Pubdate: Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Source: Washington Times (DC)
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Times, LLC.
Contact:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492
Author: Andrea Noble

SUPPORTERS DEFEND D.C. MARIJUANA INITIATIVE

D.C. marijuana advocates defended their proposed ballot initiative 
before the D.C. Board of Elections Tuesday, disputing an opinion from 
the city's top lawyer that said legalizing possession of small 
amounts of the drug would violate federal law governing public 
housing facilities.

Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan has said he doesn't think the 
proposal is a proper subject for an initiative because he believes it 
would ban public housing facilities from stating in lease agreements 
that tenants can be evicted for drug-related criminal activity.

"There is nothing in the proposed initiative that would prevent 
that," said attorney Amanda La Forge, who represented the initiative 
sponsors. "D.C. would remain free to enforce the leases."

The initiative would make it legal to possess up to 2 ounces of 
marijuana and to grow up to six marijuana plants in one's home. If 
disputes arose between public housing authorities or private 
landlords and tenants about marijuana possession in a home, 
initiative sponsor Adam Eidinger said tenants would be able to take 
the matters to court.

While advocates say it might seem unfair that public housing 
residents would risk their housing if they were in possession of a 
drug that would be legalized under the initiative, they said the 
restrictions that limit the scope of the ballot initiative make it 
difficult to address all the potential issues.

"We're trying to change these laws so people aren't discriminated 
against. And we are so restricted by this initiative process, we 
can't put a complete bill to the voters," Mr. Eidinger said. "We 
can't say, 'Here is a place where you can buy this safely.' We can't 
say, 'This should be regulated in such a way' because that would 
spend money. So all we can say is that it's legal for the individual 
in the privacy of their own home to use minimal amounts of marijuana."

Laws governing the process say that initiatives may not appropriate 
city funds, violate the District's Home Rule Charter, negate a budget 
act or violate the Human Rights Act. The Board of Elections, which is 
tasked with making sure measures meet those guidelines, will now 
decide whether to approve the proposal. Activists would then have to 
collect 23,000 signatures from registered D.C. voters to get the 
measure on the November ballot.

Mr. Nathan in his objections highlighted a passages of the initiative 
that states "no district government agency or office shall limit or 
refuse to provide any facility service, program or benefit to any 
person" based on the legalization of marijuana.

The attorney general noted that the passage conflicts with the 
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which "requires that public housing 
leases make 'drug-related criminal activity' on or off public housing 
premises a cause for terminating a public housing lease."

Upon hearing the objections to the proposal, sponsors initially 
thought they might try to change some wording, but later discovered 
they would have to undergo the entire approval process anew if they 
made any changes, Mr. Eidinger said.

Board members questioned supporters of the initiative about the scope 
of the proposal, including whether it would allow people the right to 
legally have marijuana in their vehicles and on their person in 
addition to in their home. Mr. Eidinger said that as long as the 
amount was under 2 ounces, it would be permissible to be in 
possession of the drug.

He also fielded questions about the amount of marijuana that someone 
might be able to grow under the six-plant-per household rule.

"Even the best grower probably will not be able to produce more than 
15 ounces in one year," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom