Pubdate: Sat, 04 Jul 2015
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2015 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122

REVISED POT PLAN IS STILL A STRETCH

Backers of an initiative to allow pot consumption in Denver where it 
is now off limits have revised their ballot plan since we first 
discussed it two weeks ago. And the final version is more restrictive 
than the original idea. But whether the revisions go far enough to 
make it palatable to voters is another question.

We doubt it, and will be curious to see how major civic and business 
groups - not to mention the mayor and City Council members - react 
should sponsors gather enough signatures for the ballot.

With a threshold of only 4,700 signatures by Sept. 3, that task 
shouldn't be terribly hard.

The sponsors say their attempt to go to the ballot is being made in 
lieu of a trip to the courts. They believe Denver's interpretation of 
where pot smoking should be banned is overly broad and unconstitutional.

The initiative would allow consumption in specific outdoor areas of 
establishments that don't allow anyone younger than 21, so long as 
users are 25 feet from a public space.

Proponents say that is far enough away not to be intrusive. But that 
might also be less than 10 yards from a sidewalk, where it could be 
visible to the public. Are Denverites really ready for this?

Currently, Denver bans pot use in any outdoor location on a private 
non-residential property if it is clearly visible from a public place 
- - which to us is what Amendment 64's language anticipated.

Backers say this is not what Amendment 64 intended. They say private, 
non-residential property owners have the right to decide whether pot 
can be consumed on their land or not. They believe they could sue the 
city for being in violation of the state constitution but instead 
want voters to decide.

Recreational marijuana has been legal for only about a year and a 
half. Denver is still getting used to the business model and the 
consequences of legalization. We'd have preferred pot proponents give 
the new model more time before jumping into an electoral battle over 
the right of public consumption.

On the other hand, if we're going to debate whether to widen the 
boundaries of consumption, the ballot box is indeed where this 
question should be explored - rather than be dictated by the City 
Council or even state lawmakers.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom