Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Colorado: Marijuana Amendment Will Be On Ballot
The Daily Times-Call ^ | August 17, 2006

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: bongbrigade; dopercrushonleroy; dopercrushonwoddies; election2006; knowyourleroy; leroyknowshisrights; mrleroy; mrleroybait; potheads; warondrugs; wod; woddiecrushonleroy; wodlist; wontmakeadifference
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-303 next last
To: Jorge
I mean it's bad enough your debate positions are so unpopular and your arguments so weak....

Maybe you didn't notice, that in this article, there are THOUSANDS of state citizens who wish to have a REFERENDUM. Do you have any idea what that means?

It means that "all politics is local!" (is that a good enough cliche' for you? If the citizens of that community (State of Colorado, which defined means the citizens of the area!) whish to allow for the use of marijuana, it will not be the end of civiliztion. As noted, you state your ability do excell in college while using the demon weed.

Your arguments wreak. They defy all intentions of our founding documents. You want to make it about all drugs, but again, this is just about marijuana. Read the article and just say no, or yes!

41 posted on 08/17/2006 7:38:02 PM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
...and by the way, my cliche' is well-recognized to those who bother to become literate!


42 posted on 08/17/2006 7:42:57 PM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

I am curious as to your view of what the WOD has accomplished to date and what would be accomplished by continuing the WOD. What have we gotten for our trillion dollars?


43 posted on 08/17/2006 7:58:01 PM PDT by 11B40 (times change, people don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo

Oh God, all the weirdos are coming out of the woodwork now.
You have to try to do better than this. Really.


44 posted on 08/17/2006 8:01:08 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Our War on Drugs is the real joke. Is there any other harmless thing that personally offends your delicate sensibilities that you'd like to ban? Maybe you don't like brussel sprouts, you can send the Feds to raid anyone eating them.


45 posted on 08/17/2006 8:29:47 PM PDT by youthgonewild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Oh God, all the weirdos are coming out of the woodwork now.

That's what I've been tryin' to tell you, but you keep on repeating the same tired crap. You wish to impose your personal views on others. We get it, now go away!


46 posted on 08/17/2006 8:47:39 PM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 11B40
What have we gotten for our trillion dollars?

Petty much the same thing we get for our education dollars: nothing much!


47 posted on 08/17/2006 8:53:11 PM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Anecdotal evidence post quota reached. Further logical fallacies no longer required on thread!


48 posted on 08/17/2006 8:55:48 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
The idea that Govt shouldn't be involved in drug use enforcement is totally nuts.

Strawman. Drug laws should be enforced at the state level. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional.

49 posted on 08/17/2006 8:56:49 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Concho
Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, isnt this in conflict with Federal Law?

Medical marijuana laws conflicted with the feds too, but the courts agreed with the states.
50 posted on 08/17/2006 9:03:27 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zon

No one argues better against the WOD than the people who see its' failures day in and day out from the inside.

Those guys (LEAP) have a lot of guts speaking out, but then again people firmly grounded in their principals usually do.


51 posted on 08/17/2006 9:07:36 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
It's a sad state of the pro-marijuana movement when the best line they can come up with is: "alcohol is worse."

Actually, it's one of the BEST arguments for marijuana decriminalization. All of the terrible things people like you say about marijuana can be doubly said about alcohol, and alcohol is legal.

If prohibition didn't work with alcohol, what makes you think it will work with marijuana?
52 posted on 08/17/2006 9:15:06 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
The pro-marijuana movement has always been sad, and impotent, probably reflecting the passive useless disposition of most pot heads.

Being for marijuana decriminalization/legalization does not make one "pro-marijuana". There is a huge difference, and you shouldn't group us all together.

FYI, I, and many other people like myself, have never used and do not intend to use marijuana or any other illicit narcotics. I argue against the federal WOD because it is blatantly unconstitutional, and it is now and will continue to be an abject failure. Prohibition has not and will not ever work, and the Feds have no business engaging in it.
53 posted on 08/17/2006 9:24:16 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

Why on earth would the government tax themselves out of the market? That's just stupid.


54 posted on 08/17/2006 10:14:22 PM PDT by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
"I've been here longer than you have.

Congratulations."

You were the one rude enough to ask

55 posted on 08/18/2006 2:15:54 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Nate505
"Why on earth would the government tax themselves out of the market? That's just stupid. "

Are you living below ground, and not tuned into the news?

Look at the taxes on cigarettes, and tell me again how the gubmint has "taxed themselves out of the market".....

56 posted on 08/18/2006 3:44:15 AM PDT by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Chena
I would assume that folks who believe in States' rights wouldn't make an exception for a pet issue they may or may not agree with.

It's not so much a question of states' rights. It's a question of enumerated Federal powers. But it's a moot point because that argument was already lost.

But then again, look at the anti-smoking nazis.

By anti-smoking nazis I assume you mean people who vote to restrict smoking in public places? I don't get what that has to do with this issue at all. It's certainly not a "states rights" issue, since the cigarette laws are state laws.

The question with pot isn't where you can smoke it, but CAN you smoke it.

57 posted on 08/18/2006 4:18:46 AM PDT by Huck (There is a $2.00 service charge for this tagline---do you still wish to proceed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: uglybiker

Let me know when they get around to arresting adults for possession of Camels.


58 posted on 08/18/2006 4:51:40 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Now the ONDCP will come in to organize the campaign to defeat it, and the proponents will get to watch their federal tax dollars subsidize the opposition.


59 posted on 08/18/2006 4:56:53 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Concho
"Right, Wrong, or Indifferent, isnt this in conflict with Federal Law?"

States can and often do have laws that are different than federal laws. Federal law enforcement enforce federal laws and local law enforcement enforce state laws. Most all arrests made in this country are made pursuant to state laws by local law enforcement. Federal law enforcement are pretty specialized and there really aren't that many out there arresting people compared to the numbers of state and local police, sheriff's deputies, etc. There is a pretty darned good argument that the feds don't have the constitutional authority to have and enforce a lot of the laws they have, but that's another topic altogether. If a state were to do away with their laws criminalizing possession of small amounts marijuana, very few people would get arrested for it in that state because the feds would be the only ones enforcing their ban on simple possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Would it be illegal for states to do this? No. What could the feds do about it? I imagine what they would do is figure out ways to deny the offending states federal funding. They sure as heck won't go hiring enough federal law enforcement officers to keep arresting people for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana in states that do not have such laws.
60 posted on 08/18/2006 8:18:58 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-303 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson