cannabisnews.com: High Time for Pot Law, Supporters Say





High Time for Pot Law, Supporters Say
Posted by CN Staff on October 15, 2006 at 08:50:55 PT
By Paul Shockley
Source: Grand Junction Free Press
Colorado -- Will Colorado become the “pot capital of America”? Is marijuana the safer alternative to alcohol?And who paid for a press gathering Thursday in a conference room at the Doubletree Hotel, where federal, state and local officials urged voters to reject a pro-pot initiative on Colorado’s November ballot?
The last question became the topic of a heated exchange between Amendment 44 campaign director Mason Tvert, Scott Burns, deputy director for state and local affairs for the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, as well as Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.  Tvert accused Suthers of violating Colorado campaign finance law, parts of which limit government employees’ expenditures while advocating for or against a ballot initiative.  “Who paid for this press conference?” Tvert asked from the back of the room.  “I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now,” an angry Suthers retorted.  Heather Janik, spokeswoman who accompanied Burns from Washington, D.C., later said expenses were paid by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.  Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey said the spat reflected one side of a debate trying to silence the other. Elected officials hold First Amendment rights, too, he said.  “They don’t want both sides of this story to be heard,” Hilkey said. “If we were talking about legalizing dynamite, you wouldn’t have a dispute about letting experts from ATF get up and talk about it.”  Hilkey and a host of Western Slope law enforcement leaders were at the Doubletree to hear Burns’ Thursday morning address, prior to the press conference. The topic of Burns’ speech: methamphetamine abuse.Dude, where’s my ballot?  Amendment 44, pushed by the group Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, is a November ballot initiative that would legalize possession of an ounce, or less, of marijuana for anyone 21 years or older.  Under existing state law, possession of that amount is non-arrested petty offense — violators are issued a written summons and face up to $100 fines. If they’re under 21, they could earn a suspended driver’s license.  Thursday’s gathering at the Doubletree called the pro-legalization effort a dangerous “con,” involving a drug often associated with more serious crime. District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said it’s plain “foolish.”  “I’m not about to say marijuana is as bad as meth,” Hautzinger said. “But in two years, I’ve virtually never seen a possession of marijuana case that doesn’t involve meth.”Should the initiative pass, that sets up conflicts with other state, not to mention federal, drug laws, according to Hautzinger.  “It would still be against the law to buy it from somebody,” he said. ”You’re fostering a legal piece to an illegal enterprise.”  Hilkey rejected pro-pot arguments that decriminalization would “free up law enforcement to take on things like meth.”  “It’s exactly the opposite,” Hilkey said. “The only people who are going to benefit from this are those who want to get stoned.”  And you’re not talking about your daddy’s pot: Today’s marijuana has chemical THC levels of 10 percent or higher — up from around 1 percent in the mid-1970s, according to data from Thursday’s opposition rally.  Suthers argued today’s youth are paying the price.  “Sixty-two percent of teens in rehab now are there because of marijuana,” Suthers said.‘A failed policy’  Tvert slammed Thursday’s Doubletree presentation as a “gross distortion” of Amendment 44.  “They’re trying to make this a debate about children, and it’s not about children,” Tvert said. “People aren’t interested in the federal government coming into their homes, where adults should be able to make a decision about whether or not they’ll use something that’s less harmful than alcohol.”  Tvert, a Denver resident who claims a shoestring budget (two full-time staff members) pushing Amendment 44, called his own press conference Thursday morning — posing for cameras in front of a pro-marijuana billboard now towering over eastbound traffic at the southeast corner of F Road and Commerce Blvd.  David Cox, 24, a Palisade resident, worked the group’s signature petition drive toward getting the measure on the ballot. Cox and others collected 800 signatures during this past summer’s Pinnacle Homes Country Jam.  Cox knows the initiative faces an uphill battle in Mesa County.  “But if this is talked about enough, I don’t think it can lose,” he said. “Discussion is our ally.”  That starts with getting everyone’s position right, Tvert said.  “We’re not saying that marijuana is safe or harmless,” he said. “But if you’re an adult over 21, why would we ask people to use something (alcohol) that can kill you in one sitting, versus something that’s never killed anybody?”  Tvert also rejects claims that partial legalization would make the drug more accessible for younger users. A recent study found 87 percent of high school seniors said it’s “very easy” to get the drug, according to Tvert.  “How could it be more available?” he asked. “If kids can get (marijuana) easier than adults, then that’s the sign of a failed policy.”Note: White House official, state’s attorney general, clash with pro-pot forces.Newshawk: The GCWSource:  Grand Junction Free Press (CO)Author: Paul ShockleyPublished: October 13, 2006Copyright: 2006 gjfreepress.comContact: editor gjfreepress.comWebsite: http://www.gjfreepress.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/GRAMNET: No Laws Were Broken http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22283.shtmlDrug Czar Visits Two States To Slam Pot Initiativehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22277.shtmlHippie-Hating and Baitinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22244.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #22 posted by whig on October 18, 2006 at 12:38:26 PT
The GCW
Thank you for all you do, the heavens open up to you.Do you know if the debate will be put online?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Hope on October 18, 2006 at 04:42:16 PT
Comment 16 GCW
Dr. Barthwell, Dr. Barthwell, Dr. Barthwell.Prohibitionist extraordinaire.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 16, 2006 at 21:35:57 PT
BGreen
I'm glad you agree.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by BGreen on October 16, 2006 at 21:21:09 PT
Some things are so true
that they deserve being said twice. LOLI agree 100%, FoM.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on October 16, 2006 at 20:50:40 PT
The GCW
I want to say how proud I am of your efforts. You go guy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on October 16, 2006 at 20:50:39 PT
The GCW
I want to say how proud I am of your efforts. You go guy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by The GCW on October 16, 2006 at 20:40:09 PT
Andrea Barthwell spews Denver
Tune In Wednesday For Live Marijuana Showdown on KBDIThis Wednesday, October 18, at 7 p.m., KBDI Channel 12 in Denver will be hosting and airing a live televised debate on Amendment 44 as part of its Decision 2006 series.In the corner of justice and honesty:Jessica Peck Corry, GOCAMP co-founder
Mason Tvert, SAFER campaign directorAnd in the corner of hypocrisy and distortion:Robert McGuire, once GOCAM and now Save Our Society From Drugs campaign director
Dr. Andrea Barthwell, former Deputy Drug Czar in the Office of National Drug Control PolicyThis should be an exciting one, so be sure to tune in and watch!http://cat.he.net/~saferco/blog.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on October 15, 2006 at 18:57:22 PT
One
Here's one group who should be very thankful for the 21st Amendment... just imagine what legal cannabis could do for the economy! Although it might not help out BUD very much...
BUD stock graph
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Sam Adams on October 15, 2006 at 18:43:28 PT
benefits
“It’s exactly the opposite,” Hilkey said. “The only people who are going to benefit from this are those who want to get stoned.”So who benefited from repealing Prohibition? Not the temperance ladies, that's for damn sure. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 15, 2006 at 15:10:04 PT
goneposthole 
I don't know about Meth and how it is now but I do know how bad it was in the 70s. Meth makes a person feel too good. There is danger in feeling too good when produced by a substance. I have seen what Meth can do and no one should even start messing with it. Meth and marijuana in the same sentence really bothers me. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by goneposthole on October 15, 2006 at 14:55:51 PT
Meth is bad
Meth users deal marijuana to support their meth habit. It is being done. It also is stupid. If cannabis were legal, meth users would have to find a new source of revenue generating substance to support their habit. It also increases the price of cannabis too. I have stopped buying pot because of this problem. It has become too expensive. In addition, cannabis users are aiding meth users to support their addiction problem. If you don't believe this, you're not in the real world.Meth use is bad. How can it be stopped? Support legalizing cannabis. Legalizing cannabis will deal a severe blow to meth users. That is how it has become in the real world. Meth users are bad news, real bad news.Vote 'Yes' on amendment 44 to legalize cannabis in Colorado. It will do two things: It will ease the minds of cannabis users and meth users will have to find a new source of income. Legal cannabis will actually help the meth user become less dependent on the drug.Don't believe a single word prohibitionists say. They're full of beans. They do not care about humans, they only seek to convince a duped populace that murka can become 'drug free.' They're living in a dream world that produces nightmares for ordinary Americans.Murka is not free with unrealistic laws prohibiting the use of cannabis. Prohibition enslaves all Americans and makes them hoodwinked murkans.Meth users need to stop using a debilitating substance. Cannabis will help them more than they know.Again, Coloradans, vote 'Yes' on amendment 44. Let your conscience be your guide and not misguided prohibitionists. They haven't a clue.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on October 15, 2006 at 11:33:19 PT
Weaseling
You are right Hope. That's why I don't like politics. When I say yes I mean yes. When I say no I mean no. I do not try to trick anyone into anything because then it wouldn't be fair. I know what I believe. I stand on what I believe and if I'm wrong it will be my own fault and no one elses.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Hope on October 15, 2006 at 11:18:09 PT
FoM
That's very interesting.I guess reasonable minds can do a bit of positive "weaseling" 
necessary.Some Federal Reps need to get busy to "weasel" something positive for us into the next bill that they know will pass.I hate weaseling though. Just end prohibition and start some regulation that's actually reasonable and sane and in keeping with a country that believes in freedom, liberty, and the autonomy of the individual human being.Yet...politics seem to move through weasel power.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 15, 2006 at 11:03:07 PT
Another Comment
I have been wondering how the laws on marijuana came to be changed to a ticket like jay walking in Ohio for any amount under just about a quarter of a pound and found this link. Rhodes who was a Republican was tricked into it. I think that was how it happened. They were able to toughen the laws on drugs which made Rhodes seem correct but they decreased the penalty for marijuana since it was a mild substance and Rhodes got the credit for being the tough republican that the majority of them all are. Excerpt: When the bill became law in August, newspaper headlines in Ohio declared, "Ohio Gets Tough New Drug Law," which was true in part, although it was equally true that Ohio had got the nation's most liberal marijuana law. For Attorney General Brown, the-bill was a politician's dream come true: He was able to reap immediate credit for a tough drug law, and later, when decriminalization was seen as a success, he could claim credit for it, too.http://www.druglibrary.org/special/anderson/highinamerica9.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Hope on October 15, 2006 at 10:43:03 PT
So true, Observer.
Definitely a lot of weaseling going on there.I think that's exactly how they think.We know our enemy. How to expose or disarm his "degenerate" thinking, is the problem.Good job of exposing them right there in Weasling 101!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by observer on October 15, 2006 at 10:36:47 PT
Weaseling 101
"I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now," an angry Suthers retorted. [But] Heather Janik, spokeswoman who accompanied Burns from Washington, D.C., later said expenses were paid by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.A weasel wording lesson. Let's parse this prevaricating puppy. (1) "I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now."(The Feds are.)(2) "I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now."(Well, not right this exact second, anyway.)(3) "I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now."(Because we call that "monetary budget allocation" or some such. We never resort to common terms like "spending".)(4) "I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now."(We're spending a whole lot more than ten cents, you can be sure.)(5) "I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now."(The money doesn't rightfully belong to mere citizens, it belongs to me, an Official, and people like me! Anyway, once the tax collectors get it, it is ours to spend, er, I mean allocate, in budgets. To save the children. You know.)(6) "I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now."(You call that paper fiat currency "money" do you?)(7) "I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money right now."(Heavens no, this meeting space in which we are holding the press conference, they simply bill our department, and they won't do that for weeks, anyhow.)
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/propaganda
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 15, 2006 at 10:33:30 PT
My Thoughts
I am absolutely insulted when they say people that use Cannabis would consider using Meth. Meth is very bad and that is so untrue I can't believe he is trying to associate Meth with Cannabis. There we go again. Guilt by association. I'm tired of it.Excerpt from article: “I’m not about to say marijuana is as bad as meth,” Hautzinger said. “But in two years, I’ve virtually never seen a possession of marijuana case that doesn’t involve meth.”
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Hope on October 15, 2006 at 10:19:09 PT
Why use the word "virtually"?
 “I’m not about to say marijuana is as bad as meth,” Hautzinger said. “But in two years, I’ve virtually never seen a possession of marijuana case that doesn’t involve meth.”
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by global_warming on October 15, 2006 at 09:56:44 PT
re: Should voters pass Ref. 44 
You have another "YES" vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by The GCW on October 15, 2006 at 09:48:09 PT
POLL
Should voters pass Ref. 44 legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana?http://www.gjfreepress.com/VOTE!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by global_warming on October 15, 2006 at 09:14:14 PT
re: “I am not spending a dime of taxpayer money "
It is becoming clear in my mind, these are not prohibitionists, they have no care for the children, it is their full belly they are most concerned about.How can a grown and civilized human being lie so long?You can take all the pot bellied sheriffs and all the under minions who have no shame taking from the American Public.It will end here, as more and more decent men and women stand up.It is time to end the war on our own people.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Truth on October 15, 2006 at 08:52:43 PT
I know
"Is marijuana the safer alternative to alcohol?"ABSOLUTELY!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment