One thing that is interesting is that Congress usually blocks funding for DC laws by restricting how we can spend our local tax dollars (through the appropriations process).

When DC decriminalized possession, Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland tried to block the decriminalization by blocking funding for decriminalization. If that sounds like the legislative equivalent of a double-negative, it is!

Harris's legislation potentially would have had the un-intended affect of preventing the District from spending any money on enforcing the decriminalization: no money could be spent on writing citations, printing tickets for possession, or prosecuting cases in court. This would have effectively legalized it since the criminal law is already off the books.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/06/...

I doubt Congress will pick this up. They have 90 days to veto DC laws or they go into effect, and they can barely name post offices at this point. Obama has also promised to veto the veto.

Yeah, I read that article about the Harris amendment and it was a cute legal theory, but I don't really buy it. It certainly wasn't validated by any court -- nobody would even put their name on it! It certainly isn't proof that an amendment couldn't be crafted that would prevent legalization.

My understanding is that literally everything the city does requires at least some nominal amount of staff time and funding, so Congress has considerable power through the appropriations process. But IANAL. It would certainly be an interesting court case.

My understanding is that it doesn't apply to federal lands in the District, which makes for some interesting problems what with all the parks.

I don't think Congress will attempt to shut it down in the city. I don't see that being a winning move politically, for a number of reasons. But I could also see zero tolerance being stepped up on The Mall to keep the tourists from less tolerant states placated.

Correct, there are many federal parks in DC where this would not apply. Even on DC land, I don't think the law permits smoking in public anyway.

I don't think Congress will veto the law (which doesn't happen often) but I think there's a good chance they kill it with a budget rider (which happens every year).

It will be interesting to see if they choose to enforce it on federal lands.

DC legalizing- Christmas came early for Late Night show writers and hosts.

I expect it to get a lot of play in the media. In addition to being the seat of government, DC is the first place to vote for legalization on the East Coast.

Although the change has already been passed (overwhelmingly) by referendum, the city council still has to submit the changes to Congress, which will have 60 days to veto them. Further, at any point in the future they can restrict what DC can do via amendments to must-pass spending bills.

>DC is the first place to vote for legalization on the East Coast.

That is true but most of the Northeast has decriminalized it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._st...

> DC is the first place to vote for legalization on the East Coast.

Well, DC is a city, and Portland, Maine actually already voted to legalize marijuana in 2013[0].

If DC were a state, it'd be the first state on the east coast, but it's not. It's the first city that is not part of a state (and therefore not subject to constitutional rights allowed states), which is what makes this case very interesting.

DC is tricky because it's such a special case, but remember that it's much easier to pass an initiative at the city level than at the state level.

[0] http://www.mpp.org/states/maine/

Is it easier to pass an initiative in a city than in a state with a similar population? DC proper has a similar population to states like Wyoming and Vermont.

Still yes; DC has a 14 member city council that meets frequently with a long legislative session, and a mayor.

Even the smallest states have a few hundred legislators in 2 houses, and much shorter legislative calendars to get things done in.

These are ballot initiatives that didn't go through the legislature. And for what it's worth, DC doesn't make it especially easy to get something on the ballot.

The initial steps (decriminalization, medical marijuana) were taken in the council though, and those set the stage.

Your question re:ballot initiatives interested me so I looked it up; signature-wise it takes 5% of DC voters distributed through 5/8 wards to get something on the ballot [0]. That's around 23,000 verified signatures. There are also the normal review periods/court challenges that are common in (nearly?) every state.

In Wyoming it's 15% of registered voters, nearly double DC, plus a fiscal review in addition to the normal court challenges.[1] I can't find anything saying direct initiatives are legal at all in Vermont, except constitutional amendments which come through the legislature [2].

In alaska (bigger but apropos since they legalized too) it takes about 30,000 signatures, and they have much stricter signature rules, including a house-district distribution rule. [3]

Overall it seems that DC is one of the easiest small 'states' to get something on the ballot in, although I have no way to compare how tough the court challenges are between states. Looking at the number of initiatives would be instructive but this comment is already getting long.

[0] https://www.dcboee.org/regulations/initiative_and_referendum...

[1] http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process...

[2] http://ballotpedia.org/List_of_Vermont_ballot_measures

[3] http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process...

The current Congress could simply crush it, no need to wait for the next Congress to start.

Anything's possible, but just due to timing that seems unlikely. The Council says they probably won't submit the legislation for review until December or January.