The pledge demand turned on letters by just-reassigned Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division director Dan Hartman that opposed MMJ retail bans being proposed in several communities. Suthers described these documents as "unethical," even though he had vigorously opposed 2006 marijuana-related legislation with an op-ed of his own, among other things.
To Mason Tvert, one of Regulate's primary proponents, Suthers's censuring of Hartman was hypocritical. For that reason, he wanted Suthers's promise not to criticize Regulate once it is approved for the November 2012 ballot -- because to do so would be unethical by his own public standards.
Attorney General's Office spokesman Mike Saccone has a very different take.
"We understand why the legalization proponents are attempting to garner press through a publicity stunt," he writes via e-mail. "But what their press release and pledge overlook is a critical distinction between the Attorney General and the source of the column at issue. The Attorney General is a statewide elected official with broad responsibilities versus the head of the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division, a civil servant whose job it is to be a neutral regulator of an industry. The Attorney General believes that it is problematic for a regulator to be choosing sides in a local election that affects a business that he and his agency collect fees from and oversee.
"The legalization proponents are free to disagree with the Attorney General," he adds. "But their complaint glosses over the difference between two public officials in very different circumstances."
Click here to follow and like the Michael Roberts/Westword Facebook page.