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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
That is true but most of the Northeast has decriminalized it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._st...
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.
Even the smallest states have a few hundred legislators in 2 houses, and much shorter legislative calendars to get things done in.
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...