Topeka ? The Kansas Supreme Court will soon decide whether to strike down all or part of a voter-approved city ordinance in Wichita that decriminalizes first-time possession by adults of small amounts of marijuana or drug paraphernalia.

The seven justices heard oral arguments in the case Thursday amid a growing national debate over what many have called “mass incarceration” of people, disproportionately poor and minority individuals, for relatively minor nonviolent drug crimes.

“I think it is an entirely proper national conversation, and I think it’s happening in Kansas and it should be happening in Kansas,” Attorney General Derek Schmidt said to reporters after the court hearing.”But I’m always a little bit concerned when broad policy discussions like that come up through anecdotal situations or individual cases, or even individual subject matters like marijuana ordinances.”

Voters in Wichita approved that ordinance in April, 54-46 percent. It was the result of a citizen-led initiative that forced the Wichita City Council to put it on the ballot.

Esau Freeman, one of the organizers of the petition drive to put the ordinance on the ballot, said mass incarceration has become an issue in Wichita and elsewhere.

“A lot of times people get upset with law enforcement for doing their job, and the problem is that the state Legislature has not changed the laws, and they’re putting our police in a difficult position and making them enforce laws that citizens don’t agree with,” he said.

But Schmidt’s office argued that the city had no right to pass such a law because it is in direct conflict with state laws.

“The people of Wichita who supported this ordinance, they may disagree with those laws, but they have no authority under the Kansas Constitution or Kansas statutes to exempt themselves from them,” Assistant Attorney General Jeff Chanay told the court.

The ordinance declares first-time possession by an adult over age 21 of up to 32 grams of marijuana, slightly more than an ounce, an “infraction” rather than a misdemeanor and sets the maximum penalty at a $50 fine.

It also contains what some have called a gag order, requiring Wichita police officers to refer those cases only to the city attorney’s office for prosecution and prohibiting either the police or the city attorney from reporting those cases to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation or any other state or federal law enforcement agency.

Under state law, that same activity is a misdemeanor that can result in a fine of up to $2,500, or one year in the county jail, or both.

Sharon Dickgrafe of the Wichita city attorney’s office argued that under the Kansas Constitution voters in Wichita had every right to enact such an ordinance.

“In 1914, this court stated the supreme power resides in the body of the people,” Dickgrafe said. “In 1935, the Kansas Legislature passed (a statute) to allow individual citizens of cities to promote and initiate their own legislation. That is what has happened in this case.”

Justice Caleb Stegall, the newest member of the Supreme Court, appeared to be the one most willing to accept that argument.

He pointed to a provision of the Kansas Constitution allowing local initiatives that says its provisions “shall be liberally construed for the purpose of giving to cities the largest measure of self-government.”

“Is that just sort of aspirational fluff, or does it have an actual binding meaning on this court?” he asked Chanay. “And if it does, what does it tell us? Does it require a high level of deference to the democratic actions of the city, of the citizens of Wichita?”

Chanay answered by saying that provision has to be read in context with the rest of the section, which spells out the limitations of local referendums, including language that says they may be used “only in such cases as prescribed by the legislature, subject only to enactments of the legislature of statewide concern applicable uniformly to all cities …”

Dickgrafe argued that there is really no conflict because the state law does not establish a mandatory minimum penalty. Therefore, she said, a defendant charged in state court could conceivably receive the same penalty as a person in municipal court.

She agreed, however, that the “gag rule” clause of the ordinance is probably in direct conflict with state law, but she said the court could strike down that clause by itself and leave the remainder of the ordinance in place.

The court is expected to decide the case later this year.