HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0680.003 2008-2010 2/2/2010 http:// us. mg4 .mail.yahoo.com /dc /blanlch...
From: Reverend Nancy Harris (pnmarasta @yahoo.com)
To: Lincoln Ashida
Date: Sat, January 30, 2010 5:45:33 PM
Cc: dgluck @ac1uhawaiiorg; Cary Zamber; psulla @aloha.net
Subject: Clarifying the new ordinance
Aloha,
I am writing today to express my concern about the "clarification" of the Lowest Law
Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Law that is scheduled for February 2, 2010. I would like
to take a moment to personally thank you for your service to the county, and for your
calm, reasoning demeanor that you maintain even when faced with contentious issues such
as this one.
As you know, a vote of the people in a situation like this, initiative or referendum, is a form
of direct democracy, perhaps the purest form of democracy currently enjoyed by the
people in our representative republic. As such, it is a precious thing to the people of
Hawaii County, and should be zealously guarded by our elected and appointed officials.
While clarification of the law may lie within the responsibility of corporation counsel,
amendment of a voter - enacted law such as this is not within the power of the executive
branch at all, and in fact may not even be within the power of the County Council.
I have taken the liberty to attach an appellate decision from California that clearly states that
the legislature does not have the power to amend an initiative. I believe that you will find
this decision both instructive and enlightening. The circumstances that led to the litigation
in California are analogous to those faced by Hawaii county currently in relation to the new
"Lowest Law Enforcement Priority" law in several ways. Both are cannabis issues,
involving strong, deeply held beliefs. Both laws were enacted directly by the voters, in part
because elected officials have been reluctant to address such issues or champion such
causes. Both initiatives were viewed with skepticism by certain branches of government.
Both California and Hawaii County have a substantial population of taxpaying, educated,
otherwise law- abiding citizens that resent the criminality imposed upon them by the current
erroneous classification of marijuana as a "Schedule P" substance. In California, the
Legislature undertook to amend the initiative without voter approval, and a similar idea may
be in the minds of some Hawaii County Council Members as of this writing.
Mr. Ashida, the voters of Hawaii County have determined policy in this matter. They have
prioritized every other crime more highly than adult possession of marijuana on private
property. If the County Council were to make the same mistake as the California.
Legislature, and attempt to amend this decision, the results might be litigation, which would
Comm. No. (?D .
us. mg4. maiiyahoo .com /dc /blank.html ?b... Ref. To Yl Y P[u 1/2
Ref. Canso FEB 0 � 2 2010
2/2/2010 http:// us. mg4 .mail.yahoo.com /dc/blank.h...
be very expensive, and in this time of economic woes, that would be disastrous. The
taxpayers should not have to pay for litigation to verify the citizens' rights to govem.
Please do clarify the law, and please do not permit any further assault upon the rights of
the citizens of Hawaii County. Please advise the County Council Members that this law
may not be amended by their vote, but only by a vote of the people.
Yours in Democracy,
Rev. Nancy
•
us.mg4. mail .yahoo.com /dc /blank.html ?b... 2/2