cannabisnews.com: Mile High Controversy





Mile High Controversy
Posted by CN Staff on November 10, 2005 at 19:32:18 PT
By Daniel Boniface 
Source: Boulder Weekly
Colorado -- With the passage of Initiative 100, Denver voters make more than a statement about marijuana reform.Attitudes about cannabis seem to be changing in America, and nowhere is it more evident than in the Mile High City. Responding to the argument that marijuana is a safer alternative to alcohol when it comes to recreational drugs, voters approved Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative 100 earlier this month, making Denver the first city in the country to wipe out all penalties for possessing less than one ounce of herb for citizens over 21.
The vote passed 54 percent to 46 percent, but despite the voters' wish to wipe weed penalties from their law books, lawmakers and law enforcers have not been as willing to comply with voters' wishes. City officials and police say they will still enforce state laws that ban bud. However, last year, Denver passed a city ordinance that trumped state law, banning pit bulls, causing pro-pot types to question why lawmakers don't have the power to trump state law in regards to herb. While the result of the vote sends a statement to the entire nation about the changing sentiments surrounding bud, perhaps the biggest victory was the success of the campaign that pitted Mary Jane against America's current recreational drug of choice, alcohol. Skewed PerceptionMason Tvert, the man who led the successful campaign, started a group called SAFER in the wake of the two alcohol poisoning deaths at fraternities at CU and CSU in 2004. SAFER stands for Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, and refers to the widely held belief that marijuana is safer for both personal and societal health. "It's not whether the city and the state can implement I-100. It's whether they will," Tvert says. But try convincing anyone in the Denver Police Department of this, and you'll have a much more difficult task. "I wonder what those people really thought they were voting on," says John W. Burbach, lieutenant commander of the Denver PD. "That's just kind of my thought. The way the campaign went, if you followed it, there was a lot of misleading advertisement and whatnot." Burbach says people who thought they were voting for a safer Denver probably didn't realize they were voting to legalize cannabis. "Is it safer to have people under the influence of marijuana than something else? I don't think there's any clinical studies about that," Burbach says. According to Mary Chase of Colorado's State Health Department, from 1995 to 2004, Denver County had 54 deaths in which accidental alcohol poisoning was reported as the primary cause of death. During that same time span, Denver County had no deaths in which the primary cause was accidental poisoning due to cannabis. In fact, marijuana advocates say it is impossible to overdose on the drug. A respected mainstream British Medical Journal, the Lancet, backs this claim. "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health," the Lancet stated in an article published Nov. 11, 1995. And putting personal health aside, the effects of grass on society are much safer than alcohol. According to statistics from the Colorado Department of Transportation, between 1995 and 2003, there were 259 alcohol-related traffic deaths in Denver County alone, and 91 deaths in Boulder County during that same time period. On a statewide level in 2003, there 215 alcohol-related fatalities and only 34 associated with marijuana. A request for statistics regarding domestic violence and violent crime related to alcohol and marijuana use was denied by the Denver PD on the grounds that the department didn't specifically track the data. According to the National Commission of Marihuana and Drug Abuse, a report commissioned by President Richard Nixon to determine the problems surrounding weed, alcohol abuse has long been a problem in the United States. "Alcohol is of proven danger to individual and societal health, and the public is well aware of its dangers, yet use of this drug has not been accorded the same problem status," the report states. Mary Jane advocates say the only thing dangerous or bad about pot is the fact that it's illegal and can be risky to buy. And despite the fact that Denver voters want to have a safer alternative to alcohol, brewery owner and Mayor John Hickenlooper isn't ready to comply with the desires of the constituents who put him in office. "It was surprising that it passed," Hickenlooper says. "Obviously, I'm sure you're aware, the state law takes precedent over city law. A home-rule city like Denver can add laws to the state, but we can't take away a state law." Lindy Eichenbaum Lent, communications director for the mayor's office, offered the following statement: "The bottom line is: Alcohol is not currently illegal, but marijuana is. Those statistics certainly raise interesting questions that lawmakers at the both the state and federal level will have to grapple with. If nothing else, Initiative 100 has stimulated debate and dialogue on these issues." Pit Bulls and Pot It would be easy to buy the mayor's answer if it weren't for a little matter concerning pit bulls. Colorado State law prohibits banning any specific breed of dog, but that didn't stop the Denver City Council from passing an ordinance in 2004 making it illegal to possess pit bulls within the city limits. According to a survey conducted by Denver's Channel 9, out of more than 4,000 people polled, 65 percent opposed the pit bull ban, and only 32 percent agreed with it. After the state passed a law that made breed-specific bans unconstitutional, the city sued the state and won. This set an important precedent regarding the power of local governments to enact city laws that trump state laws. Already, Aurora has followed suit and has a pit bull ban of its own in the works. This victory has cannabis advocates asking why a city law can trump a state law when it comes to pit bulls, but not when it comes to marijuana. "I guess I don't understand the thought there," says Burbach. "It seems like the two are separate. The City Council passed a ban against pit bulls. And I guess the voters have the opportunity to pass a law that says they don't want a ban on pit bulls if they want." However, Eichenbaum Lent points out a distinction between the two situations. "The pit bull bans are an example of cities strengthening its ordinances to go beyond state law in terms of enforcement," she said in a written statement. "As a home-rule city, Denver can pass stronger laws than the state, but we cannot weaken, ignore or overrule state laws. This was made quite clear prior to the election." But, according to Bill Piper, director of national affairs for Drug Policy Alliance in Washington D.C., Denver voters should hold their representatives accountable. "I don't know where the Denver City Council stands," Piper says, "but it seems like they can fulfill the will of the voters by passing something that prohibits local law enforcement from charging people under state law." Marijuana advocates say this would fulfill the requirement of adding to the state laws—tacking on a restriction on local law enforcement and forcing either the state or federal law enforcement to come in and enforce the laws, something Piper says would be a complete waste of resources. If the City Council and the mayor refuse to uphold the will of the voters, Piper and Tvert say they should be held responsible come re-election time and be removed from office.  Sending a MessageAll over the state, messages are being sent about the perception of pot. "Certainly, it does underscore the fact that Denver is a young city," says Hickenlooper. "I think the passage of Initiative 100 is a symbolic changing of attitudes." Piper feels the perception is changing as well, but feels the government has made it difficult to overcome the negative perception cannabis has been given. Piper points to an anti-pot campaign that airs commercials, paid for with taxpayer dollars. "You've got 70 years of propaganda to overcome. You have a drug czar president who for the last four years has gone around the country saying marijuana is the most dangerous drug in America. Meanwhile, methamphetamine is spreading across the country." Tvert has already run into this negative perception on the campuses of CU and CSU—the two places that spurned his organization. He ran successful campaigns at both universities to equalize the respective universities' penalties for pot and alcohol use but says university officials have refused to comply with new policy in some cases. "Nowhere in our laws about marijuana does it say that a university needs to suspend or expel a student for using marijuana," Tvert says. "It doesn't say that anywhere. It's something the universities came up with on their own, and they don't need to." Tvert, who started his quest to provide students a safer alternative to alcohol, feels universities are sending the message that it's OK to use alcohol, but not marijuana. Ultimately, Tvert says the resistance shown by lawmakers, police and university officials sends a message about democracy in Colorado. "It sends a very dangerous message about the state of our democracy in the city, the state and this country that people cannot pass a law at the most local level about a local issue," Tvert says. Tvert urges anyone written up under state law in Denver to take the battle to court. "What we'd like to see is that city police stop enforcing this... and we'd like to see them cease citations," Tvert says. "And if they do continue citing people, we encourage those cited to take the case to court, rather than simply paying the fine, because they can appear in municipal court and it's going to take them a little time, and it's going to clutter our court system even more than current marijuana laws, but that's going to be necessary to actually have democracy work here." Newshawk: The GCWSource: Boulder Weekly (CO)Author: Daniel Boniface Published: Nov. 10 - Nov. 17, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Boulder WeeklyContact: letters boulderweekly.com Website: http://www.boulderweekly.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/City Must Enforce State Pot Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21276.shtmlNot a Legalized High, but Sensible Spendinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21272.shtmlPot Considered 'Murder Weed' in 1937http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21270.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #11 posted by John Tyler on November 11, 2005 at 20:22:06 PT
on changing laws
If you don’t like the law then vote to change it. What do the Denver city leaders not understand about this? Don’t call the voters stupid. They knew what the proposal meant and they voted for it overwhelmingly. Bush only got 53% of the vote and thought he had a mandate. This vote carried 54%. You city officials get with the program or get out of the way. The people want a change and they want it now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by global_warming on November 11, 2005 at 15:21:09 PT
Stars and Melanomas
"I wonder what those people really thought they were voting on," says John W. Burbach, lieutenant commander of the Denver PD. " Hey John- They voted for the blessed relief that this plant has given to so many human beings in Denver and throughout this country USA, they voted for a state of mind not a state legislature.“Burbach says people who thought they were voting for a safer Denver probably didn't realize they were voting to legalize cannabis. ..:People who were voting voted and have sent a "message" be wise and hear, listen to that message, it is now legal to possess cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by siege on November 11, 2005 at 07:35:16 PT
inconcinnity's
Lindy Eichenbaum Lent your statement are ludicrous: marijuana is (Legal) take your head out of the dark. The sooner you realize it, then the people can move on!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by jared3602 on November 11, 2005 at 07:18:31 PT
Sam
you are dead on.they have a hard time realizing that people can think for themselves and come up with their own conclusions once they are given the facts.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by jared3602 on November 11, 2005 at 07:16:33 PT
safer
"Is it safer to have people under the influence of marijuana than something else? I don't think there's any clinical studies about that," Burbach says.Actually there is a study that shows people that have smoked a little bit of cannabis are safer drivers then people that are completly sober.No matter what arguments they come up with we can shoot them down without even trying. they think all cannabis smokers are dumb and lazy. Well I might be lazy (I was lazy before I smoked cannabis) but when I get high I do quite a bit of reading with my free time. Just because they have limited knowledge of a subject doesn't mean that everyone else does.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on November 11, 2005 at 07:03:45 PT
Denver
Hickenlooper keeps saying that Denver is a "young city". Is it? All cities tend to be younger than rural areas. I highly doubt that Denver's average age is younger than other US cities, in fact, I suspect that it's higher. The reason people approved this isn't because of age, it's because most of us don't like fascist, totalitarian governments that ban plants.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dave in Florida on November 11, 2005 at 06:20:08 PT
Law enforcment can't read !
"I wonder what those people really thought they were voting on," says John W. Burbach, lieutenant commander of the Denver PD. "That's just kind of my thought. The way the campaign went, if you followed it, there was a lot of misleading advertisement and whatnot."Well, I suppose most people would actually read the initiative in the voting booth. Duh ! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Hope on November 11, 2005 at 06:00:54 PT
Justice?
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1764/a10.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on November 11, 2005 at 05:52:23 PT:
Hammering the message home
I've said it many times here, and it still bears repeating:Don't bother trying to convince the vast majority of people of the inherent morality of changing the anti-cannabis laws; they just don't care. Joe and Josephine Sixpack are so ground down with survival issues they don't give a damn about what's happening to their civil liberties; that's just 'Lib-ruhl' talk, anyways...'Rush' told 'em so!However, they DO care about their wallets, though. Namely, about the fact that many are walking around feeling their back pockets for spare change to afford lunch at work. Telling folks like these that it costs their annual salary or more to house, feed and medically care for someone locked up on a felony pot possession rap for a year is bound to get you some red faces and angry gritted teeth. And demands from their pols as to why they have to foot the bill for 'freeloaders' when they have to pay to put a roof over their heads, food on the table, gas in the car, and STILL don't have med insurance themselves thanks to their slave wage jobs. Pointing out that every DrugWarrior from the Feds on down is fat and sassy while they struggle to make ends meet in these increasingly tight times is sure to get many of them who couldn't have cared less before to start thinking when previously they were happy to swallow Gub'mint propaganda uncritically. And that's precisely what the DrugWarriors *don't* want: a thinking - and angry - electorate...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Toker00 on November 11, 2005 at 03:46:49 PT
Mile High Denver today,
tomorrow, the Mile High World! "Attitudes about cannabis seem to be changing in America..." Let us pray.Thanks, GCW!Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by b4daylight on November 10, 2005 at 22:38:56 PT
Wow
"Those statistics certainly raise interesting questions that lawmakers at the both the state and federal level will have to grapple with. If nothing else, Initiative 100 has stimulated debate and dialogue on these issues."
Lindy Eichenbaum Lent, communications director for the mayor's office,I like his deflection. We here at government can not draw a coralation of any kind. I am glad he brought that to our attention. But local government won't debate that we leave it up to someone else...
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment