Jacob SullumThis week the Amendment 64 Implementation Task
Force
decided to recommend that visitors as well as Colorado
residents be allowed to buy marijuana at the state-licensed pot
stores that are supposed to start opening next year. The task
force’s
recommendation to the Colorado General Assembly acknowledges
the concern that “opening recreational sales to out-of-state
residents could attract greater federal scrutiny and the
displeasure of our neighboring states.” But it suggests that issue
“could be addressed through labeling and education”—for example, by
“providing point-of-sale information to out-of-state consumers
reminding them that marijuana cannot leave the state” and putting
up “signage at airports and near borders reminding visitors
that marijuana purchased in Colorado must stay in Colorado.”

Deputy Attorney General David Blake, a task force member, was
not happy. “The out-of-state tourism is exactly what I don’t want,”
he said. “I don’t want Colorado to become the pot-tourism mecca of
the country.” Yet it is hard to see how banning residents of other
states from pot shops can be reconciled with
Amendment 64, which allows “persons twenty-one years of age or
older” to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, without reference to
where they live.

“It is clear that under current state law out-of-state residents
may possess less than an ounce of marijuana without penalty,” the
task force says. “Forbidding those from out-of-state from
purchasing the marijuana that they may lawfully possess in Colorado
would thus encourage straw purchases and unauthorized resale to
out-of-state residents.” Furthermore, Amendment 64 specifies that
the Colorado Department of Revenue, which is charged with
regulating marijuana producers and sellers, “shall not require a
consumer to provide a retail marijuana store with
personal information other than government-issued identification to
determine the consumer’s age.” If a customer presents, say, a U.S.
passport to show he is 21 or older, the retailer will not be able
to determine where he lives, and requiring the customer to produce
a form of identification showing his address would be
unconstitutional.

That problem casts doubt not only on a rule making residence in
Colorado a requirement for buying marijuana but also on any attempt
to limit how much people buy based on where they live. Blake argued
in favor of allowing visitors to buy no more than one-eighth of an
ounce at a time as a way of discouraging people from reselling
marijuana in other states. Christian Sederberg, a representative of
the Yes on 64 campaign, said such a rule would not be much of an
obstacle for a serious trafficker, although it might deter an
“opportunistic tourist” like “the guy who says ‘all my frat
brothers at the KU frat house would really like it if I brought
home some pot.'” In the end, the task force rejected Blake’s
proposal, leaving the issue of how much pot visitors can buy to be
settled by the General Assembly. But even if legislators decide a
limit lower than an ounce is appropriate, it will be difficult to
enforce given Amendment 64’s restriction on the information that
can be demanded from pot purchasers.