4/20 at CU-Boulder: Student government argued against campus closure

cu boiulder 420 2011 205x205.jpg
More photos below.
CU-Boulder's decision to close campus on April 20 for the second straight year in an effort to permanently squash the long-running 4/20 event there has already generated complaints and threats of legal action.

Current representatives of Colorado University Student Government (CUSG) aren't fans of a campus shutdown, either, and argued against it in meetings with administration officials. But while they didn't win the war, they earned some smaller victories they hope will point in a more positive direction down the line.

Last year, as we've reported, a previous CUSG administration worked hand in hand with the administration, conceiving a Wyclef Jean concert as a free alternative gathering for students who might otherwise be tempted to light up at 4:20 p.m. on the big day. But only about 1,250 people turned out for a bash that earned Jean $80,000 and cost approximately $150,000.

The tide changed with the arrival of new student leaders (disclosure: my twin daughters are members of CUSG). During a January interview, CUSG director of health and safety Chris Schaefbauer expressed some misgivings about how the campus visitor ban was handled in 2012, despite an antipathy for the 4/20 bash's location. "We don't want it on the campus," he told us. "We continue to agree with last year's CUSG and administration about that. But we think there are different ways to accomplish that."

brittni hernandez.jpg
Brittni Hernandez.
The administration ultimately disagreed, but student body president Brittni Hernandez still believes that taking part in the process was important.

"I feel this year was very different in terms of the working relationship we've had with the administration," she says. "Although we disagreed on points, I think they really took the opportunity to listen to students, and I feel good that they treated us like colleagues and professionals."

CUSG created a task force charged with coming up with what Hernandez calls "short-term and long-term solutions" for 4/20. And after conducting surveys and speaking with students from all walks of campus life, the message came through loud and clear -- closing the university was a bad idea, and so was requiring students and visitors to show identification on April 20 in order to be granted access to school grounds.

The reasons for opposition to ID checks ranged from historical -- she cites World War II era laws in Europe targeting members of the Jewish community -- to very up-to-the-minute reasons. For some LGBTQ students, "their gender presentation doesn't match their ID," Hernandez points out, "and being asked, 'Is this you?' may bring up other trauma that we don't want students experiencing. And many students of color and low-income students who might be white have experiences dealing with police that asking for IDs can bring up."

She acknowledges that the administration isn't setting out to press such buttons, "but we told them what it feels like -- what it was like for members of these communities last year."

In the end, though, "for their own reasons of wanting to stay consistent, they decided to close campus and continue ID checks. But they have tried to employ things that meet us halfway. The police will be briefed about not being racially biased, about asking everyone for IDs, and being sensitive if gender presentation doesn't match the ID."

Continue for more about the Colorado University Student Government's take on CU-Boulder's April 20 shutdown plan.


My Voice Nation Help
51 comments
Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

"The reasons for opposition to ID checks ranged from historical -- she cites World War II era laws in Europe targeting members of the Jewish community -- to very up-to-the-minute reasons. For some LGBTQ students, 'their gender presentation doesn't match their ID,' Hernandez points out, 'and being asked, 'Is this you?' may bring up other trauma that we don't want students experiencing. And many students of color and low-income students who might be white have experiences dealing with police that asking for IDs can bring up.'"

 I'm not going to say anything contrary to the claims in the paragraph, but I am going to ask: "Why do they even issue student IDs if they're not prepared to require them for anything?"

Juan_Leg
Juan_Leg

Marijuana is mere shwag w/o 'Boulder's Official 420' trademark .

If only the rest of the nation truly knew how lame Boulder actually is 

& how overrated it's 'party scene' is compared nationally !

Ian StClair
Ian StClair

I would like to thank CU Boulder for giving students the day off and treating 4-20 like the holiday that it is. Hey Buffalo! Come hang out in Civic Center Park!

kadargo
kadargo

The passage of A64 shows that the majority want cannabis legal (even if A64 doesn't actually do that).  I knew when I saw the election results, things were gonna get interesting.  I'm really enjoying watching the minority refusing to go down without a fight...makes for good entertainment.  Good luck with that, minority!  Cannabis prohibition is on the way out.  Take a look around at what's been going on for the last decade. then watch what is yet to come.  I'm seeing 19 states that have adopted Medical Cannabis.  I also see lots of other states decriminalizing, putting in bills to allow Medical Cannabis, and even other states putting in bills to allow recreational use.  Again, good luck minority!


instntkrma
instntkrma

it's a protest. there isn't a solution to free speech. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

From A64 --


NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY


What part don't these STUPID PUERILE STONERS who voted FOR A64 comprehend?


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@kadargo "The passage of A64 shows that the majority want cannabis legal (even if A64 doesn't actually do that)"

LOL!

If THE MAJORITY wanted Marijuana to be LEGAL, the MAJORITY would have DONE THAT.

Delusional Stoners = Epic FAIL!


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma ... BREAKING the LAW ... especially The Law YOU idiots Voted for in A64 ... ain't "free speech".

hth.

Pete
Pete

@DonkeyHotay So 54% of voters are stupid puerile stoners?  Give it a rest already.

instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay I think it's awesome you are so worked up over this. When the haters get the spittle flying, have their caps lock on, repeat the same text 3 times over, it makes me feel all warm inside.

instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay @instntkrma free speech and civil disobedience is exactly what it is.

Have you ever been to CU on 4/20?  It is most *certainly* free speech and absolutely a real protest. 98% of the people that attend are there for less than an hour and behave marvelously well. Better than any CU football game by far. Are you on the side of the jackbooted Republicans that run CU? 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@Pete ... 54% of the Voters said -- NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY!

The PEOPLE have SPOKEN! ... Obey the RULES of A64!


instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay @instntkrma Oh Good. I am glad I play a part in your bad day without even trying! Bow to your hempy overloard!

stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay = fucking IDIOT. 

What part of A PETTY OFFENSE IS A CRIME do you fail to understand?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma "is it just that you hate pot SO MUCH"

As clearly stated numerous times before -- it's not the inanimate object that is the focus of the contempt, disdain and derision -- it's the painfully stupid willfully ignorant bong-sucking puerile pot punks like you that are the subject of the well earned vitriol you so righteously deserve.

Translation -- it ain't the Pot, it's YOU, loser.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 ... so you finally admit that A64 possession limits which are LESS than the pre-existing Colorado Statute of 2 (two) ounces will -- ipso facto -- NOT REDUCE any ARRESTS for marijuana in that category.

Noted.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay"Everyday users PRIOR to A64 did NOT get arrested for possession of up to 2 (two) ounces, regardless of their age. A64's limit of 1 ounce plus age restrictions provided NO REDUCTION in Arrests."

And they don't get arrested now. Between 1-2 oz it's the same $100 PETTY OFFENSE as before. Under an oz, no offense now. Who needs to walk around with 2 oz, dipshit? Oh, yeah, a stupid stoner like you, who thinks its impressive to walk around with a big wad of dope showing it off.

AND WHAT PART OF A PETTY OFFENSE IS A CRIME AND A CRIMINAL RECORD ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO GET?

 


instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay @instntkrma yea, heard you. 

why do you care? you hate stoners, you think they are stupid, why waste so much spittle? 

is it just that you hate pot SO MUCH that you have all this rage to release? why do you hate pot so?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma ... ALL the CRIMINAL Statutes for possession over 2 ounces, cultivation of more than 3 flowering plants are still 100%  active!

All the CRIMINAL STATUTES for EVERYONE under 21 are still 100% active!

All the CRIMINAL Statutes for EVERYONE engaging in ANY private sales are still 100% active!

Reduction in Arrests = ZERO!

instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay okay, yea we've heard you say this stuff over and over, caps and ALL. lol

where are all the arrests?

DonkeyHotoy
DonkeyHotoy

@DonkeyHotay What part of A "PETTY OFFENSE" IS STILL A FUCKING CRIME THAT GIVES YOU A CRIMINAL RECORD do you not fucking understand?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma ... that's the BIG LIE promoted by the LYING LIARS -- Vicente, Tvert, Sederberg, etc. -- who pimped A64.

Prior to A64, possession of up to TWO ounces by anyone of any age was merely a petty offense -- NO ARREST, NO JAIL under Colorado Statute.

A64 offers only ONE ounce, and only for those over 21 yrs old.

Arrest Reduction for possession = ZERO


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma "I'm talking about everyday users, and people growing 6 plants or less. "

Everyday users PRIOR to A64 did NOT get arrested for possession of up to 2 (two) ounces, regardless of their age. A64's limit of 1 ounce plus age restrictions provided NO REDUCTION in Arrests.

Every sane person growing 6 pathetic plants or less prior to A64 did so under the authority of A20. A64's hard plant limit and arbitrary 21+ age restriction once again provides NO reduction in arrests.

A64 did not REPEAL a SINGLE Criminal Statute.

A64 provides NO reduction in any real-world ARRESTS for Marijuana crimes.

ALL Marijuana FELONIES are still on the books in Colorado.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay

"So you admit that A64 did NOT repeal that FELONY Statute from Colorado Law. Arrests Prevented for Carrying 6 lbs of home-grown pot outside your home = ZERO!"

Yes, because so many unfortunates get busted every day in Colorado walking around carrying and displaying 6 pounds of pot on their person.

Hip Tip: Look up "Henny Fucking Penny" in the dictionary and you will find a picture of DonkeyHotay.

instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay show me all the arrests. I'm talking about everyday users, and people growing 6 plants or less. 

Where are all the arrests? 

I'd also suggest having a chat with your local DA, and ask them how easy it is to sit a jury that will convict someone on pot charges now. lol. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "You can't walk around the fucking neighborhood carrying six pounds of pot, you fucking idiot."

So you admit that A64 did NOT repeal that FELONY Statute from Colorado Law. 

Noted!

Arrests Prevented for Carrying 6 lbs of home-grown pot outside your home = ZERO!




stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay = idiotic strawmanning twat.

You can't walk around the fucking neighborhood carrying six pounds of pot, you fucking idiot. You can keep what you grow where you grow it. 

You are so desperate to get into it with ANYone that you grossly misrepresent either them or the fucking law to get there, and you do it every fucking time. 

You need to fucking grow up, punkass bitch.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma  ... ALL the FELONY statutes against marijuana are still on the books in Colorado, and ignorant stoner fools and tools like you are finding out the hard way -- e.g. the clueless douchebags in Colorado Springs who "thought A64 legalized" their stupid distribution scheme, only to find themselves arrested, facing multiple FELONY counts, and one of them facing LIFE in PRISON for his legal ignorance.

So show us how tough you are with A64 behind you, and walk up to a cop displaying those 6 lbs stuka1 claims are no longer a crime.


instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay  
C'mon - where are all the felonies? There must be tons of stoopid stoners in jail now right? LOL. and... I wouldn't walk up to a cop with 6 lbs of doughnuts.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma ... Walk up to a cop with 6 pounds of your home-grown bud and see what happens.


stuka1
stuka1

@DonkeyHotay 

I think its awesome that you get all worked up over a typo and call everyone that mocks and laughs at your hysterical apoplectic outbursts "Stoners".


That you are well on your way to giving yourself an aneurysm gives me a nice warm feeling. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

 @DonkeyHotoy "1.5 TEARS" [sic]

Stoner = FAIL!

Post A64 = growing 6 plants and possessing the 6 pound yield of those 6 plants = FELONY for EVERYONE under 21 years old !! ... the very demographic that suffers the most marijuana arrests.

Post A64 = possessing 6 pound yield outside the grow property = FELONY for EVERYONE of any age.

Post A64 = selling even one single gram of that to your friends = FELONY for EVERYONE of any age.

A64 = a Continuation of FELONY prohibition against Marijuana users and growers in Colorado.


DonkeyHotoy
DonkeyHotoy

@DonkeyHotay @instntkrma Pre 64: growing 6 plants and possessing the 6 pound yield of those 6 plants = FELONY, 1.5 TEARS INCARCERATION (if not charged with intent to DISTRIBUTE, which is likely at that volume), $100,000 FINE.  Oh, and forfeiture of your house, car, bank accts, all assets, children, etc.

After A64: No crime, no time, no fine, no forfeiture

Yeah, puny changes indeed.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma  ... so you want to Protest the pathetically puny incremental change YOU stoners wrote, promoted and voted for via A64?

Self-defeat much?


instntkrma
instntkrma

@DonkeyHotay @instntkrma yes. everything, including MJ legalization is incremental. Now, every Coloradoan over 21 can grow 6 plants without having to go to the doctor and filling out forms. Is it perfect, no, but mj users have more freedom than they did. For a bunch of stoners in Colorado in the past ~13 years, they have passed two initiatives making cannabis cultivation, possession and use much more legal and much less perilous. Having lived through much worse times I can appreciate what we have and that there are more steps to take.

Now go play with your sister. Your father and I are busy.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@instntkrma ... so you want to Protest the RESTRICTIONS against open PUBLIC consumption ... that YOU and OTHER STONERS VOTED FOR in A64?

SSAASSD! ... "we hate our own jackbooted restrictions we placed upon ourselves ... 'cause were STOOOPID STONERS!"

Holy fuck! ... there's more intelligence at an Insane Clown Posse concert.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@stuka1 "we voted to get a strong foothold"

You mean The FIST of REGULATION ... up your ass!

A64 did NOT repeal a SINGLE Criminal Statute against Marijuana ... NOT ONE!


stuka1
stuka1


@DonkeyHotay @Pete The fact that we voted to get a strong foothold for the ending of prohibition in the US doesnt mean we agree with ALL of the terms of A64. Too bad for you that you dont have a first clue how politics works.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...