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.
They might allow it if you purchase a license. Enforcement will be almost impossible. We'll probably end up with more government involvement with legal marijuana than with illegal marijuana.
My point is that ALL of those things offer better profits than NOT selling illegal drugs to adults.
Exactly. No facet of life will go un-regulated if the socialists have their way, nor will anything escape taxation to re-distribute wealth.
Those who think that pot use should be allowed, fail to realize that it's just another government intrusion into privacy, with appropriate elitist regulation and more taxation.
Alcohol is already taxed, at a much higher rate than most products are taxed at. Same with tobacco for that matter. However, even with the taxes the price of both products are much cheaper than they would be if both products were subject to prohibition.
Tax the bejezus out of pot, say 10,000% of it's production cost. If it costs around $1 to produce an ounce of it undera legal environment, and frankly I think I'm making that cost extremely high, that would come to $100 an ounce, which is still around $200-300 below the black market price. If you tax it a measly 1,000% of its production cost, that comes to $10 an ounce. Or $290-390 blow the black market price. The point is that even if you tax the hell out of pot it will still be way below the black market price that people are willing to pay now, and far below what people would be willing to risk to produce it illegaly. The government still gets a ton of tax dollars yet the consumer is getting what they percieve to be an extreme value (paying 90% less or so than they are currently), at least if they were used to black market prices.
The black market would not get involved, at least if the states weren't braindead enough to tax the product differently from state to state. Why would they? The only reason they are in tobacco is because taxes vary from state to state, so it's easy to buy cigarettes in Virginia and sell them in New York. But if pot was taxed relatively the same in all markets, there would be no incentive for them to get involved. Right now the black market sells their product for $300-$400 an ounce, and they pretty much make it all in profit, the exhorbant price reflecting the risk of operating in a black market. In a legal market, they are going to have to sell the same ounce for $10-50 or so, and have to compete with someone going to a store. If there is any black market involvement at all, it will be a blip, much like it is with tobacco. I doubt less than 10% of tobacco consumers get their product thru the black market.
Sure I do. Simple economics. Increase the supply, availability, and competition of anything and the price will decrease.
Yeah, legal pot will create more government intrusion, as opposed to the government intrusion of cops coming into my home and arresting me if they suspect I have pot. Sorry if I care about that intrusion a little bit more than what they are going to regulate. I can handle regulation just fine.
Centralized government.
The dirty little secret is they do realize it -- they simply don't care, as long as they get their pot. Hypocrisy in full bloom.
Here you just went through an explanation of how cigarette taxes were different in every state, then you turn right around and assume pot wouldn't be treated that way.
Your $1 pot with the $99 tax invites the black market. They won't sell it to just another state -- they'll sell it anywhere tax free. With that kind of profit, hell, I'm tempted.
People are willing to pay $5-10 per gram for legal pot in Amsterdam. Why would anyone sell it for anything less? Do you believe that the voters in this country want to legalize marijuana and make it available for $1 per ounce?
You're all caught up in this notion that since legal pot can be cheap it will be cheap. Government licensing, taxes, product liability insurance, etc. will drive up the price way beyond what it actually costs to manufacture.
That didn't work for legal medical marijuana in California. That didn't work for government supplied legal medical marijuana in Canada. That didn't work for legal recreational marijuana in Amsterdam.
But I should believe you when you say that theory will work here? Sorry, I need more than that.
That didn't work for legal medical marijuana in California.
Doesn't apply ... it's illegal to sell medical marijuana in California.
That didn't work for government supplied legal medical marijuana in Canada.
Doesn't apply ... availability was unchanged for nonmedical users, who vastly outnumber medical users.
That didn't work for legal recreational marijuana in Amsterdam.
Doesn't apply ... it's still illegal to grow it there.
Real conservatives know that when supply and demand is claimed to not work, as liberals love to claim, the whole story is not being told.
My point is that ALL of those things offer better profits than NOT selling illegal drugs to adults.
Which in no way contradicts my point (and which I have never denied).
What he said.
So what?
They will NOT allow private growing of pot, they will regulate it, just as they do to control the distilling business
That's still an improvement over the status quo.
That's true to a point, but the vast majority of people will always gravitate towards legal means, if they are available. For instance, I could get music for free by file swapping, but I risk have the RIAA up my @$$ with a crushing lawsuit. So I fork out a buck per song on iTunes instead.
When there's a way to avoid running afowl of the law, legal alternatives start becoming a lot more attractive, even if they're considerably more expensive. Even if it doesn't end the black market problem, it shrinks it to a shadow of its former self. That means less money needed for law enforcement all around, and less intrusive laws needed to support them.
The dirty little secret is they do realize it -- they simply don't care, as long as they get their pot.
I'm okay with the government dropping elitist regulation and taxation on marijuana users. Is it intrusive for them? Sure. Is it unfair? Yeah. Still, decriminalization disembowles both the criminal and law enforcement evils associted with the War on Drugs, so it's by far a net gain for America.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
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.