Pubdate: Wed, 16 Jan 2013
Source: Metro Times (Detroit, MI)
Copyright: 2013 C.E.G.W./Times-Shamrock
Contact:  http://www.metrotimes.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1381
Author: Larry Gabriel
Column: Higher Ground

SEEDS OF CHANGE

Legalization Efforts Grow From the Bottom Up

Peeling back the layersof cannabis prohibition is like playing a game 
of three-card Monte. Now you see it, now you don't. That seems to be 
the case with decriminalization efforts that won handily in five 
Michigan cities in November and energized activists.

Now local officials are throwing up roadblocks along the route to 
instituting change.

In Grand Rapids, Proposal 2 amended the city charter to make 
possession of marijuana a civil infraction punishable by a $25 fine 
for a first offense.

But in December Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth, whose 
jurisdiction includes Grand Rapids, filed a lawsuit against the city 
to stop implementation of the law. His argument, in part, is that the 
amendment is contrary to state law. (I guess he should talk to the 
folks in Ann Arbor, who have had a similar ordinance in place for a 
few decades.) Last week, Kent County Circuit Court Judge Paul 
Sullivan began hearing arguments on whether to allow Grand Rapids to 
implement the law or not until the lawsuit is settled. No one knows 
when that will be. No matter which side wins in county court, the 
other side is expected to appeal the decision.

So who knows when this will be settled?

It is interesting that Grand Rapids City Attorney Catherine Mish 
cited Proposal M's route to the ballot in Detroit during her argument 
in favor of implementing the new law. The Detroit Election Commission 
refused to put Proposal M on the ballot in 2010, arguing that it was 
contrary to state law. Subsequently the state Court of Appeals ruled 
that the city had to put Proposal M on the ballot.

It passed overwhelmingly in November.

Last week, a Detroit Free Press article reported that Detroit elected 
officials are "foot-dragging" about implementing Proposal M, which 
decriminalized possession of as much as 1 ounce of marijuana by an 
adult on private property.

The article quoted City Council President Charles Pugh, who in 
December said, "I don't think we can have a local law that is 
incongruous with state law."

"The only way the city of Detroit wouldn't be implementing the law is 
if they are charging adults who are on private property," says 
attorney Matt Abel, executive director of the Michigan Chapter of the 
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "If they are 
charging them on the city ordinance they can be beaten.

I would handle that case pro bono. If they arrest someone under city 
law I think the city would get sued and lose. That is a false arrest.

It is not a crime as long as all the conditions of Proposal M are 
met. They're just woofing.

They have nothing positive to say about it, and so they think they 
can get away with bullshitting the public with those kinds of statements."

Regardless of negative reactions from authorities, activists are 
moving forward.

They plan to introduce proposals in another handful of cities for 
this fall's elections, including Highland Park and Jackson. It seems 
like their strategy is to chip away at opposition city by city until 
they believe they have enough support to make another statewide run. 
(A statewide petition to put the question on the ballot in 2012 
garnered only about a third of the required number of signatures.) 
Allowing skeptics to see that legalization in one town or another 
actually works seems like a good way to eventually get statewide 
reform, although it makes for a convoluted mishmash of laws.

That is sort of what's happening nationally as state after state 
legalizes medical marijuana, and now two states have legalized 
recreational use of the plant.

An uneven patchwork of decriminalization has settled over the nation 
and there is an upward pressure on the federal government to make 
sense of it all. But we are getting mixed messages on that too. Last 
week Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Gil 
Kerlikowske - aka drug czar - released a statement that said, in 
part, "it is clear that we're in the midst of a serious national 
conversation about marijuana."

What's not clear is the nature of the conversation from the federal 
point of view, so it could be a very rude exchange.

And Kerlikowske didn't say anything substantive other than circulate 
a transcript of President Obama's recent interview with Barbara 
Walters in which the president said, "It does not make sense from a 
prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug 
users in a state that has already said that under state law that's 
legal." He went on to talk about reconciling federal law with state laws.

All of this is very vague and noncommittal. However, in the past, 
Kerlikowske was not vague at all. He has said on a number of 
occasions that, "legalization is not in my vocabulary and it's not in 
the president's." We still don't know what new words they may have 
recently learned at the drug czar's office, but the change in 
rhetoric makes me think that the feds are discussing some positive 
change in light of the public opinion that has swung more in favor of 
marijuana legalization.

"It's a pretty stark shift," says Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana 
Majority, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit focused on the message 
that support for marijuana legalization is a mainstream position. "Of 
course, what really matters is to what extent the administration 
actually shifts enforcement priorities and budgets, but I sure do 
like hearing the U.S. drug czar acknowledge the fact that marijuana 
legalization is a mainstream discussion that is happening whether he 
likes it or not."

Hopefully that discussion leads to some well-defined policy that 
relaxes prohibition, because right now it's hard to tell what is 
going on at many levels.

For instance, Obama has said his administration would not go after 
medical marijuana facilities in states where those laws were in place.

In 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that there wouldn't 
be any federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries unless they 
were breaking state and federal law. Yet there have been raids on 
large operations in California and Montana. Just last Wednesday, Jan. 
9, there were federal raids on three Los Angeles area dispensaries. 
That same day Aaron Sandusky, who ran three southern California 
medical marijuana dispensaries known as G3 Holistics, was sentenced 
to 10 years in federal prison for operating the facilities.

So what is the deal here? Some activists have suggested that some 
Republican U.S. attorneys (held over from the previous 
administration) have gone rogue and are operating outside of Obama's 
guidelines because the president does not have the political capital 
to stop them.

"Obama didn't want to remove U.S. attorneys because Bush got into 
trouble for removing attorneys in such a political way, but they 
aren't following his administration's policy," Abel says.

If that's the case, it's time to get everybody on the same page. 
We've got states where recreational use of marijuana is legal.

Is some attorney in Washington or Colorado going to start arresting 
people? It's getting to the point where people are playing municipal 
laws against state laws, and state laws against federal laws. It's to 
the point where strong guidelines need to be defined.

People's lives are at stake.

If people are operating in good faith within the provisions of local 
statutes, it's neither fair nor just for another authority to swoop 
in and arrest them.

I'm hoping that this national conversation gets loud and clear very quickly.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom