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."
Personally I can't stand the smell of the stuff any more than I can stand the smell of cigarrettes, and would never use it simply due to the stench.
That being said, I am pissed that my tax dollars are going down a rat hole to investigate, prosecute and imprison folks who puff pot.
The stuff should be sold in our state booze stores and taxed the same as booze.
Money saved at one end, income to help with our state budget at the other.
Just don't allow anyone to smoke the stuff where I have to smell it.
Great moniker!
One of my favorite quotes is from Mr. Paine
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
- Thomas Paine
"By about a 2 to 1 ratio"
No, unless my math is off a 2 to 1 ratio would be 33.333% voting in favor and 66.666% voting against. Since it was 40% in favor and 60% against, that would make it exactly a 3 to 2 margin against. Why couldn't the reporter use that, when it's exact, instead of completely fudging his numbers to get the '2 to 1'?
Not to mention these people are delusional if they think this is a big enough defeat to stop this from getting on the ballot again. If it does get on the ballot, hopefully the question will be better crafted, Mason Tevert will go away, and the measure will pick up a few more percentage points. It may not win, but more gains in the next election will make the drug warriors sweat. The measure in Nevada in 2002 to legalize pot failed with 40% in favor. The measure in 2006 failed with 44% in favor. I have no idea where the law of diminishing returns kicks in, but they would be crazy not to get it on the ballot again since they gained four percentage points between elections, just like the Colorado people would be crazy not to try it again to see if they can gain any percentage points.
Could it be that at the time the report was filed the ratio was closer to 2:1 than 3:2?
"If it does get on the ballot, hopefully the question will be better crafted"
You mean better hidden. Like I-100 in Denver. That's the only way the dopers win.
I believe their strategy was to promite the idea that using weed is safer than using alcohol, not to mention the group's name is 'SAFER' (which I believe stands for 'Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation). I'm not a big fan of the group or Tevert myself, so you won't find me defending them too much.
Hidden? I voted on that measure in Denver. It was not hidden anywhere. It was on the ballot and discussed by many talk radio stations before the election. The fact that Prop 44 passed with a majority in the city and county of Denver this time around sort of blows that theory out of the water.
Makes sense because Nevada is a state with lots of risk takers. The numbers to do drugs would be higher there I would think.
What's the difference between a pothead and a drunk?
If a drunk comes to stop sign, he'll run it. If a pothead comes to a stop sign, he'll sit there and wait for it to turn green.
So the message is that Colorado is safer if people switch to marijuana, correct? Is there any evidence, any study, showing that alcohol users would stop using alcohol and switch to marijuana if it was legal? How can the proponents say Colorado will be safer? Actually, I've seen articles about users who end up using both, compounding the effects of each.
The strategy was to obfuscate, as they did in Denver. This time it didn't work.
That is no joke. When I was a pothead, I actually did that more than a few times. I thought I was the only one.
Snowboarding hippie mavens like Denver and Boulder, sure.
Get away from the touristy spots, and Amendment 44 lost big in huge counties like Arapahoe, El Paso (64-36!), Douglas (68-32!) and Adams.
Amendment 44 only won 5 out of 25 counties. Not exactly a resounding state endorsement.
...too much. Prostitution is not legal in large cities.
Actually, it is more like a state of people who don't get their panties in a wad if someone else is enjoying a vice that doesn't harm themselves (gambling, prostitution, etc.) Think curmudgeonly ranchers, not hippies.
Beelzebubba
Guy:
I agree with you [- not -], they do lack a moral compass and are more ethically challenged than some other places.
Nevada is the most constitutionally 'ethical' State in the USA, -- as is evident by their determination to let local governments reasonably regulate the public aspects of 'sinful behaviors'. -- While they do not prohibit the private aspects of enjoying life, liberty or property.
And their stategy was not to obfuscate. Everyone knew about this amendment. The Tvert guy from SAFER made all sorts of public apperances all over the state, on every major media outlet here, from Denver to Grand Junction. Sometimes I wonder if you know what you're talking about Paulson.
Seeing as how I never claimed it was a resounding state endorsement, I have no idea why you said that either. I will completely admit it wasn't. The point is, the backers will try it again and we'll get to see if it made any gains, like the one in Nevada did. I think it will if the leadership is changed (SAFER is a flawed organization), and the amendment is better crafted.
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.