[Fayetteville, Arkansas] Aldermen with a 1-7 vote did not pass an ordinance also proposed by Petty to create a Marijuana Policy Review Panel. The panel would oversee enforcement of an initiative passed in November making prosecution of marijuana offenses a low priority in the city.

Police Chief Greg Tabor spoke against the measure.

“Our enforcement was a low priority then; nothing has changed, other than we do have some discussions to make sure we’re following the law,” Tabor said.

via NWAnews.com :: Northwest Arkansas’ News Source.

In other words, trust the police chief.  He says that before Sensible Fayetteville’s lowest priority initiative passed, enforcement of marijuana laws was a low priority, and today nothing has changed.

From 1998-2007, Fayetteville police booked between 300-400 marijuana arrests per year, or an average of about one per day.  If that’s the result of marijuana having been the lowest priority and “nothing has changed”, then you’re still arresting a person a day for marijuana, right Chief Tabor?

Look, Chief, in 2008 the people of Fayetteville voted 2-to-1 to make marijuana offenses the lowest priority.  They would not have done that if they felt 1 arrest per day was reasonable.  What this panel would have discovered is that, indeed, nothing has changed, despite two-thirds of the voters demanding that change.

FAYETTEVILLE — Fayetteville could have another advisory panel to add to its growing list of resident-led boards and commissions.

Matthew Petty, a city councilman from Ward 2, wants the council to adopt an ordinance establishing a marijuana policy review panel to oversee the city’s recently adopted Lowest Law Enforcement and Prosecutorial Priority Policy Ordinance.

The ordinance, approved by 66 percent of voters last November, would have the Fayetteville Police Department and local prosecutors treat adult marijuana possession offenses as a low priority.

Petty proposes an eight-member panel appointed by the mayor and made up of a member from the city council, a representative from the Fayetteville Police Department, one representative from the Fayetteville City Attorney’s office and one at-large resident. Also, the panel would have one representative from drug and alcohol counseling, a public defender and a criminal defense attorney.

Wait a minute.  The eight-member panel that is to review whether city government, through law enforcement, is adhering to the will of the people consists of:

1. A City Councilperson (city government)
2. A Police Officer (law enforcement)
3. A City Attorney rep (law enforcement)
4. A Resident (the people)
5. A Rehab rep (benefits from law enforcement)
6. A Public Defender (the people)
7. A Criminal Defense Attorney (the people)

That’s a seven-member panel chosen by the mayor with four members who either benefit from vigorous marijuana law enforcement or are part of the government and law enforcement that this panel is to review.  Maybe the missing eighth person is from the marijuana law reform community that got the ordinance passed in the first place?

Hey there, boys and girls!  Having trouble understanding the concept of “federalism”?  You remember this vaguely from high school, don’t you, about how cities and counties can make laws, but those laws are subordinate to state laws, and state laws are subordinate to federal laws?

Apparently, they have trouble with this concept in Worcester, Massachusetts:

WORCESTER — A move is in the works on the City Council to have the city establish a civil penalty, and even the possibility of criminal indictment, for the use of marijuana on public property under the control of the city. 

Under the ordinance being sought by the councilors, the use of marijuana would not be allowed on city streets, sidewalks, public ways, parks, playgrounds, public buildings, school grounds, parking lots and any other area under control of the city. 

The passage of Question 2 reduces the penalty for less than an ounce of marijuana to a $100 civil fine. The three city councilors would like to see the city at least be able to assess an additional fine to those using marijuana on city property. 

Prior to Question 2 becoming law this month, the state Executive Office of Public Safety encouraged cities and towns to pass new penalties for using marijuana in public. Attorney General Martha Coakley has even offered a sample bylaw that would include a $300 civil penalty and the possibility of criminal indictment for the use of marijuana on public property. 

Excuse me?  The state law enacted by 65% of the voters says:

Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall only be a civil offense, subjecting an offender who is eighteen years of age or older to a civil penalty of one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the marihuana, but not to any other form of criminal or civil punishment or disqualification…. neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions or their respective agencies, authorities or instrumentalities may impose any form of penalty, sanction or disqualification on an offender for possessing an ounce or less of marihuana.

Translation: We don’t like the state pot law, so we’ll follow a new local law.

Massachusetts passed Question 2 and now local government doesn’t want to obey that state law.  Compare this to a few other situations where some new local laws were passed.  In Hawaii County, voters told law enforcement that they shouldn’t harass anyone possessing less than 24 ounces or 24 plants and they shall not cooperate with state or federal eradication efforts on the Big Island.  Reaction from the state attorney?

“Under the Constitution, the state Legislature can pass laws, and in the areas where it passes laws, it prevents the county from passing contrary laws.

“We prosecute under the authority of the Attorney General, so these are state laws. So that would not change. As far as how the county proceeds on it at the police level, they’re also bound by the Constitution to prosecute all laws, if they’re valid laws, so it really wouldn’t change anything. They would still need to enforce the law.”

Translation: We don’t like the local pot law, so we’ll follow the state law.

In Fayetteville, Arkansas, city voters passed an initiative to direct local law enforcement to set their priorities on something other than busting pot smokers.  Reaction from the Fayetteville police chief?

Fayetteville Police Chief Greg Tabor said approval of the ordinance won’t impact law enforcement related to marijuana possession because state law remains in force.

“Like I¹ve said many times, I just don¹t see that it will change much,” he said. “Misdemeanor marijuana possession is already low priority for us. I’m not saying we don’t arrest people for it. It’s a Class A misdemeanor and by law, you have to be ticketed and finger-printed for it, which means you’ll have to go to jail.”

Translation: We don’t like the local pot law, so we’ll follow the state law.

In Hailey, Idaho, voters there on multiple occassions have passed local ordinances legalizing medical marijuana, industrial hemp, and decriminalizing pot possession.  The City Council was quick to take those initiatives to court:

The Idaho Constitution provides that cities can enact and enforce laws that are not in conflict with the general laws of the State of Idaho. The Hailey Medical Marijuana Act purports to legalize the use and possession of 35 grams of marijuana for medicinal purposes. This act conflicts with state and federal law and in such a circumstance, the courts have held that a local ordinance is invalid.

Translation: We don’t like the local pot law, so we’ll follow the state law.

There you go, kids, a simple lesson in drug war federalism.  State laws say pot is bad, so local laws that say it’s good need not be obeyed.  But if state law says pot is good, then local laws that say it’s bad must be obeyed.

Feature: Drug Policy Reform and Sentencing Initiatives on the November Ballot | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet)

CALIFORNIA: Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) would expand the number of drug offenders diverted from prison into treatment, expand prison and parole rehabilitation programs, allow inmates earlier release for participating in such programs, and cut back the length of parole. It would also decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. 

Proposition 6, the Safe Neighborhoods Act, is primarily aimed at gang members, violent criminals, and criminal aliens, but also includes provisions increasing penalties for methamphetamine possession, possession with intent, and distribution to be equal to those for cocaine, and provides for the expulsion from public housing of anyone convicted of a drug offense. The measure also mandates increased spending for law enforcement. Read the California League of Women Voters’ analysis of Prop. 6 here.

MASSACHUSETTS: The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy is sponsoring an initiative that would decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Known as Question 2 on the November ballot, the initiative builds on nearly a decade’s worth of work by local activists who ran dozens of successful ballot questions directed at individual representatives. Question 2 looks like almost a sure winner; it garnered 72% support in a mid-August poll. 

MICHIGAN: Michigan is poised to become the first medical marijuana state in the Midwest. An initiative sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care and appearing on the ballot as Proposition 1 would allow patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health to use marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation. It would require the department to create an ID card system for qualified patients and their designated caregivers and would allow patients and caregivers to grow small amounts of marijuana indoors in a secure facility. It would also permit both registered and unregistered patients and caregivers to assert a medical necessity defense to any prosecution involving marijuana. A poll released this week showed the measure gaining the approval of 66% of voters. 

OREGON:  Ballot Measure 61, “Mandatory Sentences For Drug Dealers, Identity Thieves, Burglars, And Car Thieves,” is pretty self-explanatory. It would impose mandatory minimum sentences for the manufacture or delivery of cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine of 36 months in some cases and 30 months in others. It also lays out similar mandatory minimums for the other criminal offenders listed above. [Chief Petitioner Kevin] Mannix originally included a provision attempting to supplant the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, but dropped it when it became apparent it could drag down the entire initiative.

Another measure initiated by the legislature and referred to the voters, Ballot Measure 57, would also increase penalties for the sale or distribution of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and Ecstasy. It sets a sentencing range of 34 months to 130 months, depending on the quantity of the drug involved. The measure would also require drug treatment for certain offenders and impose sanctions for those who resist, provide grants to local jurisdictions for jails, drug courts, and treatment services, and limit judges’ ability to reduce sentences.

LOCAL INITIATIVES: In addition to the statewide initiatives mentioned above, there are also a handful of municipal initiatives on the November 4 ballot. Here they are:

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA: In Berkeley, Measure JJ seeks to broaden and regularize medical marijuana access. Supported by the Berkeley Patients Group and at least two city council members, the measure would expand the non-residential zones where dispensaries can locate, create an oversight commission including representatives from each of the three existing collectives to promulgate standards and determine whether relocating or future operators are in compliance, issue zoning certificates by right if operators meet standards, and bring Berkeley possession limits in line with recent state court rulings determining that such limits are unconstitutional. 

FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: The local grassroots organization Sensible Fayetteville is sponsoring an initiative that would make enforcement of adult marijuana possession laws the lowest law enforcement priority. It also includes language mandating city officials to write an annual letter to their state and federal representatives notifying them of the city’s position and urging them to adopt a similar one. If the measure passes, Fayetteville will become the second Arkansas community to adopt such an ordinance. Nearby Eureka Springs did so in 2007.

HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII: Hawaii’s Big Island (Hawaii County) will be voting on an initiative making adult marijuana possession offenses the lowest law enforcement priority. Ballot Question 1 not only makes adult possession offenses the lowest priority, it would also bar county law enforcement officials from accepting federal deputization or commissions to enforce laws in conflict with the initiative, prohibits the County Council from accepting or spending funds to enforce adult marijuana possession laws, and bar the County Council from accepting any funds for the marijuana eradication program. The initiative is sponsored by Project Peaceful Sky, a local grassroots organization whose name alludes to the disruption of tranquility caused by law enforcement helicopters searching for marijuana.

Marijuana: Fayetteville, Arkansas, Lowest Priority Initiative Turns in More Signatures | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet)
A municipal initiative that would add Fayetteville, Arkansas, to the growing list of cities and counties that have adopted lowest law enforcement priority initiatives for adult marijuana possession offenses appears headed to the November ballot after organizers handed in nearly 1,000 new signatures last Friday.

Petitioners turned in more than 5,000 signatures on August 20, but after they were examined by city officials, only 3,385 signatures were found to be valid. It takes 3,686 signatures to put the initiative on the ballot.

The Fayetteville City Clerk was examining the signatures this week. Even if only 300 of them turn out to be valid, the measure will be on the November ballot.

Sponsored by an umbrella group known as Sensible Fayetteville, the measure would not only direct Fayetteville police and prosecutors to make such offenses their lowest priority, it would also order the city clerk to send an annual letter to state and federal officials. That letter would say:

“The citizens of Fayetteville have passed an initiative to deprioritize adult marijuana
offenses where the marijuana is intended for personal use and request that the federal and Arkansas state governments take immediate steps to enact similar laws.” The letter would be sent each year until state and federal laws change.

These municipal “lowest priority” initiatives are a good first step in getting involved in marijuana activism.  Check with your city clerk to find out if initiative petitions are valid in your city and how many signatures you need to collect.  This isn’t just for big cities, small towns are the perfect place to begin these initiatives.  Even if you don’t gather enough sigs for the ballot, you’ve brought up the issue to people who’ve never thought about it.  If you get on the ballot and lose, you’ve forced people to make a decision about marijuana.  And if you get on the ballot and win, you’ve struck a huge blow to the drug war lie that average Americans don’t want to see pot legalized.

Contact your local NORML or national NORML and they can help you with getting all the legalese together.  Good luck to you all, and good work, Sensible Fayetteville!

4:43 p.m. Group Wants to De-Criminalize Marijuana
An advocacy group in northwest Arkansas is doing its best to de-criminalize marijuana, making a pot violation much like getting a parking ticket a slap on the wrist.

The group is called “Sensible Fayetteville,” and members are trying to make marijuana crimes the
lowest possible priority for police.

They argue that Washington County is wasting tax payer dollars by prosecuting people for weed.

They say instead, police should focus on property and violent crimes.

“Here in Arkansas we spend thirty million dollars a year to arrest people and prosecute people for small amounts of marijuana and we believe there’s way more important things to focus on,” campaign manager Ryan Denham said.

Now the group is trying to get an amendment on a municipal ballot this fall. To do that, they need 36,000 signatures from Fayetteville voters.

City by city, state by state, this is how we erode the support for marijuana prohibition from the bottom up.  There are far too many entrenched bureaucracies and corporate interests at the federal level to expect any serious action on marijuana law reform.  Without strong public support, there is no compelling reason for any of these federal politicians to stick their necks out for re-legalization.  When enough states and cities pass medical marijuana and decriminalization bills, the feds will find that the ground has shifted beneath them and the reforms we see today as impossible will by tomorrow seem inevitable.