Congress Plans to Allow Legal Marijuana in D.C. but Not Legal Marijuana Businesses

Office of Andy Harris

Under an agreement between Senate Democrats and House Republicans, National Journal reports, omnibus spending legislation that Congress needs to pass this week will include a rider that prevents Washington, D.C., from taxing and regulating marijuana. But the bill will not override Initiative 71, the marijuana legalization measure that D.C. voters approved by a 2-to-1 margin last month.

Initiative 71 makes it legal for adults 21 or older to possess two ounces or less of marijuana in public, share up to an ounce at a time with each other, and grow up to six plants at home, where they will be allowed to keep whatever those plants produce. Because of legal limits on the changes that can be made through ballot measures, the initiative does not address commercial production and distribution, but the D.C. Council is considering legislation that would. The congressional rider, demanded by hard-line prohibitionists such as Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), would bar the District from spending money to license and regulate marijuana businesses.

Comments

[Episiarch]

It's embarrassing that even DC's initiative is better than Washington State's. We technically can't grow our own, though enforcement of such is doubtful in the extreme.

[Riven]

At least you're ahead of Montana.

[Libertarian]

"omnibus spending legislation that Congress needs to pass this week will include a rider that prevents Washington, D.C., from taxing and regulating marijuana"

An anti-tax, anti-regulation rider? Crikey, the GOP majority is already making a difference! Huzzah!

[Swiss Servator, Winter kommt!]

Curse you and your speedy typing!

[Warren's Strapon]

Like you, I was failing to see the problem here.

[Mainer2]

Well yeah....you can be in the marijuana business and DC is forbidden to tax or regulate...somehow I doubt that means what I think it does.

[Swiss Servator, Winter kommt!]

If they cannot tax it or regulate it....sounds good to me.

[Juice]

I wonder if the language is such that sale and distribution are not actually outlawed. That would be awesome.

[Zeb]

The ideal, of course, would be to have open commerce in whatever product anyone would buy or sell. But realistically, I think that what DC has ended up with might be the best situation. You can grow your own, you can give it to friends (and then, if they are nice people, those friends could help you out with your electric bill, wink wink). And the stupid DC government can't start up with a bunch of dumb taxes and regulations.

I'd take that in my state in a second.

[Poppa Kilo]

Has the required 'joint session' joke been made yet?

[Swiss Servator, Winter kommt!]

Not that I see....go ahead.

[Hugh Akston]

The peasants of DC must be very grateful that their masters are so indulgent.

[Bardas Phocas]

oh, they are.

[Mainer2]

Sounds like they think that a business that isn't licensed or regulated can't exist.

[R C Dean]

Ding ding. We have a winner.

"If we don't give permission, it can't happen!"

[Juice]

I don't know of any place in the US where that's not the case. If you don't have a license for your store, you can't operate legally.

[Reverend Draco]

I think this could be a good thing. . . follow me.

D.C. is a Federal Enclave Cannabis cannot be legal in a Federal Enclave, and be Federally Illegal Cannabis is now legal on a Federal level.

It allows Congress to give tacit consent to legalization, without having to put their careers on the line by standing up in full session and voting to legalize.

[Ornithorhynchus]

The best thing would be for DC to simply refuse to prosecute anyone for selling it, de facto legalisation. Or at least refuse to prosecute under certain circumstances, similar to the Netherlands. As long as it's done as a prosecutorial matter, it shouldn't count as 'regulation'.

Another possibility might be to regulate and tax the package the weed comes in, but not the weed itself. But the Feds might take them to court over that, and I'm not certain it would hold up.