Opinion ID: 2633201
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: If the ballot proposition is given the interpretation CIMM advocates, the petition is misleading as to what conduct the proposition would protect.

Text: At oral argument before us, CIMM's counsel asserted that the ballot proposition would create a right to buy, sell, or possess any item that could be used in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute or in accordance with Ravin's interpretation of the right to privacy, whether or not circumstances indicated that the marijuana would in fact be used in one of these legally protected contexts. CIMM's counsel likewise argued that it is impossible to separate people who use marijuana in accordance with the statute or the right to privacy from people whose association with marijuana is not protected by law, including people acting for commercial purposes. But CIMM's counsel also stated that the proposition would not protect purchases that were clearly [for] commercial operation[s], such as five hundred grow lights. It is not obvious that these latter two contentions are completely consistent. We nonetheless assume without deciding that CIMM's interpretation of the proposition is correct. But this means that the petition, which must [d]escribe the ordinance or resolution sought, [23] is legally insufficient because the title is misleading as to the proposition's scope. As noted above, the petition is entitled An Initiative Petition Allowing Those Items Used with Marijuana Legal as Medicine or a Right To Privacy. CIMM argues that the title states that the initiative proposes to legalize those items used with marijuana which is legal as medicine and those items used with marijuana which is legal under Alaskans' privacy rights. This is a fair reading of the title, but not the only fair reading. CIMM's interpretation of the title therefore suggests that to be protected, the paraphernalia would have to be used to grow, consume, or process marijuana only in instances in which the conduct is permitted by Alaska's medical marijuana statute or the right to privacy. Given CIMM's own interpretation, therefore, the title does not accurately describe the conduct the proposition would protect. The title proposes legalization of marijuana paraphernalia in specific situations. But as we saw above, the proposition itself could be read to legalize possession and sale of marijuana paraphernalia in virtually all situations, even if it were not actually intended to be used, or is in fact not used, in accordance with Alaska's medical marijuana statute or the right to privacy. The title is therefore misleading and consequently legally insufficient. [24] The proposition's scope is further obscured by the whereas clauses. They basically assert that (1) Alaska voters legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes in a statewide initiative; (2) since 1975 Alaska's state constitutional right to privacy has included the right to possess marijuana in one's home; (3) Alaska's state constitutional right to privacy continues to include the right to possess marijuana in one's home; and (4) law enforcement resources are best spent on combating violent crime and the growing threat of terrorism. The first three whereas clauses therefore describe several circumstances in which marijuana possession and consumption are legal. But CIMM's interpretation of the proposition is not so limited, and would protect possession of marijuana paraphernalia even when the marijuana use is not protected by AS 17.37.010-.080 or by the right to privacy. The first three whereas clauses therefore fail to describe the proposition's full scope under CIMM's interpretation. And to the extent the clauses imply that the proposition should be given the narrow reading discussed above, they could encourage petition signatures by persons who would oppose the proposition if they gave it the broader reading. On its face, the fourth whereas clause appears to justify the proposition's scope as it was interpreted by CIMM at oral argument before us. This clause invites a comparison between the value of using law enforcement resources to combat violent crime and terrorism and the value of other unspecified uses. The superior court correctly recognized that this clause is a statement of the drafters' political opinion with which a voter may choose to agree or disagree. Read in the context of the title and other whereas clauses, the relevant comparison the fourth whereas clause invites is between (1) combating violent crime and terrorism, and (2) detecting and prosecuting protected users of marijuana for possessing paraphernalia. If this is not the comparison the drafters intended, the fourth whereas clause is meaningless in the context of the title and the other whereas clauses. Although this clause is not necessarily misleading, it does not cure the petition's other problems because it does not reveal whether the proposition is intended to protect the possession and sale of items that are not in fact used for purposes protected by AS 17.37.010-.080 or the right to privacy. This clause therefore cannot support legalizing paraphernalia beyond circumstances where the marijuana use is protected by AS 17.37.010-.080 or by Ravin's interpretation of the right to privacy. Nor can we conclude that the use of could be in the text of the proposition is sufficient to signify the difference in scope between the title and the whereas clauses and the proposition itself. Under CIMM's reading of the proposition, the use of could be renders meaningless the limitations suggested by the title, the whereas clauses, and the second half of the proposition itself. [25]