Pubdate: Sun, 16 Dec 2012
Source: Metrowest Daily News (MA)
Copyright: 2012 MetroWest Daily News
Contact:  http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/619
Author: Richard M. Evans
Note: Richard M. Evans practices law in Northampton.

MARIJUANA: NOW WHAT?

On January 1, 2013, our new medical marijuana law goes into effect,
but only as to doctors and patients.

Dispensaries await licensing by the Department of Public Health after
rules have been issued and the worthiest non-profit entities have been
selected for licenses to cultivate and distribute medical marijuana to
patients whose doctors approve. Initially, there will be a minimum of
14 dispensaries and a maximum of 35, statewide, with at least one, but
no more than five, in each county.

Reading and Wakefield have rushed to enact zoning bans against
dispensaries, and in Framingham, Milford and other MetroWest towns,
officials are talking about it. Such actions may be premature, as the
DPH regulations are likely to regulate dispensary siting, especially
concerning proximity to schools and parks, as do the rules in nearly
all the other medical marijuana states.

Besides, there is little evidence, if any, that medical marijuana
dispensaries pose a threat to the public health or public safety.

A UCLA study published in July 2012, examining the experience of
Sacramento, California, found "no evidence" that dispensaries
attracted either violent or property crime.

The idea of storefront marijuana dispensaries, as well as their
visibility, may be offensive to those who see them as surrender in the
war against marijuana, but the big picture is that the war IS over.
Two states, Washington and Colorado, just repealed their state
prohibition laws and replaced them with systems of regulation and
taxation, where cannabis can be sold to adults for both medical and
non-medical purposes, steering new revenue into state coffers.

Alarms of "conflict" have been heard from, well, alarmists, but
there's no conflict, only a difference of opinion, you might say,
between co-governments as to whether the cultivation, distribution and
possession of marijuana should be a crime.

And that's OK, as under basic principles of federalism, both the
states and the federal government, as "dual sovereigns," may prohibit
marijuana or not. The decision by Colorado and Washington recalls
similar actions during Prohibition (1920-1933) by New York in 1923,
Massachusetts in 1930 and eleven more states in 1932. Technically
those states did not "legalize" alcohol as it remained illegal under
federal law; rather, they merely shifted the burden of enforcement to
federal authorities. Similarly, Colorado and Washington can be said to
have shifted the burden of enforcing the marijuana prohibition laws to
the federal government, although they went further and set up
regulatory schemes.

The feds are not without options.

Except for common sense and resources, nothing prevents them from
accepting that burden and deploying armies of DEA agents to Denver and
Seattle to fill the vacuum in street-level enforcement, even arresting
the state regulators if they must, anything to stamp out the menace of
marijuana.  Alternatively, Congress and the president could cede
marijuana control to the states, liberating them not only to regulate,
but to collect copious new revenue from this industry. Without waiting
for Congress, the president could instruct the attorney general to
reschedule marijuana under federal law, and hence eliminate the legal
confusion surrounding state medical marijuana programs.

Bills for the regulation and taxation of cannabis, post-medical, are
expected in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine for next year's
legislative session.

Voter initiatives for 2014 and 2016 will soon be in the
works.

The end of marijuana prohibition is not only within sight, it is
nearly within grasp.

Massachusetts voters having spoken unambiguously
in 2008 (decriminalization) and 2012 (medical), the question for
lawmakers and leaders is not whether or when marijuana should be
legalized, but how it should be legalized, starting with the
questions raised by Reading and Wakefield: by whom, where, and to
whom it may be sold in Massachusetts communities?

The time has passed for marginalizing marijuana and its consumers, for
denouncing prohibition, and for lamenting the futility of its
enforcement. Marijuana has become a part of our culture, like it or
not. No excuses remain for clinging to the historical mistake of
prohibition and for not taxing and regulating this commodity.

Whether the legislature accepts its duty as lawmakers, or again
abdicates that duty to voters, is to be seen next year.

Meanwhile, let us implement the medical marijuana law without delay,
keeping Massachusetts on the right side of history.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D