Pubdate: Mon, 13 Oct 2014
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: B1
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

D.C. COUNCIL COULD DELAY POT LEGALIZATION

Some Want Rules in Place First to Avoid Uncertainty

D.C. voters are likely to legalize marijuana possession in the
District next month. But it could be many more months, perhaps a year
or more, before residents would be able to legally purchase
non-medicinal marijuana.

And in the interim, the organizers of the ballot initiative - which is
supported by nearly two thirds of likely voters, according to recent
polls - are warning lawmakers not to delay its basic provisions of the
voter initiative, which would allow the possession of up to two ounces
of marijuana and the home cultivation of as many as six cannabis plants.

But D.C. Council members - who have the power to modify the
initiative, delay it or overturn it entirely - appear determined to
move forward carefully, in keeping with their previous efforts to
implement a medical-marijuana initiative.

"I don't want uncertainty to be out there in the streets and in the
market, and the initiative as it is written doesn't give us the
certainty we need," said David Grosso (I-At Large), who is perhaps the
council's most outspoken advocate of legalization. "It may be easier
to just delay the whole thing while we come up with the regulatory
framework."

Grosso, who introduced a bill more than a year ago establishing a
possible framework for the regulation and taxation of marijuana sales,
said if the initiative passes, the council should step in and delay
its effect until a regulatory regime can be rolled out.

That, he said, could be late summer, or even as late as October 2015,
when the District's new fiscal year begins.

The coalition of activists who are promoting the ballot measure, known
as Initiative 71, is pushing back at any suggestion of delay, however.
The activists concede that developing a system of regulation and
taxation may take time to develop but say that that shouldn't
forestall the legalization of possession and home cultivation.

Malik Burnett, a medical doctor who is helping organize support for
the initiative, said he has had generally positive conversations with
lawmakers, who have tended to support the sentiment behind it but are
concerned about how best to regulate sales and protect the public from
potential wrongdoing.

"I can understand their mindset on that," he said of the council. "But
I don't think they should in any way interfere in the will of the voters."

Two D.C. Council committees have scheduled a hearing for Oct. 30 to
start exploring how to manage the post-initiative landscape. Vincent
B. Orange (D-At Large), the chairman of one of the committees, said he
has started researching aspects of the legalization measures in
Colorado and Washington state.

Among his concerns: the rate of taxation, and how the public funds
generated by marijuana sales will be used in those states. "It could
be an opportunity to generate a tremendous amount of tax revenue," he
said. "But from my point of view, it has to be set up right."

Grosso's bill, as introduced, would levy a 15 percent tax on the gross
sales of non-medical marijuana and 6 percent on medical marijuana.
Those funds, as well as fees charged to cultivators and retailers,
would be earmarked to a variety of agencies and programs, including
police training, youth programs and efforts to combat substance abuse.

Orange suggested that education and affordable-housing efforts might
also benefit from marijuana revenue, which has not yet been officially
estimated by city financial officials. "If we're going to go in this
direction, we should look at some of our pressing needs right now," he
said.

The responsibility for regulating marijuana, under Grosso's bill,
would rest with the District's alcohol regulators. The District's
existing medical marijuana program is regulated through the city
health department.

Otherwise, the biggest outstanding question appears to be what happens
in the period between when the initiative becomes law and when the
council is able to pass a bill establishing a regulatory regime.

Advocates are pressing the council to leave their hands off, allowing
the possession and cultivation measures.

"This won't happen overnight, and it didn't happen overnight in
Colorado," said Adam Eidinger, another activist for Initiative 71.
"But what did happen is that they stopped arresting people, they let
people grow their own and keep what they grew. There was no regulation
in place other than that."

Eidinger said he expects "some sanding of the rough edges" from the
council if the initiative passes. But delaying the initiative's effect
while a regulatory bill is drafted, he said, would create confusion
and increase the likelihood of congressional intervention.

Much depends on whether Congress steps in to block the initiative or
otherwise interfere. But attempts by congressional Republicans to
overturn the city's marijuana decriminalization law have been
unsuccessful, and the advocates and council members are proceeding
under the assumption that the bill will not be challenged.

Should the initiative succeed, it would be transmitted to Congress for
a 30-legislative-day review period probably late next month or in
early December, meaning its provisions could take effect as soon as
late January. And even if the council moves to delay its effect, the
vagaries of national politics have local leaders mindful that there is
no reason to dawdle.

"We have to move on this while President Obama is in office," Grosso
said. "I don't know what happens after that."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard