Pubdate: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 Source: Desert Sun, The (Palm Springs, CA) Copyright: 2014 The Desert Sun Contact: http://www.desertsun.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1112 Note: Does not accept LTEs from outside circulation area. TRIBES SHOULD CAREFULLY WEIGH POT MOVES The recent U.S. Justice Department move giving Native American tribes the green light to legalize marijuana on their reservations gives us pause. While we respect the sovereign right of tribal governments to run their affairs as they see fit, the situation in the Coachella Valley is somewhat unique. The close proximity of tribal territory and adjacent cities gives decisions made by one entity tremendous impact on the entire region. This is especially true in Palm Springs, where the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has authority over 32,000 acres in the western Coachella Valley, including a checkerboard grid of sections encompassing about half the city. For now, it doesn't appear there will be a rush to legalize. Jeff Grubbe, chairman of the Agua Caliente, told The Desert Sun's Barrett Newkirk in an email the tribe had no comment on the Justice Department announcement. Riverside County law enforcement officials say they don't anticipate any changes in their dealings with any of the 12 tribes in their jurisdiction. Capt. Ray Wood, commander of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department's Hemet Station and head of the department's Tribal Liaison Unit, said marijuana hasn't been a focus of discussion at regular check-ins with the tribes. John Hall, spokesman for the Riverside County District Attorney's Office, also said it was too soon to speak on what the new federal guidelines could mean. "This is a complicated issue that will need to be discussed with the tribes in this county as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office before we can comment further," Hall wrote in an email. The issue arose after some tribes sought Justice Department guidance on enforcement of federal drug laws on tribal land following legalization in states like Colorado. The department responded in October with a policy statement to federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials noting that the diversity among Indian nations requires flexibility when working with tribal leaders on the issue of marijuana. The policy statement is a sign the Obama administration respects tribal authority, and is not really about marijuana legalization, said Stephen Pevar, an instructor on American Indian law at New York University Law School and author of the book "The Rights of Indians and Tribes." "It's not pro-marijuana or anti-marijuana," Pevar said. "It's pro-sovereignty." Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but has been decriminalized for medical purposes in 23 states, including California. Recreational marijuana use is legal in two states, Washington and Colorado. Voters in two more states, Alaska and Oregon, approved initiatives legalizing recreational use set to take effect in 2015. Carl Artman, former U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs assistant secretary and member of the Oneida Tribe in Wisconsin, suggests that many U.S. tribes likely won't be too interested in the marijuana trade. "When you look at what tribes have to offer - from gaming to ecotourism to looking out over the Grand Canyon, just bringing people out on the reservation for art or culture - this is not one of the things they would normally want," Artman told The Associated Press. "It hearkens back to something that's archaic and stereotypical as opposed to what the modern day Indian is about." The rapid spread of legal pot in various forms concerns others as well. The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court last week, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines. The suit invokes the federal government's right to regulate both drugs and interstate commerce, and says Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana has been "particularly burdensome" to police agencies on the other side of the state line. In June, USA Today highlighted the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska: felony drug arrests in Chappell, Neb., just 7 miles north of the Colorado border have skyrocketed 400 percent in three years. These are the types of problems we fear could crop up here if tribal legalization occurs absent thoughtful preparation. Our local tribes have done a great job managing their lucrative gaming enterprises. These operations fund tribal development and are an integral component of the valley tourism picture. Grubbe has said the Agua Caliente tribe employs 2,500 people - clearly a benefit for the region. A 2012 study commissioned by the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, a coalition of casino-operating tribes, found that Indian gaming has created more than 52,000 jobs in all in California, and generates nearly $500 million in state and local revenues. Marijuana could be another lucrative business for tribes operating under the eased federal enforcement guidelines. We trust Coachella Valley tribes will act wisely if they choose to go the path of legalization, following the example of cities such as Palm Springs, Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs in formulating deliberate zoning and licensing policies for such operations. Ideally tribal officials will work as good neighbors in close consultation with law enforcement and valley city officials to draw up such safeguards. An excerpt from a (Colorado Springs, Colorado) Gazette editorial published Dec. 21 on how the Justice Department could help neighbor states with Colorado marijuana: A weird lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the United States against Colorado only formalizes what we know. Colorado's marijuana free-for-all is a burden to our neighbors. We grow and sell some of the most potent pot in the world and it crosses into other states as dealers and drug tourists come and go. Colorado voters chose to subject themselves and their children to this ill-fated experiment, but neighboring states get to live with an abundance of our spillover. It makes us the neighborhood drug house, lowering the quality of life for the rest of the block. That's why Oklahoma and Nebraska want judicial relief. The effect of one state's laws on another state's population is one reason the United States Constitution contains an interstate commerce clause. It's too often abused, but serves as the only authority the federal government has to enforce federal drug laws. The federal supremacy clause gives federal law more weight than a conflicting state law, but only if the federal law complies with powers granted the federal government by the Constitution. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court ruled the United States Congress may criminalize production and use of home-grown marijuana in states that approve its use - even for so-called medicinal purposes - because it affects interstate commerce. Some call it a gargantuan stretch, but nevertheless it is the law. "The federal government could, tomorrow, come in and shut down every dispensary in Colorado under the Substance Control Act," John Suthers told The Gazette's editorial board Friday. "But, as you know, the Justice Department has sent out all these memos saying if a state is in compliance with this, this and that, we're not going to use our power to force compliance." It's only because the federal government has chosen to look the other way that Oklahoma and Nebraska felt compelled to sue. They want the law enforced, so their children aren't subjected to dangers Colorado voters ostensibly imposed only upon themselves. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom