home

Denver DA to Drop Pending Marijuana Cases (Under 1 Ounce)

A day after Boulder DA Stan Garnett announced his office will drop pending marijuana cases involving adult possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey announced his office will do the same.

There are about 70 cases pending in Denver that would fall under the amendment, Denver district attorney spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough said Thursday. As those cases go through the court system, they will be reviewed for possible dismissal. This won't apply to cases where there is another charge or when the person is under age 21, she said. People who think their case may be dismissed still must appear at their court date, Kimbrough said.

The North Metro Drug Task Force remains opposed. Its latest argument: [More...]

"There's nothing that prohibits 100 people from combining each of their six plants in one grow facility," [Sgt. Jim] Gerhardt said. "It's just how many 21-year-olds or older will you have claiming the plants. You do not even have to be a resident of the state or of the U.S."

The Amendment does, however, prohibit individual cultivation for sale. What is allowed:

(b) possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale.

The news article says "Amendment 64 allows adults to grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes," but I don't see anything in the Amendment that requires an individual's cultivation to take place in one's home. So as long as the individuals are cultivating for their own use, what is the problem with a community garden, especially if each person's six plants are clearly marked with their name?

The North Metro Task Force should be more concerned with quickly getting regulations established for commercial growers and processors. Under the Amendment, it is not illegal for adults to purchase or transfer up to an ounce of marijuana. The following is allowed:

(a) possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce or less of marijuana.

(c) transfer of one ounce or less of marijuana without remuneration to a person who is twenty-one years of age or older.

Since, there is nothing to stop a user from buying their ounce from a person who is illegally selling it, and sharing that pot with their friends, until licensed stores open, the black market is bound to continue to thrive. If ridding the community of organized illegal drug activity is the goal, the faster the licensing process occurs, the sooner progress towards that goal can be realized.

< Thursday Night Open Thread: Crossfire Hurricane | DEA vs. Fedex and UPS: Why a Criminal Probe? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds like North Metro Task Force (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:41:46 AM EST
    is far more interested in preserving their jobs and budgets (and expanding both) than in anything remotely resembling the public good or, for that matter, compliance with a law they clearly do not like.

    If the budget-cutters who seem omnipresent in government circles these days want to find some low-hanging fruit, North Metro Task Force seems a prime suspect for some cuts.

    that's pretty much the basis for all the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:47:05 AM EST
    opposition to legalizing pot. it has little to do with public health/safety, and much to do with cash flow.

    Sounds like North Metro Task Force
    is far more interested in preserving their jobs and budgets (and expanding both) than in anything remotely resembling the public good or, for that matter, compliance with a law they clearly do not like.

    just take that one law enforcement group, and follow it up the law enforcement food chain, as well as the penal system food chain, all of which are primarily supported (from a budgetary and property seizure standpoint) by pot being illegal.

    take the personal possession of small amounts of pot out of the equation, and we're looking at a bloated law enforcement/penal system, having no legitimate reason for existing. this goes up to and includes the DEA. bear in mind, most of the people invested in this are also union members (from police to prison guards), so it presents the democrats with something of a dilemma.

    Parent

    I guess... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    I'd better get a pillow and blanket ready for k-dog.

    70 cases (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdm251 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:16:43 AM EST
    One of the arguments against amendment 64 was that people are not prosecuted for marijuana possession anyway.  Hmm I guess the opponents were stretching the truth a little bit.

    And the one that slays me (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    is who is going to check how many of your plants are flowering or not and how would they even know?  btw what's happening with the legal mm shops in California?  Are they closed?  Has this become the fiscal cliff of marijuana?

    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#4)
    by rdandrea on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    Yes, Mesa County is very stubborn... (none / 0) (#9)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    It's (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:48:18 AM EST
    just so funny.

    What if someone has seven plants instead of six?
    Or an ounce and 2 grams of pot?

    To the Bastille.
    Off with their heads.

    It's just nutty.

    I think it was like this with the ending of prohibition.
    I believe that the first thing to be allowed was beer...

    It is progress that this isn't tied to something "medicinal" - and that the amendment tacitly acknowledges that people like to smoke because it is pleasurable and it is their right to do so.

    I wonder whether some day people will look back at this time with the same mix of horror and contempt now lavished upon those who foisted prohibition upon us in the early 1900s - with its attendant creating of powerful and brutal criminal empires.

    I await to see what the feds will do.
    Shoot 'em up? Come in with power lawnmowers?
    They have a vested interest in the status quo. And they have a long and ongoing relationship with drug underworld. It must be hard for them to end this mutually profitable symbiotic love affair.

    there is a coterie who look back fondly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    on those days:

    I wonder whether some day people will look back at this time with the same mix of horror and contempt now lavished upon those who foisted prohibition upon us in the early 1900s - with its attendant creating of powerful and brutal criminal empires.

    were it not for prohibition, the FBI wouldn't (at least not then) become as powerful, as quickly as it did (it was j. edgar hoover's ticket to the big time). prohibition was good business for everyone, except, of course, joe non-sixpack, who pretty much got screwed both ways. hmmmmmmmmm, has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

    Parent

    That's (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    kinda what I meant by the love affair between "law enforcement" and the mobsters. The mobsters benefit from the illegality of substances that the public finds desirable, and the law enforcement side has the benefit of careers, power and  lots of opportunities for loot from graft. Perfect.

    And we're in the middle as the bullets fly.

    Parent