Press Release: A64 Continues Smoke Screen of Deceit

Contact: Miguel Lopez Denver
420 Rally
(720) 338-8766

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 29, 2012

Proponents of Amendment 64 Continue their Smoke Screen of Deceit

Denver, CO: Deceit and deception, the folks behind Amendment 64 are becoming masters of spin. Those that have taken the time to think critically about Amendment 64 have determined that the law continues to criminalize marijuana and that simply removing the word prohibition is just a smoke screen used to hide the fact that people will still go to jail for marijuana possession. They continue their deceit and word spinning while defending themselves from Roger Sherman’s recent criticism of the findings from Colorado Center on Law & Policy stating that Colorado could see $100 million in revenues by 2017.

While ending marijuana “prohibition” would certainly generate more income for the state, an almost laughably obvious point, Amendment 64 still criminalizes marijuana possession and positions the initiative to only benefit those with easy access to the significant investment funds needed to meet the requirements of the initiative.

Those wanting to build their business in the true American way of starting small and growing big, will be left out in the lurch and probably end up in jail for trying. Consider the following statements from some of Amendment 64’s largest proponents: “We believe that once the people of Colorado end marijuana prohibition in the state by passing Amendment 64, there will be far more thought given to whether it is appropriate to force the state to have marijuana sold to non-patients by drug cartels and other criminal enterprises,” Mason Tvert

Amendment 64 is exclusively for its wealthy backers since everyone else will be suspected of having ties to drug cartels and other criminal enterprises requiring additional resources for law enforcement. It begs to question how many minority and low-income communities will be considered as having ties to drug cartels. And, here is Art Way’s line by line breakdown of what Roger Sherman said followed by the Denver 420 Rally’s line by line analysis in bold: “Art Way, Senior Policy Manager for the Drug Policy Alliance in Colorado, is and has been part of that reform. He is a fifth generation native of Denver’s eastside and a virulent advocate for issues impacting his community.”

No, Art Way is a sell out to big business. That is his new community. If he were truly a community advocate he would help those in his community, who by birth into dire circumstances became drug dealers as a means of survival, become legal. Instead he advocates for an initiative that will continue to incriminate those in his community by creating unrealistic limitations on marijuana possession for those choosing to grow six plants and by requiring significant investments to start a legal operation, money that is not easily accessible to minority and low-income communities. The issues that plague Art’s community will continue, only now under the word criminalization instead of prohibition.

“The Legislative Council staff is well-respected. And their analysis is sound. But their analysis is more limited. The CCLP report includes excise tax revenue and the Blue Analysis did not factor in the savings that will be realized when the police and courts no longer enforce prohibition. Legislative Council did not include those two factors.”

Bold faced lie. The courts and law enforcement will still be enforcing a different form of prohibition. Amendment 64 is nothing more than a play on words. It still clearly and quite obviously criminalizes marijuana. So, the Blue Analysis did not factor in the savings from no longer needing to enforce “prohibition” because instead they will still be enforcing the criminal penalties set forth by Amendment-64. Therefore, they will not be realizing the saving that the analysis by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy claims because the Legislative Council sees through the play on words that Amendment 64 uses to deceive the public.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A64 - Arguments Against, A64 - General and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s