As we discussed in our December 19, 2012, and January 14, 2013, blog posts here and here, there is inherent tension between I-502’s marijuana legalization policy and federal law. Under the Controlled Substances Act (“Act”), marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, making the possession and sale of marijuana illegal under federal law. Since the passage of legalization measures in both Washington State and Colorado, federal authorities have undertaken to review the new laws and issue a response. Although the Obama Administration has been reviewing its options for some time, it has not yet taken a position on the issue.

However, despite the delay in a decision from the federal government, the Washington State Liquor Control Board has not shown any hesitation in moving forward with implementation. The agency is currently progressing along its proposed implementation timeline and expects to begin issuing marijuana producer licenses as early as mid-August of this year.  

In remarks before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 6, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that the Administration was “still considering” the federal government’s reaction to the Washington and Colorado legalization initiatives, though he asserted that it would be completed soon. Continue Reading U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Still Silent on Federal Government’s Response to I-502

This week, the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) held the first two of six public forums it intends to host across Washington State regarding the implementation of Initiative 502. The first forum was held at the WSLCB Headquarters in Olympia on Tuesday night. According to news reports, hundreds of people flocked to the event to not only provide comments, but to be part of history. Board members were surprised to see that there was standing room only at the event. WSLCB Chair Sharon Foster opened the forum with one word, “Wow!” The Board admitted that they had underestimated how many people would attend the public forums.

Last night’s I-502 public forum in Seattle had a similar turnout. As an article in this morning’s Seattle Times put it, “They came in suits and cowboy hats, with cropped gray hair and long ponytails, and they filled one room at Seattle City Hall and spilled into another, about 400 strong.” At the beginning of the forum, Board members took time to briefly explain the new law to attendees and describe the steps in the rulemaking process that WSLCB will take over the coming months to implement I-502. They also emphasized the importance of public input.

Following that introduction, there were comments directed specifically at the taxes the new law intends to impose. Some urged that the 25% excise tax that will be applied at each level of the licensing system that will eventually be created – producer to a processor, processor to a retailer, and retailer to the customer – is too high. Others countered that the tax was necessary. WSLCB officials noted that they do not have the authority to change the taxes that were voted for by the public. Instead, a change to the tax structure would have to come from the legislature. During the first two years a change to the initiative would require a two thirds majority.Continue Reading Initial Public Forums on Washington’s Initiative 502 Draw Large Crowds

Following up on our posts on Washington Initiative 502, my colleague Claire Mitchell had the chance to speak with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN regarding the initiative and its implementation for businesses. In the brief interview, Claire explained the rulemaking by the Washington State Liquor Control Board currently underway and offered thoughts on what Washington’s marijuana industry may look like. 

The Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) announced its tentative timeline for implementation of Initiative 502 (I-502) yesterday. WSLCB developed this timeline in order to keep the public informed and to identify significant milestones in the implementation process.

Rulemaking began in early December with the filing of CR101 for the Producer License, a notice of proposed rulemaking. WSLCB is still accepting

As we pointed out in our post “Understanding the Conflict Between Federal Law and Washington Initiative 502,” possession and sale of marijuana remains illegal under federal law even as states push to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use. We quoted Jenny Durkan, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, as stating that the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) “responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged” in the face of state initiatives like Washington Initiative 502, that legalized the possession of certain amounts of marijuana. 

Adam Nagourny of the New York Times reported today on the sobering case of Matthew R. Davies, who was indicted last July on federal charges of cultivating marijuana, following a DOJ raid on two dispensaries and a warehouse filled with nearly 2,000 marijuana plants that Davies owned and operated. Davies reportedly saw a big business opportunity after California legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. “We thought, this is an industry in its infancy, it’s a heavy cash business, it’s basically being used by people who use it to cloak illegal activity,” Nagourny quotes Davies as saying. “Nobody was doing it the right way. We thought we could make a model of how this should be done.”Continue Reading A Cautionary Tale in the Conflict Between Federal and State Law Over Marijuana Legalization

In Part I of our “Understanding Washington Initiative 502” (“I-502”) series, we described how I-502’s licensing regime is scheduled to go into effect late next year. There is no question that I-502 legalizes possession of certain amounts of marijuana under Washington law, and the state licensing structure aimed at regulating the production, distribution, and retail sale of marijuana reflects this fact. But as a Schedule I drug subject to the federal Controlled Substances Act (“Act”), possession and sale of marijuana remains illegal under federal law. I-502 does not change this basic fact, regardless of whether the Washington State Liquor Control Board succeeds in establishing the rigorous regulatory regime envisioned by I-502. 

I-502 intends to establish a well-regulated market that will allow Washington state to tax a commodity that had been pushed into the underground economy. Achieving that goal depends on capital investments in the regulated marijuana market in Washington State. But will investors be willing to fund a marijuana start-up if federal law diverges significantly from state law – particularly when federal law includes criminal sanctions? That will depend on the federal government’s response to states like Washington and Colorado that have chosen to de-criminalize marijuana.Continue Reading Part II: Understanding the Conflict Between Federal Law and Washington Initiative 502