Tag Archives: federal

Health, News, Politics

Ecotopia Redux: Feds “Warn” Washington on Medical Marijuana Law

8 Comments

Governor Gregoire fired back at the Obama administration today, saying, “They can take our medical marijuana when they pry it from our cold dead hands,” and putting the Washington National Guard on alert. The Governor gave her press conference in front of a hastily constructed flag that read “The Soviet of Washington.”

That’s what I’d like to tell you happened anyway. The above was not meant as a factual statement. I don’t think anyone believes we elected that kind of governor.

Instead Governor Gregoire has announced that she will veto the medical marijuana bill that passed both House and Senate. “In light of the Department of Justice’s guidance, it is clear that I cannot sign a bill that authorizes our state employees to license marijuana dispensaries when the department would prosecute those involved,” Gregoire said.

Gregoire had asked for guidance from federal authorities, and got an answer from U.S. Attorneys Jenny Durkan (Washington’s Western District) and Michael Ormsby (Eastern District), which noted that the bill:

…would authorize conduct contrary to federal law and thus, would undermine the federal government’s efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances. Accordingly, the Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries as they will be doing so in violation of federal law.

Gregoire’s veto is an outsized reaction to a fairly low-key response. The feds “could consider” remedies, and state employees “would not be immune” from liability. As The Stranger‘s Dominic Holden argues, the precedent here is New Mexico, whose Department of Health has been overseeing the distribution of medical marijuana for the past three years: “Feds have never prosecuted and state employees in New Mexico running the medical marijuana program,” says Holden.

Governor Gregoire

As I noted earlier, Gregoire was uncomfortable with the bill’s passage, even though its intent is simply to affirm an earlier citizen’s initiative allowing medical marijuana, and lay out clear regulations for marijuana’s cultivation and distribution. (Previously it was legal for a doctor to prescribe medical marijuana for you, and for a patient to possess a certain amount, but how you got it, legally, remained a murky legal affair, depending in large part on the whim of local law enforcement.)

The Seattle Times headline says “Feds threaten a crackdown” but it’s hard to see a crackdown in the federal position, which specifically mentions targeting for-profit marijuana sales, organized crime trafficking, and fraudulent doctors’ prescriptions. A non-profit dispensary not run by the Medellin cartel and working with ethical doctors would seem to have little to fear. Per the Times:

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, the prime sponsor of the bill, said she was encouraged that the measure could still be passed after talking with Gregoire on Thursday evening. She said legislative staffers were working on alternatives. “We’re looking at a brand new approach,” she said, without elaborating.

News, Politics

Would You Like to Know Where Your Tax Money Goes?

Congressman Jim McDermott (D-the Fightin’ 7th) has come up with an idea strikes a chord of common sense: Taxpayers should get an itemized breakdown of where their federal income tax goes. It’s in early stages yet, but it feels about time to supply people with better information about how the government spends their money.

Before you dismiss this as a McDermott stunt (too late for some of you, I know) Senators Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Scott “My Old Pick-up Truck” Brown (R-Mass.) have joined forces on the Tax Payer Receipt Act of 2011. RedState says, “This bill could be transformational. Imagine receiving an accounting of what each citizen owes–the interest on the national debt, costs for Medicaid, Medicare, national defense, education, foreign aid, etc.”

The general idea is that something needs to be done to get better information to voters. Hilariously, a recent poll found that voters believed five percent of the federal budget was devoted to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, “more than what the government spends on transportation, law enforcement and homeland security combined,” points out the Seattle Times.

People also regularly over-estimate the amount of federal humanitarian aid, guessing ten percent when it’s something like .05 percent.

While support for the idea is bipartisan, it’s anyone’s guess as to what good it would do. It can’t be too complicated, or people won’t read it. It can’t be too simplified or it won’t adequately reflect reality. McDermott’s sample receipt is a single, two-sided sheet and even that I suspect would be skimmed by only fifty percent.

Another consideration is that–as is clear from the level of debate currently–people have an ambivalent relationship with figures that don’t support their biases. The comments thread on the Seattle Times story carries a lively, hair-splitting argument about the viability of an accurate receipt that leaves you with the distinct impression that people are ready to argue about the meaning of 1 and 0.

Lastly, of course, we need to remember that while our political leadership loves to compare the federal budget to the family budget–“It’s simple, don’t spend more than you make!”–the fact of the matter is that spending more than we make is exactly what American families do. So it is a little unrealistic to expect a receipt to turn us into an army of citizen accountants.

Yet, the receipt seems worthwhile if only for the purposes of establishing a limited common ground. No matter how you slice it, federal income taxes are paid, and do go somewhere–it’s a very low bar to agree that the government should try to offer an annual statement to taxpayers.