The D.C. Residents Left Out Of The 'District Of Cannabis'

[Ron Strider]

Initiative 71 brought sweeping change to the District, but because of federal regulation, many longtime residents feel left out of the new "District of Cannabis." In 2014, residents voted to legalize possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana, growth of up to six plants and indoor use for everyone 21 or older, but like everything in the District, it's not that simple.

Not everyone can actually smoke or medicate at home. Home use and home-grow are controlled by property owners. Marijuana use policies are set by landlords, so renters should be careful to check marijuana-smoking policies in their lease terms before signing away their rights under Initiative 71. Tenants in public housing don't get to choose a cannabis-friendly lease and are forced to take the restrictions of the federal government, unless they want to risk becoming homeless.

The federal government still treats cannabis as a dangerous Schedule I drug and forbids possessing, consuming or growing marijuana in public housing. Federal housing residents can't smoke outside either because public use was banned by the D.C. Council, and they can't go to a cannabis lounge because the council banned social use, too. So even after legalizing marijuana in the District, the 20,000 residents whose landlord is the federal government are stuck living under draconian, drug-war policing and don't have a safe place to smoke or medicate in or out of their home.

Homeowners, however, are under no such restrictions and can take full advantage of the Initiative 71 liberties to consume and grow cannabis in their homes in the District. Given the high prices of the medical marijuana program, many low-income cannabis patients would prefer to save money by growing their own medicine at home, but they can't.

The unfortunate result is that access to Initiative 71 freedoms functions as a system in which the rich can afford to exercise their rights in the privacy of their homes that they own, and low-income residents are locked up or locked out by the nanny state. At a recent meeting in a Northeast public library, members of the community group DCMJ aired their frustration about current marijuana policies in public housing.

One DCMJ member who lives in a subsidized unit in Southeast reported that she was greeted the day after the annual April 20 marijuana holiday to a big orange memo from building management notifying residents that marijuana use was prohibited in and around the property. The notice explained that if tenants break this rule, they have one chance to correct the violation, but if they receive federal housing subsidies, then they are subject to a "one strike" rule and could be evicted immediately without a chance to appeal. In today's Washington, money buys leniency and the freedom to avoid the threat of eviction and harassment for marijuana, and if you can't pay, you're in trouble.

The DCMJ member noted that after she spoke up about black mold in the building, she was intimidated by the management of her building for using marijuana, even though she has a medical card for her fibromyalgia. Many of the residents on the block smoke, and she is worried that the management will target residents who use marijuana and encourage neighbors to report on each other so that it can continue to neglect maintenance issues. The resident also worries that developers might be setting the stage for mass evictions as the area gentrifies from the Anacostia extension of the D.C. Streetcar.

For people receiving federal housing vouchers, Initiative 71 is irrelevant. That's not fair. There should not be different sets of rules for those who can pay and those who can't. The District needs one set of laws. Initiative 71 was supposed to provide liberty for all, not just privileges for some.

News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: The D.C. residents left out of the ‘District of Cannabis’ - The Washington Post
Author: Adam Eidinger
Contact: The Washington Post
Photo Credit: Melina Mara
Website: Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis - The Washington Post

 

[TorturedSoul]

A short quick rebuttal (that'll get rocks thrown at me :

The federal government still treats cannabis as a dangerous Schedule I drug

Anyone that has been a member here more than five minutes has probably already stumbled upon one of my rants about the FACT that cannabis' classification is inherently illegal (or, perhaps "not legal" would be more technically accurate?), due to the fact that, to be classified as a Schedule I Narcotic - under the United States federal government's own rules/guidelines - a substance must meet not one, not two, but THREE requirements. And cannabis does NOT meet any of them!

Anyway...

low-income residents are locked up or locked out by the nanny state.

Statistically, that subset of the United States populace has a lengthy history of having voted to keep things more or less (at least substantially so) "the way they have always been." YOU might be on welfare through some misfortune (or, more likely, a great many misfortunes) and still be someone that considers as many issues as possible before voting, and votes for what is actually the best (or, alternatively, the least worst :rolleyes3 ) choice. If so, you're probably someone that isn't real happy about the fact that you're a non-contributor that sucks off the government's tit (meaning all of our tits, come to think of it). But, sadly, there are millions of people in this country that DON'T wake up regretting the fact that they're on the dole. I hear they even get cell phones - and cell phone service - paid for by the rest of us, and some of them are HAPPY (WtF?!?) about it. The kind of people that raise their kids (all FIVE of them? Again, WtF?!?) to get on the dole, too. Millions. They don't, as a rule, vote for austerity measures or for anything that is likely to reduce their income (I guess you have to call the money that we spend on them their income, right?)

Before I was born, Pop couldn't find work. Now this may come as a shock to some younger folk in the audience, but the realization that one cannot provide proper food/clothing/shelter for one's family can be a rather crushing blow. Mom... Apparently, Mom wanted to sign up for food stamps. Dad thought that to be a short-term solution that was no solution at all. His solution? Fookin' MOVE, lol. And, yeah, that's a little tough when you have a wife, two kids, no work, and no vehicle. So he found an old bread truck. My brother said about all they could take was clothing because they had half the truck full with water jugs to replace the water that poured out of the engine block (been there, done that, but it was a station wagon and the journeys were only around 300 miles). Selling all their stuff gave them enough for a month or two rent at the kind of place that is only ever going to be temporary, emergency accommodations. And Pop had a job the first week. Good job? Well... they ate. And I'm here, so I guess it was adequate.

20,000 people living in welfare housing and not a one of them has come up with the idea of moving to where the jobs are? Yeah... they don't want to work, I guess. I know a guy right now that's all kinds of p!ssed off because he can't qualify for disability (his back hurts). His ex-wife, OtOH... Spends all her time in a bed and in a wheelchair. I don't even know if she can still feed herself, because the last time I had dinner with her (about four years), she was having to use both hands to get the fork to her mouth. A couple years before that, I overheard her (then) husband ask her why she didn't quit her (40 hour/week) job and go on disability. Her reply? "Because I can still work!" In other words, the woman couldn't go PEE unless there was someone to help her transfer from her wheelchair to the toilet - but she still worked 40 hours/week. Because she could. So she did. I guess that attitude is not as prevalent (in the United States, at least) as it used to be?

I am no fan at all of ChinaMart. But I have noticed that they'll often some of the most decrepit individuals imaginable to be their greeters. If that was all I was capable of, well...

IDK. The few out there that know me personally know that some days I'm... just not capable of much, lol. So I hustle work instead of punching a clock. This means that some weeks I eat pretty good - and some weeks only my cat does. I have found that a vehicle, while very handy, is not a necessity. I wear out shoes pretty quick . And some days are harder than others...

Do I get a check from the government (meaning all of you) each month? Nope. Food stamps? Nope. Does the government pay for my housing? No, that would be me, lol, and I might just manage to pay it off one of these days. Are things all sunny and rosy here? LMFAO, this is known as an economically depressed area. So might all the work dry up one day? Sure, you never know. What will I do if that ever happens? I'll be out of here on the first thing smokin', as they used to say (or, equally likely, on foot with a duffel on my back).

The DCMJ member noted that after she spoke up about black mold in the building, she was intimidated by the management of her building for using marijuana, even though she has a medical card for her fibromyalgia.

EVEN IF someone considers the use of cannabis to be criminal (or at least illegal, lol, which is not necessarily the same thing), that's like a cop failing to investigate a break-in because he saw the owner speeding. Last time I checked, "Because they are engaged in a criminal activity" is NOT a valid excuse for engaging in a different criminal activity of your own.

For people receiving federal housing vouchers, Initiative 71 is irrelevant. That’s not fair. There should not be different sets of rules for those who can pay and those who can’t. The District needs one set of laws. Initiative 71 was supposed to provide liberty for all, not just privileges for some.

If you come into MY house and do something that I do not like, well... GtFO, lol. (NOTE: This would not include the consumption of cannabis, of course, but if you kick my cat you'll surely leave limping(*).) With all due respect, why should a landlord be any different - even if that landlord if a governmental agency? People sign leases for a reason - it puts in writing what is expected of the tennant(s) (and landlord!), and what is allowable. If the landlord then decides to add another requirement or restriction, well, I guess he'll/she'll have to wait until the lease is up for that. If you don't like that landlord's policies, go find a different landlord, FFS! I saw where one of my old landlords recently tore down a garage apartment because she was having trouble finding renters and chose, instead, to expand her vegetable garden. If you cannot negotiate stairs, that'd obviously be a deal killer. But, otherwise, she could have used the $250/month (yes, you read that correctly) that she was charging for rent. Why so cheap? Well, it was only a one-bedroom apartment, the aforementioned stairs, the tennant only got to use one of the garage spaces for parking... and she expected the tenant to help her with weeding/watering her garden, because she's like 90 years old. I lived there for a year (20 years ago) and it was like $185/month. When we moved, the woman offered to drop it to $140 if we'd stay. I lived later in an old (like 1805 old) farmhouse on just shy of 50 acres. Pretty good deal for $350/month if you didn't mind pouring the rest of your income into the propane tank (no municipal natural gas service) and the fact that the well water wasn't great. When we left there to move back to town, that landlord offered to cut our rent in HALF for a year because we took care of the place and weren't calling her all the time with demands; if I saw that something needed fixed, I just did it - after all, it was my home at the time - and, if it cost me enough to be significant, I'd just have the OL include a picture or two (if it was a big repair) along with the cost of the repair with that month's rent check and the landlady would deduct the amount from our next month's rent. She had a handful of other properties, and I could probably have worked out a deal to stay for free if I'd take on maintenance for all of them.

If you cannot support yourself where you're at, you're in the wrong location. Or you're a f*ckup that doesn't want to. Or you're either crippled, older than dirt, or feeble-minded. It happens - and, obviously, some people are receiving government support because they'd be dead otherwise. Absolutely! But not 52.2 million United States citizens, FFS! That's over 21% of our population.

This isn't a cannabis issue, lol. This is an issue that could easily be solved by dragging about 93% (estimated portion who are able-bodied and -minded, yet still have their hand out) of those 52+ million people out behind the nearest woodshed and literally beating them into within an inch of their life and telling them, "Next month we won't be so gentle." I bet almost every one of them packs up and moves to one of the locations in this country where employers are begging for employees. And if not, there's always next month...

Or you could start some sort of grass-roots campaign to require all landlords to allow cannabis cultivation/consumption in their properties. It goes against every facet of capitalism - and removes one of the few remaining incentives for getting people OUT of welfare housing, lol - but you could do it. We have certainly done stupider things, I suppose. I can't think of one off the top of my head, lol, but give me a minute and I could probably come up with an example. Err... Does the fact that we allow televised/radio political campaigning instead of requiring all political crap to be PRINT ONLY count? That one is monumentally stupid in practical terms. It's how Kennedy beat Nixon, for example. (Yeah, I know, Watergate. But Nixon didn't kill his girlfriend in a drunken stupor, fail to report it (at the time when she may have still been alive), then lie about it afterwards. And Nixon wasn't trying to give chunks of the country away for pieces of split-tail. So...)

I hereby state that, in the event that I ever become a landlord, I will not prohibit indoor gardens. I'll inspect your setup, lol, so that you don't burn down my house or fill it with mold. And YOU will pay the rent, because I don't foresee accepting government vouchers. That'd be too much like I was paying myself.