Posted on 08/17/2006 3:38:19 PM PDT by Wolfie
Marijuana Amendment Will Be On Ballot
Denver -- Coloradans are to decide this fall whether to make it legal under state law for anyone age 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. Secretary of State Gigi Dennis said Wednesday that backers of that initiative had turned in enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 general election. The proposal will be Amendment 44 on the state ballot, Dennis said.
Under Colorado law, anyone in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana can be charged with a Class 2 petty offense, punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Legislative staffers preparing an analysis of the initiative report that during the 2005-06 state budget year, state courts convicted 3,700 adults for possession of such amounts of marijuana.
The legalization proposal is being pushed by SAFER, an organization that asserts that marijuana is a “Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation” than alcohol.
“The campaign will highlight the hypocrisy of laws that prohibit the use of marijuana while allowing and even encouraging the use of alcohol, an infinitely more harmful drug,” SAFER spokesman Mason Tvert said Wednesday.
If approved by voters, Amendment 44 would change state law to allow adults age 21 and older to possess or use small amounts of marijuana, according to the legislative staff analysis, as long as that use doesn’t occur in public. It still would be illegal for anyone younger than 21 to possess any amount of marijuana or for people 21 and older to possess amounts more than an ounce.
It also would still be illegal for individuals age 18 and older to transfer any amount of marijuana to anyone younger than 15.
State laws also would continue to ban: growing or selling marijuana; open and public display, use or consumption of marijuana; and driving under the influence of marijuana.
SAFER has noted that even if voters OK the initiative, home-rule cities and towns would still have the ability to ticket and prosecute marijuana users under local ordinances.
Last year, SAFER successfully campaigned for an ordinance change to make it legal for an adult to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in Denver, but the organization has complained that Denver continues to prosecute people under state law.
Tvert said in an interview that voter passage of a state legalization measure would “send a large message” to home-rule municipalities “about how the people of Colorado feel about this.”
Tvert said alcohol abuse “contributes to social problems like fighting, sexual assault, property damage and domestic violence. Marijuana use has never been linked to these types of issues.”
Tvert said he expects Amendment 44 to be opposed by members of the state’s law enforcement community, including Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.
Suthers spokeswoman Kristen Holtzman said Wednesday that “the attorney general’s position on this issue has not changed. He is adamantly against the legalization of marijuana.”
Foes of SAFER’s proposal have argued that marijuana use can lead someone to other illegal drugs and thus increase overall drug use and drug abuse in Colorado.
I wondered that as well.
It's not my fault you are incapable of understanding sarcasm. I even gave you an analogy of how that type of sarcasm worked, but you still can't grasp it.
Insert "reasonably" wherever you want. Of the 750,000 marijuana arrests last year, how many were under those circumstances? 5? That's called a ludicrous number; therefore a ludicrous statement.
5? Cops bust people in their homes for pot all the time, be it for them coming over for a different reason, or for them coming over because a neighbor complained about the smell.
Neither did buyers of moonshine during Prohibition. What's your point?
Alcohol was never prohibited, at least not like pot. Anyway, thanks for admitting that pot users don't care if their money goes to criminals, or terrorists for that matter.
Do you think felons should be prohibited from owning guns?
Like behavior that is merely offensive, correct?
In that same period of time, police made 3 million drug arrests. Seems to me that the mistakes are held to a pretty small percentage.
15 million arrests and that's it? I'd say the cops were doing a fine job if that's all you got.
I was using your example of $1/oz. plus $99/oz. in taxes. This was in response to your question of why I would be tempted to get involved.
Don't change the rules after we start playing the game. Second request.
"is a pittance on the overall tobacco market."
Compared to your taxation scheme of $99 on a $1 item, the tobacco tax is a pittance. As taxes on cigarettes rise, smuggling increases. The same will happen with marijuana. The gangs will not go away. You're dreaming.
It is after all, just a game.
Compared to your taxation scheme of $99 on a $1 item, the tobacco tax is a pittance. As taxes on cigarettes rise, smuggling increases. The same will happen with marijuana. The gangs will not go away. You're dreaming.
You seem to think the federal government can simply assume control of all the hemp in existence. That's realistic?
That will bring the Dems looney-left constituency out to the polls in large numbers; for sure.
How many of those 650,000 arrested were smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home, shades drawn, bothering no one? 600,000? 300,000?
I mean, this is really a concern of yours, so it must be happening a lot for you to make an issue of it. I'd like to know how big of a problem this really is, and if, maybe, you can back it up with something?
Now me, I say this happens maybe 5 or 6 times. The reason being that the cops have no reason whatsoever to even come-a-knockin'. Now, unless you're dealing marijuana, or growing your own, or bothering your neighbors with marijuana parties, or announcing to the world what you're doing, I see no reason for the cops to knock on your door, much less arrest you.
Not me. Just the opposite.
I say the government will tax marijuana so high that it will be driven back underground. Marijuana will be sold by the gangs tax-free (as they do now with cigarettes), it will be grown and sold by the gangs, and individuals will grow their own.
Nate505 felt that people would pay $100/oz. for legal marijuana instead of $200/oz. for illegal marijuana today. The theory sounds good, doesn't it?
I'm simply saying that they will NOT pay $100/oz. if $99 of that is taxes.
It's amazing you you can be so cognizant of the stupidity of government in one instance, and so totally oblivious to it in the other.
Most of the smuggling is on the east coast where in New York City, for example, the tax on a carton of cigarettes is $30. In California, the tax is $8.70. Raise it to 30 bucks and see what happens.
Michigan, on the other hand, just raised their tax to $20 per carton. Guess what happened?
"With a cigarette tax of $2 a pack, fourth-highest in the nation, after another increase took effect on July 1, Michigan has been making a name for itself as home to smugglers and other scofflaws of the tobacco tax."
-- Budget & Tax News, September 1, 2005
Cigarettes are going underground when the tax is equal to the cost. In your example of marijuana costing $1/oz, we can expect to see it start to go underground when sold at $2/oz. You're proposing $100/oz.
(Even allowing you to backpedal to $20/oz, that still invites the black market.)
Do you think felons should be prohibited from voting? Inmates? Parolees? Probationers?
What's amazing is that you can't see the difference.
Why would that matter?
Amazing to you maybe. My interest in the issue isn't limited to simply making sure my kids never smoke it, regardless of the means that are employed to accomplish it.
Your opinion? It doesn't. I'm just curious, that's all.
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.