'DRAMATIC CHANGE' TO MARIJUANA LAWS? WHAT BILL BEFORE CONGRESS WOULD
DO.

A New Bipartisan Bill Would Remove Marijuana From the Company Of
Heroin and Cocaine in Federal Regulations, Leaving It to the States To
Legalize Pot - or Not. Inter-State Trafficking Would Remain a Federal
Crime.

A bipartisan bill introduced Thursday by Reps. Barney Frank (D) of
Massachusetts and Ron Paul (R) of Texas, will - if passed - have a
substantial effect on the enforcement, acceptance, and creation of
marijuana laws coast-to-coast, say a number of analysts.

"Since 1932, marijuana has been a federally-prohibited substance, and
this would undo that," says Sam Kamin, a law professor at the
University of Denver's Sturm College of Law.

The bill, known as the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, would
delete marijuana from the federal schedule of controlled substances
and remove marijuana-specific retributions as spelled out in the
Controlled Substances Act.

"Criminally prosecuting adults for making the choice to smoke
marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources and an intrusion on
personal freedom," said Congressman Frank in a released statement. "I
do not advocate urging people to smoke marijuana, neither do I urge
them to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke tobacco, but in none of
these cases do I think prohibition enforced by criminal sanctions is
good public policy."

Though the bill has four Democratic cosponsors - John Conyers of
Michigan, Barbara Lee of California, Jared Polis of Colorado, and
Steve Cohen of Tennessee - the bill stands no chance of passing the
Republican-controlled house, say analysts.

Lamar Smith (R) of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,
said his committee would not consider the bill. "Decriminalizing
marijuana will only lead to millions more Americans becoming addicted
to drugs and greater profits for drug cartels who fund violence along
the U.S.-Mexico border. Allowing states to determine their own
marijuana policy flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent."

Federal - state disconnect over marijuana

The measure "would limit the federal government's role in marijuana
enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling," according to a
press release from Frank's office. By leaving the question of legality
up to the states, the legislation would allow people "to legally grow,
use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal," without fear of
federal prosecution.

Even if the measure doesn't pass, it highlights the continued
incongruence between state and federal policies and enforcement strategies.

"Right now, the US is in this crazy situation where 12 states have
legalized medical marijuana - which puts them in direct opposition to
federal law," says Phil Cook, professor of public policy, economics
and sociology at Duke University. "This law would remove that awkward
conflict."

That conflict has caused anger and confusion between pro-marijuana and
anti-drug groups, as well as among owners of legalized state
dispensaries which have been raided by federal authorities.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recently said he would not implement
his state's medical marijuana law without assurances from federal
prosecutors, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Taxation and regulation

Professor Kamin calls the bill a "dramatic change" and says that its
passage would force an immediate question: "Will [the federal
government] regulate and tax marijuana in the same way they tax and
regulate alcohol and cigarettes?"

Some national pro-marijuana groups say that taxing and regulation are
the way to go, to keep profits out of the hands of gangs and drug cartels.

"It is time to stop ceding control of the marijuana market to
unregulated, criminal entrepreneurs and allow states to enact
common-sense regulations that seek to govern the adult use of
marijuana in a fashion similar to alcohol," says Paul Armentano,
deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Some law enforcement groups take the same position, pointing out that
last week was the 40th anniversary of President Nixon's declaration of
war on drugs, which they note hasn't worked.

They say this renewed debate is just what is needed.

"No longer can reform advocates be laughed off as a bunch of Cheech
and Chongs," says Tom Angell, media relations director for Law
Enforcement Against Prohibition, an international organization of
criminal justice professionals who claim first-hand awareness of the
waste and harms of current drug policies.

"Hopefully having this national debate will help more people to
understand that marijuana prohibition harms public safety by giving
drug cartels and gangs a huge source of tax-free profits, just like
alcohol prohibition did for Al Capone and his colleagues during the
1920s and 30s," says Mr. Angell.

Anti-marijuana groups remain opposed to the increased public
acceptance of marijuana, medicinal or otherwise. The legalization of
medical marijuana in California hasn't been a success, says Steve
Steiner, founder of Dads and Moms Against Drug Dealers.