Denver Councilwoman Calls Marijuana Ordinance 'an Attempt to Nullify Much of Amendment 64'

As I noted last week, Denver's proposed marijuana ordinance not only criminalizes smoking pot in your own backyard if other people can see or smell it; it also makes it illegal to "possess" or "transport" marijuana "within any park, parkway, mountain park or other recreational facility." In a recent interview with Westword, Denver City Councilwoman Susan Shepherd argues that the rule contradicts Amendment 64, Colorado's legalization initiative, which says "transporting" up to an ounce of marijuana "shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado." That means traversing a city park after buying marijuana at a state-licensed shop should be perfectly legal, she says, especially since "our parks and the trail system are used very much by people as alternate transportation routes." Shepherd, who says "one of my top priorities has been to encourage multi-modal transportation usage," worries that the ordinance would deter people carrying marijuana from walking and biking. "It would be technically illegal to transport this product on the trail system under the ordinance," she says. "And I'm really not OK with that."
The ordinance also bans marijuana from the 16th Street Mall, requiring anyone buying pot from a store there to leave the mall right away. "But we want people to go to the mall and spend some time there," says Shepherd. "So let's say a person bought their marijuana and then bought a book and went to dinner before walking home. They would be in violation, because they didn't immediately exit the store and leave the mall."
Shepherd notes that making it illegal to consume marijuana where others can see or smell it would affect not only porches, patios, and backyards but also indoor spaces in condominium and apartment buildings. "If you really said you couldn't consume on private property if others could detect the smell," she says, "a condo owner would literally have no place in the city where they could consume legally."
Shepherd seems fairly confident that the more objectionable aspects of the ordinance, which is backed by Councilman Chris Nevitt and Mayor Michael Hancock, can be eliminated before it's enacted. "There are several folks on the council who didn't support Amendment 64, and who don't really support retail marijuana in the City and County of Denver," she says. "But even most of them realized this ordinance was overreaching….It's basically an attempt to nullify much of Amendment 64."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
backed by Councilman Chris Nevitt and Mayor Michael Hancock
So, are these team blue statits or team red statists?
It seems any competent lawyer would point out to them that their proposed ordinance will not stand when challenged, given the clear language in Amendment 64. And yet they forge ahead. Statist really do live by the FYTW creed.
Everyone knows amendments are made to be broken.
I'd hit that...a joint in a Denver backyard when Ms Shepherd get through trouncing these assholes.
It's basically an attempt to nullify much of Amendment 64.
How can this be true? Elected politicians attempting to thwart the wishes of a majority of their votin g constituents?
What about MAJORITY ROOOLZ?
What about MAJORITY ROOOLZ?
All your democracy is belong to us, because FYTW.
Being a statist means knowing when to say that the majority rules and when to say that we have a republic, not a democracy.
OT: I know the source, but watch the video. My gawd, peak derp is really achievable!
Do we want an Orwellian Nazi style police state? Yes we do!
That got put on the morning links not once, but twice!
I hate AM links, needz moar later links.
After signing the petition to "implement the Orwellian police state," another man responds, "You find the pot of money though," apparently more concerned about how much a Nazi-style police state would cost than its actual consequences.
Welcome to England, the place that demanded every business put in a email-gathering device and the only complaint was the cost.
First comment on the story:
Hopefully the comment was an attempt at irony.
I never understood why something that's supposed to be "legal" has prohibitions (with potentially a year in jail!) on publicly displaying, consuming or transporting it. It seems like that language was sadly in the amendment to begin with, and from reading the proposal, the prohibitionists are trying to use that as a loophole to expand the restrictions.
Better Alt Text:
I prefer uppers myself
Shhhh! They're diet pills!
Riiiiiight!
MOAR OT:
IT'S NOT MY FAULT! IT WAS THE SHUT DOWN!
Seriously, has this guy ever accepted the blame for anything? Is there anything that he won't blame on something or someone, other than himself?
The shutdown is the new Bush.
"Well, we've now gotten the government back open for the American people and today I want to talk about how were going to get the marketplaces running at full steam as well."
So, 17% of employees, deemed 'non-essential', being off the job for a few weeks, caused a 3.5 year project to turn into a totally unmitigated disaster?
This guy gets more ridiculous by the day. In a country where the majority of the people had at least an acceptable level of intelligence, this guy would be laughed off of the planet.
The people that he is talking to already believe this. There is no downside for him to make such statements.
I thought Obama was the new Bush?
Or how about just oppresses the fuck out of them, I mean, in addition to interfering with your "wellness" campaign.
Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend, painful as it may be to have a friend who utters phrases like multi-modal transportation usage.
That's the problem in this country. We can't just make something legal, no, we have to ask how it will affect mass transit, walkable neighborhoods and bike lanes.
The fact that we can insert multi-model transportation discussions into a blatant attempt to overturn a duly passed law with byzantine regulations tells us just how far we've fallen.