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

By Michael Roberts Wed., Sep. 12 2012 at 3:19 PM

Original post, 8:15 a.m. September 12: This afternoon, Amendment 64 backers are slated to argue in court that changes made in the Blue Book voters guide to the marijuana measure should be reversed. The experience sparks déjà vu for proponent Mason Tvert. After all, a similar Blue Book dust-up took place in 2006 over a different marijuana-legalization measure.

As we've reported, the state's legislative council held a hearing last week that excised the following three sentences from the pro-Amendment 64 section of the Blue Book, a ballot guide provided to state voters:

The use of marijuana by adults may be less harmful than the use of alcohol or tobacco, both of which are already legal for adults to use and are regulated by the state. Furthermore, marijuana may be beneficial for individuals with certain debilitating conditions. The consequences of burdening adults with a criminal record for possession of small amounts of marijuana are too severe, and there are better uses for state resources than prosecuting such low-level crimes.

According to proponents, many of the legislators on the council thought they were approving the removal of two words from previous sentences, not the elimination of this text block -- an edit that creates an imbalance between the arguments for the measure (206 words) versus those against it (366 words).

Mason Tvert.

Tvert hopes today's hearing, in which a judge will be asked to reinstate this language and order a hearing so legislators can address the issue, will turn out differently than one six years ago. Back then, the initiative Tvert supported, dubbed Amendment 44, "added five words to the Colorado statute pertaining to marijuana possession," he allows. "Colorado law said it's illegal for anyone to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. And all we did was add 'under the age of 21,' thereby omitting adults 21 and older, and allowing them to possess an ounce of marijuana legally."

Seems simple enough -- but, Tvert says, the legislative council that approves Blue Book text "included a false statement that the initiative we were running would make it legal to transfer marijuana without remuneration to people who were fifteen to eighteen years old, when, in fact, it would have remained entirely illegal."

The claim is not entirely without foundation. "Another statute said transferring marijuana without remuneration is defined as possession," Tvert notes. "Therefore, our initiative, by making possession legal for adults 21 and over, also in theory made transferring without remuneration legal."

However, Tvert goes on, such a transfer "would have remained a crime, because it would have been contributing to the delinquency of a minor. And that crime had a more severe penalty than marijuana possession."

Continue reading about the Blue Book fights of 2006 and 2012.

Tags:

2006, Amendment 44, Amendment 64, marijuana, Mason Tvert, Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act

We Recommend

kevin_hunt topcommenter

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: http://www.thefix.com/content/romney-sembler-drug-advisor-teen-rehab-abuse8515

michael.roberts moderator editortopcommenter

@kevin_hunt Thanks for sharing the link, Kevin.

Truth-Force

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!

RobertChase topcommenter

1 Like

@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!

Monkey

1 Like

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

2 Like

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.