jumpincactus
Premium Member
Supporter
- 11,609
- 438
Republicans in Congress are trying to stop Washington, D.C. from implementing the marijuana legalization initiative that voters there approved by a 70 percent to 30 percent margin last month, but District of Columbia officials say they’ll move ahead anyway.
“I don’t feel that I have any choice,” D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson told the Washington Post. “The voters have spoken.”
A provision that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) included in a large federal spending bill passed by Congress and expected to be signed into law by President Obama prevents D.C. from spending any money to “enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of” marijuana or other substances classified under Schedule I.”
But because of a loophole contained in that language, D.C. officials and legalization advocates think that the voter initiative might be allowed to move forward even if other, future reforms would be blocked.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents D.C. in Congress, says that the initiative was “enacted when it was approved overwhelmingly by voters in November and was self-executing – i.e., it did not require enactment of any rules for its implementation. Therefore, it can be argued that the legalization of small amounts of marijuana can proceed.”
Republican leaders don’t agree. In a document explaining the spending bill, Rogers’s staff wrote that it “prohibits both federal and local funds from being used to implement a referendum legalizing recreational marijuana use in the District.”
But using Norton’s interpretation of the language, which is supported by leading Congressional Democrats including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Mendelson will transmit the initiative for a mandated 30-legislative-day review period when the new Congress convenes in January. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, Congress has the opportunity to effectively veto all locally passed laws in the District.
During the review period, Congress could pass a standalone resolution of disapproval, but it would need to be signed by President Obama in order to take effect. That seems unlikely in light of a past administration statement saying that the president opposes efforts to prevent “the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule.”
If a resolution of disapproval fails, Congress’ only remaining option in light of District officials’ interpretation of the spending bill’s language would be to file a lawsuit. That could prove to be a big gamble, however, at a time when polling shows that asupermajority of Americans supports letting local marijuana laws be implemented without federal interference. It’s one thing for Congressional Republicans to tuck a tiny provision about D.C. marijuana laws into a larger must-pass spending bill, but it’s entirely another to use taxpayer money to file a high-profile lawsuit seeking to overturn the will of seven out of 10 voters in the nation’s capital.
In addition to being unpopular with voters across the country, such a move would risk further surfacing a split within the ranks of Republican elected officials. In May, 49 Republicans joined 170 Democrats in voting to pass a House amendment to stop federal agencies from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. That language was included in the large spending bill that the D.C. block is in.
Amendments to allow industrial hemp cultivation and accommodate access to banking services for state-legal marijuana businesses also passed the House with similar bipartisan margins this year.
Many observers think that raising the profile of the issue is a gamble that Republican leaders won’t take.
“Should we accept that it was already struck down,” asked Norton, “or should we make them work for it?”
It’s looking more and more like District officials are going to make Congress work harder if it really wants to stop marijuana legalization from taking effect in the nation’s capital.
“I don’t feel that I have any choice,” D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson told the Washington Post. “The voters have spoken.”
A provision that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) included in a large federal spending bill passed by Congress and expected to be signed into law by President Obama prevents D.C. from spending any money to “enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of” marijuana or other substances classified under Schedule I.”
But because of a loophole contained in that language, D.C. officials and legalization advocates think that the voter initiative might be allowed to move forward even if other, future reforms would be blocked.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents D.C. in Congress, says that the initiative was “enacted when it was approved overwhelmingly by voters in November and was self-executing – i.e., it did not require enactment of any rules for its implementation. Therefore, it can be argued that the legalization of small amounts of marijuana can proceed.”
Republican leaders don’t agree. In a document explaining the spending bill, Rogers’s staff wrote that it “prohibits both federal and local funds from being used to implement a referendum legalizing recreational marijuana use in the District.”
But using Norton’s interpretation of the language, which is supported by leading Congressional Democrats including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Mendelson will transmit the initiative for a mandated 30-legislative-day review period when the new Congress convenes in January. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, Congress has the opportunity to effectively veto all locally passed laws in the District.
During the review period, Congress could pass a standalone resolution of disapproval, but it would need to be signed by President Obama in order to take effect. That seems unlikely in light of a past administration statement saying that the president opposes efforts to prevent “the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule.”
If a resolution of disapproval fails, Congress’ only remaining option in light of District officials’ interpretation of the spending bill’s language would be to file a lawsuit. That could prove to be a big gamble, however, at a time when polling shows that asupermajority of Americans supports letting local marijuana laws be implemented without federal interference. It’s one thing for Congressional Republicans to tuck a tiny provision about D.C. marijuana laws into a larger must-pass spending bill, but it’s entirely another to use taxpayer money to file a high-profile lawsuit seeking to overturn the will of seven out of 10 voters in the nation’s capital.
In addition to being unpopular with voters across the country, such a move would risk further surfacing a split within the ranks of Republican elected officials. In May, 49 Republicans joined 170 Democrats in voting to pass a House amendment to stop federal agencies from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. That language was included in the large spending bill that the D.C. block is in.
Amendments to allow industrial hemp cultivation and accommodate access to banking services for state-legal marijuana businesses also passed the House with similar bipartisan margins this year.
Many observers think that raising the profile of the issue is a gamble that Republican leaders won’t take.
“Should we accept that it was already struck down,” asked Norton, “or should we make them work for it?”
It’s looking more and more like District officials are going to make Congress work harder if it really wants to stop marijuana legalization from taking effect in the nation’s capital.
