cannabisnews.com: City Must Enforce State Pot Law City Must Enforce State Pot Law Posted by CN Staff on November 07, 2005 at 11:51:47 PT Editorial Source: Rocky Mountain News Denver, Colorado -- The decision by Denver voters to legalize the possession of a small amount of marijuana is more symbolic than real: Only 36 adults were charged last year under the now-defunct city ordinance prohibiting possession. Meanwhile, 1,565 were charged under the state law, which remains intact. But Mason Tvert, the executive director of the group that put the initiative on the ballot, insists Denver authorities should respect voter wishes and stop charging anyone under the state law, too. "Right now," he told one reporter, "there are city officials denying the will of voters who put them in office, and I think that's disturbing." We understand Tvert's frustration, but the matter is not as simple as he makes it out to be. Yes, prosecution of even the state marijuana charges in Denver is left almost exclusively to city attorneys, who for such cases are deputized as special DAs. The regular district attorneys are too busy pursuing more serious crimes. In theory, the mayor could order Denver attorneys simply to stop pursuing such cases. But it would be unwise for him to do so, for three reasons. By far the most important reason is that cities can't - or at least shouldn't - pick and choose among state laws to enforce. Those statutes are supposed to apply equally to all citizens. When states like Colorado passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes in defiance of federal law, they at least had constitutional arguments in their corner involving the commerce clause and federal regulatory reach. Denver has no similar arguments on which to base an intention to ignore state law. Secondly, a pot charge is often a supplemental charge - an add-on to other charges such as trespass, public nuisance, etc. Law enforcement always likes to have as many arrows in its quiver as possible; if the perp gets off on one charge, perhaps he can be nailed with another. Finally, the vote to legalize pot possession was so unexpected that Denver citizens never engaged in a serious debate about its consequences. Most of the pre-election controversy had to do with whether the campaign's billboards were fair. Were Denver voters even aware they couldn't legalize pot, that a state law would remain in place? Does a majority even now really want their mayor to defy state authorities and declare he won't enforce Colorado law in the state capital? We don't know the answer to those questions, and neither does Tvert and his group. The Denver anti-pot ordinance is dead. Long live the state statute.Note: Picking among statutes not a wise option. Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News (CO)Published: November 7, 2005Copyright: 2005 Denver Publishing Co.Contact: letters rockymountainnews.comWebsite: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/Not a Legalized High, but Sensible Spendinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21272.shtmlPot Considered 'Murder Weed' in 1937http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21270.shtmlPot Vote Prompts Worldwide Attentionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21268.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #20 posted by john wayne on November 11, 2005 at 11:19:27 PT hit 'em where it hurts Here's what I wanna know: is this editorial going to make anyone cancel their friggin' subscription to this archaic rag? Well? Or will another few years go by while these ridiculous "journalists" (actually: chroniclers of the american corporate police state) continue to spew out thier peurile garbage while cannabis users pay their salaries? [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by ekim on November 08, 2005 at 20:54:15 PT who were the lucky 36 related toooooo Only 36 adults were charged last year under the now-defunct city ordinance prohibiting possession. Meanwhile, 1,565 were charged under the state law, which remains intact. http://www.leap.cc/events [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by schmeff on November 08, 2005 at 11:38:20 PT "No Similar Arguments" "When states like Colorado passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes in defiance of federal law, they at least had constitutional arguments in their corner involving the commerce clause and federal regulatory reach. Denver has no similar arguments on which to base an intention to ignore state law."That's just silly. The argument is "Democracy". (reference also: will of the people) [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Dankhank on November 08, 2005 at 10:28:53 PT Another from your link siege Ritalin is early training to introduce children to drug abuse. Today, a black market for obtaining Ritalin without a prescription has developed on some college campuses, where some students actually crush the pills and snort them like cocaine. In fact, research has shown that children on Ritalin are three times more likely to develop a taste for cocaine. Harks back to a recent thread re: Gateway Drug ... http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21273.shtml#16 [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by siege on November 08, 2005 at 07:34:17 PT IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO DESTROY A CHILD http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom40.htmIn the old days, children were warned not to smoke because it would stunt their growth. Apparently the same warning can now be issued on Ritalin. Researchers at the University of Sydney have analyzed 29 separate studies on the subject and have concluded that there is indication that some Ritalin users may experience slow or even MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL(Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). SAMHSA is the federal agency that will implement the Actionhttp://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis48.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Jim Lunsford on November 08, 2005 at 03:57:42 PT Something for everyone to consider Focus, not on the rudenesses of others, not on what they've done or left undone, but on what you have & haven't done yourself.-Dhammapada, 4, translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.Rev Jim LunsfordFirst Cannabist ChurchWorld Peace: Begins with you [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on November 07, 2005 at 22:09:25 PT Lawrence Commission to Decide Pot-Law Fine Kansas: Lawrence Commission to Decide Pot-Law Fine November 7, 2005Lawrence commissioners are expected to decide Tuesday on how much fines should be for first-time pot possession.They'll consider whether to deviate from state guidelines and set minimum fines for violators of a new proposed ordinance.The commission recently gave tentative approval to a proposal that would allow first-time marijuana offenders to be tried in city court instead of district court.The Lawrence-based Kansas Drug Policy Forum proposed the change, arguing that taking first-time offenders to city court would be more efficient for police and firefighters.The group notes that only three of the 50 largest cities in Kansas, Overland Park, Olathe and Garden City, have passed laws that impose harsher penalties than state law.Copyright: 2002-2005 Gray Television Group, Inc. http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/1956077.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on November 07, 2005 at 21:40:12 PT New Google Videos NORML On The Street Interviews Interview - Richard Cowan Editor/Publisher, Marijuananews http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-180620832946681780&q=marijuanahttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529790189437735169&q=marijuanahttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-514138521059636963&q=marijuanahttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4130155407712135239&q=marijuana [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 07, 2005 at 20:28:28 PT Just a Clarification I am not worried about guns and marijuana but I will always be concerned about getting in trouble because everyone has to worry about that in these current times we are in. They could connect activism some way with a gun maybe and I think it's better safe then sorry at least for me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on November 07, 2005 at 20:07:49 PT Hope I think I'm right that if a person's house is raiding and they find marijuana and a gun that it turns into a much more severe penalty. Reagan and something called Rico comes to mind but I'm not that clear as to what it actually is or if it's a part of a Rico law. I am not into guns so just getting rid of our registered gun seemed the safest thing to do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Hope on November 07, 2005 at 19:47:43 PT Alcohol Prohibition gave us the first gun laws. Before the first prohibition...of alcohol, we just had the right as citizens to keep and bear arms. The violence of the prohibition era is what brought us our first gun laws and major restrictions. Anyone interested in all their rights better look to what prohibition does.When they start taking your rights, as we know, other assumed rights get dragged away with them. Prohibition bred violence, and that violence gave birth to restrictive gun laws. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by b4daylight on November 07, 2005 at 18:59:15 PT WTF Finally, the vote to legalize pot possession was so unexpected that Denver citizens never engaged in a serious debate about its consequences. Most of the pre-election controversy had to do with whether the campaign's billboards were fair.By far the most important reason is that cities can't - or at least shouldn't - pick and choose among state laws to enforce. Those statutes are supposed to apply equally to all citizens.Editorial should be fired...First the mayor did not want to debate nor does any prohibitioners......Second if this is true why do they have city and local laws????Secondly, a pot charge is often a supplemental charge - an add-on to other charges such as trespass, public nuisance, etc. Law enforcement always likes to have as many arrows in its quiver as possible; if the perp gets off on one charge, perhaps he can be nailed with another.Where is the stats on this? often how many times? Second You want alot of laws so you can bust be people "with every arrow"?Were Denver voters even aware they couldn't legalize pot, that a state law would remain in place? Does a majority even now really want their mayor to defy state authorities and declare he won't enforce Colorado law in the state capital?We don't know the answer to those questions, and neither does Tvert and his group. The Denver anti-pot ordinance is dead. Long live the state statute.First they did buddy>> Second if they were not aware then you prohibitioner did not do your job...Last Wait till they change the state law next mr. green reporter... ohh and by the way you contradicted your selfThe decision by Denver voters to legalize the possession of a small amount of marijuana is more symbolic than rea [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by mayan on November 07, 2005 at 18:20:17 PT Voters Insulted Were Denver voters even aware they couldn't legalize pot, that a state law would remain in place? Does a majority even now really want their mayor to defy state authorities and declare he won't enforce Colorado law in the state capital?Considering that this very paper,prior to the vote, ran numerous articles quoting the mayor,police chief,attorney general,etc. as saying I-100 would have no effect on state law, I would say that Denver voters were very aware of that fact. A clear majority of Denver voters chose legalization. All the sour grapes in the world can't change that. What an insult to the folks of Denver!THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...Philanthropist and 9/11 Truth-Seeker to Picket Outside New York Times Building in Week-Long Protest of Media Censorship: http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/36813.htmREOPEN911 Comes to New York: http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60319/11, Iraq & PNAC - The Connection is Clear & Undeniable: http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=181Newsday Does 9/11: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/150+ 9/11 Smoking Guns Found in the Mainstream Media: http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.htmlAs The Treason Unravels, A Call to Action: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051106210815360 [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on November 07, 2005 at 16:21:17 PT Web Site of Interest http://www.waitingtoinhale.org/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Toker00 on November 07, 2005 at 15:06:27 PT Very good! Play it again, Sam!!Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 07, 2005 at 14:08:54 PT Off Topic: Radio Netherlands Turn a Blind Eye or Make it Legal? The Dutch Soft Drugs DilemmaBy Rutger van Santen, 7 November 2005The legalisation of soft drugs in the Netherlands is gradually coming closer. A majority in the Dutch parliament first wants to experiment with regulating the cultivation of marijuana, much to the dissatisfaction of Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, who squarely opposes their legalisation.The contemporary Dutch policy with regard to soft drugs fits seamlessly into an old Dutch tradition that today is referred to with the Dutch verb ‘gedogen.’ This word, which finds its English equivalent in the expression ‘turning a blind eye’, means that something is tolerated although officially it is prohibited or otherwise considered undesirable. This toleration is usually for the sake of maintaining the peace.Rules, regulations, toleranceHistorians trace the Dutch ‘gedoog’ culture of turning a blind eye back to the eve of the 17th century, the Golden Age when the Netherlands was a safe haven for all kinds of religious communities and sects that together constituted the most important seafaring trade nation in the world. The country, of course, had rules and regulations but the time and energy it would have cost to maintain them were rather spent on making money and in other ways to advance the individual and the nation. Thus a ‘live and let live’ mentality developed as regards not being too strict about the law. Catholicism was prohibited, but as long as Catholics built their churches in inconspicuous places they were left in peace. Alcohol was also forbidden, but it tasted good and also brought in considerable tax revenues. So people drunk as ever before and after.Buying and sellingThe present situation with regard to soft drugs is similar. According to Dutch law, it is legal to buy or sell small quantities of hashish or marijuana in the world famous ‘coffee shops’. But, at the same time, it remains officially prohibited for the managers of these coffee shops to purchase their merchandise in large quantities. For years, however, the authorities turned a blind eye and left them to do their business. In a parallel development, however, the home cultivation of marijuana has exploded in the Netherlands. Initially, the authorities turned a blind eye here as well; but after it became clear that organised crime had infiltrated the home cultivation circuit on a large scale, law enforcement became stricter, a development that was enthusiastically supported by the Christian Democrat party (CDA) in the national government. Home growers are usually easy to prosecute because they often steal electricity and violate the rules of housing corporations which sometimes explicitly prohibit the cultivation of marihuana in their contracts.Home cultivatorsThis approach has, however, has meanwhile turned out to be very ineffective. The judiciary has become constipated with the enormous amount of cases against small home cultivators, while the big criminals remain out of its reach, and the coffee shops sell as much soft drugs as they did before.Because of this, a political majority is developing now n favour of full legalisation of all the stages in the soft drugs cycle. An overwhelming majority of the Dutch population is already convinced that moderate consumption of soft drugs holds no significant risk for public health and that, in any case, alcohol and tobacco are much more dangerous. Full legalisation would also be a great relief for the police and judiciary, who would then be able to concentrate on more important matters such as organised crime and terrorism. As the liberal-conservative coalition partner VVD now also tends towards legalisation, the ruling CDA stands almost alone in its resistance.Outspoken resistanceThe most outspoken representative of the CDA opposition to legalisation is Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner. Among other things, he argues that the Netherlands cannot afford the legalisation in a European context and that it would amount to sending an immoral message to young people around the world. But the chance that Mr Donner will eventually succeed in his campaign is very slim.Whatever happens, legalisation will not take place immediately. Coalition politics after all consists of policies of small steps. The first step is an experiment, whereby coffee shop owners are allowed to grow their own merchandise. But meanwhile everybody seems to expect that - within a reasonable time span - average Dutch consumers will be able to roll marijuana cigarettes with products from their own gardens.Principles and pragmatismAlso important is the fact that the conservative-liberal VVD - one of the three governing parties - will begin its election campaign soon, and that 80 percent of its supporters – being in this case liberal rather than conservative - are in favour of legalisation. The Dutch are principled but if necessary also pragmatic. And that is the essence of the ‘gedoog’ culture of turning a blind eye.Copyright: Radio Nederland Wereldomroephttp://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/ned051107?view=Standard [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by sam adams on November 07, 2005 at 13:31:52 PT Couldn't agree more, Observer and Don It's funny that these guys pretend like they're presenting a methodical, logical list of reasons why they're right. The result is laughable.We shouldn't pick & choose what state laws to enforce. If this makes sense, then there are FAR more pressing problems with law enforcement than cannabis laws. What about speeding? 90% of drivers are getting away with rampant speeding, lane changes with signalling, complete stops at stop signs. We must immediately begin cracking down on jaywalking in Denver as well. Thousands of perps are on the loose! Better check the sex laws as well, I'm sure some of those are still on the books - i.e., sex is illegal unless you're married, oral sex is illegal, etc, etc, most states still have those on the books.If we need more laws to pile onto perps, why mess with cannabis? Only a small fraction of people have cannabis. And, since I'm sure these mid-western, backward-ass city-based-editors are REALLY refering to blacks & latinos when they say "perps", let's bring back Jim Crow all the way! No looking white women in the eye, no walking on sidewalks, etc, I'm sure if the editors did a quick workshop with the state legsilature they could whip something up so that the cops could nail any perp whenever they wanted, and the police state would be complete.And of course, those silly voters were duped again - all of the "controversy" centered on a billboard campaign. Well who was responsible for that? Who printed all articles on the billboards & refused to interview the SAFER spokespeople and experts from the commmunity? It's the media's job to facilitate debate & present information. What, do they need a second try at it? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 07, 2005 at 12:36:51 PT Possessing a Gun We do not have a gun in our house because you can get in a lot of trouble and they will charge a person with a gun law but I'm not sure why or how that came to be. I have a dog for protection. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dongenero on November 07, 2005 at 12:35:42 PT who is the idiot behind this editorial... ...because it's really about how many people we can possibly "nail" with as many options in our "quiver" as possible.Because nailing people is cool. Putting people in cages to be raped is cool. We need as many ways to do it as possible!The law is the law and can never be changed! Maybe we should make a law against trying to change laws. Then we would have yet another law in our "quiver" with which to "nail" our citizens. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by observer on November 07, 2005 at 12:30:27 PT Sentence first -- verdict afterwards Secondly, a pot charge is often a supplemental charge - an add-on to other charges such as trespass, public nuisance, etc. Law enforcement always likes to have as many arrows in its quiver as possible; if the perp gets off on one charge, perhaps he can be nailed with another.Whoa... how does this paper's use of the word perp here square with notions of "innocent until proven guilty"? The person is a "perp" -- thus worthy of punishment -- and 'tis only a matter of ensuring they are "nailed" with some punishment? Perp ... Nailed ... Sentence first--verdict afterwards! This means that anyone (the "perp") swept into police dragnets (i.e., anyone, anytime) is automatically guilty of something. So when Officer Friendly makes "mistake" (oops, wrong apartment), government is Righteous and Pure to bust the "perp" for his joint. After all, the "perp" had to be "nailed" for something. And that's why cannabis users need be jailed all the more. Got it? decoding drug war propaganda at the speed of bot [ Post Comment ] Post Comment