Linky(USA Today article, maybe someone less lazy than me can find a better article to link to)
Because of state and federal laws Denver PD still have to arrest for possession. So what’s the point. I’m all for decriminilization, but this seems to be a pointless gesture. Any thoughts?
At least it shows there is grass (heh) roots movement in the right direction.
What Patty O’Furniture said. It’s a baby step in the right direction.
P.S. Its passage was a surprise. Denver is the second most liberal city in the state, but there was a lot of publicity against it. Looks like it backfired.
It looks to me like that is the state position but the city has other ideas.
I’m sure one of the legalization groups will send some “testers” out there to see what happens if you get caught with 3/4 oz.
That’s news to me. The city is at least giving lip service to continuing to make arrests. Almost all pot busts by the city are prosecuted by the state anyway, something like 97%. State penalty isn’t very stiff though - simple possesion of an ounce or less maxes out at $100 fine.
I was looking at it like this:
Essentially, Denver’s new law protects possessors from prosecution only by Denver authorities. State and federal laws still apply, which means possessors could still be charged under those jurisdictions. But state and federal authorities around Denver should take this opportunity to let the city’s law stand and see what happens.
And thinking local authorities would use the new law to more or less look the other way when they find small possessions.
But you are in Denver so are in a much better position to say what the deal on the street is…gonna test it? 
There are only a couple hundred pot busts a year by Denver cops; it’s not one of their high priorities. In my opinion, most of those arrests are not really for pot, they’re because the arrestee was being a jerk.
I don’t see how they could be compelled to enforce federal laws unless the Feds provide them with money to specifically enforce them. Is there any reason the Denver PD can’t say to Colorado, “You want this law enforced, you do it.”
Marc
My take is that it just gives the cops on the street more leeway to make a judgement call.
I realize that this is not intended to be a complete solution, but it always amuses me that the votes that seem to have a chance are those that decriminalize only small amounts of the drug. So, it’s still illegal to deal drugs. But how the hell are people with their small amounts supposed to get the drugs in the first place?* From a dealer, of course.
Yet if you change the law to decriminalize it entirely, you don’t get the votes. Silly, if you ask me.
*No, I’m not asking for information on how to buy drugs.
I heard the guy who headed the proposal say that he expects the state and feds to follow the wishes of the community. He pointed to the pit bull ban we have here. In the state it is illegal to ban dogs by breed. Several communities have laws banning breeds and enforce it without interference from the state.
Because the relationship between a state and a city therein and a state and the federal government is not analogous. Federalism does not apply to the city. A city government is a creation and creature of the state, and derives all of its power and legitimacy from a grant of authority by the state. Hence, it cannot thumb its nose at state law.
Colorado, as it happens, is a “home-rule” state, and Denver has opted for home rule. Home rule means that the city can supercede the state legislature on issues of purely “municipal” concern. The limits of home-rule vary from state to state, but pot wouldn’t fit into it.
Sua
What if there was no state law? Would the local authorities be compelled to enforce federal law? I know they arn’t on the illegal immigrants.
That would fall under federalism, as the city government is a creature of the state. So generally, state law enforcement types (which includes city law enforcement types) aren’t obliged to enforce federal criminal law.
Sua