Get Active Subscribe Support Us

BOTH SIDES OF REF.  44 UP IN SMOKE

Talk about a wedge issue. 

Thursday was all about the weed here in the Grand Valley. 

First, we had the pro-Referendum 44 folks passionately touting the importance of legalizing the bud in a billboard-unveiling press conference. 

That was followed by a press conference hosted by the anti-Referendum 44 crowd, stressing how the bud is the root of all that's bad in our community. 

After that, Scott M.  Burns, deputy director for state and local affairs in the White House Drug Policy Office, stopped by the Free Press office.  He too, said legalizing bud was bad. 

Thought I was going to have to use the office dolly to roll away the stacks of paperwork he toted documenting just how bad marijuana was. 

So, what onlookers like myself took away from Thursday is that some people say weed's good, and some say weed's bad. 

Hence, the wedge. 

Bored yet? If you are, that's OK. 

Folks, I'm here to tell you that you shouldn't feel bad if you don't have strong convictions on this one. 

Other than the fact that they "want to get high, sooo high," the pro crowd hasn't given many reasons on why the stuff should be legalized. 

The no crowd, aside from discounting information pushed by the pro crowd, hasn't put up much of an argument as to why the stuff should be illegal. 

But they're both pretty darn adamant in their stance. 

Use this as a case study in politics as to what different camps do to twist the exact same information in favor of their own argument. 

Myth 10 in the little book distributed Thursday by the Office of National Drug Control Policy read "the government sends otherwise innocent people to prison for casual marijuana use."

The Office of National Drug Control Policy states that this is a myth because, "It is extremely rare for anyone, particularly first-time offenders, to get sent to prison just for possessing a small amount of marijuana.  In most states, possession of an ounce or less of pot is a misdemeanor offense."

Seems like a good point.  Why legalize it, if law enforcement isn't making a big deal out of it anyway?

But the folks on the other side of the issue use the same information in a common argument for legalizing the stuff. 

If it's "extremely rare for anyone, particularly first-time offenders, to get sent to prison for possessing a small amount of marijuana," the drug must not be that bad, right?

They're letting offenders off easy anyway, so why not just legalize dope?

To which the Drug Control office would respond, "We're letting you off easy anyway, so what's the point of legalizing it?"

To which the pro-crowd says, "Why not?"

To which the Drug Control office says, "Why?"

And as we do so often in politics, we find ourselves in preschool before nap time. 

Makes one think they're all smoking something. 

Now look past the Referendum 44 haze for a moment, and remember the big issue law enforcement is facing. 

Burns assured locals Thursday that the folks in Washington are paying attention to the meth problem. 

"Every time I go to testify on Capitol Hill, meth is the subject," he said.  He likes what he sees happening by local leaders, who have formed the Mesa County Meth Task Force.  "It's a model for what has to happen," he said. 

And it's a model focusing on the issue we should be focusing on.