WEED PICKING UP SPEED?

Just Say Now

When the Phoenix published a cover story about the potential tipping
point in the fight to end marijuana prohibition, we smelled something
in the air: it seemed more than ever that such a resolution might be
possible.

Now another step forward has been taken. This past month, Democratic
Massachusetts representative Barney Frank, for the second year in a
row, filed two bills seeking decriminalization. The Personal Use of
Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009 would lift punishment for
the "possession or not-for-profit transfer" of small amounts of
marijuana; it would also create a $100 civil fine for smoking pot in
public. The Marijuana Patient Protection Act, meanwhile, would prevent
federal authorities from prosecuting growers and users of medical
marijuana in any state where the medical use of pot is legal.

The bills don't go as far as many would hope; they won't end federal
prohibition against selling pot for profit, for instance — so any
arguments about legalizing and taxing the stuff are moot. In addition,
neither piece of legislation would change marijuana's status as a
Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and neither
upends any existing state or local law.

The diehards in the marijuana-reform movement "clearly would like to
have marijuana legalized," says Allen St. Pierre, executive director
of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).
"They see decriminalization as a half-baked loaf. But those of us here
on K Street [in Washington, DC] that actually have to lobby and
litigate this stuff, [see that] there is no support, overtly, in
Congress for legalizing marijuana. So while the grassroots are harping
for legalization and taxed access, I can say that, of the 435 members
of Congress, there are probably five who genuinely, strongly support
legalization. There's probably 200 to 250 who support the notion of
decriminalization — but they've never had a vote on such."

"I don't know what the difference is between legalization and
decriminalization," argued Frank with characteristic bluntness when we
spoke for our May 29 story. "Something is either legal or it's
criminal. You may only legalize some aspects of it, but what is a
'decriminalized activity'? Does that mean you can do it? Then it's
legal. If it's against the law, then it's criminal."

Not exactly, counters St. Pierre, citing Massachusetts's recent
decriminalization referendum by way of example. "Run out to Faneuil
Hall right now with an ounce of marijuana; you'll pay the $100 fine."
Try to sell it, on the other hand, and "you'll end up with a felony
against you."

But right now, the legalize/decriminalize debate shouldn't obscure the
bigger issue, says St. Pierre. With support for pot-policy reform at a
high ebb, it's time to act — and any realistic chance at chipping away
federal marijuana laws should be embraced.

Luckily, he says, these bills appear to have a fair chance of actually
passing. "Unlike last year," when similar legislation filed by Frank
and Paul never made it to a vote, "this year it would seem that
they've really struck a note because of the marijuana Zeitgeist that
seems to be around the United States these days."

More and more Americans, having "seen the ineffectiveness of the
all-out prohibition approach," with its "overcrowded prisons and
overstretched law enforcement," are "more skeptical of government
intervention," Frank told the Phoenix in May. Ultimately he hopes to
convince his colleagues in Congress that "people should be allowed
personal freedom if they're not hurting anyone else."