by Tracy Chamberlin

It’s less than two weeks away: The day after the November elections, when Coloradoans will get to watch TV ads that only want to sell them cars, movies and the latest low-calorie soda, not politicians.

As a key swing state in the presidential election, Colorado has been bombarded with political advertising and placed on the front line of national politics. It’s also on the front line of something else – the marijuana debate.

Over the past couple of decades a third of the nation, 17 states in all, has approved and enacted medical marijuana laws. Amendment 64, which appears on the ballot this November, takes the next step. It proposes regulating marijuana like alcohol with age restrictions and ID requirements, taking away the need for medical approval from a doctor.

The measure Colorado voters will get to see on the ballot highlights key points like connecting it to age 21, limiting allowable amounts and, like medical marijuana, giving local governments the right to regulate or prohibit it.

It also specifically mentions that every year the first $40 million of tax revenues from the marijuana sales will be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund.

The actual amendment to the state constitution is longer and more detailed.

More connections are made to alcohol regulation, like the fact that it’s illegal to drive under the influence. Although, details aren’t provided for how that would be determined or enforced.

Drug testing is also addressed, noting that employers can still restrict use of marijuana by employees in or outside of work.

Another key component to the amendment is what’s called industrial hemp, which has a lower concentration of the active ingredient in marijuana and is used for manufacturing products such as textiles, biofuels and biodegradable plastics.

The amendment allows for the cultivation and sale of industrial hemp, and gives the state assembly until July 2014 to work out the regulatory details.

But they only have until July 2013 to work out the details for marijuana. Local municipalities get a few more months, until October 2013, to build upon those guidelines set by the state.

Durango is still working out the regulatory details for its own medical marijuana ordinance passed in 2008.

This summer, the city raised fees and fines for marijuana business licensing after determining that the previous fee schedule did not cover costs for processing licenses and enforcement.

During discussions of fees, officials also cited issues with current regulations that needed to be worked out. In the end, the city chose to wait on the results of the November vote before making any adjustments, and the City Council approved a moratorium through the end of the year on issuing licenses for medical marijuana facilities.

If the amendment passes, the city will need to adapt to the new guidelines. If it fails, the city will likely lift the moratorium and make minor changes to the current medical marijuana framework.

However, which way that vote will go is still a bit hazy.

According to Public Policy Polling, a nonpartisan national pollster, 47 percent of likely Colorado voters support the amendment and 38 percent oppose it. But when those same voters were asked if they thought marijuana should be legal, that gap decreased with 49 percent saying “yes” and 43 percent saying “no.”

The most recent polls, conducted by SurveyUSA, show 48 percent of likely voters support the measure and 43 percent oppose it. That’s a shrinking gap from a poll taken a month ago, showing 51 percent who support it and 40 percent who oppose it.

What is certain is that there is no shortage of voices on both sides of the debate.

Websites are up and running for “Yes on 64” and “No on 64,” and both campaigns are racking up endorsements daily.

Durango City Councilor Paul Broderick, who opposed the statewide medical marijuana measure in 2000, has endorsed the “No on 64” campaign. “If you increase availability, you increase usage … ,” he said. “I don’t think that’s good for society.”

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has also come out in opposition, saying “Colorado is known for many great things – marijuana should not be one of them.”

However, not all government officials oppose the amendment. The San Miguel Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to pass a resolution supporting it, the first to do so.

The most recent endorsement came from doctors. During an October press conference, Bruce Madison, a former medical director at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, presented a list of more than 300 Colorado doctors, including seven from Durango, who supported the amendment.

The medical benefits of marijuana have been one of the primary arguments for those who support measures like Amendment 64, citing its use for patients suffering from glaucoma or undergoing chemotherapy. It was a key argument used in the passage of medical marijuana laws.

The other key argument and some say the most powerful one for proponents is about the bottom line, particularly in a struggling economy.

The Colorado Center on Law and Policy touts $60 million in potential savings and revenue from the amendment in its first five years, $14 million of which would be added to local government coffers across the state. The report, released in August, states that amount has the potential to double after 2017.

The report also estimates that $35 billion worth of marijuana is currently cultivated in the United States, making it the nation’s leading cash crop. That number eclipses the value of corn and wheat sales combined, making an argument for the future for industrial hemp.

City Councilor Christina Rinderle said that while medical marijuana does generate sales tax revenue for Durango, those benefits need to be balanced with administrative and enforcement costs.

And that’s not the only balancing act. Rinderle added that although she personally thinks marijuana should be regulated like alcohol on a federal level, inconsistencies exist between federal and state laws.

“It’s difficult as a local elected official to support an amendment that is essentially an unfunded mandate,” she said.

Federal officials have said that medical marijuana laws passed in 17 states are illegal and could be subject to federal prosecution. However, they have added that they are more interested in prosecuting the large-scale operations, like drug cartels.

Still, in the past few years, the federal government has been cracking down heavily on medical marijuana facilities in California.

Locally, two dispensaries received notification from federal authorities that they were in violation of the law by being too close to schools. One, at 990 feet, fell just 10 feet short of the 1,000-foot requirement and was forced to move. Both businesses have since found new homes, but the shadow of federal law looms in those 17 states.

At the heart of the federal law is the fact that marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substance Act, along with drugs like heroin. This designation labels it as having a “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

Some advocates have asked the Drug Enforcement Agency to consider rescheduling pot. Arguments were heard Tuesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit in a case, Americans for Safe Access v. DEA, asking the DEA to do just that.

While the judge deliberates the case, Colorado voters will deliberate Amendment 64. Along with voters in Oregon and Washington, states that have similar measures on the ballot in November, they’ll consider where they stand on the marijuana debate.

On Nov. 7, Colorado could become one of the first states to step onto the front line of this national debate.

For more information, visit www.regulatemarijuana.org for the Yes on 64 campaign and votenoon64.com for the No on 64
campaign.