Posted on 08/10/2005 12:59:24 PM PDT by Know your rights
While a marijuana ordinance has received more than enough support to place it on the November ballot, it was the initiative's opponents who were most vocal at the Telluride Town Council meeting Tuesday.
Speaking passionately about their opposition to marijuana use, about a half-dozen opponents spoke out about the negative implications of an ordinance that would relax the enforcement of marijuana laws and support a statewide system of legalization, distribution and taxation.
A number of supporters also spoke during a half-hour debate that ended without consensus.
The town council had two options: it could either endorse the ordinance and therefore put it on the books, or place the ordinance on the November ballot.
The council showed no inclination toward passing the measure themselves. Instead, they chose unanimously to let voters decide.
"Whatever council votes today, it's neither an endorsement or a denial of the initiative," said council member Andrea Benda.
"There's been a lot of back and forth on this, and that's what an election is all about" said council member Stu Fraser. "By Nov. 1, everybody will have heard every aspect of this ... And then the folks in the community will vote on it."
The debate was not broadcast on KOTO, since a power outage forced the meeting out of Rebekah Hall and into the firehouse next door. But the 30 or 40 people who attended the meeting heard several sides of the arguments for and against the proposed ordinance, America's Drug War, medical marijuana and marijuana use in general.
Opponents cited a variety of concerns.
Richard Kearney, a former member of the Positive Alternatives Team, which works to provide area youth with alternatives to drug and alcohol use, wondered whether the ordinance might lead to increased violence, because, he said, a large portion of "violent crime is substance related."
Marrene Reagan, a family therapist, said that while she supports medical marijuana to ease pain, de-criminalizing marijuana would be bad for families.
"Children are confused because many of the people that they look up to and respect are very comfortable using marijuana," Reagan said. "They question this use of a substance to fill these emotional holes we have in us. There are ways to fill these emotional holes that allow us to grow and are positive, and I don't think using substances is an answer. I just think this is a highly unusual step that I don't think addresses many of the issues and I don't think it's necessary."
The ordinance would not, in fact, legalize marijuana. It would merely make it the Town Marshals' "lowest law enforcement priority."
Some saw that as a problem in itself.
"I think it's inappropriate to create a priority" for the marshals, said Mike Dorsey, a former lawyer for the federal government. "Law enforcement is a flexible matter. The marshals work with the town attorneys to make their own priorities.
"You guys are trying to send a message to the state, if not the nation, that marijuana should be legalized," Dorsey said. "I think that's inappropriate for the families of Telluride. If we pass this ordinance we're saying that Telluride supports the decriminalization of marijuana."
But Peggy Rose, a registered medical marijuana patient from Grand Junction, said she would like to have a "sanctuary" where she can use her medicine without worrying about prosecution. She said she suffers from chronic nausea and cannot eat if she does not smoke the herb.
Ron Gilmer, a member of the Colorado Advisory Counsel on AIDS, said he supported the medical marijuana initiative as a way of relieving the pain of terminally ill patients. He said he especially supported the second part of the ordinance, which supports a method of marijuana distribution that would give patients easier access to the drug.
Just legalize it and go on to other issues.
Dude!
Marijuana initiative...that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
How could this possibly matter? Federal law clearly states marijuana is illegal and then there was the recent U.S. Supreme court ruling on medical marijuana. What a waste of a debate.
Another verse will needed for "ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIGH"
Dude.
Like this is sooooo coool.
I am gonna vote for it.
When is the election again?
LOL!
Major failure to grasp the concept there. Violent crime and substances are related when the substance is illegal. This is seeking to alleviate that link.
So federalism and subsidiarity mean nothing to you? Some "conservative."
As Prohibition clearly showed us.
You're putting words in my mouth. I just stated that this is useless under the current system we have now, I didn't say anything in support or opposition. Be naive if you want.
Drunks don't often show much initiative either; what's your point?
Wrong ... fderal law says nothing about the priorities of any town marshal.
Sad what passes for humor among War On Drugs fanatics.
...uh....I forgot. Where's my Cheetos?
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Sad what passes for humor among War On Drugs fanatics.
After just two puffs off a Marijuana joint you'll turn into a bat and fly around the room.
Er... then again...
You are right about one thing. Debate is pointless. The WoDdies want their War and nothing will keep them from it. Especially not a little thing like the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.