DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street, Room 431 Denver, Colorado 80202

_____________________________________ __________________________________________ PATIENT CAREGIVER RIGHTS LITIGATION PROJECT, COLORADO PATIENTS ALLIANCE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN CAREGIVERS COOPERATIVE, GREENFAITH MINISTRY, KATHLEEN CHIPPI, and DAMIEN LaGOY, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF COLORADO, JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor of the State of Colorado, ROXY HUBER, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue, and MARTHA E. RUDOLPH, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Defendants. _____________________________________ Attorney for Plaintiffs: Name: Andrew B. Reid Address: Springer and Steinberg, P.C. 1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone Number: (303) 861-2800 FAX Number: (303) 832-7116 E-mail: areid@springer-and-steinberg.com Atty. Reg. No.: 25116

COURT USE ONLY _______________________

Case No.: 2011-CV- _____ Div.: ____

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 57 AND 65 PLAINTIFFS, Patient Caregiver Rights Litigation Project, Colorado Patients Alliance, Rocky Mountain Caregivers Cooperative, Greenfaith Ministry, Kathleen Chippi, and Damien LaGoy, by and through their counsel, Andrew B. Reid of the law firm of Springer and Steinberg, P.C., hereby allege and avers the following as their Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunction Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57 and 65 against the Defendant General Assembly of the State of Colorado, and for Declaratory Judgment and Injunction Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57 and 65 against the Defendant State of Colorado and all of its subdivisions, the Defendant John Hickenlooper as the Governor of the State of Colorado, the Defendant Roxy Huber as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue, and the Defendant Martha E. Rudolph as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Patient Caregiver Rights Litigation Project (PCRLP) is a

group of registered medical marijuana patients, primary care-givers, and physicians, and others associated with the provision of medical marijuana

medication to qualifying patients and primary care-givers from Colorado having as its purpose the reformation of the medical marijuana laws in Colorado. 2. Plaintiff Colorado Patients' Alliance (CPA) is a non-profit

organization working for the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers in Colorado. Members include a broad base of patients, caregivers, medical marijuana centers, other organizations, and companies that believe that a responsible and constitutional approach to the regulation of medical marijuana benefit both patients, caregivers and the medical marijuana industry. 3. Plaintiff Rocky Mountain Caregivers Cooperative (RMCC) is a

private legal cannabis patient collective, which is over eight years old and maintains relationships with over 1,000 qualifying medical marijuana patients throughout Colorado. Many RMCC patients lost their caregivers when the limits in HB 10-1284 were passed. 4. Plaintiff Greenfaith Ministry is a compassionate care and spiritual

church located in Northern Colorado and led by Rev. Brandon Baker. Rev. Baker was the caregiver for over 20 low income and indigent qualifying medical marijuana patients before the passage of HB 10-1284, when he was forced to give up almost all of his patients. In addition to being forced to abandon its former patients, the Ministry has been faced with increasing demand from more patients who have lost their caregivers or who have had medical marijuana banned in their
3

community. 5. Plaintiff Kathleen Chippi (Chippi) is a resident of Nederland,

Colorado, and a PCRLP founding member. She is a qualifying medical marijuana patient and, until the enactment of the medical marijuana legislation1, operated a medical marijuana dispensary in Nederland with a state-issued retail sales tax license for medical marijuana. She was also a primary care-giver for numerous patients. Upon the resolution of the issues raised in this petition, it is Ms. Chippis intent to reopen her dispensary and continue her caregiver services. 6. Plaintiff Damien LaGoy is an HIV/AIDS activist and survivor and

qualifying medical marijuana patient. He has been living with HIV/AIDS since 1985. He uses cannabis to help keep his HIV/AIDS medicines down and to help stimulate his appetite so he can maintain a healthy weight. Damien is concerned about the state's new database system that will replace the formerly confidential registry information with a database and surveillance system that will be open to law enforcement and other government agencies. Damien is also concerned about

House Bill 10-1284 (2010); Senate Bill 10-109 (2010); and House Bill 11-1043

(2011), codified in a number of different sections of the Colorado Code. To avoid confusion, this legislation will be referred to in this petition collectively as the medical marijuana legislation.
4

the possible theft of his information by other criminal elements, who may use the information to harm him. 7. Barbara M. is a member of the PCRLP is a cannabis patient.

Barbara M. has been disabled since January 1988. Her primary diagnosis is hronic Pain, Degenerative Disc Disease, Cervical & Lumbar Spine with radicalopathy L4-S1 & L3-L4, Fx & deformed L Pelvis, Fx T11, L & R Shoulder Tendenitis, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, arthritis in both knees, and osteopenia with recent sprained ankle and small bone fractures. Barbara M. lives in a rural location and cannot find a caregiver, due to the restrictions on caregivers in HB 10-1284. 8. Another PCRLP member is Lannette F., a registered medical

marijuana patient living in Federal Heights, Colorado (Adams County). She is typical of many thousands of medical marijuana patients in Colorado. Her debilitating medical condition, diagnosed as severe pain due to fibromyalgia, diabetic neuropathy, and myofacial trigger points, causes her to be home bound. She is also unable to cultivate her own medication and therefore has to employ care-givers in order to access her medication. Because of her condition, she arranged for her medication to be delivered to her by her care-givers. Due to the

medical marijuana legislation, her care-givers recently had to close their business2. On November 2, 2010, pursuant to the medical marijuana legislation, Federal Heights where she resides voted to ban all medical marijuana dispensing, cultivation, and medication manufacturing businesses. She now has to look outside her own city for a new care-giver and source for the delivery of her medication. 9. PCRLP member Kendra C. is a 20-year old student at the University

of Colorado and is a qualified medical marijuana patient who suffers from fibromyalgia. Under H.B. 10-1284, due to her age she is not permitted to enter any medical marijuana dispensary and must depend upon care-givers for her medication. However, the legislations restrictions on care-givers (limiting care-

Since the passage of the medical marijuana legislation, only a fraction of the

medical marijuana related businesses in some communities have continued in business due to its broad extension of the Colorado Department of Revenue into the business records and affairs of these businesses, raising significant issues under Article II, 7, 16, 18 and 25 of the Colorado Constitution and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteen Amendments of the United States Constitution in addition to those under Amendment 20. See, e.g., Daily Camera, Boulder medical marijuana shops struggle with laws (11/06,/2010), http://www.dailycamera.com/ ci_16544716.
6

givers to no more than 3 patients) caused her care-giver, who was 1 patient over the statutory limit, to drop her depriving her of her medication. Ms. C. testified before the State Legislature on the medical marijuana legislation3. 10. PCRLP member Gary I., a qualified medical marijuana patient

resident of Golden, Colorado, suffers from crushed vertebrae in his neck, compression factures in his lower back, and nausea from chemotherapy for his liver. Following the passage of the medical marijuana legislation, its restrictions on care-givers forced his care-giver out of business. 11. PCRLP member John E. is a 50-year old qualified medical marijuana

patient living in Larimer County who suffers from degenerative disc disease, redicalopothy, two herniated discs in his lower back, failed back surgery, and severe insomnia due to chronic pain and discomfort. Use of medical marijuana for pain management has enabled him to cut down on his prescription of morphine, a far more potent and highly addictive narcotic. 12. PCRLP member Scott S. is a qualified medical marijuana patient

living in unincorporated Adams County from suffering severe spinal stenosis,

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/clics2010a/commsumm.nsf/

b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/b91b213837dcc0c0872577190069c4be? OpenDocument.
7

nerve and muscle spasms, degenerative disc disease, radiculopathy in cervical and lumbar regions as well as flare ups with sciatica. His wife is his care-giver. Scott S. was a care-giver for another patient but had to cease following the passage of the medical marijuana legislation because it bars patients with care-givers from serving as care-givers for other patients. 13. PCRLP member C. M. is a 16-year-old high school student4 and

resident of Colorado Springs, El Paso County, Colorado, and a qualifying medical marijuana patient. He was diagnosed with myoclonic diaphragmatic flutter which was not sufficiently controlled by non-marijuana medication to physically allow him to attend school. Upon his doctors recommendations of medical marijuana he was finally able to return to school after an absence due to his disability of approximately one year. However, his high school pursuant to the legislation at issue here, specifically C.R.S. 25-1.5-106(12)(b)(IV), after allowing him back into school, first refused to allow him to receive his medication from the high school nurse and then refused to allow him to attend school while on his medication, even if he received it off school grounds. 14. PCRLP member Nick L. is a qualified medical marijuana patient and

care-giver. He was associated with a medical marijuana dispensary in Loveland,

He is represented herein by his next friend and legal guardian.

8

Colorado, until the city voted in November, 2010, to ban medical marijuana businesses pursuant to the medical marijuana legislation. 15. PCRLP member Jason D. owns a medical marijuana products

manufacturing business in unincorporated Mesa County, Colorado, which supplied free medicine to terminally ill patients. PCRLP members Randy and Suzanne S. own a medical marijuana dispensary in unincorporated Mesa County, Colorado. Their businesses ceased operation in November, 2010, following Mesa Countys vote to ban of medical marijuana businesses pursuant to the medical marijuana legislation leaving their patients and care-givers without access to their medication. 16. Defendant General Assembly of the State of Colorado is the

legislative body of the State of Colorado having authority and responsibility for drafting and enacting legislation, statutes, and laws of the State of Colorado pursuant to and in compliance with the Constitution of Colorado. The SixthSeventh General Assembly drafted and enacted the legislation at issue herein, House Bill 10-1284 (H.B. 10-1284), Senate Bill 10-109 (S.B. 10-109), and House Bill 11-1043 (H.B. 11-1043). 17. Defendant State of Colorado is the governing entity of the People of

Colorado created by and acting pursuant to, and limited by, the Constitution of Colorado. It acts directly by its General Assembly and Governor and indirectly

through its subdivisions, including the various counties and municipalities of Colorado. 18. Defendant John Hickenlooper is sued individually and in his official

capacity as the Governor of the State of Colorado. Pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, the Governor is authorized and responsible for signing, executing, and enforcing legislation enacted by the General Assembly. The Governor, by his predecessor, signed and thereby enacted into law the legislation at issue herein, H.B. 10-1284, S.B. 10-109, and H.B. 10-1043. As Governor, Defendant Hickenlooper is further engaged in the implementation and enforcement of said challenged legislation by regulation and otherwise through the agencies and officials under his authority, including but not limited to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Department of Revenue. 19. Defendant Roxy Huber is sued individually and in her official

capacity as the Executive Director and chief executive officer of the Colorado Department of Revenue who was charged by the Colorado General Assembly with the implementation of the medical marijuana legislation. 20. Defendant Martha E. Rudolph is sued individually and in her official

capacity as the Executive Director and chief executive officer of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) who was charged by the Colorado General Assembly with the implementation of S.B. 10-109. The
10

CDPHE is the state health agency designated by the Governor to implement and administer the medical marijuana program, including the confidential medical marijuana patient registry, under the Colorado Constitution. 21. Jurisdiction arises in this Court pursuant to C.R.S. 13-51-101, et. seq.

(2010) and C.R.C.P. 57 and 65. A declaratory judgment in this case would terminate the extreme and widespread uncertainty or controversy giving rise to this proceeding. An injunction would stop the extreme and widespread harm and jeopardy resulting from the challenged legislation to the Plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of citizens and residents of Colorado suffering from debilitating and lifethreatening medical conditions. 22. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Medical Marijuana Guarantees of the Colorado Constitution 23. On November 7, 2000, the People of Colorado acting by

approximately one million Colorado voters, including the adult Plaintiffs and PCRLP members, approved Amendment 20 as an initiated constitutional amendment. Colorado Constitution, Art.18, 14 (Appendix 1). Sixteen states and

11

the District of Columbia have enacted laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana and legislation is pending in many more states. 24. Amendment 20 was a compassionate measure designed to address the

compelling medical need for improvement of the quality of life, and often the saving and extension of life, of hundreds of thousands of Colorado citizens and residents with debilitating medical conditions. It was a medical need unmet by any other medication and subject to the expert diagnosis and recommendation by Colorado physicians as the appropriate medication. So significant is this right that even prior to the Amendment a patients access to life-saving medication has been viewed as a medical necessity in defense to criminal charges and as a human right under international law. 25. Amendment 20, now Section 14 of Article 18 of the Colorado

Constitution, guarantees patients diagnosed by physicians as having a debilitating medical condition, and their primary care-givers, a constitutional right to engage in the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Id. The medical marijuana provisions of the Colorado Constitution secure individual constitutional rights available to all citizens and residents statewide. 26. Use under the Colorado Constitution includes the acquisition,

possession, production, use, and transportation of marijuana and paraphernalia related to the administration of marijuana. Id. Read consistent with Article 18,
12

Section 14(2)(d) of the Colorado Constitution, this definition also includes the manufacture, sale, distribution, and dispensing of medical marijuana. 27. Recognizing that many patients may need or desire assistance in the

use of medical marijuana, the Colorado Constitution also authorizes patients to employ primary care-givers to assist them. Id. 28. Primary care-givers are defined as persons having significant

responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient. Id. at 14(1)(f). 29. Section 14 constitutionally further excepts the medical use of

marijuana from Colorados criminal laws governing the acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana and provides medical marijuana patients and care-givers an affirmative defense to arrest and prosecution. Id. at 14(2)(a) and (b). 30. As additional protection for both medical marijuana patients and care-

givers and to encourage participation by those who might benefit from the medication, the Colorado Constitution established a confidential registry under the state health agency with the issuance of state identification cards to verify if necessary to law enforcement officials that the patient or care-giver is lawfully using marijuana as medication. Id. at 14(3).22. 23. The state health agency is tasked with screening patient and care-giver applicants for the registry, issuing

13

registry ID cards, collecting fees, and issuing rules of administration of the registry. Id. at 14(3), (9); Appendix 3. 31. The Colorado Constitution further provides for strict confidentiality of

medical marijuana patient and care-giver information. It expressly forbids disclosure of any such information to any other agency other than the state health agency, except to law enforcement agencies and, even then, solely for the purpose of establishing the patients or care-givers status as a registered medical marijuana user. Id. at 14(3)(a). 32. Participation in the registry is optional. A qualifying patient or care-

giver is not required to register or obtain an identification card to have constitutional protection or to assert the affirmative defense to any criminal prosecution. Id. at 14(2)(a). The Constitutions intent for the broadest ready access of qualifying patients to their medication is evidenced by the fact that it does not require registration of either the patient or the care-giver in order to assert the affirmative defense. Id. 33. These provisions of the Colorado Constitution established a state

regulatory scheme for qualifying patient access to medical marijuana administered by the state health agency designated by the Governor. Id. at 14(1)(g), 14(2)(b), and 14(3).

14

34.

The Constitution directed the state health agency to enact rules of

administration. Id. at 14(9). 35. Pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, the Governor designated the

CDPHE as the state health agency having the sole constitutional authority and responsibility for the implementation and administration of the Colorado medical marijuana program. 36. As of June 30, 2010, less than 10 years later, the CDPHE reported that

it had issued approximately 100,000 valid registry ID cards to patients in every county in Colorado. Sixty-six percent of the patients designated a primary caregiver. More than 1,100 different physicians have signed for the patients. Many, many more patients with qualifying medical conditions and physician recommendations are also using the medication, but have chosen not to register. B. Medical Marijuana Implementing Legislation 37. The Colorado Constitution further directed the State legislature to

enact such legislation as may be necessary for implementation of [the Amendment]. Colorado Constitution, Article 18, Section 14(8). 38. Under the Constitution, the General Assembly was tasked with

implement[ing] rules to ensure patients suffering from legitimate debilitating medical conditions are able to safely gain access to medical marijuana . Colorado Constitution, Article 18, Section 14(2)(d). On June 7, 2010, the
15

Governor signed into law House Bill 10-1284 and Senate Bill 10-109, enacted by the General Assembly to implement Article 18, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution. H.B. 10-1284 (2010) (the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, C.R.S. 12-43.3-101 et. seq. and the Medical Marijuana Program, C.R.S. 25-1.5-106); S.B. 10-109 (2010). Numerous issues arose regarding the new legislation. The General Assembly attempted to address some of these issues through the enactment of revisions, House Bill 11-1043 (the Medical Marijuana Clean-up Bill), which were signed into law by the Governor in June, 2011, with an effective date of July 1, 2011. 39. This legislation was supposed to address the practical anomaly of

having a constitutional right of access to medication but no infrastructure to provide it. The focus of the implementing legislation and the statutory authorization and establishment of medical marijuana businesses was thus constitutionally required to be on making medical marijuana readily available to patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions. 40. The General Assembly created a regulatory business scheme of state

licensed medical marijuana cultivators, product manufacturers, and dispensers of medical marijuana purportedly to make the constitutionally secured medication readily available to qualifying patients and care-givers. C.R.S. 25-1.5-106(1)(a); C.R.S. 12-43.3-101 et. seq.
16

Unconstitutional Restraints on Patient Access to Medication 41. However, in addition to establishing the state scheme for making

medical marijuana available to patients, the General Assembly added provisions which defeated its very purpose of guaranteeing ready access to the medication by authorizing local authorities, counties, cities and other municipalities, to each issue their own regulatory schemes of local licenses and regulations. C.R.S. 12-43.3103(2)(a), 12-43.3-301, and 12-43.3-310. In a further unconstitutional restraint on access to medication, the General Assembly gave local authorities the power to prohibit altogether state licensed medical marijuana cultivators, product manufacturers, and dispensers from their counties and communities. C.R.S. 1243.3-103(2)(a), 12-43.3-106 (Local Option), 12-43.3-310(1). 42. Within weeks of the enactment of H.B. 10-1284, while many

Colorado communities and counties approved of these medical marijuana businesses, a number of communities banned medical marijuana cultivators, product manufacturers, and dispensers, including the municipalities of Bayfield, Broomfield, Castle Rock, Cedaredge, Durango, Grand Junction, Greeley, Hayden, Kremmling, Superior, Vail, and Westminster, and the county of Las Animas. Many other municipalities and counties put bans on their November 2010, ballots.
17

43.

On November 2, 2010, the municipalities of Akron, Antonito, Aurora,

Broomfield, Castle Pines North, DeBeque, Dinosaur, Elizabeth, Federal Heights, Fountain, Granby, Hillrose, Hot Sulfur Springs, Jamestown, La Junta, Lake City, Lone Tree, Loveland, Olathe, Otis, Ouray, Paonia, Ramah, Sugar City, and Windsor, and the counties of Broomfield, Conejos, Custer, Douglas, Las Animas, Mesa, Moffat, Montrose, Otero, and Washington approved bans of medical marijuana cultivators, product manufacturers, and dispensers. 44. In December, 2010, Adams County became the 26th county in

Colorado to ban medical marijuana businesses in their unincorporated areas. At least 47 municipalities have also banned the businesses. 45. These numerous bans threaten to bar access to medical marijuana medication to broad, checker-boarded, swaths of the State and tens of thousands of registered Colorado patients and their care-givers having constitutionally secured patient access to doctor recommended medication. These bans effectively prevent the delivery of this medication by dispensaries, cultivators, or manufacturers to patients in those municipalities and counties, and the operation of medical marijuana centers by patients and their care-givers. 46. Many patients like Lannette F., who are very seriously ill or bed

ridden and due to their medical conditions unable travel to a provider in a county or municipality that has not banned medical marijuana dispensaries, and now
18

cannot even have their medication delivered to them, are effectively and unconstitutionally denied access to their medication. They are condemned by these unconstitutional bans on their access to medication to suffer unnecessarily and even die prematurely. 47. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of a local option

or a local licensing authority or of any authorization for local regulations and standards for, or the banning outright of, the medical use of marijuana, including the acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of the medication. There are no constitutional provisions authorizing any municipality or county to interfere with patient and care-giver access to medication by banning outright or regulating to death activities associated with the acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana of medical marijuana. The Colorado Constitutions express granting of regulatory authority solely to the state health agency coupled with its exclusion of any provisions giving regulatory authority to either the Department of Revenue or local governments over medical marijuana clearly indicate the intent in the Constitution to limit all medical marijuana regulation to the state heath agency under a statewide scheme.

19

48.

Local governments are not empowered to wholly ban within its

boundaries a constitutionally permitted use or industry such as medical marijuana businesses. 49. The medical marijuana legislation bars a qualifying medical marijuana

patient or their care-givers from changing medical marijuana medication providers for 120 days. These requirements unconstitutionally interfere with or deny qualifying medical marijuana patients and their care-givers to access to marijuana as medication. 50. The medical marijuana legislation bars, for life, any person from

having a medical marijuana license who has been convicted of a felony regarding the possession, distribution, manufacturing, cultivation, or use of a controlled substance. C.R.S. 12-43.3-307(1). This restriction is unconstitutionally broad and deprives or interferes with the constitutional right of access of qualifying patients and caregivers to medical marijuana as medication. Care-Giver Limitations As Unconstitutional Restraints on Patient Access to Medication 51. Contrary to the stated purpose of the legislation, the medical

marijuana legislation also unconstitutionally interferes with a patients access to medication through limitations placed on primary care-givers.

20

52.

The Colorado Constitution defines both patient and primary care-

giver. Colorado Constitution, Article 18, 14(d) and (f). Other than being 18 years of age, the sole restriction under the constitutional definition of primary care-giver is that the care-giver has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition. Id. at 14(f). 53. Without authorization from and contrary to the Colorado Constitution,

as well as the due process rights of medical marijuana patients and care-givers, the legislation arbitrarily limits each care-giver to 5 patients, bars patients with a caregiver from acting as a care-giver for another patient, restricts each patient to having only one care-giver, forbids care-givers from the common cultivation of medical marijuana, and forbids care-givers from charging more than the cost of cultivating or purchasing the medication. C.R.S. 25-1.5-106(5)(b), (6)(a), (6)(b), (6)(c), (6)(d). Nowhere in the Constitution does it impose or authorize these limits. 54. The medical marijuana legislation requires that all qualifying medical

marijuana patients and care-givers be registered with the State to be able to purchase medical marijuana from a licensed medical marijuana business and to have the registry identification card in their possession at all times. C.R.S. 1243.3-402(5), 25-1.5-106(11). As registration is optional under the Constitution, these provisions unconstitutionally interfere with or deny the right of qualifying medical marijuana patients and their care-givers to marijuana as medication.
21

55.

Notably, PCRLP member Lannette F. had to rely on several care-

givers for her care and a reliable supply of her medication. Prior to H.B. 10-1284, Plaintiff Kathleen Chippi provided adequate care for many more than 5 patients as do virtually all attendants, home-visit nurses, therapists, hospice employees, and other providers of medical services to persons with debilitating conditions. 56. These statutory provision forced PCRLP member Kendra C.s care-

giver to drop her as a patient to come within the restriction. 57. PCRLP member Scott C. also had to cease acting as a care-giver for

another patient under the legislations bar on patients with care-givers acting as care-givers. 58. The existence and ready and widespread availability of primary care

givers to patients is an integral part of the scheme set out in the Colorado Constitution for the provision of medical marijuana to qualifying patients with debilitating medical conditions. Many patients are infirm, immobile, lack transportation, are too young to get their medication on their own, such as PCRLP member Kendra C., or lack the ability or desire to cultivate their own medication and need a primary care giver to perform those services for them as many of the Plaintiffs were doing prior to the medical marijuana legislation. 59. As with nurses and other in-home care givers, it is a service that

requires reasonable compensation and income to make it worthwhile. By limiting

22

care-givers to 5 or less patients, the medical marijuana legislation forces up the cost of care-giving and effectively makes it unprofitable for a great many providers to act as a care-giver as it did with Gary I.s care-giver. It denies care-giving services and thus their constitutionally secured medication to those many qualifying medical marijuana patients who either cannot afford the increased costs associated with the reduction in numbers of patients per care-giver or who have no relative or other person available to provide care-giving services at no cost. 60. The medical marijuana legislation requires care-givers to participate

in a State care-giver registry of grow location information. C.R.S. 25-1.5106(7). These provisions violate the optional registry and privacy provisions of the Colorado Constitution pertaining to care-givers and their qualifying patients. 61. Each of the irrational restrictions the medical marijuana legislation

places on care-givers makes it more difficult for them to effectively and profitably perform these services. The restrictions undercut the scheme of the Colorado Constitution and the ready access of patients to their medication in a de facto denial of their constitutional rights under the Constitution. Unconstitutional Violations of Patient and Care-Giver Privacy Rights 62. The medical marijuana legislation further violates the Colorado

Constitutions strict confidentiality provisions on medical marijuana which narrowly limit disclosure of any patients and care-givers registry information
23

only to the State health agency and to law enforcement for the sole purpose of verifying registration of the patient or care-giver as a medical marijuana user. Colorado Constitution, Article 18, 14(3)(a) and 14(9). 63. Contrary to the Colorado Constitution which expressly and strictly

restricts medical marijuana patient and care-giver information to the CDPHE, the state health agency, and limited disclosures of registry information to law enforcement agencies under certain, very limited circumstances, the House Bill provides for the sharing of patient / care-giver information with a state licensing authority and a local licensing authority. Under the legislation, the state licensing authority is the executive or deputy director of the Colorado Department of Revenue. C.R.S. 12-43.3-201(1). Director of the Department of Revenue is authorized to conduct searches and investigations and even seizures at will of the records and contract and sales information of cultivators, product manufacturers, or dispensers of medical marijuana. C.R.S. 12-43.3-202(2)(a)(IV) and (XVIII), 12-43.3-701, 12-43.3-901(4)(e). 64. The Department of Revenues Medical Marijuana Enforcement

Division has issued approximately 100 pages of final regulations pursuant to the medical marijuana legislation. Chapter 4 of the proposed regulations authorizes broad Departmental inspections, searches, and seizures of virtually anything connected with the cultivation, manufacture, or dispensing of medical marijuana
24

including constitutionally protected confidential records of patient and care-giver identifying information. Chapter 10 requires video surveillance of patients and care-givers who obtain medication from medical marijuana centers. No regulatory provisions are made to preserve the confidentiality of such information and these proposed regulatory provisions are in violation of the privacy provisions contained in the Colorado Constitution. Colorado Constitution, Article 18, 14(3)(a) and 14(9). 65. Injecting the Department of Revenue and the local licensing

authority into the regulation of the medical marijuana program not only breaches the strict confidentiality provision but is contrary to the regulatory scheme established in the Constitution of having the program administered solely by the state health agency as a health program. Nowhere in Constitution is there the slightest reference to participation by the State Department of Revenue in the regulation or administration of the medical marijuana program. 66. Medical marijuana patients also have privacy interests in regards to

their communications with their physicians and to their healthcare records protected under the Colorado Constitution, statute, and common law. Colorado Constitution, Article II, Sections 7 and 25; C.R.S. 13-90-107(1)(d). No statutory or other exception to the privacy right and privilege exists in Colorado at least until the passage of the medical marijuana legislation.
25

67.

The medical marijuana legislation gives the Department of Revenue,

and law enforcement agencies, under the medical marijuana legislation broad, virtually unfettered, authority to invade the privacy of medical marijuana patients. This not only contravenes the explicit privacy provisions of the Colorado Constitution, but also discourages qualified patients and citizens, and their caregivers, from asserting their constitutional right to their medication and denies them an effective, possibly life-saving, remedy for their debilitating conditions, and, further, places the success of the program itself at risk. The General

Assembly was without any constitutional authority for its promulgation. And, it is in direct conflict with the confidentiality provision of the Colorado Constitution. Qualifying Medical Marijuana Patients Are and Will Be Severely Harmed by the Challenged Legislation 68. The large number of municipal and county bans being enacted across

the State and the draconian restrictions on care-givers under the medical marijuana legislation are already impacting the scheme of ready access to medication established by the Colorado Constitution for medical marijuana patients. The thousands upon thousands of qualifying patients who reside in these almost 50 municipalities and 20 counties covering a large part of the State are or will be effectively deprived of ready or all access to their medication. Many will face the hard choice of going without or of obtaining their medication in violation of the
26

medical marijuana legislation and running the risk of arrest and loss of their legal right to use the medication. 69. A great many other patients, like PCRLP members Lannette F.,

Kendra C., Gary I., and Scott S., have already lost or face the loss of their primary care-givers or ready access to their medication due to the severe restrictions placed by the legislation. For those patients without relatives who can act as primary care givers, the restrictions make the services of care-givers no longer profitable and there is no longer a sufficient incentive for the provision of such important services central to the health and well-being of the patients. The patients, who must depend on care-givers for their medication, cannot and should not wait for years under unconstitutional legislation for a remedy that will make care-givers and their medication reasonably available to them. 70. Challenging these great many separate local ordinances banning or

regulating to death medical marijuana businesses in separate legal actions is unnecessarily burdensome and expensive to both the court and the petitioning patients. Indeed, it is doubly so to the patients given that these parties are by nature suffering debilitating and sometimes life-threatening illnesses, including those formerly served by PCRLP members Kathleen Chippi, Jason D., Nick L., and Randy and Suzanne S. Litigation takes much time, often years before final decisions are rendered on appeal. These already suffering patients cannot wait.
27

Their illness will not grant these many thousands of patients any reprieve while they engage in protracted litigation. 71. The implementation of this program by the Colorado Department of

Revenue under the medical marijuana legislation will also expose the confidential information of the hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients and caregivers in blatant violation of the Colorado Constitution. The constitutionally secured privacy of over 100,000 qualified medical marijuana patients and Colorado residents and citizens stands to be irreparably invaded unless there is immediate action by the Court. 72. For example, in December, 2010, a large number of confidential

medical marijuana registry forms with all these peoples personal information on each one of those sheets was found by happenstance by a passerby in a box by an alleyway trash bin behind a medical marijuana dispensary. The discarded dispensary records contained patient names, addresses, and telephone numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, and the personal and medical information of dozens of patients. The medical marijuana legislation required the dispensary to collect this information from patients and their care-givers. 73. It is for these reasons that the Plaintiffs and the more than 100,000

other medical marijuana patients and care-givers must have immediate, statewide,

28

relief. No other relief that might be available to them is adequate under the circumstances.

III. NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST OR RATIONAL BASIS EXISTS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHT OF ACCESS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF QUALIFYING MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS TO THEIR MEDICATION 74. Doctors, dentists, and other medical providers routinely prescribe and

pharmacies routinely dispense in every municipality in every county of the state a great many controlled pharmaceutical narcotics such as Fentanyl, oxymorphone, hydromorphone, morphine, and codeine, universally recognized as far more potent than medical marijuana. The use of these medicinal substances is illegal unless pursuant to a doctors or dentists prescription. 21 U.S.C. 801, et seq. Yet, with the medical marijuana legislation, patients have much greater access to these far more potent pharmaceutical narcotics prescribed for the same pain than they have to medical marijuana. 75. For example, PCRLP member and qualifying medical marijuana

patient C. M. is permitted by his public high school to have his prescribed narcotic pain medicine dispensed to him by the school health clinic, but he is not permitted to have his less potent muscle relaxant medical marijuana medication that was recommended by his same doctors for his seriously debilitating medical condition
29

dispensed to him at the school. While he is permitted by the school to have the prescribed narcotic pain medication in his blood at school, the school does not permit him to even have the recommended medical marijuana medication if taken prior to arriving at school - in his blood stream. As he has been unable to attend school without the use of his doctor recommended medical marijuana medication due to his debilitating medical condition, he has been further deprived of his constitutional right to a public education. 76. Under the supervision of his doctor, PCRLP member John E., for

example, has been able to reduce his dependence on these narcotics through careful pain management with medical marijuana. 77. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But

marijuana (cannabis) is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. Marijuana's therapeutic ratio is impossible to quantify because it is so high. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. 78. Even alcohol, which is readily available without a doctors approval,

is immensely more harmful and dangerous to the user and our society than marijuana.

30

79.

The right of a qualifying patent or care-giver to medical marijuana is

an individual constitutional right analogous to those civil rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights found in Article 2 of the Colorado Constitution. Furthermore, a denial of medical care is a deprivation of an interest in liberty or life that implicates rights to due process under both the federal and state constitutions. These vested interests extend to the care-givers and others who provide medical marijuana patients with medication under the Colorado Constitution. 80. In addition to the inherent liberty and life issues that establish a

fundamental right to medical care, Article 18, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution the Colorado Constitution is more expansive of these rights in specifically establishing as a fundamental right of all Colorado citizens and residents the free access to medical marijuana for debilitating medical conditions. 81. In infringing upon the aforesaid constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs,

the medical marijuana legislation fails to promote any compelling state interest and is not narrowly drawn to achieve any such interest in the least restrictive manner possible. 82. There is no rationale basis for any of these restrictions let alone any

compelling state interest.

31

IV. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CANNOT AMEND THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION BY LEGISLATION 83. Regardless of what the General Assembly may think of a

constitutional amendment express through the will of the People of Colorado, it can only enact legislation that satisfies the mandates of the Colorado Constitution, including the provisions on patient access to medical marijuana. It cannot amend the Colorado Constitution by legislation, as it has done with the Constitutions scheme through the local option and licensing and the substantive restrictions on care-givers and physicians.

V. 84. 85.

CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation above. Plaintiffs seek the following disputed issues be resolved by the Court

by ruling as a matter of law, and for the reasons set forth above, House Bill 101284 is in its entirety unconstitutional, and / or, that the following provisions of House Bill 10-1284 and Senate Bill 10-109 are unconstitutional: C.R.S. 1243.3-102(2), 12-43.3-103(2), 12-43.3-104(5), 12-43.3-104(16), 12-43.3-106, 1243.3-201, 12-43.3-202, 12-43.3-301, 12-43.3-302, 12-43.3-303, 12-43.3-306, 1243.3-307, 12-43.3-310 through 312, 12-43.3-402(5), 12-43.3-601, 12-43.3-701, 1232

43.3-901, 25-1.5-106(2)(c), 25-1.5-106(4)(a), 25-1.5-106(7), 25-1.5-106(9)(a), (b), and (d), 25-1.5-106(10)(a) through (d), 25-1.5-106(10)(e)(V), 25-1.5-106(10)(f), 25-1.5-106(11)(a), 25-1.5-106(12)(a), 25-1.5-106(12)(b)(I), (IV), and (V), 25-1.5106(13), and 18-18-406.3(6).

V. 86. 87.

CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation above. As to the defendants sued in their individual capacity, Plaintiffs seek

an order permanently, preliminary, and / or temporarily enjoining them from implementing, enforcing or otherwise acting upon any and all of the provisions of H.B. 10-1284, S.B. 10-109 or H.B. 11-1043.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, A. Plaintiffs respectfully request a declaratory judgment from the

Court that the provisions of H.B. 10-1284, S.B. 10-109, and / or H.B. 11-1043, all or in part, pertaining to the Colorado medical marijuana program are unconstitutional. B. As to the individually sued Defendants, Plaintiffs respectfully

request an order from the Court, permanent, preliminary, and / or temporary,

33

enjoining them, jointly and severally, from implementing, enforcing or otherwise acting upon any and all of the provisions of H.B. 10-1284, S.B. 10-109, and /or H.B. 11-1043. C. Plaintiffs respectfully request any further relief the Court may

deem just and proper.

Dated: June 30, 2011.

Respectfully submitted, SPRINGER AND STEINBERG, P.C.

By:____/s/ Andrew B. Reid__________________ Andrew B. Reid, Bar No. 25116

(Original signature at the law office of Springer and Steinberg, PC)

1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: 303.861.2800 Email: areid@springer-and-steinberg.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs

34