Pubdate: Thu, 18 Dec 2014
Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Column: Weed Between the Lines
Copyright: 2014 Boulder Weekly
Contact:  http://www.boulderweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/57
Author: Leland Rucker

TRYING TO GROK CONGRESS AND CANNABIS

It's impossible to understand the labyrinthine rhyme or reason behind 
any part of the Goliath spending bill passed by Congress to keep the 
government running another year. A bill that includes a rider that, 
for instance, would give Wall Street the same opportunities to be 
reckless with investments on the government dime like it did back in 
the early 2000s again sounds like lunacy to me.

The riders dealing with cannabis are as strange and bizarre as the 
Wall Street giveaway, and they send conflicting messages. On the one 
hand, we have the attempt by Delaware Rep. Andy Harris and Kentucky 
Rep. Hal Rogers to nullify the District of Columbia's recent approval 
of cannabis legalization. A law was passed in November, with almost 
70 percent of voters approving, that allows District adults to grow, 
possess and share small amounts of cannabis.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about Harris (calling him a 
representative is misleading - in this case, he "represents" only 
himself ) who, with a couple other prohibitionist congressbuds, 
decided to put the kibosh on D.C. decriminalization, apparently just 
because they could. Rep. Harris is under the mistaken impression that 
arresting people for cannabis possession helps keep it away from 
children. He even nullified an earlier D.C. law that would have 
lowered marijuana possession from an arrest to a summons.

In a strange postscript, it appears that the way Harris wrote the 
rider might actually allow the law passed in November to go through. 
Jacob Sullum outlines the murky legal arguments at Reason magazine. 
But basically, Harris' wording says that "none of the funds contained 
in this Act may be used to enact any law, rule or regulation to 
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the 
possession, use or distribution of any Schedule 1 substance." But the 
law has already been "enacted," so it might not stop what has already happened.

Even if that were the result, the next step would be to set up rules 
and regulations for retail outlets and sales in the District, and the 
Rogers/Harris rider wording would likely not allow the District to 
proceed any further with legalization beyond what was passed in 
November. At this point, both sides are hunkering down. D.C. 
officials say that, since the voters have spoken, they have no choice 
but to move ahead. Harris' legal team says the wording prohibits that.

Perhaps the vague wording happened because Harris and Rogers are 
trying to sneak this through before the next Congress is seated. 
District officials, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, will present the 
law to Congress for a mandated 30-legislative-day review period in 
January. Even if Congress acts to stop the law, it would require the 
president's signature, and Obama has indicated he doesn't like 
congressional meddling into D.C. local politics. Who's right? We shall see.

The Harris rider could affect the 646,000 people who live in the 
District. Another one will definitely affect a whole lot more 
Americans. This one stops the Justice Department from spending money 
to interfere with cannabis businesses that operate legally under 
state guidelines or patients who use those businesses or cannabis 
products. It would also stop federal interference in hemp production 
in any state that legalizes it.

That's a pretty big deal. It means that even though the federal 
government still considers cannabis a Schedule 1 drug with no medical 
use, it cannot use federal funds to interfere with any state that has 
a medical cannabis program, any legitimate business operating legally 
under state law or any person using cannabis under medical 
guidelines. (It would not keep the DEA from arresting people who 
aren't medical patients.)

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have both 
shown increasing support for state control over medical and/or retail 
cannabis, but the Justice Department still raids medical businesses, 
and federal attorneys have hassled, harassed and arrested medical 
business owners that were legal under state laws.

When this passed the House last May, chances of it also getting past 
the Senate without serious modifications weren't promising. The 
bipartisan amendment was co-sponsored by Democrats Sam Farr, Jared 
Polis, Barbara Lee, Steve Cohen and Earl Blumenauer and Republicans 
Dana Rohrabacher, Don Young, Tom McClintock, Paul Broun and Steve 
Stockman, and it passed last year 210-189, with 49 Republicans 
joining Democrats in voting yes.

I think this gives us a better indication of where Congress is 
heading when it comes to cannabis in the future. The bipartisan 
nature of the legislation indicates that more Republicans are coming 
around to the idea that responsible cannabis and hemp legalization 
should be left up to the states, more than half of which have already 
made that choice. All Congress needs to do is change cannabis' 
dubious Schedule 1 classification, and that process could proceed.

You can hear Leland discuss his most recent column and Colorado 
cannabis issues each Thursday morning on KGNU. 
http://news.kgnu.org/category/features/weedbetween-the-lines/
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom