Do these three “legal marijuana” measures mean that those three places are going to have legal weed shops on every corner (that’s hyperbole, by the way) like in Denver? Or do they just mean that the cops aren’t going to confiscate your smoke and/or bust you if you get caught with x grams or less?
Here in Oregon, plans are under way to open smoke shops just like Colorado and Washington already have. I assume the same is true of Alaska, but I have my doubts about DC. Considering the fact that DC is the home of the federal government, I predict they will be much more likely to get their panties in a bunch over what’s happening right there at home, as opposed to states that are a couple thousand miles away.
Never mind…
DC does not have a detailed proposal for how marijuana may be sold here. In fact, this was an issue in the mayor’s race, with candidates having different views on how the measure ought to be implemented. There is also the possibility that the Republican Congress could simply reject the ballot measure, because any new law in DC is basically subject to congressional review before it can be implement.
As a Washingtonian who believes marijuana should be legal, I continue to maintain that these measures are absolutely the wrong way to go about it.
For starters, federal law still declares marijuana to be illegal. Obama has been fairly tolerant of these laws, but in the long run they are inherently unconstitutional due to the supremacy clause, and any future president could easily ruin everyone’s day and raid all the “legal” pot shops in these states, and would do so with the full legitimacy of the law on their side.
Secondly (and IMO more importantly), these referenda provide workers absolutely no protection from their employers. If my employer picked me to undergo a random drug test (which federal law says they have the right to do) and I tested positive for marijuana (which, due to the way UA works, could mean I did the stuff anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks before the screening), they would have the right to terminate me without prejudice and deny me unemployment benefits.
I don’t believe marijuana is any worse than alcohol or tobacco, and I believe it should be made legal for adults to buy and consume. The proper way to do that is at the federal level, either by an act of Congress or administrative action at the DEA. These initiatives are well-intentioned, but they’re the wrong way about it and they put the growers, retailers, and users all in a gray area where they could easily end up doing hard time for participating in an act that one arm of the government told them was OK while another said that it wasn’t, and that’s just not fair to anyone.
…That being said, here in WA the voters gave control of cannabis licenses to the Liquor Board, which has assigned a fixed number of stores per county based on population. (My county, with a population around 100,000, got seven.) They awarded the licenses to the initial applicants in a lottery, and no new store can open unless an existing one closes or the number of stores allotted changes due to population increase or decrease. It seems like a fair system to me.
Or, maybe they are absolutely the right way to go about it. 
Yes, in the short run there is a limbo state where state and federal law disagree. But if enough states pass their own legislation legalizing marijuana before the federal government takes action in modifying the Controlled Substances Act to allow for its use, the law will be that much stronger and more resistant to challenges. A change to this law made by fiat would be hard to pass, and would rally many conservatives to push for its repeal if it was passed.
By allowing states to slowly take the issue on, not only does show that there is popular support for the repeal, but it also allows for working out the kinks and mechanics of exactly how the drug should be controlled. There does not appear to be any one best solution at this point.
I’m afraid I really don’t see that happening. The states that have legalized marijuana so far are either of the hardcore liberal crowd (OR, WA, CO) or the libertarian/screw-the-federal-government-crowd (AK, DC). I could see California joining in and maybe one or two more of the more libertarian-leaning states (NH and VT, I’m looking in your direction) joining in in '16, but I don’t know if beyond that there’s enough of a public will that’s ready to buck federal law on the issue.
In the end, though, the final decision really does need to be made at the federal level, though. The Supreme Court placed the issue of marijuana legalization firmly in Congress’ court in Gonzales v. Raich; any action by the states is merely an act of nullification until they address the matter directly.
Colorado is hardly hard-core liberal. It is probably the most evenly divided state in the country between left and right.
The marijuana vote was also a bi-partisan one there. The Republican vote was close to 50%, and if so many old people weren’t Republicans, it’d have been over 50% support. People over 65 were the only demographic group that were strongly against it (in Colorado).
You’re kidding, right? “People over 65” are the people that popularized “Janie.” We are the children of the '60s, the decade of Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll.
Not kidding. The pre-election polling and the exit polling both showed the same results. People 30-39 were in favor 65% to 35%. 40-64 were in favor 52%-48%. People 65 and older were opposed 32% in favor to 68% opposed.
Missouri is getting in on this action, too. I’m not really clear on if Show-Me Cannabis has already gotten the 165k signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot, or if they’re getting ready to pound the pavement to get the signatures.
Regardless, if it gets on the ballot for 2016, I will bet you dollar to donuts that there will be a media campaign against legalization, funded either secretly or openly by Anheuser-Busch.
[Aside]A little over a month ago, I moved from Illinois to Missouri. The change in governance here is staggering. Ballot initiatives are not a thing in Illinois.[/aside]
In DC, there are two,different issues: there is medical marijuana and then there is the decriminilozation of possession of marijuana for recreational use. The decriminilozation allows for the growing and giving away of marihuana, but not the sale of it. For the medical marijuana, the city is specifically trying to avoid what happened in California and Colorado and limit it’s use to the legitimately ill.