House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR 4) is on Idaho’s November ballot. HJR 4 would amend Article III, Section 26 of the Idaho Constitution, to say, "Effective immediately upon adoption by the voters of Idaho, only the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances."
This is not earth-shattering, but it is very important. Article III, Section 26 of the Idaho Constitution already gives the legislature full regulatory power over intoxicating liquor. “From and after the thirty-first day of December in the year 1934, the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have full power and authority to permit, control and regulate or prohibit the manufacture, sale, keeping for sale, and transportation for sale, of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes.” This original amendment language effectively signaled the end of alcohol prohibition, which had ended nationally a year earlier, and gave regulatory power to the Legislature.
The proposed amendment expands this section to deal with marijuana, narcotics, and "psychoactive substances." The amendment says: "only the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to legalize" these substances. This has two distinct effects on Idaho law. It prohibits local governments from legalizing such substances, and it precludes the use of the initiative process to legalize them.
It is appropriate because it is the role of the Legislature to promulgate new laws, including laws that preempt local governments. The Legislature has the power now to regulate drugs, why does it need the sole power? The legislature has already preempted local governments from regulating guns, imposing a minimum wage, and banning plastic bags. This constitutional amendment would serve a similar purpose by preventing local units of government (for example, cities) from legalizing drugs. It simply doesn’t make sense to have a patchwork of laws on drugs.
The amendment would also prohibit the use of the initiative to repeal government prohibitions enacted by the legislature on drugs. Removing the use of the initiative moves Idaho away from the costly and dangerous direct democracy approach to this complex political issue.
To answer this question, just look at past experience in Idaho and in other states. The initiative process is a blunt instrument and not an effective way to develop drug policy. For example, the Idaho legislature held a hearing on House Bill 401 during the 2025 session. The bill was titled the “SERGEANT KITZHABER MEDICAL CANNABIS ACT.” It was a 43 page bill crafted with the view that a veteran like Sergeant Kitzhaber should be allowed to use medical cannabis to combat intractable pain. It was a complex bill that didn’t fully satisfy the concern that medical cannabis provides a gateway to broader use. So doesn’t the fact that this bill failed to gain traction signal the need for an initiative option? No, it merely signals that the legislature has taken a position on drug legalization and if voters don’t like their position on this or other issues, they can vote their elected representatives out.
We mention this because the alternative played out in Oregon and other states. Oregon clearly harmed the quality of life for all of its citizens with Measure 110 (a citizens initiative), which decriminalized a wide variety of formerly illegal drugs spurring drug usage, overdoses, associated crime, and civic decay. Even permissive Oregon had had enough and effectively repealed decriminalization with House Bill 4002, acknowledging its failed experiment.
We realize that Idahoans have different perspectives on whether drugs like Marijuana should be fully legal, legal for alleged medical purposes, or illegal altogether. But let’s keep in mind two things, Idaho can learn from the failed drug policies in other states and tackling complex issues is exactly why we have a legislature.
