Republicans Weigh D.C. Residents' Vote to Decriminalize MJ

[RainDog]

Washington D.C. legislators recently voted to decriminalize marijuana in the nation's capital. Because of the set up for D.C. representation, their laws must be approved by the federal Congress before they are enacted. In these cases, Congress has 60 days to weigh the law before it is passed.

That 60 day period is coming nigh.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Friday that the Government Operations subpanel, led by Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), will examine the new law when Congress returns from its two-week spring recess.

Although D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) signed the measure on Monday, the unique rules governing the nation's capitol grant Congress 60 days to review – and possibly block – the proposal before it takes effect.
Such a rejection is highly unusual, as it would require action by both the House and Senate. But a public hearing would offer critics – including a number of conservatives on the Oversight panel – a forum to air their concerns in an election year.

He suggested the examination would focus on the enforcement questions created by the discrepancies between federal marijuana laws and those enacted by state and local governments – an issue even more complicated in the case of D.C., which falls under partial control of Congress.

“The will of a city versus the will of the nation is always going to be a bit of a challenge, and we're seeing this unfold [with the marijuana law]," Issa told The Hill Friday. “This is an area in transition where The District neither should lead nor be held unreasonably not to be able to follow. And so how it gets reviewed in light of the federal enforcement and so on I think remains to be seen.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/202720-house-gop-to-examine-dc-bill-to-legalize-marijuana#ixzz30snAbWM0
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Issa is also one of the Republicans who crafted a bill to tell Obama to enforce federal law in states that have legalized marijuana - AND want to be able to sue President Obama for the same.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/13/house-gop-passes-bill-to-force-obama-to-crack-down-on-legal-weed-in-states-that-allow-it/

Legislation approved by House Republicans would seek to force President Barack Obama to crack down on marijuana in states that have made the drug legal for medical or recreational use.

The House passed the Enforce the Law Act by a vote of 233-181 on Wednesday, March 12th. The bill was introduced by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) to allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute laws.

“The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the Executive to enforce them,” Gowdy said Wednesday in a statement. “We don’t pass suggestions. We don’t pass ideas. We pass laws. Regardless of our politics, I hope my colleagues have enough regard for our work to expect those laws would be faithfully executed.”

A committee report submitted by Goodlatte cited the Obama administration’s decision to not intervene with marijuana legalization efforts in various states as an example of executive overreach.

Isn't it interesting that Republicans are only interested in states' rights when they can take freedom away from Americans - but any time a grass roots campaign seeks to make America less of of right wing authoritarian paradise - they're suddenly in favor of federal law - and a lawsuit against a President who is, in fact, following the law?

Prosecutorial discretion allows the Attn. Gen. to decide which situations require the greatest oversight - even tho, within the constitution, the Supremacy Clause places federal law above state law.

However, the federal govt. cannot compel state law enforcement to implement federal law. Therefore, in order to overturn the will of the people in states with legal marijuana, federal agents would have to go to those states to enforce the law.

THIS is why it is so important for numerous states to create changes in their laws - to overwhelm the federal capacity to enforce unwanted law.

When various states passed decriminalization laws in the 70s and 80s in response to Nixon's refusal to follow the DEA judge's recommendation to decriminalize - this issue of paying for enforcement was a primary reason those laws remained intact.

When state after state passed laws making medical mj legal - this issue of paying for enforcement was a primary reason those laws have remained intact (but it's also the reason why the DEA raids state-legal medical mj providers from time to time and prosecutes some in "show trials" to create an environment of uncertainty regarding laws the majority of the population favors. Since the late 1990s, more than 70% of the American public has favored legal medical mj. Since CO and WA's votes to fully legalize, more than 50% (Gallup had one poll at 58%) want to end the war on marijuana. This number is growing as more Americans see the tax revenues from legal, regulated marijuana - and see that legal marijuana does not destroy civilization as we know it.)

[Hestia]

1. Oh, there are hundreds of laws on the books that the pugs choose not to enforce nor fund

selective reasoning or whatever gets me elected

[RainDog]

2. Why do Republicans want to deny state tax revenues to liberal states?

Why aren't Republicans targeting the Hemp provision in the farm bill, since hemp is considered a schedule I substance, even tho someone would have to smoke a telephone pole sized joint to notice any effect? That doesn't matter to the DEA - because they are afraid of any normalization of cannabis - whether it's psychotropic of not.

They certainly are "selective" about enforcement since the hemp bill got passed b/c Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was the one who made sure those 10 states (KY is one of them) who have legalized hemp were able to continue to experiment on its industrial/ag uses.

Holder noted the AG office would let the experiment go forward in these states - with the proviso that cartel members and children were left out of legalization efforts.

Colorado Pulls In Millions In Marijuana Tax Revenue

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/03/11/its-no-toke-colorado-pulls-in-millions-in-marijuana-tax-revenue/

Colorado pulled in $2 million in taxes related to the sale of recreational marijuana…in January 2014 alone. Combined with taxes on sales from medicinal marijuana, the state pulled in nearly $3.5 million in pot-related tax revenue. If that trend continues, the state will see more than $40 million in additional tax dollars in 2014. To put that in perspective, that’s approximately 1% of the total annual budgets for Delaware, South Dakota, Montana or West Virginia.

There are a couple of layers of tax in place on the sale of marijuana. To begin with, there’s a 10% state sales tax imposed on retail marijuana and marijuana products on top of 2.9% in existing state sales tax (this is in addition to any local sales tax). As with other taxable products in Colorado, the tax is on the final consumer and cannot be included in the advertised price. Together with local sales taxes and special taxes, the tax imposed on consumers in Denver on the purchase of marijuana can reach as high as 21.12% (pdf available at link). Denver County accounted for more than half of all medicinal and recreational marijuana related sales tax revenue, while outside of the capital, taxes can be closer to 13%. No matter the level of tax, sales were pretty healthy statewide, with $14.02 million worth of recreational pot sold.

People are willing to pay sales taxes in order to have legal marijuana - just as states tax alcohol sales - but, for some reason, Republicans are opposed to states that are growing their economies by growing their own weed.

Republicans aren't the party of personal freedom - they're the party that wants laws that can be selectively applied to punish minority voters - who are less likely to use cannabis (tho usage rates are fairly similar). But don't even suggest that guns should be regulated - while states with legal mj have created a regulated market - and Colorado citizens, a recent poll showed, are happy with the legalization vote - except for the Republican-voting geezer contingent.

[RainDog]

3. Holder told Congress in April

That he would be happy to work with them to reschedule cannabis.

Why is the executive branch more aligned with the will of the American voter than Congress?

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration would be willing to work with Congress if lawmakers want to take marijuana off the list of what the federal government considers the most dangerous drugs, Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday.

"We'd be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a desire to look at and reexamine how the drug is scheduled, as I said there is a great degree of expertise that exists in Congress," Holder said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. "It is something that ultimately Congress would have to change, and I think that our administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal were made."

Several members of Congress have called on the administration to downgrade cannabis on its own without waiting for congressional action. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the attorney general has the authority to "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule." Holder didn't indicate Friday that he would be willing to do that unilaterally.

Although there haven't been any documented cases of deaths from overdosing on marijuana, the federal government treats it as a Schedule I drug with a "high potential for abuse," along with heroin, LSD and Ecstasy.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/eric-holder-reschedule-marijuana_n_5092010.html