(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.

Signature-gathering for Kalamazoo marijuana ordinance begins

So you have a small group of like minded friends and you want to make a real difference, this type of ordinance may just be the kind of effort to attract attention as well as seeing a few less arrests. Most cities allow referendums to change their ordinances, and this type of change can be instrumental in getting more support from state representatives when they see the general public stands behind decriminalization.

If you live in Kalamazoo, your time to stand up is now.

The Kalamazoo Coalition for Pragmatic Cannabis Laws is seeking to have an ordinance added to Kalamazoo’s city charter that would make the possession of small amounts of marijuana the “lowest priority for law enforcement.”

“We’re stunned at the amount of money being spent for pot arrests,” said Martin Chilcutt, a member of the coalition. “It’s the least dangerous of all drugs. We don’t understand what [law enforcement] is afraid of. It’s irrational fear.”

Ron Kramer, head of the criminal justice department at Western Michigan University, said that the issue “seems to make sense.”
“It’s a sane proposal that’s long overdue,” said Kramer, who is an advocate for the legalization of marijuana. “It would let law enforcement focus on the real problems facing the city.”

Organizers will have to submit a total of at least 1,273 signatures of registered city voters to the Kalamazoo city clerk by Aug. 14. The issue would then go before the city commission, which would have 14 days to either adopt the measure or punt it to voters. The coalition is hoping to have the issue before voters in the November election.

Of course the police don’t think it’s reasonable for the citizens to tell them what to do (after all, they really don’t work for us to protect us, they work for themselves to protect themselves)..

Cpt. Joseph Taylor, commander of the Kalamazoo Valley Enforcement Team, which targets illegal drug use in Kalamazoo County, went a bit further, calling the proposal “ludicrous.”

“This is a silly idea,” he said. “It’s a roundabout way of circumventing the more difficult process of getting marijuana legalized.”

Preliminary statistics for 2008 show that 1,593 controlled substance arrests were made in Kalamazoo. Of that number, 933 were for marijuana offenses of which 173 for felonies and 820 for misdemeanors (87% of all marijuana arrests).

The average cost per arrest is $4,000, according to the coalition.

If you live near Kalamazoo or know someone who does, check out the KazooCPLC website here.

You see, Cpt. Taylor doesn’t understand how the “process of getting marijuana legalized” actually works. He doesn’t understand that a War is fought battle by battle. This is just another step that must be taken to finally end the War on Pot.

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Marijuana law reformers continue to take the phrase “all politics is local” to heart.

Over the past decade, grassroots activists in numerous towns and municipalities — including Seattle, Washington; Columbia, Missouri;Santa Cruz, Oakland, San Francisco, and Santa Barbara, California; and Denver, Colorado — have successfully campaigned for local ordinances making the enforcement of pot possession laws their city’s lowest law enforcement priority.

This year, a coalition of activists — led by the University of Arkansas chapter of NORML and the Alliance for Drug Reform Policy — have placed a similar proposal on the ballot in Fayetteville, Arkansas (population: 67,000).

If passed, the city will become the second Arkansas municipality in recent years to enact marijuana ‘deprioritization.’ (NORML’s state affiliate championed a similar measure in Eureka Springs in 2006.)

In the days leading up to November 4th, most Americans attention will be directed toward Washington, DC and the Presidential election race. But while we remain focused on national politics let’s not forget about the significant changes taking place locally — one community at a time.

NORML applauds the work of Sensible Fayetteville and the efforts of other local — and often unrecognized activists — not only what they’ve already achieved, but also (and especially) for what they will accomplish in the future.

Ryan Denham of Sensible Fayetteville will be my guest today on the Daily Audio Stash.

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!

MyFox Colorado | Denver’s Marijuana Policy Under Review
DENVER — Three times since 2005 Denver voters have said they don’t want people arrested or prosecuted for carrying less than an ounce of marijuana.

Wednesday, we learned police and prosecutors have not changed their policies. But that might be changing.

The Marijuana Policy Review Panel is charged with implementing the city’s latest marijuna ordinance. On Wednesday, it introduced a resolution recommending the city attorney’s office no longer seek conviction for petty marijuana cases.

The panel met at the Denver City and County building trying to find out why hundreds have been arrested since voters passed the three laws starting in 2005.

Since 2004 through last year, arrests have continually climbed. This, even though voters said starting in 2005, then again in 2006 and 2007, they wanted them to drop completely.

Denver modeled its lowest law enforcement policy after Seattle–which had 125 arrests in 2006. That compares to Denver’s which is estimated to be about 1,400 arrests.

The panel will vote on the resolution at its next meeting.

It’s tough for the drug warriors to give up, even when the people want them to. They’re addicted to Drug War. Let’s hope our allies are successful in forcing Denver to obey the will of the people.

And stay tuned next week; we’ll be speaking with Mason Tvert of SAFER in Denver, who spearheaded the three initiatives and sits on the Marijuana Policy Review Panel.