Just when you think a bad idea is dead and buried, it throws off the dirt and comes loping back into the public arena — and no better for the time spent out of sight, either.

One such stubborn idea, it seems, is having government own and operate retail and cultivation centers for marijuana under Amendment 64.

The idea was first floated during deliberations of the governor’s Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force early this year, but eventually rejected. But now it has been resurrected as one of several possible options for Aurora as it decides how to move forward in the post-Amendment 64 world, and will be discussed at a city council meeting later this month.

Yet any serious reading of the amendment should recognize that its authors never envisioned government — at the state or local level — establishing itself as a monopoly in cannabis supply. If they had, the amendment’s lengthy section on regulation of “marijuana establishments” would have been vastly different.

No doubt that’s why Christian Sederberg of the Amendment 64 campaign told The Denver Post’s Carlos Illescas that such a plan contradicts the spirit of the amendment — even if it might technically be allowed.

The idea has other flaws, too, starting with the fact that the city could find its own facilities subject to raids by federal agents should the Justice Department ever decide to crack down on retail marijuana in Colorado. Indeed, University of Denver law professor Sam Kamin, who follows these issues closely, believes that city ownership is more likely than other options to incite federal anger.

Admittedly, the appeal of city ownership stems from worthy motives. Its advocates believe the government could more tightly control and track marijuana from seed to sale in a wholly owned and vertically integrated operation — although whether that’s actually true is anyone’s guess. States that operate their own networks of liquor stores are not notably more successful in keeping alcohol out of the hands of teens.

Last month, an Aurora council committee recommended that the city opt out of any retail sales for a year before making a final decision. According to the Aurora Sentinel, city lawyers told council members that it would be “nearly impossible” to draft zoning and other regulations by the July 1 deadline stipulated in the amendment, and the city needed more time to craft a thorough plan.

Without a doubt, the timetable is tight — especially as a state framework for regulation has yet to become law. Yet opting out of retail for a brief spell would allow Aurora to see how other communities fare in following the private, regulated model of stores and grow centers envisioned by the amendment. It’s far too soon to give up on a model that hasn’t really been tried.