Congress may block marijuana legalization in Washington, DC

[Beta Test Team]

Repost:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=6696097&postcount=13

I'm not so sure...

I read that growing is still legal, at home, but there is no funding for the new law. So that the law wasn't gutted completely, it's that all funding for the program is gone, but the law is still the law.

I'll see if I can find the article again. From my understanding the Dems caved on the funding to the Repbs, but the Dems were able to keep the law itself from the Rep's ax, so growing at home is legal, for example.

So basically, people can still grow 6 plants at home, and keep the bud, etc. But there are no funds to make a cannabis industry.

So the will of the voters did get thrown out the window, in part.

News items:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...lization-is-part-of-debate-over-spending-bill
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/09/congress-plans-to-allow-legal-marijuana
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/congress-will-block-d-c-pot-referendum-20141209

The actual omnibus rider that defunds the industry, but doesn't affect growing at home, start on page 213, section 538:
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf

 

[Betterhaff]

The actual omnibus rider that defunds the industry, but doesn't affect growing at home, start on page 213, section 538:
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf

Sec 538 pertains to States (and DC) that already have medical marijuana legislation on the books. None of the funds in this bill can be used by the DOJ to interfere with their state laws. Actually this is a pretty big deal.
<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
This has nothing to do with Initiative 71 and does not affect the medical program in DC which I don’t believe is up and running yet.<o></o>
</SECTION>

 

[Beta Test Team]

Sec 538 pertains to States (and DC) that already have medical marijuana legislation on the books. None of the funds in this bill can be used by the DOJ to interfere with their state laws. Actually this is a pretty big deal.
<!--?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /--><o></o>
This has nothing to do with Initiative 71 and does not affect the medical program in DC which I don’t believe is up and running yet.<o></o>

I'm not so sure. Why do you think so? My understanding is this does affect the new D.C. law, in that no funds can go to its operation by the government so the industry is dead in the water, in D.C., but growing at home, etc., is still legal.

That is what is being cited as defunding the program in DC.

For example, from the National Journal:

The sweeping omnibus appropriations bill includes a provision that appears to prohibit the District of Columbia from spending any taxpayer funds to carry out marijuana legalization. It does not, however, affect a separate decriminalization measure passed by the City Council this spring, and leaves the city's medical-marijuana infrastructure intact. The exact meaning of the language, which Republicans and Democrats appeared to be interpreting differently, will be more clear when the House and Senate Appropriations Committees issue full reports explaining the legislation's implications.

And Reason:

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.

Other interesting on-topic news stories, one on the anti-Cannabis zealot in DC gov., Andy Harris:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/omnibus-marijuana-_n_6301600.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/dc-marijuana-blocked-congress_n_6298584.html

 

[Beta Test Team]

Sec 538 pertains to States (and DC) that already have medical marijuana legislation on the books. None of the funds in this bill can be used by the DOJ to interfere with their state laws. Actually this is a pretty big deal.

Yup, big deal for sure: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=6696212#post6696212

The wall in coming down.

 

[Jhhnn]

Word has it that the Vote will all but be negated by a blocking of the Legalization. I don't know if this will cause more rebellion, but it can;'t help but add to the 'disconnect' our Gummint enjoys from the bulk of the 'Murkin people.

The only thing that'll be blocked is a retail production & sales scheme. The DC govt can't spend money to create it. Not busting people for growing their own or for possession is free & Congress can't stop that.

It's like legalization everywhere else. The locals can't bust you, & if you're following the rules in your state, or DC, the Feds won't bust you either under current guidelines. Turning that around after 2016 will be impossible.

In DC, Congress facilitates the black market entirely while denying the city revenue. If we think about it at all, retail pot shops in the Nation's capital would undermine prohibitionists' position entirely, strike a death blow to their cause. Somehow, they entertain the notion that they can still win despite being stripped of the necessary weaponry in state after state. When the Obama Admin came down on the side of legalization in CO & WA, they were doomed.

 

[Betterhaff]

I'm not so sure. Why do you think so?

I think there is some debate over the interpretation of the language. I haven’t read Initiative 71 or all 1600 some pages of the appropriations bill (which I’m sure all members of the house and senate have, lol). But I don’t think there were any provisions in the initiative concerning setting up any kind of distribution or retail in DC as they knew that would be dead in the water. Another thing is the bill hasn’t passed intact yet.

It may be an enforcement thing. Federal and local funds may not be used for enforcement or implementation and that could go either way.

Here’s some more info, read the section pertaining to DC. There also a section about Drug Controls Programs, where ever that is in the omnibus.

http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/finserv_press_summary.pdf

 

[Beta Test Team]

About wording specific to DC about I-71, that wasn't included (as far as I know) and I wouldn't expect it to be, as you pointed out. Once the full report is out (a few weeks?) we'll have a better understanding of Congress's intent with the rider itself, as it relates to DC.

That said, I do believe funding for DC I-71 is now gone, at least until Congress does something about it; I think the rider is going to be used to defund I-71. That link you posted seems to suggest the same, or am I misreading it?

The omnibus bill itself is a must-pass bill to prevent government shutdown, and short of the Senate removing the rider it's pretty much a done deal (as I understand it).

 

[Beta Test Team]

Fingers crossed, but not holding my breath for you DC folks:

[BTW, if any mod is reading this, there are like 5+ threads all with the same topic, it's getting confusing.]



Pelosi Says Legal Weed Still Has A Chance In D.C.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/pelosi-dc-marijuana_n_6316762.html

WASHINGTON -- Republicans are trying to thwart legal weed in the District of Columbia, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) thinks the plant still has a fighting chance.

The "cromnibus" spending bill that the House of Representatives passed Thursday is supposed to stop the marijuana legalization approved by D.C. voters in November, but Pelosi agrees with the congressional Democrats who say there's a loophole, her spokesman Drew Hammill told The Huffington Post on Friday.

That loophole arises from language that reads differently in two pieces of legislation -- the omnibus spending bill and a rider introduced by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and passed by the House. The text of the omnibus says that no funds “may be used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties" associated with the recreational use of drugs illegal under federal law. But where the omnibus says "enact," the Harris rider uses the phrase "carry out."

The question, then, is whether Initiative 71 -- which legalizes the possession of small amounts of marijuana in the District -- should be considered "enacted" as of last month's midterm elections, or whether "enacting" refers to the District Council transmitting the initiative to Congress for review, which has not yet happened.

The District's nonvoting representative in the House, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), has been a leading voice for the pot-friendly reading of the cromnibus.

"Based on a plain reading of the bill and principles of statutory interpretation, it is arguable that the rider does not block D.C. from carrying out its marijuana legalization initiative," Norton said on the House floor Thursday, one day after Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee that oversees the District, advanced the same view.

"Since it can be argued that D.C.’s Initiative 71 is self-executing and that it was enacted when an overwhelming majority of voters supported it in the November elections, this means that Section 809 [of the omnibus] should not apply to the ballot initiative," Serrano said Wednesday. “Based on this premise, the government of the District of Columbia should be able to move forward with the legalization of marijuana despite the rider included in the omnibus bill."

Harris, however, has said the anti-pot intentions of the cromnibus are clear.

Over Pelosi's strong objections, the House narrowly approved the spending bill Thursday evening, hours before the government would have shut down. Pelosi said negotiators should not have included a provision to undo part of the 2010 Wall Street reform legislation.

Last month, nearly 70 percent of voters in the nation’s capital approved of Initiative 71, which provides for the legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use while still banning sales. Dr. Malik Burnett, policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance and vice chairman of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign, said that the will of the voters should be followed and legalization should go into effect. However, he acknowledged that if legalization does happen, Congress could then sue the District to block implementation of the new law, given Harris' anti-pot interpretation of the budget bill. But Burnett was skeptical that such a legal showdown would actually take place.

“Who will litigate this case on behalf of Congress?” Burnett said to HuffPost on Friday. “I don't know if they will find allies at the Justice Department for this effort."

"They also could try to pass a resolution of disapproval, but that seems politically difficult, especially in light of statements by the White House yesterday," he continued. "The President would ultimately need to sign the resolution, if it were even able to pass both the House and the Senate.”

Burnett was referring to remarks by White House press secretary Josh Earnest, who on Thursday said that the administration “does not believe that Congress should spend a lot of time interfering with the ability of citizens in the District of Columbia to make decisions related to how they should govern their community.”

Speaking to HuffPost on Friday, Marijuana Majority’s Tom Angell agreed with Burnett.

“I actually don't think [Congress would] take that dare,” Angell said. "Given that marijuana legalization is much, much more popular with voters than Congress is ... they're probably smart enough to realize that starting a national partisan fight about an issue with such widespread voter support could easily derail larger, unrelated parts of their agenda that they care much more about."

Although multiple states, as well as D.C., have legalized marijuana in some form, the plant remains banned by federal law.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks for that, B. I particularly liked the "Who will litigate this on behalf of Congress?" bit.

DC authorities won't enforce it & current federal enforcement guidelines apply to DC as well as States, I'm sure. Black marketeers will rejoice.

OTOH, it does inhibit DC from spending any money to implement retail. Maybe somebody will start a campaign to gather donations- I'm in for $100 if they do.

 

[dddaver]

I don't think this political compromise bullshit is good at all. Popular vote was sill disregarded no matter what concessions were made that benefited anything that was inevitability all going to happen anyway. Who do they think they are fooling doing this? Maybe accepting baby steps was needed but the voiced will of the democratic vote is the issue and whatever they did beyond that was unconstitutional and absolutely wrong. I don't think anyone should be happy to accept any half measure saying you can't have what the people want but you can have this, which again, WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. But STILL the congress we voted into power went against the democratic ideals the US is supposed to be all about. What does that say to the rest of the world? What does that say to our kids? It says to me why vote at all, they just do what they want anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

The politicos in question are just pandering to their conservative voter base back home, or making a stab at it, anyway. Circling the wagons, playing their usual culture war theme.

It's still a huge win with very positive effects for DC cannabists. They come away with legal carry & personal grow rights, a huge step up from most of the country. I'll bet business is brisk at DC area grow shops. Hell, it gives people reason to move *into* DC rather than away from it.

 

[clips]

Problem i see is with the sec528 says

SEC. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

last part there means this prevents the states to authorize the use of ,distribution,possession,cultivation ...

this is actually violation according to cple cases in the past when fed tried to mandate states or commandeer their legislative process's ... Harris thought he was being sneaky here by adding other states to prevent them too ... Legally congress can only mandate like this on dc alone as it does not have state sovereign power as the states do .

the Supreme Court indicated in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842),
that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement
resources to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this
principle in cases such as Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), which held that the
federal government may not enact a regulatory program that "commandeers"
the state's legislative and administrative mechanisms to enforce
federal law. States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or
administrative resources to enforce federal law. This should be
distinguished from nullification. States that withhold their enforcement
assistance, but do not declare the federal law unconstitutional or
forbid its enforcement, are not challenging the validity of the federal
law and therefore are not engaging in nullification. As Prigg held, the
federal law still is valid and federal authorities may enforce it within
the state. The states in this situation, rather than attempting to
legally nullify federal law, are attempting to make enforcement of
federal law more difficult by refusing to make available their
legislative and administrative resources.

sec .809 still ties the hands from federal enforcement but the section 538 is basically not just stopping wash dc it also affects other states listed by preventing any legal paths [example here in md now cannot effectively put in effect the mmj program that harris best friend who heads the commission , why they delayed implementing ]... This is where MPP and NORML and ASA need to file a lawsuit vs this act specially section 538 using the cases i quoted above thus exempting the other states from this act ... like i said fed may have fucked themselves this time . By the add of the other states in trying to prevent wash dc ..

SEC. 809. (a) None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
(b) None of the funds contained in this Act may be used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative for recreational purposes.

or we can hope that in a recent case takes this issue out of the congress's hand all together .

Judge Mueller said in court, "If the Supreme Court had not dropped
footnote 37 in the Raich case, I might not deny the motion.” That
footnote states: "We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents
in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if
found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of
the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule
I…respondent's submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress' regulatory jurisdiction.”
But perhaps the greatest damage to the government’s case came as a result
of an apparent lapse of attention on the part of the prosecution. NORML
attorney Zenia Gilg managed to elicit numerous responses from Denney on
the nature of the US government’s Investigative New Drug (IND)

program, under which US patients receive free tins of government-grown
cannabis every month to treat severe illnesses, before Bender seemed to
stir, stand and state a valid objection.

It was apparently too late. Calling the objection “belated,” Judge Kimberly Mueller overruled it.

the above quote was quoted from TheLeafOnline ~jeremy daw as he wrote an article on the case.

 

[stoned-trout]

them lazy fucks wouldn't get anything done if they were high..i mean they take forever as it is...politicians suck

 

[Beta Test Team]

There seem to be lots of new threads being made about this topic in this forum. Would be nice to keep all the posts in one topic, but people keep starting new topics that are the same as this one, which only serves to fracture and replicate the discussion.

Here's a new news piece, that hasn't been posted about yet (I think):

D.C. Pols Fight GOP Marijuana Legalization Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/dc-marijuana-ban_n_6336224.html

Ignoring an effort among congressional Republicans to block marijuana legalization in the District of Columbia in the recently passed “cromnibus” spending bill, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) says he intends to submit the new law to Congress anyway.

“The Chairman’s position is that it is his duty to transmit the initiative to Congress and that he intends to do so,” Alana Intrieri, legislative counsel to Mendelson, told The Huffington Post in an email Tuesday.

Though the city is mostly autonomous, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress final say over local laws, which Republicans sometimes block by forbidding the city to use funds to carry them out. Congress has 60 days to veto any city legislation once the council submits it for review. If the House and Senate do nothing, then city bills become law.

There is disagreement over what will happen next to the pot referendum.

Mendelson has said that if Initiative 71 -- which D.C. voters approved last month, and which legalizes the possession of small amounts of marijuana in the District -- makes it through the congressional review process, the District would not be required to spend any money on legalization. In other words, the move to obstruct pot legalization in D.C. would be unsuccessful.

A spokesman for Rep. Andy Harris, the Maryland Republican leading the congressional anti-pot effort, told HuffPost Tuesday that the review period is irrelevant because the cromnibus forbids the city to "enact" a new law relaxing penalties for drugs that are illegal under federal law.

The spokesman also noted that Congress successfully used riders like the one in the cromnibus to stop the city from legalizing medical marijuana from 1998 through 2009.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The office of the D.C. attorney general said Friday that it is reviewing the legislation "to assess how it may provide District policymakers opportunities to implement the will of the people reflected in Initiative 71." The office had no comment on Tuesday.

Multiple congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), support Mendelson’s view, saying that there’s a loophole in the language used in the spending bill’s D.C. marijuana rider and that the law should be allowed to move forward.

That loophole arises from language that reads differently in two pieces of legislation -- the omnibus spending bill and a separate rider introduced by Harris to block the city's successful weed decriminalization law. That rider has passed the House but not the Senate. The text of the omnibus says that no funds “may be used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties" associated with the recreational use of drugs illegal under federal law. Harris' rider, however, uses the phrase "carry out" instead of "enact."

The question, then, is whether Initiative 71 should be considered "enacted" as of last month's midterm elections, or whether the "enacting" will not happen until the D.C. Council transmits the initiative to Congress for review.

"If Republicans really believed their rhetoric against big government, and against government intrusion in personal lives, then the Republicans in Congress would not be overturning a citizens' initiative, or telling a city council that it may not regulate the sale of marijuana,” Mendelson said.

Last month, nearly 70 percent of voters in the nation’s capital approved of Initiative 71, which provides for the legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use while still banning sales.

 

[bootea]

District of Columbia's recreational legalization of marijuana I 71

District of Columbia's recreational legalization of marijuana I 71

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SEC. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. [/FONT]

Section 538 is saying that federal funds appropriated for the
Department of Justice cannot be used to go after federal violations in those states that have authorized the use, distribution, and possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.

not: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]last part there means this prevents the states to authorize the use of ,distribution,possession,cultivation ..".[/FONT]

This section that applies to the District of Columbia reads:
SEC. 809.
None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule,or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative

I read some where the final version had carry out removed? As
AG Racine seems to be saying below, the law is a done deal; and section 809 would prevent spending money to go around counting plants, or that may be why they removed "carry out".

Karl Racine, the newly elected attorney general of Washington, D.C., says a congressional spending restriction aimed at stopping the District from legalizing marijuana does not actually accomplish that. Although the rider will prevent the D.C. Council from licensing and regulating marijuana businesses, Racine says, it cannot nullify Initiative 71, the ballot measure that eliminates penalties for possession, sharing, and home cultivation. That's because the rider applies only to enactment of Initiative 71, which happened the day voters approved it.


quoted from Beta Team Test's link







[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<iframe style="border: 2px inset; width: 480px; height: 250px;" tabindex="1" id="vB_Editor_001_iframe"></iframe>[/FONT]

 

[bootea]

District of Columbia's recreational legalization of marijuana Initiative 71

District of Columbia's recreational legalization of marijuana Initiative 71

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SEC. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. [/FONT]

Section 538 is saying that federal funds appropriated for the
Department of Justice cannot be used to go after federal violations in those states that have authorized the use, distribution, and possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.

not: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]last part there means this prevents the states to authorize the use of ,distribution,possession,cultivation ..".[/FONT]

This section that applies to the District of Columbia reads:
SEC. 809.
None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule,or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative

I read some where the final version had carry out removed? As
AG Racine seems to be saying below, the law is a done deal; and section 809 would prevent spending money to go around counting plants, or that may be why they removed "carry out".

Karl Racine, the newly elected attorney general of Washington, D.C., says a congressional spending restriction aimed at stopping the District from legalizing marijuana does not actually accomplish that. Although the rider will prevent the D.C. Council from licensing and regulating marijuana businesses, Racine says, it cannot nullify Initiative 71, the ballot measure that eliminates penalties for possession, sharing, and home cultivation. That's because the rider applies only to enactment of Initiative 71, which happened the day voters approved it.

"We think Initiative 71 was basically self-enacted, just as the congresswoman does," Racine told The Washington Post, referring to Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District's nonvoting congressional delegate. "We think there's good support for that position, and we're going to support that position." Racine thus agrees with Norton, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and leading Democrats in the House that Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) made a fatal error when he narrowed his rider so that it barred the District from spending money to "enact" rather than "enact or carry out" marijuana legalization.

Harris claims the amendment, which is part of the omnius spending bill approved by Congress a few weeks ago, "prevents the ultimate enactment of the ballot initiative." But under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the initiative takes effect automatically unless Congress passes a joint resolution rejecting it no later than 30 legislative days after Mendelson officially submits it for review, which he plans to do next month. In the unlikely event that Congress passes a resolution and President Obama signs it before the review period expires, the resolution "shall be deemed to have repealed" the initiative, which seems inconsistent with Harris' position that the initiative has not really been enacted yet.

_______(quoted from Beta Test Team 's link: http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/30/dcs-new-attorney-general-says-congress-h)








[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]<iframe style="border: 2px inset; width: 480px; height: 250px;" tabindex="1" id="vB_Editor_001_iframe"></iframe>[/FONT]

 

[Jhhnn]

^^^

I'm having trouble seeing Obama signing any resolution turning back DC legalization. He doesn't even have to veto it, just leave it in the desk drawer until time runs out. That's assuming it gets past a possible Dem filibuster in the Senate.

Time will tell, huh?

 

[armedoldhippy]

the way I read it is that by blocking funds, all they do is prevent legal sales in storefronts etc. the lack of money will not negate the bill that passed, just kick the can further down the road. typical of GOP congressmen.

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

just kick the can further down the road. .

i'm pretty sure that is congress's mission statement.

 

[Jhhnn]

the way I read it is that by blocking funds, all they do is prevent legal sales in storefronts etc. the lack of money will not negate the bill that passed, just kick the can further down the road. typical of GOP congressmen.

I really think it's worse than that for the prohibitionists. The wording of the rider in the appropriations bill leaves room for contrary interpretation. If DC goes ahead, there's not a damned thing they can do because the Obama DoJ simply won't enforce their will. If the SCOTUS turns away this lawsuit against CO by OK & NE they'll be totally out maneuvered, strung up with their own States Rights rope.

It's a lot different than out here in the West, with vast distances between population centers. DC is the nexus of a vast urban complex stretching well beyond her borders with an immense amount of traffic coming & going every day. DC pot shops could sell more product in a day than CO does in a month.