Mason Tvert, campaign director for the marijuana initiative, Amendment 44, waves at passing motorists on Election Day from the corner of Colfax and Lincoln avenues.
Posted on 11/08/2006 5:13:54 AM PST by NapkinUser
Overwhelmingly, voters just saying no to legalization
Mason Tvert, campaign director for the marijuana initiative, Amendment 44, waves at passing motorists on Election Day from the corner of Colfax and Lincoln avenues.
By about a 2-1 ratio, voters snuffed out a measure that would have allowed adults 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.
With 701 precincts reporting, it appeared to be doomed to defeat, especially since it was barely getting a split vote in traditionally liberal Boulder County.
That was the news Robert McGuire, spokesman for the Colorado Chapter of Save Our Society from Drugs, had been waiting to hear.
"We're pretty happy with the way things turned out," he said. "Our goal was to beat it badly enough so we don't see it again on the ballot.
Mason Tvert, campaign manager for Amendment 44, said he "wasn't disappointed by the results" and conceded defeat early in the evening.
"We had a yearlong conversation about marijuana," he said. "We still believe there are a larger number of people in favor of changing the laws."
"We think the writing is on the wall," he added.
If the initiative passed, it would have made Colorado the first state to legalize marijuana use for recreational purposes. Previously, several states - including Colorado - passed medical marijuana initiatives that allowed for the distribution of the drug for those battling illness.
Colorado was one of two states considering a recreational use provision on pot this election. The other state was Nevada.
Even if it had passed, Amendment 44 wouldn't have technically made pot smoking legal in Colorado. It is still a violation of federal drug laws - though federal drug enforcement officials said publicly they will not actively seek to arrest, try and convict users in possession of an ounce or less.
Some supporters of the amendment thought the success of Denver's passage of an initiative seeking to legalize pot possession last year signaled the mood of citizens of the state. Tvert led that successful campaign.
The campaign had been opposed largely by Save Our Society from Drugs - a Florida-based group that made several sojourns to the state to drum up opposition against the measure.
Through McGuire, they successfully brought the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy to campaign against it as well as employing the help of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.
Suthers said he was pleased to see the amendment go down to defeat and said voters never bought the argument made by Tvert that marijuana was safer than alcohol.
"Usually when this issue comes up, the debate centers on Libertarian values," he said. "This was a different approach and one that didn't work."
The opponents of the amendment also believed, along with federal drug enforcement officials, that passage would bring more drug traffickers to Colorado because it would be seen as "a drug tourist spot."
But Tvert argued that the current fines - a misdemeanor offense and a $100 ticket - show that the government doesn't really consider possession of an ounce of marijuana a serious problem anyway.
"If they did, they wouldn't have such light penalties," he said.
Voters from both parties were unimpressed with the campaign's strategy to declare the war on drugs as failed.
Jared Klarquist, 24, and a registered Democrat, couldn't bring himself to cast a ballot for it.
"I think pot is bad, it's a real de-motivator," he said. "As poorly as the war on drugs is going, I don't feel legalizing it is the way to make things better."
No "Rocky Mountain High" in Colorado.
Massachusetts won't allow grocery stores to sell wine either.
Pot measure went down in NV, though popular with a large minority.
BTTT
Yes it is, pothead.
It passed because the voters were mislead.
A pro-pot group, Change the Climate, paid for three billboards around Denver showing a battered woman with her male abuser behind her and the slogan: "Reduce family and community violence in Denver. Vote Yes on I-100."
Nowhere did the ad mention that Initiative 100's passage would amend Denver law to make it legal for adults to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana. You see, the theory is that if male abusers used marijuana rather than alcohol, they would be less inclined to beat up their spouse.
As though they would switch.
I-100's sponsor, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation - or SAFER - posted campaign signs that declared: "Make Denver SAFER (Get it? - rp), Voter Yes on I-100." The slogan was designed to fool residents into thinking the measure on the Nov. 1 ballot was about highly publicized efforts to combat rising crime and falling arrest rates by boosting police staffing.
THANK YOU!
That's exactly the message that's being sent to teens, and that's exactly why marijuana use among teens has been rising.
Hmmmm. Is that like jumbo shrimp, almost perfect, clearly misunderstood, and pretty ugly?
"Large minority" = 44% in this case.
The greatest evil of our society and the root of our probable downfall is our inability to leave each other alone.
For once we agree. Why can't the drug users leave us be?
They place demands on social services, fill up our hospitals, courts and jails, spread disease, rob, steal and prostitute for drug money, and contribute nothing.
If they would just leave us alone.
“They place demands on social services, fill up our hospitals, courts and jails, spread disease, rob, steal and prostitute for drug money, and contribute nothing.”
Yes, you are right they do. The solution is fairly straightforward. Don’t give them social services. Make them pay the hospital bill or don’t care for them. Don’t waste our money on courts or jails. Let them suffer the effects of their disease(or help them if you want but just don’t use our tax dollars). I believe in FREEDOM. I also believe in complete personal responsibility.
Mr. Paulsen you obviously care for people and want them to make the right decisions in life. I once believed that the war on drugs was a good thing but over the years I have changed my mind for a number of reasons. Below is a short essay I wrote (months ago) that I posted on FR on a similar thread.
Drugs
I am a conservative Christian and I want to see less drug use and would never use drugs myself (frankly scared of them) but I would like to see drugs legalized.
Here is why: (source Drugwarfacts.com)
1) The cost of enforcement is too high and is ineffective.
"The most recent figures available from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) indicate that, in 1999, federal expenditures on control of illegal drugs surpassed $17 billion; combined expenditures by federal, state, and local governments exceeded $30 billion. What is more, the nation's so-called 'drug war' is a protracted one. The country has spent roughly this amount annually throughout the 1990s."
Source: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, "Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us" (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001), p. 1.
It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law violators behind bars.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of Jail Inmates 1996 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, April 1996), pp. 1 & 4; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 10-11; Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., The Corrections Yearbook 1997 (South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., 1997) [estimating cost of a day in jail on average to be $55.41 a day, or $20,237 a year, and the cost of prison to be on average to be about $64.49 a day, or $23,554 a year].
2) We would see a drop in drug use if instead of spending money on enforcement we would put it into rehab and prevention
A study by the RAND Corporation found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs.
Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.
The RAND Corporation study found that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs.
Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.
3) Legalizing drugs would not lead to a jump in drug use. - I do not have any studies to back this up but I have a very good reason to believe this. I am an Occupational Medicine doctor who does drug testing for companies. Many, many employers routinely test their prospective and current employees for drugs (we are even doing hair testing that will let us know what you’ve been taking over the last 3 months) You use drugs – you don’t work for those companies– its that simple. Will there be a possible increase in the use of drugs in certain segments of society, probably, but I think the benefits outweigh the risk.
4) Hypocrisy – Something just seems wrong and inconsistent to have one intoxicant perfectly legal yet outlaw others. You can get completely gorked out on alcohol but marijuana is illegal – just doesn’t make since.
5) Freedom – Why should you or anyone else including the government tell me how to live my life. Let people behave the way they want to and let them also suffer the consequences of their actions. Legalize drugs but impose draconian penalties for spousal abuse, child abuse or neglect, and DUI (not just wrist slaps). I think it is possible to protect our individual freedoms and yet protect and provide justice for anyone that is victimized.
Thanks
I agree completely. But we need to implement this before we talk about legalization. It wouldn't be fair to legalize drugs then pull out the support services rug.
"1) The cost of enforcement is too high and is ineffective."
First, you're double counting. That $17B number included incarceration. The ONDCP has now pulled that out of their budget.
The 2005 budget was $12B -- you'll note from the link provided that half of that money goes towards treatment and prevention.
$12B is .4% of the federal budget. $12B is a rounding error in a $3 TRILLION budget.
"It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law violators behind bars."
Yes. That's state AND federal spending. Almost all of them are drug dealers and drug traffickers. It's worth every penny.
"2) We would see a drop in drug use if instead of spending money on enforcement we would put it into rehab and prevention."
As I illustrated, half of the federal drug budget is already being used for this purpose.
"3) Legalizing drugs would not lead to a jump in drug use."
Illegal marijuana use in the late 70's was over 13% -- today it's 5-6%. It can very easily go back to that percentage, probably more if we legalize it.
Marijuana was legal in Alaska for adults (in the home). A 1988 University of Alaska study showed that Alaskan teen use was double the national teen average.
In 1990, the voters made marijuana illegal. Over the course of the next ten years, Alaskan teen use dropped to almost the national teen average. Legalization implies acceptance.
"4) Hypocrisy – Something just seems wrong and inconsistent to have one intoxicant perfectly legal yet outlaw others."
Alcohol is part of our culture. We tried once to prohibit it and it didn't work. It is what it is.
Every other recreational drug is part of the sub-culture. Many feel that alcohol is bad enough without adding other drugs.
