Denver voters OK marijuana measure

[cenacle]

Denver voters OK marijuana measure

Published November 2, 2005 at CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/02/ ... index.html

DENVER (AP) -- Residents of the Mile High City have voted to legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults. Authorities, though, said state possession laws will be applied instead.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, 54 percent, or 56,001 voters, cast ballots for the ordinance, while 46 percent, or 48,632 voters, voted against it.

Under the measure, residents over 21 years old could possess up to an ounce of marijuana.

"We educated voters about the facts that marijuana is less harmful to the user and society than alcohol," said Mason Tvert, campaign organizer for SAFER, or Safer Alternatives For Enjoyable Recreation. "To prohibit adults from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana is bad public policy."

Bruce Mirken of the Washington-based Marijuana Policy Project said he hoped the approval will launch a national trend toward legalizing a drug whose enforcement he said causes more problems than it cures.

Seattle, Oakland, California, and a few college towns already have laws making possession the lowest law enforcement priority.

The Denver proposal seemed to draw at least as much attention for supporters' campaign tactics as it did for the question of legalizing the drug.

Tvert argued that legalizing marijuana would reduce consumption of alcohol, which he said leads to higher rates of car accidents, domestic and street violence and crime.

The group criticized Mayor John Hickenlooper for opposing the proposal, noting his ownership of a popular brewpub. It also said recent violent crimes -- including the shootings of four people last weekend -- as a reason to legalize marijuana to steer people away from alcohol use.

Those tactics angered local officials and some voters. Opponents also said it made no sense to prevent prosecution by Denver authorities while marijuana charges are most often filed under state and federal law.

The measure would not affect the medical marijuana law voters approved in 2000. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana laws in Colorado and nine other states would not protect licensed users from federal prosecution.

Also Tuesday, voters in the ski resort town of Telluride rejected a proposal to make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by people 18 or older the town's lowest law enforcement priority. The measure was rejected on a vote of 308-332.

[Avery L. Breath]

Congrats Deverites on a fine victory.

[TooStonedToType]

Don't know whats going on here.  I heard the man speaking the other day saying the Denver vote was "misrepresented" to the voters, (Despite the fact the word marijuana was in the title) and that the voters really thought the "marijuana" initiative was actually to place more police on the streets.  So as far as the police are concerned they are going to interprete the new statute to mean what the people "really" thought they were voting for...more police.  Not only does it appear the police are decieding which laws to follow, but how they are intrepreted.  Can anyone say, "outrageous".

Also a friend was at the recent paul macarthy concert in Denver and the guy  next to him got jumped by three police and arrested for smoking a joint.  Doesn't look like much has changed yet.

[Avery L. Breath]

Ouch!  Damn, that is outrageous!  How could such a mistake in interpretation be made?  How are the local newspapers painting this TooStoned?

[TooStonedToType]

I haven't heard anything in the local papers on this.  This came from a late night talk show.  Im going to try to find out more.  Maybe make some phone calls.


edit:  Most recent story from the Rocky Mountain News explaining this.  I'm copying the story here as the Rocky seems to keep changing the url's for their stories.

The piece is listed as an editorial with no author cited.  So I assume this is the position of the Rocky Mountain News.


--------

City must enforce state pot law
Picking among statutes not a wise option

The decision by Denver voters to legalize the possession of a small amount of marijuana is more symbolic than real: Only 36 adults were charged last year under the now-defunct city ordinance prohibiting possession.  Meanwhile, 1,565 were charged under the state law, which remains intact.

But Mason Tvert, the executive director of the group that put the initiative on the ballot, insists Denver authorities should respect voter wishes and stop charging anyone under the state law, too.

"Right now," he told one reporter, "there are city officials denying the will of voters who put them in office, and I think that's disturbing."

We understand Tvert's frustration, but the matter is not as simple as he makes it out to be. Yes, prosecution of even the state marijuana charges in Denver is left almost exclusively to city attorneys, who for such cases are deputized as special DAs. The regular district attorneys are too busy pursuing more serious crimes. In theory, the mayor could order Denver attorneys simply to stop pursuing such cases.

But it would be unwise for him to do so, for three reasons.

By far the most important reason is that cities can't - or at least shouldn't - pick and choose among state laws to enforce. Those statutes are supposed to apply equally to all citizens.

When states like Colorado passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes in defiance of federal law, they at least had constitutional arguments in their corner involving the commerce clause and federal regulatory reach. Denver has no similar arguments on which to base an intention to ignore state law.

Secondly, a pot charge is often a supplemental charge - an add-on to other charges such as trespass, public nuisance, etc. Law enforcement always likes to have as many arrows in its quiver as possible; if the perp gets off on one charge, perhaps he can be nailed with another.

Finally, the vote to legalize pot possession was so unexpected that Denver citizens never engaged in a serious debate about its consequences. Most of the pre-election controversy had to do with whether the campaign's billboards were fair.

Were Denver voters even aware they couldn't legalize pot, that a state law would remain in place? Does a majority even now really want their mayor to defy state authorities and declare he won't enforce Colorado law in the state capital?

We don't know the answer to those questions, and neither does Tvert and his group. The Denver anti-pot ordinance is dead. Long live the state statute.

[TooStonedToType]

Been doing a little more research.  The issue is not as simple as the RMN would like to believe.  The Denver law is more than symbolic.  State law doesn't necessarily trump local law.  Colorado is considered a "home rule" state.  It is in the Colorado Consitution. http://www.denvergov.org/City_Attorney/ ... 319920.asp

A similar case was litigated in regard to pit bulls.  http://www.denvergov.org/City_Attorney/ ... e3jump.asp

http://www.denvergov.org/City_Attorney/ ... 319924.asp

Death to the state statute! Death to the Rocky Mountain News. Long live the right to self-government.

[Avery L. Breath]

Thats some fine research there TooStoned.  Good job.  Keap up the good fight.

[TooStonedToType]

Update here:

http://www.spiritplants.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=10508