Pubdate: Thu, 15 May 2014
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2014 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Vincent Carroll
Page: 17A

LIKE IT OR NOT, CSO MUST ABIDE BY AMENDMENT 64

The city of Denver is being cast as a killjoy and grouch by those who
believe it should have let the Colorado Symphony Orchestra proceed
with its original plan for a series of bring-your-own-pot concerts.
Yet Denver had little choice but to veto the idea.

If "The High Note Series" had gone on as planned, it would have set a
precedent, giving a green light to virtually any club, bar, concert or
other gathering to allow open consumption of marijuana provided it
sold tickets and confined pot use to an openair area not visible from
outside.

Can anyone seriously claim that's what Coloradans voted for in
2012?

Amendment 64 contains not one word hinting at a proliferation of
commercial establishments open to the public where pot smoking would
be encouraged. Nor did anyone active in the campaign ever suggest that
was in the offing.

To the contrary: The amendment fails even to carve out a consumption
waiver for retail pot establishments. Meanwhile, it explicitly bars
public use, with the actual language as follows: "Nothing in this
section shall permit consumption that is conducted openly and publicly
or in a manner that endangers others."

Supporters of the CSO's brainstorm make much of the fact that the
concerts would be held at the Space Gallery, a private venue, for
which you'd need a pricey ticket to enter, and that smoking would
occur only on an enclosed outdoor patio. Sam Kamin, a University of
Denver law professor, told The Denver Post "that sure looks more
private than public" to most people.

"If the symphony decides to make a test case of it, it would be more
interesting," Kamin added. "It would be a much closer case than the
Civic Center event would be."

But why would it be a close case? The amendment doesn't distinguish
between public and private venues. It simply outlaws "consumption that
is conducted openly and publicly." If you light up a joint on the
patio of a privately owned tavern at which you'd paid a cover charge,
would anyone doubt you were smoking "openly and publicly"?

Why would the judgment be different when the CSO is the host? Because
a ticket costs $75 and the music has elite appeal? Please. Those
aren't serious distinctions.

If you smoke pot at an event open to the public, you're smoking pot
openly and publicly.

To comply with the city's objections, the CSO has agreed that "no
reservations will be accepted from the general public" and that
tickets will go to "a closed list of VIP guests" (whatever "VIP" means
in that context) who are invited by the concert's promoter, Edible
Events.

This arrangement, finally, has the appearance of legality. Scott
Martinez, Denver city attorney, told me, "I don't see any legal basis
for us to stop the event."

Supporters of the CSO's original plan don't see the point. Why should
it matter, they wonder, if people pay good money to go to an event at
which they know pot will be smoked?

What harm does it do in a state where marijuana is already
legal?

It matters because Coloradans should get what they voted for. They
should not be subject to a bait-and-switch in which they are promised
one thing at the ballot box and given another.

What Amendment 64 promised, of course, happens to be an unprecedented
loosening of restrictions on marijuana possession, use and sales. But
despite all of the rhetoric of regulating pot like alcohol, Amendment
64 made no provision for commercial or nonprofit establishments open
to the public where it would be freely consumed.

Maybe Coloradans, after a few years of legal marijuana, will decide
they want to loosen the laws further to allow events such as those the
CSO envisioned. In that case, the path is clear: Proponents will need
to go to voters again, and ask them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt