Pubdate: Sat, 06 Oct 2012
Source: Steamboat Today, The (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Steamboat Pilot & Today
Contact: http://www.steamboattoday.com/submit/letters/
Website: http://www.steamboattoday.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1549

VOTE 'NO' ON AMENDMENT 64

We long have held that a high threshold should be surpassed in order
to amend the Colorado Constitution. Most ballot amendments in recent
years haven't come close to measuring up.

Such is the case with Amendment 64, which would allow for the
possession, sale and taxing of marijuana in Colorado. While we can
sympathize with some of the arguments proponents make, the state's
Constitution isn't the place to address marijuana legalization,
especially when such legalization will be in direct conflict with
federal law. Residents should vote "no" on Amendment 64.

There are things to like in Amendment 64. Foremost, we appreciate the
transparency. In the past, we have urged marijuana proponents to use
the state's laws to petition for legalization and allow the people to
decide. Amendment 64 certainly does that. Also, we support
decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana. The
public would be better served if our law enforcement, our courts and
our jails no longer pursued such cases.

But Amendment 64 goes far beyond decriminalization. It would require
state legislators -- by July 1, 2013 -- to develop regulations
governing the licensing and oversight of marijuana establishments
including marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product
manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities and retail
stores that sell marijuana. It would require the state to enact
legislation allowing for the growth, processing and sale of industrial
hemp.

This is uncharted territory. In general, the state's businesses are
regulated by Colorado's Revised Statutes, which can be amended as
necessary by vote of the Colorado Legislature. Trying to license and
regulate the sale of marijuana in the state's Constitution, which can
be amended only by public vote, is not only impractical, it's silly.

As we already have noted, if this amendment is approved, it will be in
violation of federal law. The state's Constitution will do little to
protect the feds from shutting down marijuana businesses and bringing
federal charges against those involved in the manufacture and sale of
marijuana.

Perhaps most offensive, Amendment 64 would require the Legislature to
enact an excise tax on marijuana and dedicate the first $40 million
raised annually to the construction of public schools. Such a move is
nothing more than a foolish political stunt. Moreover, binding
legislators' hands with constitutionally dedicated taxes has proven to
be a recipe for unfixable fiscal crises.

In 2006, a group calling itself Safer Alternative for Enjoyable
Recreation put Amendment 44 on the ballot. The amendment did not
affect the Constitution. Rather, it would have revised state statutes
to make possession of an ounce of marijuana legal. We editorialized
against the amendment, and it was defeated statewide, 59 to 41 percent.

Undoubtedly, attitudes (including our own) have mellowed somewhat in
the six years since. We have seen the increase of medical marijuana
use, including the proliferation of dispensaries that sell the drug.
Just last year, 59 percent of Steamboat Springs residents voted to
keep medical marijuana businesses in operation. And there is little
evidence that the rise of the medical marijuana industry in Routt
County has had significant impacts, positive or negative, on the community.

We, as well as voters, might have looked favorably on Amendment 44
were it before us now. Using state statutes to decriminalize pot
possession seems a reasonable step in the light of 2012.

But that's not what's on the ballot. We should not amend our state's
Constitution to permit the possession and sale of marijuana. Vote "no"
on Amendment 64.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt