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