Defendants in pot prop lawsuits speak up

WASILLA — Defendants named in two lawsuits against the Mat-Su Borough regarding the marijuana initiative proposed on the October ballot say the plaintiffs are being hypocritical, deceptive and damaging in their support of the commercialization of cannabis.

Both complaints, one filed by Thomas Hannam and Ronda Marcy and one by Amy and Clint Tuma, allege that the borough and 15 initiative sponsors — one of whom is deceased — illegally bypassed the Planning Commission in allowing the proposition to be placed on the ballot without sufficient review of land use ordinances. The complainants also allege the initiative not only “exceeds the Matanuska-Susitna Borough's own legislative zoning powers,” but that its wording is “intentionally deceptive,” and unlawfully asks voters to decide two issues simultaneously: the prohibition of marijuana and the acceptance of hemp, which falls under the broader definition of marijuana.

In a Spectrum piece submitted to the Frontiersman, former borough mayor Larry DeVilbiss cited the language of a Ballot Measure 2 pamphlet — regarding the approval of the use of marijuana in the state of Alaska in 2014 — as indication that the borough is blameless in the face of the accusations.

"The bill would allow a local government to prohibit the operation of marijuana-related entities. A local government could do that by enacting an ordinance or through voter initiative,” DeVilbiss quoted.

Prison minister Steve Alexander, who called himself the spokesman for the defendants that join him in a regular pastoral prayer group, agreed with DeVilbiss’s assessment of the situation, saying that, “there’s nothing illegal or untoward here at all.”

Alexander said he was also confused by the plaintiffs’ tactics, seemingly preventing people from having their voice heard.

“The pot crowd wanted to use the public voice of an initiative to get their drug legalized, but now they want, by court action, to silence the public voice when people are simply exercising their right under the previous initiative to wisely restrict the unneeded commercialization of that drug,” Alexander wrote in an email.

As for supporters of commercialization in the name of medical marijuana users, Alexander claimed that such people are “lying through their teeth” and “pandering to a phobia that doesn’t even exist.”

“Anybody that needs legal marijuana can get it,” he said.

Alexander and DeVilbiss both argued that their support of the Proposition 1 stemmed from an effort to protect families with children.

DeVilbiss used his experience going door-to-door as the basis for asking seemingly rhetorical questions posed by the families he visited. In these questions, DeVilbiss implicitly argues that cannabis commercialization will result in easier and cheaper access to marijuana, which will make the Mat-Su Borough “a destination for deadbeat and homeless dopers.”

He also compared the drug to heroin.

“Abundance of cheap heroin right now has a huge impact. Whatever we’ve been doing to control heroin up to now hasn’t been working. Will we next be asked to legalize heroin?” he wrote.

DeVilbiss also claimed a connection between the 2014 legalization of marijuana and “the record-breaking rising crime rate and violent death rate in Anchorage,” though only one of the 20 homicides reported in Anchorage this year referenced illegal drugs as a potential factor in the killing.

Alexander said he expected marijuana to be as easily accessible to underage users as tobacco and alcohol, and with that, result in similar rates of childhood addiction. Though he didn’t oppose usage of tobacco and alcohol as strongly, “it would be nice if the stuff wasn’t so easily and readily available,” he said.

“Are we, as Christian leaders, saying we need to go back to prohibition? No, the curve is too steep and the step is too far, but we don’t need to take another step too far,” he said.

Alexander was also vexed that the plaintiffs would sue one of the defendants, Paul Riley, after his death in September of 2015. Alexander took the plaintiffs to task for being “so disconnected they don’t know who they’re suing,” claiming that they must only be motivated by “intimidation and harassment.”

Hannam said on Tuesday that he and the other complainants had not heard of Riley’s passing, and had only copied down the names of the petitioners who signed their support of the proposition initiative at a church meeting.

Contact reporter Caitlin Skvorc at 352-2266 or caitlin.skvorc@frontiersman.com.