Opinions For Me, Not For Thee, Says John Suthers

15 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

Republican Attorney General John Suthers says he opposes the [upcoming 2012 ballot] proposal to make pot legal for recreational use.

Suthers has criticized the head of the state’s medical marijuana enforcement agency for appearing to take a stand on local marijuana initiatives up for a vote Tuesday. Suthers called the letter from Dan Hartman “unethical.”

Suthers feels a letter by (outgoing?) Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division head Dan Hartman published in places mulling MMJ retail-sales bans was unethical, even though Suthers himself has spoken out on the subject. Which is why proponents want Suthers to sign an ethics pledge.

As we’ve reported, multiple medical marijuana industry sources say Hartman’s last day at MMED was Friday — a claim that prompted the Department of Revenue, which oversees the division, to tease changes likely to be announced this week.

Among the possible reasons cited for his departure was a Hartman letter published in newspapers like Steamboat Today that took a pro-MMJ stance in towns that will vote on prohibiting dispensaries. An excerpt reads: “If your community bans commercial medical marijuana businesses… you will only remove the regulated medical marijuana distribution model from your community.”

According to the Associated Press, Suthers reviewed the letter at the request of Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey, whose jurisdiction includes Palisade, one of the burgs that will decide on an MMJ ban. Suthers determined that the letter wasn’t illegal, but it was unethical…

Now, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers claims his repeated attacks on both marijuana legalization and the state’s medical marijuana laws are somehow different from this letter from the head of the state’s (apparently outgoing) medical marijuana enforcement division head Dan Hartman, because Suthers “has given his opinion only when asked by reporters or in response to pending legislation.” This makes us wonder if Suthers simply forgot about the debate this August versus Rep. Jared Polis on marijuana legalization at the Vail Symposium?

Suthers admitted that if the choice is Colorado’s current medical marijuana industry or full legalization for those over 21, the likely 2012 ballot question may be the lesser of two evils.

“I personally would prefer legalization of marijuana to the medical marijuana regimen we currently have in Colorado,” Suthers said. “I believe the retail dispensary model in Colorado, whereby marijuana is grown in large grow operations and sold in retail dispensaries to people who allegedly have a debilitating medical condition has become a complete joke. It’s nothing more than state-sanctioned fraud on the part of thousands of patients and a few dozen doctors.”

Can somebody explain how that is more “ethical,” or different at all, than this letter from Hartman arguing against medical marijuana bans? Suthers isn’t talking about “pending legislation,” he is specifically talking about the upcoming 2012 Colorado ballot initiative. For good measure, he disparages current medical marijuana law, too. Either way we really don’t see, especially with these well-publicized comments about the 2012 initiative in his recent debate with Polis in mind, where Suthers has credibility to accuse Hartman of anything “unethical.”

In fact, it seems to us the only real problem here…is an opinion differing with Suthers.

15 thoughts on “Opinions For Me, Not For Thee, Says John Suthers”

ArapaGOP says:

October 31, 2011 at 11:46 pm

There is a difference between an appointed official taking a public position like this and an elected official doing so. You would agree if this was a situation where Hartman said something you didn’t agree with.

Speaking of which, is this Pothead Pols now? I thought this was a blog about politics.

Log in to Reply
1. Aristotle says:
  
  November 1, 2011 at 12:03 am
  
  What’s the difference?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. ArapaGOP says:
    
    November 1, 2011 at 12:15 am
    
    Start with the fact that elected officials have to reapply for the jobs every four years. Elected officials are policymakers, appointed officials carry out policy made by elected officials. Hartman was way out of line writing a letter to a newspaper in his official capacity to influence an election.
    
    Did Suthers ever once say the “magic words?” I don’t think so.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Aristotle says:
      
      November 1, 2011 at 1:23 am
      
      … along with the fact that appointees are usually out of work when the regime changes, don’t all but erase that distinction?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. DavidThi808 says:
        
        November 1, 2011 at 2:28 am
        
        If you’re appointed then you should not make overtly political statements. Even if you’re a political appointee.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        ArapaGOP says:
        
        November 1, 2011 at 2:44 am
        
        I just wanted to see it again.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        sxp151 says:
        
        November 1, 2011 at 2:55 am
        
        Because you’re desperate for attention and love? How sad.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Ralphie says:
        
        November 1, 2011 at 3:40 am
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Aristotle says:
        
        November 1, 2011 at 8:49 pm
        
        You would, David. 🙂
        
        Here’s the problem – A-GOP doesn’t make “fair points” out of fairness; he makes them out of political expediency.
        
        When you’re right for the wrong reason, you’re actually still wrong.
        
        That said, I was taking him to task for making the distinction between elected and appointed officials and the appropriateness of either taking a position. A-GOP believes that AG is free and clear to do so; but the nature of the job of AG means he, too, should be silent. AG is not a bully pulpit kind of position, like governor.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        DavidThi808 says:
        
        November 2, 2011 at 12:45 am
        
        I think there is some restriction on what any elected official should say with the AG and SOS facing the most restrictions. But I do think it’s fair for Suthers to express an opinion on if marijuana should be legal.
        
        As to why A-GOP brings things up, I’m well aware of his/her reasons. But I think it’s better if we don’t join him/her in the gutter.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Aristotle says:
        
        November 2, 2011 at 1:11 am
        
        … I think engaging with him, as though he were a legitimate polster just expressing his opinion, is closer to “joining him in the gutter” than exposing him as a shill and an intellectual fraud. But that’s only my opinion.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Ralphie says:
      
      November 1, 2011 at 3:39 am
      
      and quit answering questions with questions.
      
      You want to be taken seriously here? Start putting facts where your mouth is.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. ajb says:
  
  November 1, 2011 at 6:17 pm
  
  That’s clear from your response. In fact, judging from all responses here, most polsters haven’t read the letter.
  
  RTFL:
  
  http://www.steamboattoday.com/…
  
  To say that Hartman takes a position in the letter is complete and absolute bullshit. All he does is lay out the facts. That’s a good thing. Most people in this state don’t have a friggin’ clue as to how the MMJ buisness works.
  
  Log in to Reply
silverandblue says:

November 1, 2011 at 12:15 am

I hope Dan spends the next 2 years making a good living and then runs for AG in 2014.

Log in to Reply
Car 31 says:

November 1, 2011 at 3:04 am

Suthers has always been vocal about his dislike of dispensaries and Hartman shouldn’t have written a letter criticizing existing law that he’s supposed to be regulating.

If it is his opinion that local citizens should not have the right to ban dispensaries in their neighborhoods, than he shouldn’t have taken the job.

Matt Cook never would have done that – don’t know why Hartman did.

Log in to Reply