NationStates Jolt Archive

This is great news for some of us here:
Denver votes to legalize marijuana possession
By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY

DENVER — Voters here approved making Denver the first major city to legalize small amounts of marijuana, but the mayor warned that state law still makes possession of the drug illegal.

"OK of pot issue gives new meaning to Mile High City," said Wednesday's headline in the Rocky Mountain News. The measure, which passed Tuesday with 54% of the vote, says adults 21 and older may possess up to an ounce of marijuana without penalty in the city.

A few other cities, including Seattle and Oakland, have laws that make marijuana possession a low priority for police. A dozen states, including Colorado, have decriminalized possession of small amounts but still issue fines.

Unlike Denver, the Colorado ski town of Telluride, population 2,300, narrowly defeated a measure Tuesday that would have made possession of marijuana the lowest police priority. It might be already: Just 17 citations were issued there last year for pot possession.

Don't expect clouds of marijuana smoke to fill Denver's thin air. Mayor John Hickenlooper said police will continue to arrest and charge people for marijuana because state law still makes possession illegal.

Hickenlooper said the city can adopt an ordinance that is stricter than state law on marijuana but not one that is weaker.

Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., said Denver's vote will spur initiatives in other cities to legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol or tobacco.

"It's certainly likely to energize people. This is the wind in the sails of reform," Mirken said Wednesday. "Rethinking marijuana prohibition is mainstream. This is the heart of America saying, 'Hold on, maybe our current marijuana laws don't make a lot of sense.' And the fact is, they're right."

Mason Tvert, who led the Denver campaign for legalized pot, said he will encourage people who are charged under state law to fight their arrests in court.

In Colorado, having an ounce of marijuana or less is punishable by a $100 fine but no jail time. "It's like a speeding ticket, and only a fraction of people end up going to court over it," said Tvert, founder of SAFER, or Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation.

Tvert said his group also will seek a state initiative to license and regulate the sale of marijuana. His campaign argued that legalized pot is a safer alternative, considering the problems that arise from alcohol abuse such as violent crime and health risks.

The mayor said he opposed the measure because he considers marijuana a "gateway" drug that can lead to harder substances and "much more self-destructive behaviors." Hickenlooper acknowledged, however, that Denver's vote "does reflect a genuine shift in people's attitudes."

Although Denver's marijuana vote caught attention, the main issue Coloradans approved Tuesday will let the state government keep $3.7 billion in tax revenue over the next five years. The money otherwise would have been refunded to taxpayers under a 1992 constitutional amendment, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which has strict caps on state spending. The statewide referendum passed with 52% of the vote.

I hope this is an indication of things to come within the next decade.
Pro-smokers, what do you make of this and is it real progress, or will the feds and state laws outweigh Denver's decision?

original article here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-03-pot_x.htm)

I said it on another board and I will say it here. It doesn't matter what they do - it is still illegal. It is even more pointless for a city to legalize than it is for a state because you are subject to state and federal laws. I should declare pot legal on my block, but just my block, it would be the same circumstances.

This is my favorite part:

"Hickenlooper said the city can adopt an ordinance that is stricter than state law on marijuana but not one that is weaker."

If this is the case, what exactly is the point of even putting such a measure on the ballot to begin with? Our government is making a sham out of the very institutions [i.e. voting] that it's going to war to promote in another country.

Fucking politicans.

Meh. Laws like that are all over the place. Not until the Feds legalize it will anything really happen. That being said, I'd much rather get caught with an ounce in Colorado or Maine than say, Nebraska...

I said it on another board and I will say it here. It doesn't matter what they do - it is still illegal. It is even more pointless for a city to legalize than it is for a state because you are subject to state and federal laws. I should declare pot legal on my block, but just my block, it would be the same circumstances.
Don't interject logic here! This is a time for meaningless symbolic gestures and vote pandering, not a time for thought and rationality!
In such spirit, I will declare that the people of Denver, in making this gesture, have saved 2,000 people from death and imprisonment and saved a kitten from being mugged! Hooray!

Don't forget, they unpoisoned the water well too!

Don't forget, they unpoisoned the water well too!
And they saved Christmas! YIPPY!

And they saved Christmas! YIPPY!
Nah, I did that.

On a more serious note, I do think weed should be legal...

This is my favorite part:

"Hickenlooper said the city can adopt an ordinance that is stricter than state law on marijuana but not one that is weaker."

If this is the case, what exactly is the point of even putting such a measure on the ballot to begin with? Our government is making a sham out of the very institutions [i.e. voting] that it's going to war to promote in another country.

Fucking politicans.

It's more a statement than anything else. I guarantee most of the people voting yes realized that it wouldn't actually change anything. It's meant to show the rest of the state that the prevailing attitude on the subject is changing, and it's meant to hopefully encourage other communities to do the same, with the hopes that they could take it to the state level. Hence the comment:"It's certainly likely to energize people. This is the wind in the sails of reform," Mirken said Wednesday. "Rethinking marijuana prohibition is mainstream. This is the heart of America saying, 'Hold on, maybe our current marijuana laws don't make a lot of sense.' And the fact is, they're right."

I understand what you're saying, Sdaeriji, my point is that's not how these things should work.

I understand what you're saying, Sdaeriji, my point is that's not how these things should work.
Oh, but it is. Government isn't about giving people want they want or need, its about giving power to people who couldn't get it otherwise! Are you aware of how few government officials there are in the US? Next to none when weighed against the rest of the population! Someone has to look out for that minority's interests!

Meh. Laws like that are all over the place. Not until the Feds legalize it will anything really happen. That being said, I'd much rather get caught with an ounce in Colorado or Maine than say, Nebraska...
Or Singapore...

I understand what you're saying, Sdaeriji, my point is that's not how these things should work.
You're right, it shouldn't work that way at all. Fortunately, our politicians are poll-worshippers, so a major city like Denver voting pro-libertarian on marijuana legalization sends a strong message. Namely, "The pro-legalization platform is proving to become a popular stance for urban voters."

Just ten years ago, the idea was laughable.

Meh. Laws like that are all over the place. Not until the Feds legalize it will anything really happen. That being said, I'd much rather get caught with an ounce in Colorado or Maine than say, Nebraska...
I wonder if the local police will enforce the federal laws. Maybe you will have to be arrested by a G-man or a US Marshall?

I wonder if the local police will enforce the federal laws. Maybe you will have to be arrested by a G-man or a US Marshall?

"Don't expect clouds of marijuana smoke to fill Denver's thin air. Mayor John Hickenlooper said police will continue to arrest and charge people for marijuana because state law still makes possession illegal."

There ya have it. Police are required to uphold all the Government's laws, from Town and County right up to Federal...Which includes no-cannibalism. I guess Cops aren't allowed to eat bacon.

"Don't expect clouds of marijuana smoke to fill Denver's thin air. Mayor John Hickenlooper said police will continue to arrest and charge people for marijuana because state law still makes possession illegal."

There ya have it. Police are required to uphold all the Government's laws, from Town and County right up to Federal...Which includes no-cannibalism. I guess Cops aren't allowed to eat bacon.
You still had it right when you said it's better to get caught with some weed there than most places (including Tampa, Florida where I live):

In Colorado, having an ounce of marijuana or less is punishable by a $100 fine but no jail time. "It's like a speeding ticket, and only a fraction of people end up going to court over it," said Tvert, founder of SAFER, or Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation.

http://static.flickr.com/29/59523872_981b4e070a_o.jpg (http://www.norml.org/hello.shtml)
^CLICKY^

It certainly won't save anyone from prosecution, but it put the argument right out in the open, and it sent a message to the world that the people of America want it to be legal. Does it help now? NO Is it a good first step? DEFINATELY!

That was pointless...

Interesting quote from NORML's article on the Denver vote:


"A Denver victory clearly means that the drive to end marijuana prohibition has become a mainstream issue," said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "For a city of Denver's size in a red state to endorse something like this is really quite remarkable."

Thats good....NORML is one of the best pro-marijuana organizations out there.

Now, I'm curious in other nations; I know its partially legal in Canada, and is in Mexico, but not about most other places...Whats the status in Mainland Europe, England or Asia?

Thats good....NORML is one of the best pro-marijuana organizations out there.

Now, I'm curious in other nations; I know its partially legal in Canada, and is in Mexico, but not about most other places...Whats the status in Mainland Europe, England or Asia?
I'm curious of that as well. Perhaps our friends in Europe coule enlighten us as to the laws on Marijuana in your particular Nation?

I'm curious of that as well. Perhaps our friends in Europe coule enlighten us as to the laws on Marijuana in your particular Nation?
Well, I'm really only familiar with laws in Amsterdam. I think everyone is familiar with their policies. :D

http://users.tkk.fi/~jamirant/Interrail/Kuvat/Amsterdam/Weed/IMGP0619.JPG

Thats good....NORML is one of the best pro-marijuana organizations out there.

Now, I'm curious in other nations; I know its partially legal in Canada, and is in Mexico, but not about most other places...Whats the status in Mainland Europe, England or Asia?

In the Netherlands it's legal. In Belgium it was legal for adults to smoke in their own homes when no minors where present for a short while (it was a weird law, you where allowed to own and use it, but not to buy, sell of grow it :confused:). They revoced the law a year later or so. Now it is tollerated when adults have less than 3 grammes on them, but officially it's illegal.
In the rest of Europe it's still illegal as far as i know.

Actually, depending on the wording of the law, the Colorado law might already be invalid. If it authorizes possession, as opposed to mere decriminalization, it could run afoul of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U. S. C. §801 et seq). The US Supreme Court just ruled that state laws allowing marijuana for medical use are void beause Congress, using its commerce clause power has already spoken on the issue and made it criminal to possess marijuana, regardless of purpose.

See Gonzales v. Raich (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1454)

If a law allowing possession for medical purposes is invalid, then surely one allowing possession simply for the hell of it is too.

The local police may not be enforcing anything... but that doesn't mean the DEA can't have a good ol' time setting up stings when it gets bored on long weekends. Or, just one person to challenge it in federal court, and chances are it'll be declared null and void as preempted by federal law.

As opposed to an outlook for the future, it's probably a flash in the pan destined to be invalidated by the federal courts... unless Congress removes the drug from the list of Schedule I controlled substances (which should happen just about the same time hell freezes over).

"Don't expect clouds of marijuana smoke to fill Denver's thin air. Mayor John Hickenlooper said police will continue to arrest and charge people for marijuana because state law still makes possession illegal."

There ya have it. Police are required to uphold all the Government's laws, from Town and County right up to Federal...Which includes no-cannibalism. I guess Cops aren't allowed to eat bacon.

Actually, not true. State, city, and county police don't have the authority to enforce federal law.

The reality of the situation is that the Denver PD will ignore marijuana violations. The Colorado State Police will enforce state law. And, the Feds will concentrate on major dealers.

We have a similar situation here in Michigan, where Ann Arbor (the home of the University of Michigan) has made poss. of marijuana a civil infraction.

I want to move to Denver .

As opposed to an outlook for the future, it's probably a flash in the pan destined to be invalidated by the federal courts... unless Congress removes the drug from the list of Class I controlled substances (which should happen just about the same time hell freezes over).


Class I? Is that the same as 'Class A' in most places?

Class I? Is that the same as 'Class A' in most places?

Sorry, i meant schedule I. Changed the original post to comport with this correct terminology. From the Raich decision:

In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U. S. C. §812(c). This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW "that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway." Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment.


Note that the HEW has long been replaced... and the quote from the assistant secretary was from 1970, and it's still shcedule I.

From 21 USC 812:

(c) Initial schedules of controlled substances

Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended [FN1] pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated:
Schedule I

c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

(1) 3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(2) 5-methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(3) 3,4,5-trimethoxy amphetamine.
(4) Bufotenine.
(5) Diethyltryptamine.
(6) Dimethyltryptamine.
(7) 4-methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine.
(8) Ibogaine.
(9) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
(10) Marihuana.
(11) Mescaline.
(12) Peyote.
(13) N-ethyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(14) N-methyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(15) Psilocybin.
(16) Psilocyn.
(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.


Heroin is also schedule I. But interestingly... unless there's been an order changing this, the US Code lists any injectable liquid substance containing methamphetamine as schedule II, and any non-injectable liquid substance containing methamphetamine as schedule III. That means marijauna is actually listed as more dangerous than meth. And one more addition... cocaine is also a schedule II, which is less dangerous than schedule I according to the law.

Is why they dont just legalize Mary Jane and tax it like everything else that gets imported and balance the #$%!ing budget for once in history but instead they would rather have wars with other nations and such