Pubdate: Thu, 03 Nov 2005
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2005 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Christopher N. Osher, Denver Post Staff Writer
Cited: American Civil Liberties Union ( www.aclu.org )
Cited: SAFER (www.saferchoice.org)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: 
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Safer+Alternative+for+Enjoyable+Recreation

POLICE LIKELY TO IGNORE POT VOTE

Officials say most marijuana arrests are made under a state law, not
an existing ordinance, so cops will arrest users just as they did
before Initiative 100 was approved.

As Denver officials react to Tuesday's vote to legalize possession of
small amounts of marijuana, they can look to two West Coast cities
where similar initiatives won approval.

Voters in Oakland, Calif., and Seattle told police to make possession
of small amounts of marijuana the lowest priority, but each city
responded differently.

In Seattle, the number of people prosecuted for pot possession has
plummeted since voters approved an initiative in September 2003.

In 2003, Seattle prosecuted 178 people for possession of marijuana; in
2004, the prosecutions plunged to 59.

"I think someone, somewhere along the chain of command got the message
(in Seattle)," said Andy Ko, director of the drug policy referendum
project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

One outspoken opponent of the pro-marijuana initiative in Seattle,
City Attorney Tom Carr, said his fears that marijuana usage would
spike dramatically haven't materialized.

"We've had some silliness," he said. "One man was arrested for trying
to sell brownies to a police officer, and someone wanted to host a
smoke-in in a park, but for the most part, I haven't seen a drastic
increase."

Denver officials say the outcome will be more like that in Oakland,
where police are ignoring a pro-marijuana measure voters approved last
year. Oakland police continue to arrest people who use marijuana, say
city officials and pro-marijuana proponents there. Opposition to the
new law there delayed creation of a city panel that voters wanted to
oversee changes in enforcement.

Denver officials say the vast majority of drug prosecutions in Denver
already are brought under state law, so police will continue to make
arrests as usual before Initiative 100 was approved Tuesday.

The Denver city attorney's office prosecuted 1,565 people last year
under state law, which calls for a fine of up to $100. The city
prosecuted 36 adults last year for marijuana possession under a
separate city ordinance prohibiting marijuana use. That ordinance has
a maximum penalty of up to a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail,
though milder penalties are the norm, said Assistant City Attorney
David Broadwell.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, meanwhile, said Tuesday's vote to
legalize marijuana possession was a sign of the priorities of an
increasingly young, educated population.

"It is indicative of the changing attitudes," Hickenlooper said,
noting that because of its population, Denver may increasingly be on
the "vanguard" of such issues.

The group Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, or SAFER, which
pushed the Denver vote, says city officials will thwart the will of
about 56,000 voters if they continue prosecutions. The initiative
makes it legal for anyone 21 or older to possess 1 ounce or less of
marijuana in Denver, though it made no changes to a section of city
ordinance that continues to outlaw public smoking of pot.

"It's not whether they can do it, it's whether they will do it," said
Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER. "Right now, there are city
officials denying the will of voters who put them in office, and I
think that's disturbing."

He stressed that the City Council had no problem trumping state law in
April 2004 when it passed a law banning pit bulls. State law prohibits
cities from regulating dangerous dogs in a breed-specific way.

Broadwell said court precedents allow cities to be more restrictive
than state law but not less restrictive. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake