Putting It to the Test

Alleged state crime lab testing screw-ups might give patients cause for concern

During the November campaign, Coloradan legalization proponents emphasized the benignity of cannabis compared to alcohol. Though rightfully legal and widely enjoyed by free American drinkers, alcohol is quantifiably more harmful on and individual and societal scale. House Bill 1325‘s recent ratification has resulted in a regulatory framework that addresses medicated driving through the prism of existing DUI laws for drunk driving, a system where blood levels are a more reliable gauge of a driver’s intoxication. The blood tests mandated by HB 1325 will penalize any regular cannabis user, including law-abiding patients, regardless of their current level of impairment.

Recent revelations about Colorado’s state crime lab have given patients further cause for concern. In a development that undermines voters’ confidence in not only the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, but the entire state legal system. The reportedly understaffed toxicology lab has been charged with inadequate employee training, negligent storage of DNA samples that led to possible corruption of defendant evidence and, most damningly, a demonstrable bias. While state officials claim that the deviations from procedure were limited to one lab where blood-alcohol levels are tested, the scandal has resulted in hundreds of retested DNA samples and a flood of appeals to overturn wrongful convictions. In the meantime, cannabis-using drivers are vulnerable to dysfunctional enforcement of an ill-conceived policy.

In other news, Dixie Elixirs’ managing director, Vincent “Tripp” Keber, was arrested for possession of marijuana in Baldwin County, Alabama, a decidedly prohibitionist state. Keber, who described the incident as “a situation during some vacation where I made an error in judgment,” pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession and agreed to terms of probation that include random drug tests. In perhaps the worst punishment of all, however, Keber must remain in Alabama for two years to check in every day at the Baldwin County probation office. As such, Colorado cannabis patients would be advised to avoid our union’s less enlightened states whenever possible.

In another example of MMJ entrepreneurs running afoul of the law, a Colorado grand jury issued 12 different indictments. The defendants—which include Conley Hoskins, the proprietor of the Higher Health Medical; Jane Medicals; and All Care Wellness Center dispensaries—are alleged to have engaged in illegal cultivation and distribution of cannabis, tax evasion, forgery, racketeering and securities fraud. An investigation by the Department of Revenue has culminated in 71 charges filed before the Denver District Court. Hoskins’ attorney, Steve Peters, dismisses the charges as “record-keeping issues, but certainly not any acts of racketeering,” a contention that may have some validity as dispensary owners face a litany of legal and accounting challenges. As Peters himself argued, “Mr. Hoskins is essentially unable to maintain banking relationships.” The months ahead will reveal the validity of these charges, but whether or not they are proven to be valid, the case demonstrates the need for sensible, concrete legislation and the reform of banking practices. Regardless of the eventual verdict, the indictments effectively tarnish the reputation of the medical cannabis industry, and yet again prove that federal action is needed to create a workable regulatory model for cannabis in the state.

In more hopeful news, a bill attempting to regulate cannabis-themed print publications like pornography, effectively removing them from eye-level magazine racks, failed to get off the ground last month. In a laudably level-headed decision, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction on the ban, ruling the attempt unconstitutional. It’s a welcome development, not just for your humble CULTURE staff, but for our nation’s foundational principles of free speech as well.

Hustler & Flow

The magazine industry is no stranger to battling free speech issues, especially when the content in question is cutting-edge or controversial. For example, when Hustler magazine published a parody of television evangelist Jerry Falwell in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the publication was engaging in protected free speech. Sure, Hustler isn’t everyone’s bedside reading, but it was on the right side of the law this time.