Marijuana Policy Project

On Tuesday, November 6, Colorado voters will decide who will represent them in the state Assembly and in half of the Senate seats. To educate voters, MPP has compiled information about the candidates’ positions on marijuana policy reform.

To learn the positions of candidates for state Senate and Assembly, MPP sent surveys asking candidates to respond either “agree,” “disagree,” or “unsure/undecided” to the following four statements:

1. In 2010, the Colorado Legislature enacted the nation’s strictest and most comprehensive medical marijuana regulatory system. The law explicitly allows and regulates medical marijuana centers, infused product manufacturers, and marijuana cultivation, while allowing individual cities’ voters to ban dispensaries. Imposing appropriate state regulations on entities that produce and distribute medical marijuana ensures that qualified patients with serious medical conditions have safe and reliable access to their medicine while creating barriers to diversion into the criminal market.

Do you think Colorado should continue to allow and regulate medical marijuana facilities that produce and distribute medical marijuana to qualified patients?

2. State lawmakers have previously proposed a limit of five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, which would be considered per se driving under the influence of marijuana. However, medical marijuana patients, after a full night’s sleep and more than 11 – 15 hours after their last use, have tested more than twice that proposed limit even though they were not impaired – and were deemed sober by a physician – at the time.

Do you think Colorado should set a per se DUID limit for THC or maintain its current laws that penalize driving while impaired by marijuana or other drugs?

3. Marijuana prohibition has failed at preventing use. More than 100 million Americans admit having used marijuana, and more than 80% of American high school seniors say marijuana is “fairly easy” or “very easy” to obtain. Criminal enforcement of marijuana prohibition disproportionally targets youths and minorities, gives drug cartels control of the lucrative marijuana market, and creates barriers to research, all while diverting law enforcement resources away from preventing and solving violent and property crimes.

Do you support Amendment 64, which would replace Colorado’s prohibition of marijuana with a system of regulation and taxation, with commonsense restrictions, including on sales and advertising?

4. Given that 99% of marijuana arrests are made by state and local law enforcement, do you believe marijuana policies should be determined at the state level, rather than by the federal government?

Unfortunately, we did not receive responses to the surveys from all candidates seeking state office. As a service to our supporters, we compiled the responses we did receive with sponsorship and votes on previous marijuana policy related legislation, as well as any public comments related to a candidate’s stance on marijuana policy.

A candidate whose name appears as green has been identified as a supporter of sensible marijuana policy reform. Those whose names appear in red have been identified as opposed to sensible reform. For names that are neither red nor green, we either lack intel or the candidate has conflicting positions on marijuana policy reform.

The Colorado Senate

Senate District 25

• Mary Hodge (D): The incumbent, Sen. Hodge, voted “yes” on a bill that made Colorado the first state to officially sanction a widespread retail medical marijuana dispensary system (HB 1284, 2010). Sen. Hodge also voted “yes” on a bill that would have set standards for responsible medical marijuana vendors. However, she also voted “yes” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (SB 117, 2012). She did not return our survey.
• John Sampson (R): Mr. Sampson did not return our survey.
• Ronald Schweizer (L): Mr. Schweizer returned our survey. He thinks that Colorado should continue to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries (question 1), is unsure on per se THC limits for purposes of DUID convictions (question 2), unsure on supporting Amendment 64 (question 3), and unsure whether state governments or the federal government are in the best position to determine marijuana policy (question 4).

Senate District 28

• Robert Harrison (L): Mr. Harrison responded to our survey. He thinks Colorado should continue to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries (question 1), supports per se THC limits for purposes of DUID convictions (question 2), supports Amendment 64 (question 3), and believes that states – not the federal government – should determine marijuana policy (question 4).
• John Lyons (R): Mr. Lyons did not return our survey.
• Nancy Todd (D): Rep. Todd currently represents House District 41 but is running for Senate District 28 this election. As a member of the House, Rep. Todd voted “yes” on a bill that made Colorado the first state to officially sanction a widespread retail medical marijuana dispensary system (HB 1284, 2010). However, she also twice voted “yes” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (HB 1261, 2011; HB 12S-1005, 2012).

Senate District 31

• Pat Steadman (D): The incumbent, Sen. Steadman, has demonstrated his support for marijuana policy reform. He has been the primary sponsor of legislation that would allow financial institutions to do business with the medical marijuana industry (SB 75, 2012). In addition, he returned our survey. Sen. Steadman believes Colorado should continue to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries (question 1), opposes per se THC limits for purposes of DUID convictions (question 2), is unsure on Amendment 64 “agree[ing] with the basic philosophy . . . but do[es] not believe it wise or appropriate to amend our state constitution,”(question 3), and believes that states – not the federal government – should determine marijuana policy (question 4).
• Michael Carr (R): Mr. Carr did not return our survey.

Senate District 32

• Irene Aguilar (D): The incumbent, Sen. Aguilar, voted “yes” on legislation that would allow financial institutions to do business with the medical marijuana industry (SB 75, 2012). In addition, Sen. Aguilar voted “no” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (SB 117, 2012).
• Roger Logan (R): Mr. Logan returned our survey. He is unsure on whether or not Colorado should continue to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries (question 1), he supports per se THC limits for purposes of DUID convictions (question 2), opposes Amendment 64 (question 3), but believes that states – not the federal government – should determine marijuana policy (question 4).

Senate District 35

• William Bartley (L): Mr. Bartley responded to our survey. He believes that “[f]ar too many resources have been wasted conducting the ‘war on drugs.’” He believes Colorado should continue to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries (question 1), he opposes per se THC limits for purposes of DUID convictions (question 2), supports Amendment 64 (question 3), and believes that states – not the federal government – should determine marijuana policy (question 4).
• Larry Crowder (R): Mr. Crowder did not return our survey.
• Crestina Martinez (D): Ms. Martinez did not return our survey.

The Colorado State House of Representatives

House District 10

• Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (D): Rep. Hullinghorst is the incumbent. Rep. Hullinghorst voted “no” on a bill that made Colorado the first state to officially sanction a widespread retail medical marijuana dispensary system (HB 1284, 2010). Mr. Hullinghorst also voted “yes” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (HB 12S-1005, 2012). Mr. Hullinghorst did not return our survey.
• William Eckert (R): Mr. Eckert responded to our survey. Mr. Eckert does “not support legalizing any marijuana use.” He opposes continuation of the current medical marijuana dispensary regulation (question 1) and opposes Amendment 64 (question 3), which would tax and regulate marijuana, making it available to adults 21 and over, in a manner similar to alcohol. Interestingly, he feels the state is in a better position than the federal government to determine marijuana policies (question 4) and he opposes a per se DUID standard, preferring to keep the law as is (question 2).

House District 18

• Pete Lee (D): Rep. Lee is the incumbent and returned our survey. Rep. Lee agrees that Colorado should continue to regulate the medical marijuana industry (question 1), he stated that he opposes a per se DUID standard for THC (question 2) and voted twice against such proposals in committee. However, voting records on the Colorado Legislature’s website indicated that Mr. Lee twice voted “yes” for a per se limit on the House floor (HB 1261, 2011; HB12S-1005, 2012). Rep. Lee does support Amendment 64 (question 3) and thinks the federal government should remove marijuana from Schedule I and defer to state policies (question 4).
• Jennifer George (R): Ms. George did not respond to our survey.
• Amy Fedde (ACP): Ms. Fedde did not respond to our survey.
• Robert Melamede (L): Mr. Melamede did not respond to our survey.

House District 25

• Cheri Gerou (R): Rep. Gerou is the incumbent. Rep. Gerou voted “yes” on a bill that made Colorado the first state to officially sanction a widespread retail medical marijuana dispensary system (HB 1284, 2010). However, she also twice voted “yes” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (HB 1261, 2011; HB 12S-1005, 2012). Rep. Gerou did not respond to our survey.
• Lorna Idol (D): Ms. Idol did not return our survey.
• Jack Woehr (L): Mr. Woehr responded to our survey stating that he has “been a legalization activist since 1975.” He thinks Colorado should continue to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries (question 1), opposes per se THC limits for purposes of DUID convictions (question 2), supports Amendment 64 (question 3), and believes that states – not the federal government – should determine marijuana policy (question 4).

House District 28

• Niles Aronson (L): Mr. Aronson replied to our survey. He thinks that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1), he does not support a per se DUID proposal nor any law outlawing driving under the influence of drugs (question 2),  he supports Amendment 64 but personally feels there should be no state regulation (question 3), and he feels that the state – not the federal government – is in the best position to set marijuana policy (question 4).
• Amy Attwood (R): Ms. Attwood did not return our survey.
• Brittany Pettersen (D): Ms. Pettersen did not return our survey.

House District 29

• Robert Ramirez (R): Rep. Ramirez is the incumbent. In his time in office, Rep. Ramirez has twice voted “yes” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (HB 1261, 2011; HB 12S-1005, 2012).
• Tracy Kraft-Tharp (D): Ms. Kraft-Tharp did not return our survey.
• Hans Romer (L): Mr. Romer returned our survey. He is in favor of ending the entire drug war. He believes that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1), supports a per se DUID bill (question 2), supports Amendment 64 (question 3), and believes the state – not the federal government – is in the best position to set marijuana policy (question 4).

House District 32

• Brett Halbert (L): Mr. Halbert did not return our survey.
• Dominick Moreno (D): Mr. Moreno did not return our survey.
• Paul “Boots” Reimer (R): Mr. Reimer replied to our survey. He does not think that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1) and instead thinks that “[d]ispensing of medical marijuana should be done solely by state medical board approved persons (doctors).” In addition, Mr. Reimer supports a per se DUID standard (question 2), opposes Amendment 64 (question 3), and thinks that marijuana policy is best determined by the states (question 4).

House District 33

• W. Earl Allen (L): Mr. Allen returned our survey. He believes that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1), he opposes a per se DUID bill (question 2), supports Amendment 64 (question 3), and believes the state – not the federal government – is in the best position to set marijuana policy (question 4).
• Dave Pigott (R): Mr. Pigott did not return our survey.
• Dianne Primavera (D): Ms. Primavera did not return our survey.

House District 37

• Jeffery Kicia (L): Mr. Kicia returned our survey. He believes that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1), he supports a per se DUID proposal (question 2), supports Amendment 64 (question 3), but feels as if marijuana policies should be determined at the federal – not state – level (question 4).
• Spencer Swalm (R): The incumbent, Rep. Swalm, voted “yes” on a bill that made Colorado the first state to officially sanction a widespread retail medical marijuana dispensary system (HB 1284, 2010). However, he also twice voted “yes” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (HB 1261, 2011; HB 12S-1005, 2012).
• Jan Spooner (D): Ms. Spooner did not return our survey.

House District 41

• J.M. Fay (Unaffiliated): Ms. Fay returned our survey. She believes that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1), she is undecided on the question of instituting a per se DUID proposal (question 2), opposes Amendment 64 (question 3), and feels as if marijuana policies should be determined at the federal – not state – level (question 4).
• Jovan Melton (D): Mr. Melton did not return our survey.
• Art Carlson (R): Mr. Carlson did not return our survey.

House District 56

• Will Hiltscher (L): Mr. Hiltscher did not return our survey.
• Kevin Priola (R): The incumbent, Rep. Priola, voted “yes” on a bill that made Colorado the first state to officially sanction a widespread retail medical marijuana dispensary system (HB 1284, 2010). He voted “no” on a bill that would have created a per se threshold for active THC in an individual’s blood above which an individual would automatically be guilty of DUID (HB 1261, 2011), but then switched his vote to “yes” on the same language the following session (HB 12S-1005, 2012).
• David Rose (D): Mr. Rose returned our survey. He believes that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1), he supports instituting a per se DUID proposal (question 2), opposes Amendment 64 because he feels it would make it more available to youths (question 3), and feels as if marijuana policies should be determined at the state – not federal – level (question 4).

House District 60

• Pier Cohen (D): Mr. Cohen returned our survey. He believes that Colorado should continue to regulate its medical marijuana industry (question 1), he supports instituting a per se DUID proposal but has “real concerns with how they test marijuana in a D.U.I. situation” (question 2), supports Amendment 64 (question 3), and feels as if marijuana policies should be determined at the state – not federal – level (question 4).
• M. Waters (L): Mr. Waters did not return our survey.
• James Wilson (R): Mr. Wilson did not return our survey.