Marijuana: Amendment 64 backers lose Blue Book fight, rip government deception

cannabis outdoors photo.jpg
Update: The backers of Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, have lost their court fight to restore arguments in favor of the initiative that were stripped from the Blue Book voters guide during a hearing last week. Proponent Brian Vicente admits to frustration over this ruling and rips the process that he thinks led to the problem in the first place.

To recap: At a legislative council hearing to finalize the Blue Book language, a number of legislators thought they were voting to take out a couple of words from separate sentences only to discover that a big chunk of the argument in favor of Amendment 64's approval had wound up on the cutting-room floor. Moreover, efforts to restore the excised section were unsuccessful for technical reasons.

Thumbnail image for brian vicente photo.jpg
Brian Vicente.
Amendment 64 supporters responded by filing a lawsuit in an effort to prevent printing of the Blue Book before a judge could decide if the snipped passages should be restored. Today, however, attorneys representing the State of Colorado argued that the judge didn't have the power to intervene due to the separation of powers -- i.e., the judiciary can't block the actions of the legislature. This theory won the day in a 2006 suit over the Blue Book description of a marijuana measure proposed that year (get details below), and it did so again this afternoon.

Vicente's reaction?

"We feel this is a loss for the voters of Colorado," he says. "Unfortunately, the voters are now going to receive incomplete information in the Blue Book. They're not going to be able to see a full discussion of both sides of this issue.

"Unfortunately, we've seen decades of propaganda and government actions trying to prevent people from educating themselves about marijuana prohibition. But this is a new low in the government's attempt to hold up this failed policy."

Is Vicente directly accusing Amendment 64 opponents on the legislative council of engaging in dirty tricks and sleazy strategies to undermine the initiative's odds of winning at the November ballot box? Not quite, but he comes close.

"I guess I'd say this is just the latest example of how the government skews information about marijuana and confuses the public in order to keep the wasteful policy of marijuana prohibition alive," he responds. "We believe the legislative council is simply deceiving the public by not allowing them to have a fair and impartial Blue Book that presents both sides of the argument."

What kind of impact might the Blue Book decision have on the outcome of the election?

"We feel the public doesn't like being deceived," he says. "Many voters may end up voting for Amendment 64 as a protest vote against this dishonest government action. We believe it's going to be a close vote, and unlike the other side, we believe voters should have information on both sides of this issue. So we think this could lead to a backlash, because voters are tired of the lies and hypocrisy that have been going on since the 1930s."

Meanwhile, Laura Chapin, spokeswoman for Smart Colorado, the No on 64 organization, praises the ruling.

"Amendment 64 isn't even in front of the voters yet, and it's already sparking lawsuits," she points out. "This is exactly why people should vote no on 64. What the court said was, there is a process in place when it comes to the Blue Book. The proponents failed to follow it. And the fact that they didn't like the outcome doesn't mean they get to spend taxpayer time and money trying to overturn it."

What about the argument that voters are the losers in this process, because they won't receive all the information they need to properly weigh the merits of the measure?

"They should have addressed that during the Blue Book process," she replies. "They knew what it was, they knew when it was happening, they knew what would happen. That was the venue for addressing it, and that's what the judge said today. The fact that they didn't do their due diligence during the Blue Book process doesn't entitle them to spend taxpayer time and money trying to overturn it."

Continue to read about a similar Blue Book fight over a 2006 marijuana measure, which ended with the same result.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

The largest backer of  Anti-A64 group "Smart Colorado" is Melvin Sembler, who has been implicated in running teen torture centers.  


I will be voting YES on A64.


"Mel Sembler’s name is most likely to strike fear into the hearts of anyone involved in teen drug rehabs. Sembler and his wife, Betty, founded a chain of such institutions under the name Straight, Inc., which at its peak in the ‘80s had 12 clinics in nine states and a track record of extreme abuse. In one of many stories from Straight that have been exposed, a teenage girl testified to being compelled into the program after being caught with an airline bottle of liquor given to her by a friend, and then beaten, raped, locked in a janitor’s closet in pants soiled by urine, feces, and menstrual blood.. Newton, who held a PhD in public administration from an unaccredited institution, was chosen by the Semblers to be their national clinical director. He has had to pay out over $12 million in damages to his victims, who he has thrown against walls, held against their will, kidnapped, restrained in leg irons, forced into servitude, and otherwise abused." Source:


LIARS! This is NOT LEGALIZATION! How can it be "legalization" for one ounce, but you can still lose your job or have your children taken away for that one ounce? "Legalization" means removal of ALL penalties, not just some. These lying liars are getting a dose of their own medicine. Reap what you sow, puerile pot clowns!


At least the A64 supporters can blame this when the initiative fails, instead of the deceptive campaign itself. A20 is the only thing voters wanted, why don't they realize expanding the medical limits and reducing restrictions could actually get votes? After failed attempts for "recreational" weed, why are they doing it again? We could have expanded our medical laws by removing the need to see a doctor for people who posses under the current limit, and anyone with over 6 plants and 2 ounces  would still need a doctors permission. That would have been a better approach to get the same results as A64, and I believe more people would vote for something like that, rather than A64.

RobertChase topcommenter

Frank McNulty and the Colorado General Assembly deliberately pervert the intitiative process to deny voters the truth.


Here is the political reality that reformers face:  an Establishment determined to prevent Amendment 64 from being considered fairly by those careful voters who read the Blue Book.  In 2006, Romanoof and the Legislative Council inserted a direct and damning lie about Amendment 44 into the Blue Book analysys; in 2012, McNulty and the Council gut most of proponents' modest and factual assessment of the Amendment -- not too much has changed.  Let no one underestimate the strength of the forces arrayed against us; a similat threat faces any proposal that strikes at Prohibition in any way.

RobertChase topcommenter

 @Truth-Force Useless!  If you are not drawing a salary from the Colorado Drug Investigators Association, you should be.  I am tired of prohibitionists pretending to be radical reformers -- get lost, anonymous narc!

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault