MEDICAL POT ISSUE MAY GO TO COURT

A grassroots organization has the necessary signatures to place a
medical marijuana question on the November ballot, the Minneapolis
Elections Office confirmed Monday, but its supporters still have a
fight on their hands. The Minneapolis City Council has voted not to
allow the proposed charter amendment on the ballot, and local and
national advocates for reform of marijuana laws say they may have to
take the issue to court.

"We are determined to fight this, and it is extremely likely that we
will have to do it through litigation," said Neal Levine, director of
state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national
organization that helped fund the ballot initiative.

The council's August 20 decision was a blow for the nonprofit Citizens
for Harm Reduction (COHR), the local organization whose volunteers
have spent months gathering signatures for the petition.

Marijuana can be used as pain relief for sufferers of diseases like
cancer or glaucoma. The issue of allowing marijuana as a prescribed
treatment has become a front line in the movement to reform drug laws.

COHR's mission, according to their website, is "working to reduce
harms caused by the United States' failed drug policies through
education, legislative action, and citizen initiatives." The group's
proposed amendment calls for the licensing and regulating of "a
reasonable number of medicinal marijuana distribution centers in the
city of Minneapolis as is necessary to provide services to patients
who have been recommended medicinal marijuana by a medical or
osteopathic doctor licensed to practice in the state of Minnesota to
the extent permitted by state and federal law."

The group's members collected more than 12,000 signatures from
Minneapolis residents, but the city's elections office only verified
7,571 -- 203 less than what the law requires for a charter amendment
to make it on the ballot. The group's volunteers spent last week and
the weekend to get the rest, which were submitted and certified Monday.

COHR coordinator Jason Samuels said this initiative sends a clear
message that the voters of Minneapolis do not believe that seriously
ill citizens should be denied access to marijuana to ease their pain
and suffering.

No matter how many signatures were gathered, Charter Commission Chair
Jim Bernstein said the petition is "manifestly unconstitutional,"
because the distribution or use of marijuana, even for medicinal
purposes, is not legal in the state of Minnesota.

"If it conflicts with federal or state law," Bernstein said, "then we
can't sanction it." Samuels, however, said the amendment is
conditional. "Its language goes into effect only when the current laws
regarding medical marijuana change."

Samuels also cited Minnesota's THC Therapeutic Research Act, which
provides criminal protection to researchers working on medicinal
marijuana. "We are furthering that policy," he said.

COHR notes on its website that neither the city nor the state has a
referendum or initiative process, so proposing a charter amendment
would serve to let the people vote on medicinal marijuana.

Councilmember Scott Benson, Ward 11, said that the amendment is not
appropriate to add to the city's charter, because the charter is
supposed to be a general document.

"A framework, like the constitution," he said, "not a specific
legislative piece. That kind of detail does not exist anywhere else in
the document." Bernstein, who says he supports medicinal marijuana,
said that the issue would be better taken up by the state legislature,
or as Lisa Goodman, Ward 7 councilmember, said she will propose, a
city council resolution.

"I think [COHR is] really trying to bring the attention of the
government to this issue, to other legislative bodies, not to change
the charter," Benson said. Bernstein called the initiative a way to
get around the fact that Minneapolis has no referenda. In his comments
to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the City Council, he
said that "trying to circumvent the obvious fact that this provision
is contrary to Minnesota law by inserting an 'activation clause' is a
clever ploy but is clearly bad public policy and sets a potentially
disastrous precedent."

But Samuels said that the charter commission should not have approved
the language of the proposed amendment if they were later going to
find that language inappropriate for an amendment to the city charter.
"It is a subjective decision whether or not the subject matter is more
appropriate for ordinance enactment. [The council] doesn't like the
outcome, so they're changing the rules." Ward 6 councilmember Dean
Zimmerman and Ward 9 councilmember Gary Schiff also called the
decision undemocratic. "The people deserve the right to vote on this
issue," said Zimmerman.

"For eight members of the council to say they are right and everyone
else is wrong," said Samuels, "is a slap in the face to democracy, the
residents who signed the petition and the people who did the work."