Denver Post Condemns Suburban Pot Ban, Calling It Unconstitutional

Last October The Denver Post editorialized against Amendment 64, saying it was "the wrong way to legalize marijuana." Last week the paper editorialized in defense of Amendment 64 (which won by 10 percentage points in November), condemning an attempt by Greenwood Village, a Denver suburb, to abridge rights that are now protected by the state constitution. As I reported last month, the Greenwood Village City Council responded to Amendment 64 with an ordinance that purports to ban possession of marijuana and "marijuana accessories" on public property, including streets and sidewalks. Among other things, the ordinance makes it illegal for residents of Greenwood Village to transport seeds, seedlings, or growing equipment (including equipment mandated by another ordinance), even though Amendment 64 allows people to cultivate up to six plants at home. The ordinance also bars residents from taking homegrown marijuana elsewhere, even though Amendment 64 allows people to possess and share up to an ounce at a time. Looking ahead to next year, when state-licensed recreational pot shops are supposed to start opening, Greenwood Village's ordinance would prohibit residents of the town from buying marijuana in Denver and bringing it home. As the Post notes, the ordinance even bars people who live in other cities from driving through Greenwood Village with marijuana they are allowed to possess under state law. Such meddling is plainly unconstitutional, the Post concludes:

Amendment 64 clearly legalizes "possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce or less of marijuana"...In Colorado, people transport items mostly over a street or sidewalk. Often there's no other option....

Are city officials under the impression that a constitutional amendment can be edited by local communities even after it has passed? If not, how do they expect the amendment's reference to "transporting" marijuana to be honored if they've effectively outlawed that activity within their locale?

Greenwood Village officials justify their ordinance on another provision in the amendment allowing an entity that "occupies, owns or controls a property" to prohibit "the possession, consumption, use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, transportation or growing of marijuana on or in that property."

Since the town owns the streets and sidewalks, the reasoning goes, it can ban marijuana from them.

But the idea that streets are the city's property in the same operational sense as other facilities flies in the face of common understanding and practice....

If the city's interpretation were correct, it would mean that any local jurisdiction could effectively render Amendment 64 meaningless within its borders. If marijuana can't be transported, after all, then Amendment 64 grants the right to possess and use marijuana only to those who grow it under the new rules — except that no one will be able to grow it, either, if they can't get the seeds or seedlings to their home in the first place.

Jerry Presley, who opposed Amendment 64 but nevertheless was one of two city council members to vote against the ordinance, told the Post "any common-sense reading of Amendment 64 would say that the people, when they voted for it, did not believe the transport of marijuana on city streets should be illegal." Brian Vicente, co-director of the Yes on 64 campaign, said the city is inviting "inevitable, costly litigation." Rob Corry, a Denver attorney and marijuana reform activist, tells me he'd be happy to take the case. "That will fall if it's challenged," he says. While residents of Greenwood Village, where most of the population voted against Amendment 64, may be reluctant to come out of the closet as pot smokers, motorists driving through the town with small amounts of marijuana should have fewer reservations. "When that ticket is issued," Corry says, "if that case comes across my desk, then there's an easy constitutional challenge to the ordinance."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    According to Virginia law, my wife and I are felons.

  • RBS||

    And all this time I thought Virginia was for lovers...

  • Virginian||

    Three felonies a day!

  • SugarFree||

    I hope Crane isn't living in his car.

  • np||

    Selective enforcement allows inconspicuously building up a war chest of felonies to throw at people whenever it's convenient.

    Not feeling like cooperating? Let's see here.. we have recording of your wife by an undercover agent admitting she likes oral sex.

  • Pro Libertate||

    J'accuse! J'accuse!

  • SugarFree||

    "That will fall if it's challenged," he says

    Or Greenwood will prevail using the same bullshit arguments that have keep dry counties going. The imagination and credulity of a judge is boundless when he or she wants to throw a case.

  • entropy||

    It's a tax.

  • SugarFree||

    You can buy all the pot you like, but there's a 10,000% tax on bongs, papers, lighters, vaporizers, apples, soda cans and plastic tubing.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    What about salmon?

  • SugarFree||

    More of a Washington State problem, I suspect.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I hate that streets and sidewalks are treated as purely public property. Under common law, they really should be treated as private property where the only rights the public has is to pass through unrestricted and transport their possessions.

  • SugarFree||

    Tulpa has told me that the streets, sidewalks and parks are the personal property of the government and they can do with them whatever the fuck they want.

  • RBS||

    Great, now he's going to show up and Tulpify this thread. I'm pretty sure he searches every thread for any mention of his name in his 24/7 anti defamation crusade.

  • SugarFree||

    The greatest sin you can commit in Tulpa's eyes is remembering the dumb things he has said.

  • Almanian!||

    Actually, my streets and sidewalks ARE private, because - you know - PRIVATE DRIVE.

    Fuck you, the un-monocled rabble!

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I'm picking up on something here. I'm getting the idea that Greenwood is a hoity toity bedroom community between a few more substantial suburbs and a speed trap.

  • NeverBetter||

    If my sidewalk is owned by the city, then why do I have to shovel their sidewalk when it snows? They can't have it both ways.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement