Pubdate: Tue, 16 Dec 2014
Source: Washington Times (DC)
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Times, LLC.
Contact:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492
Page: B2

UP IN SMOKE

It's Too Soon to Roll a Marijuana Joint in the District of Columbia

The most deceitful provisions in the $1.1 trillion spending bill 
passed by the lame-duck Congress are pinata provisions tucked in with 
the substantial. The Democrats were trying to get while the getting was good.

But not every pinata provision in the spending bill is bad. The 
Republicans attached a rider to the measure expressing disapproval of 
the attempt to legalize recreational marijuana. It's a signal of more 
to come. District of Columbia voters approved legalizing small 
quantities of pot for recreational purposes on Nov. 4, by a margin of 
2-to-1. But under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the 
District proposes and Congress disposes. After the 
Republican-controlled House sent a clear anti-pot message, potheads 
and their friends marched to Capitol Hill for a sit-in in the offices 
of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to register their displeasure.

"The best thing that could happen here, the only good thing," D.C. 
Council member David Grosso told The Washington Post, "is that people 
around the country may finally realize that the will of the people in 
D.C. [is not respected]."

"It's totally disturbing," said Adam Eidinger, who led the D.C. 
legalization effort. "It's entirely undemocratic." He calls 
recreational marijuana "the No. 1 civil rights issue of our day" and 
fumes that Congress violates direct democracy and the will of the 
people. The claim that Congress has no business overturning the will 
of the voters of the District is totally refuted by the fact that the 
District, unlike the states, is a creature of Congress.

Many of the liberals who decry what they call congressional 
short-circuiting of democracy routinely applaud when liberal federal 
judges short-circuit the will of the people in respect to, for 
example, gay marriage. Over the past 18 months, more than a third of 
the states have watched state laws or state constitutional amendments 
defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman invalidated 
by the federal courts that ignored the clear language of the Ninth 
and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, reserving powers not 
explicitly granted to the federal government to the states and to the people.

Nor is the large margin by which D.C. voters approved the pot 
referendum the point. Mississippi, for example, voted by 86 percent 
to ban gay marriage in 2004, and this was invalidated by a federal 
judge without a peep of liberal protest. (The ruling has been stayed 
on appeal.)

"I'm accepting concepts for a #DCdemocracy Statue to be erected near 
Capitol next year," Mr. Eidinger wrote Monday in a Twitter message 
that was retweeted by the D.C. Cannabis Campaign and posted on its 
website. Another tweet, from the D.C. Cannabis Campaign, took aim at 
Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, a Republican who proposed the rider 
language blocking pot legalization in the District. The tweet asked: 
"Can businesses actually refuse service to Andy Harris?" (The answer is no.)

Mr. Harris reasonably proposes that the District, which has no 
shortage of problems, should wait to see how pot legalization shakes 
out in Colorado and Washington state before it follows. That's merely 
democratic, and sage advice besides. The jury of public opinion is 
still out in those states.

"The takeaway is that if Congress passes this amendment, it will have 
taken the position that it is way too early to proceed with 
legalization in the District of Columbia," Mr. Harris says, "and I 
think that most people think we should wait for more scientific 
evidence from states that have attempted legalization."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom