Possession of Marijuana Now Legal in Breckenridge

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 06:34:11 PM EST
Tags: marijuana reform, Breckenridge (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In November, Breckenridge voters overwhelmingly passed an initiative decriminalizing >adult possession of small amounts of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. It went into effect today.

Breckenridge is the first town in the country to decriminalize drug paraphernalia, and the second to allow recreational marijuana use (Denver is the first.) Since under state law, possession of up to an ounce of pot or drug parahphernalia carries a $100.00 fine and is classified as a petty offense, it can leave you with a criminal record. So the change in Breckenridge is a welcome one, and not that trivial.

It remains to be seen whether Breckenridge becomes the "Amsterdam of the Rockies", or takes business away from neighboring Frisco, Silverthorne and Dillon, which serve the same ski areas, or results in an uptick in arrests for related activity.

"Skiing while stoned" is still illegal under other laws. As is buying, selling and growing marijuana and smoking or displaying it in public.

< UK to Host International Summit on Yemen, U.S. to Attend | A New Potential GOP Candidate? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Possession of Marijuana Now Legal in Breckenridge | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Skiing while stoned (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 10:09:21 PM EST

is also stupid

Perhaps... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 08:06:24 AM EST

I'd say that is for each individual to decide...not much of a skier myself but sleigh-riding stoned is a blast!

I'll tell ya what is stupid...having a law against skiing while stoned...that right there is asinine.


Putting aside danger to stoned skiier, (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 11:05:33 AM EST

let's ponder the effect of a stoned skiier on others on the slopes. Yes, it happens. BTW, despite common wisdom, IMO skiing is not as easy as riding a bike.


By all means (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Repack Rider on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 06:56:57 PM EST

let's ponder the effect of a stoned skiier on others on the slopes. Yes, it happens. BTW, despite common wisdom, IMO skiing is not as easy as riding a bike.

It is ABSOLUTELY as easy as riding a bike. Your statement sounds like something I would find in Reader's Digest, written by someone who never tried it.

The purpose of the lift ride is to have time to smoke a joint before the next run. I've skied, skateboarded, and raced my mountain bike after smoking, no problem. I've done that kind of thing all my life, I'm still a hard core mountain biker, and I turned 64 last month.

A single beer makes such athletic pursuits impossible for me because alcohol affects your reflexes and balance, while THC does not. One LEGAL beer in the lodge puts others on the slopes in more danger than all the weed in the snowboarders' pockets.


: Hmmmm. I have been a skier. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 09:54:30 PM EST

Ponder this... (none / 0) (#15)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 09:47:27 PM EST

Skiing, like riding a bike, is a matter of balance. Alcohol adversely affects your balance, pot does not. Alcohol makes you think you are Superman, pot does not.

The biggest danger on a ski run is drunks. That is followed by (and closely related to) people who ski beyond their abilities. That, in turn, is followed by people who simply become fatigued on the mountain.

Give me the potheads over the idiots who hit the bottle the minute they park the car and the lodge after every run and/or the morons who think they such great skiers that they do black runs when they belong on the greens anyday of the week.

And I say that as someone who has over 10,000 runs on my knees and ankles.


: Hmmmm (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:23:29 AM EST

Alcohol adversely affects your balance, pot does not.
YMMV, but that's not what research shows. And pot DOES impair your judgment, and skiing requires that too, no?

id love to hear your take on (none / 0) (#13)
by pitachips on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 11:15:07 AM EST

drinking and driving...


: Also stupid. (none / 0) (#18)
by jbindc on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:23:42 AM EST

I think it will result in an uptick (none / 0) (#1)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 07:40:10 PM EST

in arrest for UNrelated activity...since the police will be freed up to look for other transgressions.

To a hammer, everything is (none / 0) (#4)
by MKS on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 09:18:33 PM EST

a nail.....

If we decriminalize drugs, we could cut law enforcement....


: Mmmmmm (none / 0) (#6)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 10:10:56 PM EST

I wouldn't want that - still plenty of criminals that need to be caught. Lots of unsolved cases to solve, more community policing to prevent crimes, etc.
And hey - some junkies will still commit other crimes.

