Kalamazoo Voters To Decide Marijuana Enforcement Ordinance

By: Raven Thompson
Kalamazoo, MI
November 3, 2011
WMUK
Download

Listen to this report (5:19)


Kalamazoo City ballot question

Possessing even small amounts of marijuana in Michigan is illegal without a state medical marijuana I-D card. Violators convicted of the misdemeanor charge can face up to a year in jail. But on Tuesday, November 8th, voters in Kalamazoo will decide whether or not to make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by someone 21 or older the “lowest law enforcement priority” in the City. WMUK’s Raven Thompson reports:

The issue wound up on the ballot after supporters gathered enough petition signatures to put it there. The campaign by the group Kalamazoo Coalition for Pragmatic Cannabis Laws was led by Louis Stocking. He wasn’t available for interviews. But other supporters have spoken out. They include Kalamazoo Attorney Daniel Grow. He says the proposal to de-emphasize pursuit of offenders who have small amounts of marijuana is a vote on police priorities:

[Daniel Grow] “Making the pursuit of crimes like rape, theft, child endangerment those types of things; crimes where someone’s harmed or property is stolen a higher priority then crimes that are merely a crime because they’ve been designated as such for the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. The police department’s resources and the court’s resources are limited and this ballot initiative allows the voters to tell the court system and police department that they want the more serious crimes to be the top priority and these statutory crimes involving the possession of marijuana to be the lowest priority for law enforcement.”

But Jeff Hadley, Kalamazoo’s Chief of Public Safety, says he doesn’t think much would change if voters approve the proposal:

[Jeff Hadley] “We don’t dedicate specific resources to the enforcement of marijuana; it just comes by way of many other things. And it is illegal to poses marijuana and we are sworn to uphold the law and enforce it in a fair and just manner, so I’m not sure what impact it will have on how we operate.”

Hadley says Kalamazoo Public Safety officers usually make small marijuana busts as the result of traffic stops or other kinds of unrelated offenses. He says his officers already don’t switch on their lights and sirens in pursuit of people who have a few joints, although Hadley says those trafficking in large amounts of pot are a different matter.

Kalamazoo’s City Attorney Clyde Robinson also says he doesn’t think the proposed ordinance would change much when all is said at done:

[Clyde Robinson] “It will be a part of the City Charter, but the question as to its affect on public safety operations is up in the air given the fact that there is no local ordinance addressing the use or possession of marijuana except for permitting marijuana as a home occupation.”

That last is allowed under Michigan’s voter-approved medical marijuana law.

Charles Ream is the statewide coordinator of the Safer Michigan Coalition. It supports “Lowest Law Enforcement Priority”, or LLEP initiatives, like the one in Kalamazoo. Ream says the proposal is about allocation:

[Charles Ream] “I produced a six-page document which lays out this scientific data by academic criminologists which proves, it’s not just an opinion, it proves that when you apply resources to chasing after marijuana or drugs that you reduce the resources that you have that are available for fighting real crime. And you actually diminish the amount of real crime that is solved.”

But City Attorney Clyde Robinson says Kalamazoo officers are only enforcing state marijuana laws. He points to a case in Ypsilanti in the 1970’s. It had an ordinance that made possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil, rather than a criminal infraction. It also required police officers to refer cases to city officials rather than the county prosecutor:

[Clyde Robinson] “Ypsilanti officers proceeded through state statute and that was challenged and the courts have said a police officer has the ability to enforce state law and they can’t be precluded from doing so.”

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette makes the same point. He says the proposed Kalamazoo ordinance conflicts with state law and can’t be enforced if it is approved. But Schuette couldn’t prevent it from going to voters because the state constitution doesn’t give the attorney general authority to block ballot questions based on petitions.

Kalamazoo attorney Daniel Grow says that’s as it should be. He hopes Kalamazoo voters will approve the marijuana enforcement ordinance, and that officials at all levels will listen:

[Daniel Grow] “Our elected officials simply have to heed the voices of our voters. If the Michigan voters, the people on the street, think the police and the court system have gone too far in one area and have neglected another area of the law, then I think it’s imperative that they respect that voice. There’s always an argument that can be made, you know, a technical argument in terms of whether legally this is the best way to go about it or the only way to go about it, but I don’t think that’s important. I think it’s important that our elected officials hear the voice of the people who they are supposed to be serving.”    

Kalamazoo voters almost had two marijuana propositions to consider this fall. Another group circulated petitions to get a question before voters that would allow three medical marijuana “dispensaries” in the City. Supporters gathered enough signatures but the question didn’t make it on the ballot because of counting mistakes by the City Clerk’s office.

Kalamazoo voters will decide the proposed marijuana enforcement ordinance November 8th.

© Copyright 2011, WMUK

My link