Pubdate: Mon, 15 Oct 2007
Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
Copyright: 2007 Denver Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/371
Cited: Citizens for a Safer Denver http://saferdenver.saferchoice.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Citizens+for+a+Safer+Denver
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

FALSE PROMISE ON POT

Question I-100 Can't Change State or Federal Law

Give Mason Tvert credit for being focused and responsive, if nothing else.

The Denver marijuana activist takes seriously the objections to 
Initiated Question 100, the ballot measure that would make simple pot 
possession the "lowest law enforcement priority" of Denver police. 
And he has answers to those objections, too, several of them somewhat 
persuasive.

Why push another marijuana initiative only two years after Denver 
voters approved a measure that legalized adult possession of 
marijuana - at least in city statute books? Because, he says, even 
with that ordinance in effect, marijuana arrests within the city 
reached an all-time high last year. Tvert is also right that 
residents of a home-rule city like Denver generally do have the 
ability to enact laws that vary from Colorado statutes (although 
trumping state law is another matter, as we shall see).

But just as we opposed the 2005 legalization measure, we cannot 
support the current initiative - even if it's little more than a 
symbolic affirmation of voters' earlier decision.

Our reasons are similar as well. The 2005 measure could not overturn 
state or federal laws against marijuana possession, which is why pot 
arrests continue. And this year's measure won't overturn them, either.

Meanwhile, we have no idea how Denver police and prosecutors would 
interpret a mandate to make marijuana possession a lower priority 
than traffic offenses or jaywalking. Would the measure tie the hands 
of Denver police, or cause conflicts with wider state and federal 
drug investigations? If so, that's not a positive development.

As we've said before, the proper venues to address drug laws are at 
the state Capitol and in Washington, D.C. Marijuana possession will 
become legal only when federal and state laws say so, even if local 
voters oppose its illegal status.

We can see at least one unintended consequence if the initiative 
passes - and it's perhaps inadvertently pointed out in literature 
provided by the group Tvert heads, Citizens for a Safer Denver.

On the one hand, the group says that marijuana is relatively harmless 
and that the drug is actually less of a social problem than alcohol. 
And as far as the criminal justice system is concerned, a citation 
for marijuana possession seems minimal, resulting in perhaps no worse 
than a $100 fine.

And yet, the literature also accurately points out, a marijuana 
arrest can have "far more damaging" consequences as well. Those may 
include "loss of employment, inability to gain employment, loss of 
student financial aid, suspension of professional license, loss of 
public housing, loss of unemployment benefits, loss of rights to 
possess a firearm, loss of rights to adopt children or serve as a 
foster parent."

By backing this initiative, supporters are sending a potentially 
perverse message to pot users: Marijuana possession is no big deal. 
This initiative will keep the cops off your back.

Except that it may not. And if it doesn't, those cited for possession 
will have to face those dire consequences and personal sanctions 
mentioned by Tvert's group. Question I-100 offers a false promise 
that pot users will face only minor penalties if it passes. But they 
are likely to discover otherwise so long as the law of the land bans 
marijuana use. That's another reason to reject this measure. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake