Article by Bill Kilby, Washington Post
Election Day was a blowout for the cause of legal marijuana. Ballot measures legalizing medical or recreational cannabis use passed for the first time in seven states, with a defeat in Arizona the only setback for activists. But, as the experiences of other legal-marijuana states show, the thorniest debates are just starting. How should the trade be regulated? Who will benefit financially? How will the federal government act? These questions and others will roil the states for years to come.
The presidential and congressional election results have already put some of these measures in peril. Activists knew that an overwhelming show of support for marijuana ballot initiatives could be interpreted as a mandatefor lawmakers to reconsider the federal prohibition on the plant. (President Obama added to these hopes by saying that if just five of these states decided to allow a form of cannabis use, that would mean that “a fifth of the country [is] operating under one set of laws, and four-fifths in another. . . . That is not going to be tenable.”)
The new political landscape, however — with President-elect Donald Trump set to take office alongside a Republican-dominated House and Senate — signals that, despite a groundswell of popular support for marijuana legalization and its growing geographic footprint in America, ending the plant’s federal prohibition is unlikely to be a legislative or executive priority. Trump’s pick for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), has said that “good people don’t smoke marijuana ” and that he thought the Ku Klux Klan was “okay until I found out they smoked pot .” (An early contender for the job, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, promisedin the Republican primary race that he’d terminate legal marijuana in all 50 states.) This doesn’t suggest an extension of the Obama administration’s noninterference policy. Journalist Tobias Coughlin-Bogue also raises the disturbing possibility that an anti-immigration attorney general — Sessions’s opposition to immigration is well known — might not disrupt state cannabis initiatives entirely, but could selectively enforcefederal drug laws against immigrants and people of color in the cannabis industry.
But even if appointed officials honor Trump’s professed respect for states’ rights , legalization is just the start of a protracted dialogue over how to craft cannabis policy. States that legalized marijuana earlier have contended with unanticipated consequences, as well as social and legal disputes over the rules of a newly sanctioned industry.
Take Pueblo, Colo., which became the state’s second-largest hub of marijuana production after legalization in 2012. The city voted on two measures in this election, both proposing local bans on the cannabis industry. Proponents argued that legalization has attracted a migration of homeless people from neighboring states, overburdening social services. The measures, in a town where the new industry has yielded thousands of jobs, were soundly rejected. But other cities, such as Los Angeles , are now studying the link between the availability of cannabis and the movements of homeless people, wondering whether to use the tax revenue from cannabis to expand homeless services or just leave them as public costs that other taxpayers are irritated about subsidizing.