Does denever vote yes to leagalization

[Bonethugs420]

44: Legalization bid falls flat

Most Colorado voters just said "no" Tuesday to legalizing small amounts of marijuana for recreational use.

Under Amendment 44, adults ages 21 and older would have been allowed to possess and use up to an ounce of marijuana without facing a $100 fine.

Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, or SAFER, launched the statewide campaign to legalize pot after a successful initiative in Denver last year.

Although the Denver measure made pot technically legal in the city, Denver police are using state law to continue to fine people $100 who are caught with marijuana.

The only Coloradans currently allowed to possess up to an ounce of marijuana are those who need it for medicinal purposes, which would be a tough battle to change "75 years of marijuana prohibition overnight.

"It's quite clear that a number of people in Colorado are in agreement that marijuana prohibition is not working," Tvert said. "We think this is the first step in a 5- to 10-year process."

SAFER dropped $60,000 into the campaign, and Tvert said he sees the money as well-spent because Coloradans began to have a conversation about whether marijuana should be legalized.

"It's not an issue that is going away," he said. "There is a big effort to change these laws."

Amendment 44 opponents were pleased Tuesday that the initiative failed, saying legalization would increase teen drug use.

"I think the people of Colorado have spoken," said Beverly Kinard, founder of Guarding Our Children Against Marijuana. "They care about Colorado, they care about the families of Colorado and they are taking a stand against the drug movement."

Kinard said if another effort is made to legalize any drugs in Colorado, her group will continue to fight it.
By Felisa Cardona
Denver Post Staff Writer

[Bunny]

aww thats too bad.

[Akornpatch]

that sucks. What about Nevada?

[Spliff Twister]

Originally Posted by akornpatch

that sucks. What about Nevada?

Thats really what I was wondering

[BluntKilla]

2006 VOTE DAY DETAILS

[Earth Child]

Don't be upset, guys. Yeah, it's a setback, but the votes were also closer than they've ever been, really.

In Nevada, a 45/55 push? That's close. Real close. Only a five percent... But whoever said it earlier was right. What we need is PUBLIC ads. Not just in forums and underground sites. But big. Like television ads. Newspaper adds, fullsize big ones. The tough part is getting a news organization to agree to post them.

Earth Child

[One Three]

At least democrats took the house and are lining up to take Senate by surprise.

[qWERTY]

Originally Posted by One Three

At least democrats took the house and are lining up to take Senate by surprise.

Thats what I was going to post.

We'll get 'em next time!

[SlimDog53185]

I saw that one the news. I was kinda expecting at least 1 or 2 of them to pass. I don't really know how I feel about dems taking the house, but we'll see how it goes.

[Akornpatch]

Originally Posted by Earth Child

Like television ads. Newspaper adds, fullsize big ones. The tough part is getting a news organization to agree to post them.

Earth Child

Exactly. We can't get any air time, newspaper space at all in my city. They just won't allow it. Even tho the paper is generally liberal leaning, they won't allow any advertizing from NORML, MPP or anyone else if it has to do with "drugs". They won't even take an ad for an upcoming rally or event. And the TV stations...well you can forget about that. Asswipes.

[hossua34]

Originally Posted by akornpatch

Exactly. We can't get any air time, newspaper space at all in my city. They just won't allow it. Even tho the paper is generally liberal leaning, they won't allow any advertizing from NORML, MPP or anyone else if it has to do with "drugs". They won't even take an ad for an upcoming rally or event. And the TV stations...well you can forget about that. Asswipes.

I'm not sure on the specifics, but I believe in situations like these you may be able to SUE them if they refuse to give you any ad time. I remember that from good old Journalism 101 - if a public broadcasting company gives one side of an issue any coverage, they are legally obligated to allow the other side coverage for the SAME PRICE. I forget what the law/act was called....

[Wilbur]

^ i think your refering to the fairness doctrine and reagan did away with that in the name of freedom.