home

Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possession

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Nov 02, 2005 at 09:15:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Denver residents voted to legalize the adult possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Mayor John Hickenlooper, who opposed the measure, calls the voters’ desire for a rational drug policy “symbolic” since state law still criminalizes pot possession. It’s true that Denver can’t override state law, but nothing requires Denver police to arrest individuals for personal use possession, and it’s clear that Denver residents would prefer law enforcement to have more sensible priorities.

The legalization campaign stressed that marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol, and argued that permitting adults to make a responsible choice to smoke pot could reduce the evils associated with drinking. It’s a strategy rooted in common sense that may appeal to voters elsewhere.

"A Denver victory clearly means that the drive to end marijuana prohibition has become a mainstream issue," said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "For a city of Denver's size in a red state to endorse something like this is really quite remarkable."

Update: (TL): See my post at 5280 for the practical effects of the measure. Also, Colorado's attorney general today confirmed that police will charge under state law.

Even though voters approved Initiative 100, Denver police still will bring charges under state law, which carries a fine of up to $100 and a mandatory $100 drug-offender surcharge for possession of small amounts of marijuana, said Attorney General John Suthers.

There is also a requirement of 16 hours community service, 18-18-432,
minimum, which I hope someone challenges in court since community service is punishment, and the pot petty offense statute says "shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100." CRS 18-18-406.

An initiative in Telluride lost by 24 votes yesterday that would have required police to make marijuana possession its lowest law enforcement priority. Law enforcement campaigned against the measure saying they didn't need voters telling them how to do their job. Plus, many noted, it already is a low priority there. There were 17 marijuana arrests in Telluride last year. I'd say that's 17 too many, but the voters disagreed.

< Rumsfeld on Valerie Plame | Police Detective Sues for Wrongful Conviction >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possession | 31 comments (31 topical)
    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    Even if this were an enforceable law -- the feds already say they will bust everyone -- how can you limit possession to just an ounce without a growers' license? It seems to me that pot plants have more than an ounce of pot on them, so anyone growing it would be outside the law. If you can't grow it, you can't possess it.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    “Law enforcement campaigned against the measure saying they didn't need voters telling them how to do their job.”
    Folks that can’t abide being told how to do their job best figure a way to become their own boss. Bravo Denver.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    Looks like Caldara and the Independence Institue (another "Clear Skies"/1984 name from our Republican friends) got his ass kicked. Up one side, down the other.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    Pot plants aren't covered by the law. They fall under the state and federal cultivation statutes. Possession of even one plant is a felony in Colorado, unless one has a medical marijuana permit, in which case up to six plants are allowed. Federally, cultivation is also a felony and there are no medical marijuana exceptions. Federally, possession of any amount of pot for personal use is a misdemeanor.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    Way to go, Denver. I am always surprised when something sane happens.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#6)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    "For a city of Denver's size in a red state to endorse something like this is really quite remarkable."
    That statement is itself remarkable. Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with Colorado politics knows that the city of Denver is a deep blue oasis in the midst of rural redness.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    I'm cool with it. Is it a crime to be baked in public as well or just use in public?

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    The legalization campaign stressed that marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol...
    Alternative? Don't stoners drink, and don't booze-hounds get high? I've never smoked pot, but I do smoke tobacco. Sometimes while drinking. It's not hard, you just have to be careful with the lighter around high-proof hooch.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    i don't know that i agree with your assertion that pot is a safer alternative to alcohol, as a blanket statement. both have their downsides. driving while high is just as dangerous as driving while drunk. impaired is impaired, regardless of the source. long and short-term use of alcohol adversely affects your health: killing brain cells, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. the short & long-term affects of constant pot smoking really are unknowns at this point, since little non-political scientific analysis has been done. however, some medical investigative types have compared it, unfavorably, to tobacco use. don't get me wrong, i'd love to be able to go down to the neighborhood tobacconist's, purchase a (clean) bag o' my favorite herb, at a reasonable price, taxes included, and light up a bowl after the kid's are in bed. i'm not so sure the alcohol industry will stand for that though, the competition would be a killer for their balance sheets. frankly, aside from the late harry anslinger's factless campaign against it, no reputable politician has ever really put forth a legitimate reason why pot's illegal in the first place. any more so than why alcohol & tobacco are still legal, given what we do know about the adverse affects caused by their use.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    oh, i neglected to mention, with regards to the police: the voters already tell them how to do their jobs, indirectly, through our elected representatives. since we pay their salaries, this seems eminently reasonable. if they don't like it, i suggest they go into private practice. of course, even in private practice, there are still rules and regulations to be followed.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#11)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    “Law enforcement campaigned against the measure saying they didn't need voters telling them how to do their job.”
    What a rediculous statement. As a part of the democratic system, voters are the ultimate bosses of the police. Of course they need voters to tell them how to do their job. That's the whole point of a democratic republic right?

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#12)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    driving while high is just as dangerous as driving while drunk. Actually, that's not true. Marijuana does cause impairment, but it's less dangerous than alcohol behind the wheel of a car. Marijuana actually causes drivers to be more careful, which tends to compenate for the impairment, while alcohol causes more recklessness. In fact, marijuana provides, on the whole, significantly less of an impairment than alcohol or fatigue. This has been shown in numerous studies. The most recent was French study last month. Here is more info, including results of Dutch, Australian, British, and American studies. This doesn't mean that you should drive while stoned, or that driving while impaired by anything should be illegal, but the scare tactics of legalized pot suddenly making the roads dangerous are unfounded.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#13)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    Marijuana actually causes drivers to be more careful, which tends to compenate for the impairment, while alcohol causes more recklessness.
    That's kinda hard to believe. I would imagine it depends on the person, similar to alcohol.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    In the Transport Research Laboratory study in 2000,
    ...researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously. Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking." This was confirmed in a follow-up study a year later. That study also indicated that alcohol users gained some of that caution if they also smoked marijuana. Again, not an endorsement for driving while high, but a recognition that there are overall differences in the effects on driving ability.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    The TRL study examined the driving performance of fifteen volunteers while under the influence of low and high doses of marijuana, and while sober. All volunteers were tested using a sophisticated driving simulator. Researchers found that marijuana appeared to adversely influence subjects' ability to accurately steer a car (so-called "tracking ability"), but found their reaction time and all other measures of driving performance to be unaffected by the drug. Researchers further noted that subjects were cognizant of their impairment and "attempt[ed] to compensate for [it] by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly."
    15 people? That's a relatively small sample to make such a large assertion on. I don't care how unaffected your reaction time is if you can't accurately stear a vehicle, what's the difference? I think it's a bad example to use. It's same old argument, it's not as bad as alcohol. So what? I don't want stoned drivers on the road either, and some will read this study and think it's OK.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    again, impaired is impaired, regardless of what is causing it. pot should be treated similarly to alcohol in most states: sold in abc stores, and taxed, with the same age restrictions as alcohol & tobacco. of course, the law enforcement & penal lobbies wouldn't like that either, too many jobs on the line there. the more things that can be made illegal, the more jobs available in those fields. as well, the more tax dollars needed to support them. it's a nasty circle.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#17)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    EVERY study that has been done on marijuana and driving has come up with the same results. You may worry that some will think that it's safe because of the studies. That's no reason to avoid the truth. What I worry about is legislators who pass zero-tolerance drugged driving laws, where any metabolite in the blood counts as drugged driving -- so someone who smoked pot two days earlier is busted for drugged driving without any impairment whatsoever. There are already state laws to that affect, and federal laws considered. As cpinva keeps liking to say over and over "impairment is impairment" -- Yes, and if you are actually impaired, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. But that's not the question. It's possible to drink a glass of wine without being impaired. It's possible to have smoked a joint in the past few days without being impaired. We need to look at ways of actually measuring impairment -- not just parrot the same old drug warrior propaganda.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    cpinva-actually moderate weed intake can cause better driving as it tends to improve focus for physical activity and does not impair motor skills. Many athletes toke up before sports to improve their physical focus.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    Maybe somebody I can legally smoke pot to help with the pain from the cancer I get from smoking tobacco cigarettes. And the pot tax money can subsidize the tobacco farmers who lose business from bans on smoking tobacco in public.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    I just wanted to say that I worked on teh I-100 campaign here in Denver to legalize marijuana and there is still the resistance from all levels of government. It does not stop here though. I work for SAFER (saferchoice.org) which finds opportunities around the country to make a difference and we obviously did. But I just want everyon to look forward to 2008 when a group called Sensible Colorado (sensiblecolorado.org) IS going to get this on teh ballot as a statewide initiative. We got a tough 2 years ahead of us but we'll be good. I would just like everyone to educate themselves on what we're trying to do here because this is what it's all about. When folks get educated, they will start to realize exactly what we are saying here. Please go to the two sites above and mpp.org which is teh marijuana policy project fro teh nation. It has just begun and with a hell of a bang. Thanks. If anyone cares to email me for whatever reason feeel free. kkhalatbari@yahoo.com Take care all, Kayvan.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    Also every teh above is the. Terrible typer. I'm sure you could all tell.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    Peter G. I don't disagree, impairment is impairment, but in this very thread, squeaky says,
    cpinva-actually moderate weed intake can cause better driving as it tends to improve focus for physical activity and does not impair motor skills. Many athletes toke up before sports to improve their physical focus.
    I have to say my point has been made.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#23)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    Patrick, I am Pete Guither, the author of a drug policy reform site that believes that the government policies regarding marijuana have done far more harm than marijuana ever has or could. Peter G is an attorney who also comments regularly at TalkLeft. We are not the same person.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    Pete, Yes I'm aware of who you are, I checked out your site long ago, when we first had our debates. Sorry if my laziness caused confusion. Can't say I agree with everything on your site, but keep up the good work.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    pete - while i certainly appreciate your cause, i must disagree with your conclusions, as well as those of "studies" using statistically invalid #'s of volunteers. 15 out of 300 billion, absent a margin of error of 30%, is hardly representative of the population as a whole. to make blanket statements, based on those numbers, is just not good science. speaking as one who has extensive first-hand experience in the matter, i can assure you that i was driving while impaired. i would agree that there are different levels of impaired, absolutely. however, being realistic, in the absence of uniform levels of THC, it would be nearly impossible to come up with even a rudimentary scale, such as is used with alcohol. additionally, with alcohol, there is a direct correlation between consumption, weight, long-term use and anticipated level of impairment. there are no such factors presently identified for pot. as the cpa said, when asked by the potential client, "how much is two plus two?", it depends. again, i'm all for re-legalizing pot, it shouldn't ever have been illegal in the first place. just don't delude yourself into thinking it's "safe", it isn't, any more so than alcohol, or any other drug that causes mental altered states.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#26)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    “Law enforcement campaigned against the measure saying they didn't need voters telling them how to do their job.”
    Wow, now that's hubris. Now the police demand the right to enforce nonexistant laws? How does that differ from "personal whim", exactly?
    I don't want stoned drivers on the road either, and some will read this study and think it's OK.
    Patrick, you seem to be missing something here. I'll never drive while stoned because I don't feel safe doing it. Most people are the same way. That's what causes stoned drivers to be on or off the road, not the law.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    Scar, I think I hit the nail on the head. Perhaps I'm dense this morning, what am I missing? A person in this very thread said driving stoned made people better drivers. Personal experience makes that difficult to believe.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#28)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    An acquaintance of mine drove his car into the side of a convenience store because he was too high to drive. But I don’t see that if/how MJ effects driving ability is consequential; it is my impression that the change in the Denver possession law doesn’t change the DUI law.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#29)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    How do you properly police stoned driving? I dont think it matters b/c there are so many stoners out there driving around right now and I doubt that the stoned driver percentages would increase all that much with legalization of pot. For the most part, people that are going to toke and drive will toke and drive no matter what the law says.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    ok, i think i'm kind of responsible for inadvertantly getting us into the subject of stoned drivers, and somehow that became an argument against re-legalization of pot. that wasn't my intent. my only point, and i apparently made it poorly, was that a blanket assertion that pot is "better" than alcohol, is one that i disagreed with. i also would disagree with a generalization that pot is worse than alcohol. all mind altering drugs are going to impact your ability to function normally, hence the "mind altering" aspect. to say otherwise is deluding yourself. THC is a psychotropic drug. as such, it will affect driving, flying, etc. how much it affects a given individual is, like alcohol, based on that individual's metabolism. would there be any more affected drivers, were pot legalized? beats the heck out of me. i'm pretty sure there won't be any fewer though.

    Re: Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possessi (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    OK, so this is seen as a victory for the pro-legalization side of the issue. My questions is does this mean citizens in Denver will be more likely to be more public with their activity, and hence arrests (Citations and custodial) will go up? And when that happens (Increased arrests) will the pro lobby then cite it as a point of failure in the WOD? I had a long conversation with a few posters in another thread, and I believe a large part of the increase in arrests for marijuana is related to the changing attitude of society regarding it's use. I think this is another location, along with California, that will support that belief.

    Denver Votes to Legalize Personal Pot Possession | 31 comments (31 topical)