I mean, really? Possession and use of pot is so desperate a moral issue to the City Fathers/Mothers/Nannies that not only are you banning its use on city property, but you're defining city property as all streets and sidewalks?
(Hmmm. A few state and county highways go through Greenwood Village, despite their best obstructionist efforts to block all annoying through traffic. Wonder how those play into this.)
Reshared post from +The Denver Post
Greenwood Village ordinance to test limits of pot legalization law
An ordinance passed in Greenwood Village could become a test case for how far cities can go to keep marijuana out of their communities following legalization.
The ordinance bans marijuana use, possession or transportation on city property, which is not so unusual. The catch: the ordinance defines city property to include public streets and sidewalks. That makes it illegal to even drive through the city with an otherwise legal amount of marijuana.
Supporters of the new Colorado law say that the ordinance is a violation of the state constitution and will invite costly lawsuits.
How far do you think a city can legally go to keep out pot?
Embedded Link
Greenwood Village ordinance to test pot legalization law
An ordinance passed last month in Greenwood Village is poised to become a test case for how far cities can go to keep marijuana out of their communities following legalization.
Google+: View post on Google+
I'm not sure how marijuana is a moral issue on any level. Legal? Sure. A question of manners? Absolutely. (Pot smokers share their habit of inflicting their habits on others with tobacco smokers). But moral? That I don't see.
Well, it's not a legal issue (recreational pot smoking is now officially legal in Colorado). Manners — really not applicable in terms of "You can't drive down our city streets if you are in possession." I can only assume moral, since it seems to be driven by a deep, emotional conviction and/or irrationality.
A brain altering substance that can lead to acts of violence? How is that not moral?
{Waits for uproar}
Sorry, it does. I used to have the ‘If its not harming anyone else…’ attitude. Then I started to work with criminals. I’ve listened to too many young men who committed acts of violence because grass impaired their critical thinking skills.
“I was high, and I thought the kids outside [making a noise] were trying to break in.”
So he grabbed a hammer and confronted them.
Then there was the kid who smoked because he was angry, thought it would calm him down. But it doesn’t: Contrary to popular belief, THC acts as a mood enhancer, so it made him angrier about what had happened.
Most of it probably is. Who is resposible for it? Who maintains it? Who is the plaintiff if it is damaged?
@LH – I remain unconvinced that it is any more likely to provoke violent act than, say, alcohol, which is perfectly legal within GV city limits.