Top

blog

Stories

 

Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act endorsed by ACLU, petition signatures reach 60,000

Mason Tvert.
The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012 hasn't sparked up love from all pro-marijuana activists, but it continues to win support from other sources. According to Regulate proponent Mason Tvert, the latest organizations to endorse the measure are the American Civil Liberties Union and the Libertarian Party of Colorado.

The ACLU announcement about its decision to back the proposal declares that "the war on drugs has failed. Prohibition is not a sensible way to deal with marijuana. The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol will move us toward a more rational approach to drug laws."

The organization's endorsement is huge according to Tvert, corresponding by e-mail. "The ACLU of Colorado is one of the state's most widely recognized and well-respected organizations working on criminal justice issues," he writes. "It will be a huge resource when it comes to raising awareness of the issue and spreading the campaign's message about the benefits of ending marijuana prohibition."

In the meantime, the petition drive rolls onward. "Hundreds of volunteers and businesses are circulating the petition throughout the state, and we expect the ACLU's endorsement will bring this campaign to the attention of thousands of like-minded Coloradans," Tvert notes. "The campaign has already collected more than 60,000 signatures, but there's still a lot of work to be done."

True enough. In order to reach the ballot, the act's backers must collect 86,000 valid signatures -- and to be certain to cover their bases, their announced target number is 140,000. By that measure, Tvert and company aren't quite halfway there. But given that the election in question is more than a year away, they're well ahead of the game.

More from our Marijuana archive: "Medical marijuana fight: Dept. of Revenue's deletion of e-mails improper, activist charges."


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
10 comments
CR
CR

Besides using this initiative to raise their own profile and feed off donations from marijuana reformers,  I do not have the slightest clue what the ACLU has ever done of significance for marijuana policy reform.  They weren't involved in the Angel Raich's medical mj case in the Supreme Court instead some Boston University law school teacher took that on.  Pretty much unless your city is placing a Ten Commandments in a court room, school prayer at football game, or passing an ordinance targeting illegal aliens, then your issue is low on the totem pole

Mark Montgomery
Mark Montgomery

Tell Safer and Sensible to stop calling their petition "legalization". They specifically asked the title board to remove the word "legalization" from their ballot title because they didn't want to mislead voters, but in all their marketing, they call it "legalization." Apparently it's OK with them to defraud the people who sign their petition. The safer/sensible petition brings nothing more than more cops and more regulation to Colorado mj users. Do you really want to have to register with the state to purchase mj at one of their retail mj stores? By setting a one ounce limit on how much can be purchased, that is exactly what will happen, The state will use its seed to sale RFID tracing system to pursue all mj. users. The DOR will hold the list of mj users in the state. The SAFER/sensible petition actually creates a new constitutional crime: "driving under the influence of marijuana." Good luck getting a drivers license once the DOR has the list and the authority to deny you a drivers license. Or maybe that is the plan by Progressive Insurance, whose founder, Peter Lewis , is one of the main funders of Sensible and SAFER. Do higher insurance rates for mj users sound good to you?

Don't support these fake legalization efforts. It is a royal sham.

Corey Donahue
Corey Donahue

Wonder if the ACLU care that they have partnered with a group that violates peoples civil liberties? http://blogs.westword.com/late...

Oh and where was the ACLU when all the Medical Marijuana laws came down the pipe?  Why isn't the ACLU helping sue the state to clarify our constitutional rights?  Why didn't the ACLU step in and denounce the unconstitutional and unscientific cannabis DUI bill? Where has the ACLU been in all this?  Why not fix what's wrong with poor language of Amendment 20 before trying to add more poor marijuana language to our constitution?   

Guest419
Guest419

@6256d1443f67fc03b8823e1f52b8a5ef:disqus You seem to be misinformed about the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol.

Please re-read the initiative. http://www.regulatemarijuana.o...http://www.regulatemarijuana.o...

No where does it say "(you must) register with the state to purchase mj at one of their retail mj stores".

The initiative also does not, as you say,"creates a new constitutional crime: "driving under the influence of marijuana.". The language just says that this a initiative will not effect existing laws. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Guest
Guest

There is no new crimes in the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act. The Act says it does not affecting any laws relating to DUI's. Stop the lies. 

Guest
Guest

The ACLU has sued the feds numerous times on behalf of MMJ patients and providers. Look at Conant v. Walters and the Arizona Lawsuit. 

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

The ACLU often defends constitutional rights, but it does turn a blind eye towards many cases involving cannabis -- it is strange indeed that this organization, which often defends unpopular people and causes, lacks the gumption to take on the War on Americans (' Drugs), even though it is far and away the most egregious of all systematic violations of civil rights occurring in America today.  There is the not inconsiderable point that the War supplies defense attornies with much of their work -- the bold champions of justice of the ACLU are getting a cut of the spoils.

It seems unlikely that we could amend Article XVIII, Section 14 to state explicitly that caregivers' responsibility is the provision of medical cannabis, though I support the idea.  Initiative 30 may well fail because of a high turnout of retrogrades, not because of its defects.  The measure would further cut into the prohibitionists' criminalization of cannabis and reduce our criminal liability -- I support those goals.  Political reality is that national groups seeking to reform drug-policy have lined up in support of Initiative 30, and that no organized and funded support for an alternative has yet emerged -- the latter condition could change over the next four months, but I see no real likelihood that it will.

Should legalization initiatives make the ballot next November, voters can and should support them.  We can vote for initiatives even if they have conflicting provisions -- according to CRS 1-40-123 "A majority of the votes cast thereon shall adopt any measure submitted, and, in case of adoption of conflicting provisions, the one that receives the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail in all particulars as to which there is a conflict".

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

You two rhetoriticians are both obscuring the facts:  Initiative 30 states that one of its purposes is "so that driving under the influence of marijuana shall remain illegal" -- it does not create any new crimes or penalties, but it does give constitutional sanction for our existing irrational and defective statute regarding DUID.  If the Initiative were to pass and reformers subsequently to try to change the DUID statute so that driving unimpaired under the influence of cannabis were no longer illegal, it might be argued that such reform would be unconstitutional.

Robert Chase
Robert Chase

The ACLU stood by while the Colorado General Assembly and bureaucrats at the DPHE and DOR eviscerated Article XVIII, Section 14.  Caregivers have the prerogative to provide cannabis to patients.  There are no indications in the Constitution that they can be limited to five patients, forced to reveal where they grow cannabis, or saddled with menial responsibilities.  The ACLU's absence from the debate in the General Assembly over SB10-109 and HB10-1284 and its failure to challenge the attempted abrogation of Article XVIII, Section 14 by statute in court speaks far louder than words.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...