier proposal that the Colorado Attorney General be required to defend Coloradoans persecuted by the federal government was a step in the right direction and should be re-inserted into your bill. But this proposal goes the opposite direction. Obviously the FBI cannot be trusted to respect state prerogatives regarding medical marijuana.

Page 16, lines 25-27:

Prohibits a clinic or grower from being within 500 feet of a school or day care center. There should be no arbitrary distance limit from schools and day care centers, which would effectively ban the operations in many parts of the state. There is no documented case of any child ever purchasing or obtaining medical marijuana from a dispensary. A distance limit accomplishes nothing, as children are mobile and can travel to dispensaries, if that were a problem which it is not. It is unclear what “problem” a distance limit from schools “solves.” Why is 499 feet from a school unacceptable but 501 feet acceptable? There is no answer to this rhetorical question, i.e., the very definition of arbitrary. It is also unfortunate that the State Legislature is asked to act as a local zoning board and asked to substitute its judgment over local zoning decisions. Your Senate District is close to 9th and Corona streets in Denver, which has a liquor store and a pharmacy directly across the street from a public elementary school, with no documented problems for decades.

Page 17, lines 3-5:

Prohibits a clinic or grower from being 20 miles from a Colorado state border. This is insane. It could deny citizens in Fort Collins, Grand Junction, Sterling, Burlington, Trinidad, Cortez, and other people and communities that happen to be close to the arbitrary state border lines, access to medicine. This seems utterly arbitrary, like most of these distance requirements. Are we protecting citizens from other states?

Page 17, lines 22-23:

Any transfer of a clinic or grower license must be pre-approved by the government, further locking in monopolies and devaluing the license. This is more government interference in the free market that will only harm patients, and participants will opt out of this non-transferable licensing scheme and go back underground, all to the benefit of cartels.

Page 21, lines 14-20:

This would permit local governments to limit the number of medical marijuana clinics and growers. It grants far too much power to locals, as many of them have expressed and acted on their desire to ban medical marijuana outright, so they would pass limits of “one” under this bill. Patients should decide through their free choices how many clinics and growers there should be.

Page 21, Lines 22-25:

Requires clinics and growers to notify the state within ten days of any employee change, an onerous requirement with which no other type of business in Colorado need comply.

Page 22, lines 11-12:

Requires all officers and board members to be residents of Colorado. There is no rational purpose for this, again a requirement that saddles no other business.

Page 22, lines 13-19:

Prohibits Sunday distribution of medicine or distribution outside of 8am through 8pm, also prohibits on-site consumption. Colorado has grown past antiquated “blue laws,” and this would only deny patients in difficult emergency situations their medicine. Dispensary hours should not be limited. Pharmacies are open 24 hours in some cases, since emergencies can occur and patients may need medicine at all hours. That said, most dispensaries now choose to limit their own hours, but should not be prohibited from having a 24-hour help line to provide medicine to patients in emergency situations on an as-needed basis. On-site consumption, if properly set up, can be an important aspect of dispensaries. Many patients need to medicate in private area of dispensary since they have no other private area to do so, and children may be present in their homes, and the Constitution prevents use in “public view.” This would send people to public places to medicate, which is unsafe and unsightly, and illegal.

Page 22, Lines 20-21:

Limits caregivers to 1500 patients, which is unconstitutional and irrational. If a particular caregiver is compassionate and effective enough to accumulate more than 1500 patients (as many are currently), patients should not be arbitrarily restricted from selecting this caregiver. A similar objection exists to the prohibition on holding an ownership interest in more than three clinics at one time. This is yet another example of an attempt to repeal the laws of supply of demand, which government cannot do.

Page 23, lines 2-9:

Requires clinics to report on and act as informants against their own patients if the amount purchased exceeds two ounces per week. Although law enforcement frequently overuses paid snitches/criminals to do its dirty work, this bill would poison the confidential relationship between patient and caregiver and place them in an unnecessarily adversarial posture. It would just drive this back underground because no truly compassionate caregiver would comply with this evil requirement.

Page 23, Lines 15-19:

Prohibits a grower from “directly” providing medical marijuana to a patient. This is blatantly unconstitutional and inconsistent with reality. Caregivers are permitted by the constitution to provide for their patients. It sets up a required middleman, which increases costs to the patient.

Page 23, Lines 20-23:

Requires transactions be conducted by a “verifiable” payment method. I assume the intent is to eliminate cash transactions, by far the most common method in this business. Multinational credit card companies have shown extreme hostility to medical marijuana as have some banks. Many patients are too poor or disabled to have a credit card or a checking account and this provision only hurts them.

Page 23, Lines 24-25:

Prohibits growers from operating in any areas not zoned for agricultural or industrial uses. So now the State Legislature is acting as a local zoning board and substituting its judgment for local zoning issues, which is the one area the locals should retain some power.

Page 24, lines 10-26:

Grants the licensing authority extreme powers, including subpoena power, to harass and probe into confidential patient, caregiver, and physician issues.

Page 25, lines 8-9:

Allows the clinic or grow license to be “summarily suspended without notice,” which devalues the license altogether. Most will bypass this onerous and worthless license in favor of going back underground.

Page 26, lines 26:

Fines paid by licensees are credited to the General Fund, which is unconstitutional, just like the legislature’s own $258,735 money grab on 4/20/09 (coincidental date?). The Constitution requires that all monies collected for medical marijuana be used to fund the administration of the program.

Page 29, lines 15-18:

Requires physician do perform follow-up care to the patient, even if the patient does not need or request it. This and other micromanagement of the ancient confidential doctor-patient relationship is without precedent in American law.

Page 30, lines 1-3:

Requires physician to have never had his or her Drug Enforcement Administration registration suspended, another unconstitutional requirement. The constitution requires a doctor to only have a current license to practice medicine in Colorado. Many doctors eschew the DEA process as it is too intrusive and bureaucratic, and they are not interested in making their patients addicted to synthetic narcotics.

Page 30, 22-27:

Requires the registry card to have the doctor’s name on it, a further violation of confidentiality, that will enhance witch hunts against the courageous physicians who do the right thing for their patients even in the face of government intimidation.

Page 32, lines 1-7:

Requires caregivers to obtain government approval before acting as such, another unconstitutional requirement. It is the patient who decides who his or her caregiver is, and only the patient.

Page 33, lines 1-6:

Further restricts patient choice by arbitrarily limiting them to four changes of caregiver per year. Some patients have more than four caregivers at any one time, and many patients change them frequently as the supply of medicine is quite inconsistent.

Page 34, lines 13-20:

Allows the government to deny a registry card or revoke it if the government decides, without a hearing or jury trial, that this bill or the constitution was violated. This is unconstitutional. The government’s only constitutionally-permitted role regarding cards is to issue the card if the physician’s recommendation and other information is valid.

Page 35, lines 1-11:

Prohibits a physician from being compensated in any way for his or her work, except by the patient directly. This is a requirement that no doctor in any other specialty must follow. Most doctors are compensated by the hospitals in which they practice, and doctors rarely collect money directly from their patients.

Pages 35-36:

Creates yet another layer of bureaucracy, the “Medical Marijuana Review Board,” set up to intrude upon and interfere with confidential physician decisions regarding individual patients under the age of 21. The specter of these vulnerable young patients facing a Governor-appointed board of overseers for “permission” to access his or her constitutionally-protected, physician-recommended medicine does not belong in a free country. This Board’s very existence is unconstitutional.

What Should be in the Bill

This is a constitutionally-protected medicine that is currently overpriced because of high demand and low supply. Patients depend on this medicine in some cases for their lives. Further restricting supply only drives up the cost for patients, who would be harmed by crushing regulations. The most vulnerable of patients are harmed the most.

This community is not opposed to reasonable regulations designed to help patients, but will oppose those that will restrict supply or quality. Some of the legislative ideas that should be considered are purity and quality labeling; warning labels; prohibition on local infringement on the constitutional right to medical marijuana; prohibitions on discrimination in employment, education, professional licensure, housing, parenting, child custody, based on status as Medical Marijuana patient; statutory protection for entry-level caregivers to start operations without fear of prosecution; expansion of the power to provide recommendations to licensed chiropractors, licensed nurses, and licensed physical therapists; and creation and establishment of a University of Colorado research program into medical marijuana.

In conclusion, in working to help build this industry over the past nine years, I understand that marijuana remains a controversial medicine, although that is rapidly shifting with even the conservative American Medical Association endorsing its medical benefits. Luckily, the majority rules, and Colorado’s compassionate voters are more numerous than those who would deny others this miracle medicine.

In conceptualizing this bill, it is helpful to consider another controversial medical issue, abortion. As we discussed previously, it would be interesting to do a “find & replace” on your bill and replace all references to “medical marijuana” with “abortion.” I am sure Colorado’s creative pro-life organizations would appreciate this blueprint for further regulation of that industry. Your statement that, because you are pro-choice, you would vote against a parallel regulatory regime for abortion providers, speaks volumes.

Thank you for considering these comments. Please call me at 303-634-2244 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Corry, Jr.
Attorney and Counselor at Law

Local governments across the State of Colorado take notice! If you trample on the Constitution, you may be next. The time is now for re-assessing your bans.

denver and the west
Judge bars Centennial from closing medical marijuana dispensary
By John Ingold
The Denver Post
Posted: 12/31/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/31/2009 10:16:38 AM MST

“This is a very complex puzzle, as everyone knows. There are many interrelated and contra- dictory pieces to that puzzle.” Arapahoe County District Judge Christopher Cross

CENTENNIAL — An Arapahoe County judge Wednesday barred the city of Centennial from shutting down a medical marijuana dispensary, saying the city had no right to use federal law as a pretext for doing so.

“The city of Centennial cannot use the potential violation of a federal law to order a business legally operating under our state constitution to cease and desist its business,” District Judge Christopher Cross said in his ruling from the bench.

The rationale Centennial used in forcing the dispensary to shut down — that, because the business distributed marijuana contrary to federal law, it was in violation of the city’s land- use code — is one also adopted by a number of other local governments to block dispensaries from opening in their communities, including Aurora, Castle Rock and Greenwood Village.

The attorney for a dispensary in Castle Rock that had its business license partially revoked on similar grounds said she would use Wednesday’s ruling to seek that action’s reversal.

Cross’ ruling resulted in a preliminary injunction against Centennial preventing the city from enforcing its cease-and-desist order to the dispensary, CannaMart.

The broader issue, such as whether Cross’ injunction should be permanent and his ruling become part of case law, is still to be decided at trial, a process that could take years.

Cross acknowledged in his ruling that the legal issues surrounding medical marijuana and the operation of dispensaries in Colorado are still very much in flux.

Cross called the case one of “first impression,” with few prior cases in Colorado or across the country providing much guidance on how to reach a decision.

“This is a very complex puzzle, as everyone knows,” Cross said. “There are many interrelated and contradictory pieces to that puzzle.”

“No one knows what the law is,” Cross added later.

Immediately after the ruling, CannaMart’s owners, lawyers

CannaMart co-owner Stan Zislis hugs attorney Lauren David after a judge Wednesday ruled that Centennial wrongly closed the medical marijuana dispensary. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)

and a handful of patients listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit exchanged hugs. Outside the courtroom, patient Shannon Mosher, who suffers from multiple medical problems that cause him severe pain, said he was proud to represent patients across Colorado in the matter.

“It’s a big, groundbreaking moment,” Mosher said. “It’s a big deal.”

Attorney Robert Hoban called the ruling “a victory for the (state) constitution.”

“A city cannot ban this type of use,” he said. “It can zone it, but it can’t ban it.”

Centennial City Attorney Robert Widner said city officials were disappointed but not entirely surprised by the ruling. He said they will take the matter back to the City Council for direction.

“We do not know which route we’re going to take,” he said. “We have to consult with council.”

Zoning not resolved

Zoning is still an issue for CannaMart, which opened in September on East Arapahoe Road just west of Interstate 25.

The dispensary had operated on the Greenwood Village side of Arapahoe Road until that city forced it out on grounds similar to those used by Centennial.

CannaMart’s Centennial location is not zoned for pharmacies, under which CannaMart would fall for zoning purposes, Cross said.

Cross didn’t factor zoning into his consideration of the preliminary injunction because, he said, Centennial didn’t reference zoning problems in its cease-and-desist letter to CannaMart. But the city could still use zoning regulations to prevent CannaMart from reopening in its current location.

Opposition expected

Stan Zislis, one of Canna- Mart’s owners, said he would consult with his attorneys before reopening and could decide to move to another spot. He said he expected opposition wherever he decided to open in Centennial.

“As far as finding a vacancy, I don’t think I’ll have a problem,” Zislis said. “As far as getting a business license, that could be a problem.”

In shutting down CannaMart in October, Centennial had argued that operating contrary to federal law violated the city’s land-use code. Cross agreed that federal law is clear in prohibiting the distribution of marijuana.

“In light of that federal law, the city’s actions were entirely understandable,” he said.

But Cross said local governments can’t take it upon themselves to enforce federal law — that is up to federal agencies. And because Colorado voters in 2000 approved a constitutional amendment legalizing the use of cannabis for medical purposes, Cross found that CannaMart was operating within the state’s laws.

Cross said that closing down CannaMart violated its owners’ and patients’ constitutional rights, which he called “an irreparable injury to all of us.”

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14098042#ixzz0brCejVQy

http://www.5280.com/issues/2010/1001/feature.php?pageID=2063

The 5280 Fifty
We rank the Mile High City’s most influential powerbrokers in our primer on who’s running Denver. Plus: A look at whose stars are rising—and whose stock is plummeting.
By Patrick Doyle, Luc Hatlestad, and Maximillian Potter
January 2010

It’s been five years since we last ranked Denver’s most powerful people, and, oh, how the town has changed. Back then, the governor and both U.S. senators were Republicans; an upstart Andrew Romanoff was a sure thing of a rising political star; Michael Bennet was merely the mayor’s chief of staff; Denver was a two-newspaper town; Mike Shanahan coached the Broncos, and Jake Plummer, now a handball player(!), was the QB; the idea of a Denver DNC was little more than a pipe dream; and people had jobs. Five years—what’s new? How’s that for starters?

As we reported on power in Denver today—which included speaking to dozens of sources, high and low, elected and otherwise—inevitably we were asked variations of this reasonable question: How do you define power? After all, we’re comparing politicians to scientists, doctors to attorneys, business leaders to museum curators. Indeed, this endeavor is an imperfect science. As we considered the reporting, the various agendas encountered, and the like, for our answer to the power question we relied on the sentiment expressed by President Woodrow Wilson, who knew a thing or two about influence: “Power consists in one’s capacity to link his will with the purpose of others, to lead by reason and a gift of cooperation.”

1. John Hickenlooper
Mayor of Denver
In a trailer for the recently released documentary Hick Town, which chronicles the mayor’s life in the run- up to the Democratic National Convention, His Honor jokes, “I tell you how you deal with the press. You fuck the press!” Never mind that he’s married to a journalist, Helen Thorpe—the mayor needn’t be overly concerned with confronting unflattering media. In Denver, polls show that about 80 percent of the town loves the guy, and it’s not like he’s doling out kisses and cup-cakes. During the DNC, Hickenlooper got a bounce from showing the country his beloved city, touting Denver’s downtown, the blossoming green initiatives, and FasTracks, all of which he has been instrumental in developing. After his party’s party was over, Mayor Hickenlooper then tended to unsavory municipal business like a decimated budget, wringing concessions from city employees with diplomatic aplomb. He’s shrewdly relied on a succession of quietly masterful chiefs of staff, but as one political operative puts it, “The mayor’s hands are in every- thing that’s going on in Denver.” Though his “frenemy” Governor Bill Ritter passed over Hickenlooper for Ken Salazar’s vacated U.S. Senate seat—in favor of one of the mayor’s former chiefs of staff, Michael Bennet—this remains Hick’s town.

2. Dean Singleton
Publisher, Denver Post; Vice Chairman/CEO, MediaNews Group
He won the newspaper war. It may prove to be a colossally Pyrrhic victory, what with Singleton’s company so heavily leveraged, but the last Denver newspaper tycoon standing commands the respect of every power broker above and below him on this list. His influence, for the moment at least, remains strong as his company’s credit rating weakens: In November 2007, the Post took the unusually bold step of running a front-page editorial blasting Governor Bill Ritter for what it called “backroom promises” to union bosses. Since then, and particularly since the Rocky Mountain News closure, Singleton’s paper has tweaked the governor’s office over a variety of missteps and shortcomings—like on health care and transportation—leaving Ritter politically vulnerable in 2010.

3. Cole Finegan
Managing Partner, Hogan & Hartson
If Denver’s elected officials are oranges on a tree, Finegan’s the one who can squeeze them for juice. A former partner of the law firm and political machine that is Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Finegan left to serve as Hickenlooper’s city attorney in 2003, and subsequently took on the additional duties of chief of staff. Returning to the private sector in 2006, he told BHFS he wasn’t interested in his old job. Instead, he accepted the offer to head Hogan & Hartson’s Denver office. While H&H has become one of— if not the—world’s largest law firms, locally Finegan has surpassed his old law partners as the parochial shadow lord. The mayor, his friend, still considers Finegan a must-call for advice; so does Bill Ritter, who was an H&H partner until he took leave to run for governor. Finegan is a critical fund-raiser and adviser for both U.S. Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall. It’s worth noting that Tom Strickland, the chief of staff for Ken Salazar at the U.S. Department of the Interior, is an alumnus of H&H. And should the Democratic tree stop producing fruit in the next gubernatorial election, it may not hurt Finegan because Republican hopeful Scott McInnis is an H&H partner who’s been granted leave to enter the race.

4. Norman Brownstein/Steven Farber
Cofounders, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
While the sun is rising in Finegan’s sphere, that doesn’t mean the looming moon of Brownstein and Farber has fallen. Pals since childhood, Brownstein and Farber have been kingmakers in Denver for years, using their considerable charisma and contacts to elevate Denver’s profile, while advocating for their clients’ agendas and making their firm profitable. Brownstein handles the D.C. business, while Farber is the big man on Denver’s campus. Brownstein’s ability to galvanize funding for virtually anything, from DIA to Stapleton, is so legendary on Capitol Hill that Ted Kennedy once called him “the 101st senator.” Championing pro-Israel causes while making fund-raising magic, Brownstein has ingratiated the firm with, it seems, every power broker on the Hill. He needs an annex just to accommodate his freeze-and-squeeze pictures with the senior-most D.C. political establishment. As the cochair for the Host Committee of the DNC, Farber found the funding for the Obama-Fest. He’s a former chairman and ranking member of Colorado Concern, which is a collective of private-sector business leaders that arguably has more to say about business in Denver than does the city’s own chamber of commerce (think the Carlyle Group of Denver). Farber has become more selective about when and how he exercises his muscle since a kidney transplant in 2004 (the donor was his son, Gregg). Healthy (and with a George Hamilton tan), he has emerged as one of the country’s leading organ donor activists and recently cowrote a book about it that has Hollywood interest.

5. Ken Salazar
U.S. Secretary of the Interior
A moderate Hispanic Democrat with cowboy credentials, Salazar likely could have held onto his Senate seat for decades. Instead, he accepted a little job offer from the Obama administration to serve as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. While in D.C. he’ll have to spend some time mending relationships with the Front Range Democratic machine: When Governor Ritter appointed Michael Bennet to fill Salazar’s Senate seat, Salazar felt his opinions about who ought to be his successor didn’t receive the appropriate consideration, and he gave the boys back home a cold shoulder for a while. Then again, Ritter and Co. know they need to play nice with Salazar, who, in his new role, manages one-fifth of the United States’ landmass, including huge chunks of the West, and whatever mineral wealth (like oil shale) can be found therein. (His position on the Roan Plateau will reveal much about the self-described “new sheriff” of the Interior.) Salazar remains a looming influence in Colorado, as two of the folks closest to him—his brother John and his protégé Betsy Markey—control the two congressional districts that fully encircle the Front Range.

6. Mark Udall
U.S. Senator
In 2008, Udall overcame opposition efforts to tag him as a “Boulder liberal” and trounced Republican Bob Schaffer by appealing to lefties and independents alike. Just a few weeks into his term, when Ken Salazar vacated his seat for the post at Interior, Udall took on the state’s senior-senator title. At last, it seemed, he achieved a prominence of public service worthy of his family’s legacy. The Udall clan’s decades-long activism has made it one of the West’s rare political dynasties, and gives the senator pedigree and longstanding relationships to leverage for the state’s environmental and alternative energy-related concerns, both of which will be prominent public-policy issues in the coming years. As a member of the Armed Services and Energy and Natural Resources committees, it will be difficult for political challengers to depict him as merely a hippie-dippie liberal, and makes it virtually impossible for anyone to avoid dealing with him on pressing policy matters. Udall’s presence in Colorado is as undeniable as the Flatirons.

7. Michael Bennet
U.S. Senator
Talk about a swift and stealthy rise. Since 2003, Bennet has gone from Anschutz Investment Company exec to Mayor Hickenlooper’s chief of staff to superintendent of the Denver Public Schools to U.S. Senator. He’s notched his belt with achievements, like dramatic changes within DPS, which drew President Obama’s attention to Bennet as a candidate for U.S. Secretary of Education. Ritter ended up appointing him to Salazar’s vacated Senate seat (not a bad consolation prize). Bennet has won over powerful allies—Senate majority leader Harry Reid chose him to replace the deceased Ted Kennedy on the coveted Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. “The national power he pulls,” says a Democratic politician, “is unlike anything we’ve had in a long time—since the days of Gary Hart.” And he’s bold: On a recent CNN appearance, Bennet was asked if he’d vote for the health-care bill even if it might cost him his seat in the next election, and without equivocation he answered, “Yes.” He’s also already proved to be a fund-raising force, banking a cool $3.6 million.

8. Daniel Ritchie
Chairman/CEO, The Denver Center for the Performing Arts
Ritchie has been a pioneer in educational and artistic philanthropy for more than two decades. The former chancellor and chairman of the board at the University of Denver has given more than $50 million to the school over the years, and also led a series of fund-raising efforts that netted close to $275 million. In 2007, legendary DCPA cofounder Donald Seawell stepped aside for Ritchie, who has overseen further expansion of the theater complex, which now enjoys a sterling national reputation for its touring company shows and for its development of original works. Ritchie also leads or sits on the boards of several other organizations, including the Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation, the Daniels Fund, and Colorado Concern, making him one of the unquestionable guiding lights of Front Range generosity and vision.

9. Bill Ritter
Governor
Job title alone gets him in the top ten. Being the governor during such a recession is a most thankless job: This year, Ritter’s had to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the state budget—over the past two years, there’s been a $2 billion shortfall—and, in the process, he upset just about every single interest group out there. Depending on which other local muckety-muck is doing the talking (and this is within his own party), Ritter is either a man of his own mind or a milquetoast. He appointed the dark-horse candidate Michael Bennet to Colorado’s open Senate seat and has sided with labor unions one day and the business community the next. A 2010 reelection is no guarantee for the governor: Ritter’s approval ratings are all over the place and tepid at best, and word is that a Phil Anschutz-inspired GOP is committed to rallying the vote for Republican challenger Scott McInnis.

10. Patricia Gabow
CEO, Denver Health
Forget about Denver: Dr. Gabow has been named one of the top 25 women—and one of the 100 most powerful (No. 54)—in the health-care industry nationwide, by the trade magazine Modern Healthcare. During the Democratic overhaul of the health-care system, Gabow has emerged as one of the preeminent national speakers on the topic because of her 17 years of experience helming Denver Health. This summer, as the health-care bill was taking shape, it was Gabow who represented the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, testifying before a Senate committee hearing and thereby shaping the debate. And consider how she began it all: Back in 1997, Gabow convinced Mayor Wellington Webb to let the deficit-laden hospital out from under the city’s control. Since then, she has done what once seemed impossible: made a public hospital that serves thousands of uninsured people profitable, year after year.

11. David Kenney
President/Founder, The Kenney Group
A pugnacious lobbyist, Kenney is the man who solves problems for Democrats in Denver— nicely, if that’ll work; not so nicely, if required. “Sometimes,” says a highly placed elected official, “David has to be reined in. But that’s part of what makes him so effective.” He has the ears of every powerful liberal, including Governor Ritter, Senators Udall and Bennet, and Mayor Hickenlooper. Kenney was influential in getting Bennet appointed, and helped nudge along the process at the end of 2008 that placed Kelly Brough (former Hickenlooper chief of staff) at the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and made the former chamber boss, Joe Blake (a Republican), chancellor of Colorado State University.

12. Phillip Anschutz
Media Mogul
Billionaire and arch conservative Anschutz has one of the most recognized names in Denver and yet is so publicity-shy that his legal name might be “The Reclusive Phil Anschutz.” His calculated avoidance of the spotlight, however, belies his backroom activism. When Josh Penry dropped out of the GOP primary race for governor, it seemed half the people in Denver politics believed it was because Anschutz was playing puppet master, while the other half denied he would involve himself in such matters. Regardless, the specter of Anschutz loomed large. His entertainment and media properties, and his philanthropic efforts, have long promoted his favorite conservative-themed causes (and his recent purchases of the right-leaning Weekly Standard and Washington Examiner give a more prominent voice to his crusades). Even though he never airs his views publicly, he has an extremely persuasive prominence among Colorado’s political strategists. Every September 1, Anschutz hosts a dove hunt and dinner with a guest list that includes virtually anyone who matters in business as well as politicians from both sides of the aisle. (Democrat Hickenlooper spoke at this year’s dinner.)

13. Bruce Benson
President, University of Colorado
State Democrats were upset when Bruce Benson, a former GOP state chairman and perpetual power broker, was chosen to head up Colorado’s public higher-education system in 2008. CU-Boulder’s notoriously liberal Faculty Assembly voted against his appointment 40-4. Puhleeeze. Evidently the academics didn’t fully grasp the extracurricular realities of who Benson is: He made millions in oil and has won over many of his critics for going to bat for education amid budget cuts. Days after state legislators decided to cut funding for Metropolitan State College’s new multimillion-dollar science building—with a hole for the building already dug—Benson had the construction back on track after meeting with state reps and the governor.

14. Don Elliman
Chief Operating Officer, State of Colorado
Seven billion dollars: That’s Colorado’s stimulus allotment from the Obama administration, and Elliman is the man who tracks it. After three decades as a publishing honcho at Time Inc., Elliman relocated to Denver in 2000, where he took an executive role at Kroenke Sports Enterprises. Governor Ritter hired Elliman out of semi-retirement in 2007 to head the state’s economic development office, and last summer Ritter created the position of state COO with Elliman in mind. Elliman’s hiring, in large part, was inspired by voices from the biz community who felt that the governor didn’t understand private-sector concerns.

15. Larry Mizel
Chairman/CEO, MDC Holdings Inc.
Whenever there’s been a hush-hush meeting about the future of the GOP or the business interests of the Front Range, chances are Mizel’s agenda was in the room, even if he wasn’t. He’s run the multibillion-dollar MDC for almost 30 years, developing homes all over the Front Range. He also cofounded the Simon Wiesenthal Center, one of the world’s foremost human-rights organizations. Like Benson and Anschutz, Mizel has major sway over statewide strategy as Republicans try to get their mojo back in 2010. Yet, make no mistake, he’s a businessman and his power transcends party: At the 2009 Allied Jewish Federation Men’s Event in November, Mizel gave a warm introduction to Senator Bennet that could have been read as something of an endorsement. What’s telling about that, says a muckety-muck who was in the audience, is that while Bennet has Jewish ancestry, he was not raised in the faith; what’s more, Bennet, of course, is a Dem.

16. Terrance Carroll
Speaker of the House
Since taking the reins of the Statehouse from Romanoff at the beginning of 2009—and becoming Colorado’s first African-American speaker of the House—Carroll has presided over difficult times. Yet unlike Ritter, and despite (or perhaps because of) the tight purse strings, Mr. Speaker has rendered himself a critical and respected negotiator. He’s deftly managed committee chairmen and legislators to keep the House moving, and, when needed, delivered a smackdown—like when he filleted state Senate minority leader Josh Penry for criticizing the governor’s energy office: “The new energy economy is the single brightest light in our economy,” Carroll wrote. “Killing jobs in our fastest-growing economic sector is Penry’s answer to the serious crisis facing Colorado?”

17. Ed Perlmutter
U.S. Congressman
A finalist for Salazar’s open Senate seat, the congressman was passed over in large part because the state Democratic establishment respects and needs him as a congressman. Perlmutter represents the cities and counties that circle Denver, a hotly contested congressional district that has one of the most even Democratic/Republican splits in the country, and Perlmutter’s hold on his seat is perceived as formidable, and thus invaluable to the larger machine. Power players cite Perlmutter as efficient and effective—one told us, “He’s the guy you call when you need to get something done.” But he still may have a bit to learn about statesmanship: After receiving $9,500 in campaign funds from telecommunication companies, Perlmutter started opposing the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules, which would prevent Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to some content.

18. Gregory Moore
Editor, Denver Post
Under Moore’s editorial guidance (and his boss Dean Singleton’s iron-fisted leadership), the Post emerged last year as Denver’s last daily newspaper, or, at the very least, the leading daily newspaper (considering the Denver Daily News). Moore’s tenure at the Post began in 2002, and in his first week on the job the Hayman fire, the largest in Colorado history, began to burn almost 140,000 acres, becoming one of the biggest local stories of the decade. It was a fitting introduction: The subsequent seven years have proved equally feverish for the Post—and the newspaper industry in general. By hiring some of the Rocky’s most accomplished journalists after it closed, Moore is as close as he’ll ever be to having the kind of talented staff that can help redefine newsgathering at a time when the craft desperately needs a makeover.

19. Pat Bowlen
President/CEO, Denver Broncos
This city lives and dies with the Broncos, a reality that puts Bowlen in charge of no small amount of civic happiness (and dollars). Not long ago, he seemed too wedded to a bygone era, yet in the past 12 months he has proved surprisingly open-minded and nimble. He recognized the Broncos’ recent doldrums and fired his presumptive coach-for-life Mike Shanahan (though one should only be so lucky as to get fired with Shanahan’s buyout), replacing him with the ludicrously young Josh McDaniels. Bowlen then showed everyone who was boss by jettisoning the petulant Jay Cutler. The Broncos’ tumultuous, unexpected revival has been one of the NFL’s feel-good stories of 2009, reminding everyone which team sits atop the local sports throne.

20. Gary Magness and Sarah Siegel-Magness
Producers, Philanthropists
He’s an heir to the TCI cable company fortune. She’s an heir to the Celestial Seasonings tea riches. Together they invested $12 million in personal funds in a film project that had no business succeeding: Precious, the adaptation of a novel about an overweight, impoverished, African-American teenage mother who had been sexually abused by her own parents. The movie had all the hallmarks of a noble, naïve failure by a Denver rich couple who should have known better. Except that this Denver rich couple knew better than anyone else, or didn’t care. And the executive-producing instincts of the Magnesses have paid off with stellar reviews and big-time Oscar buzz (and potential multiple nominations) for the film. With the endorsement of entertainment titan Oprah, the Magnesses have inked a distribution deal with Lionsgate and are already lining up their next project, based on the Judy Moody children’s books. More than Don Cheadle and Jessica Biel combined, the Magnesses have put Denver, along with the Denver Film Festival, on Hollywood’s map.

21. Kelly Brough
CEO, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
Last year, as Mayor Hickenlooper’s chief of staff, Brough went into budget negotiations with union officials representing the city’s firefighters, set down a jar of Vaseline, and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” The prop was a joke meant to break the ice, but Brough (whose name rhymes with “rough”) wasn’t entirely kidding. This no-nonsense powerhouse had wowed Mayor Hickenlooper so much that he hired her to be his deputy chief of staff after she ran his opponent’s campaign. During her four-year tenure, she rose to chief of staff and orchestrated Hick’s agenda, helping him win a second term with an astounding 87 percent of the vote. Her ascension to the head of the chamber of commerce was something of an upset: Despite her wealth of political chops, she did not have the private sector business pedigrees of her predecessors. A new perspective may help see the chamber through the recession.

22. Pat Stryker and Al Yates
The Liberals’ Dynamic Duo
Stryker’s checkbook and Yates’ political acumen, together, have been instrumental in swinging Colorado from red to blue. A retired president of Colorado State University, Yates has become the point person for wealthy Colorado liberals looking to nudge political races. The reclusive Stryker is his biggest source of cash. While Stryker may have lost a third of her net worth last year—the share price the Stryker Corporation, a medical supply company, is down 30 percent—she’s still worth $1.4 billion. In 2008, she was the 16th-largest political donor in the country, giving nearly $1 million to liberal causes and politically active 527 organizations.

23. Stan Kroenke
Owner, Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, Rapids, and Mammoth
Melo’s boss is a multibillionaire entrepreneur (married to Wal-Mart heir Ann Walton) whose sports business and entertainment empire has made his interests the community’s interest, and vice versa. (Kroenke also has a stake in American football’s St. Louis Rams and English football powerhouse Arsenal.) As owner of the Colorado Rapids and Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, he’s helped revive and sustain interest in professional soccer in the U.S.—no small task. And to top it off, in 2004 he founded Altitude Sports and Entertainment to broadcast all his teams, so he controls the medium and the message. Melo may be his franchise player, but make no mistake: Kroenke’s the franchise.

24. Carmelo Anthony
(The) Denver Nugget
Denver has had flings with past Nuggets teams, from David Thompson’s ABA refugees in the ’70s to Dikembe Mutombo’s surprise conference finalists in 1994. Thanks to Melo, local hoops fans are finally falling in love. With the help of veteran sidekick Chauncey Billups, Anthony has elevated his team to elite status—making Nuggets games the most coveted ticket this side of Invesco Field—while becoming what some now call the most complete offensive force in the NBA. Still only 25 years old, Anthony is beginning to make Denver sports fans almost as passionate about hoops as they are about football.

25. Walter Isenberg
CEO/President, Sage Hospitality
For the past 25 years, Isenberg and Sage cofounder Zack Neumeyer have presided over Sage’s expanding hotel empire, which now controls almost 50 properties in more than 20 states, including Denver’s Curtis, Oxford, and JW Marriott (which has a Second Home bar/restaurant that has become a late-night hotspot to watch cougars hunt players). Isenberg serves on the board of such prominent Front Range organizations as the Downtown Denver Partnership, the Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Children’s Hospital Foundation—and is one of the Colorado Concern(ed). As the economy recovers, look for Isenberg to buy and manage distressed properties, particularly in and around downtown Denver, which will broaden his already considerable influence, both in his businesses and in his philanthropy.

26. Rob Corry
Attorney, Medical Marijuana Advocate
No local story has grabbed more recent headlines than medical marijuana, and Corry—a libertarian Republican—is at the center. He’s the go-to lawyer for medical marijuana supporters, representing dozens of dispensaries around the state and regularly squaring off against Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and others. With taxation guidelines now being established, medical marijuana could become one of Colorado’s most prominent—wait for it—growth industries in an otherwise stagnant economy, and the always-quotable Corry will be leading the charge.

27. Tom Boasberg
Superintendent, Denver Public Schools
Boasberg, the man charged with carrying on the reforms of his former boss, Michael Bennet, stumbled out of the gate when his candidates for the DPS Board of Education failed at the polls in November. The winners, supported by the teachers’ union, aren’t fans of the charter schools that Boasberg and Bennet have pushed. And the fact that the new board met at the pricey Broadmoor Hotel for a team-building “therapy session” on the taxpayers’ dime was not an auspicious start. Still, many politicos have faith that he’ll be able to sway the new union-backed board with logic—and numbers—that show the reforms are working. “Boasberg is on the right side of the issues,” says one politician. “He has the power to lead the district that leads the state, and the ability to get reforms done.”

28. Ted Trimpa
Partner, Hogan & Hartson
Trimpa is the firm’s point man in and around the Legislature. Before the election last year, Trimpa negotiated with unions and the business community to make sure that four anti-business ballot measures—ones that unions had put forward after a tiff—would be torpedoed. Trimpa advises multimillionaire Tim Gill, investing Gill’s millions in advancing gay-rights causes and supportive candidates at the ballot box.

29. Joe Blake
Chancellor, Colorado State University
During his decade-long run as the head of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, Blake was a voice of moderation in the business community, moving the tax-reluctant group to help support both FasTracks and Referendum C. Still, it was a bit of a surprise that Governor Ritter would appoint the Republican Blake to helm CSU, placing two Republicans in charge of Colorado’s higher-education system (along with CU president Bruce Benson). Blake’s selection speaks to his clout on both sides of the aisle.

30. Timothy Marquez
CEO/Chairman, Venoco Inc.
The Denver native and Colorado School of Mines graduate moved his California-based oil and gas company—from which he was once ousted, only to return, Steve Jobs-like—back to his hometown in 2005. Since then, he’s become a major player in philanthropy. After Venoco had a $212 million IPO in 2006, Marquez donated $50 million to set up the Denver Scholarship Fund, which matches college scholarships for graduating Denver high school students.

31. Bruce Jakosky
Principal Investigator, MAVEN Project, CU-Boulder
The lead investigator of the $485 million MAVEN project (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN), Jakosky oversees the largest research contract in CU’s history. He and his team will spend several years building a spacecraft that may finally answer the question of whether there ever was life on Mars. Scheduled to launch in late 2013, MAVEN will explore the red planet’s atmosphere. Jakosky operates in a whole other universe.

32. Federico Peña
Senior Adviser, Vestar Capital Partners
Before the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Peña endorsed Barack Obama, over Hillary Clinton. For the Clintons, the defection was traitorous: Peña had served in the Clinton Cabinet for five years, as secretary of both transportation and energy. Peña, a former Denver mayor, served as Obama’s national campaign cochair and on the transition team. During a trip that Mayor Hickenlooper made to D.C. last February, Peña brokered a 45-minute private sit-down with then-newly installed secretary of transportation Ray LaHood.

