Constitutional principles and historical framework

Government

Constitutional Amendments: The Case of the CO Marijuana Initiative

In the United States, the Constitution is regarded as the highest law of the land, the measure by which all other laws are judged. A similar level of sacredness applies to state constitutions, at least in the applicable states, though certainly not to the degree afforded the U.S. Constitution. And yet, despite this reverence, both the federal and state constitutions have been amended frequently over the more than two hundred years since the first was written. While the process of amending a constitution should not be taken lightly, it also should not be ignored as a possibility in some cases. The nation and states we live in today are quite different from those when the constitutions were originally written, and it is only reasonable that some changes will be called for as the nation changes and matures.

Consider the question of constitution amending in terms of a recent ballot initiative in Colorado. In 2005, a ballot initiative was proposed that would have changed the state constitution to allow individuals to possess small amounts of marijuana without facing criminal charges (Gathright). The impetus to change the state constitution was fueled by outrage among voters and organizations over the state's refusal to honor Initiative 100, a ballot initiative in Denver County that made it legal for citizens to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. Prosecutors and police in the state argued that the ballot initiative in Denver was irrelevant and did not need to be honored, because state laws override any decision that a local government might make. Supporters counter that this flagrant disregard for the will of the people undermines the integrity of the democratic process and reduces the people's faith in the political process (Gathright).

Nonetheless, political outrage in Denver does little to change the fact that state police and prosecutors simply will not honor the Initiative 100. The only way, it would seem, to affect the kind of change that supporters of the initiative want is to amend the state constitution, effectively changing the law of the land. Supporters argue that this is the only viable option left, especially in light of the fact that marijuana is less dangerous the alcohol -- a legal drug -- and that the war on drugs has netted no significant results save $1 trillion spent since 1970 and 1.6 million people arrested yearly, half for marijuana possession (Gathright). Thus, in the case of marijuana we are faced with public policy that aggressively prosecutes anyone who uses the drug, at great cost to the state, without any discernible impact on usage, and when other more dangerous drugs are marketed freely.