AMBUSHING THE POT INITIATIVE

Blue Book Language Will Mislead Voters

How would you react to a ballot measure allowing an adult to give "up
to one ounce of marijuana to another individual 15 years of age or
older as long as there is no compensation, although possession for
those under 21 years of age would remain illegal"? You'd consider the
measure for two seconds or less, declare it insane, and decide on the
spot to vote against it. Right?

Legalize the act of plying kids with drugs?

Who authored such madness?

No one, as it happens. But you wouldn't know it if you only read the
state's Blue Book, which is the pamphlet that goes out to all
registered voters and explains this year's ballot initiatives. That
misleading line about transferring marijuana to juveniles happens to
be included in the final draft of the pamphlet's discussion of Amendment 44.

The Legislative Council and its staff have made a serious mistake
that will cloud the reputation of the Blue Book for years to come,
not to mention tilt the playing field so far against Amendment 44
that the angle resembles a cliff.

Amendment 44 would have had an uphill fight under any circumstances,
given its goal of legalizing the adult possession of up to an ounce
of marijuana. But at least its backers had a fighting chance if they
could appeal to Coloradans who harbor mixed feelings about the
nation's drug war, and who resent how law enforcement often lumps pot
together with harder drugs.

But thanks to this Blue Book blunder, the task for Amendment 44
backers may be infinitely more difficult.

Did we say blunder? Strike that: The line was deliberately placed in
the Blue Book and is defended to this day by the Legislative Council
as a legitimate interpretation.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff told us "every single word" of the
controversial line "is true" because "it is accurate in terms of the
laws on possession of marijuana."

Romanoff says this because state law makes it a felony to give anyone
under 15 marijuana, and that law would remain in place if Amendment
44 passes. And since there is no explicit prohibition against
transferring pot to anyone older, the council felt justified in
maintaining that an adult could give "up to one ounce of marijuana to
another individual 15 years of age or older" under the amendment.

Unfortunately, the clear implication of that statement - that the
amendment decriminalizes such transfers, at least insofar as the
state is concerned - is simply false. It is a crime in Colorado to
help any juvenile break any federal or state law, and under both
federal and state law it will continue to be illegal for minors to
possess marijuana even if Amendment 44 is approved. So someone giving
a minor marijuana would be breaking the law as well.

The Blue Book does acknowledge that 44 "addresses state law for
possession only; enforcement of other marijuana laws would not
change." But contributing to the delinquency of a minor is not a
marijuana law, meaning the Blue Book fails to remind voters that such
a law exists.

Sponsors of Amendment 44 tried to have the offending language struck
this week in court, but a Denver judge said he had no authority to do
so. We understand the judge's reluctance to meddle in a legislative
prerogative, but the result is that voters will be misled. And that's
simply not right, whatever your opinion of the merits of Amendment 44.