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

PATIENT CAREGIVER RIGHTS LITIGATION PROJECT, COLORADO PATIENTS ALLIANCE, KATHLEEN CHIPPI, and RICO COLIBRI, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF COLORADO, JOHN HICKENLOOPER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, BARBARA BROHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, and MARTHA E. RUDOLPH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Defendants.
JOHN W. SUTHERS, Attorney General GEOFFREY N. BLUE, Deputy Attorney General* DAVID C. BLAKE, Assistant Solicitor General* PHILIP R. DAVIS, Assistant Attorney General* KELLY A. ROSENBERG, Assistant Attorney General* 1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor Denver, CO 80203 303-866-5264 Registration Number: 32684, 43170, 28023, 35685 *Counsel of Record

COURT USE ONLY Case No.: 2011-CV-4632

Div.: ___ Ctrm: 209

STATE OF COLORADOS ANSWER Defendants, the State of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, Governor of the State of Colorado, Barbara Brohl, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue, and Martha E. Rudolph, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Health and

Environment 1 (the State Defendants), hereby submit the following Answer to the AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 57 AND 65 (Amended Complaint): I. ANSWER TO SECTION TITLED PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 1, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 2. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 2, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 3. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 3, footnote 1, the State Defendants admit that House Bill 10-1284 (2010); Senate Bill 10-109 (2010); and House Bill 11-1043 (2011) are codified in a number of different sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes and that Plaintiffs will refer to these provisions as the medical marijuana legislation. With respect to the remaining allegations, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 4. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 4, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 5. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 5, the State Defendants deny that Plaintiff LaGoy secured an agreement with CDPHE. As to the remaining allegations, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 6. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 6, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 7. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 7, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 8. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 8, the State Defendants admit that the residents of Federal Heights voted to prohibit the operation of medical marijuana
1

Christopher E. Urbina, M.D., MPH, is the Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

centers, optional premises cultivation, and medical marijuana-infused manufacturers licenses within Federal Heights. The State Defendants deny that there is a constitutional right to medical marijuana. The remaining allegations call for legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 9. With respect to the factual allegations in Paragraph 9, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. With respect to the allegations calling for legal conclusions, no response is required, but insofar as a response is required the State Defendants deny them. 10. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 10, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 11. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 11, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 12. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 12, the State Defendants admit that the Adams County Commissioners voted to ban medical marijuana businesses in unincorporated parts of the County. With respect to the remaining allegations, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 13. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 13, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 14. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 14, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 15. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 15, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 16. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 16, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 17. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, the State Defendants state that the allegations call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations.

18. The State Defendants admit that John Hickenlooper is the Governor of the State of Colorado and that the Governor, personally or by his predecessor, signed into law the legislation at issue herein. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 call for legal conclusions to which no response is required but insofar as a response is required, they are denied. 19. The State Defendants admit that Barbara Brohl is the executive director of the Colorado Department of Revenue. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 call for legal conclusions to which no response is required but insofar as a response is required, they are denied. 20. The State Defendants deny that Martha E. Rudolph is the Executive Director and chief executive officer of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). In further response, the State Defendants admit that Christopher E. Urbina, M.D., MPH, is the executive director and chief medical officer of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The State Defendants further admit that the Governor designated the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to administer the medical marijuana registry program pursuant to Executive Order D 001 01, Designating the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for purposes of Article XVIII, Section 14(1)(g) of the Colorado Constitution, signed on February 5, 2001. The State Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 20. 21. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 21, the State Defendants deny that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to sections 13-51-101 et. seq, C.R.S., sections 24-4-101et. seq., C.R.S., or C.R.C.P. 57. The State Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and the State Defendants pursuant to C.R.C.P. 65. The State Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief. The State Defendants deny the remaining allegations. 22. The State Defendants admit that venue is proper in this court. II. ANSWER TO SECTION TITLED FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 23, the State Defendants admit that Amendment 20 was proposed by initiative and was ratified by the electorate at the general election on November 7, 2000, and that it is codified at Colorado Constitution Article XVIII 14. With respect to the remaining allegations, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 24. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 24, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. With respect to the remaining allegations, they call

for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 25. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 25, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 25 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 26. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 26, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 26 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 27. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 27, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 27 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 28. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 28, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 28 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 29. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 29, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 29 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 30. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 30, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 30 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 31. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 31, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 31 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations.

32. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 32, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 32 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 33. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 33, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. The Colorado Attorney General opinion regarding taxes related to medical marijuana is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. With respect to the remaining allegations, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 34. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 34, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. Further, the allegations in paragraph 34 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 35. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 35, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. In further response, the State Defendants admit that the Governor designated the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to administer the medical marijuana registry program pursuant to Executive Order D 001 01, Designating the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for purposes of Article XVIII, Section 14(1)(g) of the Colorado Constitution, signed on February 5, 2001. The State Defendants deny all other allegations in paragraph 35. 36. The State Defendants admit that as of May 31, 2011 CDPHE had issued approximately 127,444 valid registry ID cards to patients in every county in Colorado; that the average age of the patients was 40 years; that 62% of the patients designated a primary care giver; and that more than 1,100 different physicians have signed for the patients. With respect to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 37. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 37, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. 38. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 38 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations

of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. The State Defendants deny that Plaintiffs correctly quote the Colorado Constitution Article XVIII, section 14(2)(d). The State Defendants admit that on June 7, 2010, the Governor signed into law House Bill 10-1284 and Senate Bill 10-109. With respect to the remaining allegations, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. The State Defendants admit that House Bill 11-1043 was signed by the Governor on June 2, 2011 with an effective date of July 1, 2011.
39. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 39, the State Defendants respond as follows: Sections 25-1.5-106(1)(a) and C.R.S. 12-43.3-101 et. seq., C.R.S., speak for themselves, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of those statutes. The letter attributed to Attorney General Suthers is a writing that speaks for itself and the State Defendants deny any characterization of this letter as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the State denies the allegations. The remaining allegations call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State denies the allegations. 40. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 40, the State Defendants admit that CDPHE promulgated certain agency rules and regulations pertaining to medical marijuana. To the extent Plaintiffs are attempting to challenge CDPHEs rulemaking process, judicial review pursuant to section 24-4-106, C.R.S., is the exclusive remedy. The remaining allegations call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required the State Defendants deny the allegations. 41. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 41, the State Defendants admit that CDOR promulgated certain agency rules and regulations pertaining to medical marijuana. To the extent Plaintiffs are attempting to challenge CDORs rulemaking process, judicial review pursuant to section 24-4-106, C.R.S., is the exclusive remedy. The remaining allegations call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required the State Defendants deny the allegations. 42. The State Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42. 43. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 43 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said

allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
44. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 44, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 45. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 45, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 46. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 46, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 47. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 47, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State denies the allegations. 48. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 48, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State denies the allegations. 49. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 49, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. With respect to the remaining allegations, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 50. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 50 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations. 51. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 51 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations. 52. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 52 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no

duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations.
53. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 53 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations. 54. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 54 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations. 55. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 55 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations. 56. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 56, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 57. With respect to the allegations of Paragraph 59, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to the factual allegations, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 58. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 58 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 59. With respect to the allegations of Paragraph 59, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State

Defendants deny the allegations. With respect to the remaining allegations, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 60. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph, to the extent that those allegations are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 61. With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 61, to the extent that those allegations are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 62. With respect to the allegations of Paragraph 62, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 63. To the extend the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 64. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 65. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no

10

duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same.
66. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 67. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, or other provisions of law, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 68. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 69. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 70. With respect to the allegations of Paragraph 70, Article XVIII 14 of the Colorado Constitution is a writing that speaks for itself, and the State Defendants deny any characterization of that writing. With respect to the remaining, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations.

11

71. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 71 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 72. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 72 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 74. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 74 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 75. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 75 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 76. The State Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 76.

12

III. ANSWER TO SECTION TITLED 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 77. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 77, the State Defendants admit that a prescription is required for the use of some controlled substances under federal law and that medical providers routinely prescribe and pharmacies routinely dispense such drugs. With respect to the remaining allegations, they are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 78. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 78 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. 79. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 79, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 80. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 80, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 81. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 81, the State Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore the State Defendants deny them. 82. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 82, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 83. The allegations in Paragraph 83 call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. 84. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 84, they call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations.

13

85. The allegations in Paragraph 85 call for legal conclusions to which no response is required; but insofar as a response is required, the State Defendants deny the allegations. IV. ANSWER TO SECTION TITLED THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CANNOT AMEND THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION BY LEGISLATION OR THE STATE BY AGENCY REGULATION. 86. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 86 are argument, state legal conclusions, or purport to summarize or characterize Colorado law related to medical marijuana, or components thereof, the State Defendants are under no duty to respond to such allegations because such contentions are not allegations of fact. To the extent a response is required, the State Defendants deny said allegations, or lack sufficient knowledge and information upon which to admit or deny the allegations of the Amended Complaint, and therefore deny the same. V. ANSWER TO CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS. 87. The State Defendants incorporate herein their responses to Paragraphs 1-86 in response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint. 88. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 88, the State Defendants admit that Plaintiffs ask the Court for a ruling that certain statutory provisions and agency regulations are unconstitutional. The State Defendants deny that the statutes and regulations are unconstitutional and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such a ruling. VI. ANSWER TO CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS 89. The State Defendants incorporate herein their responses to Paragraphs 1-88 in response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint. 90. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 90, the State Defendants admit that Plaintiffs ask the Court for injunctive relief. The State Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such an order.

91. The State Defendants deny all allegations contained in the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
GENERAL DENIAL The State Defendants deny all allegations not specifically admitted herein.

14

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Plaintiffs may lack standing to assert one or both of their claims. 3. This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. 4. Plaintiffs failed to join a party/parties under C.R.C.P. 19. 5. To the extent Plaintiffs are challenging CDPHE's and CDOR's rulemaking processes, Plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of section 24-4-106, C.R.S., including but not limited to, section 24-4-106(4), C.R.S. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review those challenges.

Respectfully submitted on the 2nd day of September, 2011.

JOHN W. SUTHERS Attorney General

s/ Geoffrey N. Blue GEOFFREY N. BLUE* Deputy Attorney General *Counsel of Record

15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of September, 2011, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing STATE OF COLORADOS ANSWER was filed and served via LexisNexis File & Serve to the following:

Andrew B. Reid, #25116 Springer and Steinberg, P.C. 1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-861-2800 Telephone 303-832-7116 Facsimile areid@springer-and-steinberg.com

/s Joy Thompson_______________ Joy Thompson

16