Bad ideas sometimes take on a life of their own. We hope this will not be the case as the Denver City Council deals with a citizen initiative that would make adult possession of less than an ounce of marijuana the city's "lowest law enforcement priority."

Legally, the council has to either pass the measure - which was certified by election officials last month - or reject it. If it chooses the second course, the measure is placed on the November ballot, and voters decide its fate.

No council member publicly endorses the proposal. But at a council committee meeting Wednesday, President Michael Hancock came up with a strategy that's too clever for our taste: Pass the measure now, with the assumption that it's "invalid legally," in Hancock's view . . . and then ask the courts to throw it out. Such a ruling could happen even before November.

We have several problems with this approach. First, there's no guarantee that the courts would invalidate the measure, which means the city would have to enforce it, as it would if voters passed the ordinance. And second, voters might reject the measure, which is the outcome council members want. A negative vote may be a long shot, but why short-circuit the process if there's a chance of it?

It's risky to anticipate that any ordinance is so out of line that courts have no choice but to overturn it - unless the measure would literally violate parts of the Constitution, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

Consider the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which clearly limits political speech. President Bush should have vetoed the bill, as many Republicans and First Amendment advocates urged him to do.

Instead, he signed the legislation, though in his signing statement he cited "serious constitutional concerns" with it. Bush asked the courts to "resolve these legitimate legal questions."

Guess what? The Supreme Court let much of the law stand, thwarting the president's disingenuous strategy.

Who's to say how Colorado courts would handle a legal challenge to this ordinance if it's passed by the council?

The courts could let the measure stand as a symbolic expression of the intent of Denver voters, as represented by the City Council. A similar ruling might follow if voters approved the ordinance in November.

In either case, police would most likely continue to cite violators for possession as often as they do now because of state law.

Conversely, Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell told us, the courts could decide that the ordinance as passed by the council dictates law enforcement policy. For instance, even though marijuana possession would remain illegal under state law, courts could overthrow specific convictions based upon the "lowest . . . priority" directive.

Not likely, but you never know. That's why the council should not try to manipulate or fast-track the process. A public election campaign will allow supporters and opponents to make their arguments, and let the people choose.

Fortunately, from all reports, Hancock has few allies for this strategy. Rather than trying to outsmart supporters of the measure or outguess the courts, if council members don't like the initiative they should simply honor the City Charter by letting voters decide its fate.