Marijuana

Andy Harris Explains Why He Blocked Marijuana Legalization in D.C., Although It Looks Like He Didn't

|

Office of Andy Harris

In a Washingon Post op-ed piece published last Friday, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) defends his attempt to block marijuana legalization in the nation's capital. Harris and his co-author, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) argue that 1) marijuana is dangerous, 2) Congress has the constitutional authority to dictate public policy in the District of Columbia, and 3) allowing marijuana legalization there "would create legal chaos."

Harris and Pitts devote most of their words to the first point, which is the least relevant. Marijuana, like every other psychoactive drug, can cause problems when used inappropriately or excessively. But as the president and his drug czar have admitted, marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol in that respect. Last month D.C. voters overwhelmingly agreed that it makes no sense to treat cannabis consumers like criminals when drinkers suffer no such harassment and punishment. Harris and Pitts evidently disagree. But if, as they claim, they believe "the people of the District should have a local government that is tailored to their needs," why override the voters' judgment on this matter?

Harris and Pitts are right that Congress has the legal power to do so, but that does not mean it should. Nor does that mean it has. As I have pointed out, the rider that Harris inserted into the omnibus spending bill Congress passed last week bars the District from spending money to "enact" laws decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana. But Initiative 71, which legalizes possession, home cultivation, and sharing of marijuana, was enacted the day that voters approved it by a 2-to-1 margin. It takes effect automatically unless Congress passes (and President Obama signs) a joint resolution rejecting it. Congress must do so no later than 30 legislative days after D.C. Council President Phil Mendelson officially transmits the initiative, which he still plans to do next month. "The duty to transmit is not discretionary in my view," Mendelson told reporters yesterday. He elaborated in an interview with Roll Call:

I'm not trying to defy anybody. I'm responsible for transmitting the initiative. I have a very clear requirement in the Home Rule Act to transmit the legislation. Congress has the ability to step in when that legislation is transmitted, so I don't see anything that's provocative here and I certainly don't intend any provocation.

The problem for Harris is that getting a joint resolution passed (let alone getting the president to sign it) before the review period elapses would be much tougher to accomplish than attaching a rider to a must-pass spending bill at the end of a legislative session. So he will continue to insist that his rider not only blocks the D.C. Council's plans to license and regulate marijuana businesses but also nullifies Initiative 71, even though there seems to be a strong legal case that he's wrong.

Assuming Harris is wrong, will "legal chaos" ensue? Harris and Pitts worry that "individuals possessing an amount of marijuana legal by District law could find themselves arrested and prosecuted after they walk into a federal building or step into a federal park." But the same sort of potential exists in states that legalize marijuana. In fact, the federal government controls more of the land in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington state than it does in Washington, D.C. Yet Colorado and Washingtion, which legalized possession two years ago, seem to be managing all right. Cannabis consumers in Alaska and Oregon likewise will have to keep in mind the risks they face if they venture into a federal courthouse or national park with weed in their pockets. Probably they will prefer such chaos to a more orderly system in which they can be arrested everywhere they go.

NEXT: L.A.'s Higher Minimum Wage for Hotel Workers Really a Tax on Non-Union Labor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The only legal chaos I see is when the DC cops keep busting people for possession, and they start asserting the initiative as a defense.

    1. Knowing this asshat he probably twists his mind into thinking it’s a small government thing. After all, if you take away the Metropolitan PD’s ability to steal private property and auction it, they’ll need more in federal appropriations next year.

  2. Alcohol is dangerous, like guns, which spontaneously go off and kill people! No agency by humans involved!

  3. If this two dipshits don’t have anything better to do, I have some gutters that need cleaning.

    1. I’m not surprised that Joe Pitts is involved. I was invited to a constituents’ breakfast by him (after answering a questionnaire sent by him- I wrote in “End the insane War on Drugs”) and sat next to a born-again anti-abortion couple and across from a pro choice woman. After he answered a question on some bill dealing with abortion with a five minute answer, we all wondered what his position on abortion was.

      1. From this, I concluded that most people just throw those questionnaires in the trash.

  4. But as the president and his drug czar have admitted

    Not exactly what I would call “beacons of truth”.

    1. Fair enough. The CDC, NIH and nearly every peer-reviewed journal article on the negative health impacts comparing booze, tobacco and marijuana.

  5. DC and Congress need to sign something akin to the Lateran Treaty and get the city proper into Maryland or Virginia. The only part of DC that should be under the control of Congress should be Federal properties.

    1. Fuck no, Maryland is already bad enough, we don’t want those assholes. Virginia can have them.

  6. From the text of his amendment, President Obama could render it a nullity instantly by ordering the DEA to reschedule marijuana even just to Schedule II.

    1. Well, a nullity as it applies to marijuana. It would still apply to other Schedule I drugs.

    2. Yes but that would be Obama doing a right/good thing and we all know he is not very good at that.

  7. This jacka$$ and Kevin Sabet are marijuana’s enemy #1. Two morons on the same page of a wrong book. You can promise yourself that both of these propaganda using liars have a pocket full of pharmaceutical money because it is the only way people in their position can truly be against legalization.

    1. “You can promise yourself that both of these propaganda using liars have a pocket full of pharmaceutical money because it is the only way people in their position can truly be against legalization.”

      Not true — there are plenty of other ways people in their position could truly be against legalization:
      1. They could have a pocketful of money from the for-profit prison industry or its step-child the for-profit drug rehab industry.
      2. They could have a pocketful of money from pro-law enforcement organizations who don’t want to see their gravy train with biscuit wheels get derailed by a deescalation of the war on drugs.
      3. They could have a pocketful of money from they myriad of other industries that have sprung up to support the Prohibition Economy, such as drug testing labs and companies that specialize in training cops to improve their asset forfeiture skills.
      4. They could be taking their bribes directly from the cartels.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.