Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Ambushing The Pot Initiative
Blue book language will mislead voters
Rocky Mountain News | 09/15/2006

How would you react to a ballot measure allowing an adult to give "up to one ounce of marijuana to another individual 15 years of age or older as long as there is no compensation, although possession for those under 21 years of age would remain illegal"?

You'd consider the measure for two seconds or less, declare it insane, and decide on the spot to vote against it. Right?

Legalize the act of plying kids with drugs?

Who authored such madness?

No one, as it happens. But you wouldn't know it if you only read the state's Blue Book, which is the pamphlet that goes out to all registered voters and explains this year's ballot initiatives. That misleading line about transferring marijuana to juveniles happens to be included in the final draft of the pamphlet's discussion of Amendment 44.

The Legislative Council and its staff have made a serious mistake that will cloud the reputation of the Blue Book for years to come, not to mention tilt the playing field so far against Amendment 44 that the angle resembles a cliff.

Amendment 44 would have had an uphill fight under any circumstances, given its goal of legalizing the adult possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. But at least its backers had a fighting chance if they could appeal to Coloradans who harbor mixed feelings about the nation's drug war, and who resent how law enforcement often lumps pot together with harder drugs.

But thanks to this Blue Book blunder, the task for Amendment 44 backers may be infinitely more difficult.

Did we say blunder? Strike that: The line was deliberately placed in the Blue Book and is defended to this day by the Legislative Council as a legitimate interpretation.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff told us "every single word" of the controversial line "is true" because "it is accurate in terms of the laws on possession of marijuana."

Romanoff says this because state law makes it a felony to give anyone under 15 marijuana, and that law would remain in place if Amendment 44 passes. And since there is no explicit prohibition against transferring pot to anyone older, the council felt justified in maintaining that an adult could give "up to one ounce of marijuana to another individual 15 years of age or older" under the amendment.

Unfortunately, the clear implication of that statement - that the amendment decriminalizes such transfers, at least insofar as the state is concerned - is simply false. It is a crime in Colorado to help any juvenile break any federal or state law, and under both federal and state law it will continue to be illegal for minors to possess marijuana even if Amendment 44 is approved. So someone giving a minor marijuana would be breaking the law as well.

The Blue Book does acknowledge that 44 "addresses state law for possession only; enforcement of other marijuana laws would not change." But contributing to the delinquency of a minor is not a marijuana law, meaning the Blue Book fails to remind voters that such a law exists.

Sponsors of Amendment 44 tried to have the offending language struck this week in court, but a Denver judge said he had no authority to do so. We understand the judge's reluctance to meddle in a legislative prerogative, but the result is that voters will be misled. And that's simply not right, whatever your opinion of the merits of Amendment 44.

 

dredpiratrobert

I mean dosen't this constitute some version of FRAUD on the part of the people responsible for the interpretation in the Blue-Book??

Naturally all laws are open to interpretation before they are passed BUT, the version in the blue book is SEVERELY biased and is practically an outright lie!!! Isn't the duty of the blue book to be compiled in such a way as to present the material in an unbiased fashion?

So isn't it against the law to lie to citizens about the nature of the material they are expected to vote upon????

I find the actions of those who oppose Amendment 44 that are responisible for this faux-pas utterly inexcuseable. Period.

someone should go to jail for it.

IMO,

DPR

__________________
True Patriots Live Free Or Die Trying!!!

Buzzby

No. The statement in the blue book is entirely factual. It's misleading, but it's factual. Every politician knows that the best way to lie is to tell the truth, but only the part of the truth that supports your position. People might accuse them of lying, but they're not.

Like the threat posed by Iraq being promoted before the mid-term elections?

__________________

king cola

What the hell are they talking about? At this point an adult could already give a minor a ounce of marijuana anyway legal or not! The fact that adults could legally possess an ounce of marijuana if the vote went through wouldn't mean that they would be getting it for kids. What it might mean is that people might sell a ounce at a time to other adults and if another adult was caught with a ounce, well it's obvious that no one would probably ask where it came from because they would be legally allowed to own that ounce if they were 21years of age! On the other hand, if a kid was caught with a ounce of pot, the cops would want to know where it came from, much like how they already ask questions to minors on where they got their alcohol from if they are caught in possession of it!