(Idaho Mountain Express) A judge’s ruling this week took the teeth out of two controversial marijuana initiatives that were approved by Hailey voters, but left intact a requirement that the city advocate for reform of marijuana and industrial hemp laws.

Blaine County 5th District Court Judge Robert J. Elgee, in a decision filed Tuesday, voided portions of the initiatives that would have legalized medical marijuana use in the city and would have made enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest priority for Hailey police. The judge also voided language in the initiatives that would have required individual city officials to advocate for marijuana reform.

However, provisions of the initiatives that require the city as an entity to advocate for marijuana reform were left intact, as were provisions that require the city to establish community committees regarding marijuana and hemp issues.

Councilman Keirn said he’s not sure how the city is going to implement remaining provisions of the initiatives that require Hailey to advocate for reform of marijuana laws and to establish community committees.

“A city as an entity has no voice unless we give it one.” Keirn said. “If we don’t have to support it as individuals, I don’t see how we can do it as a city. We’ll probably leave it up to the city attorney. We can pass that one back and forth for a while.”

An interesting thing to note when reading the quotes in this story:

Hailey Police Chief Gunter: “If I want to advocate something…” and “I’m also pleased…”

City Councilman Don Keirn: “If we don’t have to support it as individuals…”

Mayor Rick Davis: “I got what I wanted…”

Makes you almost wonder if there are more than three people living in Hailey, Idaho, doesn’t it?  The people living in this alleged democracy voted for four different pro-marijuana initiatives and passed three of them, twice, with votes of 53%, 53%, 51% in the first election and 58%, 57%, 54% in the second a year later.

But wait, it gets more interesting.  The Chief, the Councilman, and the Mayor were all parties in the lawsuit to overturn these initiatives.  Springing to the defense of these initiatives was the City Attorney, Ned Williamson, who was quite vocally opposed to the initiatives before they passed.  I’m sure he came up with the most solid defense arguments he could possibly make and in no way let his strong opposition to these initiatives color his enthusiam and drive to defend them.  At least after he lost the case, Williamson made a token reference to the will of the people whose case he just lost:

“The people spoke when they voted for this, but just like with the Legislature, laws have to be subjected to legal scrutiny,” he said.

Or to put it another way, the people said marijuana shouldn’t be illegal, but it is, so tough luck.

Hailey residents will not be able to use marijuana for medical purposes, despite the fact that voters twice passed initiatives in support of its legal use. Whether they will be allowed to grow it for industrial uses, or get less heat from Hailey police for smoking it, is yet to be seen.

Fifth District Judge Robert Elgee ruled on Monday that a provision in the Medical Marijuana Act, passed by Hailey voters last summer, represents an attempt to pre-empt state law and is therefore illegal. The provision allowed possession of up to 35 grams of marijuana for use by seriously ill people with a doctor’s consent.

Hailey City Attorney Ned Williamson, who is defending the three marijuana laws passed by Hailey voters, argued for the legislative authority of the ordinances, which include policies for instructing police on how to de-prioritize marijuana offenses.

“These policy issues should remain,” he said. “The voters have spoken of their desires and these policies are written to uphold those desires.”

The ordinance allowing for the growing of industrial hemp may have the best hope of surviving the lawsuit.

Industrial hemp is low in mind-altering chemicals, but has many commercial uses, providing durable fibers for use in clothing manufacture.

“We would not at all be offended if the Industrial Hemp Act be allowed to stay on the books,” [said attorney Keith Roark, representing the mayor, councilman, and police chief in their attempt to quash the pro-marijuana initiatives.]

via IDAHO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS: Updated and breaking news.

I didn’t have much hope for the medical initiative, but these statements on lowest law enforcement priority (“lo-pri”) and industrial hemp are better than I could have hoped for.

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.

Idaho Mountain Express: Pot prevails again in Hailey – May 28, 2008
New election, same results. Three of four proposed marijuana reform initiatives were approved by Hailey’s electorate Tuesday.

Voters approved initiatives to legalize medical use of marijuana by a margin of 417-296, to legalize industrial use of hemp by 403-308 and to make enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest police priority in the city by a margin of 381-331.

Turned down once again was an initiative to require the city to regulate and tax distribution of the drug. It failed 386-323.

Pro-marijuana advocate Ryan Davidson, a former Bellevue man who now lives in Garden City, filed petitions to place the initiatives before the voters once again after Hailey city officials threatened to file a lawsuit to have the three previously approved initiatives declared illegal in court. That lawsuit was filed earlier this month in Blaine County 5th District Court.

Davidson, chairman of The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, said passage again of the initiatives would make it “politically less viable” for the city of Hailey to ignore the will of the electorate.

Prior to the election, neither Davidson nor city officials were willing to predict the outcome, though Davidson said, “I’d think it’s going to be close to the same percentages as last time.”

Last November, 1,288 voters, about 37 percent of the city’s registered electorate, showed up at the polls.

The medical marijuana and industrial hemp initiatives were approved in that election by about 53 percent of voters. About 51 percent of voters approved the lowest-police-priority initiative, while the regulation and taxation measure failed with only 47 percent voter approval.

Hailey Mayor Rick Davis said he had “no idea” as to the outcome of pot election No. 2.

“There’s been a lot more publicity this time about the initiatives,” he said. “I think people are a lot more educated now about the issues. But I don’t know if it will have a different outcome or not.”

Nov ’07 Election: medical marijuana = 53%, industrial hemp = 53%, lowest priority = 51%, tax and regulate = 47%, turnout = 1,288 votes

May ’08 Election: medical marijuana = 58%, industrial hemp = 57%, lowest priority = 54%, tax and regulate = 46%, turnout = 713 votes

Hailey city officials, the people are trying to tell you something…

Download the NORML Daily Audio Stash for 2008-05-22

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2008-05-22.mp3)

It’s Thursday, May 22nd and it’s 4:20 somewhere in the world. I’m your host, “Radical” Russ Belville and this is your NORML Daily Audio Stash.

Don’t forget to get on the phone and call your Congress at 202-224-3121. Tell your representative to support Ron Paul’s HR5842, the bill to end DEA raids in medical marijuana states, and Barney Frank’s HR5843, the bill to end federal penalties for personal possession of marijuana.

Today on the Daily Audio Stash we’re traveling across the pond to speak with Steven Rolles, the research director of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation in London, England. We’re talking about the recent reclassification of cannabis from Class C back up to Class B and the overall UK reefer madness obsession with the dreaded “skunk”.

For our musical break today, Cannabis Karri brings us some smooth funky jazz from Yamasaki, with a song he calls “Herbal Remedy”.

Then we’ll finish up with Ryan Davidson from the Liberty Lobby of Idaho. Ryan’s the man behind three initiatives passed in Hailey that legalize medical marijuana and industrial hemp and direct police to treat cannabis law enforcement as the lowest priority. You’ll hear about the latest crazy twist in this story coming up in our Hemp Headlines.

We’re also playing Pass the Stash – you could win a free autographed DVD of the movie “Totally Baked” – keep listening for details.

We’ve got a lot to cover, so sit back and relax with a meeting of your Joint Subcommittee and enjoy your NORML Daily Audio Stash…

Idaho Mountain Express: Hailey city attorney to defend pot initiatives – May 16, 2008
An anti-marijuana lawsuit filed earlier this month puts Hailey City Attorney Ned Williamson in the ironic position of having to defend three controversial pot initiatives that he has staunchly opposed.

“I will do my best to defend those laws,” Williamson told the Idaho Mountain Express in February, shortly after Hailey Mayor Rick Davis announced that the lawsuit would be filed.

Williamson was then asked if defending the marijuana initiatives would be difficult for him.

“I will do my best to defend those laws,” he said again.

HA!  Excuse me, isn’t this like the old Western where the victims beaten by the railroad owner’s thugs find that the sheriff is in the pocket of the railroad owner, too?

The lawsuit, filed by Hailey attorney Keith Roark on behalf of Davis, City Councilman Don Keirn and Hailey Police Chief Jeff Gunter, seeks to have the obviously illegal pro-pot initiatives officially ruled illegal in Blaine County 5th District Court. The three initiatives, one to legalize medical use of marijuana, a second to legalize use of industrial hemp and a third to make enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest priority for the Hailey Police Department, were approved by Hailey’s electorate last November.

Good job with the journalistic neutrality there – obviously illegal, huh?  It might be a tough case to make for medical marijuana and industrial hemp, but lowest priority isn’t that clear.  Lowest priority doesn’t make pot legal in any way, it doesn’t change the crime or the punishment for marijuana.  It is just a prioritization of limited municipal resources.  But that’s beside the point; if they were obviously illegal, we wouldn’t be going to trial.

Times-News: Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID
Several Hailey city officials sued their city Friday over three pro-marijuana voter initiatives, a course of action aimed at getting a judge to rule against the legality of the measures and bring and end to the controversy.

This lawsuit, which has been in the works for 3 1/2 months, has allowed council members to freeze any implementation pending a judge’s ruling.

Plaintiffs Mayor Rick Davis, councilmember Don Keirn and police chief Jeffrey Gunter, all say the initiatives passed by voters in November violate their freedom of speech, conflict with federal law, state law or are otherwise illegal.

Those allegations assembled into a complaint by attorney Keith Roark, have already been raised by city attorney Ned Williamson and the Idaho attorney general.

A judge’s ruling, however, carries the force of a final verdict.

The initiatives would legalize medicinal marijuana and industrial hemp, and make the enforcement of marijuana laws a lower police priority. Voters did not approve a fourth initiative to legalize marijuana.

According to the text of their complaint, the city officials allege their freedom of speech would be abridged because the initiatives “require the City of Hailey and its officers to advocate for changes in marijuana laws”.  What I don’t understand is how a city official acting under direction of the majority of the voters is afforded any free speech rights in the first place.  Nothing is requiring the mayor to say he personally favors changing marijuana laws, merely that as mayor his duty is to express the will of his constituents.

The main point of their complaint, however, is that city ordinances cannot be enforced which do not comport with Idaho law.  As they put it:

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.

Another point of contention is that the requirement to advocate for marijuana law reform would create a conflict for city officials who are also federal employees.

One city council member, Carol Brown, is a federal employee.  Council Member Brown will have to recuse herself from any discussion of these laws in order to retain her federal position. However, these initiatives mandate that Ms Brown advocate changes in marijuana laws and appoint one member of the oversight committee. To comply with initiatives, Council Member Brown may have to resign from the Hailey City Council.

This conflict may indeed exist, but it is not a good reason to overturn the will of the voters of Hailey.  Federal employees can’t be partisan operatives in political campaigns, either, so some people have to choose between working for the government or working for a campaign.  Similarly, if the voters want their officials to stand up for marijuana, some will have to choose between their city job and their federal job.

In their press release from today, the City of Hailey expressed that should a judge declare that all or parts of the initiatives are legal, Hailey city officials will comply.

At the time the initiatives were presented to the voters, the City believed that the initiatives were contrary to the general laws of the State of Idaho. Even though all City officials shared this belief, the City was mandated by Idaho Supreme Court precedent to place the initiatives on the ballot. The rule in Idaho is that even patently illegal initiatives must be placed on the ballot in order to allow voters to express their political belief regarding any particular law, legal or illegal.

[T]he Mayor and the entire City Council, serving in their executive and legislative roles respectively, believe that neither the Mayor nor City Council are the proper members of the government to declare the initiatives legal or illegal. The only governmental authority that can rightfully declare laws legal or illegal is the court….

…Once the court issues its decision, City officials will then decide what, if any, action is appropriate. If the initiatives are not in violation of State law, the City will likely be in the position of respecting the will of the voters and the initiatives will be upheld. On the other hand, if the initiatives are illegal, then the City will likely repeal the initiatives….

I spoke with Heather Dawson, the Hailey City Administrator, who confirmed that the mayor and council would uphold any parts of the initiatives that are found legal under state law.  She also told me that city initiatives have been quite uncommon in the past, save for the recent marijuana initiatives filed by the Liberty Lobby of Idaho.

Idaho Mountain Express: Hemp advocates tout plant’s virtues
Hemp advocates tout plant’s virtues

Industrial hemp fibers can be manufactured into fabrics for clothing, blankets, carpet, upholstery, sails, tarps, awnings, rope and numerous other items. It can be made into paper, plastic or hemp oil. British researchers have used it to manufacture surfboards. It’s used in some health food snacks, for lotions and in manufacturing car parts.Industrial hemp, advocates note, requires little or no herbicides or pesticides. Bugs don’t usually like to eat it and it grows thick enough and fast enough to block out would-be competitive weeds. It has good soil-restoration qualities.

It was grown extensively in the United States until laws in the 20th century made it illegal. It can be legally grown now, but only by permit from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Those permits are few and far between.

Several states, including North Dakota, Maine, Montana and West Virginia, have passed legislation to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp, but their efforts remain blocked by the DEA. California passed a bill to legalize hemp but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Worldwide, the industrial hemp picture is different. Growing the plant is allowed in most countries, and 33 nations, including Canada, are developing industries centered on production of the crop.

Erwin A. “Bud” Sholts, of the North American Industrial Hemp Council, studied crop diversification while employed with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and found that industrial hemp was the only viable crop to fit in with corn and soybean crop rotations.

Sholts said the biggest problem with legalizing industrial hemp in the United States is because the DEA and other government entities continue to cling to an outdated definition of the plant that links it to marijuana. He said it will take either a presidential declaration or an act of Congress to change that definition.

“It’s going to happen, because American agriculture wants it, American industry wants it and the public wants it,” Sholts said.

And the public has shown by their votes that they want industrial hemp, at least in the town of Hailey, Idaho, where this story was published. A hemp legalization initiative, along with initiatives for cannabis decriminalization and medical marijuana, were passed in Hailey by large margins last election.