FALSE PROMISE ON POT

Question I-100 Can't Change State or Federal Law

Give Mason Tvert credit for being focused and responsive, if nothing else.

The Denver marijuana activist takes seriously the objections to
Initiated Question 100, the ballot measure that would make simple pot
possession the "lowest law enforcement priority" of Denver police.
And he has answers to those objections, too, several of them somewhat
persuasive.

Why push another marijuana initiative only two years after Denver
voters approved a measure that legalized adult possession of
marijuana - at least in city statute books? Because, he says, even
with that ordinance in effect, marijuana arrests within the city
reached an all-time high last year. Tvert is also right that
residents of a home-rule city like Denver generally do have the
ability to enact laws that vary from Colorado statutes (although
trumping state law is another matter, as we shall see).

But just as we opposed the 2005 legalization measure, we cannot
support the current initiative - even if it's little more than a
symbolic affirmation of voters' earlier decision.

Our reasons are similar as well. The 2005 measure could not overturn
state or federal laws against marijuana possession, which is why pot
arrests continue. And this year's measure won't overturn them, either.

Meanwhile, we have no idea how Denver police and prosecutors would
interpret a mandate to make marijuana possession a lower priority
than traffic offenses or jaywalking. Would the measure tie the hands
of Denver police, or cause conflicts with wider state and federal
drug investigations? If so, that's not a positive development.

As we've said before, the proper venues to address drug laws are at
the state Capitol and in Washington, D.C. Marijuana possession will
become legal only when federal and state laws say so, even if local
voters oppose its illegal status.

We can see at least one unintended consequence if the initiative
passes - and it's perhaps inadvertently pointed out in literature
provided by the group Tvert heads, Citizens for a Safer Denver.

On the one hand, the group says that marijuana is relatively harmless
and that the drug is actually less of a social problem than alcohol.
And as far as the criminal justice system is concerned, a citation
for marijuana possession seems minimal, resulting in perhaps no worse
than a $100 fine.

And yet, the literature also accurately points out, a marijuana
arrest can have "far more damaging" consequences as well. Those may
include "loss of employment, inability to gain employment, loss of
student financial aid, suspension of professional license, loss of
public housing, loss of unemployment benefits, loss of rights to
possess a firearm, loss of rights to adopt children or serve as a
foster parent."

By backing this initiative, supporters are sending a potentially
perverse message to pot users: Marijuana possession is no big deal.
This initiative will keep the cops off your back.

Except that it may not. And if it doesn't, those cited for possession
will have to face those dire consequences and personal sanctions
mentioned by Tvert's group. Question I-100 offers a false promise
that pot users will face only minor penalties if it passes. But they
are likely to discover otherwise so long as the law of the land bans
marijuana use. That's another reason to reject this measure.