Pubdate: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 Source: Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) Copyright: 2012 The Oregonian Contact: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/324 Author: Brendan Monaghan OREGON'S MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION MEASURE WOULD IGNITE A FUTILE LEGAL BATTLE There are many reasons that a voter might approve a given ballot initiative, but trying to start a fight with the federal government shouldn't be one of them. Consider Measure 80, a legislative Hail Mary even by the standards of our long and controversial history with the initiative process. The measure would legalize the recreational production, possession and use of marijuana in Oregon. One might question whether the proponents of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act had considered D.C.'s inevitable reaction, regardless of who wins in November. Then the obvious answer presents itself: That's exactly what proponents are counting on. This, if successful, would not be the first Oregon ballot measure to come under federal scrutiny. The most infamous example of such was Ballot Measure 6 in 1922. Oregonians approved an initiative mandating that all children receive a public education, thus banning parochial schools in pretty clear defiance of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the measure and unanimously handed down a landmark ruling in Pierce v. Society of Sisters. More recently, Oregon's Death With Dignity Act survived a grueling trip through George W. Bush's wringer in Gonzales v. Oregon. These are but two noteworthy examples. With budget shortfalls and cuts to vital programs continuing to stymie the Legislature, is the best-case scenario of a jurisprudential coin flip really worth the legal costs? The Drug Enforcement Administration would continue to prosecute federal drug laws, whether Oregon's Constitution is amended or not. We saw this after Oregonians approved medical marijuana and in the Golden State once Californians did the same. Measure 80's passage is evidently part of a gradual strategy of marijuana activists, similar to that of Quebec sovereigntists who dream of turning their province into a country in three easy steps. And it's just as realistic. When and if marijuana is legalized in November, some Oregonians would party like it's 1933 and Prohibition was over. Activists are banking on DEA agents being present and acting on a different legal point of view. Step Two. Upon the test subject's arrest, prosecution, conviction and appeal on federal drug crimes, the proponents of Measure 80 then proceed to Step Three -- all the way to the Supreme Court. The idea is for a majority of justices to find the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 unconstitutional, assuming a majority in Congress doesn't repeal it first. This is a pretty big gamble, as the court decided 6-3 to uphold that very law in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005. That case was argued based on the medical necessity of marijuana use -- not the recreational desire - -- and failed to sway a majority, including four members of today's court. Furthermore, all parties in Raich conceded and stipulated that Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause, to ban marijuana for non-medical reasons. The idea that a majority could now be persuaded to reverse the 7-year-old decision on a far-weaker premise is foolish. Even with four new justices, there is slim evidence of a pro-pot majority or reason to believe that constitutional circumstances have changed. With the supremacy of federal law over state law more or less a settled matter since 1865, the quest to light up legally seems a futile endeavor. There can be no change as long as federal drug laws are in place and enforced. Debating whether the Controlled Substances Act is necessary or proper today (or, for that matter, marijuana's inclusion as a Schedule I drug) is legitimate but not realistically applicable outside a barroom or dinner-table discussion. Congress would never reverse this duly passed, constitutionally approved law in a reasonable time frame, and neither presidential contender would sign it. Without a Pot Bloc coming to their congressional salvation, Oregon voters should take the exorbitant and escalating cost of a lengthy legal battle with the feds into account and reject Measure 80 outright. - --- MAP posted-by: Matt