Pubdate: Thu, 02 Aug 2012
Source: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: E.J. Montini

IS THE SKY FALLING OVER POT LAW?

Until this week there were three Chicken Littles in Arizona spreading
the-sky-is-falling fear about our medical marijuana law.

In political pecking order (I'll try to keep the poultry puns to a
minimum) they are Gov. Jan Brewer, Attorney General Tom Horne and
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery.

This week, a dozen more clucking birds joined the flock. (Seriously,
I'll try.)

Thirteen county attorneys (including Montgomery) recently sent a
three-page letter to Gov. Brewer urging her to prevent the state from
issuing licenses for medical-marijuana dispensaries.

It seems that Arizona's political hen house needs a whole new ...
wing.

(Ok, that's it.)

The argument used by the prosecutors (which is the same one used by
Brewer and Horne) is that the state program is pre-empted by the
federal Controlled Substances Act.

That's true.

The county attorneys, like the three original Chicken Littles, say
they are concerned that government bureaucrats could get busted by the
feds for doing the paperwork involved in the permit process.

It doesn't matter that such a thing has not happened.

Other people involved in the medical marijuana business have been
arrested and charged with crimes, but not government workers.

And the U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Bill Solomon said it wouldn't
happen here, telling The Arizona Republic, "Specifically, the
Department of Justice is focusing its limited resources on significant
drug traffickers, not seriously ill individuals and their caregivers
who are in compliance with applicable state medical-marijuana statutes."

That doesn't convince a group of politicians who didn't want voters to
approve the initiative in the first place.

But we did.

And while Brewer tried to get the law tossed and continues to express
concerns about it, she said that she'll let it take effect.

I've spoken to Montgomery about this in the past. He told me, "If a
court says that we can do this I'm fine with this. If a court says
that government employees involved in this have a degree of immunity
I'm fine with that. But at the same time if a court says you can't do
this then you can't do it. It doesn't matter if it was a voter
approved initiative."

He added that a state "doesn't have a right to pass a law that
violates the (federal) supremacy clause."

That's a far cry from the tough talk Brewer and others had for the
federal government when it came to SB1070. My favorite quote was when
the governor said of the administration's challenge of SB1070: "Never
during our nearly 100 years of statehood has federal interference in
. Arizona affairs ... been more blatant ..."

We know there are going to be problems when the state's medical
marijuana program is implemented. Some shady people will get involved
and, hopefully, will be prosecuted. But there also will be a number of
good people who are out only to make a buck and to help people in need.

A while back when I playfully used marijuana slang to criticize
tough-talking politicians like Brewer, Horne and Montgomery for trying
to prevent a citizen-approved law from going into effect, the county
attorney responded. He (or his public relations guy) revved up the
metaphor machine and fired off a letter to the editor of the Republic
that read in part:

"Accusing elected officials of trying to subvert the will of the
voters may play well with the stoner crowd. But when subjected to the
reality of both law and politics, Montini's argument goes up in
smoke... In accusing the governor, state attorney general and me of
'kowtowing to veiled threats that they have no reason to believe will
be carried out,' E.J. Montini demonstrates the perils of attempting
legal analysis while under the influence of half-baked
conclusions."

Half-baked? That's an upgrade. Most angry readers describe my
conclusions as raw. At best.

However, now that I've barbequed (or fried, or filleted) our expanded
group of Chicken Littles for their sky-is-falling proclamations
critics like Montgomery might consider shifting their literary focus
from marijuana references to poultry products.

For instance, they could say I have egg on my face owing to my
scrambled logic. Or that my cracked point of view fails to hatch a
decent argument.

Not that I necessarily expect the entire gaggle of them to gang up on
me but, you know, birds of a feather...
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt