A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
STATE:
The Gazette, Aug. 12, on Colorado towns banning recreational marijuana sales:
With the Palmer Lake Town Council’s 4-1 vote Thursday to ban recreational marijuana sales, potential markets for over-the-counter pot sales – without a doctor’s note – are quickly dwindling throughout the Pikes Peak Region.
Palmer Lake joins Colorado Springs, Monument, Woodland Park, Green Mountain Falls and Fountain in deciding to opt out of a decision by statewide voters that, in part, created an option for retail sales. Local governments cannot free themselves from the law’s provision that allows personal cultivation of six plants and possession of up to 1 ounce of the drug for each person over age 21.
Even Loveland, a free-spirited city not far from Boulder, has chosen to join the majority of Colorado communities that are opting out of recreational drug sales.
The trend should signal that Colorado Springs made the right decision when it voted 5-4 last month to forgo sales. Representatives of the people throughout our community do not think it’s in the best interests of the Pikes Peak region. And, no, it’s not a slight to the majority of area residents who voted to legalize recreational cultivation and use. The constitutional amendment they voted for clearly leaves the matter of retail sales up to local governing boards. That is the law the majority voted for and it’s the law politicians respect when they choose no sales.
After Councilman Val Snyder surprised the community by voting against commercial sales, he made wise statements that all should consider.
“The key point was a combo of two things – the number of uncertainties that would come with retail sales and things that would come downstream,” Snider said of his vote.
So what might come downstream? How about losing future and current defense contractors who will question the wholesomeness of a community that makes buying drugs a lot like buying candy. Or how about military brass choosing to pass over Colorado Springs the next time they relocate or create a new unit. The military wants drugs harder to get, not easier.
As Snyder put it: “This town has never had anything like this before and the unintended consequences that would surface I don’t think have been thought through.”
With most Colorado cities, counties and towns opting out of retail sales, those who opt in will become magnets. They may experience in-state, national and international drug tourism that will do more harm than good. Those who think it might somehow help a community, to become a vacation spot and home to disproportionate numbers of recreational drug users, need only look to Amsterdam.
Dutch officials are coming out in droves declaring that marijuana has turned the city into a bastion of sleaze, avoided by upscale tourists who don’t like the sight of gangs, pimps, hard-drugged homeless and prostitutes. Amsterdam legalized pot as a means of reducing hard-drug use and it appears the experiment backfired.
So congratulations to Palmer Lake, Colorado Springs and the growing list of other cities that are just saying “no” to recreational retail sales of pot. Colorado voters legalized personal use and possession. They left sales up to locals for good reason.
Editorial:
———
The Tribune, Aug. 9, on Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate:
We’re glad to see Weld District Attorney Ken Buck take another swing at winning a seat in the U.S. Senate.
Buck, who lost by less than 2 percentage points to Democrat Michael Bennet in 2010, filed papers this week with the Federal Election Commission to run again in 2014. This time, he’ll face incumbent Democrat Mark Udall if he emerges from a GOP primary field that already includes Randy Baumgardner of Granby and Owen Hill of Colorado Springs.
Buck, who surprised many political observers when he rode a wave of tea party support to beat establishment favorite Jane Norton in the 2010 Republican primary, will carry plenty of baggage with him this year as he enters the race. From conservatives, he will face questions about his ability to win a difficult race. A string of gaffes cost him the general election. During the primary, he was caught on an open mic calling tea party supporters “dumbasses” for asking questions about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. He also told voters at a rally that they should support him because he doesn’t wear high heels. The remark was an off-the-cuff jab at Norton, who had begun running an ad that questioned Buck’s toughness, but it didn’t sit well, and exit polls after the general election showed that women voters were key to Bennet’s win.
From more moderate and liberal voters, he will face real questions about his positions. During the general election campaign, he compared being gay to alcoholism on a nationally televised debate with Bennet during “Meet the Press.” At a campaign stop with Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., he called global warming a hoax. He also took a hard line on immigration reform. As Colorado continues to trend blue, Buck may find these positions at odds with a number of voters.
Still, Buck is a strong campaigner. He led Bennet in the polls for much of the race and nearly unseated him, despite having virtually no statewide name recognition when he began the race. He’s also served Weld well as a prosecutor. He’s led an aggressive district attorney’s office that has won a number of landmark cases, including the prosecution of Allen Andrade under Colorado’s hate crime statute for the killing of Angie Zapata, a transgender woman.
Of course, it’s way too early for us to endorse any candidate in the 2014 race, but it’s nice to see Buck re-enter the statewide political fray. It’s inspiring to see him take on the daunting task of a Senate campaign so soon after beating cancer. He filed his campaign paperwork less than three months after announcing his lymphoma was in remission.
Buck isn’t perfect, but he does offer voters another strong candidate in the 2014 race. That’s a good thing.
Editorial:
———
The Durango Herald, Aug. 11, on televised access to Denver Broncos games in southwest Colorado:
When Southwest Coloradoans make demands of their elected representatives in Washington, the access to Denver television ranks alongside less government intrusion (or a stronger safety net), a solution to all of immigration’s issues (or not) and adherence to an unchanged Constitution (or the admission that with passing time it becomes more difficult to apply a 200-plus year-old document of do’s and don’ts).
The request for Denver television may be couched in terms of the importance of following legislative goings-on in Denver, or the workings of institutions and the opinions of people who have statewide influence, but what Southwest Coloradans really mean is, we want to see every Broncos football game and not the team from Dallas that is favored in New Mexico.
Sen. Mark Udall has secured that, not permanently but at least for the fall 2013 season. When the Broncos and the Cowboys play at the same time, Southwest Colorado will receive the Broncos game along with the other Broncos games on Fox’s KASA out of Albuquerque.
It is a one-year fix, and has occurred in previous years, but it is nevertheless good work on Udall’s part, and he deserves our thanks.
Now, on to the Super Bowl.
It is a commercial geographical designation that puts Southwest Colorado into Albuquerque’s television stations’ sphere of influence, and permanently undoing that has so far proved impossible.
Capitalism has a strong hold. There is some irony that even local Republicans have set aside their belief in marketplace-driven decision-making to advocate for government action in this case. The popularity of the Broncos trumps the determination not to involve Washington.
Perhaps they recognize that even if Albuquerque is 2 1/2 hours closer than Denver and is not separated from Southwest Colorado by high mountain passes, Southwest Coloradans do not engage in much commerce in New Mexico’s largest city.
The line that ties Southwest Colorado to the malls lying to the south is a faint one.
Thanks to Udall for giving us the Broncos and not the Cowboys this fall.
Editorial:
———
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Aug. 12, on roving Transportation Security Administration patrols:
Americans have come to know and tolerate the presence of the Transportation Security Administration at airports.
While it doesn’t make the pat-downs and full-body scans any less intrusive, we’ve accepted the security gauntlet—even the routine of taking off belts and shoes—as an unavoidable part of air travel.
But wait, as they say on infomercials, there’s more.
An increasing number of roving TSA teams in recent years has been quietly expanding the agency’s reach with patrols of train terminals, highway weigh stations and other venues.
And while it’s true that Congress passed legislation in 2007 allowing TSA security squads jurisdiction over “any mode of transportation at any location within the United States”—a remarkably broad mandate—we think there ought to be a fuller public discussion about the proliferation of these squads.
Without such a debate, there’s a real possibility that the TSA presence will continue to grow outside the confines of airports and this nation will end up with a far more ubiquitous security agency than anyone dreamed back in 2001.
The New York Times, which recently published a story on the so-called Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, quoted civil liberties advocates who take issue with what they maintain are the teams’ warrantless searches in violation of the Constitution.
“The problem with TSA stopping and searching people in public places outside the airport is that there are no real legal standards or probable cause,” Khaliah Barnes, administrative law counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told The Times. “It’s something that is easily abused because the reason that they are conducting the stops is shrouded in secrecy.”
Typically, the teams move through areas with bomb-sniffing dogs and randomly stop and ask security questions of people in the crowd.
Civil libertarians aren’t the only ones taking issue with some aspects of the expanded TSA operations. A 2012 Department of Homeland Security inspector general report raised questions about the training of the teams’ personnel and whether they were assigned based on actual security threats.
These roving TSA squads are no pilot program, either. The Times reported the program has a $100 million annual budget and has expanded from 10 teams in 2008 to 37 last year.
Before we have to accept an expansive TSA that routinely conducts unexplained security stops in public places, we think there ought to be a further examination of this development by elected officials.
Security is important, but for that matter so is liberty.
Editorial:
