Pubdate: Wed, 19 Nov 2014
Source: Washington Times (DC)
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Times, LLC.
Contact:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492
Author: Andrea Noble
Page: A1

D.C. POT LAW COULD JEOPARDIZE DRUG TREATY

U.S. Pledged to Help Stop Spread

Allowing marijuana legalization in the District leaves the United 
States vulnerable to charges it is violating international treaties 
aimed at stemming the drug trade, the nonpartisan research arm of 
Congress concluded in an analysis that could strengthen the resolve 
of lawmakers on Capitol Hill to overturn the measure.

Though four states have voted to legalize the drug, a report issued 
this week by the Congressional Research Service suggests that 
implementation of the District's Initiative 71 could be considered 
the most direct affront to international agreements because Congress 
has oversight of local D.C. laws and the ability to overturn them.

The analysis addresses questions by the United Nations-backed 
International Narcotics Control Board on whether the city's marijuana 
law would undermine the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 
which pledged international cooperation to limit the spread of 
illegal substances.

"This line of reasoning suggests that if Initiative 71 is permitted 
to take effect, this inaction by the federal government may 
strengthen the Board's argument that the United States has not 
fulfilled its commitments under the Single Convention," the report stated.

Last week, Reuters quoted Yury Fedotov, executive director of the 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, as saying legalization in 
some states was inconsistent with international treaties.

"I don't see how [the new laws] can be compatible with existing 
conventions," the news agency quoted Mr. Fedotov as saying.

More than two-thirds of voters endorsed marijuana legalization in the 
District at the ballot box this month. But unlike measures passed in 
Oregon and Alaska and those in effect in Colorado and Washington, 
Congress has final authority over laws in the city.

Members could block implementation through a "rider" attached to a 
larger bill, or the House and Senate could pass a rare joint 
disapproval resolution that would also require the signature of 
President Obama.

Conflicting reports about congressional interest in blocking 
implementation have emerged in the weeks since the initiative passed, 
suggesting that the referendum's fate is uncertain.

Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican who has led the effort to 
block implementation of looser pot laws in the District, said Tuesday 
that the legal opinion puts more pressure on Congress to act.

"I would hope it would, but this issue has gone way outside the realm 
of rationality," Mr. Harris said. "I'm a little puzzled at how we can 
avoid enforcing the law on marijuana and still be in compliance with 
those treaties."

He said the Congress would act to overturn the marijuana law early 
next year either through riders or a disapproval resolution.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the ranking Republican on the Senate 
committee with oversight of the District, has said Congress should 
respect the will of the voters.

The author of the Congressional Research Service analysis, Todd 
Garvey, pointed out that the United States is a party to three 
international drug control conventions that require U.S. authorities 
to limit the movement and use of marijuana to scientific and medical 
purposes. The analysis notes that the Controlled Substances Act was 
enacted to enable compliance with those requirements.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the Justice 
Department has outlined a policy by which it would use prosecutorial 
discretion not to go after users in states where it has been 
legalized for recreational use. Officials have cited the low priority 
of such cases, framing the issue as one of law enforcement resources.

William R. Brownfield, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, echoed the 
argument before international reporters in October. Asked about U.S. 
treaty obligations, he said the Controlled Substances Act was still in effect.

"We are all required to abide by the conventions that we ourselves 
have ratified," he said. "But the conventions are not rigid. The 
conventions were written more than 50 years ago. We are allowed to 
interpret them so long as our interpretation is still consistent with 
our universal desire to reduce the misuse and abuse of harmful 
products throughout the world."

The Congressional Research Service report puts off the question of 
whether the U.S. has strayed from its international obligations by 
adopting a policy of non-enforcement in Oregon, Alaska, Washington 
and Colorado. It notes that the Constitution leaves Congress with 
little authority over the laws passed in those states.

"The federal relationship with the District, however, is a completely 
different story," it states, recounting how Congress has plenary 
authority over D.C. laws.

"While the federal government is limited in its ability to prevent 
states from removing criminal penalties for marijuana under state 
law, there would appear to be an available 'legislative' action that 
the federal government may take to prevent the District from 
legalizing marijuana: it may enact a joint resolution of disapproval 
rejecting Initiative 71 and preventing the measure from taking 
effect," the analysis states.

The initiative passed by D.C. voters would make it legal to possess 
up to 2 ounces of marijuana and for D.C. residents to grow up to six 
marijuana plants in their homes. The ballot measure does not set up a 
scheme by which marijuana could be bought and sold, but city 
lawmakers already have begun drafting regulations and a taxation mechanism.

Keith Humphreys, a professor at Stanford University who studies drug 
policy, agrees that the treaty concerns make the District a special 
case when it comes to marijuana legalization.

"This is not as clear-cut as Oregon or Alaska, which are not party to 
international treaties," Mr. Humphreys said. "If Congress doesn't 
act, this would be pushing it further than what has happened so far."

"For the states, it may be pushing the spirit of the treaties, but 
the letter of the treaties are fine. This would be going against the 
treaties more directly," Mr. Humphreys said.

Other than a dent in its credibility on the international stage, it's 
doubtful the United States risks any irreparable harm if marijuana 
legalization is allowed to take effect in the District, he said.

"It's not important in the grand scheme of marijuana, but it is 
interesting as a signal of whether this Congress cares about that 
international agreement or not," Mr. Humphreys said. "Life goes 
easier if people trust the United States. There are advantages to 
making our behavior conducive to international agreements."

Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy 
Alliance, which supported the legalization initiative, doesn't think 
lawmakers will rally the political will necessary to block the 
legalization initiative. Fear that the measure would violate 
international treaties is also unlikely to stir up support, he said.

"I think these international drug conventions turn out to be a really 
minor issue in all of this discussion, and the really important issue 
will be how many states keep setting up tax-and-regulate systems," 
Mr. Nadelmann said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom