COUNCIL SHOULDN'T PASS LOUSY POT LAW

Denver City Council Is Considering Making Marijuana the Lowest Police
Priority.

There seems to be quite a bit of consternation at Denver City Hall
over what to do about a citizen's initiative that would make busting
people for marijuana possession the "lowest law enforcement priority."

City Council members are kicking around the idea of passing the law
themselves - without sending it to voters - in an effort to more
quickly kill it in court.

That would be a presumptuous course of action that would subvert the
process and is unnecessary. It's not the council's role to stop voters
from passing an ineffective local law if that is what they choose to
do.

We don't support the measure any more than the council does, but even
if the fundamentally flawed initiative is passed by voters, it is
destined to go nowhere.

An ordinance directing Denver law enforcement officers to all but
ignore state law probably would be deemed unconstitutional if the
issue were to end up at the Colorado Supreme Court.

The enforcement priority ordinance wouldn't change the fact that state
and federal laws criminalizing marijuana possession remain on the
books. Denver's charter says its police department will enforce state
laws. And federal law enforcement officials have repeatedly said such
measures will not deter them from enforcing federal laws.

We've said on numerous occasions that the federal war on drugs has
been a failure. But that is not an endorsement of ill-conceived local
efforts that are merely attention-getting ploys.

It's instructive to look at local history on the marijuana issue. In
2005, pot proponent Mason Tvert and his supporters persuaded Denver
voters to legalize adult possession of small amounts of marijuana for
recreational use. It was nothing more than a symbolic effort since
Denver police continued to cite offenders under state law.

Nevertheless, the measure's proponents ought to have their chance to
convince voters of the merits of their pot-bust priority measure. If
it passes, then council members could mount a court challenge or
simply ignore the flawed ordinance.

There is little to be gained and much to be lost by cutting short the
process. Not only would voters feel, and rightly so, that their voice
had been taken from them, but this council would find itself
responsible for passing the law. Regardless of their motivation, do
Denver City Council members really want to have that on their civic
record?

Some have argued that council members ought to move the question to
voters, and if it passes, law enforcement authorities should just
ignore the unconstitutional measure.

The marijuana proponents could, of course, take the city to court over
busts conducted despite the ordinance. If that were to happen, then
the city would have the chance to make the constitutional arguments
before a judge and likely would succeed.

We urge council members to put the matter on the ballot when they take
up the issue on first reading on Aug. 27. If the measure succeeds in
November, then city officials should carefully consider which is the
best course of action to negate the effects of this wrongheaded
effort. City police cannot and should not be expected to follow a law
that is, in all likelihood, unconstitutional