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.
Wrong. Your own source stated that parts of the plant were acceptable for "hemp products" and some were not.
The plant is only partially marijuana by the DEA definitions, so I am right. If you're going to play word games, at least play them with some skill.
No, Prohibition caused them. Pay attention.
Like magic. But it didn't cause any enforcement.
A mountain of assertions...
No, it refutes your assertion. You're trying to be a little bit pregnant.
Like magic.
No, through a causal mechanism I have already explained.
But it didn't cause any enforcement.
Your theory is for additional enforcement of laws that predated Prohibition ... a theory there is no obvious reason to find plausible.
What do you hope to accomplish with your misstatements?
Begging is hardly an explanation.
additional enforcement of laws that predated Prohibition
Give the so-called dates.
Legally permitted "hemp products", for purposes of a specific act.
Take your failure like a man. Or whatever you are.
Windbaggery is hardly a refutation.
Give the so-called dates.
The passage I quoted says arrests increased by certain percentages after Prohibition passed, which means there were arrests prior to Prohibition, which means the laws predated Prohibition. QED.
I still wonder what you hopt to accomplish with your silly games.
So you're claiming that the CSA may have excluded psychoactive portions of the cannabis plant from its definition of marijuana? Any reason we shuld think that likely?
An admission?
So you're inventing strawmen?
You can handle both sides of the debate. Just keep inventing arguments to attribute to me.
I hope John doesn't get mixed up with the other Hickenlooper on the ballot.
Denver is an interesting city. Wall to wall libs, old hippies and SUV's as far as the eye can see.
Poor you.
.People did (and do) drink as much as they wanted. They didn't purchase enough for a couple of weeks, then suddenly get scared and drink it all down at once.
And that link you provided - interesting, but where is the information about how these figures were compiled so that we can know that the information on increased consumption and spending is accurate? And how do we know that prohibition was the factor which caused increased crime, e.g. homocides?
By the way, in reading the link you provided, it seems clear to me that arrests for drunk driving and disorderly conduct went up because enforcement went up, not because the use of alcohol increased.
Nor do users of currently illegal drugs ... but like drinkers during Prohibition they use a substantial dose as quickly as they can.
And that link you provided - interesting, but where is the information about how these figures were compiled so that we can know that the information on increased consumption and spending is accurate?
I've met my burden of proof; you want to challenge my sources, that's YOUR homework.
And how do we know that prohibition was the factor which caused increased crime, e.g. homocides?
Where is the more plausible alternative explanation?
By the way, in reading the link you provided, it seems clear to me that arrests for drunk driving and disorderly conduct went up because enforcement went up
It's "clear" to you even though it says nothing of the sort ... typical WOD 'logic.'
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.