DEFENDING PROVIDERS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA

A COMMITTEE of the Seattle City Council grappled Wednesday with a
proposed ordinance for medical-marijuana cooperatives. It would be
much easier for Seattle to ban them, as some suburban cities have done
- - and it would be wrong.

Ultimately, marijuana prohibition has to end. The next step is to
defend the providers of medical patients.

The people of Seattle have been clear about this. They supported
medical marijuana 13 years ago, in a statewide vote, and they
supported a citywide ballot eight years ago making simple possession
the lowest police priority. They have elected local politicians who
support full legalization.

Federal law bans marijuana entirely, claiming there are no legitimate
uses. Yet the Obama administration has said it would not target sick
people and their doctors if they comply with state law. However, U.S.
attorneys have also threatened to prosecute growers, processors and
retailers.

That much tolerance is not enough. The supply chain has to be brought
above ground. And because it is questionable legally for state and
local governments to do this, it has to be done in ways that can be
defended politically.

This is what the proposed ordinance begins to do.

It says any future cannabis-related businesses must have city
licenses, follow city land-use rules, and so on. Judged alone, it is
innocuous, but it cannot be judged alone. It is part of a political
dance. It is a message sent by the city of Seattle to Congress and to
the Obama administration.

If Seattle licenses cannabis co-ops, it will leave the members open to
federal prosecution. That is a risk they will choose to take.
Seattle's job will be to set up a system of regulation that is so
clearly reasonable, and supported by people here, that prosecution of
licensed suppliers will be a risk the federal government chooses not
to take.