Pot arrests up despite initiatives, group says

By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Citations and arrests for minor possession of marijuana continue to rise in Denver, even though voters have passed two initiatives to reduce such enforcement, a group says.

"More and more people want the police and prosecutors to stop, but they're citing and prosecuting more and more people," said Mason Tvert, executive director of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation.

Tvert said that statistics he obtained from the Denver police's civil liability bureau show that the number of misdemeanor marijuana arrests has increased by almost 18 percent from 2006 to 2007.

Tvert said that arrests of adults age 22 and older were: 1,059 in 2004; 1,168 in 2005; 1,347 in 2006; and 1,587 in 2007.

If last year's figures are compared with those of 2005, the numbers show a 36 percent jump, he said. Compared with 2004, there has been a 50 percent increase, he said.

Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson said he had not seen the numbers that Tvert was using and could not comment on their accuracy or meaning.

"Were (those arrested) in violation of the law?" he said. "The Denver police, regardless of high priority or low priority, are in charge of enforcing the law on the books."

Jackson noted that minor marijuana possession is a crime under state law.

Tvert is a member of the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel, which meets at 3:30 p.m. today in the law library of the City and County Building.

Denver voters passed a measure in 2005 that would remove the penalties for an adult possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Last year, voters passed an initiative to make misdemeanor marijuana possession the "lowest law enforcement priority."

• March 5, 2008

  6:19 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  KoryNParker writes:

  The potheads are a victim of their own haziness;what constitutes "lowest priority"? What is "highest priority"? Despite what "priority" either the legislative branch (or a public initiative) puts on anything, it is up to the Executive Branch to execute. Just as Congress can not dictate to the President how any war should be fought, but they can control the pursestrings to the Defense Department, the pothead initiative has no real effect.

  What the REAL story here is the entire farce of the medical marijuana situation, and how the potheads are under a delusion as to the practical effect of the state initiative upon federal law....uh, none.

• March 5, 2008

  6:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  So Fong wrote an article based of information only from pothead Tvert. . . cool man . . .

• March 5, 2008

  7:22 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  DahmersCookbook writes:

  The postings above put A smile on my face, the Sunday booze sales are coming... It scares you to know that people party in groups, blow money like its nothing and live life to the fullest. You only live once, you probably watch your stocks like A hawk. Let em' be, and ease up on the compulsive cleaning KoryNParker, Banana Republic isn't stylish... it's for the G&L'S.

• March 5, 2008

  8:26 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LaszloPanaflex writes:

  How much is it costing taxpayers to pursue, prosecute, and incarcerate otherwise harmless pot smokers? Wouldn't a large majority of people prefer those resources to go toward stopping violent criminals?

  Politicians are too afraid or too stupid (see the recent remarks of Sen. Harken) to make the necessary changes in the law, so we will continue directing scarce resources toward crimes that injure nobody, at the expense of shooting after shooting.

• March 5, 2008

  8:33 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  justajob writes:

  Is it possible that these folks are getting stopped for other crimes and happen to have pot on them that they get cited for? I recently responded to a noise complaint, and when the door opened, a thick cloud of marijuana smoke encased all 3 officers who responded. When the responsible person had to sign the cite to appear in court for the noise, and subsequent marijuana charge, he complained that he understood the pot was a low priority call now and how could he be charged? People like Tvert are putting mis-information out there for their fellow dope smokers. If you have pot on you, and I stop you or have to respond to a call and you have dope, I can and will write you for it under Colorado law.

• March 5, 2008

  8:34 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Froward69 writes:

  What is ignored is how DPD actually enforces the state ordinance. my question for Mason Tvert is, How many of those citations were added to other charges? Or of those cited, how many ran from the officer?

  As a LIFE long Denver resident; After talking with an officer. I have retained possession of my marijuana numerous times. If one gives the police officer the respect he/she deserves. NO citation for marijuana gets written.
  Disrespecting an officer will get numerous charges every time.

• March 5, 2008

  8:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jackwoehr writes:

  Why? Because that will reform the naughty doper? Because it will serve some societal purpose? Make anything better? The fine for pot doesn't even pay for the cost of the arrest at this point.

  Justajob, I take it you are in law enforcement. I would like to see a little more law enforcement. I would like to see people who run red lights ticketed. Could law enforcement possibly expend a little more energy on doing something that would actually make society better by tossing a few thousand drivers in the can overnight until they learn not to run red lights? I would deliver a boquet once a month to the precinct house if we got a little busier on traffic law enforcement.

• March 5, 2008

  8:59 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  American100 writes:

  I have several friends who are cops in various cities in Colorado. A couple of them told me they don't really feel pot is a threat to public safety but that sometimes that's the only tool they have to get someone for a more serious offense.

  I wonder if there is a way to find out how many of the pot citations were related to another more serious crime.

• March 5, 2008

  9:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rickg19611 writes:

  The druggies were so stoned they failed to realize that voters did NOT vote to legalize drug use.

• March 5, 2008

  9:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ham writes:

  Mason! Dude! Time for another resolution, don't ya think?

  Resolution #56. This resolution proposes, that the Denver cops, should, like, leave us alone, ok? We're, like, not hurting anybody? So, chill, dudes. We're cool. Like, go fight some crime, or something, ok?

  Maybe if you get that one passed. Yep, just need another proposal on the ballot.

• March 5, 2008

  10:02 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  kevin3 writes:

  Our city gov. is whacked! We the people voted and big brother ignores us and spites us on purpose. We need to hold our leaders accountable. If our leaders continue to ignore us we should vote them out!

• March 5, 2008

  10:05 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Marshdale writes:

  justajob; If you really are a police officer I want to first commend you for doing a very tough and stressfull job. Anybody who thinks being a cop is cushy needs to do a ride along for a couple of weeks. However being an overzealous law enforcement official is not a good thing either. Simply becuase you don't like pot smokers regardless of the law is not cause to ruin someones day. I am 42 years of age and I can remember when I was younger and caught with marijuana. The small amounts I had were negligable and the police officers of the time just simply made me dump it on the ground and grind it in the dirt and told me to get out of where I was and that they did not want to see my face again that day. I believe these officers acted accordingly as we were committing no other crime than being stoned. I first smoked marijuana when I was seven years old. Not a good thing, but it happened and yes I had good wonderful parents who were strict and compassionate both. I wish people would quit labeling pot smokers as "um, duh like wow" kind of people. Most of us are productive mebers of society. I continued use for the next 35 years and have a masters degree in science related field. No I don't advocate 7 year olds smoking marijuana. The point is that it is no where near the detriment that other controled substances are including alchohol. I have not used for over 7 years now. That was simply by choice becuase I don't really enjoy the buz anymore. Lets focus our attention other crimes please. In particular violent crimes and don't try to tell me violent criminals smoke pot to. They are violent to begin with. It's not the pot.

• March 5, 2008

  12:14 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Note to dopers; this is not a confessional. This is just another one-sided local story, probably to be reviewed by the RMN ombudsman.

• March 5, 2008

  1:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justajob writes:

  Marshdale: Yes I am a "real cop", and I don't have a an ax to grind against dope smokers. I, too, have had dopers grind their pot into the ground, but in the noise complaint instance I was citing, there were several people smoking, several bongs and pipes, and we had already warned them twice in the course of 4 hours. At 3:30 A.M., I had enough of the neighbors complaining, and took away the party ingredients, pot. I would say that most of the people currently being cited for pot are commiting other crimes. A kid ran a stop sign in front of me, and had about a half of pound behind his driver's seat. Personal consumption? Probably not, more like distributing. I really don't care if someone is using in their own home, just don't draw attention to yourself and then be a crybaby when you get busted for it. I work in a multi jurisdictional area, and NONE of the 60 or so cops I know personally are actively or puposely seeking out the pot smokers, they are getting cited for the original crime (traffice, noise, disorderly...) plus the "enhancer" of possession.

• March 5, 2008

  1:29 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test", where are the merry pranksters when you need them? Change the state law; till the voters do, arrests are going to keep on mounting. Nothing was made legal or decriminalized, just a low priority, what ever the hell that's defined as. Low priority, sounds good, but it's still illegal. Change the law and legalize it, or smoke at your own risk, and establish your own priorities. An expired meter is a low priority, you will still get a ticket. Low priority is being conscued as legal, it's not. Even if the state legalizes it, there is the federal law. The feds won't enforce though, if the state legalizes it. I was in Alaska when it was legal, no big deal. Then Alaska's voters overturned the law, and decriminalized it to a misdemeanor.

• March 5, 2008

  2:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  Oh goody, justajob, I feel really safe now.

• March 5, 2008

  2:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  justajob.

  I read your 1:16 post. Lotsa good points there.
  Stoners, take heed.

• March 5, 2008

  3:04 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Fred writes:

  Justajob,

  I hate to get off subject but since I have a real live cop here….

  Why is it that between 2:00 and 3:00am when most burglaries and violent crimes happen there isn’t a cop to be found yet between 6:00am and 8:30am (rush hour)
  they’re stationed all across the metro area messing up traffic?

  Come 4:00pm to 6:00pm rinse repeat. I routinely see five to eight patrol officers in the 12 miles I have to commute yet rarely ever see them when I’m out in the middle of the night for some reason or other.

  Just curious.

• March 5, 2008

  3:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  FRED, it's called professional courtesy; remember in today's world ever cop is a criminal, and all the criminals saints.

• March 5, 2008

  3:27 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justajob writes:

  Louie: Good comparison on low-priority vs. legal, I will use that parking meter example in the future. Fred: the reason you won't usually see me out between 3 and 4 am is because I have taken a DUI to jail. We just don't have enough manpower it seems like to keep up with early morning crime. Many jurisdictions have spent alot of money on traffic studies, identifying areas that are high accident risk during rush hour and concentrate their people in these areas. Some towns, Aurora for one, have a separate Traffic Division, and all those guys/gals do is traffic enforcement. One theory is, slow traffic down and you have less accidents. Money for the city coffers is a real issue that some agencies don't want to talk about. Write speeding tickets, and it's money for the city, plain and simple. I personally give ALOT of warnings, but no baby in car seat? Speeding in school zone? Wow, that will get you a ticket from me every time. Like someone posted earlier, not being defensive when you are stopped, not asking me why I'm not fighting "real" crime, goes alot further than being a smartass. Back on subject here, I will reiterate that I am not actively looking for personal use when it comes to pot, if you want to use, don't commit other crimes while having it in possession.

• March 5, 2008

  3:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Fred writes:

  Maybe in your world, Louie. Not mine.
  I was asking because I'd really like to know the answer to my question.

  It seems to me like the priorities of our cities (not cops) is all out of whack. It seems that revenue trumps "protecting and serving".

• March 5, 2008

  3:38 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Fred writes:

  Justajob,

  Thank you. I really appreciate the response.

  Maybe we should take the money that goes to traffic enforcement and add it for man power in the early morning hours.

  It seems to me like burglaries and murder should be a higher priority then fender benders.

  Thank you for your service.

• March 5, 2008

  4:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  Sorry to have offended you FRED; I'll tell the voices to shut up!

• March 5, 2008

  4:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  FRED, I joke with you. I am one of the few felons, who because of my job and professional expertise has to meet with the Denver detectives twice a week. My work with them has put more felons behind bars over the last twenty years than I can count. You see I thought you were ridiculing the cops, so I made a pun of it. You were serious, so I apologize.

• March 5, 2008

  5:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Charles_B writes:

  justajob:

  "If you have pot on you, and I stop you or have to respond to a call and you have dope, I can and will write you for it under Colorado law."

  So you choose to. You don't have to. That makes you an idiot.

  Enjoy sucking down that beer tonight hypocrite.

• March 5, 2008

  6:11 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  LOUIE writes:

  I rest my case FRED...

• March 8, 2008

  9:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Eatabagofdix writes:

  What did you people expect? If voting really mattered, then it would be illegal.