home

Colorado’s Voting Haze: Options for Legalizing Marijuana in 2012

Propositions to legalize marijuana will be popping up on ballots this November across the country. Jeralyn wrote last week about Obama, Romney, Marijuana and Colorado, mentioning Colorado’s proposed Amendment 64. Now there’s a new contender attempting to enter the race. Article XXX: The Cannabis Re-Legalization Act (bill text here). And with the new proposed amendment comes the usual slew of talking points and misinformation that can leave us all voting in a haze.

I also briefly addressed the differences in recreational marijuana legalization amendments on the upcoming Colorado ballot in November. However, looking more in depth at the proposed amendments’ texts side-by-side, a much clearer picture emerges of the two radically different approaches to legalizing marijuana and the potential impact on everything from crime policy to worker's rights to child custody situations. And while Amendment 64 does take an important step in the right direction, Article XXX appears to be running full speed ahead.

First up, for brief contrast and context, is Amendment 64 (more in-depth Amendment 64 analysis can be found on its support site here; bill text here). This one will definitely be on the Colorado ballot in November and
proposes that persons 21 years and older be legally allowed to possess, purchase, and use up to one ounce of marijuana without any criminal penalty, and provides for the regulation and tax of marijuana like alcohol. The amendment also proposes that persons 21 years and older be allowed to grow up to six marijuana plants (only three of which can be mature) for personal use. However, using and growing marijuana plants would be limited in much the same way as [Colorado's] medical marijuana by preventing public consumption and requiring personal use plants be kept in a locked, enclosed space.


While this isn't a huge penalty decrease from current Colorado law, which punishes possession of less than two ounces as a mere petty offense and a $100 fine, it does represent significant relief from some of the real world consequences that come with a drug conviction, like being denied federal student loans.

Amendment 64 won't change other Colorado criminal laws like Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (marijuana DUIs) or distributing marijuana to minors. Employers, corporations, and individuals will still be able to limit marijuana use by their employees and possession on their property. And it won't help Colorado citizens charged in federal courts. But it is a small yet meaningful step forward towards ending the War on Drugs and replacing it with a sensible drug policy.

In contrast, Article XXX makes broad and sweeping changes that impact not only criminal law, but the interactions between state and federal law as well as the interaction between criminal and non-criminal state laws.

For starters, Article XXX would allow anyone 18 years and older to use marijuana, and has a provision that would allow someone under the age of 18 to use marijuana when directed by a physician and under parental supervision. And by "use marijuana," it means the "acquisition, possession, production, transportation, sale, distribution, presence in the body, consumption, cultivation, dispensation, or delivery of cannabis."

The proposed amendment also doesn't limit the amount to one ounce or less, or six plants of which three may be mature. Rather, possession appears to be limited by intent. Article XXX defines two different types of intent: Intent for Personal Use (meaning not for profit) and Intent for Commercial Use (meaning for profit). It completely does away with inferring intent from possession amounts, like the intent to distribute.

But Article XXX goes much further in gutting the Colorado marijuana laws. It intends to repeal every criminal statute related to marijuana, including the quantity-based prohibitions, sentence enhancements for multiple or previous convictions, drug-related driving offenses, and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. This amendment would also prohibit the use of NHTSA's standardized field sobriety tests for marijuana, along with forced blood, breath, or urine draws in all drug or alcohol-related driving offenses, including those involving accidents (Colorado law currently allows for forced blood draws in these situations).

In addition to repealing Colorado statutes, it would also repeal any municipal code that punishes marijuana-related activity, and any similar regulatory scheme enacted by the legislature or an administrative body.

How does Article XXX propose replacing the repealed laws? The amendment proposes creating the Colorado Cannabis Commission that would make recommendations for replacing the laws to the legislature based on the standard of "endangering public safety." This cannabis commission would be comprised of seven members appointed by the governor.

However, even if the legislature enacts new penal laws related to marijuana, the amendment is already two steps ahead. The first step is creating two new affirmative defenses for marijuana use. One based on the accused's reasonable belief that he or she was following the law, and one where an accused may argue that their actions conformed to the intent of Article XXX. The amendment would also require a trial by jury where an affirmative defense is raised and would allow civil rights suits against prosecutors who bring charges and lose.

The second step ahead of any possible marijuana penal law legislation is that the amendment would prohibit the use of jail time as a sanction, and instead proposes counseling as a more appropriate long-term solution. The amendment would also include relief for individuals previously convicted of marijuana-related offenses by recommending pardons for first-time non-violent offenders.

Another issue Article XXX takes on that Amendment 64 does not is the federal government. Article XXX would require the Colorado Attorney General to file suits against the federal government when needed, and would provide discretionary funding for the legal defense of Colorado citizens charged under federal marijuana laws.

But the real game-changer for federal-state interaction is that Article XXX would specifically prohibit the use of state resources spent to assist federal marijuana investigations.
No state or local executive officer, official, employee, contractor or agent shall ever assist agents of the federal government in any way to investigate, arrest, prosecute, search or seize the property of a Colorado citizen if the intent of the federal government is to punish that citizen for acts considered legal under this article. Any such assistance shall be grounds for dismissal or breach of contract.


Finally, Article XXX turns to Colorado's non-criminal consequences related to the stigma that marijuana has picked up by mere association with other narcotics. The amendment would strictly deny any penalty in cases of employment, insurance, benefits, or even child custody:
[No person shall be] penalized in any manner, nor denied any right or privilege, nor discriminated against, nor have their privacy violated, nor have inflicted on them any loss, suffering or pain as a retribution for personal cannabis use.


Article XXX goes far and beyond what Amendment 64 proposes to do. But it's not on the Colorado ballot yet, according to the supporting organization, Legalize2012.com, they're still trying to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot in November.

One curious note is how strongly the Article XXX supporters are coming down on Amendment 64. Their website is replete with negative voting call-to-actions and comparison charts that accuse Amendment 64 of being fear-based legislation. Despite this, Amendment 64 has the clear support of numerous pro-marijuana individuals and organizations, including many local city council members, the Colorado Democratic Party, the ACLU of Colorado, Sensible Colorado, and the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. Amendment 64 is also supported by NORML. (Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and on the legal committee for NORML)

August 6, 2012 is the deadline for Article XXX supporters to turn in their signatures to the Secretary of State. We'll see soon if they both make the ballot. And given how drastically different the two approaches are, I'll be watching to see if any of the Amendment 64 supporters also throw their weight behind Article XXX. After all, some legalization is better than none, but is it better than full decriminalization?


Speaking for me only.
< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | "Centrist" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Since marijuaua prohibition... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    ...is grounded on prejudice and irrationality and has NOTHING to do with public safety or anything but nonsense and, of course, bribes paid by Big Pharma to politicians, yes, full decriminalization is the only way to go IF we actually live in a free country. Unfortunately, we don't.  Good thing we have Change We Can Believe In...oh wait...

    Legalize, regulate, find sanity.

    From no breaks to triple line (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 01:38:11 PM EST
    breaks.

    Oh, and BTD is the only one allowed to speak for me.

    As nice as Article XXX sounds, (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    it strikes me as the kind of voter initiative that the DEA and/or the ONDCP would be pushing and supporting.  The people who will be against Article XXX will point out that all hell will break loose with Reefer Madness grade lunacies going on under the influence of MJ.  When you pointed out the negative ads the Article XXX supporters were putting out in a compare-and-contrast against Amendment 64, that firmed up my speculation that Article XXX is the drug warriors' way of splitting the pro MJ vote and firing up the anti-drug voters to vote against both XXX and 64.

    But, I'm a cynic, so take that into account.

    Well... (none / 0) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Here is the listing from the Sec. of State's office.  If you do a GIS on registrant, its pretty clear that he's quite the busy activist.  Here is an article on him from the local alternative weekly.  

    I'll be surprised if he gets enough signatures to make the ballot.  

    Parent

    Corey Donahue (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robert C on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 01:06:27 AM EST
    Corey is not the proponent of "Article XXX" (which never existed) but he has been an opponent of Amendment 64.

    Parent
    "Article XXX"?!? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robert C on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 12:43:27 AM EST
    Not to disparage this entire article, which has much good information in it, but there is no such thing as "Article XXX".  What Mr. Geman is calling Article XXX refers instead to Laura Kriho's Initiative 58, which was vetted by the Legislative Council but never submitted to the Secretary of State's office to have a title set for it.  Mr. Geman concludes on the basis of a look at http://www.legalize2012.com/ that "Article XXX appears to be running full speed ahead", but having never had a title set or a petition approved, no signatures have been collected to qualify Initiative 58 for the ballot, and it will not be on November's ballot.  Abandoned at the same stage in getting onto the ballot was Initiative 65, which would have expanded access to medical cannabis by giving doctors full discretion in its recommendation.

    Two initiatives (other than Initiative 30, which qualified for the ballot and is now styled Amendment 64) which did have petitions approved by the Secretary of State's office were Initiative 40 (see:  http://relief4possession.webs.com/) and Initiative 70 (see:  http://www.equalizecannabis.com/).  Although the campaigns for these Initiatives collected signatures, neither garnered the financial and organizational support necessary and have fallen well short of the 86,105 voters' signatures required; the deadline for Initiative 40 to turn in its signatures was July 18.  Initiative 70's deadline is August 6, but the campaign never released its signature totals and probably collected significantly fewer than Initiative 40 (which I guesstimate collected about 7,500 valid ones).

    There will be exactly one measure related to cannabis on the statewide ballot in November, and that is Amendment 64.  While I consider that it is deficient, it is far better than nothing; I agree with Geman that "... it is a small yet meaningful step forward towards ending the War on Drugs ...".  The Amendment's provisions legalizing retail sales of cannabis to adults, legalizing the cultivation of hemp, and earmarking excise tax revenue for the construction of schools all are most unlikely to take effect under current Federal law and policy, leaving what I consider its core provisions:  the Amendment declares that it shall no longer be unlawful for adults to use cannabis, cultivate up to six cannabis plants (no more than three flowering), and carry up to an ounce of cannabis with them in public.  In practical terms, these are modest reforms which will still leave most of our laws against cannabis in full force, but it will reduce criminal liability for cannabis in Colorado, and its legalization of even limited use and cultivation of cannabis is a revolutionary and unprecedented change in our laws, which the People have the opportunity to emplace in our Constitution, where the General Assembly can't get at it.  For all of the disappointment and rancor its backers caused among many of our best activists (and in me), I consider that the Amendment strikes a major blow against Prohibition, and I will vote for it.

    P.S.  I am a bit dismayed that although I spoke directly to Mr. Geman to apprise him of the errors in this article, he did not edit it, but he may have been too busy to do so; simply replacing all references to "Article XXX" with "Initiative 58" goes a long way to correcting it.

    P.P.S.  Readers interested in tracking the history of this year's initiatives to reform our laws against cannabis should consult both the Legislative Council's Initiative page (http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1112InitRefr.nsf/dac421ef79ad243487256def0067 c1de?OpenView&Start=1.27) and the Secretary of State's Initiative Tracking page (http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/InitiativesHome.html).

    I'm sure he will (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 06:07:56 AM EST
    respond when he gets a chance. (And he is busy all day with court, clients, etc. I haven't even been able to get him to pencil in dinner with me for two weeks now.) In the meantime, I'll add my two cents. I'm not seeing what I would call "errors." You have updated information, as an insider, that has not been put forth publicly by the proponents of the Amendment XXX/Initiative 58, anywhere I can find, The post is about the difference between the two measures, and that Amendment 64 will be on the ballot, while XXX aka 58 hasn't made it yet and is unlikely to make it even though its website says they will be announcing their petition drive soon. Their site says they haven't given up and they are seeking petition signatures.

    Here is the filing letter to the Legislative Council Staff for the initiative, with a copy of the initiative attached, dated Feb. 2, 2012, which states the representatives of the proponents are Legalize 2012 (signed by Laura Kriho on its behalf) and Dr. Robert Melamede, PhD, President of Colorado Cannabis Science, Inc. They call the initiative "Article XXX, the "Cannabis Re-Legalization Act of 2012."  The initiative and letter refer only to Article XXX.

    Here is the response from the Legislative Council Staff dated Feb. 14, which in the subject line calls the initiative "Proposed initiative measure 2011-2012 #58." In the substantive part of the response, the reference it refers to Article XXX.  A review and comment hearing were held Feb. 16.

    Are you saying that XXX does not mean "30", but is an artificial number, as in "unknown", and therefore an incorrect identifier? If so, since the initiative is not publicly described as #58, either by Legalize 2012 or the proponents' representatives, and is only so identified as #58 in the subject like of the legislative counsel's comments, how would voters looking for information on it know the two are the same? I think we should use Amendment XXX/Initiative 58.

    Are you saying that August is the deadline for submitting the changes requested by the Legislative Council which is a pre-requisite for getting a title, and without a title they can't make the ballot even if they had the signatures?  And that it's now impossible to do either or both by August? And that you are personally aware they have no intention of making the changes or participating this November? If so, then again, I think an update, citing you as the source, rather than a correction seems appropriate.

    Also, the post says about XXX:

    ut it's not on the Colorado ballot yet, according to the supporting organization, Legalize2012.com, they're still trying to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot in November.

    The initiative was not submitted by Ms. Kriho individually, but on behalf of Legalize 2012, and by a  Dr. Melamade, who is with a different group. Why should the initiative be referred solely as Ms. Kriho's bill, rather than as a bill cosponsored by Kriho, Legalize 2012 and Dr.Melmamde? Legalize 2012.com's website says it has until August, 2012 to get signatures or changes in for November, and it is still seeking signatures.  I'm not doubting that you have some inside information that the effort has been abandoned, but if the sponsoring organization is officially communicating something different, why shouldn't they be taken at their word?

    According to their website, they are pressing full steam ahead, maybe just not for this November.

    Until the filing deadline passes or the sponsors or its representatives publicly state they have abandoned the effort, I don't think a correction is warranted. When either happens, I think an update would be appropriate.

    The fight over names for these bills has been ongoing since at least 2011 -- on both sides.

    Nic's post doesn't address the inside baseball and friction between the groups -- that's not helpful to our goal, which is getting Amendment 64 passed. Nic is letting people know there is another challenger, seemingly chomping at the bit to have marijuana be legalized its way, but it looks like they won't make it. And to give information about both proposals and how they differ and why, although XXX/58 is preferable in many respects (with which you agree), it's still important to vote for Amendment 64 and get the ball rolling.

    By the way, here is the third draft of Amendment 64, dated two days ago, July 31. Comments are due August 7.

    Until Nic has time to address this, how about he and I do our part, which is explaining the various bills different groups have proposed; opining that this is a year for baby steps and choosing the measure with the greatest  chance of success if two bills get on the ballot. XXX/58 seems to be something to work towards in in the future, while Amendment 64 is here now, and it's time. we get something. We (those of us here at TalkLeft in Colorado )are ardent supporters of Amendment 64 because we know getting more is not in the cards this year. We have thrown our support to Mason, NORML, MPP and Sensible Colorado who are backing Amendment 64. We have been urging people to vote for it personally and  make sure everyone they know in Colorado knows how important their vote will be in November. It's the only way we get some relief from these misguided, punitive drug laws.

    If you'd like to write a diary here at TalkLeft on the subject, just let me know and I'll change your status from user to diarist so you can do so.

    Thanks for your interest, and for reaching out to  Nic. It's his post, so any changes will need to go through him.

    Feel free to email either Nic or Me with future concerns and I promise we will carefully consider them.

    Again, thanks for your interest in Nic's post.

    Parent