News (Media Awareness Project) - US CO: Pro-Marijuana Group Wants to Pull Initiative in Return for City Promise |
Title: | US CO: Pro-Marijuana Group Wants to Pull Initiative in Return for City Promise |
Published On: | 2007-08-24 |
Source: | Denver Post (CO) |
Fetched On: | 2008-08-16 19:19:31 |
PRO-MARIJUANA GROUP WANTS TO PULL INITIATIVE IN RETURN FOR CITY PROMISE
Too Late, a City Attorney Says, As the Issue Takes Another Twist in
Its Journey to the Ballot.
The marijuana interest group that was furious last week because the
Denver City Council did not like its initiative is now ticked off
that the city won't let the group kill it.
Citizens for a Safer Denver collected more than 10,000 signatures to
place an initiative on the November ballot asking voters to make
marijuana possession the "lowest law enforcement priority" in Denver.
But Thursday the group offered to spike the initiative if the city
would agree not to ticket people for marijuana possession during the
2008 Democratic National Convention and state that pot is less
harmful that booze.
So far, there are no takers.
"Absolutely not," Councilman Charlie Brown said. "I think it's a
publicity stunt."
City officials pointed out that under city rules, Citizens for a
Safer Denver has no authority to pull an initiative signed by
thousands of residents - despite the fact that the group collected
the signatures.
"Just days ago, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey was openly
calling for the City Council to keep the initiative off the ballot,"
said Mason Tvert, who heads the marijuana group. "Now, because city
officials live in fear of acknowledging the simple truth that
marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, they are hiding behind the
law rather than accepting our offer to withdraw the initiative."
State law does allow for initiatives to be pulled. But David
Broadwell, assistant city attorney, said as far as city laws go, the
initiative is past the point of no return. In effect, the group is
just a conduit for the thousands of residents who want the initiative.
The City Council on Monday must vote to either send the issue to
voters in November or adopt the policy as a city ordinance.
It's the latest odd twist over the initiative. Last week, City
Council members - who are overwhelmingly opposed to the change -
considered passing the language into law in order to fight it in court.
Too Late, a City Attorney Says, As the Issue Takes Another Twist in
Its Journey to the Ballot.
The marijuana interest group that was furious last week because the
Denver City Council did not like its initiative is now ticked off
that the city won't let the group kill it.
Citizens for a Safer Denver collected more than 10,000 signatures to
place an initiative on the November ballot asking voters to make
marijuana possession the "lowest law enforcement priority" in Denver.
But Thursday the group offered to spike the initiative if the city
would agree not to ticket people for marijuana possession during the
2008 Democratic National Convention and state that pot is less
harmful that booze.
So far, there are no takers.
"Absolutely not," Councilman Charlie Brown said. "I think it's a
publicity stunt."
City officials pointed out that under city rules, Citizens for a
Safer Denver has no authority to pull an initiative signed by
thousands of residents - despite the fact that the group collected
the signatures.
"Just days ago, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey was openly
calling for the City Council to keep the initiative off the ballot,"
said Mason Tvert, who heads the marijuana group. "Now, because city
officials live in fear of acknowledging the simple truth that
marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, they are hiding behind the
law rather than accepting our offer to withdraw the initiative."
State law does allow for initiatives to be pulled. But David
Broadwell, assistant city attorney, said as far as city laws go, the
initiative is past the point of no return. In effect, the group is
just a conduit for the thousands of residents who want the initiative.
The City Council on Monday must vote to either send the issue to
voters in November or adopt the policy as a city ordinance.
It's the latest odd twist over the initiative. Last week, City
Council members - who are overwhelmingly opposed to the change -
considered passing the language into law in order to fight it in court.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...