DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Use Courthouse Annex • 2045 13Th Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 • Tel: 303.441.3930 • Fax: 303.441.4856 Mailing Address: P.O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land Use Courthouse Annex • 2045 13Th Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 • Tel: 303.441.3930 • Fax: 303.441.4856 Mailing Address: P.O Land Use Courthouse Annex • 2045 13th Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 • Tel: 303.441.3930 • Fax: 303.441.4856 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 471 • Boulder, Colorado 80306 • www.bouldercounty.org BOULDER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM # 4 May 18, 2016 Hearing Room, Third Floor Boulder County Courthouse PUBLIC HEARING Docket DC-16-0002: Proposed Boulder County Land Use Code Amendments to Article 4 and Article 18 to address the cultivation and processing of marijuana as a Residential Accessory Use STAFF PLANNER: Bryan Harding, Senior Planner SUMMARY: This docket was heard by the Boulder County Planning Commission on March 16, 2016. The hearing was tabled to April 20, 2016 to allow time for County staff to provide additional information to the Planning Commission regarding nine specific requests including: Summary of plant count limits and associated restrictions in other jurisdictions in Colorado Possibilities for allowing caregiver growing in excess of six plants in residential areas Additional information on proposed prohibitions on extraction technologies and methods, and whether such limitations are necessary Additional information regarding hazards and threats associated with marijuana cultivation in multi-family structures Additional information from health and safety stakeholders and the medical marijuana community Additional possibilities for enhanced enforcement of existing marijuana cultivation regulations Suggestions for implementation of a tiered approach to additional requirements or oversight that could be implemented if more than six plants per parcel are allowed Suggestions for education and outreach options to connect with and inform home growers Revised proposed language to clarify that processing of marijuana is limited only to those plants grown on a parcel. At the April 20th hearing staff requested the Planning Commission table the hearing until May 18, 2016 to provide additional time to finalize research and stakeholder outreach related to the list of information requests. The May 18th hearing is to be limited in its scope to consider the new information provided by staff. Public testimony will be taken for the limited purpose of considering new information DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared and summarized responses for each of the information requests outline above. The information request summaries below are followed by revised proposed text amendments highlighting proposed changes to the original text amendment text presented at the March 16, 2016 hearing. The Cindy Domenico County Commissioner Deb Gardner County Commissioner Elise Jones County Commissioner Page 1 of 150 proposed revisions are recommended based on additional information gathered during the research process and based on new or additional findings made as a result. Summary of plant count limits in other jurisdictions in Colorado Staff reviewed the regulations of twelve town, city and county jurisdictions including Boulder, Carbondale, Denver, Erie, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Lyons, Nederland, Pueblo, Superior and Summit County and have provided the attached summary chart for reference. Boulder County is currently the most permissive jurisdiction as it relates to plant count allowing up to 300 sq. ft. of growing area without requiring a strict plant limit. Within such an area, it may be possible to grow between 50-100 plants depending on growing methods and desired mature plant sizes. Several jurisdictions have chosen to mirror State limits on plant quantities and several have offered some deviations ranging from the City of Boulder’s maximum six plants per parcel up to the City of Denver’s maximum of six plants per person up to a parcel maximum of 36. Some jurisdictions including Erie and Lafayette have combined plant count and square footage maximums, allowing personal cultivation in both single family and multiple family dwellings, but placing greater restrictions on maximum growing area in multi-family units. Likewise, the City of Lafayette also employs a grow lamp wattage maximum of 1200 watts, a wattage total that is compatible with typical household 15 amp or 20 amp electric circuits. Based upon this review, staff finds that Boulder County’s proposed regulations on plant counts are comparable with most nearby jurisdictions. Staff finds that a total of six plants can typically be grown with lighting and ventilation systems of a size and scale that are generally compatible with a typical dwelling unit’s existing electrical systems without requiring upgrades. Likewise, such a limit significantly reduces the potential for odor generation and possibilities for mold growth compared with current limits and allows for residential cultivation that is significantly more compatible with surrounding neighborhood character than current regulations. Detailed information on these topics is presented below as individual subjects. Land Use staff are not recommending implementation of a grow lamp wattage maximum due to the amount of different types of lamps, evolving technologies and varying wattage requirements that exist on the market today. Likewise, staff have not proposed implementation of square footage requirements due to the wide range of variability in grow techniques and the wide range of plant quantities that could be grown within a specific area as a result. Square footage requirements also make compliance and enforcement more challenging when grow spaces are located in different areas of a structure. In addition, square footage requirements have been skewed by examples of growers growing vertically within a confined square footage limitation, exploiting the intended grow area maximums with multiple vertical levels. A plant count limit, as opposed to a square footage limit, clarifies and simplifies the County’s residential limits for both growers and enforcement agencies. Please see attached comparison chart for additional detail. Page 2 of 150 SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL MARIJUANA PLANT LIMITS AND CULTIVATION ALLOWANCES Jurisdiction Plant Limits Per Person/Per Zoning Restrictions Other Notes Licensing Residence (including accessory structures as noted) State of Colorado No more than 2 ounces of usable Per person This Article does not apply to personal Constitution - Article XVII, marijuana, and no more than 6 plants, growing or use outside of medical Section 14 3 mature (unless determined to be marijuana patients or caregivers medically necessary for a debilitating health condition). State of Colorado Personal use - no more than 6 plants, 3 Per person Amendment 64 applies to personal use Any growing, cultivation or Constitution - mature. Must be grown in an only. Does not affect medical marijuana processing not meeting these Amendment 64 enclosed, secure space patients or caregivers provisions shall be considered a business or commercial activity Boulder 6 plants or 2 ounces of product Per residence >6 plants not permitted in residential > 6 plants or 2 ounces is considered a Required if greater than 6 plants zones business which requires a license Carbondale 12 plants per dwelling Per residence Extraction only allowed in licensed facilities unless processed using water based or food extraction or alcohol without heat and not more than 16 ounces during the extraction process Denver 6 plants per MJ card holder or person As noted Must be grown in a completely enclosed Required if over 36 plants over 21. Maximum 36 plant limit per structure, not in a common area, for parcel except for licensed marijuana personal use only by those living in the cultivation facility dwelling Erie Limit of 6 plants, 3 mature, within the Per residence >6 plants not permitted in residential Cultivation, production or processing not No medical marijuana centers or primary residence of a patient or zones. Patient registration required allowed in a garage or other structure. retail facilities permitted within primary caregiver. 150 sf limit of with town prior to cultivation. Code Code compliance required including town limits. Unlawful to rent contiguous space in single family makes clear that exterior impacts are ventilation. building or home space for structure, 100sf limit all other unlawful including common visual medical marijuana uses. structures. >6 plants not allowed in observation, odors and smells, and residential zoning districts even with light polluition. doctor recommendation. Page 3 of 150 Lafayette 12 plant limit - max. of 150sf of Per residence No cultivation or processing allowed in enclosed, locked space in a single accessory structures. Use must meet all family dwelling. 12 plant limit - max. of adopted building and life/safety codes. 100sf within an enclosed, locked space Use of flammable gas is prohibited. in a multifamily dwelling. Cultivation lighting shall not exceed 1200 watts total for the entire cultivation area. Longmont Defers to State Constution No retail or medical marijuana facilities or sales within the city Louisville Limits 2 ounces every 7 days or per Retail cultivation and growing is Amendment 20 - 6 plants prohibited. Manufacturing of retail marijuana products is prohibited. Medical marijuana centers prohibited from residential zoning districts. Lyons (Medical Marijuana) 6 plant limit per medical patient in As noted No medical marijuana centers or "It shall be unlawful for the cultivation, residential zones, no more than 3 manufacturing in residential zones production, possessing or processing of mature plants. Maximum of 12 plants medical marijuana plants within a total per parcel regardless of size or primary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Growing Practices and the Use of Potentially Harmful Chemical Additives Among a Sample of Small-Scale Cannabis Growers in Three Countries
    Growing practices and the use of potentially harmful chemical additives among a sample of small-scale cannabis growers in three countries Simon LENTON1 Vibeke A. FRANK2 Monica J. BARRATT3, 1, 4 Gary R. POTTER5 Tom DECORTE6 1. National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Australia 2. Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research, Aarhus University, Denmark 3. Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia. 4. Behaviours and Health Risks Program, Burnet Institute, Australia 5. Lancaster University Law School, UK 6. Institute for Social Drug Research (ISD), Ghent University, Belgium Contact details for Corresponding Author: Phone: +61 8 9266 1603 Fax: +61 8 9266 1611 Email: [email protected] Abstract Background: With the growth of legal cannabis markets there has been recognition of the adverse impacts of certain cannabis growing practices, notably, use of harmful chemicals. A major concern has been use of Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) which limit plant size and stimulate bud production. These chemicals, many of which have been banned from food crops, have been found unlisted in cannabis growing nutrients sold online or in hydroponic stores. This study describes the cannabis growing practices used by small-scale recreational cannabis growers and specifically their self-reported use of chemicals. Methods: Web survey data from 1,722 current and recent cannabis growers in Australia, Denmark and the UK, who were asked about their cannabis growing practices, including the use of fertilizers and supplements. Results: Overall 44% of the sample reported using any chemical fertilizers, supplements or insecticides. Logistic regression indicated that the only unique predictor of the use of chemicals was growing hydroponically.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Risks and Opportunities in Cannabis Cultivation
    Environmental Risks and Opportunities in Cannabis Cultivation Michael O’Hare, BOTEC, UC Berkeley Peter Alstone, UC Berkeley Daniel L. Sanchez, UC Berkeley Final Revised Sept. 7, 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary _______________________________________________________________________ 3 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________________ 4 Cannabis culture ___________________________________________________________________________ 4 Environmental consequences of cannabis production _________________________________ 5 Options for Environmental Protection _________________________________________________ 19 Recommendations _______________________________________________________________________ 23 Appendix 1: Figures from Mills 2012 __________________________________________________ 28 References _______________________________________________________________________________ 30 Sept. 7, 2013 FINAL Page 2 of 32 Executive Summary The most important environmental cost of marijuana production (cultivation of cannabis) in the legal Washington market is likely to stem from energy consumption for indoor, and to a lesser extent, greenhouse, growing. Nearly all of this energy is electricity used for lighting and ventilating, and the energy bill can amount to 1/3 of production costs. While the price of electricity provides growers a market signal for efficient production, it does not reflect the climate effect of greenhouse gas released by electricity production nor other “externalities”—the value of
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Marijuana – Risks and Violations
    Chris Beale, Chair Stephen Wamback, Vice-Chair Donald Erickson Meredith Neal Anna Petersen Brett Santhuff Dorian Waller City of Tacoma Scott Winship Planning Commission (vacant) PRESENTATIONS and HANDOUTS Regular Meeting on December 16, 2015 1. Environmental Action Plan (PowerPoint Slides; for Discussion Item E-1) 2. Marijuana Regulations (PowerPoint Slides; for Discussion Item E-2) 3. Planning Commission Recommendations from January 7, 2015 (Handout; for Discussion Item E-2) 4. Fire Codes and Standards: Denver’s Legalized Marijuana Industry and the Fire Code (Handout; for Discussion Item E-2) 5. The Hazards of Grow Houses (Handout; for Discussion Item E-2) 6. Legal Marijuana Grows – Growing a Problem (Handout; for Discussion Item E-2) 7. Revised Marijuana Retail Allocations (Handout; for Discussion Item E-2) The City of Tacoma does not discriminate on the basis of disability in any of its programs, activities, or services. To request this information in an alternative format or to request a reasonable accommodation, please contact the Planning and Development Services Department at (253) 591-5056 (voice) or (253) 591-5820 (TTY). 747 Market Street, Room 345 ❚ Tacoma, WA 98402 ❚ (253) 591-5682 ❚ FAX (253) 591-5433 ❚ http://www.cityoftacoma.org/planning The Tacoma Environmental Action Plan Kristin Lynett Office of Environmental Policy and Sustainability December 16th, 2015 Background • Need to update and expand our 2008 Climate Action Plan • Hired consultants in July • Created inter-department and agency Advisory Committee and Stakeholder meetings • Funding for Plan from ES, TPU, and general gov’t 2008 TPCHD, MPT, PC Tacoma 2025 Climate Action Plan Climate Risk Sust.
    [Show full text]
  • RECEIVED Subject: Fwd: Case 998-S-21 FEB O8 2021 External Email, Be Careful When Opening
    Susan Burgstrom From: John Hall Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 8:51 AM To: Thaddeus Bates Cc: Susan Burgstrom Subject: RE: Case 998 -S-21 Good morning Mr. Bates. The 300 feet is measured from the proposed craft grower property to the nearest residence or to the property line if the property is zoned Residential. In this instance, there are two residences within 300 feet of the proposed craft grower property. The 300 feet is merely a threshold distance for when a craft grower must be approved by the County Board as a Special Use Permit but the 300 feet is not a prohibition distance. If no residence were located within 300 feet of the proposed craft grower then the proposed craft grower would be allowed without a County Board approved Special Use Permit. This will be the first craft grower Special Use Permit to be considered by the County Board. Please let us know if you have other questions. Susan Burgstrom is the planner working on this Case and I have copied this reply to Susan. Sincerely, John Hall Director Zoning Administrator Champaign County Department ofPlanning and Zoning Brookens Administrative Center 1776 East Washington Street Urbana IL 61802 Tel (217) 384-3708 Fax (217) (819-4021) From: Thaddeus Bates <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:45 AM To: John Hall <[email protected]> RECEIVED Subject: Fwd: Case 998-S-21 FEB O8 2021 External email, be careful when opening. CHAMPAIGN CO ;.:; & Z DEPARTMENT Good Morning John I reached out to several county board members and they have directed me to you for a few clarifications.
    [Show full text]
  • “Exploring the Problem of Domestic Marijuana Cultivation”
    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY Washington, D.C. 20503 “Exploring the Problem of Domestic Marijuana Cultivation” Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:30 p.m. 562 Dirksen Senate Office Building Written Statement of R. Gil Kerlikowske Director of National Drug Control Policy U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control “Exploring the Problem of Domestic Marijuana Cultivation” Statement of R. Gil Kerlikowske Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President December 7, 2011 Chairman Feinstein, Co-Chairman Grassley, and distinguished members of the Caucus, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the issue of marijuana cultivation on public and tribal lands. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was established by Congress with the principal purpose of reducing illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking; drug- related crime and violence; and drug-related health consequences. As a component of the Executive Office of the President, our office establishes policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation’s drug control program. We also evaluate, coordinate, and oversee the international and domestic anti-drug efforts of executive branch agencies and ensure such efforts sustain and complement state and local anti-drug activities. As Director of National Drug Control Policy and chief advisor to the President on anti- drug efforts, I am charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy, which directs the Nation’s drug policy efforts and establishes programs, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation among Federal, state, local, and tribal entities. My position allows me to raise public awareness and take action on drug issues affecting our Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Reviewon the Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation
    California Department of Food and Agriculture MEDICAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION PROGRAM Literature Review on the Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation California Department of Food and Agriculture MEDICAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION PROGRAM Literature Review on the Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation Prepared for: California Department of Food and Agriculture 1220 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 Contact: Amber Morris 916-900-5315 Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 180 Grand Ave, Suite 1405 Oakland, CA 94612 Contact: Michael Stevenson 510-986-1852 February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Organization of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Description of Cannabis Cultivation ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • He Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: the Impact Vol
    PREPARED BY: ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIDTA STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE UNIT The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact Vol. 5/October 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................7 The Debate ............................................................................................................................8 Background ...........................................................................................................................8 Preface ....................................................................................................................................8 Colorado’s History with Marijuana Legalization ...........................................................9 Medical Marijuana 2000-2008 .................................................................................................... 9 Medical Marijuana Commercialization and Expansion 2009-Present ............................... 10 Recreational Marijuana 2013-Present...................................................................................... 11 SECTION 1: Impaired
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis: Carbon Footprint
    Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58–67 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production Evan Mills Energy Associates, Box 1688, Mendocino, CA 95460, United States article info abstract Article history: The emergent industry of indoor Cannabis production – legal in some jurisdictions and illicit in others – Received 7 September 2011 utilizes highly energy intensive processes to control environmental conditions during cultivation. This Accepted 10 March 2012 article estimates the energy consumption for this practice in the United States at 1% of national Available online 17 April 2012 electricity use, or $6 billion each year. One average kilogram of final product is associated with 4600 kg Keywords: of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, or that of 3 million average U.S. cars when aggregated Energy across all national production. The practice of indoor cultivation is driven by criminalization, pursuit of Buildings security, pest and disease management, and the desire for greater process control and yields. Energy Horticulture analysts and policymakers have not previously addressed this use of energy. The unchecked growth of electricity demand in this sector confounds energy forecasts and obscures savings from energy efficiency programs and policies. While criminalization has contributed to the substantial energy intensity, legalization would not change the situation materially without ancillary efforts to manage energy use, provide consumer information via labeling, and other measures. Were product prices to fall as a result of legalization, indoor production using current practices could rapidly become non-viable. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Whitepaper Or Ascertained the Underlying Assumptions Relied FINAL DOCUMENT IS PRESENTED PRIOR to the DATE of the PUBLIC Upon by Such Sources
    grow.house DISCLAIMERS DISCLAIMER Third party sources generally state the information contained therein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable; however, there THIS DOCUMENT PROVIDES AN INITIAL SUMMARY OF THE GROW are no assurances as to the accuracy or completeness of included TOKEN PROJECT. AS THE PROJECT PROCEEDS, THIS DOCUMENT information. Although the data is believed to be reliable, GROW has not IS EXPECTED TO EVOLVE OVER TIME. THE GROW TEAM MAY POST independently verified any of the data from third party sources referred MODIFICATIONS, REVISIONS AND/OR UPDATED DRAFTS UNTIL THE to in this whitepaper or ascertained the underlying assumptions relied FINAL DOCUMENT IS PRESENTED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC upon by such sources. TOKEN SALE. THIS WHITEPAPER SETS FORTH A DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNED Please note that GROW is in the process of undertaking a legal and reg- USE OF THE GROW TOKEN. THIS IS BEING PROVIDED FOR INFORMA- ulatory analysis of the functionality of its GROW Tokens. Following the TION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT A BINDING LEGAL AGREEMENT. conclusion of this analysis, GROW may decide to amend the intended THE GROW TOKEN SALE WILL BE GOVERNED BY SEPARATE TERMS & functionality of its GROW Tokens in order to ensure compliance with any CONDITIONS. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TERMS legal or regulatory requirements to which we are subject. In the event & CONDITIONS AND THIS WHITEPAPER, THE TERMS & CONDITIONS that GROW decides to amend the intended functionality of its GROW GOVERN. Tokens, GROW will update the relevant contents of this whitepaper and THIS WHITEPAPER IS NOT AN OFFERING DOCUMENT OR PROSPEC- upload the latest version of it to its website.
    [Show full text]
  • Q2 FY18 Financial Statements
    CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION CONDENSED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 (IN CANADIAN DOLLARS) CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Condensed interim consolidated statements of financial position.................................................................. 3 Condensed interim consolidated statements of operations............................................................................ 4 Condensed interim consolidated statements comprehensive loss................................................................. 5 Condensed interim consolidated statements of changes in shareholders’ equity.......................................... 6 Condensed interim consolidated statements of cash flows............................................................................ 8 Notes to the condensed interim consolidated financial statements................................................................ 9-32 CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION CONDENSED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION UNAUDITED September 30, March 31, (Expressed in CDN $000's) 2017 2017 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents (Note 19) $ 108,211 $ 101,800 Restricted short-term investments (Note 5) 668 550 Amounts receivable (Note 6) 6,782 5,815 Biological assets (Note 7) 23,496 14,725 Inventory (Note 7) 73,766 45,981 Prepaid expenses and other assets 5,319 3,735 218,242 172,606 Assets classified as held for sale (Note 8) - 6,180 218,242 178,786 Property, plant and equipment
    [Show full text]
  • New England Cannabis Corporation, Inc
    Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission Marijuana Product Manufacturer General Information: License Number: MP281466 Original Issued Date: 08/23/2019 Issued Date: 11/19/2020 Expiration Date: 11/21/2021 ABOUT THE MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT Business Legal Name: New England Cannabis Corporation, Inc. Phone Number: 617-716-6117 Email Address: [email protected] Business Address 1: 29 Everett Street Business Address 2: Business City: Holliston Business State: MA Business Zip Code: 01746 Mailing Address 1: 29 Everett Street Mailing Address 2: Mailing City: Holliston Mailing State: MA Mailing Zip Code: 01746 CERTIFIED DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBES) Certifed Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs): Not a DBE PRIORITY APPLICANT Priority Applicant: yes Priority Applicant Type: RMD Priority Economic Empowerment Applicant Certifcation Number: RMD Priority Certifcation Number: RP201814 RMD INFORMATION Name of RMD: New England Cannabis Corporation Department of Public Health RMD Registration Number: Provisional Operational and Registration Status: Obtained Provisional Certifcate of Registration only To your knowledge, is the existing RMD certifcate of registration in good standing?: yes If no, describe the circumstances below: PERSONS WITH DIRECT OR INDIRECT AUTHORITY Person with Direct or Indirect Authority 1 Percentage Of Ownership: 100 Percentage Of Control: 100 Role: Executive / Ofcer Other Role: First Name: Kenneth Last Name: Stevens Sufx: Gender: Male User Defned Gender: Date generated: 12/03/2020 Page: 1 of 7 What is this person's
    [Show full text]
  • I Am Sgt Lyle Sinclair with the Bismarck Police, Bismarck ND. I Have Been an Officer with Bismarck Police Since 1993 and a K9 Handler Since 2003
    I am Sgt Lyle Sinclair with the Bismarck Police, Bismarck ND. I have been an officer with Bismarck Police since 1993 and a K9 handler since 2003. I am currently in charge of the K9 program for Bismarck Police. In 2016 when the Medical Marijuana was passed by popular vote I was in Gilbert AZ at K9 training. I was able to talk to AZ handlers to see how Medical MJ affected their K9 programs. It didn't affect them too much do too strict, well thought out laws. They treat it like alcohol for easy explanation. They investigate until they prove it is a crime or not. Recently I have heard concerns from handlers around the state as to what was going on in Colorado. I know a handler from Colorado Springs who agreed to come to Bismarck and discuss the effects of legal Marijuana sales to not only being a K9 handler but being an officer and a resident of Colorado. This officer, Officer Brian Kelly, gave a three hour power point and class to numerous officers of the state and allowed me to copy his power point. Below are some of the things I found most interesting/disturbing from his class: In 2000, Colorado became one of the first states to provide an affirmative defense to the limited possession and use of medical marijuana through the passage of Amendment 20. A decade later, the Colorado state legislature approved legislation licensing the commercial production and distribution of medical marijuana. In November 20121 access to marijuana was further advanced in the state with the passage of Amendment 64 (passed by 10 votes in El Paso County}, which legalized adult possession and use of retail marijuana.
    [Show full text]