33. Michael Johnston
State Senator
One of the newest state senators, Johnston has two rare assets for a freshman: real-world experience and connections. While he was the cofounder and principal of the Mapleton Expeditionary School of the Arts in Thornton, he started advising then-presidential candidate Obama on education issues. In May, after state Senate president (and African-American) Peter Groff ascended to the Obama administration, Johnston—a young white man without political experience—replaced Groff as the representative of the ethnically diverse district.

34. Amory Lovins
Chief Scientist/Chairman, Rocky Mountain Institute
If the U.S. ever overcomes its addiction to foreign oil, Lovins will be one of the first people to thank for it. For the past quarter century, he’s helmed RMI with the unofficial philosophy that “elegant frugality speaks for itself.” Does it ever. Lovins’ genius has helped save countless millions of dollars through improved energy efficiency for companies and organizations worldwide, from Wal-Mart to the Pentagon. His own prolific output—he’s authored 29 books on environmental topics—has made him must-have counsel to CEOs and world leaders alike. As the energy industry evolves through the 21st century, Lovins’ fingerprints figure to be all over the blueprint.

35. Jesse Morreale
Restaurateur
In a city aggressively trying to up its rep as a foodie paradise, Morreale has turned several seemingly modest venues into the type of places where Denver’s hipsters and elite alike mingle to see and be seen. His Mezcal, Tambien, and La Rumba hosted some of the Democratic National Convention’s hottest parties—including those fronted by the Creative Coalition, one of the entertainment industry’s most influential nonprofit advocacy groups—and his revamping of a once-seedy Colfax property into the hipster-friendly Rockbar showed that Morreale is a hit with the youngsters too. All this successful hustling has raised his national profile, and the town’s too.

36. Blake Jones
President/Cofounder, Namasté Solar
This solar-powered entrepreneur became the poster boy for the new (alternative) power generation last February, when he spoke along with President Obama and VP Joe Biden at the signing of the stimulus package at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. Since founding his solar-panel installation company in 2005, he’s planted panels at the homes of Senator Udall, Congressman Ed Perlmutter, and the governor’s mansion. Jones has been a vocal advocate for increased funding to Colorado renewable energy businesses, and recently opened a new Denver office. Imagine that—an expanding business.

37. Dick Kelly
Chairman/President/CEO, Xcel Energy
Although Xcel Energy is based in Minneapolis, Denver native Kelly will factor into just about every change (desired or actual) to Colorado’s energy economy in the coming months and years—like, say, adding much-needed solar, wind, or biomass power to the grid. Kelly spends the workweek in Minneapolis and weekends with his family at home in the Denver area. Warming to renewable energy and environmentally friendly technologies, in October he announced that Xcel planned to add about 1,300 megawatts of solar and wind energy to its system, including more than 250 megawatts from solar panels on customer’s homes—more than three times the amount of solar power the company is required by law to add by 2020.

38. Adam Lerner
Director, Museum of Contemporary Art Denver
Art, public and private, is the soul of any community, and Lerner is one of the foremost visionaries charged with keeping Denver’s creative class vibrant. The founder of the Laboratory of Art and Ideas at Belmar ascended to his current position when the Lab merged with MCA in February 2009. Under Lerner, MCA has continued to distinguish itself as a renowned repository for and promoter of modern art, with daring exhibits (Damien Hirst, anyone?) and creative educational programs that attract notable artists from around the world.

39. Tom Cech/Leslie Leinwand
Directors, Colorado Initiative in Molecular Biology
Behind Leinwand and Cech, the latter of whom won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1989, this interdisciplinary research center at CU-Boulder is developing a more collaborative environment for scientific and medical discovery. First opened in 2003, CIMB eventually will house more than 20 laboratories for departments including mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, and others. By promoting “productive collisions” between disciplines, CIMB has already enabled breakthroughs in cancer screening and tissue engineering to reduce the need for hip and knee replacements, and in 2010 the center will work with CU’s Leeds School of Business to develop biotechnology-focused entrepreneurial programs.

40. Alex Bogusky
Partner, Crispin Porter + Bogusky
If you put Mad Men’s Don Draper through the modern-day Boulder ringer, you’d get Alex Bogusky—a savvy ad man who knows how to create buzz for products like Burger King (he brought the creepy, plastic-masked king to life), Mini Cooper (he placed the wee cars in the stands of sports stadiums), and Guitar Hero (the spoofs of Risky Business). Bogusky’s so hip, in fact, that Microsoft hired his firm to fight back against the damaging “Mac vs. PC” campaign from Apple, which proves that Front Rangers— or, at the very least, Bogusky and his team—are every bit as creative and effective at selling things as those modern-day Manhattan Mad Men.

41. Paul Sandoval
Owner, Tamales by La Casita
Don’t underestimate the self-deprecating hombre in the white apron. Sandoval, a North Denver restaurant owner, was a state senator back in the late ’70s and early ’80s, and remains a political puppet master: After City Councilman Rick Garcia emerged as the likely front runner for director of the regional Housing and Urban Development office, Sandoval set the political stage for his wife, Paula (a state senator), to take Garcia’s seat. Sandoval is a member of Ken Salazar’s kitchen cabinet and doles out advice to the likes of DPS’ Tom Boasberg. On top of all that, he finds time to sell 12,000 tamales daily.

42. Scott McInnis
Republican Gubernatorial Candidate
The three-term congressman looked like he was in trouble early in the Republican gubernatorial primary; state Senate minority leader Josh Penry was widely viewed as the GOP’s rising—and possibly present—gubernatorial star. The old-hand politico didn’t fret, though, raising loads of cash and lining up support from his GOP friends—who helped push Penry out of the race in November. McInnis was even able to quell rabble-rouser Tom Tancredo, assuring all concerned that he’ll be able to coast to an easy Republican primary victory and focus his attention—and money—on the weakened Governor Ritter.

43. Diana DeGette
U.S. Congresswoman
As the Democrats’ chief deputy whip and the senior member of Colorado’s congressional delegation, DeGette wields a big stick in Washington. Example: She was instrumental in pushing through the stem-cell reform bill. Back home in Denver, though, DeGette stays out of local politics and isn’t the type to focus on bringing home the bacon for her district, which is liberal enough that she doesn’t have to worry about losing her seat to a Republican. Yet a Democratic opponent could be a problem for DeGette; one Denver politico told us, “If Andrew Romanoff had the balls, he could have given DeGette a good challenge.”

44. Michele Ostrander
Executive Director, Susan G. Komen for the Cure—Denver Metropolitan Affiliate
If you’ve ever stood on Speer Boulevard among the tens of thousands of pink ribbons and inspired—and inspiring—women, men, and children as they embark on the annual 5K Komen Race for the Cure, you could feel the power of Michele Ostrander. Last year, Ostrander’s second as the executive director of Komen’s Denver chapter, 53,849 people participated in the Mile High City’s Race for the Cure, netting about $2 million for the organization. Last year, funds raised by the Denver chapter made possible more than 5,000 mammograms and almost 26,000 meals for patients in need, among many other services. Lance Armstrong may have coined the word “Livestrong,” but in Denver it’s Ostrander—and the thousands of volunteers she and her team turn out each year to raise funds for the fight against breast cancer—who truly embodies that ethos.

45. John Elway
Former Bronco, Entrepreneur
Life after football has proved to be considerably more challenging than opposing defenses were to Elway, the Bronco legend and one of Denver’s chief brands. Though Elway’s eponymous restaurants and car dealerships have made him millions in the decade since his retirement, the sometimes GOP celebrity has also endured a messy divorce; he was chairman of the Arena Football League’s executive committee when the league folded last August; and recently news reports identified Elway as a pitchman for an alleged $30 million Ponzi scheme. To date, there’s no evidence he’s done anything wrong, and the issue seems to have had little effect on how warmly locals still view number 7, flaws and all.

46. Josh Penry
Minority Leader, State Senate
Sure, Penry took a hit by leaving the Republican gubernatorial primary, but in the face of troublesome polls, a fund-raising effort that was falling short of McInnis’, and the big GOP money that was lining up against him, avoiding a damaging primary was the smartest thing he could have done. If anything, that he’s taken as a threat within his own party speaks volumes. The 33-year-old Penry has kept his powder dry for future races and increased his statewide profile, both of which will help him as the state Senate minority leader, where he’ll be able to actively undermine Ritter and the Democrats. And unlike Andrew Romanoff—who jumped into a race where he wasn’t wanted—Penry can remain the GOP’s next great contender.

47. Phillip Washington
RTD General Manager and CEO
When Cal Marsella, the general manager of the Regional Transportation District for 14 years, stepped down last July, he left a gaping hole: RTD is facing a $2.2 billion shortfall in funding for the FasTracks system. The recently hired Washington, RTD’s former assistant GM for administration, will likely have one of the toughest jobs in Colorado: convincing money-strapped voters to support a tax hike to finish the light-rail system.

48. Greg Maffei
President/CEO, Liberty Media
A former high-level adviser to Bill Gates, Maffei leads Liberty Media under chairman John Malone. Instrumental in Liberty’s takeover of Sirius XM radio, he manages properties like QVC, DirecTV, and Starz Entertainment, as well as Fox Sports networks in several regions, including Denver. On the side, Maffei is active in Republican politics, and his name often surfaces as a potential statewide candidate.

49. Christoph Heinrich
Director, Denver Art Museum
The DAM is one of a handful of local institutions that will help determine how quickly Denver can attain its feverishly desired international reputation, so perhaps it’s fitting that a European is now running it. Heinrich came to the DAM from his native Germany, and his knowledge of and connections to the international art community won him the director position after two years as a curator. For Heinrich, Frederic Hamilton and the museum’s board agreed to retire Lewis Sharp after two decades of service. The museum’s latest splashy installation, Embrace!, which was curated by Heinrich and debuted in November, showcases the grand vision for DAM and stamps it as a destination for artists and art lovers from all over the world.

50. Pete Coors
Chairman, MolsonCoors
Lame “cold activated” cans and bottles notwith-standing, Coors and Co. brew a lot of Silver Bullets and a branding power that transcends the tailgate.

Rising Stars

Christian Anschutz
Developer
With fatherly mentoring from business partner David Steel, the son of Phillip Anschutz is emerging from his father’s considerable shadow by taking increasing leadership roles in local real estate and business development.

Peter Karpinski
Chief Operating Officer, Sage Restaurant Group
Having served as the operations director for Philadelphia’s wildly successful Starr Restaurant Organization, Karpinski knows a thing or two about running restaurants. Since taking over at Sage, he’s opened up the Corner Office downtown and Second Home in Cherry Creek North—only the first two of his many future conquests, we suspect.

Josh McDaniels
Head Coach, Denver Broncos
Had we compiled this list three months ago, McD would’ve been in the top 30. The brash boy wonder figures to be a local fixture for years to come.

Jonathan Vaughters
CEO, Slipstream Sports
In a sport where doping has been unchecked for decades, Denver native Vaughters made worldwide headlines in 2007 when he announced that his Boulder-based pro squad, Team Garmin-Transitions, would have the most rigorously tested cyclists in the world. The tough policy hasn’t hurt the team’s success—Garmin riders placed in the top five in the 2008 and 2009 Tour de France.

Roxane White
Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office
The former manager of Denver’s Department of Human Services took over as Hickenlooper’s chief of staff last September. Insiders say she’s a quick study and already has the mayor’s office running better than any of her high-powered predecessors.

Plummeting Stocks

James Dobson
Evangelical Leader
At one time, Dobson was one of the most powerful evangelical Christian leaders in the country; today, after stepping down as the chairman of Focus on the Family and leaving his radio show, the 73-year-old has talked himself into irrelevancy.

Dan Hawkins
Football Coach, University of Colorado
At the beginning of last season, Hawkins proclaimed that he’d lead the Buffaloes to “10 wins, no excuses.” After a rash of injuries—and several top players leaving the program—the team barely squeaked out three measly wins, bringing Hawkins’ record on the gridiron to 16-33 over the past four years. One likely factor in why he still holds a clipboard is that CU didn’t want to drop $3.1 million to buy out his contract.

Tom Martino
Troubleshooter
The consumer advocate—whose referral can be bought for a mere $3,000—was shown as the bombastic blowhard he is last year, after local stand-up Adam Cayton-Holland filmed a withering, hilarious YouTube take-down.

Andrew Romanoff
Aspiring Public Official
The former speaker of the House wunderkind has looked lost since being term-limited out of his seat a year ago; Romanoff was passed over for both the secretary of state and Senate positions. Challenging Michael Bennet in a party-damaging primary reads as a petulant ego trip.

John Temple
Former Editor, Publisher, and President, Rocky Mountain News
He used his Rocky to wield his agenda and satiate his ravenous ego. With the paper no more, Temple is revealed to all (but himself) as a mere mortal with an out-of-town consulting gig and semi-consequential media blog.