Marijuana sniff-test proposal recriminalizes pot, invites lawsuits, critic says

flaming.moe.205x205.jpg
Photos and more below.
Yesterday, the Denver City Council's Amendment 64 committee considered proposed marijuana ordinance amendments that include what critics have branded a "sniff test." The city makes its case via several new documents shared below -- including one that includes a photo of Moe from The Simpsons showing off his signature drink, the Flaming Moe, for reasons that aren't entirely clear but are certainly amusing. Still, ACLU of Colorado legal director Mark Silverstein sees nothing funny in the current draft of the ordinance, which he sees as objectionable on a slew of legal fronts.

The aforementioned documents include the draft amendments, which call for the removal of language making marijuana enforcement Denver's lowest enforcement priority; a legal options PowerPoint presentation (the Flaming Moe image is included in a section comparing pot laws to those pertaining to alcohol); and a fact sheet about the proposals. Here's an excerpt that spells out several of its major elements, most of which were outlined at the meeting by Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell:

david.broadwell.amendment.64.committee.charles.trowbridge.jpg
Photo by Charles Trowbridge
David Broadwell speaking at an Amendment 64 committee meeting earlier this year.
• Similar to existing city laws that already limit alcohol possession in city parks, this ordinance will explicitly make it unlawful to possess, consume, use, display, transfer, distribute, sell, transport, or grow marijuana within any park, mountain park, parkway or recreational facility. That prohibition will also apply to the 16th Street Mall.

• While it has previously been unlawful to openly or publicly consume one ounce or less of marijuana, this ordinance clearly defines "openly " as occurring in a manner that is obvious through sight or smell to the public.

• The ordinance also clearly defines publicly to mean occurring or existing in a public place or in a location where members of the public can observe or perceive through sight or smell, including in vehicles.

• The ordinance repeals language enacted following a 2007 ballot measure that calls for arrest and prosecution for possession of marijuana to be the lowest law enforcement priority. Because Amendment 64 made possession of 1 ounce of marijuana or less legal for anyone 21 and over, this language is no longer necessary.

• The ordinance will allow the city to prohibit "pot giveaways" in city parks.

Silverstein, who attended and spoke at yesterday's meeting during a public-comments section, offers an even more succinct synopsis of the proposal: "Oh, that thing is crazy."

mark.silverstein.aclu.jpg
Mark Silverstein.
In his remarks to the committee, Silverstein says he essentially offered a "rebuttal to the presentation made by Assistant City Attorney Broadwell, who was explaining the legal rationale. And in my opinion, even if the proposed ordinance were judged to be consistent with Amendment 64, which I don't think it is, it's still a very, very bad idea -- a tremendous overreach that will inevitably result in unnecessary police and community confrontations."

As Silverstein notes, "Amendment 64 says it shall not be an offense anywhere in Colorado to possess, use, display or consume marijuana. But this ordinance recriminalizes the mere possession of marijuana in any park, in any parkway and anywhere on the 16th Street Mall. That means if you have a small amount in your pocket, you would once again be committing a crime under this proposed ordinance if you walked in any of those places," whether anyone saw the cannabis or not.

Continue for more about the sniff-test proposal, including the current draft and more.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
51 comments
McShyster
McShyster

Puerile Pot Punks have proven -- habitually -- that they cannot be trusted to act as civilized members of society, therefore the need for STRICT REGULATIONS.

REGULATION WORKS, bitches!


Matt_Brown
Matt_Brown

This is being proposed - in its current form - because Miguel Lopez and Rob Corry gave away joints in the park, which pissed off the city council and mayor. So, as payback, they give us a laughably weak proposal designed to piss off all "the pot people" and create some buzz around the issue. The Denver Post editorial board gets to weigh in and praise a few parts of the bill, and at the same time scold the city for the most ridiculous parts. The pot people get worked up and pack the city council hearings/meetings, and the local news gets lots of 2 min video clips to play on the next day's cycle of morning/noon/4/5/6/9/10 news programs. 

When all is said and done the most ridiculous pieces will be removed, but we'll still end up with rules in Denver more severe than they might have been without this whole kerfuffle. When left to themselves - without provocation - the Denver city council has actually been perhaps the most pragmatic and enthusiastic big city government in the state to embrace MMJ and now recreational pot. 

Jeremy Rozman
Jeremy Rozman

Anyone who votes for this deserves a FLAMING MOE, on their face. I'm buying!

Meredith Thomas
Meredith Thomas

We need to get organized and stop this from happening.

John Scruggs
John Scruggs

The pretension in these laws creates a dance. Learn the dance and round and round we go.

StockholmSyndrome
StockholmSyndrome

Law enforcement needs an excuse to get into your front door...That is all this is about.....Continued criminalization....They will abuse this ordinance 100% on the first day end every day after and we all already know this.....

James Gold
James Gold

don't these motherfuckers have bigger fish to fry?

Bengy Martinez
Bengy Martinez

After the first few payouts I'm sure they will reconsider such encroaching laws.

Meredith Thomas
Meredith Thomas

Cigarettes bother me. I can actually get a migraine from being around the smoke. What of that? Why are they worried about this when alcohol is the REAL problem in this city.

Scott Adelmann
Scott Adelmann

lol typical suit dummies with nothing to do on shutdown

Mane Rok
Mane Rok

Because the city and county of Denver is fucking cool.

Scott Ingalsbe
Scott Ingalsbe

Every body knows Mo was a burner ....... Duh westword.

vaporland
vaporland

Will this outlaw booze breath? Because something needs to be done about it...

Mile_Hi_Dave
Mile_Hi_Dave

I was quite disappointed when I looked at the proposed rules, and saw the use of these cartoons. How very, very unprofessional, definitely not something I would expect from an elected official...

PhishFoodForThought
PhishFoodForThought

Congratulations, pawns of Rob Corry and, well... Rob Corry. Your repeated P.R. stunts have actually done some damage this time. Rob burns bridges like joints and it's time you fools realize that every time he offers to "pay for your legal fees" it's a simple ploy to get more P.R. and business. He does not care about you. He gives our (as a community) enemies fodder to use against us. He's better off riding his motorcycle into the sunset of obscurity.

Pot smokers of Colorado: please note who is doing the heavy lifting to bail you out of Rob and No on Prop AA's terrible blunder. The people Corry and Cronies despise, Mason Tvert and Brian Vicente. The guys who did the actual work to get A64 passed, the most meaningful change in the politics of pot we've ever seen in the state. The guys who have been dedicated to legal and safe marijuana use for over a decade, not some clown on his bike who only wants to profit off of you.

You don't deserve real help. You should have to scrounge for free joints in a park like the bums you are.

Alpha-Omega
Alpha-Omega

One more comment. I take it that those who are pro-legalization are going to campaign for Tom Tancredo, since he openly campaigned for 64. Right? Or, are you going to further the stereotype that marijuana causes brain damage and vote for Adolph Hickenlooper?

itched
itched

That's a Flaming Homer.

Alpha-Omega
Alpha-Omega

I say what's fair for cigarettes, is fair for marijuana. Tax rate. Where to smoke it. Whatever.

Jake
Jake

@McShyster Stay off the forums you toad.  It's been so much nicer having to not read your stupid comments and even after all this time you can't come up with ANYTHING new to write.

Reed
Reed

@McShyster Just like you've proven -- habitually -- that you can't be trusted to be a mature, thoughtful human being. Therefore you need MULTIPLE screen names to carry on conversations with yourself.

YOU'RE A LOSER, bitch!

stuka1
stuka1

@Matt_Brown  

"When left to themselves - without provocation - the Denver city council has actually been perhaps the most pragmatic and enthusiastic big city government in the state to embrace MMJ and now recreational pot."

That's the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on the whole fucking internet.

McShyster
McShyster

@Matt_Brown "because Miguel Lopez and Rob Corry gave away joints in the park"

Puerile Pot Punks deserve the Public Obloquy they earned.

No wonder pot has been illegal all these many years.

Reap what ye sow, punks.


stuka1
stuka1

@Matt_Brown  

" When left to themselves - without provocation - the Denver city council has actually been perhaps the most pragmatic and enthusiastic big city government in the state to embrace MMJ and now recreational pot."

Oh, brother!  Everything they have done has been aimed at sabotaging the will of the Denver voters -- 66% -- who voted to legalize.  Who are you, Charlie Brown's stupider brother?  You are completely full of shit.

stuka1
stuka1

@Matt_Brown
"When left to themselves - without provocation - the Denver city council has actually been perhaps the most pragmatic and enthusiastic big city government in the state to embrace MMJ and now recreational pot."

Oh, bullshit.  Everything they have done has been aimed at scuttling the will of the Denver voters -- 66% -- who voted to legalize over their objections.  You are completely full of shit.

Who the hell are you, Charlie Brown's stupider brother?

michael.roberts
michael.roberts moderator editortopcommenter

@James Gold A succinct question, James. Thanks for posting it.

RichardBong
RichardBong

@Mile_Hi_Dave Disappointed yes, but exactly what I would expect out of our public officials. The city council is obviously anti-cannabis and have their noses out of joint because the citizens of Colorado voted for legalization. This is the prohibitionists  attempt to circumvent the will of the people and re-criminalize cannabis.

stuka1
stuka1

@PhishFoodForThought  

WHAT "heavy lifting"???  Heavy lifting would be organizing recall votes to shitcan these asshole prohibitionists who are taking advantage of the vague language of their poorly-written law to sabotage legalization.  

