Pubdate: Thu, 08 Nov 2012
Source: Colorado Independent (CO)
Author: Scot Kersgaard

WITH POT LEGALIZED, COLORADO ENTERS DRUG-POLICY BRAVE NEW WORLD

America's war on drugs got a lot more interesting Tuesday night when
Colorado and Washington voted to legalize marijuana. Legalization
advocates were quick to call the two measures "the beginning of the
end" of marijuana prohibition in the United States.

"The beginning of the end has begun," Allen St. Pierre, executive
director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
(NORML), wrote at his blog.

"Yesterday's elections have forever changed the playing field
regarding cannabis prohibition laws in America (and probably in large
parts of the world too)," he went on.

Reached by phone, St. Pierre said the entire landscape of drug policy
shifted overnight thanks to voters in Colorado and Washington.

"The drug reform movement has moved from agitation to the legalization
epoch," he said Wednesday.

St. Pierre noted that while his organization has been fighting
prohibition on numerous fronts for 40 years, the power to overturn
decades of law ultimately came down to a vote of the people.

As for what happens next, he said he expects the Department of Justice
to throw its weight around a little before finally standing down.

"If past is prologue, the feds will initially try to interfere with
the will of the voters. They will try to find some way to interfere,
maybe go to court to seek a permanent injunction," St. Pierre said.

He noted, though, that President Obama "tried to find some middle
ground" on marijuana during his first term. He also said that, in
previous elections to legalize pot, the DOJ made public statements
prior to Election Day, but didn't this time. "They have used the bully
pulpit to sully public opinion in the past, but they didn't do that
this time."

Ultimately, St. Pierre said he expects the feds to be OK with Colorado
eliminating all penalties for personal possession and personal growing
of marijuana, but he also expects they will try to stop the state from
establishing a system of legal retail stores and legal mass grow operations.

The feds aren't yet talking, except in a very cursory
fashion.

"The Department of Justice's enforcement of the Controlled Substances
Act remains unchanged. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act,
Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled
substance. We are reviewing the ballot initiative and have no
additional comment at this time," said Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for
the U.S. Attorney's Office, in a prepared statement emailed to The
Colorado Independent.

Paul Roach, regional spokesperson for the DEA, told the Independent
prior to the election that the DEA does not-and will not-focus on
individual users. He said the DEA will continue to "go after
significant drug trafficking organizations." Just as that sometimes
includes people and businesses involved in medical marijuana, he said
it could also include businesses licensed to grow or sell under
Amendment 64.

Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief, had this to say, in a
statement posted on the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition website:
"I cannot tell you how happy I am that after forty years of the
racist, destructive exercise in futility that is the war on drugs, my
home state of Washington has now put us on a different path. There are
people who have lost today: drug cartels, street gangs, those who
profit from keeping American incarceration rates the highest in the
world. For the rest of us, however, this is a win. It's a win for
taxpayers. It's a win for police. It's a win for all those who care
about social justice. This is indeed a wonderful day."

In Colorado, the constitutional amendment gives the state a little
more than a year to figure out how to regulate retail stores and
wholesale growing/distribution operations.

Both Governor John Hickenlooper and Attorney General John Suthers
vocally opposed Amendment 64, but both have said they will respect the
will of voters and will work to see legalization implemented.

Suthers released this statement:

"Despite my strongly held belief that the 'legalization' of marijuana
on a state level is very bad public policy, voters can be assured that
the Attorney General's Office will move forward in assisting the
pertinent executive branch agencies to implement this new provision in
the Colorado Constitution.

Coloradans should be cognizant of two caveats, however. First the
ability of the federal government to criminally sanction possession,
use and distribution of marijuana, even if grown, distributed and used
in a single state, was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Gonzales v. Raich (545 US.1,2005). Therefore, absent action by
Congress, Coloradans should not expect to see successful legal
challenges to the ability of the federal government to enforce its
marijuana laws in Colorado. Accordingly, I call upon the United States
Department of Justice to make known its intentions regarding
prosecution of activities sanctioned by Amendment 64 (particularly
large wholesale grow operations) as soon as possible in order to
assist state regulators and the citizens of Colorado in making
decisions about the implementation of Amendment 64.

