Pubdate: Mon, 07 Nov 2005
Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
Copyright: 2005, Denver Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/371
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/props.htm (Ballot Initiatives)

CITY MUST ENFORCE STATE POT LAW

Picking Among Statutes Not A Wise Option

The decision by Denver voters to legalize the possession of a small 
amount of marijuana is more symbolic than real: Only 36 adults were 
charged last year under the now-defunct city ordinance prohibiting possession.

Meanwhile, 1,565 were charged under the state law, which remains intact.

But Mason Tvert, the executive director of the group that put the 
initiative on the ballot, insists Denver authorities should respect 
voter wishes and stop charging anyone under the state law, too.

"Right now," he told one reporter, "there are city officials denying 
the will of voters who put them in office, and I think that's disturbing."

We understand Tvert's frustration, but the matter is not as simple as 
he makes it out to be. Yes, prosecution of even the state marijuana 
charges in Denver is left almost exclusively to city attorneys, who 
for such cases are deputized as special DAs. The regular district 
attorneys are too busy pursuing more serious crimes. In theory, the 
mayor could order Denver attorneys simply to stop pursuing such cases.

But it would be unwise for him to do so, for three reasons.

By far the most important reason is that cities can't - or at least 
shouldn't - pick and choose among state laws to enforce. Those 
statutes are supposed to apply equally to all citizens.

When states like Colorado passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana 
for medical purposes in defiance of federal law, they at least had 
constitutional arguments in their corner involving the commerce 
clause and federal regulatory reach. Denver has no similar arguments 
on which to base an intention to ignore state law.

Secondly, a pot charge is often a supplemental charge - an add-on to 
other charges such as trespass, public nuisance, etc. Law enforcement 
always likes to have as many arrows in its quiver as possible; if the 
perp gets off on one charge, perhaps he can be nailed with another.

Finally, the vote to legalize pot possession was so unexpected that 
Denver citizens never engaged in a serious debate about its 
consequences. Most of the pre-election controversy had to do with 
whether the campaign's billboards were fair.

Were Denver voters even aware they couldn't legalize pot, that a 
state law would remain in place? Does a majority even now really want 
their mayor to defy state authorities and declare he won't enforce 
Colorado law in the state capital?

We don't know the answer to those questions, and neither does Tvert 
and his group. The Denver anti-pot ordinance is dead. Long live the 
state statute.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman