If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rocky Mountain News)   Denver will still have to enforce Colorado state marijuana laws, no matter how many referendums they pass   (rockymountainnews.com) divider line 223
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

12345 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Nov 2005 at 3:44 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-07 04:10:01 PM
I love this final line.

"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.


That just summed up the writer nicely.
 
2005-11-07 04:11:07 PM
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.

Which is pure and utter BS. Police and prosecutors pick and choose which laws to enforce all the time...at some level, that's their job. There's nothing that requires a prosecutor to prosecute someone for anything really, nor are they required to prosecute for the maximum possible infraction (though typically they do and then it gets talked down.) And once that happens, there's no particular requirement that the sentencing occur the same way for everyone.

I do criminal research for a living and you'd be blown away at the variety of different sentences that occur--especially from one county to another (at least here in Ohio.) What would get you 6 months suspended sentence and 2 years community control in one county will just get you 3 years jail in another.
 
2005-11-07 04:14:02 PM
I better clarify my last post, to forestall the obvious counterargument: yes, a person may be guilty of posession. I don't agree with the law, but that's not my point at the moment. Either that is a "primary" charge to arrest him under (i.e., he deserves to be punished), or it's a meaningless way for the police to punish him in light of the possibility that he might not be found guilty of the important charges.

By way of analogy: suppose someone filed a false accusation against me, and the police believed them, but I was acquitted by the jury. Suppose further that some policemen got together before the trial and said "Look, we all think this guy is guilty. If he gets off the hook, let's trail his car and ticket him every time he goes 5 over the limit." Perfectly legal, I'm only being charged for legitimate crimes, but not a very savory thought.
 
2005-11-07 04:14:53 PM

"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. Praise the Fatherland. Praise the Fuerher."

\If the Godwin fits, wear it.
 
2005-11-07 04:15:25 PM
45cal:

If you can pass something like this in a city the size of denver you can then hopefully ramp this up to a state level.


And then the Roberts/Alito Supreme Court will strike it down.

The only thing that can change drug laws is Congressional action. State and local actions are only symbolic.
 
2005-11-07 04:15:54 PM
Jaboobinator
With the Supreme Court leaning right, we can look forward to several more decades of Drug War-alarity.

Hmmm...remember the medical marijuana case that came to the Supreme Court recently? It was decided 6-3 that the Controled Substances Act should still be enforced even when local and state laws permit marijuana use. Who were the three justices who dissented? Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor. The five liberals (Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Bryer, and Stevens) all decided against medical marijuana. Read their opinion; it doesn't even make sense. Scalia agreed with the five, but for a more rational reason. I could actually see where he was coming from, but the other five mindlessly applied a 1943 precedent saying in effect, "60 years ago the court decided that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to make laws governing not only interstate commerce, but activities related to interstate commerce. I guess that could be medical marijuana since it's sold across state lines sometimes."

I hate listening to uninformed BS from leftists. Here's your sign.
 
2005-11-07 04:15:56 PM
BillSPreston:
Can anyone form a coherent argument laying out why alcohol is legal and pot isn't? Alcohol seems to be a much more destructive drug.

It has nothing to do with any destructive effects. That's just what they peddle for PR. The truth is that the alcohol and tobacco industries don't want the competition so they support anti-marijuana legislation.

So to answer your question strictly as it was asked, the answer is "no".
 
2005-11-07 04:16:10 PM
Aren't there elections for law enforement officials, like sheriffs, or some crap. Vote for a new Sheriff in town who will vow to go after REAL bad guys, like guys who grab girls arms, or chics who glue wieners to stomachs.
 
2005-11-07 04:16:59 PM
Booze is taxable. Pot ain't. There was a time when it could have been taxed and regulated, but the drug warriors have created a climate that would make this impossible now.

Pot laws have nothing at all to do with public health. They have to do with the bazillion dollar industry the government has built around drug control. All those jails, DEA agents, corrections officers...there are entire towns that are sustained through enforcement of the drug war and the incarceration that it produces. Drug control is *big* business all around. Upsetting it's balance is a very dangerous thing to do economically.

No politician is going to risk economic instability so that people can get high. Just won't happen.
 
2005-11-07 04:17:19 PM
The insanity of the war on marijuana will continue so long as the nation is full of stupid voters. The issue exists only as a card in the politician's hand! If you're an incumbent, and you wish to keep your job, all you have to do is flash your 'Marijuana is dangerous' card to the braindead voters when a challenger breathes one molecule about rationality, and the stupid war continues.

Again, I'm not even a user. I'm sick and tired of marijuana being illegal. Suck it, soccer mom voters!
 
2005-11-07 04:20:17 PM
ghare: Gummint can't make SQUAT off weed if it's legal. Cuz it's like, a WEED, anybody can grow enough for their head

you can do the same thing with tobacco, how many people actually do?


/people will by weederettes because they are lazy, potheads even more so
 
2005-11-07 04:21:11 PM
johnc98: Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

Ecce Illae Papillae!
 
2005-11-07 04:21:33 PM
i meant buy, of course
 
2005-11-07 04:21:49 PM
TheRealShadowspawn:

Ban nothing
 
2005-11-07 04:22:02 PM
That would be tomorrow, r4nge...
 
2005-11-07 04:23:19 PM
SaintBrook: Scalia agreed with the five, but for a more rational reason.


Right. And who do you think Alito and Roberts would side with? Regardless, do you actually think a right wing court would allow a state to legalize/decriminalize marijuana if it were still illegal under federal law? I have a hard time seeing that happening.
 
rka
2005-11-07 04:26:49 PM
Was the vote here in Denver symbolic? Of course. But those who are somehow implying that it was useless are missing the point. Symbolic acts can sometimes lead to change. Rosa Parks sitting on the bus was a symbolic act too.

First Denver (or Oakland), next Kansas City, Chicago, San Francisco..and so on. And then, when the government falls back on "must ignore city law and enforce state law" you start getting people who, while normally content to ignore the issue, start getting pissed off that elected officials are ignoring the will of the people and then *they* get involved. So next maybe the state of Colorado itself overturns it's drug law. It's a progression.

30 million Americans supposedly smoke up. All they need are a few causes to rally around. Maybe the Denver vote is now one of those.

//P.S. Gay marriage will go the same way. One city at a time, one city at a time
 
2005-11-07 04:27:00 PM
The big bright beer advertisement on the side just adds insult to injury.

STATUS OF ALCOHOL = STILL LEGAL!
 
2005-11-07 04:27:28 PM
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.

Rocky Mountain News Editor, I hereby curse you with instant cancer
 
2005-11-07 04:30:36 PM
 
2005-11-07 04:32:26 PM
personally...as much as I love my weed, I dont think legalization is that great of an idea. The government has farked up every good thing it could, it will probably fark up our weed too. Decrimilization is the key, I can deal with a 20 dollar ticket....still get my homegrown without growing licenses and registration. Decriminalize and keep your local dealer in business.
 
2005-11-07 04:33:20 PM
rka: Was the vote here in Denver symbolic? Of course. But those who are somehow implying that it was useless are missing the point. Symbolic acts can sometimes lead to change. Rosa Parks sitting on the bus was a symbolic act too.

i agreed with everything you said (well, more hope that you are right then agree), but please don't do this, comparing this to segregation isn't going to get you anywhere
 
2005-11-07 04:34:20 PM
just read the article and the fact of the matter is
that no, denver doesnt have to enforce state law, as it stands now denver must specially deputize city attorneys who handle overflow on state crimes that take place in the city limits...like weed smokin'. So in fact state laws must be enforced by state resources, such as state troopers and DA's city police have no obligation, other then the fact that usualy do, to enforce state laws.


"By far the most important reason is that cities can't - or at leastshouldn't - pick and choose among state laws to enforce."


ok so now we go from weed is still illegal to denver, to weed is legal in denver, to weed is illegal in denver because, even though the state doesnt have the resources to prosecute, it would be rude, basically, to not enforce state law. despite the fact that 53% of denver residents are in favor of legalizing weed. .... yeah
 
2005-11-07 04:34:29 PM
SaintBrook

It still doesn't add up. As you yourself said, Scalia voted to strike down the law along with the majority. Why was his reason rational, while the reasoning of the others (who you call liberals... funny, I never pictured Anthony Kennedy as all that liberal) was not, I don't quite get.

Put it this way, to get the ruling overturned, first that assumes that Roberts and Alito would allow the state ruling, since both of them are replacing justices who did likewise; Thomas is the only remaining one. Then, there would have to be at least two more vacancies, and both of them would have to rule in this way as well.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that it's unlikely that said decision will be allowed by the SC alone. Which puts to rest this whole judicial activist fear. What needs to be done is to vote out Representatives who continue to impede cognitive liberty. D or R.
 
2005-11-07 04:36:14 PM
SaintBrook: Here's your sign.

Gawd Bill Engvall sucks. SUCKS. Oh how he sucks.

But interesting point on the SCOTUS...
 
2005-11-07 04:36:47 PM
Waitasec. According to the article you have an "unfunded mandate" going on. If the State wants to prosecute all them dope smokers, then the State should pay for it, not foist off the prosecution to Denver. Unless Denver gets paid a pretty penny to do those prosecutions, they should tell the State "no".

City attorneys should enforce city laws, not State laws. If the police are arresting so many people violating State law, then the State should either pay for their prosecution, or change the law.

If several western States refused to pay for prosecuting and incarcerating dope smokers, how soon do you think it would be before the feds started to question paying $500 Billion a year to arrest, try and put all them dope smokers in federal prison with federal laws, and federal agents?

Just say NO.
 
2005-11-07 04:36:55 PM
It doesn't matter if the State law or the Federal law. Either way the people have very little to no say in the way this country is governed when it comes to issues such as this.

In the unlikely event that a state vote made pot legal the feds would step right in and require enforcement due to federal law, or they would withhold federal funds for roads schools ect.
 
2005-11-07 04:38:16 PM
"you can do the same thing with tobacco, how many people actually do?"

Tobacco is not nearly as easy to grow and process as marijuana. You have to cure it... do all kinds of wacky stuff.

Pot is easily the easiest drug to "make" on your own. Second only to booze.
 
2005-11-07 04:40:03 PM
Jaboobinator
Right. And who do you think Alito and Roberts would side with? Regardless, do you actually think a right wing court would allow a state to legalize/decriminalize marijuana if it were still illegal under federal law? I have a hard time seeing that happening.

I really do think Roberts would've sided with Thomas. He's a federalist who believes that the 9th and 10th ammendments still mean something. I don't know too much about Alito. He could go either way, I guess, but he's not a justice yet either. Still, the fact remains that every liberal justice decided that Congress can regulate any thing under the sun, ninth amendment be damned.
 
rka
2005-11-07 04:43:10 PM
Lava

That is hilarious. Why do Canadians hate Marijuana?
 
2005-11-07 04:44:07 PM
considering the amount of tobaco taken in by the average user (like me) compared to the amount of pot taken in by the average user in any given "session" I think the argument for growing your own in terms of tobaco goes out the window...unless you have a few acres to grow it..and the proper equipmet to process it to a smokeable form, weed is very simple to get into a smokeable form after growing, and can be harvested much more often.

its all part of the great moral atmosphere of this country IE: "its only wrong cause we say it is"

and that should NEVER be the basis for legislation. after all, didnt our forefathers suposedly come to this land because there religion was "wrong cause we say it is"?
 
2005-11-07 04:44:36 PM
SaintBrook: Still, the fact remains that every liberal justice decided that Congress can regulate any thing under the sun, ninth amendment be damned.

That happened over 100 years ago. Recent liberal justices were just upholding the federal supremacy the government won in the civil war.
 
2005-11-07 04:44:38 PM
We've had the culture since the 60's and we're gonna keep it no matter what you do.

Signed,
pot-smoking liberals.
 
2005-11-07 04:46:27 PM
While I do think adults should be able to engage in smoking MJ I am very disturbed by some of the reports on how this legislation got passed.

"Do you want your community safer? Vote for [X]!" With the picture of a grubby man holding a whiskey bottle standing next to a woman with a black eye.

While I agree reasonable MJ use is less likely to lead to wife beatings than alcohol abuse, I hardly think Billy Bob is less likely to beat his trashy woman as a result. He probably smokes MJ already anyway or if not won't drop the bottle and pick up the pipe.

Of course it is also sickening people who voted didn't realize what the question was....
 
2005-11-07 04:46:36 PM
GnomePaladin: Gawd Bill Engvall sucks. SUCKS. Oh how he sucks.

<soooo off topic>i'll go ahead and say that i'm getting pretty tired of the whole blue collar comedy thing, larry the caple guy can be funny sometimes, though it probably helps if you are huffing paint fumes. ron white was farking hilarious the first time i heard him, more than five years ago, and he is still doing the same act! who is this for? alzheimer's patients? i can't imagine anyone else who wants to watch him do the same act a couple hundred times in different locations for a decade. foxworthy is a genuinely funny guy, and i won't take anything away from him, even if i'm not a big fan. oh, and bill engvall sucks. he sucks so long and hard i can't believe he hasn't sucked foxworthy's dick clear off yet. oh dear jah how he sucks.</off topic>

/that felt good
 
2005-11-07 04:47:46 PM
Aaron Haynes STATUS OF ALCOHOL = STILL LEGAL!

um, that'd be still legal _now_ - don't forget there was a time in this country's hisotry when it was not legal.
 
2005-11-07 04:51:02 PM
enourmousjuan:
it isn't just the liberals, very powerful republican/conservative businessman and politicians toke up all the time. They just are good about hiding it, and plus cops don't bust guys in suits...I find that my long hair, crappy jeans, and jimi hendrix shirts are the reason I got my possession charge.
 
2005-11-07 04:52:34 PM
Lava

Bravo!
 
2005-11-07 04:55:03 PM
Jdude: Tobacco is not nearly as easy to grow and process as marijuana. You have to cure it... do all kinds of wacky stuff.

you don't exactly have to, you could dry it out and roll it up, it's just better if you do


from Plantation House: The Home of Free Smoking

Curing tobacco is a means of removing any unpleasant smell that uncured tobacco has. You can smoke your tobacco without curing it if you don't mind the smell (not unlike herbal tobacco), but I'd advise against it. Curing tobacco doesn't take long and vastly improves the smell.
 
2005-11-07 04:56:08 PM
I thing there's a lack of understanding of how the Consitution works among a few Farkers. Firstly, the state and Federal law enforcement are essentially independent of one another. The Feds can't force the states to pass or enforce their laws (formally, though they've used Federal funding to bludgeon the states into doing so, such as raising the drinking age to 21). In California, an initiative legalized "medical" marijuana. The pot clubs are not being busted by the state or local gov'ts. Marijuana's still illegal under Federal law, though, and they're the ones making the arrests.

The situation is not the same with state and local governments. All local governments derive their authority from the states. States aren't required to have local governments at all, though as a matter of convenience and tradition they do.

Thus, it is perfectly legal for the state of Colorado to require all localities, including Denver, to enforce state laws. Unless and untill a state-wide initiative or legislative change occurs, that's the way it'll remain. There's no "selective enforcement" here.
 
2005-11-07 04:58:06 PM
OregonVet: While I agree reasonable MJ use is less likely to lead to wife beatings than alcohol abuse, I hardly think Billy Bob is less likely to beat his trashy woman as a result. He probably smokes MJ already anyway or if not won't drop the bottle and pick up the pipe.


Booze + weed = sleep

At least for me.
 
2005-11-07 05:01:14 PM
MWeather:

"That happened over 100 years ago. Recent liberal justices were just upholding the federal supremacy the government won in the civil war."

"BUZZZZZZZ!!!"

I'm so sorry MWeather, but thank you for playing and do try again.

\go study your Con Law a little bit befoe posting
\\that way you won't look quite so ignorant.
 
2005-11-07 05:01:30 PM
Referenda, dammit! The plural of "referendum" is "referenda".

Memorandum, memoranda.
Forum, fora.
Stadium, stadia.

That is all.
 
2005-11-07 05:03:42 PM
BillSPreston: You want to know why Alcohol is legal? Simple prohibition, ever heard of it? They tried and they failed miserably. Alcohol is simply too popular to ban, marijuana isn't.
 
2005-11-07 05:03:48 PM
Ward's_Back: BUZZZZZZZ!!!"

I'm so sorry MWeather, but thank you for playing and do try again.

\go study your Con Law a little bit befoe posting



Go study history. This started in the 1860s.
 
2005-11-07 05:04:40 PM

Actually, this being Fark, it should be

referendams

/morans
 
2005-11-07 05:05:07 PM
MWeather:

And by "This" you mean what exactly?
 
2005-11-07 05:05:41 PM
grotto_man: There's no "selective enforcement" here.

well, see, the thing here is the people enforcing the law are human, and human law enforcement officers tend to just go ahead and decide on their own what they are going to enforce, so yeah, maybe you should say "in theory there's no "selective enforcement" here", of course communism works in theory. in theory.


/wow, that was a long, stupid way of saying, "we'll see..."
 
2005-11-07 05:05:43 PM
rka: Rosa Parks sitting on the bus was a symbolic act too.

SSPinkerton: i agreed with everything you said (well, more hope that you are right then agree), but please don't do this, comparing this to segregation isn't going to get you anywhere

I disagree. The war on drugs has done even more damage to black people than to white people, and there's a good bit of evidence that it is intentional. Prior to the civil rights movement, black neighborhoods were much safer and black people were much less likely to have a prison record. You can either blame this on the end of segregation, or you can entertain the idea that something else is responsible for the breakdown.
 
2005-11-07 05:07:47 PM
benfergy
Why was his [Scalia's] reason rational

Justice Thomas said, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." Scalia agrees, but says that the power of Congress to regulate drugs rests not only on the Interstate Commerce clause, but on the Necessary and Proper clause. Congress has undertaken to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs, something within its right to do. But Scalia reasons that because of the Necessary and Proper clause, Congress can regulate activities that aren't interstate commerce (i.e. medical marijuana) that would make the enforcement of interstate commerce laws (no sale of drugs from state to state) impossible. Now he never really says why it would make enforcement of interstate commerce illegal; he just takes it as a given. I can see where he's coming from. It'd be awfully easy to break a law on transporting weed from one state to another to sell if you were allowed to grow some in your own yard. But I still agree with Thomas that this decision was a bad one for personal liberty since it puts the bar very low for the government to justify the regulation of anything.

Which puts to rest this whole judicial activist fear. What needs to be done is to vote out Representatives who continue to impede cognitive liberty. D or R.

Agreed. What we need is term limits. Every elected person gets one term. That's it. No vote whoring. No robbing from Peter to give to Paul while you're an elected official so that Paul will vote for you. But I don't think congressmen will ever vote themselves out of power that way. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report