Posted on 08/17/2006 3:38:19 PM PDT by Wolfie
Marijuana Amendment Will Be On Ballot
Denver -- Coloradans are to decide this fall whether to make it legal under state law for anyone age 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. Secretary of State Gigi Dennis said Wednesday that backers of that initiative had turned in enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 general election. The proposal will be Amendment 44 on the state ballot, Dennis said.
Under Colorado law, anyone in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana can be charged with a Class 2 petty offense, punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Legislative staffers preparing an analysis of the initiative report that during the 2005-06 state budget year, state courts convicted 3,700 adults for possession of such amounts of marijuana.
The legalization proposal is being pushed by SAFER, an organization that asserts that marijuana is a “Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation” than alcohol.
“The campaign will highlight the hypocrisy of laws that prohibit the use of marijuana while allowing and even encouraging the use of alcohol, an infinitely more harmful drug,” SAFER spokesman Mason Tvert said Wednesday.
If approved by voters, Amendment 44 would change state law to allow adults age 21 and older to possess or use small amounts of marijuana, according to the legislative staff analysis, as long as that use doesn’t occur in public. It still would be illegal for anyone younger than 21 to possess any amount of marijuana or for people 21 and older to possess amounts more than an ounce.
It also would still be illegal for individuals age 18 and older to transfer any amount of marijuana to anyone younger than 15.
State laws also would continue to ban: growing or selling marijuana; open and public display, use or consumption of marijuana; and driving under the influence of marijuana.
SAFER has noted that even if voters OK the initiative, home-rule cities and towns would still have the ability to ticket and prosecute marijuana users under local ordinances.
Last year, SAFER successfully campaigned for an ordinance change to make it legal for an adult to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in Denver, but the organization has complained that Denver continues to prosecute people under state law.
Tvert said in an interview that voter passage of a state legalization measure would “send a large message” to home-rule municipalities “about how the people of Colorado feel about this.”
Tvert said alcohol abuse “contributes to social problems like fighting, sexual assault, property damage and domestic violence. Marijuana use has never been linked to these types of issues.”
Tvert said he expects Amendment 44 to be opposed by members of the state’s law enforcement community, including Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.
Suthers spokeswoman Kristen Holtzman said Wednesday that “the attorney general’s position on this issue has not changed. He is adamantly against the legalization of marijuana.”
Foes of SAFER’s proposal have argued that marijuana use can lead someone to other illegal drugs and thus increase overall drug use and drug abuse in Colorado.
Drug warriors support prohibited drugs being controlled by organized crime and gangs rather than controlled and regulated by government, similar to alcohol.
Did you think I said drugs were less available? Did you think I said they were less potent? Again, pay attention.
Overall drug use is down and has been relatively flat for the last 15 years.
"If prohibition was such a good idea, why was it repealed?"
Because it wasn't a good idea? Because your assumption that it was instituted because it was a good idea is wrong?
Yeah, I too noticed that it was a non sequitur.
Prohibitionists are mentally afflicted, poor souls.
"-- The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others. --"
And I thought that trait was limited to leftists.....
Some self described 'conservatives' believe in majority rule, unaware that they are advocating a form socialism.
We recognize the relationship, all right. We are also adult enough to realize that organized crime will not go away with the legalization of drugs, just like organized crime did not go away with the legalization of alcohol.
Something you refuse to do.
The point is that it's ONLY gonna be legalized to allow MORE taxes, that's the bottom line. The "tax the crap out of 'em" would legalize ANYTHING, if it can easily be 1) regulated and 2) taxed up the wazzoo.....be careful what you wish for.
I'd rather have the potheads paying their own way, though, and leaving less of a target for the rest of us for more taxes on something else.
The SAME reason alcohol is left legal, not part of any multi-billion dollar class action suit is that it's too much of a cash cow now, tax-wise. However, it won't be long before the alcohol taxes and fast food "fat taxes" will be coming.
Then what's your solution for PROSTITUTION RELATED ORGANIZED CRIME and GAMBLING RELATED ORGANIZED CRIME and GUN-RUNNING RELATED ORGANIZED CRIME and and and?
What's your point? We should continue legalizing activities because organized crime is involved in them?
You're not solving anything is MY point. You're squeezing the balloon in one part just to see it pop up in another.
Let's say we DID legalize all drugs. Who's to say that organized crime won't get into the export business, setting up distribution networks to illegally smuggle our legal drugs to countries where drugs remain illegal? Or selling drugs in the U.S. to those underage? Or selling black market prescription drugs like oxycontin? Or selling legal drugs tax-free (like they're now doing with cigarettes)?
However the government regulates legal drugs, organized crime will sell around it. They will not go away. Your argument is pointless. It solves nothing.
That's how it will be sold to the public, yes. That's how the state lotteries then "riverboat" casinos were sold to the public.
Funny, my state taxes are still going up, especially my property taxes.
Tax the bejezus off of pot and it'll go right back underground. We see that happening with cigarettes -- if the black market is interested in the meager profit from tax-free cigarettes, imagine their willingness to handle "bejezus-tax-free" pot.
The tax revenue will dry up. Then we'll be left with legal marijuana and no revenue. Screw it. If that's the case, then keep it illegal. What's the point?
Tax it modestly, as with alcohol, and it won't.
If any of those things offered better profits than selling now-illegal drugs to adults, organized crime would already be doing them instead. Ergo, legalizing drugs for adults will cut into their profits ... and I'm all for that.
Somehow I missed the answer to this question.
Well said. But he's been told this time and time again, yet despite having no rebuttal he's still peddling his bilge.
Won't happen with pot: once it's legalized, the potheads will come out of the woodwork, but still will not produce the revenues that are derived from alcohol, and the "donations" that lobbyists make from the distillers will not at all be matched by the "pot producers". They will NOT allow private growing of pot, they will regulate it, just as they do to control the distilling business, to assure the TAX money keeps flowing.
I think RP needs the attention. I post to him eriodically to rattle his chain. At least he is consistent. of course, he is wrong, but that doesn't stop him.
I have noted to a lot of FReepers that they should seek medical help for their delusions and other maladies of their sick minds. If nothing else, they can get some good drugs!\
Convince Nate505 of that. He's the one who proposed it in his post #92, not me.
So don't talk to me about bilge.
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.