Rocky Mountain News

Pot-law backers get some support
GOP, Dem activists gather at Capitol

By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News
September 20, 2006

Backers of a statewide initiative to legalize adult marijuana possession got the support of a few Republican and Democratic activists at a gathering on the Capitol steps Tuesday afternoon.

Republican Jessica Corry, a law student at the University of Denver, stood with Democrat Barbara Harvey and said prohibition of marijuana hasn’t worked and distracts law enforcement from pursuing more serious drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine and heroin.

“The system is broken,” Corry said. “It’s not working.”

Corry, who said she doesn’t smoke marijuana herself, also complained about it being another example of government inserting itself into people’s personal lives. She stood with her 16-month-old daughter and fellow Republican activist Laura Evans, who was with her 3- year-old daughter.

Amendment 44 would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess less than an ounce of marijuana without legal repercussions.

Opponents say it is poorly written, lacking a provision that would prevent those between 18 and 20 being given less than an ounce of marijuana. And there was a recent fight over the description of Amendment 44 in the voter information book prepared by the Legislative Council.

Mason Tvert, campaign director for the amendment, filed suit in Denver District Court last week to stop the book from being printed, but the judge denied the injunction.

The Legislative Council, which is in charge of writing the impartial analysis of ballot measures, said the amendment would allow the transfer of marijuana to those 15 years and older - something Tvert claims would still be a felony under the current statutes. He also said if the amendment were to pass, legislators would work quickly to close the gap for transfer of marijuana to those between the ages of 18 and 20.

But opponents remain concerned about teens being allowed to possess less than an ounce of marijuana if the measure passes in November.

Robert McGuire, who has headed up the opposition to Amendment 44 with a group called Guarding Our Children Against Marijuana, said it’s bad policy to try to pass a ballot measure that doesn’t completely address possible loopholes.

“They’re saying it’s too hard to draft a law that works?” McGuire said. “That’s no way to go - pass bad laws and rely on those bad laws being fixed by other people.”

McGuire said the pro-marijuana forces are also being disingenuous by saying marijuana use is less dangerous than alcohol use.

“It’s not a fair comparison,” McGuire said. “Alcohol is so much more widely used than illegal drugs and so it stands to reason if you compare the two side by side, alcohol will look a lot worse.”

Last November, voters in Denver approved a measure that made it legal for adults to possess up to one ounce of pot. Denver law enforcement officials, however, continue to ticket small-time pot-possession violators under state law.

Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

Rocky Mountain News

Sparks fly in debate on Amendment 38
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News
September 22, 2006

A measure making it easier for citizens to put issues on the ballot that concern all levels of government makes the system more fair, supporters say.

But opponents of Amendment 38 say it would create chaos and force taxpayers to shoulder the burden of initiative costs.

Not true, said Jessica Corry, of the Independence Institute.

“This is a common-sense way to make our government more representative,” she said. “Right now, the special interests have no problem getting their issues on the ballot.”

Corry squared off against Rick -Reiter of Reiter & Associates during a debate on Amendment 38 taped Tuesday. It airs at 9 p.m. tonight on KBDI-Channel 12.

Colorado has allowed citizens to put initiatives on the state ballot since 1911. Since then, voters have approved 43 measures, including proposals concerning pig farms, medical marijuana, and taxation and spending limitations.

Amendment 38 is similiar to proposals that voters defeated in 1994 and 1996. It was written by Doug Campbell, who has run for a variety of statewide offices as an American Constitution Party candidate; Douglas Bruce, author of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights; and term-limits proponent Dennis Polhill.

Reiter said the majority of proposals in recent years have been put forth by what he called “perpetual petitioners” who are “outside the mainstream.”

But Corry said the reason voters need ballot access is because elected officials, particularly legislators, run from “radioactive issues” they fear will cost them votes, including immigration and property rights.

Corry ripped the current system, noting the state Supreme Court this year threw out a proposal to limit government services to illegal immigrants based on its wording.

It took so long to make a decision on that measure, she said, that supporters had no time to change the wording to get it back on the ballot.

But Reiter predicted a ballot nightmare under Amendment 38 because citizens could petition not just the state, but all levels of government, including water districts and counties.

Reiter also opposes a provision that requires the state to help bear the costs of printing petitions.

“I want to spend the money on schools and health care, not on campaigns,” he said.

Debate on 38

• When: 9 p.m. tonight

• Where: KBDI-Channel 12

• Sponsors: Rocky Mountain News, CBS 4, KBDI

• To learn more: Go to RockyMountainNews.com/drmn/elections/ and look under “issues.”

Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

See today’s CBS coverage (9/19/06) of Jessica’s efforts to draw attention to failed marijuana policies in Colorado.

War finds my generation
By Jessica Peck Corry

We had it all figured out. Born after Vietnam, we were the first American generation in the last century to never know a prolonged war. We convinced ourselves that if we just learned our history well enough, we would not be doomed to repeat it. How wrong we were.

We visited Holocaust museums, had college roommates of different races, signed commitments to diversity, and spent spring break in Third World countries building orphanages. If only the prosperity that funded such an education could have funded peace. Unfortunately, it could not.

As college students, we read Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man,” presented as a guide book for a post-war world, and preaching that just around the corner awaited “Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” Just a decade after we affirmed such an optimistic proclamation, it has become a symbol of a peaceful era we no longer know.

When Sept. 11 happened, we were told to spend more, and so we did. We gobbled up first homes, and bought our SUVs with zero down. We attended fancy schools on government grants, almost convincing ourselves we weren’t at war. On our wedding days, we only briefly considered the awkward self-indulgence of a champagne toast while others tasted war just an ocean away. I am as guilty as the next.

We waved our American flags proudly, but then as war became a bit more complicated, we became angry. Our friends came back from Iraq changed men, and others still came home in body bags. In our lives, this was not what war had looked like. After all, Ronald Reagan had brought down Communism without ever firing a shot, and fighter jets had freed Kuwait.

Shocked and dismayed by world events, we attempted to blame a single man - George W. Bush - for the fate we found ourselves in. We blamed him for the rise of Islamo-Fascism in South Asia and the Middle East, unrest in the Palestinian territories, and today we blame him for terrorism around the world.

We refuse to see that while we were busy reading Fukuyama on university lawns, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah were all preparing to wage a world war on Western values.

How could it be, we wondered, that even after all of our degrees, all of our study, and all of our peace, we could not decide when and why America should - or must - go to war? If we had just gotten everyone around a table to talk, couldn’t we have worked this out like civilized adults?

While we liked the idea of taking down murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein, we couldn’t decide if that was a justification for war. While we loved driving our SUVs to Starbucks to buy $4 lattes, we balked at the idea of going to war to protect our oil resources around the world. While Iran and North Korea developed their nuclear arsenals, we hosted peace protests. We held our heads in our hands, unable to grasp that things were just a little more complicated than we’d led ourselves to believe.

Like every previous generation, we are finally being forced to realize that freedom and peace cannot be preserved without great sacrifice. My father spent his early childhood with his father at war more days than he was home. My mother’s father, riddled with shrapnel from his time in the South Pacific, forever hid his scars under a quiet exterior and long white cotton shirts. They never complained.

We must choose: We can have prosperity, but we cannot have it for free. We can have oil, but it comes at a cost. We can have peace, but only if we destroy those who will not tolerate it.

We can be the world’s hegemon, but we cannot also then expect to win the love and admiration of our international peers. We must answer the fundamental question: When and why should we go to war?

I hope and pray my daughter will not be a wartime bride. Perhaps the epidemic will spare her generation. I will teach her, however, that she cannot expect peace. It is far from the norm of the human experience; it must be earned through blood and sacrifice.

Jessica Peck Corry (jessica@i2i.org) is a policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, where she specializes in higher education, civil rights and land-use policy.

This column originally appeared in The Denver Post on September 2, 2006.