DENVER - A city panel in charge of overseeing marijuana possession crimes in Denver
If Denver's presiding judge accepts the recommendation from the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel, the fine would be the lowest in the entire nation for marijuana possession.
The panel was created by Mayor John Hickenlooper in December 2007 after voters passed an ordinance that made it so adult marijuana possession is the city's "lowest law enforcement priority."
In May 2008, the city attorney's office made it so those cited for the crime can mail in their fines instead of having to appear in court. At that time, the city attorney's office assigned the value of the fine at $50.
"By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It's simply not worth the city's time or resources," said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.
Lt. Ernest Martinez with the Denver Police Department is also part of the panel and voted against lowering the fine.
"There's no indication that there's a problem with the fine schedule," Martinez said. "The panel is going outside the bounds of the language of the ordinance."
Martinez thinks there should be more dialogue about the changes. (Copyright KUSA*TV, All Rights Reserved)
I know you Dutch people don't quite find this cool, but it's a huge (potential) jump for pot smokers in America (of which I am not one). Just saying.
I really like the reasoning stated behind their decision too. It's the truth. If anything should be banned it is alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which I enjoy, but on level of harmfulness, those two exceed pot.
DENVER - A city panel in charge of overseeing marijuana possession crimes in Denver
If Denver's presiding judge accepts the recommendation from the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel, the fine would be the lowest in the entire nation for marijuana possession.
The panel was created by Mayor John Hickenlooper in December 2007 after voters passed an ordinance that made it so adult marijuana possession is the city's "lowest law enforcement priority."
In May 2008, the city attorney's office made it so those cited for the crime can mail in their fines instead of having to appear in court. At that time, the city attorney's office assigned the value of the fine at $50.
"By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It's simply not worth the city's time or resources," said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.
Lt. Ernest Martinez with the Denver Police Department is also part of the panel and voted against lowering the fine.
"There's no indication that there's a problem with the fine schedule," Martinez said. "The panel is going outside the bounds of the language of the ordinance."
Martinez thinks there should be more dialogue about the changes. (Copyright KUSA*TV, All Rights Reserved)
I know you Dutch people don't quite find this cool, but it's a huge (potential) jump for pot smokers in America (of which I am not one). Just saying.
Ann Arbor's been like that for a while. I think it got bumped to $25 recently (from $5), but still the same idea. Dealing is still a big deal.
On August 28 2009 10:20 A3iL3r0n wrote: Awesome. Thanks for sharing.
I really like the reasoning stated behind their decision too. It's the truth. If anything should be banned it is alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which I enjoy, but on level of harmfulness, those two exceed pot.
I'm confused, does that mean denver has no other consequences for pot possession other than a fine? Cause it appears that the only thing they are talking about is lowering the fine. Don't get me wrong, lowering the fine by 49 bucks is nice, but I always thought there were many more consequences of drug possession?
"By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It's simply not worth the city's time or resources," said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.
it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
"By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It's simply not worth the city's time or resources," said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.
Nice to see common sense in the news for once.
My thoughts exactly. Fresh air hearing that quote from someone in charge of these decisions.
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
Oh, you're sure it happened? Super sure? Well I'm convinced; CharlieMurphy is sure of it!
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death. Source: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
ok, well firstly, no no one died directly from it, as the other person showed in his reply to you
secndly, even if a few people (out of the tens of millions... or even hundreds of millions that smoke it) died from of it.... does that invalidate the point he is trying to make at all?
maybe you didn't read the phrase "that was killed from it" correctly.
sure, many people may have died while high. and many people have died in their sleep, too. there is no point in mentioning either of these facts.
rofl millions died while high, now that is saying retarded shit charlie murphy. And you're right it's because they die from a lack of common sense not from just being HIGH, people tend to get lazy when they are baked and just munch out and masterbate till they pass out. get a grip
"By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It's simply not worth the city's time or resources," said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.
Nice to see common sense in the news for once.
My thoughts exactly. I've been pro-legalization for a long time, though. And I'm not an avid drug user.
On August 28 2009 10:20 A3iL3r0n wrote: Awesome. Thanks for sharing.
I really like the reasoning stated behind their decision too. It's the truth. If anything should be banned it is alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which I enjoy, but on level of harmfulness, those two exceed pot.
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
ok, well firstly, no no one died directly from it, as the other person showed in his reply to you
secndly, even if a few people (out of the tens of millions... or even hundreds of millions that smoke it) died from of it.... does that invalidate the point he is trying to make at all?
maybe you didn't read the phrase "that was killed from it" correctly.
sure, many people may have died while high. and many people have died in their sleep, too. there is no point in mentioning either of these facts.
well you can argue the same point for alcohol, people died from a driving accident while drunk. Who's to say that the High person driving who died wasn't caused by him being high?
Some guy probably blew a gasket while being high and paranoid and killed some people or himself as well. Everyone responds differently to drugs.
So to keep things somewhat safe and fair, legal driving limit is .08 BAC, when in reality most people who drink can be well over that and probably still be as responsive, while some 100 lb azn kid who had 1 beer is not at .08.
What I meant was that it is retarded to assume that any drug is 100% safe 100% of the time since the beginning of history like so many pot smokers do.
Nothing is 100 percent safe, you can walk to school and have a meteorite hit you in the face, or you can be randomly beheaded in a greyhound bus. Nobody has died from smoking weed it's just accidents that would of probably happened anyway if they were sober. Plus if you're talking about driving high (which i do all the time) if you know that you can't do it well you probably shouldn't be driving at all while high, not to mention i always drive drunk on weekends.
What I meant was that it is retarded to assume that any drug is 100% safe 100% of the time since the beginning of history like so many pot smokers do.
of course it's retarded. but being that the anti-marijuana lobbyists tend to lean towards the notion that the best reason for retaining the ban is that it is a dangerous/gateway drug, it's a natural response to defend it using the same terms.
as you said, people react differently to different drugs and the keyword here is "people." people need to be accountable for their actions, this includes choices they make with what they put into their bodies. if they choose to do it, they also made the choice to deal with the consequences of their actions while under the influence.
i don't feel its right to ban something from the masses when a very very small percentage of people have had a bad time with it. you can see this idea within any prescription drug on the market that incur side-affects. There's a common risk we all take when we use these drugs, most of the time the benefit outweighs the consequence.
not everyone should smoke pot, not everyone should should ride an elephant through a flaming hoop, but that doesn't mean that im going to restrict the circus from performing this daring feat because i think its dangerous and "i'm sure" someone was killed by it at some point.
dont put the elephant out of a job just cause some idiot wants to do a stupid pet trick.
What I meant was that it is retarded to assume that any drug is 100% safe 100% of the time since the beginning of history like so many pot smokers do.
of course it's retarded. but being that the anti-marijuana lobbyists tend to lean towards the notion that the best reason for retaining the ban is that it is a dangerous/gateway drug, it's a natural response to defend it using the same terms.
as you said, people react differently to different drugs and the keyword here is "people." people need to be accountable for their actions, this includes choices they make with what they put into their bodies. if they choose to do it, they also made the choice to deal with the consequences of their actions while under the influence.
i don't feel its right to ban something from the masses when a very very small percentage of people have had a bad time with it. you can see this idea within any prescription drug on the market that incur side-affects. There's a common risk we all take when we use these drugs, most of the time the benefit outweighs the consequence.
not everyone should smoke pot, not everyone should should ride an elephant through a flaming hoop, but that doesn't mean that im going to restrict the circus from performing this daring feat because i think its dangerous and "i'm sure" someone was killed by it at some point.
dont put the elephant out of a job just cause some idiot wants to do a stupid pet trick.
what if the elephant's trick is pretty cool, but occasionally harms other people and the owner teaches other elephants the tricks for a price and more elephants hurt more people? isn't it strange to encourage this, although awesome trick, when people are getting hurt? also , recent reports show there are a lot of idiot elephant owners it seems!
Im positive there are like 5 of us on this website so maybe only they can relate to this but does this mean that 16th street mall is going to full of stoners because thats going to piss me off regardless of what position you are as far as yes/no weed it sucks to smell that garbage when you are out with your family or trying to eat a meal outdoors why cant they just smoke that weed downstairs like all the other stoners.
