If these same numbers applied to the election of a democRAT it would be by a WIDE margin.
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.
And "to make regular" commerce with foreign nations. Right? Certainly not to restrict trade, correct?
Quite possibly. But we rightly decided that the self-harms done by drinkers were outweighed by the harms of Prohibition ... and we should be similarly wise regarding marijuana.
No doubt. Did you ever produce the rest of the "definition" and the dictionary cited?
Webster's 1828 Dictionary:Maybe the Illuminati forced Webster to change the definition, huh?REG'ULATE, v.t.
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
Then by your "reasoning", there's no harm in the drug laws.
Are you a fan of Roe v. Wade?
"rightly decided" is a matter of opinion.
Wrong. That innocent people have been wronged by drug warrirors has been proven in court.
Horse vomit. Then why are all these cities enacting smoking bans without the state's permission then?
Cities and municipalities are sovereign entities just like states are (supposedly) sovereign from the feds.
"rightly decided" is a matter of opinion.
So you think this country was wrong to end Prohibition? Despite Prohibition's putting inflated profits in the hands of criminals to use for corrupting the justice system and killing innocents in turf wars?
"Since you're glad that you've seldom if ever have taken a person to court for drug possession claiming that you were harmed by their act of possessing drugs so that you may gain restitution for your claim of pain and suffering you make my case. Drug possession and use is prevalent in the U.S. Yet you have not been harmed, endured pain and suffering, by those people's possession or use of drugs. For if you had you'd take them before an impartial jury."
But if you ever been caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout, you have been victimized by the PROHIBITION of drugs.
Exactly!
That innocent people have been wronged by drug users has been proven in court.
Another name for dope?
Then why are all these cities enacting smoking bans without the state's permission then?
Because the state let them. Some states allow local preemption, some don't.
"That a main source of difficulty is in the attitude of at least a very large number of respectable citizens in most of our large cities and in several states, is made more clear when the enforcement of the national prohibition act is compared with the enforcement of the laws as to narcotics. There is an enormous margin of profit in breaking the latter. The means of detecting transportation are more easily evaded than in the case of liquor. Yet there are no difficulties in the case of narcotics beyond those involved in the nature of the traffic because the laws against them are supported everywhere by a general and determined public sentiment." --Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws (1931) by the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement
Yes.
Despite Prohibition's putting inflated profits in the hands of criminals to use for corrupting the justice system and killing innocents in turf wars?
Interesting that most 'pro-pot' individuals claim we shouldn't ban alcohol because there are drunk drivers, alcoholism, et al. But they have no problem saying that alcohol should have been legalized because there were criminals. Most 'pro-pot' individuals say it was right to re-legalize alcohol, and that we should just punish those who do wrong when they are under the influence. I say, we should have kept alcohol illegal and punished those who were doing wrong when they tried to make a buck off of it.
Oh, and by the way, you can substitute 'drugs' for 'alcohol' above. The issues are the same.
If these same numbers applied to the election of a democRAT it would be by a WIDE margin.
But only by behaviors that are already criminal, separate from the drug use itself. (People have also been wronged by alcohol users, in far, far greater amount.)
Drugs don't alter behavior?
Source, please.
I didn't say that. Don't try straw men on me.
You did say that. You claimed that the criminal behavior of drug users was "separate from the drug use itself."
Are you withdrawing the assertion?
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.