Protesters continue to occupy the space, and issued this statement:

Occupy Denver openly and strongly condemns the premature response of Governor Hickenlooper, Mayor Hancock, Attorney General Suthers, Chief of Staff Roxane White, and the Colorado State Patrol. The group makes it clear that, regardless of any action taken by the State or City, the daily protest and occupation will continue unimpeded. Occupy Denver looks forward to a Sunrise Rally with Peter Boyles and KHOW in front of the State Capitol beginning at 5 AM on Friday, October 14th, and to this week’s mass rally and protest Saturday, October 15th, expected to draw no less than 2,000 supporters.

Hundreds of law enforcement professionals including Denver’s U.S. District Judge John Kane have come together on a curious quest: Saying the drug war has failed, they want to legalize drugs.

Some are very nuts and bolts, saying the war on drugs has cost trillions of dollars while only making the problem worse. Others like Kane, while agreeing on that point, are more philosophical. “Our national drug policy is inconsistent with the nature of justice, abusive of the nature of authority, and ignorant of the compelling force of forgiveness,” he says on the web site of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Judge John Kane

He says the war on drugs is the number one reason cops become corrupt. “It’s the money. These drug cartels don’t care who they kill. Even a good cop, faced with the choice of ‘take this money or we’ll kill you’ will often take the money. And it is getting worse. Drugs are a vicious business,” he said.

Ryan, now retired, says he never worked in narcotics but that illegal drug trafficking puts every cop’s life at risk and puts every cop in the position of potentially being offered the take a bribe or die proposition.

Retired Denver police officer Tony Ryan

He notes that the online DrugWarChronicle has no problem coming up with a new story every week about corrupt law enforcement professionals.

He says that while the money coming from the sale of drugs causes huge problems on one hand, money coming from the federal government–with virtually every law enforcement organization in the country getting grants of one sort or another to fight the drug war–causes additional problems.

“The war on drugs is an addiction because of the money police departments get,” Ryan says.

Below, video of Ryan talking about why he thinks the war on drugs needs to end. He notes that in Denver the pressure to make high-profile arrests has led to the loss of innocent life.

With budgets down everywhere, he says one reliable source of funds for police departments is money for drug enforcement. “They don’t hire more officers,” he said. “They use the money to avoid layoffs, and they shift people from other uses to drug enforcement.”

Ryan is among those circulating petitions for Colorado’s Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol initiative. He also serves as a public speaker through LEAP.

“We give members of law enforcement, who saw the drug war up close and risked their lives for it, a voice,” Tom Angell, spokesman for the group, told the Colorado Independent. “They will almost universally tell you that the drug war distracted them from the mission of solving crimes and ensuring public safety.”

He says LEAP wants to see all drugs made legal. “There is no drug that is made safer to the public by turning its manufacture and distribution over to cartels and gangs. You don’t want gangs selling drugs on your street corners, but that is what you have,” he said.

The FBI released a report this month showing that even while drugs may be for sale on a street corner near you, it is not for lack of effort that the drug war is being lost. Last year, in the United States, 1.6 million people were arrested on drug charges, with more than 80 percent of those arrested on possession charges. Just under half of all arrests were for simple possession of marijuana.

“Since the declaration of the ‘war on drugs’ 40 years ago we’ve arrested tens of millions of people in an effort to reduce drug use. The fact that cops had to spend time arresting another 1.6 million of our fellow citizens last year shows that it simply hasn’t worked. In the current economy we simply cannot afford to keep arresting three people every minute in the failed ‘war on drugs,’” said Neill Franklin, a retired Baltimore narcotics cop who now heads the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). “If we legalized and taxed drugs, we could not only create new revenue in addition to the money we’d save from ending the cruel policy of arresting users, but we’d make society safer by bankrupting the cartels and gangs who control the currently illegal marketplace.”

Below, Franklin, speaking to the NAACP about why he thinks drugs need to be legalized.

It goes without saying that plenty of people still believe the war on drugs is worth fighting. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said in a recent public forum that if marijuana were legalized in the United States, the cartels would simply move into new lines of business.

Angell said continuing the current policies of prohibition serve no purpose, arguing that drug use in the United States is higher than almost anywhere else in the world. “Almost half of all American adults admit to having used illegal drugs. Everyone who wants to use drugs already is using drugs,” he said.

Angell said that making drugs legal and treating addiction as a health issue would save money and lives.

Former Lafayette judge Leonard Frieling agrees.

“Who do you want controlling the supply of drugs? Gangs, cartels, the Taliban, or the government?” he asks.

Colorado attorney Leonard Frieling.

The city backed down, but Frieling was done as a judge. He works today as an attorney, doing mostly criminal defense, including a lot of drug defense work.

“A new report shows that more people in the United States are killed by prescription drug overdoses than by traffic accidents,” Frieling said.

“If people want to worry about something, they should worry about that,” he says.

In fact, he’s right. A story aired this week by ABC News, says that for the first time in history more people in the U.S. are killed by drug overdoses than traffic accidents and that the bulk of those deaths come from accidental overdoses of prescribed opoids. ABC News reported that cases of addiction to prescription drugs is up 400 percent in the last decade.

He says if efforts to legalize drugs are successful, he will smile as his job as a drug defense attorney is eliminated.

“Drug prohibition is such a waste of resources and it does so much damage to lives, and creates so much violent crime,” he says.

Frieling said that people who abuse drugs have a health problem that needs to be addressed. “You can’t charge someone with a felony because of a health problem and then expect them to pull themselves out of the gutter.”

Frieling says that up until the 1910s all drugs were legal in the United States and that the rate of drug abuse in the country was about the same as it is now. “If you can’t win a war in 40 years, you probably can’t win the war. At some point you need to face the fact that the war cannot be won.”

Congressman Jared Polis and drug-policy reform advocate Ethan Nadelmann argued Wednesday night in Vail that one of the most compelling reasons to legalize marijuana in the United States is to eliminate a major funding source for deadly Mexican drug cartels. Both Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and recently retired DEA agent Anthony Coulson sharply disagreed.

Polis, Suthers (Williams photo).

“There’s no federal nexus for action. This is not a federal issue. In fact, there’s almost a reverse federal nexus. We are contributing to international difficulties, particularly on our southern border, where about 50 percent of the funds for the criminal cartels come from marijuana smuggling operations,” said Polis, a Boulder Democrat whose district includes Vail and surrounding Eagle County.

Suthers, a Republican who has openly expressed his contempt for Colorado’s current medical marijuana industry, said Mexican politicians and law enforcement officials he’s talked to don’t see legalization of marijuana in the United States as the key to ending drug-gang bloodshed in Mexico.

“They think that [violence is] so ingrained at this point, [and the cartels are] very flexible,” Suthers said. “When the drug market dries up, they kidnap people. Until we get some meaningful change in the Mexican criminal justice system – it’s kind of a non-player down there – [the cartels are] in charge of the country and they’ll do whatever they need to do to make money regardless of what happens in the U.S.”

Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the non-profit Drug Policy Alliance, countered that argument: “The number one thing you need to go into other businesses is capital. The number one source of capital for the Mexican gangs is the illegal drug business. Legalizing marijuana removes a major source of capital for them and will undermine their capacity to expand into other areas.”

Coulson, who formerly directed the federal government’s drug enforcement strategy in southern Arizona and now serves as a drug-policy consultant and director of ADAPTE International, agreed that legalizing marijuana in the States would be a major blow to the cartels.

“Dr. Nadelmann, Congressman Polis are correct that marijuana is the largest cash-generating operation of a cartel,” Coulson said. “If there was no marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine would collapse on itself – just logistically not enough money for a cartel to traffic in those drugs. Now you might say that that supports [their argument] on legalizing marijuana … After 28 years that’s not a conclusion that I would come to.”

Instead, Coulson favors keeping marijuana illegal, dramatically increasing federal spending on treatment and prevention and sanctioning the Mexican government and power structure.

“What controls Mexico? Not the Mexican government. The oligarchy. The few rich 200 families in Mexico and the cartels control Mexico. The only impact that we’ll have is sanctioning the government of Mexico for not cooperating with us and sanctioning the oligarchy,” Coulson said.

The former DEA agent went on to say Mexico’s culture of violence will persist even without a major U.S. drug market.

“I would suggest that the violence in Mexico is not a product of our consumption use, although it’s a contributing factor,” Coulson said. “The reason for violence in Mexico is because it is something that they have inherited from their colonial masters, the Spanish and the French, a long time ago.”

During a later question and answer period an audience member who identified himself as being of Mexican descent said Coulson’s comments deeply offended him. He countered that the U.S. drug market has provided a steady flow of cash and guns back across the border that has fueled the rise of the cartels and allowed them to take over human trafficking operations.

Vail has long catered to wealthy Latin American visitors and second homeowners, especially from Mexico, and many of its restaurants and lodges rely on immigrant laborers. Suthers seemed keenly aware of his audience.

“Almost without exception, the people on these panels advocating the legalization of drugs have either been academics, paid affiliates of public policy institutes, editorialists or law enforcement officers or politicians in ski resorts and areas of great affluence,” Suthers said.

Polis, a millionaire entrepreneur whose family owns property in Vail, disputed that notion. While he says he’s never smoked marijuana himself and very rarely even drinks alcohol, Polis said he’s dealt with addiction in his own family and saw a high school friend die of a heroin overdose.

But pot is not heroin, he said, and the ease with which is can be obtained illegally makes it all the more imperative to regulate marijuana for strength and purity and to keep it away from those under the age of 21. Plus, legalization will neuter the cartels and boost the U.S. economy.

“If you had legal, regulated marijuana production in this country, not only is it going to create jobs here, it deals a blow to the cartels,” Polis said. “Will they still exist? Yeah, they still work in heroin and cocaine and whatever else they’re doing. But half of their money, half of the crime will disappear overnight on our southern border and be much more containable by the police resources which we will also be able to buffer by the increased focus on violent crime and the increased resources that come in from regulating and taxing marijuana.”

Nadelmann, Coulson (Williams photo).

“I personally would prefer legalization of marijuana to the medical marijuana regimen we currently have in Colorado,” Suthers said. “I believe the retail dispensary model in Colorado, whereby marijuana is grown in large grow operations and sold in retail dispensaries to people who allegedly have a debilitating medical condition has become a complete joke. It’s nothing more than state-sanctioned fraud on the part of thousands of patients and a few dozen doctors.”

Nadelmann warned that even if Colorado becomes the first state to fully legalize recreational marijuana use, it will not be an easy process.

“It’s not a panacea,” he said. “And I can tell you that if Colorado votes to legalize in 2012 – and please do and I hope the same is true for folks in Washington state, which may also have an initiative – it’s not going to be simple and easy. There’s no flip the switch and we move into an orderly regulated world. The attorney general is going to be called upon to enact that law and implement that law in good faith and I hope he will if it wins.”

Nadelmann added, however, that Colorado has a chance to show the rest of the nation what sensible drug policy looks like.

“You guys can lead,” he said. “You can actually provide the future, and it’s a future in which we’ll have drug policies grounded not in ignorance, fear, prejudice and profit but in science, compassion, health and human rights.”

A federal appeals court in Atlanta today struck down a key provision of President Obama’s health care reform law, saying the government could not force people to buy insurance.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers was quick to praise the decision:

“Today’s decision is a clear victory for federalism and the Constitution,” Suthers said in a prepared statement. “The court’s decision underlines how Congress overstepped its constitutional bounds by mandating for the first time that individual Americans buy a particular product or service. The 11th Circuit’s order and others across the country make it extremely likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this critical constitutional question.”

Assistant Colorado Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, reiterated the Senate Republicans’ opposition to the federal health care law. “Obamacare’s unfunded mandate on Americans threatens the liberty of every citizen and the sovereignty of our states. The 11th Circuit Court decision truly strikes a blow for freedom,” he said in a prepared statement.

Matt Inzeo, communications director for the Colorado Democratic Party, said he was disappointed, but said it is just one more step on the way to the Supreme Court.

“For the president and his allies who have worked so hard, this is disheartening, for sure, but most people expected a mixed bag of decisions as these cases wind their way to the Supreme Court,” Inzeo said.

Dede de Percin, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, was unhappy with the decision, but like Inzeo, she was philosophical.

“The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land and it is being implemented,” she said. “This doesn’t change that.”

She said the individual mandate will not actually affect very many people and likened the court battles to a ping pong game. “This case was filed in a circuit known to be conservative, so this was expected.

“The more people are affected by the Affordable Care Act, the more they like it. The bottom line is that people ought to be able to get the care they need and be able to afford it, and that is what this law ensures,” she said.

Colorado is one of 28 states participating in this and other similar lawsuits, a move undertaken by Suthers on his own authority without direction from the governor or legislature.

As The Washington Post reports, It is widely expected that the case will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today announced the support of several Colorado Republican heavyweights including former senators Hank Brown and Wayne Allard, former Governor Bill Owens, former Congressman Bob Beuprez, current Attorney General John Suthers and current Treasurer Walker Stapleton.

“I am proud to earn the support of so many well respected Colorado leaders,” Mitt Romney said in a press release. “I look forward to working with them during my campaign to promote job creation, balance our exploding budgets, and reverse President Obama’s failed policies.”

Announcing his support, Brown said, “Mitt Romney has the proven record to pull our economy out of this downturn. His extraordinary success in both the private and public sectors will help provide the leadership our country needs to restore our economy and the American spirit.”

As Mitt Romney wraps up a Colorado visit with a fundraiser, Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio released the following statement:

“While it’s heartening to know that Romney knows how to choose a travel destination, that’s not enough to hide his disastrous record on the economy, and how harmful his policies would be for Colorado.

“During Romney’s tenure as governor, Massachusetts’ economic performance was one of the worst in the country on all key labor market measures. Under Romney’s watch, Massachusetts not only lagged behind the country as a whole – they even slipped to 47th in job creation.

“Now, Mitt Romney offers to double down on the same flawed policies that led to millions of job losses in 2008. In Colorado, we’ve been down this road of failed economic policies and proposals before, and we’ve seen the result: a harsh blow to middle-class Coloradans.

“While our families are fighting to continue the upward trend in the economy, one thing is clear: Mitt Romney’s policies are far out of touch with Colorado priorities.”

As every state with legal medical marijuana on the books now seems to have a letter from a U.S. Attorney saying, ‘not so fast’, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has taken the whole thing one step beyond by filing suit against the United States Department of Justice in the hope of getting a judicial ruling that clarifies whether Arizona has the right to implement its new medical marijuana laws.

From MainJustice.com:

Can we or can’t we?

That seems to be the point of the lawsuit that Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has just filed suit against the Department of Justice, seeking a federal court judgment on whether state officials can implement the new Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, which voters approved last November. The law decriminalizes distribution, possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes in certain specific circumstances.

The trouble is, the Arizona law, like those passed in several other states recently, puts Arizona in a situation that is ambiguous at best, since marijuana remains illegal under federal law, as the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, has reminded state officials.

Horne said the Arizona suit was intended get a court ruling “that makes it clear what direction we can safely go — either to implement the law or that we cannot,” The Associated Press reported.

In directing Horne to sue, Gov. Jan Brewer said: “For the state employees charged with administering the medical marijuana program or the Arizonans who intend to participate as consumers, it’s important that we receive court guidance as to whether they are at risk for federal prosecution,”according to a report in The Cypress Times. “Arizonans deserve clarity on an issue with such dire legal implications.”

Not everyone in the medical marijuana community is happy with Brewer’s decision to sue the feds, seeing it as unnecessary and possibly as an attempt to to get a ruling that would stop Arizona’s medical marijuana trade in its tracks.

From ThirdAge.com:

The move to sue has been met with scrutiny from medical marijuana advocates like the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association.

Joe Yuhas, a spokesman for the association, told the Arizona Daily Sun that the lawsuit “a waste of taxpayer money,” pointing out that the federal government has never attempted to shut down operations in the 16 other states that allow for medical marijuana use.

The Arizona Republic puts it bluntly, saying the move is an attempt to thwart the will of the voters, and in fact, pending the outcome of the litigation, Arizona has halted implementation of many parts of the recently-passed state law.

The motion for declaratory judgment, to be filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, pits Brewer and two state agency directors against voters and patients who supported Proposition 203, as well as potential dispensary owners who could face federal prosecution.

It also names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke as defendants, and will argue that their policies have spawned uncertainty and confusion.

Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne say the suit was prompted by a May 2 letter from Burke to state Health Director Will Humble, warning that prospective pot growers and sellers could be prosecuted under federal drug-trafficking laws.

What is indisputable is that the move by Arizona is a direct response to letters written by DOJ attorneys to Colorado and other states.

From politics.gather.com:

In fact, several of the U.S. attorneys in the 16 states seem to have taken the stance that while a user of medical marijuana might be viewed compassionately if she or he grew marijuana for personal use, commercial growers and retailers could still be prosecuted.

All of this came to a head when Colorado asked for clarification when the state saw its number of growers increase exponentially and perceived what it saw as a sharp and unjustified increase in patients. As it now stands, the threats are having varying degrees of effectiveness. Rhode Island has put their program on indefinite hold.

The Department of Justice must uphold the law. That much is a given, and while the DOJ might decide not to pursue a law that it deems unconstitutional, such as it did earlier with the announcement that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, it is a little more difficult to make such a call on drug usage, regardless of the reason.

At this point, it seems a waste of time to prosecute for medical marijuana. While Congress might not want to pursue the full legalization of marijuana usage, it seems silly and cruel not to try to ease suffering where possible. It is callous to ignore people’s pain, and to aggravate it further by causing stress over worry that something legal on a state level remains a federally prosecutable offense is just weirdly pitiless.

In Colorado it is no secret that Attorney General John Suthers is no fan of medical marijuana.

From National Public Radio, which recently published a wrap-up of DOJ’s role in state medical marijuana initiatives.

It’s a problem familiar to Colorado’s Attorney General John Suthers. He says Colorado’s more than 800 dispensaries are probably not what the federal government had in mind when it issued the Ogden memo.

“We’ve had just a plethora of retail dispensaries develop. We’ve got grow operations; we’re now at 125,000 patients,” he says. “And it’s a joke.”

That’s why he asked his U.S. attorney for advice. Suthers guesses that the letters from other U.S. attorneys are an attempt to prevent more states from becoming like Colorado.

Mike Saccone, spokesperson for Suthers’ office, said that any ruling in the Arizona case would be unlikely to affect Colorado. “Arizona is in the 9th Circuit. Colorado is in the 10th. A ruling in the 9th could be persuasive to a judge in the 10th Circuit, but it would not provide precedent unless it made it to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Saccone told The Colorado Independent.

He then added by email, after discussing the case with Suthers: “We would welcome any clarity the suit could bring on the issue of medical marijuana. We do not have any plans at this time to file a similar suit.”

A bill described as “clean-up” legislation for last year’s medical marijuana regulations passed out of committee after hours of testimony that showed a clear rift in the medical marijuana provider community. Concerns were also expressed by the Colorado attorney general’s office that the federal government may decide to step in.

Despite some caregivers calling for an end to the medical marijuana dispensary “experiment” during Monday’s hearing and Deputy Attorney General Michael Dougherty’s explanation of a recent warning by U.S. Attorney John Walsh that noted marijuana remains an illegal drug in the eyes of the federal government, it was clear that most industry members and senators remained staunchly supportive of the burgeoning Colorado industry.

“I think that it is clear in the letter from the U.S. attorney that the Obama administration, the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney of Colorado… are taking a fresh look at this,” Dougherty said.

Senators noted that at least one portion of the bill that had been mentioned in the letter, including the creation of investment funds, were not part of the current legislation. Still, Dougherty said those taking part in the industry were doing so under the threat of possible federal repercussions.

The bill sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, if passed into law would require that primary caregivers register their grow sites with the state and conform to all zoning codes, opens the door for those who have not been in the state for two or more years to work in a dispensary, limits infused medical marijuana producers to having only 500 plants on site and creates two new classifications of medical marijuana license.

The first license allows medical marijuana caregivers who grow more than 30 plants to also grow for another caregiver. The second license allows for an infused-products facility to be licensed to multiple infused-marijuana product producers.

Considerable attention was paid to determining what type of access the public should have to the location of home growing operations operated by primary caregivers. The rights of the neighbors of primary caregivers were weighed against the real possibility that home growing operations could be targeted for theft and robbery. Ultimately, the caregivers won a partial battle, with the committee deciding to limit public access to the information.

During the committee meeting members of some medical marijuana groups argued that their voice had been lost as groups such as the Medical Marijuana Industry Group (MMIG), have hired lobbyists to draft legislation that specifically helps its members. They argued that not all marijuana interest groups can afford lobbyists and they went on to say that the medical marijuana patient was the one who would ultimately lose out.

However, executive director of MMIG Mike Elliot said that his organization was working to create a regulated and legitimate industry that would allow it to continue to function without interference from the federal government.

“We want state laws to be put in place that are stated clear and unambiguous, and that we can be in compliance with,” Elliot said. “At the same time we don’t want them to be unnecessarily burdensome…we agree [the bill] creates more legitimacy and a model that can show that Colorado has medical marijuana under control and that the federal government doesn’t need to get involved.”

Denver attorney Robert Corry spoke out this week against federal scare tactics he said were being used to create uncertainty in Colorado’s medical marijuana community.

He also said there seemed to be a certain amount of cooperation between federal and state authorities to cast doubt on the legality of medical marijuana in Colorado.

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis urged the Justice Department to respect the laws of Colorado.

“This campaign of fear on the part of the Obama Administration is reprehensible, even more so given our own Colorado Attorney General (former U.S. Attorney)’s apparent alliance with the Obama Administration against Colorado’s citizens,” said Corry in an email.

“State and local government employees should not fear federal persecution just for doing their jobs. Patients, caregivers, and marijuana businesses, similarly, should not fear for following Colorado’s Constitution and laws.

“The U.S. government should begin with prosecuting itself, specifically the Food and Drug Administration. Since 1978, the FDA has distributed medical marijuana to patients through the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program.

“The feds should then move on to the government employees in the U.S. Congress, who recently legalized the medical use of marijuana in the District of Columbia. That bill was also signed by the President of the United States; medical marijuana would not be legal in D.C. without his signature,” Corry said in the email.

When reached by phone, he elaborated.

“I think these letters are designed to inspire fear,” he said. “I don’t think even one federal or state employee will ever be prosecuted. If they are looking for targets to prosecute, though, they should start with John Suthers. He is the chief legal officer for the state.”

Mike Saccone, communications director for the Colorado Attorney General’s office, said it is well established that the federal government has jurisdiction over drug enforcement in Colorado and all 50 states, and can intervene at will.

Corry expressed the opinion that the feds probably are not going to sweep into Colorado the way they have done in Montana. “They just want to upset us, to create discord, to create a lack of certainty. Business people want to know what the playing field looks like so they can make decisions based on that.”

One reason he thinks the feds won’t soon be raiding medical marijuana businesses in Colorado the way it was done in Montana is because the industry has been in place for about eight years longer than was the case in Montana.

“The cat is out of the bag in Colorado and it is not going back in. We have 10-11 years of history here,” he said.

As to the question of deciding who has a “serious illness” and who doesn’t, he said Colorado was very careful to define what constitutes eligibility to use medical marijuana and was also careful to designate medical doctors as the gatekeepers who determine whether someone qualifies for medical marijuana or not.

He said the idea that some people have “serious illnesses”, which is the language used by the Department of Justice, and so qualify, or that others “claim to be using marijuana for medical purposes”, which is the language used by Suthers in his letter to Hickenlooper is an “invented canard.”

He said both Walsh and Suthers are coming very close to “practicing medicine without a license, which is a felony” if they start trying to distinguish which patients are legitimate and which are not. “To say one patient qualifies and one doesn’t is a crock. These are smart guys, but they aren’t doctors. I can see where they are coming from, though. The media has painted a picture of medical marijuana patients as 20-something males with snowboarding injuries.”

Corry says that there are people who use medical marijuana recreationally, just as there are people who abuse oxycontin, percocet and other prescription drugs. “It is no more of a problem with marijuana than it is with any other medicine,” he said.

The question of who needs marijuana to treat a serious illness and who uses medical marijuana as a cover for recreational use comes against a backdrop of the National Institute of Health declaring that marijuana is powerful medicine. This, at the same time that large multinational pharmaceutical companies are working to gain marketshare for cannabis-based medicines.

The Colorado Independent has documented the stories of two Coloradans who have used medical marijuana, not for fun, but because their doctors told them it was their best shot at a normal life.

The federal government also holds a patent on medical marijuana, with at least one of the people named on the patent being an employee of the National Institute of Health.

He says that any serious effort to prosecute people in Colorado who are following Colorado law as established by constitutional amendment and by legislation, will “declaring war on voters and legislators. I am amazed that this is all coming from the Obama administration. Obama is causing far more trouble than Bush caused in eight years. You always thought Bush was against medical marijuana but he never did anything. Obama has been quite hostile. We embraced Obama. We thought he would be good for medical marijuana. The perception was that he would be easy to deal with, but it hasn’t been like that.”

“I hope the Justice Department will respect the laws passed by the voters of Colorado and the rules propagated by our General Assembly,” Polis said by email. “The Department should follow the principles it outlined in the Ogden memo: that those who are in clear compliance with state laws will not be raided. Colorado has the most robust regulatory structure in the country and our dispensaries are clearly operating under state law.”

Colorado now joins the list of medical marijuana states that have been warned off by The United States Department of Justice, having received a letter from U.S. Attorney for Colorado John Walsh Tuesday.

To see a pdf of the Walsh letter, a letter from Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to Governor John Hickenlooper, and other related letters, click here:

042611 Letters provided to General Assembly

Up until recently, most states with legal medical marijuana have been operating under the guidance of what is known as the Ogden memo, wherein the Department of Justice advised states that while it had the right to prosecute anyone involved in the marijuana trade–whether legal or not–it would not do so as long as individuals were in clear and unambiguous compliance with relevant state laws.

In the past few months, however, various U.S. Attorneys have written to state officials in California, Washington, Montana, Hawaii and now Colorado advising that if the feds view state laws as being contrary to federal laws, which virtually all of them are, the feds may indeed choose to prosecute purveyors of medical marijuana and even state employees involved in the regulation of medical marijuana.

From Suthers’ letter to Hickenlooper:

“These letters indicate that while the Department of Justice will not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law, it does maintain its full authority to vigorously enforce federal law against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana even if such activities are permitted under state law. Of great concern is the fact that some of the letters make clear the U.S. Attorneys do not consider state employees who conduct activities under state medical marijuana laws to be immune from liability under federal law.”

Specifically, Walsh writes to Suthers that it is illegal for anyone to rent space to someone who will use that space to manufacture or distribute marijuana.

Mike Saccone, communications director for Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, said this morning that Suthers has been concerned for some time with the number of people currently licensed to use medical marijuana in Colorado and with the demographics of that group, which tends toward young and male.

He said the demographics have changed as regulations have enabled more people to be licensed for marijuana use.

In virtually all the federal memos, the point is made that the feds will probably not prosecute “seriously ill” people using marijuana as part of their medical treatment.

Reading between the lines, it seems that both the Department of Justice and Suthers think that not everyone using medical marijuana is doing so because of serious illness.

In fact, Suthers’ memo to Hickenlooper notes that Colorado’s ever changing regulations have led to explosive growth in the number of people using medical marijuana–currently about 123,000 people are, according to Suthers, “…claiming to be using marijuana for medical purposes.”

The question of who is seriously ill and who isn’t comes up again and again. At the end of the day, it seems that determination may be made by law enforcement officials rather than doctors and patients themselves.

Department of Justice spokesperson Jeffrey Dorschner did not return a call and an email in time for publication. The governor’s office also could not be reached for comment this morning.

Walsh’s letter to Suthers also raises concerns about pending legislation regarding investment funds, which was killed in the House, but may be back in the Senate. Walsh made it clear that legislation allowing people to invest in medical marijuana businesses would not be legal and that people involved in such funds would be subject to prosecution.

Walsh also makes it clear that DOJ will consider prosecution of businesses involved in large-scale production and sale of “medical marijuana infused product.”

“Clearly Colorado is in danger” of a federal law enforcement crack down, said Laura Kriho, spokesperson for the Cannabis Therapy Institute.

“Suthers was thrilled to be able to write this memo to the Legislature,” she said. “He has wanted to shut this down since the beginning. He clearly thinks there are a lot of patients who are not seriously ill. That determination should be up to the doctor,” she said.

Kriho found it ironic that Suthers has participated in a lawsuit to exempt Colorado from federal health care legislation but seems to welcome federal involvement in Colorado’s medical marijuana laws.

“The fear factor introduced in these memos is incredible. They say they are going to go after property owners and maybe even state employees. Who do we look to for support? Normally you would look to the state attorney general to defend the state’s position but it doesn’t look like we will get that support from Suthers,” she said.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers’ office has landed a blow for consumers against a Colorado Springs business that was scamming people looking for immigration assistance. Suthers’ office announced Wednesday it reached a settlement with Simply Done Immigration and its owner, 45-year-old Joseph P. Corrigan, which, in addition to garnering $20,000 in consumer restitution, bars the company from operating in Colorado. The settlement comes in addition to out-of-court payments equaling $18,000 to be paid by two other individuals associated with the business.

Although Corrigan and Simply Done admit to no wrongdoing in the settlement, the complaint against them filed by Suthers last week is damning.

Suthers accused the company of charging hundreds of dollars to customers for government documents available free online. He said the company often sold the wrong free online documents to its customers; that it also peddled immigration and legal expertise that none of the staffers possessed; that it pretended to be affiliated with a government agency when it was in no way affiliated with any such agency; that it guaranteed results it couldn’t deliver; and that it ignored requests for assistance customers had already paid to secure.

Attorney General Communications Director Mike Saccone told the Colorado Independent that so far just over 70 customers were signed on to receive cash restitution from the settlements but that hundreds if not thousands of Simply Done Immigration customers are eligible.

He expects many more will apply now that a settlement has been reached and is being reported in the press. He encourages customers to apply at the attorney general website or to call the hotline at 1-800-222-4444.

This is the second Colorado Springs scam immigration service business Suthers’ office has targeted successfully in the last two years.

Suthers pulled down a default judgment in 2009 against the Immigration Center, which was operated by Charles Doucette. The judge awarded the state and consumers $2.5 million in that case on top of an $85,000 settlement with Doucette and co-defendant Deborah Stillson.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.