Heavy lifting would be  reassessing the gaping holes they wrote into A64 and NOT pushing the same shit in other states.  


Heavy lifting would be NOT leaving gaping holes in A64 in the first place.  People voted to legalize, not for all this other extraneous bullshit, including the built-in secrecy (meaning no public use and hiding grows) and language allowing local governments to run roughshod over it. 

Heavy lifting CERTAINLY wouldn't look like Tvert and Vicente caving to the prohibitionists and backing ridiculous and punitive 50% taxes.




McShyster
McShyster

@PhishFoodForThought 

Lyin Brian Vicente and Mendacious Mason Tvert = shills for the Greedy Big $$ Dispensary Cartels and their insatiable parasitic bedfellows at the Dept. of Revenue.

Strict Regulation = Total Government Control

A64 = a continuation of CRIMINAL prohibition against the vast majority of Marijuana Users, Growers and Dealers in Colorado.


Mile_Hi_Dave
Mile_Hi_Dave

@Alpha-Omega Sadly, even with the fact that he supports cannabis, it just doesn't make up for all the rest of his failings.  I would hope the Republicans could come up with a candidate that actually has a chance against Hickendoofus...  I also hope that some Democrat comes along and challenges the beerman as well.

Mile_Hi_Dave
Mile_Hi_Dave

@Alpha-Omega The VOTERS said "like alcohol", not at all what the greedy F*CKS are trying to pull...

McShyster
McShyster

@stuka1 "Denver voters -- 66% -- who voted to legalize"

A64 did not legalize marijuana, not even close, it didn't revoke a single Felony or Misdemeanor statute against marijuana in Colorado.

But you already knew that.

stuka1
stuka1

@RichardBong  Um not only did the citizens of CO vote for legalization, the citizens of Denver voted overwhelmingly so.  

 Time for mass recalls. 

stuka1
stuka1


LMAO the Jackass (in its "stupidstuka" incarnation) "liked" my post.  How fucking ironic. And pathetic.

McShyster
McShyster

@stuka1 = supports continued criminal prohibition

@suka1 "The fact is, I'm fine with kids 18-21 not being able to buy it"

Alpha-Omega
Alpha-Omega

@Mile_Hi_Dave @Alpha-Omega - The Republican party is a joke, which is why I'm supporting the man that is hated by both the Republican establishment and the Democrat establishment.  Tom Tancredo.  He "gets it" on most issues, especially on how a plant should be legal, and on the illegal alien front.

Alpha-Omega
Alpha-Omega

@Mile_Hi_Dave - I'm saying how I would handle it.  Just like cigarettes, since a joint and a cigarette are consumed in an identical way.

McShyster
McShyster

@Mile_Hi_Dave @Alpha-Omega 

"like alcohol" doesn't appear anywhere in the provisions of A64, you brain-dead stoner.

Another illiterate bong-sucker who didn't even read much less comprehend what A64 proposed.


fognl7
fognl7

Did you forget the password to your DonkeyHotay profile?

McShyster
McShyster

@stuka1 

Occasionally even a clueless imbecile like you posts something that resembles the reality.


@stuka1 "A64 has huge problems."

@stuka1 "ANYTHING is illegal under 21 with A64 for rec purposes"

@stuka1 "DISPLAYING AND POSSESSING over an oz is illegal."

McShyster
McShyster

@Alpha-Omega @Mile_Hi_Dave 

Tommy Tancretin is a psychopathic draft-dodging lying Repuglykkkan.

stupidstuka
stupidstuka

So marijuana should have been regulated like tobacco and not alcohol, eh numbnuts?

Stoners failed again.

McShyster
McShyster

@Mile_Hi_Dave

Still a clueless illiterate stoner.

"LIKE Alcohol" appears nowhere in the PROVISIONS of A64.

You = reading comprehension FAIL!

And only AN IDIOT would want the Government to REGULATE and CONTROL "harmless marijuana" that never killed anyone LIKE DEADLY Alcohol that harms, maims and kills 10s of THOUSANDS every year

Mile_Hi_Dave
Mile_Hi_Dave

@McShyster @Mile_Hi_Dave @Alpha-Omega I usually wouldn't dignify your response with an answer, but this was just too easy!  Too easy, that is, to make your look like the moron you are!  #1, the title of A64 is "The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012"!!!!  #2, it's even in the very first sentence of A64.

"(a) IN THE INTEREST OF THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES, ENHANCING REVENUE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO FIND AND DECLARE THAT THE USE OF MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND TAXED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO ALCOHOL."

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regulate-marijuana-alcohol-act-2012


Ok, school's over!!  IDIOT.  How's that saying go??  Better to keep you mouth shut and have people assume you're an idiot, than to open it and prove them right!!  Yeah...that's it!

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...