States Pressed Into New Role on Marijuana
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('States Pressed Into New Role on Marijuana');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

States Pressed Into New Role on Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on October 26, 2009 at 06:19:31 PT
By Kirk Johnson
Source: New York Times
Greeley, Colo. -- Health and law enforcement officials around the nation are scrambling to figure out how to regulate medical marijuana now that the federal government has decided it will no longer prosecute legal users or providers.For years, since the first medical marijuana laws were passed in the mid-1990s, many local and state governments could be confident, if not complacent, knowing that marijuana would be kept in check because it remained illegal under federal law, and that hard-nosed federal prosecutors were not about to forget it.
But with the Justice Department’s announcement last week that it would not prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes in states where it is legal, local and state officials say they will now have to take on the job themselves. In New Hampshire, for instance, where some state legislators are considering a medical marijuana law, there is concern that the state health department — already battered by budget cuts — could be hard-pressed to administer the system. In California, where there has been an explosion of medical marijuana suppliers, the authorities in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions are considering a requirement that all medical dispensaries operate as nonprofit organizations.“The federal government says they’re not going to control it, so the only other option we have is to control it ourselves,” said Carrol Martin, a City Council member in this community north of Denver, where a ban on marijuana dispensaries was on the agenda at a Council meeting the day after the federal announcement.At least five states, including New York and New Jersey, are considering laws to allow medical marijuana through legislation or voter referendums, in addition to the 13 states where such laws already exist. Even while that is happening, scores of local governments in California, Colorado and other states have gone the other way and imposed bans or moratoriums on distribution even though state law allows it.Some health and legal experts say the Justice Department’s decision will promote the spread of marijuana for medical uses because local and state officials often take leadership cues from federal policy. That, the experts said, could lead to more liberal rules in states that already have medical marijuana and to more voters and legislators in other states becoming comfortable with the idea of allowing it. For elected officials who have feared looking soft on crime by backing any sort of legalized marijuana use, the new policy might provide support to reframe the issue.“The fact that the feds are backing off is going to allow changes that are going to make it more accessible,” said Bill Morrisette, a state senator in Oregon and chairman of a committee that oversees the state’s medical marijuana law. Mr. Morrisette said he expected a flurry of proposals in the Legislature, including a plan already floated to have the state grow the marijuana crop itself, perhaps on the grounds of the State Penitentiary in Salem.“It would be very secure,” he said.Here in Greeley, anxiety and enthusiasm were on display as the City Council considered a ban on dispensaries.Most of those who testified at the hearing, including several dispensary operators, opposed the ban and spoke of marijuana’s therapeutic benefits and the taxes that dispensary owners were willing to pour into Greeley’s budget, which has been battered by the recession.But on the seven-member Council, the question was control. Mr. Martin, for example, said that he hated to see the spread of marijuana, but that the barricades had fallen. Still, he said he opposed a local ban on dispensaries.“If we have no regulations at all, then we can’t control it, and our police officers have their hands tied,” Mr. Martin said.Mayor Ed Clark, a former police officer, took the opposite tack in supporting the ban, which passed on a 6-to-1 vote.“I think we do regulate them, by not allowing dispensaries,” Mr. Clark said. The backdrop to the debate here in Colorado is a sharp expansion in marijuana dispensaries and patients, fueled in part by the State Board of Health decision in July not to impose limits on the number of patients handled by each marijuana provider.The state attorney general, John W. Suthers, said the federal government’s retreat, combined with the growth in demand, had created a legal vacuum.“The federal Department of Justice is saying it will only go after you if you’re in violation of state law,” Mr. Suthers said. “But in Colorado it’s not clear what state law is.”In New Hampshire, by contrast, where the state legislature is scheduled to meet this week to consider overriding the governor’s veto and passing a medical marijuana law, government downsizing has colored the debate.The state agency that would be responsible for licensing marijuana dispensaries has been battered by budget cuts, said Senator Sylvia B. Larsen, the president of the New Hampshire Senate and a Democrat. Concerns about the department, Ms. Larsen said, have made it harder to find two more votes in the Senate to reach a two-thirds majority that is needed to override a veto by Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat.An even odder situation is unfolding in Maine, which already allows medical marijuana and where residents will vote next month on a measure that would create a new system of distribution and licensing.The marijuana proposal, several political experts said, has been overshadowed by another fight on the ballot that would overturn a state law and ban same-sex marriage.The added wrinkle is that opponents of same-sex marriage, said Christian Potholm, a professor of government at Bowdoin College, have heavily recruited young, socially conservative voters, who by and large tend to not be concerned about medical marijuana expansion.“The 18- to 25-year-old vote is going to be overrepresented because of the gay marriage situation, so overrepresented in favor of medical marijuana,” Professor Potholm said.Some legal scholars said the federal government, by deciding not to enforce its own laws (possession and the sale of marijuana remain federal crimes), has introduced an unpredictable variable into the drug regulation system.“The next step would be a particular state deciding to legalize marijuana entirely,” said Peter J. Cohen, a doctor and a lawyer who teaches public health law at Georgetown University. If federal prosecutors kept their distance even then, Dr. Cohen said, legalized marijuana would become a de facto reality.Senator Morrisette in Oregon said he thought that exact situation — a state moving toward legalization, perhaps California — could play out much sooner now than might have been imagined even a few weeks ago. And the continuing recession would only help, he said, with advocates for legalization able to promise relief to an overburdened prison system and injection of tax revenues to the state budget.A version of this article appeared in print on October 26, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.Source: New York Times (NY)Author: Kirk JohnsonPublished: October 26, 2009Copyright: 2009 The New York Times CompanyContact: letters nytimes.comWebsite: Medical Marijuana Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on October 26, 2009 at 20:18:41 PT
NY Times
wow, this article reads like begrudging acceptance. Look at the last paragraph - could the Times be coming around???What's good for all history, must come back
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FiddleMan on October 26, 2009 at 13:17:11 PT
Make Cannabis Laws Simple to Understand!
Regulate & Tax Cannabis in EXACTLY the same way that Alcohol is already taxed & regulated! What's not to understand? Law enforcement already understands Alcohol regulation - so - if they understand Alcohol Regulation then they will have NOTHING NEW TO LEARN with Cannabis Regulation! Make Cannabis available to ALL citizens!Legalize Cannabis Now!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by rancher on October 26, 2009 at 13:01:21 PT:
WE the people must determine state policies 
The Obabma administration announcement opens the door. But we better be careful what comes next. Oregon has been struggling with a lack of a supply system. The legislature has been afraid to do anything. We are petitioning to put Initiative 28 on the November 2010 ballot. This adds a regulated dispensary system to the Oregon law. We now have almost 70,000 signatures. We need 82,000 valid signatures to qualify. The I 28 system will be the best in the country. The rules for dispensaries and producers will be crystal clear. And producers will be able to get their own license. They won't have to be part of some "collective" like in Califonia. Dispensaries won't be limited to three, like in Rhode Island. This initiative, drafted by patients, will have to compete with bills the Oregon legislature is considering. This article quotes Senator Morrisette talking about growing the medical marijuana at the state prison. And Morrisette is one of the friendly legislators. We hope to keep the marijuana growing in the gardens of legitimate marijuana farmers where it belongs. That why we are doing an initiative.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 26, 2009 at 11:12:23 PT
From The NYTs Blog
Suddenly, What Ails Them is What Medical Marijuana is Good ForOctober 26, 2009Denver, CO -- Like other states, Colorado is trying to figure out how to deal with the United States Department of Justice’s announcement last week that users and providers of medical marijuana will not be prosecuted when they are in compliance with state law. Here in Colorado, local officials say that a big concern is a surge in new users of the drug, which Colorado’s top health official, James B. Martin, called “an abuse of the system.”URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by The GCW on October 26, 2009 at 09:10:59 PT
???"But in Colorado it’s not clear what state law is.”???I disagree with the notion that, "in Colorado it’s not clear what state law is.”It's only unclear to idiots. The difference today compared to a few years ago is that today there are fewer idiots.Less idiots today are due to cannabis activists etc. educating dumb dumbs.Cannabis prohibition is idiot dependant.Cannabis prohibition requires that people in uniform and political office remain idiots. That's not going to happen as long as there is a growing population of cannabis activists.STOP CAGING A PLANT
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment