Heed voters on pot
Panel right to vote for fewer prosecutions
Rocky Mountain News
Published May 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The vote this week by Denver's Marijuana Policy Review Panel urging the city to stop convicting adults for simple marijuana possession reinforces the message voters have twice sent to local officials. It's a message law enforcement should heed.
The panel voted 5-4 to ask the City Council to recommend an end to prosecution of simple possession cases for adults "absent compelling reasons articulated . . . in open court."
The resolution echoes ballot questions passed in 2005 and 2007 that first legalized - although only in city statute books - adult possession of less than 1 ounce of pot and then instructed the city to make prosecuting simple possession the "lowest priority" for law enforcement. Voters backed both measures - by 53 percent and 57 percent, respectively.
We opposed both measures. After the first one passed we even said it would be wrong for police to stop enforcing the state law against marijuana possession. But given the unambiguous sentiment in Denver to end these prosecutions, we've since concluded that the city should back off on this matter.
The problem is that no one outside law enforcement really knows how often people are punished for possession of a small amount of marijuana and nothing else. Three years ago, officials insisted that most pot charges were supplemental - add-ons to other charges and thus used as leverage to nail the offender. We have no objection to the use of the state pot law in this fashion.
The panel seems to agree - its recommendation Wednesday acknowledged that pot prosecutions should be pursued "for compelling reasons."
Panelist Mason Tvert, who led the campaign to pass both measures, has cited police statistics indicating that adult misdemeanor marijuana arrests have gone up since the first initiative passed. Police made 1,059 such arrests in 2005, then 1,347 in 2006 and 1,587 in 2007.
What's not clear is how many of those arrests were accompanied by other charges. The panel should have that information early next year (along with more current arrest data) when it formally makes its recommendation to the City Council.
Local law enforcement agencies continue to resist both measures. The four panelists voting no Tuesday include Denver police Lt. Ernie Martinez and Assistant City Attorney Vincent DiCroce. DiCroce restated prosecutors' objection to the notion that the council might try to dictate law enforcement priorities.
But the council can (and does) pass laws that prosecutors enforce. Voters can also modify the City Charter and the Municipal Code with ballot measures like the ones adopted regarding marijuana possession.
The 2007 ordinance defines "adult personal use" as "the possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana by an adult at least 21 years of age, where the marijuana is not used or displayed in public. The sale of marijuana . . . is not included in the definition of personal use and is subject to prosecution under existing state laws."
Put simply, most Denverites believe police and prosecutors have better things to do than hassle adults who have a small amount of pot but aren't displaying, selling or lighting it in public. They've said so twice; their opinion should be honored.
Indeed, the city seems to be coming around to that view, too. DiCroce revealed Wednesday that his office has been discussing with the chief county judge ways to streamline prosecutions. Under one proposal, people cited for possession would not have to appear in court. They could simply pay the $100 fine by mail, as they would a traffic ticket.
Such a move would signal progress; speeders don't have to appear in court, and people caught with small amounts of pot - an act most Denverites don't think should be treated as an offense at all - shouldn't have to either if they choose not to fight the charges.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
May 30, 2008
7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Leave pot users alone?
Another example of America's moral degeneration, this will surely infuriate the invisible cloud being. How many tornadoes and hurricanes will he send to punish Denver for their wickedness?
What message will this send the children? THE CHILDREN!
May 30, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Keep writing them DPD. It is still against state law, so enforce it at will. Tvert can keep mailing in his $100 fines to make Denver a better place.
May 30, 2008
7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
This sounds good on the surface. If you think about it though, there are many other reasons and many other ways everyone else who does not smoke pot are affected.
1. How do people who think this is harmless think pot gets into their little oz. baggies? Do they think that smugglers and drug cartels run over the borders with oz. baggies just to sell them their legal amount?
2. Many other lives are affected and often death occurs just so someone can have their legal/illegal drug.
3.What about their jobs? Most employers want a drug test before hiring or a drug test if hurt at work. Does this mean employers can't discriminate against people who smoke pot? How many lawsuits will the courts see suing employers because Denver voters said it is okay to smoke pot?
4. What about DUI's ? If someone has an accident or is pulled over for whatever reason, what is the acceptable THC limit in a person's blood? How many courts will be clogged with people fighting for the right to drive under the influence of pot?The arguement that pot doesn't affect driving skills is like a drunk saying no problem I can drive.
5.What about insurance rates? Wouldn't at least Denver rates go higher because people think smoking pot has no effect on anything they do?
6. Does this mean it is legal to smoke pot in front of children? You often see adults drinking around children, does this mean children would have to watch their parents or friends of parents smoke? What message is that sending?
7. What about health insurance? Are insurer's supposed to look the other way when dealing with pot smokers? Or is this only going to give companies another excuse to raise costs?
These are just a few questions this ordinance raises. I'm sure there are more. I do think smoking pot is a low level crime and don't want to see the smoker's in prison, but how do we balance the illegality of it and the rest of the reporcussions it causes ?
May 30, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Great post vudu! Smoking pot actually is a low level crime (petty offense), with a maximum punishment of a $100 fine (if possession under one ounce). So nobody is going to prision, or even jail as the activists would have you believe.
May 30, 2008
7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
DPS union calls sickout, next it will be DPS union votes down contract, administration fails to let them teach dope safety.
May 30, 2008
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I support the legalization of pot, but vudumom definitely raises some questions that need to be seriously considered. Some of them had never come to my mind before, either.
Part of me also thinks it's not the government's business to decide what I can or can't put in my body. On the other hand, when I think about drugs like crystal meth, I can fully understand how it would be dangerous for society if a lot of people became hooked on it if it became legal. I don't see that with pot, but using the "it's my body" argument gets a little more difficult when considering other drugs.
May 30, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
"aren't displaying, selling or lighting it in public", if the people being cited are following those guidelines and not breaking other laws, how would the police know they had it to charge them?
May 30, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
I agree with Earl too. Either enforce it, or make it legal. This little Denver city only vote accomplished nothing. By making it legal it would cut the dealers out of the picture.
Anarchist...I'm thinking the cops would know if they were called to a scene for some other reason...just a guess tho...
May 30, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Yes, what an editorial..from a newspaper that just ran an article stating....moral and social decisions should be made by judges...not a vote of the majority. But then of course..they were talking about gay marriage in California. Something they support. So if it is something they support....judges should decide...ooppps they support pot smokers....now... the voters should decided. OK RMN news....WHICH WAY IS IT??
SHOULD VOTERS DECIDE? OR SHOULD JUDGES DECIDE?
We already know your answer...IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO IS DECIDING THE WAY YOU WANT IT!
Right??
Nuff Said!
May 30, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
DENVER SUPPORTS YOUR LOCAL DRUG DEALER thats what the RMN should put in its headlines. Thats why I moved from Denver. This is what you get for electing these Morons. Funny how they passed this just in time for the DNC Convention. Its time to run these Morons out of the state for good. Gives a new meaning to rocky mountain high.
May 30, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Denver law says that this is a minor issue. We have too many laws to enforce all them equally vigorously. The police have to choose what to concentrate on. This Denver ordinance gives them guidelines. I would rather they did random checks for driver licenses and insurance.
May 30, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
earl: "just make it legal and put a tax on it and the government should be very happy. look at the cash crop for farmers for once."
Aren't you a farmer, yourself? Would you grow it? Just curious.
May 30, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
For the record, I support cannabis decriminalization.
However, I find it interesting that Mason Tvert's main source of support has been George Soros. Directly.
I also find it interesting that the tobacco companies, in search of new markets, have been quietly accumulating patents for seed stock, processing methods and even brand names for marketing cannabis products.
Mason likes to characterize his efforts as a "grass roots" movement, but there are some well heeled interests watching events with a greedy eye ...
May 30, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
If they ever do legalize, it will definately be a profitable industry! Where do I buy stock?
May 30, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
sheepherder, if they also legalised prostitution and taxed it like nevada could we have decent roads and bridges, and no personal property taxes?
May 30, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Man that sounds good! I would be good with both! I'm sick of the government trying to protect me! But there is a line...I'm good with marijuana legalization (and no...I dont smoke it) but I can't say I would be good with hard drugs getting legalized.
May 30, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
May cut down on STD's too.
May 30, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
All drugs should be legal for adults to consume. NO drugs, including cold remedies etc., should be legal to consume before operating a motor vehicle or other equipment that might endanger other people.
The cost of drugs would be dramatically lower if they were all legal - thus ending much of the high level crime associated with the drug trade.
Enforce all other laws to the letter. Let employers deal with their employees however they choose - it's a free enterprise thing - if you don't like the rules imposed by your employer - find another job.
Lock up the thieves and people who have hurt other people or who sell or attempt to sell drugs (including, by the way, alcohol) to minors.
Problem solved. Everyone would be responsible for their own lives - get addicted to drugs, it's on you. You can get it fixed by doing rehab and sticking with the program or you can rot the rest of your life away in the gutter. But it won't be a police matter anymore.
May 30, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
seeingeyeseesall writes:
I'm over 50 years old, white, a successful businessman, and do not know anyone who doesn't or hasn't smoked pot. Seriously. judges, doctors, lawyers, CEOs ... you name it. I don't - not anymore - but have inhaled and know there's nothing dangerous about the stuff. It's a lot less frightening than alcohol, it just doesn't have an effective lobby. There's too much money - tax-free money - and a lot of it goes to politicians to keep it tax-free, or illegal. Perhaps my generation's greatest hypocrisy is that it is still illegal... of course, we gave the world GW Bush and his ilk, too. It must have been the leaded gas... history will probably show that all of those years eating and breathing tetra-ethyl lead just made the boomers too stoooopid to be allowed to run things.
May 30, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
connie...that sounds good on paper, but they have tried that in other countries without success. The addicts become such a blight on society they literally take over government resources trying to deal with them.
May 30, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Froward69 The point is that it still is a Illegal Drug no matter what Denver does and Denver will be held acountable for what they do. Let one person die in a car accident or someone is killed in a drug deal and Denver will be hurting for funds after the lawsuits.
May 30, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Careful Forward69 ... the type of hemp that you smoke and the type of hemp that you turn into bio fuel are only related because they are both in Cannabis genus botanically. Equating the two is mis-leading and your representation borders on blatantly false.
Industrial hemp rarely (if ever) will be found in the hands of a smoker -- unless they are stupid or have a horrible dealer -- and as such, you would never get ticketed for possession of industrial hemp. This article, and the City Council, are talking about recreational hemp (a.k.a marijuana or pot) which would never be used in industrial applications.
For reference:
http://www.gametec.com/hemp/hemp.mj.html
http://naihc.org/index.html
May 30, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
MeAgainstMachine writes:
JSeifert - I am still waiting on you to provide those sources for your "legalized marijuana in Europe has led to addictions with stronger drugs" studies and stats that you referenced yesterday on this topic.
May 30, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotYours writes:
A government that ignores the will of the voters is not a democracy.
If you're anti-marijuana -- test out your curiosity and find out FOR YOURSELF why marijuana has only been illegal for 71 years; then re-classified as "Schedule A - No Known Use" by the Nixon administration.
No matter what your political affiliation is -- you owe it to yourself, and society, to do some basic research on this issue.
Read the Congressional Records of those who passed the original anti-marijuana law in 1937, and make your own decision about WHY we have prohibition. See what you think when you read the Congressional minutes for the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937" hearings. Treat yourself to the gut-wrenching anti-black racism spewed by H.J. Anslinger, Eugene Stanley, and Robert Daughton (and others) to scare the white lawmakers into passing the law.
May 30, 2008
5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Arioch writes:
"Do they think that smugglers and drug cartels run over the borders with oz. baggies just to sell them their legal amount?"
I don't think that. I think that most of what gets consumed in this country is grown in this country. No need for any border running at all. This isn't like cocaine or opium -- this stuff grows everywhere. It's also a major (under the table) cash crop in several states.
For the record, no, I don't smoke it. I just read a lot.
May 30, 2008
7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
I agree with Peter Tosh; "Legalize It". Sure it makes you lazy sometimes, it can't be good for your health, it can be a doorway drug, but we are paying way too much dough for this stuff. Seriously, it might be the best way to get the economy going again. 1. Let people grow their own and millions of potheads with billions of dollars will pay their bills, invest etc. 2. It could be taxed but, as William F. Buckley pointed out, the black market could undercut the taxed price. 3. Industrial hemp could finally be used again. This is such a no-brainer. 4. Judicial system saves money 5. Take money and power away from the dealers and smugglers.
June 1, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
"Three years ago, officials insisted that most pot charges were supplemental - add-ons to other charges and thus used as leverage to nail the offender. We have no objection to the use of the state pot law in this fashion." -- so, you have no objection to using a patently unjust law to "nail the offender" whenever there might be some difficulty in convicting them of a substantive offense, i.e. one that actually injures someone? You are amoral and shameless. How incredibly irresponsible to endorse this practice!
June 7, 2008
2:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
nineleaf writes:
Why should Cannabis be taxed?
Someone please explain to me why that is often the first suggestion when there is talk of legalization. It has been shown in study after study that Cannabis is not detrimental to our health, society, or environment. In fact it can have beneficial impacts on all three. Cannabis should not be taxed, it should be legalized but not taxed. The law surrounding Cannabis is the only part that causes detriment. We should tax the things that have a detrimental impact on our health, society, and environment; things like cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline.
June 7, 2008
2:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
nineleaf writes:
The message that we're sending to the CHILDREN is that they can trust us because we're not lying to them; and that we care enough about them to want to keep them safe. Lying to your children is not a good policy and has been shown to backfire. Keeping Cannabis illegal is the best way to ensure that your child will have easy access to the plant, as they do now. Legalizing Cannabis would allow for regulation and control and it would send a message to children that as adults we're trying to create the most sensible policy surrounding Cannabis.
June 7, 2008
2:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
nineleaf writes:
Lets say Cannabis is legalized and your workplace policy states that use is not tolerated.
Is this a problem? I don't see one. Alcohol is legal but your workplace policy likely states that it's use is not tolerated. It should be treated the same exept that alcohol isn't detectable in your blood as long. That's why you can drink the night before work and still show up the next morning in compliance. Since Cannabis is detectable in your blood for weeks after use, you would not be able to use Cannabis; unless for example you had the summer off, you could use Cannabis and then abstain a few weeks before returning to work.
June 7, 2008
3:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
nineleaf writes:
In response to Vudumom's concerns over trafficking and how the ounce baggies get filled and by whom, I would like to point out that the illegal status of Cannabis only contributes to any danger that surrounds the supply. However, it does create an obvious conflict to be able to use Cannabis but not be able to obtain it in any legal manner. What we eventually need is legislation to provide for the regulated growth and supply, not just use.