By The Denver Post
We can see why some supporters of Amendment 64 might suspect the powers that be of conspiring to deny them of their victory.
The rumblings about possible repeal, for example, are being driven mainly by worries that voters this fall might not approve marijuana taxes sufficient to cover related costs. So some lawmakers apparently have toyed with the idea of putting another measure on the ballot repealing Amendment 64 if two tax measures fail to pass.
But this is such a bad idea – and possibly illegal, too – that we’d be shocked if two-thirds of lawmakers bought into it in the short time remaining in the session.
Why illegal? Because as attorney Ed Ramey of the law firm Heizer Paul Grueskin pointed out in a legal analysis for backers of Amendment 64, any repeal question would seemingly have to be put to voters in an even-numbered year – 2014 at the earliest.
As for the court decision on off-site, off-hours cannabis use, it sets an important precedent but may still be less momentous than some suspect.
By a 2 to 1 majority, the court ruled that Colorado’s Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute does not protect employees from being fired for behavior that is legal under state statute but illegal according to federal law.
We doubt, however, that most employers – outside of public safety, transportation and construction – really have any desire to dictate off-job behavior or in undertaking a testing regimen to enforce such an edict. They have their hands full managing employees while they’re on the job without “sticking their proverbial nose” into their private lives, too.