Im positive there are like 5 of us on this website so maybe only they can relate to this but does this mean that 16th street mall is going to full of stoners because thats going to piss me off regardless of what position you are as far as yes/no weed it sucks to smell that garbage when you are out with your family or trying to eat a meal outdoors why cant they just smoke that weed downstairs like all the other stoners.
need a new law banning smoking in malls or whatever then
Oh just make it legal already -_- seriously the last few years its just become a retarded debate. Only reason why it isn't legal now is because all those horrible anti pot comericals and the anti drug people are in a better position and not many politicians want that risk. Hell even my grandfather, a Lutheran minister is for it (he doesn't nor ever has though he just sees the benefits of legalization).
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
There have been thousand of people who hve died fucking, or with their full stomach.... jusy many people die everyday. Read it well first, ok? to die while high is not to die by the weed. NOBODY DIE BY THE WEED and that is a fact. You cant die directly by weed, and you can die indirectly by eating... wanna ban meals?
and retarded is to think that anything is 100% safe. Not even sleep is. Define drug, pls, so we can talk about it properly. Did you know there is a lethal dosis for salt? what about glucose? you think that anything you eat isnt a drug in some way? do you trust medicine? do you go to the doctor? do you take any pills? you think your body (even your mind) works the same way after eating rice than after eating meat? you really think that water is 100% safe? grow up, everyone use drugs, some of us dont let the authorities to control us, and some other jump from airplanes.
either paranoid, or you know nothing, or you have not thought about drugs seriously.
On August 28 2009 11:32 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Give the poor pot smokers their marijuana already. I dont smoke it and never will, but its really absurd that its still illegal.
Just make it so you cant drive while high (like with alcohol) and tax the hell out of it.
Whats the big deal.
You can drive perfectly fine while high. Unless you're talking about the act of smoking while driving, in which case, you'd have to ban cigarettes etc as well, but doing that would be dumb.
On August 28 2009 11:32 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Give the poor pot smokers their marijuana already. I dont smoke it and never will, but its really absurd that its still illegal.
Just make it so you cant drive while high (like with alcohol) and tax the hell out of it.
Whats the big deal.
You can drive perfectly fine while high.
Maybe some people can, but most people I've driven with who were high tended to be a lot worse off than if they were sober. That said though, I think I'd still trust a high driver over a drunk one, however I do agree with legalizing marijuana and just making driving while high illegal.
On August 28 2009 11:32 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Give the poor pot smokers their marijuana already. I dont smoke it and never will, but its really absurd that its still illegal.
Just make it so you cant drive while high (like with alcohol) and tax the hell out of it.
Whats the big deal.
You can drive perfectly fine while high. Unless you're talking about the act of smoking while driving, in which case, you'd have to ban cigarettes etc as well, but doing that would be dumb.
But I believe you're right otherwise.
When you drive drunk, the road is like ~~~~~~~vvv~~~~~~Vv~~~~ooooSSSS
On August 28 2009 11:32 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Give the poor pot smokers their marijuana already. I dont smoke it and never will, but its really absurd that its still illegal.
Just make it so you cant drive while high (like with alcohol) and tax the hell out of it.
Whats the big deal.
You can drive perfectly fine while high.
Maybe some people can, but most people I've driven with who were high tended to be a lot worse off than if they were sober. That said though, I think I'd still trust a high driver over a drunk one, however I do agree with legalizing marijuana and just making driving while high illegal.
The only people I've known to be unable to drive high are the same people that can hardly drive in the first place and in my opinion I think it should be harder to get a drivers license. But I'd be satisfied either way
On August 28 2009 11:32 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Give the poor pot smokers their marijuana already. I dont smoke it and never will, but its really absurd that its still illegal.
Just make it so you cant drive while high (like with alcohol) and tax the hell out of it.
Whats the big deal.
You can drive perfectly fine while high. Unless you're talking about the act of smoking while driving, in which case, you'd have to ban cigarettes etc as well, but doing that would be dumb.
But I believe you're right otherwise.
When you drive drunk, the road is like ~~~~~~~vvv~~~~~~Vv~~~~ooooSSSS
When you are high, YOU ARE THE ROAD
Don't try to bend to the road, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth - there is no road. Then you'll see that it's not the road that bends, it is only yourself.
Hmmmm, I think one's driving ability is impaired when one is high but that is countered by the fact that when one is high: 1.) Many people are very cautious when high (paranoid...), aka: drive slow and pay attention 2.) One can focus in on things really intensely (get in the zone..) when high.
I guess people also zone out when high which can lead to accidents... don't know how often this happens!
"By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It's simply not worth the city's time or resources," said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.
On August 28 2009 10:20 A3iL3r0n wrote: Awesome. Thanks for sharing.
I really like the reasoning stated behind their decision too. It's the truth. If anything should be banned it is alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which I enjoy, but on level of harmfulness, those two exceed pot.
Yes, that worked so well last time :p
it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol
...just saying
Actually it took a constitutional amendment to pretend to ban alcohol, but really just allowed smugglers to make a ton of money from it.
On August 28 2009 10:20 A3iL3r0n wrote: Awesome. Thanks for sharing.
I really like the reasoning stated behind their decision too. It's the truth. If anything should be banned it is alcohol and cigarettes. Both of which I enjoy, but on level of harmfulness, those two exceed pot.
As a matter of fact, with the current christian government we choose ourselves, drugs are not as free as they used to be in the netherlands. Mushroom have been prohibited since some stupid psychic french student killed herself while high on shrooms, and in many cities it is forbidden to smoke on the streets.
I can't believe I didn't post in the high thread two days ago. I was so high I actually thought I was going to die. Like literally. My life flashed before my eyes.
I live about half an hour away from denver, and I can't believe I heard about this through teamliquid before any other news source. Having had some experience with law enforcement on marijuana here I have to say that it's really not a big deal here already. I'll definitely vote on this if it comes up
As far as i am concerned with driving high, I have done it or been in a car while the driver is doing it nearly on a daily bases for over a year. Never notice any swerving or reckless behavior. Although it should be taken into account we have been using for a long time, maybe a new smoker would be best off not driving?
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
On August 28 2009 10:31 BalliSLife wrote: it's about fucking time they stop worrying about people smoking weed, seriously i'll give anyone money if they can find someone that was killed from it.
lol why do so many people say shit like this? not that I am for or against weed use, but this is just retarded to say. I'm sure there are thousands maybe millions of people who have died while high. And yes I do mean directly or indirectly from smoking it. (lack of common sense leading to their death or some thing retarded shit.) And I am sure there is a case where some people had an allergic reaction to it or burned themselves alive from it etc.
bad argument. douche bag.
Agreed. People have died after drinking water, therefore water is bad. Correlation != implication. People die from drinking too much alcohol. People go to sleep from smoking too much weed. Never seen a stoned person (as in JUST high, not on coke/meth as well) pick a fight. If anything it helps society, since its such a good way to relax after a stressful day.
On August 29 2009 07:06 starflash wrote: people should DEFINATELY not be driving whilst high fyi
I've driven high more times in the last year than I have sober, and I promise the nature of marijuana actually increases your ability to focus, rather than decreasing it during menial tasks like driving or playing wow etc. I can honestly say that I drive better high. But it's different for everybody, idk
On August 29 2009 07:06 starflash wrote: people should DEFINATELY not be driving whilst high fyi
I've driven high more times in the last year than I have sober, and I promise the nature of marijuana actually increases your ability to focus, rather than decreasing it during menial tasks like driving or playing wow etc. I can honestly say that I drive better high. But it's different for everybody, idk
I don't drive better when high. I heard it only helps for people with ADD. Get yourself checked.
Im positive there are like 5 of us on this website so maybe only they can relate to this but does this mean that 16th street mall is going to full of stoners because thats going to piss me off regardless of what position you are as far as yes/no weed it sucks to smell that garbage when you are out with your family or trying to eat a meal outdoors why cant they just smoke that weed downstairs like all the other stoners.
need a new law banning smoking in malls or whatever then
Need a law that makes pot legal, but being a pothead illegal.
Pot smokers are exactly that. The reputation will follow them everywhere, just like "normal" smokers.
All smoking is a habit, just like drinking is, and certainly not a habit that anyone should be involved in considering their detrimental effects to LIVES AND "LIVING" BODIES.
Driving is transportation not time for you to eat your bigmac, drink your beer, smoke your pot, talking on your cellphone, or to put on makeup. That's the thing--you're sharing the road with others and inconsideration to others' well being is beyond rude. There's people that think they can drink and drive just fine, they'll try to justify it anyway they can; same way with people potheads who wanna drive. Bottom line it can affect others besides yourself and that's where you draw the line. This is why potheads get a bad wrap, for saying such moronic things.
EPT
