IN DEFENSE OF DENVER MARIJUANA INITIATIVE

Re: "Council shouldn't pass lousy pot law," Aug. 17 editorial.

Regarding your claim that our "lowest law enforcement priority"
initiative would be unconstitutional under state law, suffice it to
say the omission of the phrase "home rule" speaks volumes. The one
court that considered such an initiative ruled it was legal and must
be implemented.

More glaringly, your editorial asserted marijuana possession would
remain illegal under federal law if this initiative were adopted.
Federal law is 100 percent irrelevant to this debate. As we've seen
with medical marijuana, states are completely free to determine how
they handle marijuana enforcement.

The editorial also called the initiative "fundamentally flawed,"
ignoring the success of similar initiatives that have been enacted in
Seattle and other cities. In fact, the Seattle councilmembers who
serve as the co-chairs of the panel overseeing implementation of the
Seattle law sent a letter to the Denver City Council touting its
effectiveness.

Most importantly, the editorial's headline called the initiative a
"lousy pot law." Yet, aside from your claim that the initiative would
be unworkable and unconstitutional, you didn't cite a single negative
outcome that could result from its implementation.

Editorials like this are why more people every day turn to blogs for
trusted reporting and analysis.

Mason Tvert, Denver

The writer is campaign director for Citizens for a Safer Denver.