Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Calls on Attorney General John Suthers to Remain 'Ethical' in 2012
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Calls on Attorney General John Suthers to Remain 'Ethical' in 2012
Suthers, alongside other law enforcement employees, vigorously advocated against marijuana initiative in 2006, but called MMED director Dan Hartmann "unethical" for discussing potential impact of 2011 medical marijuana dispensary ban
Campaign expects Suthers to be "ethical" and remain silent on the subject of regulating marijuana in 2012
OCTOBER 31, 2011 – DENVER – The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol held a news conference today at which it detailed the hypocrisy of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, who vigorously advocated against a marijuana reform initiative in 2006, but on Friday called Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division (MMED) director Dan Hartmann "unethical" for discussing the potential impact of a proposed initiative to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. See story about the MMED scandal at http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/10/29/colorado-pot-regulator-under-fire-for-letter
Proponents of the 2012 initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol delivered the attorney general the following pledge to sign:
I, John Suthers, will behave ethically during the 2012 election season, and will refrain from encouraging voters to oppose the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.
"Attorney General Suthers criticizing Dan Hartmann for expressing an opinion on a marijuana-related initiative is truly a case of the kettle calling the pot regulator black," said 2012 initiative proponent Mason Tvert. "Not only did Mr. Suthers write op-eds encouraging voters to oppose Amendment 44 in 2006, he also joined uniformed police officers in press conferences against the initiative.
"These were not educational efforts; they were efforts to spread exaggerations and distort reality in order to scare people away from supporting reform," Tvert said. "Attorney General Suthers lives in a bizarre world where it is ethical for him to propagandize during one initiative campaign, but unethical for someone else to tell the truth during another."
In 2006, Attorney General Suthers participated in a variety of activities in opposition to a ballot initiative that would have removed penalties for adult marijuana possession. Along with speaking out in interviews on TV and the radio, Suthers authored op-eds in the Rocky Mountain News and Pueblo Chieftain, appeared at press conferences held specifically to denounce the initiative, and served as the opposition spokesperson in multiple public debates. See below for the op-ed written by Suthers, as well as excerpts from news stories detailing his involvement in the effort to defeat the 2006 initiative.
"We expect Attorney General Suthers to abide by his own ethical standards and remain silent during next year's ballot initiative campaign to regulate marijuana like alcohol," said 2012 initiative proponent Brian Vicente. "We do not expect to hear any comments from him or see him at any press conferences, and we certainly should not see any op-eds from him.
"In fact, I assume I can say right now that the people of Colorado will be making a wise choice to regulate marijuana like alcohol during next year's election and if reporters call Mr. Suthers for a response, he will have to decline," Vicente said.
# # #
------------
Examples of Attorney General Suthers' past ethical indiscretions
Denver Post – December 28, 2005:
"On this statewide ballot initiative, law enforcement will weigh in significantly to say what a bad policy legalization is," Suthers said in a statement last month. "If you want to have a debate for legalization of marijuana, then let's have a full-out debate, which I think this initiative will engender," he said.
Colorado Springs Gazette – December 29, 2005:
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, said they would oppose the measure if it gets on the November 2006 ballot.
Denver Post – February 9, 2006:
"Their message is going to be that somehow smoking pot is less of a danger than alcohol abuse so we ought to support it as an alternative - smoking pot in lieu of alcohol," Suthers said. "That's not the message we should send to our children."
"If the initiative gets to the ballot we will put together a broad-based coalition to oppose it..."
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel – October 13, 2006:
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, joined by local elected and federal law enforcement officials, tore into the measure, Amendment 44 on Thursday.
KMGH ABC 7 – October 27, 2006:
Gov. Bill Owens and the state's top law enforcement officers planned a press event on the west steps of the Capitol to urge voters to turn down Amendment 44, which would legalize adult possession of one ounce of marijuana...
"People should consider whether they want to see Colorado become a haven for drug use in America and what that might mean for the level of crime and quality of life in our communities," argued Suthers.
Rocky Mountain News – October 21, 2006:
POINT / COUNTERPOINT: MARIJUANA
Relative safety of drug an incorrect and irresponsible argument
By John Suthers
The proponents of Amendment 44 base their assertion that possession of marijuana should be legalized on the premise that it is a safe alternative to alcohol. That message is both incorrect and irresponsible and I hope the voters of Colorado will reject it.
Our American society is plagued by moral relativism, and the campaign in support of Amendment 44 is a classic example of it. They suggest that society should condone the harm brought on by marijuana intoxication because, in their view, it is surpassed by the harm brought about by alcohol intoxication. That is an irresponsible message, particularly for our children.
When small amounts of marijuana were legalized for adults in Alaska between 1978 and 1990, the National Household Survey of Drug Use in America showed that by the late '80s 52 percent of Alaskan teenagers used marijuana. That was almost three times the rate of marijuana use by teenagers in the rest of the nation. That was part of the reason that marijuana was recriminalized in Alaska in 1990. In the Netherlands, the "coffee shop" legalization of marijuana resulted in use of marijuana by Dutch teenagers nearly tripling in just eight years.
Marijuana is not the benign drug that proponents of Amendment 44 portray it to be. In 1981, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content in marijuana was 1.83 percent, which rose to 5.62 percent in 2003. (THC is the hallucinatory chemical that is the principal and most active ingredient in marijuana.) The THC content of high-grade marijuana rose from 6.58 percent in 1981 to 14.1 percent in 2003.
Corresponding to the increased potency of the THC content in marijuana was a sixfold increase in emergency room admissions because of marijuana use during the decade of the '90s, even though the number of marijuana users remained relatively the same. Between 1992 and 2002, there was a 162 percent increase in treatment admissions for marijuana use as the primary substance of abuse. Today, 62 percent of teens in drug treatment are there for marijuana use.
The proponents of Amendment 44 contend that the law is not a deterrent to illicit drug use. In fact, the National Household Survey indicates that many of our citizens, including our children, are deterred from drug use because it is against the law. Sixty percent of teenagers who do not use drugs indicate that the primary reason they do not do so is because it is illegal. The adverse impact on their health is the second most frequently cited reason.
The proponents of Amendment 44 have also recklessly created a significant legal issue. Under current law the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over the age of 18 to someone over the age of 15 is deemed possession of marijuana and not distribution. So in legalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for people over 21, the proponents are unwittingly advocating legalization of the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over 21 to anyone over 15. Their retort is that such activity could still be prosecuted under the felony offense of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." But I assure you that a creative defense attorney will make the argument that the voters, if they pass Amendment 44, specifically directed that such activity be legalized.
Despite the claims of critics to the contrary, the battle against drug abuse in the United States can claim significant success. In 1979, the National Household Survey indicated that 14.1 percent of Americans had used an illicit drug in the last 30 days. This year that number will likely be between 6 percent and 7 percent. A 50 percent reduction in illicit drug use in America is not something that you read about on editorial pages very often. We have also reduced teenage use of marijuana by 20 percent in the last four years.
This is simply not the time to raise a white flag and give up the battle against drug abuse in Colorado. We need to send a very clear message to our children, and that message is that the only safe alternative to intoxication is sobriety.
John Suthers is Colorado's attorney general.