To reduce racial disparities in D.C. drug arrests, the Council of the District of Columbia voted in July to decriminalize possessing up to 1 ounce of marijuana for citizens aged 18 and older. The Legalization of Home Cultivation and Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014, Initiative No. 71 on the Nov. 4 ballot, goes a step further. The measure asks D.C. citizens to decide whether persons 21 and up should be legally allowed to possess 2 ounces of marijuana, grow up to six plants, and transfer up to 1 ounce free-of-charge to another of-age individual. The initiative creates no infrastructure to tax or vend marijuana, nor does it permit medical dispensaries.
Widespread marijuana legalization in the U.S. would reduce drug-related crime better than the failed War on Drugs, refocus law enforcement on more pressing societal issues, and stimulate the economy. A recent report by the marijuana-research organization Greenwave Advisors found that legalized sales could top $35 billion by 2020—which, as the Washington Post contextualized, is over three times the NFL’s annual revenue. While legalizing pot in D.C. echoes this end-goal, and while allowing D.C. voters to decide is laudable, the Council should be circumspect when determining how best to implement the act if it passes.
The chief reason for caution is the distinction between decriminalization and legalization. The former implies a recognition of the disproportionate victimization of young black men that results when marijuana and the law clash. The latter implies not only implicit societal approval, as argued in a recent Post editorial, but also the expectation that D.C.’s legal and political infrastructure is prepared to take on the burden of regulating pot in both a lucrative and socially responsible way.
But answering this question will take more time than Tuesday’s vote allows. Marijuana has been decriminalized in the District for barely three months, leaving results under-analyzed and implications of outright legalization unassessed. States like Colorado (the first to legalize recreational marijuana) and Washington (which implemented limited legalization followed by legalized dispensaries), have been mixed blessings. While Colorado’s criminal marijuana cases decreased by 65 percent last year after legalization, according to the New York Times, police have issued an increased number of citations for public smoking and investigated a number of cases of children being given marijuana edibles. This increase has been accompanied by a spillover in charges related to the sale, distribution, and possession of marijuana in neighboring Kansas. Meanwhile, USA Today reports that Washington’s pot business is near flat due to over-taxation and over-regulation.
While none of these transitional issues are reason enough to oppose Initiative 71, they raise concerns about D.C.’s infrastructural capacity to handle legalization in an effective, protective, and fiscally prudent manner. D.C. Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) has proposed legislation that would permit the sale and distribution of marijuana in the city as well as create a system to tax and regulate such commerce. As reported by DCist, however, even he has advocated that the Council delay implementation until a regulatory system is established.
While the benefits of legalizing marijuana are irrefutable, and while both voters and activists should affirm the initiative at the ballot box this Tuesday, citizens and the Council should proceed cautiously to both better institutionally manage the consequences of legalization and avoid repeating Colorado and Washington’s mistakes. For the moment, District marijuana legalization is one case in which taking stock must precede toking smoke.
