WORCESTER — The City Council last night thwarted an effort to have the city establish an additional civil penalty, and even the possibility of criminal indictment, for the use of marijuana on public property.

By a 7-4 vote, the council placed on file two orders that had asked the city administration to prepare such an ordinance in response to the passage of Question 2 on the November ballot that decriminalized the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana.

The vote to file is the parliamentary equivalent of placing an item in the wastebasket.

A majority of councilors simply felt it was not necessary or appropriate to have the city alter what the voters approved.

via Worcester Telegram & Gazette News.

This is a followup on our story from Friday where city officials were considering creating a $300 fine and criminal complaint for use of marijuana on publicly-controlled property, despite Question 2′s limit of $100 civil fine and no criminal complaint.  It’s nice to see most of the Worcester City Council does understand the authority of state law.

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.