"Let people behave the way they want to and let them also suffer the consequences of their actions."
We don't do that now. Even you are proposing that "instead of spending money on enforcement we would put it into rehab and prevention." It wouldn't stop there and you know it.
Besides, we're better than that. No one wants to approve of behavior that degrades a human being. That's why we have laws against prostitution, gambling, pornography, suicide, and drugs. It's a measure of the kind of society we are.
No. It was primarily a shift in attitude and stricter enforcement of the existing laws.
What study?
A 1988 University of Alaska study. Google it.
"How did it not work in a way that marijuana prohibition is working?"
Ask MrLeRoy. He knows.
"I agree completely. But we need to implement this before we talk about legalization. It wouldn't be fair to legalize drugs then pull out the support services rug. "
Agreed!
(how do you get this thing to italicise.)
"Almost all of them are drug dealers and drug traffickers. It's worth every penny. "
No matter how you cut it the number is in the billions. My taxes are too high and I don’t want my tax dollars wasted on this. (I know I’m in the minority on this and it’s not going to happen. ) Simple disagreement – to me its not worth every penny.
"Illegal marijuana use in the late 70's was over 13% -- today it's 5-6%. It can very easily go back to that percentage, probably more if we legalize it. "
The difference today is that employers test for it. A week doesn’t go by that I don’t bust someone for its use. They lose their job or have to go for rehab depending on the employer (you should hear some of the funny excuses people come up with for testing positive.) I fully support the employers right to test and to fire drug users. No argument that legalization will result in some increased use. My point is – so what. The bottom line to all of this is FREEDOM.
"We don't do that now. Even you are proposing that "instead of spending money on enforcement we would put it into rehab and prevention." It wouldn't stop there and you know it."
Ideally I would like to stop government spending on all of it. Realistically if we are going to spend our money (or have the government force us to do so) we should spend it where it does the most good.
"Besides, we're better than that. No one wants to approve of behavior that degrades a human being. That's why we have laws against prostitution, gambling, pornography, suicide, and drugs. It's a measure of the kind of society we are."
This is really the crux of the argument. Drug use is just a specific example of the underlying philosophical arguments on morality, society and government. The main question to all of this is “Should we legislate morality?” For years I believed just like you do. We should make people behave. As I get older I see a big problem with this thinking. First whose morality are we enforcing? In a monolithic society a theocracy or a law system based on a moral/ethical system might work fine. (Unfortunately monolithic societies have a tendency to want to try and take over the world: remember Japan) However we are a pluralistic society. What happens when other moral/ethical systems become prominent? Do you want to live under Islamic moral law if they were to become prominent in our government? I believe that the best basis for government in a pluristic society is one based on a freedom and harm. Everyone should be free to live how they want as long as they do no harm to others. If you construct law based on this principle you have a guard against someone else’s morality becoming the prevailing law. It’s not a matter of approving of the behavior. I disapprove of drug use but I want people to have freedom to make those decisions for themselves. I disapprove of homosexuality but I don’t want to see a law against it. The measure of a good society to me is how much freedom it allows its citizens not how paternalistic it is.
Indeed, it is the crux. And the question has been answered in the Constitution. -- 'Morality' is not to be legislated without due process.
Laws depriving people of life, liberty, or property, [prohibitions] cannot be enacted or enforced at any level of gov't unless they conform to constitutional principles protecting our freedoms.
For years I believed just like you do. We should make people behave. As I get older I see a big problem with this thinking. First whose morality are we enforcing? In a monolithic society a theocracy or a law system based on a moral/ethical system might work fine. (Unfortunately monolithic societies have a tendency to want to try and take over the world: remember Japan) However we are a pluralistic society. What happens when other moral/ethical systems become prominent? Do you want to live under Islamic moral law if they were to become prominent in our government?
Note that this point is never faced by those who advocate 'majority rule'.
I believe that the best basis for government in a pluristic society is one based on a freedom and harm. Everyone should be free to live how they want as long as they do no harm to others. If you construct law based on this principle you have a guard against someone else's morality becoming the prevailing law.
Quite true, and another point never addressed by majority rule socialists.
It's not a matter of approving of the behavior. I disapprove of drug use but I want people to have freedom to make those decisions for themselves. I disapprove of homosexuality but I don't want to see a law against it. The measure of a good society to me is how much freedom it allows its citizens not how paternalistic it is.
Well put. -- Don't hold your breath waiting to hear a rational reply.
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.