Two heavyweights of the Colorado legal community faced off today at the University of Denver law school in a bare-knuckled debate over medical marijuana.

The bout pitted attorney Rob Corry, one of the state’s most fiery medical-marijuana advocates, against state Attorney General John Suthers, a staunch critic of the current medical-marijuana system. Think of it as a rhetorical cannabis cage match — a Lincoln-Douglas for legalized dope — held in a packed lecture hall before an audience that was a 2-1 mixture of law students and marijuana activists.

Corry, in particular, seemed to figuratively lick his canines in anticipation of the battle.

“I’ve been looking forward to this debate for a number of years,” he said.

Questions and responses in the debate veered from the densely legal to the broadly philosophical to the cautiously predictive, but the lead-off question was a simple one: Do you believe Colorado’s medical-marijuana system, approved at the polls in 2000, is currently what the voters wanted it to be?

Suthers said it isn’t, arguing that the system is rife with fraud and that proliferation of retail marijuana dispensaries far exceeds the limited criminal-law exemption and small-scale patient-and-caregiver model voters were sold. Voters should be asked whether they want dispensaries, he said.

“It creates an affirmative (criminal) defense,” Suthers said of the state’s medical marijuana constitutional provision. “It doesn’t create an industry.”

Corry, naturally, disagreed, saying it was a “canard” that voters didn’t realize where the constitutional measure would lead.

“It does much more than create an affirmative defense,” Corry said of the law’s language. “… It mentions ‘dispensing.’ So if dispensing is OK, how can a dispensary not be OK?”

And it … was … on.

This being a debate at a law school, a good bit of discussion ventured deep into the stuff of leatherbound books. There was debate over the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — all pillars in the bridge between state and federal laws. The two lawyers sparred over the details of a state appeals court decision, a U.S. Supreme Court decision and a U.S. Justice Department memo that offers guidance to federal prosecutors in medical-marijuana states.

As a sign of his eager preparation, Corry repeatedly tried to sting Suthers with his own words, quoting passages from one of Suthers’ books and mentioning a lawsuit Suthers is a part of over federal health care legislation that argues the legislation violates states’ rights.

“The federal government needs to leave us alone and let us comply with our constitution,” Corry said.

Corry said it was illogical for the federal government to “ban a plant, an herb, a harmless herb.”

Suthers, though, said his previous words lost their context when applied to medical marijuana. Particular to the health care lawsuit, Suthers said he is seeking to block further expansion of federal power and said the Supreme Court has already ruled the federal government can regulate marijuana as interstate commerce even if that marijuana is grown and consumed entirely within a medical-marijuana state.

When a student pressed Corry more on that point, Suthers said, “I appreciate very much a law student bringing some legal realism to the discussion here today.”

Suthers also disputed Corry’s characterization of marijuana as harmless, saying he worries about an increase in adolescent marijuana use with attendant negative consequences.

Things grew tense toward the end of the debate — during the questions-from-the-audience portion — when several marijuana activists at different times began screaming at Suthers. Suthers remained stoic but had a security escort when he left the room following the debate.

“When we were talking about the issues, I thought it went fine,” Suthers said later.

Afterward, Corry said, “There’s nothing wrong with passion,” and said he thought the debate went well.

“I never miss a chance to try to hold a fellow Republican to the principles of limited government and freedom when it comes to drug prohibition,” Corry said.

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com.