MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN D.C.: THE COUNCIL GETS IT RIGHT

It's been 10 years now, so some history is in order:

In 1998, voters in the District overwhelmingly approved Initiative 59
to allow seriously ill people, such as cancer patients undergoing
chemotherapy or those suffering from AIDS-wasting syndrome, to use
medical marijuana under their doctor's supervision. But every year
for a decade, Congress passed an amendment to the D.C. budget
stopping the measure from taking effect. The hold on medical
marijuana, of course, was just another in a long line of
congressional interference with local affairs.

Congressional meddling was hardly the most formidable challenge faced
by the AIDS activists who organized the Initiative 59 campaign. As
the petition deadline approached, the initiative's original sponsor,
activist Steve Michael, was hospitalized and died from AIDS-related
complications. Supporters rallied to continue the campaign in his
memory, gathering nearly 20,000 signatures in less than four weeks.
Then, when the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics certified the
initiative for the November ballot, Congress passed an amendment
blocking the city from counting the votes. The ballots would be
impounded for 11 months after the election until a federal judge
ordered their release.

The result was unequivocal. Initiative 59 passed with 69 percent of
the vote. It won in all eight wards and in every precinct. So,
naturally, Congress stepped in again, this time with the amendment
that kept Initiative 59 from taking effect. In truth, organizers were
quietly relieved Congress didn't completely overturn the initiative.

Congress's medical marijuana prohibition was nothing new. The
District's domestic partnership law took nearly a decade to implement
because of a similar "social rider." Local funding for needle
exchange programs and abortion services for low-income women were
also blocked by congressional fiat. It would take a concerted,
multiyear effort by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and local
democracy activists to finally secure passage of a clean budget bill
- -- a rare victory for D.C. voting rights advocates.

Which brings us to the current moment. With the ban lifted, D.C.
Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), along with council members
David A. Catania (I-At Large) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), has
introduced legislation to implement Initiative 59. It's a sound
proposal that tracks the design and intent of the original initiative
by creating a tightly regulated system whereby patients with serious,
chronic or debilitating medical conditions can have safe and
affordable access to medical marijuana.

That's good, because in recent years we've seen what a vague law and
lack of regulation can do. Appropriately, the council members seek to
head off the abuses that have emerged in some of the 14 states with
medical marijuana laws. California's law, for example, is so broadly
worded that almost any use of marijuana could qualify as medical.

The council's bill would limit the number and location of
dispensaries and require tight monitoring of marijuana distribution.
In this way, the proposal builds on the framework in the initiative's
original legislative text, which called for dispensaries operated as
nonprofits subject to government licensing and regulation. AIDS
activists included those provisions to ensure that only patients with
serious medical conditions would be covered. In addition, nonprofits
would allow low-income residents to have access to medical marijuana
and prevent entrepreneurs from profiteering off sick patients. The
council's bill also includes a sliding-scale fee system to ensure
that dispensaries provide access to medical marijuana regardless of
ability to pay. The council correctly recognizes that tight controls
protect patients as well as the community -- and will prevent the
kind of free-for-all that recently compelled Los Angeles to crack
down on unregulated dispensaries.

Yes, the proposal may be too restrictive for some, but Initiative 59
was never about promoting casual or recreational use of marijuana.
And the council's cautious approach is appropriate for another
reason: Under the Constitution, Congress retains the authority to
overturn D.C. legislation at any time. It would be a grave mistake to
unnecessarily provoke further congressional interference by creating
a system vulnerable to abuses. The council's plan represents the best
chance to implement medical marijuana and to protect those patients
whose quality of life may depend upon this medication of last resort.