Smokin' debate on pot issue

Attorney general, legalization backer go one on one at DU

David Montero, Rocky Mountain News

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

State Attorney General John Suthers called a ballot measure seeking to legalize marijuana possession in Colorado "a little bit sloppy and a little bit reckless" during a debate Tuesday night - a charge vehemently denied by the man spearheading the campaign, Mason Tvert.

Tvert, in turn, had a word for those who oppose Amendment 44 - Orwellian.

The debate at the Newman Center at the University of Denver was about marijuana. But for the two men on the stage, it was also alternately about personal freedom, drug usage among teens and how pot stacks up against such legal items as alcohol and tobacco.

Supporters of the amendment, which would allow adults in Colorado to possess less than an ounce of marijuana, have been hammering home the point that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana since the measure qualified for the ballot in August.

Suthers wasn't buying it then or now.

"Our American society is plagued by moral relativism - the notion that . . . there are things that are worse out there," Suthers said. "This is probably one of the worst instances - this campaign, this message - of moral relativism I've heard."

Tvert said Suthers simply doesn't want people to have marijuana for any reason, noting the attorney general also opposed pot being administered for medical reasons.

"They don't care if you're sick or dying. They don't care if you're young. They don't care if you're old," Tvert said. "They just want to make sure that you cannot use marijuana under any circumstances."

In the debate moderated by Adam Schrager, of 9News, the two opponents seldom waited for questions to present their cases. Tvert and Suthers often addressed each other, questioning the other's statistics and charges about marijuana usage and its effect on people.

Tvert even questioned the state's heart in prosecuting marijuana possession charges and said people are losing an inordinate number of personal freedoms because of the misdemeanor conviction.

"Maybe they don't lose all of their freedom, but they certainly lose enough of it that it doesn't warrant enough of a state interest in a $100 citation," Tvert said.

"Mr. Suthers has clearly acknowledged this is ridiculous. One hundred dollars is nothing. If it's only worth $100, there's really no reason why we should continue ruining people's lives over it."

Suthers pointed to an overall decrease in drug usage in the past three decades and claimed usage was down among children, with two-thirds citing its illegality as a reason not to try it. He said now isn't the time to change strategies.

"I would ask the voters of Colorado not to wave the white flag," Suthers said. "Let's not send the wrong message to our children. The only acceptable alternative to intoxication is sobriety."

Tvert accused Suthers of being unrealistic.

"They want to live in the idealistic world; we want to live in the realistic world," he said.

The debate was sponsored by the University of Denver and 9News.

Other highlights from Tuesday's debate

REFERENDUM I:

• What is it? Allows gay couples to register as domestic partners and obtain many rights and responsibilities given to married couples.

• Pro: Sean Duffy, of Coloradans for Fairness, said the measure is a way to fix a gap in the law for gay couples by allowing them to gain rights such as health care and medical decision-making for a partner. He emphasized that the measure does not create gay marriage because married couples have many more rights under federal marriage laws.

• Con: Carrie Gordon Earll, of Focus on the Family, argued that the measure is gay marriage under a different name and it discriminates against "non-homosexuals" such as two elderly sisters who want to share Social Security income. She said the fair way to do this would be to grant legal rights to other adult relationships, like the two elderly sisters'.

AMENDMENT 38

• What is it? Expands the right to place items on the ballot by petition to school districts, counties and special districts and expands the kinds of questions that can go to voters in odd-numbered years. It also makes it harder for opponents to challenge the validity of petition signatures.

• Pro: Jessica Peck Corry of the Independence Institute said the measure is needed to make it easier for ordinary citizens to place items on the ballot.

• Con: House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, warned that Amendment 38 would sharply increase the number of items on a ballot that has grown longer in recent years. "I think the initiative and referenda are a good safety valve," Romanoff said. "When folks don't have their interests met by the legislature, I'm glad in Colorado we have the right to bypass government and take matters into our own hands. But I think what's happened in this state . . . is that we've replaced what was intended to become a safety valve with government by petition."

AMENDMENT 39

• What is it? Requires school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their operating budgets in the classroom.

• Pro: Wheat Ridge businessman Lee Kunz, representing First Class Education Colorado, which put Amendment 39 on the ballot, said the measure will "get more dollars into the classroom, where we feel education really takes place."

• Con: Adele Bravo, a first-grade teacher at Louisville Elementary School and the Colorado Teacher of the Year, said Amendment 39 doesn't recognize a host of professionals who play a key role in schools.

AMENDMENT 42

• What is it? A constitutional amendment that would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.85 and adjust it annually to match inflation.

• Pro: Linda Meric, of 9 to 5 National Association of Working Women, argued that the measure is needed to allow working people to rise above poverty and earn a better living. She contends that most people earning minimum wage in Colorado are over 20 years old and that half are the sole wage earners for a family.

• Con: Christine O'Donnell, of Respect Colorado's Constitution, said the initiative is a "feel-good piece" but that it would devastate small businesses and spur layoffs because the minimum wage could rise yearly because of increases in the state consumer price index. She argued that other states that raised their minimum wage included provisions that allowed state lawmakers to adjust the rate and gave exceptions to small businesses.

AMENDMENT 43

• What is it? Defines marriage in the state constitution as a union only between a man and a woman.

• Pro: Proponent Jeff Crank, former aide to retired U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley, repeatedly said that the measure was necessary to prevent polygamy from being recognized as marriage, and also to stop an "activist" judge from overturning the state law that defines marriage as a heterosexual union. He called the heterosexual definition of marriage "the basic building block of society."

• Con: The Rev. Phil Campbell, director of ministry studies at Iliff School of Theology, argued against the measure. He emphasized that the initiative is unnecessary because state law already includes the same language. He also contends that the issue of marriage should not be in the constitution and that this measure takes rights away from gay couples. "It's unfair and it's unjust."

monterod@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5236