Editorial: Why Hasn't Denver's Police Chief Been Fired for Violating Marijuana Laws?
David Borden, Executive Director

David Borden in Colorado
As it turned out, it was a sufficient number. The council, very uncharacteristically for such bodies, used its discretion to place the question on the ballot anyway. They thought it was important for people to have a chance to vote on this idea, and instead of protesting and resisting as governments have done in any number of places, they actually used their power to help it along.
Shift eastward across an ocean and two mountain ranges, one sees a different display of the use, or abuse, of power. In Denver, voters have passed marijuana reform initiatives not once, but twice. First, they voted to legalize personal possession of marijuana. Then, they voted to make marijuana enforcement police's lowest priority. They also voted in majority numbers for a failed statewide legalization initiative.
Nevertheless, city police continue to invoke state law to justify their flouting of the law that the voters who pay their salaries passed, and the city continues to allow them to do it. I understand that legal technicalities mean that police who don't cooperate with the statute can't be arrested for it. But if Denver has democracy, why hasn't the police chief who bears guilt for this continuing offense at least been fired?
Also this week, a panel required by the law -- the Marijuana Policy Review Panel, modeled after one that monitor's marijuana arrests in Seattle -- recommended that Denver police not do marijuana posession arrests during the Democratic National Convention coming up. Officials, not surprisingly given all that's preceded, have had discouraging words regarding their willingness to take the recommendation. But why should the recommendation even be necessary? It's the law, passed by the voters two times. Shame on them yet again.
And it's not like the panel only has marijuana reformers on it. According to the authorizing legislation: "The Panel shall consist of one at-large member of the Denver City Council; two residents of the City of Denver, as selected by the petitioner committee that initiated this ordinance; one drug/alcohol abuse prevention counselor; one member of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee who is not also a member of law enforcement; one representative of the Denver Police Department; three criminal defense attorneys, one of whom shall be a public defender; one representative of the Denver County District Attorney’s Office; and one representative of the Denver City Attorney’s Office."
Time will tell whether Big Island voters take the same wise step that Denver's voters have. But unlike in Denver, Hawaii County's leaders appear to respect their constituents. That bodes well for the policy's prospects if it does get the voters go-ahead. Deprioritization of marijuana enforcement is only one small step toward undoing the hideously destructive war on drugs. But it's a step nonetheless.
Unfortunately, Denver officialdom won't take that step willingly, despite law that now requires them to do so. Instead they will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming. Better that than letting the arrests go on, with people who never hurt anybody getting dragged off in handcuffs every day.
Heh
Comment posted by Malkavian on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 6:36amThanks :)
I'm sure the two substances could be compared on a number of weighed parameters. Both have pretty well known risk profiles. The real question is why anyone would want to know this? ;)
- On finding out that cannabis is the safer alternative, would you make pot'n'eggs from here on?
- On finding out that bacon is the safer alternative, would you smoke the stuff instead of cannabis - and does it work in a vaporizer at all?
:-P
Denver's Infamous Cops
Comment posted by Giordano on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 1:16pmThe Denver police department has a long history of prior civil rights offenses. In one, they were busted by the ACLU for spying on Amnesty International and the American Friends Service Committee as part of Denver’s dubious anti-terrorism efforts.
So it’s no surprise the panel is trying to rein in their junkyard dogs prior to the convention.
What’s needed is a shake-up of the entire Denver Police department, not just the Chief. It’s the height of idiocy and arrogance for the police to second-guess the voters on issues of liberty. It’s also one of the characteristics of a police state.
Giordano












digg
reddit





Sigh
Comment posted by Malkavian on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 2:57pmWhile I can see the need for being petty and vindictive and resort to name-calling I just can't let this one slide. What is it with you people that makes you want to make marijuana the "new alcohol" while waging a goddamn Drug War on EVERYBODY ELSE? That makes you not one iota better than the people criminalizing marijuana.
We need to formulate valid, truthful arguments for legalizing marijuana, but arguing for the re-criminalization of alcohol "because it's dangerous" or "more dangerous than mj" you have fallen into a trap that so many fall into.
It is imperative that all involved understand a couple of point:
1. The basic premise of the Drug War - that criminalization is a rational strategy for solving the problems with marijuana, alcohol or somethingelse - is simply wrong. This broad criminalization does NOT accomplish the goals.
2. Remember that alcohol prohibition was an abysmal failure, not the least because the illicit market for alcohol was so incredibly large.
3. It is completely and utterly irrelevant whether a drug - alcohol, marijuana or even heroin - is dangerous, risky or harmful or harmless. At least with regard to its legal status. Just because a drug happens to be dangerous does not by definition mean that Prohibition is the best answer to the problem. In fact, all the evidence points to Prohibition making the harms even worse and adding its own amount of punitive damage on top of the farmacological harms.
4. While the official truth is that "drugs are dangerous, hence illegal" that position is glaringly illogical. If indeed the "danger" of a drug was a necessary and sufficient reason to criminalize something alcohol, tobacco, sex, sports, parachuting, scuba diving, dogs, cars and a host of other things would be illegal as well. Since they're NOT it is reasonable to state that even the Prohibitionists do not believe in their own hype. So we shouldn't either.
Anyway, I can't put it as well as Ethan Nadelmann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJv-eN3Lafg