Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Pot Arrests Dip in Denver Following Ballot Initiative
Prosecutions of adults for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana dropped by a fifth in Denver last year, following the passage of a November 2007 ballot initiative that instructed city officials to make such cases their "lowest law enforcement priority." Last summer it looked like the Denver Police Department was ignoring the initiative, as it had a 2005 ballot measure that repealed local penalties for possessing less than an ounce of pot. (Police continued to arrest pot smokers, charging them with violating state law.) But according to data recently presented to the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel, appointed by Mayor John Hickenlooper to oversee implementation of the 2007 initiative, prosecutions of pot smokers 21 or older fell from 2,105 in 2007 to 1,658 in 2008. "Our city punished far fewer adults for marijuana possession [last] year, yet the sky did not fall," says Mason Tvert, a member of the panel and the executive director of Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), the group that ran initiative campaign. "Hopefully this is just the beginning of Denver's shift toward a more rational approach to marijuana."
My previous posts on marijuana policy in Denver here, here, and here.
|2.6.09 @ 4:05PM|#
I love this story. City passes ballot initiative - which is probably the hardest way to pass law. City officials and police pretend it didn't happen.
|2.6.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Why isn't ownership of an once or less of cocaine, heroin or any
other drug just as wonderful? Why should people with these drugs be
the victims of such a law?
Res ipsa loquitur.
Zeb|2.6.09 @ 4:21PM|#
20% drop in arrests doesn't exactly sound like a resounding success when the law basically says "don't arrest people for possession".
|2.6.09 @ 4:38PM|#
"Lowest priority" means "when you have nothing else to
do."
If Denver has this many cops with nothing else to do, then it has
too many cops.
Elemenope|2.6.09 @ 4:42PM|#
If Denver has this many cops with nothing else to do, then
it has too many cops.
QFMFT!
SIV|2.6.09 @ 4:47PM|#
Common sense peeks its head out, warily evaluating its
surroundings...
Sees it's shadow,scurries back into burrow.600 more years of the
War on Drugs.
lunchstealer|2.6.09 @ 4:48PM|#
When I read the post title, I got a mental image of a big joint with mirrored shades beating a can of Skoal senseless with a nightstick.
Randall|2.6.09 @ 4:59PM|#
"When I read the post title, I got a mental image of a big joint
with mirrored shades beating a can of Skoal senseless with a
nightstick."
Same for me, only with Pol Pot and clam dip.
|2.6.09 @ 5:42PM|#
I am guessing the cops are taking the "lowest priority" thing
somewhat lightly. But if its an easy catch, its an easy catch.
Every kegger they break up or house party that gets called in by
the local busy-body will undoubtedly have some dope there. Cops
wouldn't be cops if they didn't try to collect some coin for
whatever they could.
I think the most telling statistic about effectiveness would be how
many re-cyclers are still on the books. In any town, half the
petty-possessions prosecuted usually originate from the same group
of people getting busted, let out, busted again, repeat. I think
any data indicating that trend would be a better window to whether
or not police are really putting dope on the back-burner.
oat willie|2.6.09 @ 6:31PM|#
"prosecutions is not the same thing as arrests, busts,
hassles or confiscations"
Often a hassle for pot ends up being a justification for the cop to
give you a "white glove" inspection so they can find stuff to
charge you with and stack 'em up real good so you have to pay the
maximum amount for your indiscretion.
eah|2.6.09 @ 6:35PM|#
And the Colorado front range is also now rapidly developing a California style dispensary system which provides reasonable legal cover for both sellers and growers.
BakedPenguin|2.6.09 @ 6:42PM|#
Thomas Jackson - your pro War on Drug statements might be more
convincing if they were coherent.
Then again, maybe not.
|2.6.09 @ 7:49PM|#
Why isn't ownership of an once or less of cocaine, heroin or
any other drug just as wonderful? Why should people with these
drugs be the victims of such a law?
Res ipsa loquitur.
Those drugs should be legalized along with pot (including amounts
more than 1 ounce). People who use them ought not be victims of the
drug war.
I don't know if this speaks for itself, but unfortunately not many
people seem to listen to pro-legalization messages.
|2.6.09 @ 9:32PM|#
Baked Bird:
Smoke another doobie birdbrain. Your comments only reflect your
educational level and your ability to comprehend. Your comment
demonstrates that someone with an IQ slightly lower than a mushroom
can be mendacious yet sophomoric.
Bong on.
By the way I'll take fries with my order.
waldo|2.7.09 @ 8:50AM|#
You know marijuanna is like any other drug, including alcohol.
There are those that can be amazingly responsible. They can
continue to get good grades, they can hold a steady job, and they
can be an overall good citizen.
Yet there are equally as many that Turn into complete morons
fail out of school, lose their jobs because they show up late or
becoem too apathetic, and resort to being a douche.
Same with alcohol. Some people can go, get plastered, and NOT
drive, and NOT get into fights, or fall down flights of stairs, and
others that after consuming alcohol are complete morons.
Punish the idiots, but leave the responsible people alone
BakedPenguin|2.7.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Nice ad hominem - at least your insults are coherent. Glad you
could take time from polishing your jackboots to write that
down.
Do you actually live in Swaziland, btw? It's got a government you
could really approve of.
BakedPenguin|2.7.09 @ 11:57AM|#
That last comment was for Thomas Jackson, although I suspect he won't get a chance to read it for a while. No-knock raids on innocent subjects really take it out of a guy.
zoltan|2.7.09 @ 2:39PM|#
By the way I'll take fries with my order.
Yeah, sure, Michael Phelps will be serving you.
Thomas Jackson|2.7.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Just goes to show what straining that surviving brain cell does.
All the cauterwauling and whinning, the inability to present
coherent arguments or evidence.
So make sue to serve up those fries you two losers. And do try to
be c0oherent, its hard when you're as drugged out as you two
are.
Your faith in the inerrancy of the mighty reefer is demonstrated by
your sophomoric and fatuous comments. One usually ascribes such wit
to the inspidiness of education rather than the toxicity of the
mind, but in both of your cases the drugs have done their
work.
One wonders who would entrust the serving of fries to you two? Off
to Barney Frank's with both of you too dear boys.
BakedPenguin|2.7.09 @ 4:44PM|#
Oh my, my. Nice try, Thomas Jackboot.
You want coherent agruments against the drug war?
Society does not have the right to tell adults what they can do to
themselves so long as they do not harm others.
Of course, you probably disagree with that. So let's move on
to
The drug war does not work. It stops next to no one from using
drugs, and it costs hundreds of billions of dollars annually to not
work. Millions of people are in jail who have committed no other
crime than possession of a substance the societal overlords have
deemed unacceptable. These people, instead being productive and
contributing to the economy, rot in prison with murderers,
arsonists, rapists, robbers and others who indisputably belong
there.
While they are in jail, however, they can keep up with their habits
in many cases - because drugs are often readily available in jail -
which also goes to show the total failure of the WoD.
Like Al Capone, who killed dozens to keep his illegal alcohol
territory, the violence surrounding drugs is almost entirely
related to their illegality. Coors and Busch don't have shootouts,
and Walgreens and CVS don't kill each other over oxycontin
territories. Alcohol, being legal, doesn't inspire much violent
crime from addicts - mainly petty crime and panhandling.
Since in a drug trade, there is no victim to make a complaint -
police have felt the need to resort to extra legal tactics in
combatting them. This has resulted in all sorts of unseemly
activity, as well as the steady erosion of Constitutional
protections of the 4th, 5th, 8th & 10th amendments. Due process
has also suffered greatly.
The money available in th edrug trade has also corrupted many, many
police officers. The "El Rukn" case in Chicago, a similar gang case
in LA, as well as the incredible New Orleans police corruption
scandals all show that the War on Drugs is undermining Rule of Law
in this country.
However, it's even worse in other countries, such as Mexico, where
the drug dealers are now nearly defacto rulers of the country.
Similarly, our drug policy has pushed many Afghan farmers into the
hands of the Taliban.
And this is just the start...
BakedPenguin|2.7.09 @ 4:49PM|#
edit - 4th pp : "...millions of people..." s/b "...hundreds of thousands of people..."
Thomas Jackson|2.7.09 @ 5:27PM|#
Dear Infantile Penguin:
One can tell both the educational, emotional, and achievement level
by the standard of stability in one's comments.
Having demonstrated you are both a successful lobotomy patient and
off your meds the inability to form a coherent though is
demonstrated throughout your drooling comment.
To wit:
Society does not have the right to tell adults what to do so long
as they do not hurt others.
What world do you live in.
Have you not heard of the IRS?
Perhaps you haven't heard of the various labor standards required
for safety and welfare of people even if no one is harmed or could
be harmed?
Perhaps you can explain why the Congress has mandated the amount of
water a toilet can use or the type of light bulbs that we can
purchase.
Now due to your long experience in law enforcement and vast
experience overseas you boldly assert the drug war does not
work.
So tell us what your background is that allows you to have such
insights or did you just pull it out of your ass as you usually
do?
Perhaps you can explain the laws against prostitution and
gambling.
Demonstrating your inability to reason or evaluate data you use the
example or drugs corrupting law enforcement. So let us hget this
straight if all drugs were legal corruption would vanish?
By such reasoning one must realize that Las Vegas is the mecca of
the vrtuous since corruption and vice cannot exist there.
You Penguin are the Leni Riefenstahl of Morlock Leftism. So drug
addled that you can't comment coherently or intelligently. Someone
who would have us believe that the freedom to be addled is
beneficial to the individual and the nation. Personally I would
welcome free drug useage in this country.
In three years the gene pool would be cleaned out of the druggies
or they would all be drooling on sidewalks where they could be
readily identified and pissed upon. I'd like to call you an adept
liar, but you are not.
Your ignorance is exceeded only by an arrogance which you have in
abundance. One wonders if the gravitational field is altered when
you pass.
You wouldn't have a clue what the rule of law is. This country
discarded the rule of law ehn it decided judges made law and
abandoned Blackstone.
So unfortunately the SC has ruled that braying at the moon while
wearing high heels is a protected form of expression and you can
continue to comment regardless of the dictates of good form or
education.
Now off to your sandbox laddie and lecture the other 6th graders
about the rule of law and failure of the war on drugs.
|2.7.09 @ 6:59PM|#
**surreptitiously rubs several french fries in asscrack before
replacing them in bag**
"here you are mr. jackson sir. would you like a coke or something
to wash them down?"
Kreel Sarloo|2.7.09 @ 7:17PM|#
The Thomas Jackson post 5:27pm is a beautiful jumble of random
paragraphs strung together.
Each one seems to have some internal sense but strung together they
convey no meaning at all.
BakedPenguin|2.7.09 @ 7:27PM|#
Kreel - well put. He addressed zero of the points I made, because he has zero argument to make. Instead, he just went on with the insults and can be dismissed a worthless, gutless troll. Into INCIF he goes, (with another thank you to Eric the .5b).
Taktix®|2.8.09 @ 10:28AM|#
The Thomas Jackson post 5:27pm is a beautiful jumble of
random paragraphs strung together
I imagine a random sample of phrasesd found in a Google search
would be more sensical.
Oh, and "cauterwauling[sic]" and "whinning" are basically the same
thing, so before you go to thesaurus.com attempting to make
yourself sound intellegent, remember that some of us have computers
as well...
zoltan|2.8.09 @ 2:36PM|#
I just watched the "Hooked: Illegal Drugs" on the History Channel about marijuana. Anyone ever seen that? Anyone ever want to slapaho as much as Harry Anslinger? That guy's a dick.
sage|2.8.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Hey guys, sign the med pot petition for Obama to see. They only
have about 725 signatures so far. That ain't enough.
Here:
http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/end_federal_raids_on_medical_marijuana_dispensaries
sage|2.8.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Or we could just legalize it. That one has much more
signatures.
http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/legalize_marijuana
Veritas|2.8.09 @ 9:26PM|#
I see the druggies have banded together and lecturing us about
the merits of their fries. Their combined wits make them sound like
Biden on drugs.
Good to see they all are gainfully employed though one wonders who
would allow them to man the fries counter. Ugh the thought of any
of these druggies handling food reminds me of the dullards bathing
in the backrooms of fast food joints.
But Barney Frank's children have to eat too.
Orange Line Destroyer|2.8.09 @ 10:08PM|#
Drugs make superior minds. Could druggies really believe this? Must have something to do with their worship of the mothership.
Orabnge Line Destroyer|2.9.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Stoner:
I'd sign Sage's petition but can't find his crayon.
Obamie must have it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245