Today’s 1:30pm meeting of the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners could be fascinating… for a politics nerd like myself. One item on today’s agenda is the subject of this editorial series — proposed land use regulations that might make it difficult or impossible for certain citizens to cultivate cannabis for their personal use, even though the right to such cultivation is protected by the Colorado Constitution, Article VIII, Section 16. (Which you can download here.)
But another intriguing item also appears on the agenda — namely, the proposed sale of the historic County Courthouse, located in the heart of downtown Pagosa Springs. We are sharing a couple of perspectives, this morning, that pose questions about the financial analysis delivered to the BOCC last month by Troy Bernberg of Northland Public Finance, based in Greenwood Village.
This editorial, meanwhile, will continue our analysis of the proposed changes to the County Land Use Regulations. In Part One, I made the case that the Colorado Constitution (as I understand the meaning of its words) seems to be saying that I have a protected constitutional right, as a citizen of Colorado over the age of 21, to grow, possess, and use up to six cannabis plants, and furthermore, that doing so “shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law.”
Specifically, these words:
(3) Personal use of marijuana. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:
…(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale.
In my humble opinion, one of the key words in this constitutional statement is the word, “growing”. Cannabis grows like a weed, so to speak, even in a harsh, high-desert climate like Colorado. In 2012, the Colorado voters — including 54% of the voters in Archuleta County — essentially declared that the ‘war on marijuana’ was unnecessary, unwinnable, and an expensive drain on our limited law enforcement budgets and resources.
Unnecessary, because, in the opinion of most voters, cannabis is no more harmful, to the individual or to society, than alcoholic beverages — and could be regulated in essentially the same manner as alcohol sales are regulated.
Unwinnable, because wherever marijuana remains illegal, and scarce, powerful drug cartels continue to find ways to import it into American communities. By making marijuana easily and legally available, the drug cartels are not able to compete.
And a drain on law enforcement, because it’s an easy-to-grow weed, that’s relatively harmless compared to serious drugs like cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, and other Schedule I and II drugs — the drug problems on which law enforcement ought to focus their limited energy and resources.
So we must ask: why would Archuleta County choose to make even more restrictive rules than already exist, and thus increase the amount of time, energy and money that the County will have to direct towards enforcement?
The penalties in Colorado, regarding the ‘black market’ sale of marijuana, are much more harsh than the penalties for simply growing “more than six marijuana plants”. Growing more plants than allowed is a petty offense, so long as no sales are involved. In fact, many district attorneys in Colorado will not even prosecute a case of ‘over-growing’ for personal recreational use.
Why would they want to waste their time? And the taxpayers’ money?
In the recent past, the enforcement of ‘over-growing’ situations has fallen to the Archuleta County Sheriff. Typically, an enforcement action requires ‘evidence’, and in order to obtain evidence located on on private property, the Sheriff typically needs to obtain a search warrant — a reasonably complicated process, especially if you are expecting the violation to be dismissed by the DA’s office.
But enforcement of ‘land use’ regulations can also be handled by the Archuleta County Planning Department’s code enforcement officer.
While following this controversy for the past four months, I’ve been left with the impression that our Sheriff would like to hand off the marijuana enforcement duties to the Planning Department.
According to the County’s current Land Use Regulations:
5.6.2.1 Cultivation of marijuana may be conducted as an accessory use on any legal parcel. No more than six (6) marijuana plants may be cultivated for personal use by a Colorado resident, 21 years of age or older, as provided in Sec. 14(4) and Sec 16(3) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution, with no more than 12 marijuana plants on a single parcel.
The proposed amendments that will be discussed at today’s meeting will prohibit the cultivation within 50 feet of an adjacent property… and will also prohibit growing any plants at all on a vacant parcel you own. You will have to live on the parcel where the cultivation is taking place. If three or more adults live on the same parcel, only two of those adults will have their rights protected by the Colorado Constitution.
What I have less understanding about — and would like to have, at some point — is whether the Planning Department also needs a search warrant in order to walk onto someone’s private property, or into someone’s private home.
Perhaps these questions will be asked, by the public, at today’s 1:30pm BOCC meeting.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.