Pubdate: Sat, 10 May 2014
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Post Company
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/mUgeOPdZ
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Mike Debonis
Page: B1

D.C. POT LAW DRAWS SCRUTINY IN HOUSE

Council Passed Measure Removing Criminal Penalties

Republican members of a House Oversight subcommittee sharply 
questioned the District's move to decriminalize the possession of 
small amounts of marijuana Friday but gave only tentative indications 
that they might try to overturn the legislation.

While city officials and autonomy advocates decried the hearing - the 
first one solely devoted to a local D.C. law in over a decade, said 
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) - it demonstrated that conservative 
federal lawmakers are increasingly unwilling to intervene in the 
District's liberal policymaking.

Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), the panel chairman, began the hearing 
with a reminder of Congress's constitutional authority over District 
affairs before wielding a mock joint. But he later said he was "not 
here to negate District law" and was noncommittal on whether he or 
his colleagues would take action against the marijuana measure.

A fellow Republican, Rep. John Fleming (La.), said he had grave 
concerns about the public health implications of decriminalizing 
marijuana. But he said after the hearing that he was "still on a 
fact-finding process" and had no immediate plans to pursue the 
necessary legislation to block the local law.

A third Republican who attended the hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), 
did not ask any questions or make any comments about the D.C. 
marijuana laws, instead using his time to interrogate a top Justice 
Department official about wholly unrelated allegations of Internal 
Revenue Service wrongdoing.

Friday's hearing came amid warnings that it could be a first step 
toward Congress overturning the D.C. Council's vote in March to 
remove criminal penalties for some marijuana offenses.

The decriminalization law is amid a congressional review period that 
is expected to lapse in mid-July. Overturning the law during that 
period would require the passage of legislation by both the House and 
Senate, as well as President Obama's signature.

That prospect is remote, most observers agree. But Norton said she 
feared the hearing could create an "echo effect," leading members to 
propose appropriations riders that could be attached to the 
District's budget in the coming months.

Still, the partisan gridlock that has kept Congress from acting on 
major national issues such as immigration reform has worked in the 
District's favor, making it exceedingly difficult for foes of city 
policies to take action against them. For instance, the controversial 
initiative approved in a voter referendum last year granting the 
District greater budgetary autonomy from Congress is now being 
challenged in the courts, not on Capitol Hill.

But the gridlock has not stopped some members from asking questions. 
Friday's hearing was the third in a series titled "Mixed Signals: The 
Administration's Policy on Marijuana," held by Mica's subcommittee on 
government operations.

The hearing was unique in being solely focused on the District's law, 
which drew criticism from Norton and local autonomy watchdogs. "They 
held the hearing not because they care about the substance of 
decriminalization, but because they could, because we have this 
antiquated local-federal relationship," said Kimberly Perry, 
executive director of the nonprofit D.C. Vote.

Fleming, a medical doctor who is deeply skeptical of marijuana 
liberalization, acknowledged that the District's unique status piqued 
his interest in its drug laws. "I don't have a say-so in state law 
other than lobbying my own representatives," he said. "The only place 
I have a voice is in Washington, and whenever I have an opportunity, 
I'm going to use that platform to make a stand."

During the hearing, Mica doubted whether the city's law would address 
its stated goal of reducing racial disparities in marijuana arrests.

"I'm not sure that changing the law in the District of Columbia is 
going to benefit that population that much," he said.

The D.C. law was passed partly in response to two studies of law 
enforcement records in the District, which found that nine out of 10 
arrests for simple drug possession were of African Americans, even 
though academic reports suggest marijuana use among teens and young 
adults is not statistically different across race or class. The 
American Civil Liberties Union testified Friday about those stark 
racial, economic and geographic divides.

The bulk of the hearing, however, focused on how the law will affect 
prosecutions of drug related crimes and potential complications with 
enforcement of marijuana possession on federal land in the District.

Under the city measure, conviction of possession would carry the 
smallest fine after Colorado and Washington state, where pot has been 
legalized for recreational use, and Alaska, which has no fine.

The District's measure would make possession of up to an ounce 
subject to a civil citation carrying a fine of $25. Smoking marijuana 
in public would remain a misdemeanor crime, similar to a violation of 
the city's open-container laws for alcohol, punishable by up to 60 
days in jail.

Possession would remain a criminal offense under federal law, 
punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in jail.

Federal authorities who testified Friday remained vague in their 
intentions regarding the local decriminalization law.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom