Pubdate: Thu, 08 Nov 2012
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Vincent Carroll
Page: 21A

COME ON, GOVERNOR: DEFEND 64

Is it too much to ask top state officials to go to bat for voters who
just passed an amendment that the federal government might not like?

It's not as if Amendment 64 will violate anyone's civil liberties- as
opponents of Amendment 2 argued 20 years ago when that measure tried
to ban laws recognizing gays and lesbians as a class.

After Amendment 2 passed, Gov. Roy Romer actually joined opponents in
a march to the Capitol.

But Amendment 64 doesn't curtail anyone's rights. It expands liberty
in this state and signals Coloradans' desire for a new direction on
marijuana policy. And although Gov. John Hickenlooper and Attorney
General John Suthers may not have supported 64, no one argues it's
unconstitutional or so offends civilized norms that state leaders
should work to undermine it.

To be sure, Hickenlooper did indicate Tuesday night that "voters have
spoken and we have to respect their will," while Suthers followed suit
Wednesday with similar sentiments. But that's where both men stopped.
Neither went on to insist the federal government respect Colorado
voters' wishes, too.

Neither urged the Justice Department-however much it might oppose
such measures-to stand aside and let the process play itself out.

Federal officials don't have enough agents or resources to go after
individual marijuana users for violating federal law once state
penalties are lifted. If a federal-state donnybrook erupts, it will be
over retail and cultivation facilities- and this is where Hickenlooper
and Suthers could be helpful in urging the feds to lay off.

Instead, both appear prepared to defer meekly to whatever the federal
government says, while letting Washington seize the initiative.

When Hickenlooper spoke about Amendment 64 at a press conference
Wednesday, he seemed so understanding of U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder's possible perspective that you had to rub your eyes to make
sure the microphone hadn't been commandeered by a Justice Department
employee.

Hickenlooper said it was "unlikely the federal government is going to
allow states one by one to unilaterally decriminalize marijuana"-
actually, Washington has never disputed a state's ability to write its
own criminal laws- and that it was "hard for me to imagine" the feds
would allow "big pot shops" to open.

Imagine the chaos, he added, if each state went its own
way.

Hickenlooper even claimed his "primary job" in an upcoming
conversation "is to listen" to what Holder has to say.

It's hard to figure out where the governor is coming from. States have
been going their own way on marijuana at least since 1996, when
California legalized medical pot. Massachusetts added its name to the
growing list just this week.

And speaking of retail and cultivation facilities, there are already
more than 1,000 in Colorado-handling the same product that would be
sold under Amendment 64. If the feds can tolerate those operations,
they can tolerate what voters approved on Tuesday as well.

Under 64, the earliest any licensed facility could open, after
regulations are written, is 2014. Colorado should be allowed to work
through this process without preemptive warnings from Uncle Sam about
how his patience is wearing thin with federalism or how his raw police
power might trump the voting booth- and our governor and attorney
general should be making that case, forcefully, to officials in Washington.

The last I checked, more Coloradans had voted for Amendment 64 than
for President Obama. And state officials, as you know, still work for
them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt