Saturday, February 2, 2013
Colorado Communities Seek to Use NIMBY Laws to Defeat Amendment 64
Barely three months after Amendment 64 passed in Colorado with nearly two thirds of the votes, one by one communities across the state are trying to peck it to death with idiotic "NIMBY" laws. This is totally nuts, plus it violates a STATE constitutional amendment. In principle, ALL these comunities are subverting the will of their own voters, and their "laws" are derelict and UNLAWFUL! Douglas County and its associated burgs started this nonsense and has been joined by others. Now we also learn, in today's Denver Post, that the Greenwood Village City Council - undoubtedly packed with Village idiots, has jumped on the 'Ban the MJ in Our Burg' Bandwagon.
According to the Post story ('Greenwood Village Ordnance to Test Pot Legalization law'):
“An ordinance passed last month in Greenwood Village is poised to become a test case for how far cities can go to keep marijuana out of their communities after legalization.
In early January, the Greenwood Village City Council voted to ban use, possession and transportation of marijuana on city property. That is not so unusual, as numerous cities and counties have restricted marijuana after the passage of Amendment 64.
Here's the catch, though: The Greenwood Village ordinance defines city property to include all the public streets and sidewalks in the city. That makes it illegal even to drive through the city with an otherwise legal amount of marijuana in the car.
Because residents can't bring marijuana to their homes, the only way legally to possess marijuana in Greenwood Village is to grow it — and the City Council is expected to pass an ordinance soon that places strict controls on growing at home to address concerns about mold and fire hazards.
Greenwood Village City Attorney Tonya Haas Davidson said the ban is allowed under the marijuana-legalization law, which says "an entity who occupies, owns or controls property" can prohibit marijuana on that property. We own public property," she said. "So we just wrote the most restrictive ordinance we could."
And you also just landed yourself and your little burg in court, Madam! Because the parameters of the law were never intended to go THAT far- which if followed by every tinhorn town in the state, would effectively ban it everywhere and thence nullify the will of Colorado voters. In that case, we would have to deal with the reality of a fascist state!
Nor am I wrong on this, as these deluded cretins will soon learn.Brian Vicente, one of the authors of Amendment 64, said that interpretation will land Greenwood Village in court. He said streets and sidewalks aren't so much government property as public places where people should be able to exercise constitutional liberties.
"What they've done is invite inevitable, costly litigation," Vicente said. "This is a direct violation of the state constitution."
Amendment 64 legalizes use and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older. It also allows for retail marijuana sales, although pot shops won't open for about another 11 months.
Cities can ban marijuana businesses, but not possession for private use, including in one’s own vehicle! This carries the community’s property rights way too far!
Why are so many communities doing this when they allow alcohol - with one hundred times the negatives of MJ -to be sold all over hell's half acre? Probably because these fools believe they are "protecting the children" when in fact the kids are likely going after dad's brandy maybe every afternoon. City Council Member Leslie Schluter proved my point when she was quoted as saying:
"I think (marijuana) is a major threat to the welfare of especially our children! You can't do this without making it more acceptable to those who are under age."
One of the best missives to smash the "protect the kids" codswallop was by a Denver Post letter writer 4 months ago. It was so brilliant that I saved it:
"“There are many freedoms adults often enjoy that are illegal for kids, including gambling, drinking, smoking, investing, driving, getting piercings and tattoos, getting married, staying out all night, going to many concerts, working a double shift, etc. Granted, many of these freedoms could be considered bad for adults, too, but the “bad for kids” trope is nothing more than a cudgel designed to stifle honest debate. An unregulated black market is most assuredly more harmful to kids than a regulated honest market, and Colorado enjoys many economic advantages from the tax revenue these freedoms bring when adults enjoy them responsibly. And rest assured, adults most certainly do enjoy them.
Intelligent, evidence-based arguments against passing Amendment 64 are hard to find, so these folks fall back to the emotionally charged, false argument that it’s “bad for kids.”
This letter nails it spot-on since the "kid danger" argument, which has often been resurrected lately, relies on impairing intellectual judgment by appeal to emotionalism and hysteria.
What the inveterate idiots raging against all MJ posession in the state don't grasp, is that they have effectively negated all further citizen initiatives and referenda if they succeed with their lawless laws. Because if they are allowed to side step the law in this case, it can be done in any other, for any referendum - no matter how ostensibly noble.
The people that voted for Amendment 64, which includes more than 3 in 4 who don't use it at all (we happen to believe in grass roots democracy, unlike the Nazis and their ilk against it) must collaborate with the bill's authors and drag Greenwood Village and its Council, lawyers to court to make examples of them all. Nothing less will do and it will serve as a lesson to any and all other would be NIMBY fascists.
On the positive side: Two Greenwood Village Council members had the intelligence and insight to vote against this bollocks. Jerry Presley was one of two council members who voted against the ordinance, and even declared the city shouldn't override the will of the state's voters. He went on:
"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"
At least there is hope - a small amount - for some residual intelligence in the state of Colorado. Let's hope we don't go down the low I.Q. rabbit hole of Mississippi and other secession minded states!