Under state law, (none / 0) (#2)
by Peter G on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 07:54:49 PM EST

does the adoption of this local ordinance make the statewide antipossession law inapplicable, or does it mean that local police won't enforce that law, or what? I can imagine, but don't know, that under Colorado state constitutional law, the local ordinance might simply be invalid if it contradicts state law, or it might trump (through a home rule principle, or some such). Simple possession of marijuana remains a misdemeanor under federal law, and possession of most drug paraphernalia is a federal felony, right? Those laws, although rarely enforced, of course remain on the books. Particularly for the nonlawyers who read TalkLeft, but also for interested lawyers, like me, I wish you would explain the significance -- both practical and legal -- of a local ordinance that contradicts state (not to mention federal) law.

May become especially significant to (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 07:59:59 PM EST

skiiers coming to Breckenridge. Assume the ski runs are on national forest property.


: Very good point (none / 0) (#7)
by athyrio on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 11:13:33 PM EST

Excellent point, Oculus!!

In Denver they have said they (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 02:56:14 AM EST

will use the state law to trump the muncic. ordinance. Breckenridge has signalled they won't, but they will enforce other cirmes, like smoking in public, on skilifts, etc.


While these changes (none / 0) (#8)
by JamesTX on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 11:13:57 PM EST

are important, they still leave the primary issue with drug prohibition unchanged. I hope the measures don't stop here, but I am still not convinced we are on the way to change. Possession cannot occur without obtaining the drug, and that is still illegal. That means the same people are still in charge of manufacture and distribution -- primarily drug cartels and organized crime. And that is the problem with prohibition.

This is a move in the right direction, though. I am not sure this movement will take off, but it really appears to be gaining strength. Decriminalizing less than an ounce, though, isn't that much difference from what happened before. It actually sort of mirrors where we were in the 70s when they started dropping those kinds of quantities from felonies to misdemeanors. The reason it is similar is because the social and legal environment was different and back then. Misdemeanors were not serious crimes nor real threats to one's life and livelihood. Now they are, because computer reporting has made it possible, and misdemeanors can ruin your life. To knock something from a misdemeanor to nothing is about the same as making a felony into a misdemeanor in the 70s. The underlying assumption then was that one would have to be doing something wrong to begin with (some other behavior which brought on a search) to ever get caught with pot. Back then, that was a reasonable assumption, so making it a misdemeanor was essentially decriminalization.

Madison, WI: Similar ordinance since 1977 (none / 0) (#11)
by Ben Masel on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 09:57:36 AM EST

Madison Ordinance 23.20
23.20 REGULATIONS CONCERNING MARIJUANA AND CANNABIS.
(Section 23.20 Cr. by Ord. 5833, 4-18-77)

Purpose. The people of Madison specifically determine that the regulations herein contained concerning marijuana and cannabis are necessary to serve the ethical purpose of providing just and equitable legal treatment of the citizens of this community and to preserve the respect of such citizens for law, its process, and its administration.

Definitions. In this section:

Cannabis. The resin extracted from any part of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., or any other nonfibrous extract from any part of the plant containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Casually possess. The possession of not more than twenty-eight (28) grams of cannabis, or one hundred and twelve (112) grams of marijuana.
Marijuana. All parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds. It does not include cannabis or any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
23 - 12a Rev. 6/15/00
Sec. 23.20(2) OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC POLIC
Practitioner.

A physician, dentist, veterinarian, podiatrist, scientific investigator, or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.

A pharmacy, hospital, or other institution licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.

Public place. A place which is in public ownership or a place to which the public has access; distinguished from a private place
(3) A person may casually possess marijuana or cannabis in a private place. Such casual possession is not a crime and is not subject to forfeiture
(4) No person shall casually possess marijuana or cannabis in a public place unless such marijuana or cannabis was obtained directly from or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of her, his, or its professional practice.
(5) A violation of Subsection (4) of this ordinance shall be subject to a forfeiture of up to one hundred dollars ($100). (Am. by Ord. 9244, 8-14-87)
(6) A violation of this ordinance is not a crime and shall not subject a person found in violation thereof to loss of civil rights or to other disabilities imposed upon a person convicted of a crime. No entry or other record may be made which indicates that a person alleged or found to have violated this ordinance has been arrested for, charged with, prosecuted for, or convicted of a crime.
(7) Separability Clause. If any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.

Site Violator! (none / 0) (#20)
by Zorba on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:51:32 PM EST