PROPOSED MARIJUANA BALLOT MEASURE CONCERNS KALAMAZOO CITY ATTORNEY

KALAMAZOO -- Kalamazoo city attorney Clyde Robinson has several
concerns with a proposed charter amendment that would make the use or
possession of a small amount of marijuana the "lowest law enforcement
priority" in Kalamazoo, including that, in Robinson's view, the
provision seems to seek medical marijuana-type legal immunity for the
general population.

Robinson highlighted his concerns in a letter informing the Michigan
attorney general and governor's offices that the coalition pushing
for the city charter amendment had collected the number of valid
signatures needed to place the question before city voters.

Kalamazoo Coalition for Pragmatic Cannabis Laws has championed making
possession of one ounce or less of pot by anyone 21 years and older a
bottom-rung issue for Kalamazoo police. In late May, those
circulating petitions to get the issue on Kalamazoo's Nov. 8 ballot
obtained the 2,579 valid signatures required.

Coalition director and founder Louis Stocking said Tuesday that "we
are not seeking to extend immunity to the general population. We are
seeking fiscal relief for our city."

He suggested it costs the city thousands of dollars to process arrests
for misdemeanor and felony marijuana violations.

Because the proposed ballot question seeks to change the city's
charter, both the attorney general's and the governor's office must
review the ballot language. Robinson said in his June 27 letter to
state officials that he has "several concerns" with the proposed
charter amendment.

"In attempting to make the possession or consumption of one ounce or
less of usable marijuana, the 'lowest law enforcement priority' it
appears the proponents of the charter amendment are seeking to extend
the immunization from prosecution and law enforcement currently
enjoyed by medical marijuana patients and caregivers to the general
populous," the city attorney wrote.

Robinson informed the state officials that he also found the language
of the proposed amendment "troubling for several reasons."

He suggested law enforcement might have difficulty accurately
determining "when the quantity of marijuana being possessed is one
ounce or less."

This proposed new section of the Kalamazoo city charter would read in
part that, "this lowest law enforcement priority policy shall apply
to the cooperation by city law enforcement officers with county,
state or federal agents or employees to arrest, cite, investigate,
prosecute, or seize property from adults for marijuana offenses."

In his letter to state officials, Robinson wrote that "the
prohibition on city law enforcement officers cooperating with court,
state or federal agents appears to be contrary to" a state law "which
seems to require cooperation with the Michigan State Police when requested."

This proposed charter amendment defines "adults" as age 21 years and
older, but Robinson points to state law defining the age of majority
as a person at least 18 years old. "I question whether the city has
the legal ability to define who may be considered an 'adult' given the
Age of Majority Act," his letter says.

Stocking said that the coalition's lawyer suggested "we use the age
21 and older for our amendment due to its use regarding alcohol at
our state's level."

Another problem in the proposed language, Robinson wrote to state
officials, is that marijuana is spelled differently than it is spelled
in state laws such as the "Medical Marihuana Act" or in the public
health code.

Both the governor's and attorney general's offices have received
Robinson's letter. AG spokeswoman Joy Yearout said the role of the
attorney general's office is "advisory" in this case, reviewing the
proposal to ensure it follows Michigan's Home Rule City Act. For
example, the proposed amendment must be limited to one subject.

The governor's office also re-views the language of the pro-posed
amendment.

If this were a city charter amendment sought by a legislative body,
the governor could refuse to sign it and send it back for
reconsideration and a successful two-thirds vote of the body before it
could be placed before voters.

But because it is an amendment sought by "initiatory petition" versus
a legislative body "it shall be submitted to the electors
not-withstanding such objections" by the governor.