DISQUS

Gone to Pot · 2 years ago

Boigon was right. Tvert is simply a clownish media whore.  If he really wanted to change the drug laws, he would be working at the state and federal level, rather than wasting time and taxpayer money with do-nothing legislation in Denver.  But, he is not serious.

Andrew Oh-Willeke · 2 years ago

Broadwell both right and wrong. Broadwell is probably right to the extent that he is stating that the ballot issue could not be used as a defense to a marijuana prosecution by a particular defendant in a particular criminal case. 

Low priority doesn't mean never prosecute or spend no money on the task -- the proverbial low hanging fruit cases can still be prosecuted since few resources are required.  Even very low priority offenses are often prosecuted when the piggy back on other crimes.  And, enforcement of low priority crimes makes sense from the point of the initiative if it is subordinate to another law enforcement goal like gang enforcement -- if marijuana smoke comes out of a suspected gang headquarters that could provide probable cause for a search primarily directed at apprehending people for whom their outstanding warrants and seizing guns and other drugs that the cops have a mere hunch are there, but lack probable cause to establish that.

Now, criminal defense lawyers could still probably raise the issue in sentencing hearings where the prosecution asks for a long (and hence expensive) sentence for a marijuana offense -- it might not be dispositive, but it is relevant.

But, while the measure would be a poor defense in criminal court, it could be quite powerful in other contexts.  For example, if the city jail faces a civil overcrowding suit, it would be relevant in a hearing to set priorities on who should be released to reduce overcrowding -- if pot is the lowest priority per the city charter, then the city ought to release those convicted of marijuana offenses from the city jail first to address the problem. A Sheriff is generally understood to have the power to release convicted jail inmates early if the Sheriff lacks the resources to detain everyone, and also has a duty to uphold the city charter, as unlike the D.A. and county and district court judges, the Sheriff reports to the city, not the state.

An overcrowding suit is hardly out of the realm of possibility.  Denver has the second most crowded big city jail in the nation, a new jail isn't done yet, and major public projects are notorious for construction delays.

Similarly, were a newspaper to reveal that the city was spending more on pot enforcement than say, burglary enforcement, a civil suit to discontinue that level of funding (or to compel the city auditor to refuse to authorize the checks paying for it) might very well pass muster, if someone could find standing to do so.  Indeed, a sympathetic city auditor might be just the person to bring such a suit.  Likewise, someone might sue to enjoin the city under some future major from establishing a Mayor's office of marijuana enforcement.

Of course, the symbolic power of a majority vote in favor of the measure (which is hardly radical since it is a matter of priorities rather than true decriminalization), would likely influence deputy district attorneys working for Denver D.A. Mitch Morrisey or Troy Eid's assistant U.S. attorneys, in plea negotiations, who would fear that bringing a pot charge could produce a jury nullification.  Getting a majority of a jury pool removed for cause is a tall order, but a voter for this measure has made a symbolic commitment that might translate into a jury nullification vote on a jury.

The symbolic power of the vote also impacts elected officials, who may see a hard line against marijuana as electoral bad karma.

Andrew Oh-Willeke · 2 years ago

Tvert is arguably the most effective pot campaigner in the nation. He has found fertile soil and is milking it for all it is worth.

Perth, Australia and Amsterdam, Netherlands, are both examples of places where state/federal law on vice has been nullified in practice by a policy of local non-enforcement of laws against it.

The federal approach is a fool's errand right now.  The voters aren't there and a veto to stop any liberalization is there.

He did try at the state level, and while he failed, he got a surprisingly large vote in favor, with majorities in some communities.

And, to the extent that this is political theater, it still works.  Politics isn't just laws and elections.  Tvert is also engaged in "movement politics" which is the process of engaging public attention to educate the public and change its opinions.

ACT UP did political theater for a very long time before policy makers finally started giving legal recognition to gay rights and seriously funding AIDS research.  Colorado isn't going to legalize pot in the 2007 legislative session (and already has quite lenient punishments by national standards).  But, votes like this lay a foundation of base support for measures like reducing mandatory minimum drug sentences at the federal level, reducing state criminal sentences for the offense, and legalizing medical marijuana at the federal level (following many state adoptions).  If a majority of voters in Denver think it is a low priority, then it becomes more respectable for other people to even entertain the idea that marijuana isn't the devil's weed.

Symbolically Powerful · 2 years ago

I thought the initiative was a proposed ordinance? ...NOT a proposed amendment to the city charter?

Also, I doubt either a district judge or county judge, charged with applying state law, would apply a city law to mitigate a state-law drug sentence.  At least not overtly.

Symbolically Powerful · 2 years ago

"The most effective pot campaigner in the nation"? ...is that some sort of backhanded compliment?  Like "the loudest whisperer in the nation"?  To be the most effective person among a group of largely ineffective people is not saying much.

Returning to the city level after failing at the state level doesn't demonstrate political power.  Rather it shows an abandoment of a serious effort in order to pursue an easier, and much less meaningful, path. 

Finally, it is very debatable whether ACT UP helped or hindered the cause of AIDS research or "gay rights" (as you have connected the two issues). 

asdf · 2 years ago

you don't know what your talking about