STATES PRESSED INTO NEW ROLE ON MARIJUANA

GREELEY, Colo. -- Health and law enforcement officials around the
nation are scrambling to figure out how to regulate medical marijuana
now that the federal government has decided it will no longer
prosecute legal users or providers.

For years, since the first medical marijuana laws were passed in the
mid-1990s, many local and state governments could be confident, if
not complacent, knowing that marijuana would be kept in check because
it remained illegal under federal law, and that hard-nosed federal
prosecutors were not about to forget it.

But with the Justice Department's announcement last week that it
would not prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes in
states where it is legal, local and state officials say they will now
have to take on the job themselves.

In New Hampshire, for instance, where some state legislators are
considering a medical marijuana law, there is concern that the state
health department -- already battered by budget cuts -- could be
hard-pressed to administer the system. In California, where there has
been an explosion of medical marijuana suppliers, the authorities in
Los Angeles and other jurisdictions are considering a requirement
that all medical dispensaries operate as nonprofit organizations.

"The federal government says they're not going to control it, so the
only other option we have is to control it ourselves," said Carrol
Martin, a City Council member in this community north of Denver,
where a ban on marijuana dispensaries was on the agenda at a Council
meeting the day after the federal announcement.

At least five states, including New York and New Jersey, are
considering laws to allow medical marijuana through legislation or
voter referendums, in addition to the 13 states where such laws
already exist. Even while that is happening, scores of local
governments in California, Colorado and other states have gone the
other way and imposed bans or moratoriums on distribution even though
state law allows it.

Some health and legal experts say the Justice Department's decision
will promote the spread of marijuana for medical uses because local
and state officials often take leadership cues from federal policy.
That, the experts said, could lead to more liberal rules in states
that already have medical marijuana and to more voters and
legislators in other states becoming comfortable with the idea of
allowing it. For elected officials who have feared looking soft on
crime by backing any sort of legalized marijuana use, the new policy
might provide support to reframe the issue.

"The fact that the feds are backing off is going to allow changes
that are going to make it more accessible," said Bill Morrisette, a
state senator in Oregon and chairman of a committee that oversees the
state's medical marijuana law. Mr. Morrisette said he expected a
flurry of proposals in the Legislature, including a plan already
floated to have the state grow the marijuana crop itself, perhaps on
the grounds of the State Penitentiary in Salem.

"It would be very secure," he said.

Here in Greeley, anxiety and enthusiasm were on display as the City
Council considered a ban on dispensaries.

Most of those who testified at the hearing, including several
dispensary operators, opposed the ban and spoke of marijuana's
therapeutic benefits and the taxes that dispensary owners were
willing to pour into Greeley's budget, which has been battered by the
recession.

But on the seven-member Council, the question was control. Mr.
Martin, for example, said that he hated to see the spread of
marijuana, but that the barricades had fallen. Still, he said he
opposed a local ban on dispensaries.

"If we have no regulations at all, then we can't control it, and our
police officers have their hands tied," Mr. Martin said.

Mayor Ed Clark, a former police officer, took the opposite tack in
supporting the ban, which passed on a 6-to-1 vote.

"I think we do regulate them, by not allowing dispensaries," Mr. Clark said.

The backdrop to the debate here in Colorado is a sharp expansion in
marijuana dispensaries and patients, fueled in part by the State
Board of Health decision in July not to impose limits on the number
of patients handled by each marijuana provider.

The state attorney general, John W. Suthers, said the federal
government's retreat, combined with the growth in demand, had created
a legal vacuum.

"The federal Department of Justice is saying it will only go after
you if you're in violation of state law," Mr. Suthers said. "But in
Colorado it's not clear what state law is."

In New Hampshire, by contrast, where the state legislature is
scheduled to meet this week to consider overriding the governor's
veto and passing a medical marijuana law, government downsizing has
colored the debate.

The state agency that would be responsible for licensing marijuana
dispensaries has been battered by budget cuts, said Senator Sylvia B.
Larsen, the president of the New Hampshire Senate and a Democrat.
Concerns about the department, Ms. Larsen said, have made it harder
to find two more votes in the Senate to reach a two-thirds majority
that is needed to override a veto by Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat.

An even odder situation is unfolding in Maine, which already allows
medical marijuana and where residents will vote next month on a
measure that would create a new system of distribution and licensing.

The marijuana proposal, several political experts said, has been
overshadowed by another fight on the ballot that would overturn a
state law and ban same-sex marriage.

The added wrinkle is that opponents of same-sex marriage, said
Christian Potholm, a professor of government at Bowdoin College, have
heavily recruited young, socially conservative voters, who by and
large tend to not be concerned about medical marijuana expansion.

"The 18- to 25-year-old vote is going to be overrepresented because
of the gay marriage situation, so overrepresented in favor of medical
marijuana," Professor Potholm said.

Some legal scholars said the federal government, by deciding not to
enforce its own laws (possession and the sale of marijuana remain
federal crimes), has introduced an unpredictable variable into the
drug regulation system.

"The next step would be a particular state deciding to legalize
marijuana entirely," said Peter J. Cohen, a doctor and a lawyer who
teaches public health law at Georgetown University. If federal
prosecutors kept their distance even then, Dr. Cohen said, legalized
marijuana would become a de facto reality.

Senator Morrisette in Oregon said he thought that exact situation --
a state moving toward legalization, perhaps California -- could play
out much sooner now than might have been imagined even a few weeks
ago. And the continuing recession would only help, he said, with
advocates for legalization able to promise relief to an overburdened
prison system and injection of tax revenues to the state budget.