Secondly, the proponents of Amendment 64 told voters that it imposed a
surtax of up to 15 percent on marijuana sale that would result in up
to $40 million each year going to K-12 schools in the state. In fact
Amendment 64 did not comply with required language under the Taxpayers
Bill of Rights and no such tax will be imposed. Instead it will be up
to the Colorado Legislature whether to refer such a tax to the voters
and up to the voters of Colorado whether to actually impose the tax.
Therefore, such revenue is speculative and will not be forthcoming
when Amendment 64 begins to be implemented."

Supporters of Amendment 64 say they look forward to working with
Suthers to implement the law, but Brian Vicente, an attorney who was
one of the leaders of the campaign, took exception to the tone of some
of Suthers' statement.

"What John Suthers needs to remember is who he works for, which is the
people of Colorado, who approved this measure by a wide margin. John
Suthers needs to work to implement this law and not to fight it."

Vicente and Mason Tvert, co-directors of the legalization campaign,
said people who minimize the tax benefits of Amendment 64 are delusional.

"The legislature will undoubtedly come on board with the tax
component. John Suthers just needs to get out of the way," Vicente
said.

He said it is likely that the legislature will pass a measure to place
a tax before the people in next November's election, which could mean
that the tax is approved before the first legal retail sale takes
place, probably in early 2014.

"We don't see any reason why the Colorado legislature would ignore the
will of the voters and not put this excise tax in front of the voters
to fund public school construction," Tvert said by email.

The governor had this to say:

"The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will. This will
be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said,
federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don't break out
the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly."

As to the idea that the federal government will fight the will of
voters in Colorado and Washington, Vicente acknowledges that the feds
may try to stop the retail storefront model that has been approved by
voters, but notes that the feds have raised only minimal objections to
the same model in place for medical marijuana, which in Colorado also
includes storefronts and commercial grow operations.

Vicente says the feds will absolutely stand aside on the parts of the
law that say individual adults in Colorado can possess up to one ounce
of marijuana and may also grow up to six plants at a time and may
possess all of the product from those plants.

"That is the piece that 100 percent cannot be stopped. Colorado has
complete control of its criminal laws. The Colorado constitution now
says you can possess and grow marijuana for your own use and the
federal government can't do anything about that."

Vicente told the Independent that even if the feds decided to come
into Colorado and Washington with a scorched earth policy of stopping
state-legalized marijuana operations, it may be too late. He says the
whole drug war has changed overnight and the feds need to realize that
outright prohibition is a thing of the past.

"It would certainly be a travesty if the Obama administration used its
power to impose marijuana prohibition upon a state whose people have
declared, through the democratic process, that they want it to end,"
Vicente said in a prepared statement issued the night of the election.

"It is now more obvious than ever that marijuana prohibition is a
failed policy, and the voters in Colorado and Washington have sent a
message to their elected leaders and the nation that they have had
enough," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy
Project.

"It is costly, harmful, and dangerously misguided to continue
arresting adults for using something that is safer than alcohol,
particularly the seriously ill who could benefit from using marijuana.
A majority of Americans are sick of this nightmare and support
treating marijuana in a rational manner. Unfortunately, most lawmakers
continue to ignore this fact and turn a blind eye to the harms caused
by prohibition. The residents of Colorado and Washington have taken
the matter into their own hands and done something about it today," he
said in a press release issued Nov. 6. "They should be congratulated
for taking the first step toward sensible laws. The end of marijuana
prohibition is at hand.

"Tonight marks the end of this campaign, but only the beginning of a
process through which Colorado will show the world what a properly
regulated marijuana system looks like. It will serve as a model for
other states and, in fact, the rest of the world. It is impossible to
overstate the significance of this victory," Kampia said.

Colorado's legislature has the option of creating the rules and
regulations that will govern the sale of marijuana. The legislature
could opt not to address the issue, in which case the Colorado
Department of Revenue would be tasked with setting up the regulatory
framework. In either case, the state is required to license marijuana
businesses by 2014.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt