I realize that this is supposed to be a one-subject day in the political world, but I am going to allow the Feinstein torture report at least one day's worth of consideration before I comment on it. So, while I allow time for rumination on the torture report, I'm going to address something else going on in Washington this week: the last-minute tug-of-war over funding the federal budget. Republicans have made their opening bid, indicating what they're going to include in their sweeping "cromnibus" budget bill. Democrats are objecting to several measures contained within the Republican plan, which range from the incredibly important (letting Wall Street essentially gamble on derivatives with taxpayer-backed money) to the petty (gutting Michelle Obama's school lunch program). Somewhere in between is the subject of legalizing recreational marijuana in the District of Columbia.

Initiative 71, which legalized marijuana possession (but not sales) for recreational adult use in the District, passed overwhelmingly, one month ago (7 in 10 D.C. voters approved it). But because Washington is not a state (it's a federal district), Congress has the final veto on D.C.'s budget. When D.C. voted (by an identical 7-in-10 margin) to legalize medical marijuana back in the 1990s, Congress effectively blocked the will of the voters for an astounding 11 years. They even blocked (until a federal court ruled against such an un-American notion) the official counting of votes for that initiative. I mention this to show how Draconian the congressional veto of D.C. marijuana law has been used in the past. This context is necessary to compare with what Congress is now contemplating doing.

One Maryland Republican in the House, apparently still upset that his state donated the land for D.C. centuries ago (or something), pushed an amendment to the cromnibus that would have flat-out overturned the will of the people on Initiative 71, and kept recreational marijuana fully illegal in District law. Democrats indicated that this was a deal-breaker for them (on the entire cromnibus bill), so today a compromise of sorts seems to have been reached.

The compromise is somewhat of a Libertarian fantasy. Initiative 71 will be allowed to stand, but the D.C. government will be banned from using any funds whatsoever to implement it in any rational fashion. They will be barred from doing what the D.C. City Council and the mayor have indicated they would like to do: pass rules and regulations (and taxes) to exert some sort of governmental control over the marketplace. This will now not be possible. The legalization will take place, but there will be no guidance for the emerging marketplace. As I said, a Libertarian free-market dream.

The initiative itself was always somewhat chaotic in nature. For technical reasons, the drafters of the initiative intentionally left out legalizing the sale of recreational marijuana. Possession of up to two ounces and home cultivation of three mature plants was legalized, but sales were not. There was always a need for some commonsense rules to be implemented to make this scheme work, and the city council and mayor seemed fully prepared to do so. If Democrats allow Republicans to ban such rational measures, then what D.C. will experience can only be called legal chaos. How are cops supposed to treat marijuana? Nobody really knows. No guidance will be allowed. No rules or policies will be officially issued. In other words, a black market will turn slightly gray, but mostly remain as unregulated as it is now. One important corollary is that D.C. will not be able to impose any taxes on recreational marijuana sales at all. How can anyone argue that this would benefit the citizens of D.C.?

Marijuana rights organizations are incensed, of course, at the news of the emerging deal. From a Huffington Post article which includes such reactions:

"It's especially infuriating that Democrats would go out of their way to help Republicans block a voter-approved racial justice measure like I-71, and then pretend they're getting some concessions while they're actually giving reform opponents everything they could possibly want in this bill," said Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority.

D.C. statehood advocates are similarly angry. The head of one such organization responded to the news: "If reports are true, members of Congress from both parties bargained away the rights of the people of the District of Columbia and in doing so compromised the core democratic values of the United States."

Probably the most annoyed are D.C. politicians. Councilmember David Grosso put out an official statement (amusingly titled "Don't Blunt D.C.'s Election") denouncing the Republican "paternalistic meddling":

To undermine the vote of the people -- taxpayers -- does not foster or promote the "limited government" stance House Republicans claim they stand for; it's uninformed paternalistic meddling.... The people have spoken and they have voted. We are tired of a criminal justice system that has too often focused on vengeance and punishment, and does not allow for social and economic reintegration of returning citizens into our communities so that they do not turn to crime again. Initiative 71 was our start for a common sense approach to these issues. It's about social justice.

Even given all of that, I have to remain a little more optimistic about the compromise than others seem to be. I say this for two reasons, one (incrementally) good, and one (ultimately) bad. The first -- the incrementally good one -- is that Democrats in Congress (including their leadership) managed to do two things which they have never done before (to the best of my knowledge). They actually stood up in public and defended the idea of legalizing recreational marijuana for adults. That may not sound like a big deal, but it is to me. The other thing Democrats accomplished was a very slight change in what the Republicans were trying to do. Instead of completely blocking the new law -- again, as they managed to do for the medical marijuana law for over a decade -- it will technically be allowed to take effect. Putting the question of sales and the marketplace aside for a moment, this will mean both cops and prosecutors will now be able to stop arresting and prosecuting people merely for possessing some marijuana. This, it is true, is an incremental change. There will be plenty of legal chaos surrounding sales, I fully admit. But it is a step in the right direction, even if it is a baby step. This baby step may benefit many, especially if it does result in a rethinking of the War On Weed by the District's police. Should the Democrats have held more firm, and demanded bigger change? Probably, but what they did manage to change is still going to be rather significant for the poor schmuck caught smoking a joint by the cops. He'll now be given a lecture about public intoxication, and that will be that. No court case, no fines, no threat of imprisonment. That is a bigger change than some are now willing to admit, and it could lead to a change in the entire culture of the police force and prosecutor's office.

The second reason I think the compromise might actually be beneficial -- taking a very long view, here -- is that D.C. may become the ultimate bad example for how to legalize recreational weed. It'll become a poster child for every other state contemplating doing so, by being the most prominent example of "how not to do it." This isn't D.C.'s fault, mind you, it is completely the fault of both the meddlesome nature of Republicans in Congress and the timidity of the Democrats who refused to take a true stand on the issue. But it will become a good argument for marijuana rights activists writing ballot measures for many states in 2016. It will show why imposing both taxes and control is necessary, and why marijuana should be treated like alcohol and not like heroin.

In the end, D.C. may win this fight and be able to implement rational rules for a recreational marketplace. It may take a federal court case to do so, or it may take Democrats willing to actually fight for the issue (and not fold so fast under pressure from Republicans). An Obama veto threat might be required, but I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for that scenario, I have to admit. Already, the House Republican who wrote the restrictions is claiming "any deal between Democrats and Republicans would signal bipartisan skepticism of legalization for recreational use." Sooner or later, Democratic politicians are going to resent that portrayal, and wake up and notice how the issue is growing among their own base.

For now, at least prominent Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are finally publicly supporting the concept of voters choosing legalization of recreational marijuana (albeit in somewhat lukewarm fashion). In addition to D.C., four states have now done so. In the next election cycle, there may be a major push to pass legalization ballot initiatives in many other states (in the presidential 2016 cycle, the electorate will be much more Democratic than in a midterm, hence assumably much more open to passing such initiatives). Congress is eventually going to have to resolve the issue of the disparity between federal law and these states' absolute rejection of federal marijuana law. For that to happen, Democrats are going to have to fight a lot harder than they did this particular week. They're going to have to (to coin a phrase) politically "evolve" a lot further, over time.

I remain more optimistic than some that this evolution will indeed happen, even after reading today's news. Democrats didn't totally cave and allow Republicans to flat-out overturn the new D.C. law. Democratic negotiators signaled as early as last week that this would be a contentious issue to include in the cromnibus bill, rather than just ignoring the whole thing and hoping the public wouldn't notice. The concession they managed to wrest from Republicans seems small and disappointing to marijuana rights advocates, and I don't disagree with that assessment. But if the D.C. legal system takes the will of the voters to heart anyway, and changes how marijuana possession is handled by the cops and the courts, then that alone will be a big improvement. It will still leave chaos in the system (especially when any money changes hands over a bag of weed), and it will deny the D.C. government any revenues (which it could always use) through taxation. But this chaos will be helpful for marijuana advocates making their case out in the states, on ballot initiatives in 2016 and beyond. Eventually, the D.C. situation will have to be revisited, and I sincerely hope it won't take over 10 years to do so this time. Even having said all of that, though, and even as incremental as what Democrats did manage to do; this is a step forward along the path to ending the War On Weed altogether. Sure, it's a baby step. Sure, Democrats might have forced a bigger leap if they had stuck to their guns. Nonetheless, it is still a step in the right direction.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant