Pubdate: Fri, 26 Oct 2012
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: John Ingold

FEDS' RESPONSE IS ANYONE'S GUESS

If Colorado voters approve Amendment 64 (which makes limited 
marijuana possession, as well as large-scale commercial production 
and sales legal), this much is certain: The federal government will 
not be happy.

But how federal officials, who consider all marijuana possession and 
sales illegal, would express that displeasure is anyone's guess.

"No idea," Carnegie Mellon University professor Jonathan Caulkins, 
who has co-authored a book about the impacts of marijuana 
legalization, said when asked about the federal response. "I don't 
think anybody knows."

Recent statements hint that federal officials are already planning 
their response, even if they are being cryptic about it.

"We're not going to speculate on the outcome of the ballot 
initiative," Colorado U.S. attorney's spokesman Jeff Dorschner said, 
"other than to say it will not change our enforcement approach."

That approach has included sending letters to medical-marijuana 
dispensaries near schools, ordering them to shut down. It has also 
included raids and prosecutions of purported medical-marijuana 
growers and retailerswhen they sell pot into the black market.

Amendment 64, though, would create a much more expansive marijuana 
industry, one that could sell to anyone 21 years and older. Rather 
than existing in addition to the black market, in the way the state's 
medical-marijuana industry does, Amendment 64 stores could take the 
place of a large scale black market in Colorado.

And that, Caulkins and others speculate, could prompt the federal 
government to take more aggressive actions than it has in dealing 
with medical marijuana businesses.

The amendment creates a year-long period between when the initiative 
would pass and when the first recreational marijuana store could 
open. In that interim, the federal government may choose to challenge 
the measure in court by arguing that it is pre-empted by federal laws 
against marijuana.

An Arapahoe County judge this year found that was the case for 
medical-marijuana law, though it is, for now, an isolated decision.

Caulkins said the federal government could withhold transportation 
dollars or other funding to the state.

"No matter if they respond aggressively or passively, they're going 
to have more people angry at them than who are happy at them," 
Caulkins said. "So I think it's a lose-lose choice."

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John Hickenlooper, said the 
governor's office has been in talks with federal officials and their 
counterparts in other states considering marijuana legalization 
measures to gauge the potential federal response. Brown said the 
governor does not believe federal funding would be cut.

Federal officials were not so opaque in 2010, when California was 
considering a legalization measure. Then, U.S. Attorney General Eric 
Holder said the government "strongly opposes" the measure and would 
"vigorously enforce" federal drug laws if it passed.

Though former Drug Enforcement Administration leaders have urged 
Holder to make a similar statement this year, he and other officials 
have been quieter.

One possible reason, said University of Denver law professor Sam 
Kamin, is that this is a presidential election year. Who voters pick 
to be the next president will have an impact on how the government 
would respond to marijuana legalization. But Kamin said it's also 
possible the Obama administration is also thinking about how their 
statements now might influence their re-election chances - especially 
since President Barack Obama is counting on young voters in Colorado 
to help him succeed in this swing state.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom