Marijuana.com

Buzzby

"No" For Denver Pot Initiative
Denver Post | 10/25/2005

Colorado and the nation need to have realistic debate about decriminalizing marijuana, but ballot initiative I-100 in Denver doesn't contribute much to that discussion.

If passed by voters, I-100 would legalize possession of an ounce or less of pot by people over 21 in Denver.

The Post recommends a "no" vote.

As The Post has said previously, the War on Drugs has been an abysmal waste of time and resources.

We think it probably would be preferable for the state and federal governments to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana use. Law enforcement resources - and jail cells - can be put to better use than rounding up pot smokers.

But as long as federal and state laws make marijuana illegal, local legalization efforts do nothing more than send a message to higher levels of government.

Under state law, possession of an ounce or less of pot is a Class 2 petty offense, punishable by a fine of up to $100. Denver cops would continue to enforce that law even if I-100 passes, according to the City Attorney's Office. (Last year, there were 2,072 such busts in Denver, down from 3,500 in 1998.)

We don't think there's any point in passing a law that will have no effect.

Moreover, we've been put off by the specious arguments and misleading campaign tack of the initiative's backers, Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER).

Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER, has made the preposterous assertion that alcoholics drink because they lack a safer alternative - pot.
"Current law promotes and encourages adults to consume alcohol," Tvert said. The group's campaign has claimed passage would make the city safer by, among other things, reducing domestic violence fueled by drinking and cutting down on the number of drunken drivers.

Such claims vastly oversimplify the tragedy of domestic violence and offer us little comfort about safety on the streets.

Both drinking and drug use diminish perception and reflexes. We'd like to keep both drunks and pot smokers from driving on the streets of Denver.

It's too bad that SAFER didn't use the I-100 campaign to educate the public about the issues raised by war on drugs, such as the drain on government budgets and the balance between treatment (which tends to be underfunded) versus imprisonment (which tends to be overused).

Those are issues our society needs to face, and changes in the drug laws need to come at the national and state levels.

__________________

 

killer12382

Boy....talk about riding both sides of the fence. The Denver Post has cornered the market on being politically correct hypocrits. How can you say the war on drugs and especially marijuana is a dismal failure and call for the legalization of cannabis but then won't support the decriminalization process?

Blueyedndn

This country has got to do something about the overcrowding of these prisions. Filled with non violent offenders. Governments are always wanting more tax dollars to build new prisions. And they are making laws to put more people in jail. War on Drugs! Decriminalize MJ and stop drug testing for it. And Vote "NO" everytime on more money for prisions come up.

fight4rights

Way to keep media-unbiased.

What's wrong with that? The Federal Government doesn't seem to listen to the will of the people so much. We have to start local. Sending a message is one of the main reasons for having these propositions on the ballot.

I think that it would in effect stop at least the local police from busting people for possession. My understanding of the law is this: You first enforce the laws for the branch of government you work for. So for example, a California Highway Patrol shouldn't take away a medical marijuana patients medicine while citing that it is still illegal under federal law. A local law enforcement officer doesn'tgo around enforcing federal laws. So, while the state police of Colorado could still bust someone legally for possession in Denver, the local Denver police should not.

Can anyone else with more experience in dealing with the law confirm that? Is that how it works?

__________________
"Those who do no harm to others should not be harmed by others..." Ethan Nadelmann
"Revolution is not a right, it is an obligation." John Locke
"Do SOMETHING besides argue emotions against the law, because it simply isn't a rational way to affect any type of change whatsoever. No offense intended, but your opinion on things is a moot point unless you take actions to change the law, rather than ramble about how unfair or injust it is." troublemaker_42
"'Just say no' to drugs, except those marketed by big pharmaceutical companies." Ignorant Politicians

Buzzby

Local law enforcement officers enforce state laws, since most major crime laws are state laws.

The article is an editorial, not news reporting. Newspapers often take sides on issues through their editorials.

 

fight4rights

So what is to happen in a case like this? Is it just up to the determination of the officer on which law he wants to adhere to? Even if this is the case I think it is still to our benefit to try to pass these propositions. This law will give police officers more of an incentive to just look the other way when it comes to marijuana.

That makes more sense. It seems strange that the newspaper would allow the voice of one person to speak for an entire organization, but if that's how they run things then fine.

Buzzby

From this I'd assume that the editorial represents the official stand of the Denver Post, not just one editor.

PotShot

I guess I don't speak for the whole of humanity but I personally know of 4 people who drink because it is legal, and do not smoke pot because it is illegal. That assertion is certainly not preposterous. The notion that "legalizing locally is a waste of time" on the other hand is a preposterous idea. All it would do is send a message? WELL GOOD! We need more messages like that sent all over the country.

Argh, local legalization is a waste of time?

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

urania3

The writer is simply unswayed by this argument for legalization: use of marijuana as an alternative to alcohol. I think SAFER is going for an emotional argument here rather than an intellectual one (democracy or mobcracy?) by actively calling for its legalization for recreation and rather than addressing, say, the mortality of alcohol (Alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 19,928, Alcoholic liver disease: 12,121, from the CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths: Final Data for 2002, table 10) vs. marijuana (this number never seems to be found... ). And while I do argue that legalization should include recreational use, it is not my first choice of arguments. It is my desire that users not be treated as if they are doing something uncitizenlike per se.

And there's something to be said about people coming together as a city and saying something to the state and federal governments.

killer12382

Thank God nobody listens to the Denver Post.