Final answer:
The consistency of Colorado law with international covenants depends on the specifics of the covenant in question, but laws like Amendment 2 may contravene principles of non-discrimination. Differences between state and federal marijuana laws create disparities in court treatment, which could be addressed by establishing uniform federal legislation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the question of whether Colorado law, as described in the documentary, is consistent with the international covenant, the answer cannot be unequivocally determined without further specifying which international covenant is being referred to. However, if the context is about human rights and equality, which can be inferred from the description of Amendment 2's effect on gay and lesbian rights, one could argue that such laws do not align with international human rights covenants that aim to protect individuals from discrimination. These covenants include principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law, which may have been compromised by Amendment 2.
The discrepancies between state and federal law regarding marijuana use can significantly affect a person's treatment in court. Under the current legal framework, an individual may face different consequences for the same action, simply based on the state in which they are apprehended. To rectify these disparities, a possible solution could be the implementation of uniform federal legislation that provides clear guidelines on marijuana use, thereby superseding conflicting state laws and standardizing the application of the law across the nation.