are they going to legalize marijuana?

[Stfu its Matthew]

In 1937, the United States passed the Marihuana Tax Act and banned recreational and medical use of cannabis. In the 69 years since it has become the most widely used illegal narcotic in the western world. I guess the plan backfired.

Since that time numerous studies have been conducted based on the idea of the prohibition of the plant. We will look at three here in this article.

In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research, editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

The Americans found the same thing in 1972 when the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse released a report titled "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," and concluded that marijuana prohibition is "Philosophically Inappropriate", "Constitutionally Suspect", and "Functionally Inappropriate."

Years before that, in 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report, commissioned by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia to investigate the effects of marijuana, found that the popular claims about the negative effects of marijuana were wildly exaggerated.

These studies are important to know about when looking at the DEAâ??s argument for the keeping Mary Jane illegal. The organization claims on its website that â??Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmfulâ?� and â??Most non violent drug users get treatment, not jail timeâ?�. We know from the aforementioned British study that the first statement holds no water, and to debunk the second statement letâ??s take a look at the laws for simple possession in one of our states. In Arizona possession of a small amount, less than 2 lbs, will land you six months to a year and a half in jail. That doesnâ??t sound like treatment.

President Bush has claimed that todayâ??s marijuana is much more potent than the stuff him and his Yale buddies smoked back in the sixties. Hmm, a former coke addict making complaints about the strength of our pot being too high? It seems the hypocrisy in this nation knows no bounds.

The cold hard fact for any anti-marijuana argument is simple. Marijuana kills 0 people every year. How can something be dangerous, much too dangerous to allow into the hands of the public, yet has not once killed anyone? We are, ironically, allowed guns.

An overdose of this supposedly dangerous drug is â??generally no more than that associated with mild to moderate exerciseâ?� according to Medical Admissions Criteria. You would be worse off after running a mile than after smoking too much marijuana.

There is still, however, a light amongst all this darkness. Alaska has become the first state to decriminalize marijuana and Denver Colorado has become the first city to allow a law to be passed that treats the plant in the exact same respect as alcohol. Nevada will vote in 2006 on the complete legalization as well.

The internet has also been a useful tool to activists. Websites such as norml.com, thcministry.org, and even my own smaller site, marijuanaX.com, have popped up everywhere and are helping to spread the word about the benefits of the herb.

It is only a matter of time before this situation of prohibition must be addressed by those in power. Things are drastically changing and more and more people are learning the truth. Were knocking on the door right now and before the decade is out we will be smoking in the living room.

In the end, we will win. We will be free to smoke our joints and puff our bongs without fear of retribution by the authorities. Truth will win out over propaganda and the good people of this earth will finally be free again.



i was just wondering couse i read this
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/1963/Legalize_Marijuana

and i thought maybe they might :confused: :confused:


keep tokin! :thumbsup:

[mrdevious]

legal? yes. where? when? everywhere eventually? who knows. but I'm pretty sure Canada will get there eventually.


oh, on a side note marijuana is the most wide spread illicit substance, but it's not a narcotic.

[Fan o KmK]

mary fucking juana is not a fucking nar fucking cotic. god
fuck./

[slipknotpsycho]

it's already legal in some parts of the us AS a recreational drug, it is in some city but i can't remember where (i'm drunk) not for only medical use either, it's legal to possess up to an ounce in that city, i think it was in denver but not sure atm. anyways yes i would say it's on the way of becoming legal, may still take years and years upon years to become legal across the us, but it becoming legal for purposes outside medical use in SOME city in the us is definately a big step. i think if the people in the govt. actually took a step back and realized how much crime rate would drop if they legalized it, then it would be legal nationwide, may not seem like a lot in your town, but just think if every city (and almost all do) have some type of crime happen in their city tha'ts marijuana related ATLEAST once a day, imagine how rapdily crime rate would drop. it would be so drastic they might even have to lay off some officers in key cities (major cities to be exact, such as houston and so on.) i honestly beleive at th is point it's just more of the govt. not wanting to eat their words they produced so long ago that illegalized weed, to legalize it, i thinkt he whole pride thing is coming into picture now.

[floydzeppelinfan]

This whole thread has just blown my mind.

[Hempamasta]

This whole thread has just blown my mind.

Like.. in a good way?

[Kryzco]

recently it was legalized in denver but you have to be 21 (sucks) but they said that its a city law and not a state law, and I think I read somewhere that the state can still charge you for possesion or something like that, correct me if I'm worng seeing as I'm a bit stoned and my memory's a bit off at the moment, but in my personal opinion they should at least decriminalize it all around the us, it would help the economy along with other problems america has right now

[ibreakthings]

In Denver they did legalize it but then the state stepped in and said "hey you cant just make it legal, the state law still has it illegal and so you still cant do it" which is complete bullfuck. But, I do beleive that it will become legal (if you are 21 just like beer) in the US by the time im 21. Its already happening in Denver, so why not everywhere else?

[slipknotpsycho]

i'm sure that would mean that if state cops (troopers) caught you with it they could charge you, but if denver city police caught you they would be forced to let you go, since denver city police only have jurisdiction of denver city, they can only enforce laws of denver city, whereas state troopers can enforce state laws, because they are state cops. not sure, but i think that's how it would work. and it's still illegal to buy, sell or grow, meaning you get caught buying it, selling it or growing it in denver you can still go to jail over it, just if you happen to have some with you, and get caught there's nothing they can do legally.

[Pepper]

Colorado -- The people spoke, but law enforcement didn't listen. On Nov. 17, a day after Denver's Alcohol/Marijuana Equalization Initiative 100 went into effectâ??establishing a city ordinance that made the possession of less than one ounce of pot legal for people over the age of 21â??Denver police made their first post I-100 pot bust under state law.
Eric Footer, a 39-year-old real estate consultant, was pulled over by city police and cited under state law for possessing less than an ounce of cannabis.

Footer allowed the cops to search his car, even though he knew he had a small amount of marijuana in his possession because he thought Denver voters had made it legal to possess a small amount.

While most people would simply pay the fine, Footer contacted Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), the organization that got the initiative on the ballot to begin with, and asked them for help in fighting the charges.

"He doesn't want to have to see anyone else go through this, given that it's such a waste of time and money," says Mason Tvert, director of SAFER.

His court date is set for Jan. 18, and the ensuing legal battle could be the landmark case for I-100. While Footer's legal team prepares for court, reefer advocates are upset with the attitude of local lawmakers and law enforcement and feel they're ignoring the will of the people. The pot proponents feel the Denver City Council should be held responsible, and point to a similar marijuana initiative that passed in Seattle two years ago that has been deemed a success, even by those who originally opposed it.

Seeing Green

Marijuana advocates say it's important to fight Footer's case because the will of voters is not being upheld. Tvert is upset that local lawmakers and law enforcement are being so audacious, ignoring and discounting it the way they have. In a recent article, John W. Burbach, lieutenant commander of the Denver Police Department, told the Boulder Weekly he thought Denver voters didn't even know what they were voting on.

Two years ago, a similar initiative passed in Seattle, reducing personal use marijuana busts to the lowest possible police priority, even lower than jaywalking. While law enforcement didn't like that initiative either, at least one member of the Seattle City Council did, and he supported it and helped make sure it was instituted properly, sitting on an oversight board created by initiative supporters.

"I think it's a tremendous waste of time to have officers arresting people for marijuana usage, particularly because it's a well-ranking recreational drug," says Nick Licata, Seattle city councilman. "We have far more serious problems in the city to use our police for. There are major heroin addicts out there, major meth addicts and cocaine addicts who need treatment, who unfortunately are too often involved in petty crimes and often property crimes, and so our attention must be more focused on fighting crime and dealing with harm reduction in these more serious drug problems. Marijuana is not a problem, at least to the extent that these others are."

Two years after passing the voter-initiated proposal, Seattle has seen great success. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, minor marijuana offenses dropped from 500 in 1994 to only 59 in 2004. To the surprise of those who opposed the initiative, there has been no rash of crimes and no evidence of increased pot smoking since the initiative passed, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer said.

But where Seattle had at least one lawmaker on its side, Denver voters seem to have been left high and dry.

The Denver City Council was widely reported to dislike the initiative from the start. District 6 City Councilman Charlie Brown called the proposal a "goofy initiative," and Jeanne Robb, Capitol Hill's District 10 city councilwoman claimed smoking three marijuana joints was equal to smoking three packs of cigarettes a day, and also said marijuana kills brain cells. According to sources at the subcommittee meeting, Robb was merely repeating things she'd heard there.

"If you look at the polling numbers of who voted favorably on I-100, Capitol Hill is the home base of support for marijuana reform, and Jeanne Robb was against this from the beginning and made ridiculous statements about marijuana being a gateway drug and sort of all these ideas that have been debunked time and time again," says Brian Vicente, a lawyer on Footer's legal team and director of Sensible Colorado, a drug-reform advocacy group. "I think people like that should be held accountable by their voters who obviously feel strongly about this issue."

Unfortunately for Robb and Brown, their districts disagreed with them at election time. Brown's District 6 voted 4,200 to 3,330 in favor of the initiative, carrying more than 55 percent. Robb's District 10 voted 5,820 to 2,572 in favor of the proposal, a whopping 69 percent approvalâ??the most for any district. By comparison, Robb herself only managed to garner 5,261 votes when she won her city council seat in 2003, only 47 percent of the votes. That came in an election that had a turnout of 10,986 in her district, as opposed to the 8,392 this year.

"She did not look into this issue. She did not ask questions," says Tvert. "She was not interested in what we had to say, despite the fact that we informed her that most of her constituents signed this petition to put this on the ballot, and I would not be surprised, although I'm not going to say this is going to happen, but if this was something that was brought to the public's attention the next time she tries to get re-elected."

Seattle's Licata feels the Denver City Council should be doing more for their voters.

"I think they should try to adhere to the spirit of the initiative that passed," Licata says.

Robb and Brown did not return phone calls as of press time.

Legal Eagles

Scoring a victory in the Footer case is extremely important for both sides in order to set the legal precedent for the cases likely to follow.

"We hope to ultimately win his case and have it dismissed and to send a real message to the Denver police and the Denver DAs," says Vicente. "They need to respect the will of the Denver voters and start charging people under the city code, as opposed to the state law because they have that option right now of choosing which law to charge people under."

Both Tvert and Vicente maintain that Denver police could simply choose not to cite people, or barring that, the district attorney could choose not to prosecute offenders.

"They get to choose who they prosecute and under what laws," says Tvert. "So, even if a person is cited, the prosecutor has the right to say, 'Well, Denver has a law saying this, so we're dropping the case.' The idea being if that does happen, the police will stop citing people to cut down on wasteful citations."

Footer's legal team has presented three possible defenses they might argue, all of which have been maligned by the prosecution and the mainstream press. One possible approach is the Mistake of Law defense. Since I-100 was a widely publicized new law, they could argue that Footer made a reasonable mistake, assuming an initiative voted in by the people was actually a law.

Another possible defense could be that Denver is a home rule city and has the right to institute its own laws. However, lawmakers say laws can only be strengthened, not weakened, as they say the case is here. But, Vicente sees it as an issue of safety.

"Home rule municipalities such as Denver traditionally have been given a lot of deference in terms of governing safety issues," Vicente says. "And ultimately we feel the people of Denver, the 57,000 people that voted in favor of this law, were ultimately voting as sort of a backlash against the culture of alcohol and all the problems it causes."

Drawing on the juxtaposition of alcohol and marijuana is the last of the three possible defenses, called a "choice of evils" defense.

Win or lose, Vicente and Tvert say they will continue to fight for reform to see that the will of the voters is upheld, and one of the first ways they may go about it could be to push to amend the citations that Denver police use. Currently, only the state law appears on the ticket, and marijuana advocates say police cite state law only as a matter of convenience since police have to write out the city citation by hand.

"We'd like to see an additional box added which would be a warning," Tvert says. "Which means if people are stopped and they have less than an ounce of marijuana and they're over 21 years old, the police would say to them, 'Here's the deal. We understand the voters passed this and therefore, you're not going to be cited. But you should understand there is a state law and because there's a state law we're just going to give you a warning,' and that would be it."

Tvert says if this were to happen, there would be a record of warnings, and if someone were to leave Denver, it would show they were aware that pot was illegal elsewhere in the state.

The Denver police and city attorney's office did not respond to inquiries as of press time. Mayor Hickenlooper would not comment on ongoing litigation.

Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Author: Daniel Boniface
Published: December 8 - December 15, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Boulder Weekly
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.boulderweekly.com/