News (Media Awareness Project) - US CO: Editorial: Defend Amendment 20 |
| Title: | US CO: Editorial: Defend Amendment 20 |
| Published On: | 2000-11-19 |
| Source: | Denver Post (CO) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 02:05:22 |
DEFEND AMENDMENT 20
Nov. 19, 2000 - Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar said shortly after
the Nov. 7 election that he might not be willing to defend the validity of
Amendment 20, allowing the medical use of marijuana. Noting that federal
law barring marijuana possession is in apparent conflict with the
amendment, Salazar worried that the amendment might therefore not be
legally defensible.
The attorney general since has modified his view and told The Post he now
expects to be able to plausibly defend against a possible challenge.
Explaining the change, Salazar enunciated what seems a sound standard for
deciding whether to defend the decisions of Colorado voters: "I believe I
have an obligation to defend the actions of the voters whenever there is a
reasonable basis for that defense."
The attorney general was quick to point out that there could be
circum-stances in which his office wouldn't defend the voters' decision.
We find it hard to argue with Salazar's position even though we, like the
attorney general, vigorously opposed passage of the initiative. Even if we
regret the election outcome, we must presume that voters made a considered
decision. And, absent special circumstances, the will of the voters
deserves a defense.
That does not mean this amendment doesn't have serious legal problems.
Federal law regarding marijuana possession does appear to be in conflict
with the amendment, and the experience of other states suggests it won't be
long before these conflicts become apparent. In California, for example,
federal prosecutors have taken action against doctors who prescribed
medical marijuana.
Admittedly, the amendment's authors attempted to anticipate and deal with
the potential conflict here, but it remains to be seen if they succeeded.
No court challenge has yet been filed, but history suggests it's only a
matter of time.
Amendment 20 raises very close legal questions, which is all the more
reason to be pleased that Salazar is ready to do his part to properly
present the issues to the appropriate court.
Nov. 19, 2000 - Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar said shortly after
the Nov. 7 election that he might not be willing to defend the validity of
Amendment 20, allowing the medical use of marijuana. Noting that federal
law barring marijuana possession is in apparent conflict with the
amendment, Salazar worried that the amendment might therefore not be
legally defensible.
The attorney general since has modified his view and told The Post he now
expects to be able to plausibly defend against a possible challenge.
Explaining the change, Salazar enunciated what seems a sound standard for
deciding whether to defend the decisions of Colorado voters: "I believe I
have an obligation to defend the actions of the voters whenever there is a
reasonable basis for that defense."
The attorney general was quick to point out that there could be
circum-stances in which his office wouldn't defend the voters' decision.
We find it hard to argue with Salazar's position even though we, like the
attorney general, vigorously opposed passage of the initiative. Even if we
regret the election outcome, we must presume that voters made a considered
decision. And, absent special circumstances, the will of the voters
deserves a defense.
That does not mean this amendment doesn't have serious legal problems.
Federal law regarding marijuana possession does appear to be in conflict
with the amendment, and the experience of other states suggests it won't be
long before these conflicts become apparent. In California, for example,
federal prosecutors have taken action against doctors who prescribed
medical marijuana.
Admittedly, the amendment's authors attempted to anticipate and deal with
the potential conflict here, but it remains to be seen if they succeeded.
No court challenge has yet been filed, but history suggests it's only a
matter of time.
Amendment 20 raises very close legal questions, which is all the more
reason to be pleased that Salazar is ready to do his part to properly
present the issues to the appropriate court.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
