Posted on 11/02/2005 7:03:16 AM PST by Wolfie
Denver Pot Issue Passes By Thin Margin
Denver residents Tuesday voted to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, but the state attorney general said the vote was irrelevant because state law will still be enforced.
The measure passed 54 percent to 46 percent.
"It just goes to show the voters of Denver are fed up with a law that prohibits adults from making a rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol," said Mason Tvert, executive director of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, or SAFER.
The measure will change the city's ordinance to make it legal for adults 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in the city.
Denver follows the city of Oakland, which last year voted to make marijuana possession its lowest enforcement priority and required the city to develop a plan for licensing and taxing the sale, use and cultivation of marijuana for private use. Voters in Telluride Tuesday defeated a similar measure.
Denver is "the second major city in less than a year to pass a vote which says that marijuana should be treated essentially like alcohol, taxed and regulated," said Bruce Mirken, the director of communications for the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, one of the largest groups opposing jail time for the use of pot. "This has been characterized as a fringe issue, and clearly it's not."
Even though voters approved Initiative 100, Denver police still will bring charges under state law, which carries a fine of up to $100 and a mandatory $100 drug-offender surcharge for possession of small amounts of marijuana, said Attorney General John Suthers.
"I have found these efforts to be unconstructive," Suthers said.
"I understand the debate about legalization and whether our drug laws are constructive. But I wish we would have a full-out debate instead of these peripheral issues that accomplish just about nothing," he said.
Tvert said marijuana supporters will push for a statewide initiative that would allow for the licensing and regulation of the selling of marijuana.
"This is not just symbolic," he said. "This is a fact. This city voted to change a city ordinance. We expect the city officials to respect the will of the voters who elected them."
In Denver, backers of the initiative sparked controversy with their campaign.
Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown blasted as deceptive their campaign signs, which declared: "Make Denver SAFER, Vote Yes on I-100." Brown said he feared voters would believe the initiative would put more police on Denver streets.
Under fire from domestic-violence groups, SAFER also pulled a controversial billboard that showed a battered woman and her abuser with the slogan "Reduce family and community violence in Denver. Vote Yes on I-100."
Proponents of the initiative tried to draw Mayor John Hickenlooper into the fray by labeling him a hypocrite for selling alcohol in his brewpubs when he opposed their efforts to legalize marijuana.
During one rally, they unveiled a banner that read: "What is the difference between Mayor Hickenlooper and a marijuana dealer? The mayor has made his fortune selling a more harmful drug: alcohol."
Tuesday night, Hickenlooper said he was surprised by the vote.
"It doesn't supersede state law, so it's really symbolic of changing attitudes," the mayor said.
hemp (hĕmp)
n.
Cannabis.
since "hemp" products are products made from portions of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana
Nice job of refuting yourself. Splenetically.
LOL Yeah, that'll convince me that I should support legalization of drugs.
I'm content to convince lurkers that Drug Warriors are intellectually lazy, which with your help I've done.
As you also convince them that drug lovers are intellectually lazy. After all, you've presented no evidence to support your claims, so calling someone else 'intellectually lazy' is the pot calling the kettle black.
buy as much as they can survive (or sometimes more) and use it as quickly as they can.
And you believe this is because drugs are illegal? Sure. . .of course. . .it has nothing at all to do with addiction. :::Rolls eyes:::
"And local governments AREN'T derived from the Federal Authority"
Who said that? I said, "higher", as in State. Cities are not anarchies subject only to the laws they desire to bow to. Cities are subject to the federal Constitution and the federal laws thereof.
Local governments exist with the powers they do from the States they create. They are subject to the State Constitution and laws. The State grants what constitutes a city and how to incorporate one. The States created the federal government and agreed to what powers the federal government shall have and the states must obey that authority.
As you also convince them that drug lovers are intellectually lazy. After all, you've presented no evidence to support your claims
What have I claimed?
buy as much as they can survive (or sometimes more) and use it as quickly as they can.
And you believe this is because drugs are illegal?
That's how alcohol was drunk when that drug was illegal.
Ah, so you aren't trying to claim that there was more alcohol abuse during prohibition? It certainly seemed like that was what you were claiming, but since you are not, then it seems we are in agreement. Why would you be asking me to prove that which you already agree with?
That's how alcohol was drunk when that drug was illegal.
As opposed to now, when it is legal? Riiiiight. (By the way, there's that claim you tried you say you didn't make. So where's your proof?)
I'm stating that it's very likely in light of the fact that prohibition increases the incentive to minimize the duration of possession per degree of intoxication, which one can do by ingesting a large amount as quickly as possible.
there's that claim you tried you say you didn't make.
Wrong again ... I didn't say I made no claims.
So where's your proof?
So it's your opinion. Got it.
Wrong again ... I didn't say I made no claims.
LOL So parsing words is how you attempt to bolster your argument. Well, if that's all you have.
The claims in the article you refer to are interesting, but just curious - how does one compile accurate figures of gallons of alcohol consumed when said alcohol is illegal? Any link to how these figures were compiled? Without some evidence of validity, I just have to assume they are made up figures. (Similar to the claims of the number of abortions which occurred prior to Roe v. Wade.)
So it's your opinion.
Is it your opinion that drinkers during Prohibition did not for some reason respond to this incentive ... and if so, what was that reason?
Here's hard evidence for an increase in problem drinking (from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html): "arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent." - Charles Hanson Towne, The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1923), pp. 156-61.
I don't.
Or hard evidence for an increase in enforcement.
Beg on.
I don't.
Look, "hemp" as the DEA uses the term is not marijuana and cannot get one high. If you want to keep playing word games, you'll have to play with yourself.
Or hard evidence for an increase in enforcement.
Ah, a coincidence theorist ... enforcement of disorderly conduct and driving laws JUST HAPPENED to increase upon the advent of Prohibition. Persuasive only to those who have predetermined their conclusions.
That's a false choice. A person need not choose one over the other. They might use either, neither, or both.
The decision could also be either a rational one or an irrational one. The reference to 'ration' is misplaced.
The voters did speak, though - I just don't think they relied on this argument, or if they did, their faith in it was misplaced.
Whats so 'thin' about a 54-46 margin? The headline is odd.
Wrong. Your own source stated that parts of the plant were acceptable for "hemp products" and some were not.
In itself, it's not chilling. There is a valid law in the books and this vote didn't repeal or modify it. State law does supercede in this matter: that's not an ugly thing, that's the way its been done for a while.
Ah, a coincidence theorist ... disorderly conduct and driving laws JUST HAPPENED to increase upon the advent of Prohibition.
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.