T
The420Guy
Guest
Efforts to legalize marijuana for medical purposes in the District
were blocked yesterday when a federal appeals court overturned,
without explanation, an earlier court ruling that had cleared the way
for the issue to be put before D.C. voters.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
reversed a ruling by the U.S. District Court, which in March declared
unconstitutional a congressional amendment that prevented the city
from spending money to put a medical marijuana initiative on the
ballot.
The three appellate justices said in their order that they made the
ruling yesterday because today is the city's deadline for printing
ballots for the November election. Appeals judges David S. Tatel,
Merrick B. Garland and Stephen F. Williams said their decision "will
be more fully explained in an opinion to be filed at a later date."
The decision ends a 14-month campaign by the District-based Marijuana
Policy Project to again put the marijuana initiative before voters. It
would protect from arrest people who, on the advice of their doctors,
use marijuana to alleviate nausea, stimulate appetite or ease pain.
Eight states have similar medical marijuana laws.
This is the second time that the measure has been blocked in the
District. In 1998, D.C. voters passed a similar initiative, 69 percent
to 31 percent. But a congressional rider to the D.C. appropriations
bill prevented the initiative from taking effect.
Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who sponsored the rider, said in a
statement yesterday that "despite a concerted public relations
campaign to distort the real dangers of drugs, such as marijuana, the
pro-drug lobby ran head-on today with the rule of law and a court,
which recognized the right and responsibility of Congress to protect
citizens from dangerous, mind-altering narcotics."
The case, Barr said, "was about whether federal taxpayer dollars
should be used to support the drug legalization effort in the nation's
capital, and the court's decision today was a clear and emphatic 'No.' "
The Marijuana Policy Project sponsors had hoped to get the measure on
the November ballot.
"It is too bad that a three-judge panel was able to thwart the will of
tens of thousands of D.C. voters," said Steve Fox, a spokesman for the
group. "It is sadder still that this ruling will cause the suffering
of seriously ill patients in the city to continue."
In July 2001, the group filed a request with the D.C. Board of
Elections and Ethics to circulate petitions for the initiative. The
board denied that request, citing the Barr amendment -- which
prevented the District from spending money to put the measure on the
ballot.
The group then filed suit against the federal and District
governments, calling the Barr amendment an abridgment of political
speech. On March 28, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled in
the group's favor.
Additional legal wranglings, which weren't settled until June, left
the group with only 25 days to gather the more than 17,000 signatures
necessary to place the initiative on the November ballot.
The group turned in more than 38,000 signatures, but the elections
board said the medical marijuana advocates had come up short of the
required signatures in one city ward. An extensive recount, however,
showed that the board had failed to count hundreds of valid
signatures.
But by then the U.S. Department of Justice had appealed the federal
court decision. An elections board spokesman, Bill O'Field, said this
week that board members were waiting for the appeals court ruling
before issuing its own decision on whether the initiative could be on
the ballot in November.
The court ruling "was very disappointing," Fox said. "But as Al Gore
found out, sometimes you fight the good fight only to have your legs
cut out from under you by the court."
The initiative is not dead, Fox said. If the Barr amendment is
repealed by Congress, he said, the initiative could appear on the
ballot in the next citywide election.
Washington Post; September 20, 2002
by Arthur Santana, Washington Post Staff Writer
were blocked yesterday when a federal appeals court overturned,
without explanation, an earlier court ruling that had cleared the way
for the issue to be put before D.C. voters.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
reversed a ruling by the U.S. District Court, which in March declared
unconstitutional a congressional amendment that prevented the city
from spending money to put a medical marijuana initiative on the
ballot.
The three appellate justices said in their order that they made the
ruling yesterday because today is the city's deadline for printing
ballots for the November election. Appeals judges David S. Tatel,
Merrick B. Garland and Stephen F. Williams said their decision "will
be more fully explained in an opinion to be filed at a later date."
The decision ends a 14-month campaign by the District-based Marijuana
Policy Project to again put the marijuana initiative before voters. It
would protect from arrest people who, on the advice of their doctors,
use marijuana to alleviate nausea, stimulate appetite or ease pain.
Eight states have similar medical marijuana laws.
This is the second time that the measure has been blocked in the
District. In 1998, D.C. voters passed a similar initiative, 69 percent
to 31 percent. But a congressional rider to the D.C. appropriations
bill prevented the initiative from taking effect.
Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who sponsored the rider, said in a
statement yesterday that "despite a concerted public relations
campaign to distort the real dangers of drugs, such as marijuana, the
pro-drug lobby ran head-on today with the rule of law and a court,
which recognized the right and responsibility of Congress to protect
citizens from dangerous, mind-altering narcotics."
The case, Barr said, "was about whether federal taxpayer dollars
should be used to support the drug legalization effort in the nation's
capital, and the court's decision today was a clear and emphatic 'No.' "
The Marijuana Policy Project sponsors had hoped to get the measure on
the November ballot.
"It is too bad that a three-judge panel was able to thwart the will of
tens of thousands of D.C. voters," said Steve Fox, a spokesman for the
group. "It is sadder still that this ruling will cause the suffering
of seriously ill patients in the city to continue."
In July 2001, the group filed a request with the D.C. Board of
Elections and Ethics to circulate petitions for the initiative. The
board denied that request, citing the Barr amendment -- which
prevented the District from spending money to put the measure on the
ballot.
The group then filed suit against the federal and District
governments, calling the Barr amendment an abridgment of political
speech. On March 28, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled in
the group's favor.
Additional legal wranglings, which weren't settled until June, left
the group with only 25 days to gather the more than 17,000 signatures
necessary to place the initiative on the November ballot.
The group turned in more than 38,000 signatures, but the elections
board said the medical marijuana advocates had come up short of the
required signatures in one city ward. An extensive recount, however,
showed that the board had failed to count hundreds of valid
signatures.
But by then the U.S. Department of Justice had appealed the federal
court decision. An elections board spokesman, Bill O'Field, said this
week that board members were waiting for the appeals court ruling
before issuing its own decision on whether the initiative could be on
the ballot in November.
The court ruling "was very disappointing," Fox said. "But as Al Gore
found out, sometimes you fight the good fight only to have your legs
cut out from under you by the court."
The initiative is not dead, Fox said. If the Barr amendment is
repealed by Congress, he said, the initiative could appear on the
ballot in the next citywide election.
Washington Post; September 20, 2002
by Arthur Santana, Washington Post Staff Writer
