Medical Marijuana Muddle

· Thursday, October 22, 2009

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly promised to stop federal interference with state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana. On Monday, the Justice Department seemed to deliver on that promise with a memo telling U.S. attorneys to avoid prosecuting people who use or provide medical marijuana in compliance with state law.

The new policy sounds a lot better than the Bush administration's refusal to tolerate any deviation from federal law in this area. But because of disagreements about what compliance with state law requires, it may not make much difference in practice.

While campaigning in New Hampshire during the summer of 2007, Obama said "prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users" is "really not a good use of Justice Department resources." In a March 2008 interview with Oregon's Mail Tribune, he said, "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."

Two months later, when another Oregon paper, Willamette Week, asked Obama whether he would "stop the DEA's raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers," he replied, "I would, because I think our federal agents have better things to do."

Critics of the war on drugs (and consistent advocates of federalism) were therefore disappointed that DEA raids on medical marijuana providers continued after Obama took office. There were five in January and February, all in California, even as the White House affirmed that "federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws."

The mixed signals continued. "The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Attorney General Eric Holder declared in March. Less than a week later, the DEA raided a dispensary in San Francisco, reportedly because of irregularities associated with the collection of state sales tax (as opposed to violations of state drug laws).

In light of Holder's announcement, a federal judge in Los Angeles delayed the sentencing of Morro Bay dispensary operator Charles Lynch, only to be told by the Justice Department that the case against Lynch was consistent with the new policy. In August, the DEA arrested a medical marijuana patient and grower in Upper Lake, Calif. The DEA also has continued to participate in raids initiated by local officials, hitting two Los Angeles dispensaries in August and 14 San Diego dispensaries last month.

This week's memo, which White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says merely describes what "has been administration policy since the beginning of this administration in January," helps explain these apparent inconsistencies. It tells federal prosecutors in the 14 states that recognize cannabis as a medicine they "should not focus federal resources ... on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

In California especially, that phrasing leaves a lot of wiggle room for federal meddling. Last fall, the California Supreme Court rejected the idea that medical marijuana suppliers are legal as long as their customers designate them as "primary caregivers." Patients who are not up to growing marijuana on their own can still organize as "collectives" or "cooperatives," but local officials disagree with state officials and each other about what that means.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, for example, maintains that state law does not permit over-the-counter sales, which would make virtually all of the 800 or so medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles illegal.

Cooley's position may be welcomed by the DEA and like-minded officials in jurisdictions such as San Diego, but it conflicts with the views of more cannabis-tolerant officials in places such as Oakland and San Francisco. It also contradicts guidelines issued last year by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who says patient collectives may charge for marijuana, as long as they do not take in more revenue than is necessary to cover their overhead and operating expenses.

Until the law is clarified by the courts or the legislature, the federal government will have plenty of opportunities to continue interfering with the distribution of medical marijuana.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Don Bittle

Regarding federal medical marijuana enforcement, it would be great if the Presidents remarks stopped at "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws", thus leaving out the portion regarding "on this (medical marijuana) issue". What's good for marijuana enforcement should be good for all aspects of our daily lives in which the federal government interveins. Could this be the first step in our country returning to the limited government principles defined in the constitution?

Posted October 22, 2009 at 2:18:55 PM


Frank Waterstraat

10/22/09

California is widely known as the "ANY THING GOES

STATE for [POT HEADS][HOME FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS+FREE MEDICAL.CARE]Law enforcement are not allowed to

question those arrested are illegals,if they are

illegals they are flown back to their HOMELAND frree of CHARGE.IF they citizens they are put in jail.

Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:33:13 PM


Jude Osowski

There are, I believe, only 5 crimes mentioned in the Constituton of the United States (sedition, forgery, etc.). "Growing marijuana" is NOT mentioned, therefor, the federal government thas no business invading homes or businesses where "medical marijuana" is grown or sold. I'm certain this reasoning has not been considered in the Swamp, but it would be nice to see it expanded to other areas of federal "intervention" (health care, education)

Posted October 23, 2009 at 10:59:54 AM


Howard Last

The Constitution does not give the Federal governemnt any say on drugs or medicine. By the Tenth Amendment this is strictly a question for the states. The DEA is an unconstitutional entity just like the majority of agencies, departments, bureaus, etc. Also conterfitting is no longer a federal crime as we no longer have U.S. currency but Federal Reserve Notes. The correct crime is copyrite infringement or fraud.

Posted October 25, 2009 at 5:02:28 PM


Abu Nudnik

The courts have, unfortunately, clarified all of this... the wrong way and it is none other than Antonin Scalia who cast one of the two deciding votes.

The case was Gonzales v Raich. It was Clarence Thomas's clear logic that should have clarified the situation for the betterment of everyone... had it been the majority and not one of the dissenting opinion.

He said that since the herb had not been grown out of state, sent out of state or sold (even according the the FBI) there was no interstate commerce and therefore the Commerce Clause could not apply. If this is interstate commerce, he wrote, then anything can be "and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

The dangers of that go far beyond the War on Drugs.

He then affirmed, with two other justices in their dissenting opinion, the Constitutional right of legislatures to make their own laws and act as little experiments which, if positive, could be picked up by other state legislature whereas other states whose people did not agree with the policies could just as easily leave them alone.

Why Scalia voted with the government I'll never know. Sometimes he's too clever by half and falls in love with the sound of his own words.

Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:38:29 AM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund